NRLFF community managed fantasy team

Scott Drinkwater 2
Brett Morris 2
Ben Hampton 2
Dylan Edwards 4
Adam Keighran 1
Albert Hopoate 4
Kurt Capewell 2
Zac Lomax 2
David Fifita 2
Moekai Fotuaika 2
Tevita Pangai Junior 4
Cameron Murray 3
Jai Arrow 3
Reed Mahoney 2
Briton Nikora 2
Wayde Egan 1
Ryan Matterson 2
Payne Haas 3
Jazz Tevaga 5
Kerrod Holland 2
Dylan Brown 2

mattnz wrote:Reed Mahoney 1
Briton Nikora 2
Wayde Egan 1
Ryan Matterson 1
Payne Haas 1
Apisai Koroisau 1
Kerrod Holland 5
Dylan Brown 5
Scott Drinkwater 5
Brett Morris 5
Sione Katoa 5
Dylan Edwards 5
Adam Keighran 1
Albert Hopoate 1
Kurt Capewell 1
Zac Lomax 1
David Fifita 5
Andrew Fifita 1
Leeson Ah Mau 1
Cameron Murray 1
Jai Arrow 1

I really don't understand the 5 points for Brett Morris and Sione Katoa. Why would you pay for a player that is priced at 26 points who at max potential will be a 35 average at best if everything goes there way, instead of just playing someone like Lomax and having a gun who will score at least 40. Midrange backs do my head in and are just about the worse picks you can have, let alone be scored a 5.

If everyone games the system, we risk getting a shit team, just so people can get their PODs in.

Jai Arrow and Cameron Murray are 2 of the most popular picks right now. But if everyone downgrades them to a 1 just so they can get their wacky POD in, then we risk losing the community team and just get a bunch of half wanted fringe players.

Do you want Brett Morris on the team that badly you'd be rolling to sacrifice Cameron Murray to get him. That is how you are playing things, yet I doubt it's your true feeling.
It's possible that the only reason we don't have Cam Smith or Damien Cook at the moment is because some people may have lowballed them hoping others would do the work for them. Both have votes, but not enough for selection.
But might only take a couple of 5 votes for them to oust McCullough. Does the current pick of McCullough represent the true community hooker, or the result of people not giving their true opinion.

In the end, the more people that vote, the less 1 individual has an ability to influence the outcome, so I don't think it really matters that much if more people nominate teams.

PS, the best way to game things is to allocate more than 50 points, or more than 21 players. A couple of people have done that too.

Rippin and Tearin wrote:Flith, he stated that people would game the system and then he did exactly that. Im not sure how you can rationalise that given its a group thing.

As long as most of our community contributes it would be hard to game the system.
I'm interested to see how Milchy's team will slowly evolve as more contributions come in.

Just another point on TLT

Currently Wayde Egan is getting a smattering of low votes. After TLT I expect he'll either be a 4-5 or a 0 for most people. This is the kind of decision we don't want to lock in now.
But ideally we have the core of the team settled

All the stuff us at home, so I'll add on today's teams tonight, and see how it changes the team

Chewie wrote:

As long as most of our community contributes it would be hard to game the system.
I'm interested to see how Milchy's team will slowly evolve as more contributions come in.

Agree mate, it's the principal of it to be honest. As Krump says it goes against the spirit of why the team was set up. Anyway, I'll move on, the point has been pretty clearly made now.

Milchy wrote:
Just another point on TLT

Currently Wayde Egan is getting a smattering of low votes. After TLT I expect he'll either be a 4-5 or a 0 for most people. This is the kind of decision we don't want to lock in now.
But ideally we have the core of the team settled

Are there some options on how things progress from this initial stage?

Like you say, things will (or could) change massively after TLT depending how this is all set up.

mattnz wrote:

As soon as there was consensus with what the rules were going to be, I have run with it within the rules set out in the game.

It is just like the game as a whole, find what is allowable within the rules and maximise it, as pointed out initially. If there are rules on the number of 5s allowed then that is fine, but there aren't any such rules.

The whole point is to find a consensus team not a MattNZ pod team. That team is already entered and by your own admission is likely to flame out by round three when you'll stop playing fantasy for the year.
I had a feeling that this idea could go this way so for now I'll bow out until TLT.

Milchy wrote:
If everyone games the system, we risk getting a shit team, just so people can get their PODs in.

Jai Arrow and Cameron Murray are 2 of the most popular picks right now. But if everyone downgrades them to a 1 just so they can get their wacky POD in, then we risk losing the community team and just get a bunch of half wanted  fringe players.

Do you want Brett Morris on the team that badly you'd be rolling to sacrifice Cameron Murray to get him. That is how you are playing things, yet I doubt it's your true feeling.
It's possible that the only reason we don't have Cam Smith or Damien Cook at the moment is because some people may have lowballed them hoping others would do the work for them. Both have votes, but not enough for selection.
But might only take a couple of 5 votes for them to oust McCullough. Does the current pick of McCullough represent the true community hooker, or the result of people not giving their true opinion.

In the end, the more people that vote, the less 1 individual has an ability to influence the outcome, so I don't think it really matters that much if more people nominate teams.

PS, the best way to game things is to allocate more than 50 points, or more than 21 players. A couple of people have done that too.

Agree with most of what you have stated here. It aligns with my concern with this kind of voting. 1 vote per player means you get what consensus is. Allowing certain players votes of 5 in 1 team to over-rule a different player being selected for 1 vote in each of 4 different teams creates imbalances.

Interestingly, I think overall it is pretty representative of the teams I have seen and discussion taking place.

Voting early allows people to set the frame of discussion, voting late allows influencing of the key decision points that are undecided.

Voting higher than 50 points or more than 21 players should be an invalid vote until corrected.

Cameron Murray shouldn't have any doubts about his place, he is in 20 out of 20 teams, as were Brown and Keighran. Short of being missing at TLT, they should all get a place regardless of how many 5s they get. BMoz is a bolter that many have added to their teams recently, in an attacking Roosters backline, and taking up the place of the highest scoring winger in the comp last season. Scoring 93 at the weekend certainly didn't hurt his cause.

mattnz wrote:

Agree with most of what you have stated here. It aligns with my concern with this kind of voting. 1 vote per player means you get what consensus is. Allowing certain players votes of 5 in 1 team to over-rule a different player being selected for 1 vote in each of 4 different teams creates imbalances.

Interestingly, I think overall it is pretty representative of the teams I have seen and discussion taking place.

Voting early allows people to set the frame of discussion, voting late allows influencing of the key decision points that are undecided.

Voting higher than 50 points or more than 21 players should be an invalid vote until corrected.

Cameron Murray shouldn't have any doubts about his place, he is in 20 out of 20 teams, as were Brown and Keighran. Short of being missing at TLT, they should all get a place regardless of how many 5s they get. BMoz is a bolter that many have added to their teams recently, in an attacking Roosters backline, and taking up the place of the highest scoring winger in the comp last season. Scoring 93 at the weekend certainly didn't hurt his cause.

Actually this is very well put, but I don't want Brett Morris in the team so hope he misses out to fullbacks like Teddy, Turbo, Edwards, Watson, Drinkwater or some pure rookies

mattnz wrote:


Voting early allows people to set the frame of discussion, voting late allows influencing of the key decision points that are undecided.

Are you saying someone could essentially get the most out of the rules by picking players in order to make your picks null and void ???

We could also get ourselves three different base teams by three different selection processes and vote on which one of those three teams turned out the best.

We still have three weeks til the season starts.

Milchy - do you mind if I resubmit my 50 point 21 players tonight? Will do it more in the spirit of the team (ie; I will exclude Aubbo)

Surely going as cookie cutter as possible is the way to play this?

If certain high owned players fail you at least go down with the pack and a scant few teams filled with uniques make some headway.
Too many PODS that fail and suddenly The Fanatic is an easybeat team languishing behind the bulk of the masses.

The goal of this team shouldn't really be to win Fantasy, but to beat as many teams as possible*. To me that involves playing the percentages.

*And yes, totally get that winning fantasy means you beat the MOST people. Smart asses

Pookus McFly wrote:Surely going as cookie cutter as possible is the way to play this?

If certain high owned players fail you at least go down with the pack and a scant few teams filled with uniques make some headway.
Too many PODS that fail and suddenly The Fanatic is an easybeat team languishing behind the bulk of the masses.

The goal of this team shouldn't really be to win Fantasy, but to beat as many teams as possible*. To me that involves playing the percentages.

*And yes, totally get that winning fantasy means you beat the MOST people. Smart asses

I would rather see us have a team that reflects a balance of both high ownership players and some PODs that are highly owned here but not popular elsewhere. It then reflects the analysis and views of the team here.

I think the current team balances both pretty well.

Guys that show the character and differences of this discussion forum like:
McCullough (11% throughout the comp vs 55% of teams posted here) vs Smith/Cook
Mahoney (6% vs in 60% of teams here)
Arrow (10% vs 70% here)
Nikora (6% vs 60% here)
Edwards (5% vs 70% here)
Egan (3% vs 60% here)

These guys are all mainstream thinking here but PODs in the comp. A huge opportunity to show that as a group we know our stuff. Willing to bet that the group team here massively outperforms the comp with a top 1,000 performance.

mattnz wrote:

I would rather see us have a team that reflects a balance of both high ownership players and some PODs that are highly owned here but not popular elsewhere. It then reflects the analysis and views of the team here.

I think the current team balances both pretty well.

Guys that show the character and differences of this discussion forum like:
McCullough (11% throughout the comp vs 55% of teams posted here) vs Smith/Cook
Mahoney (6% vs in 60% of teams here)
Arrow (10% vs 70% here)
Nikora (6% vs 60% here)
Edwards (5% vs 70% here)
Egan (3% vs 60% here)

These guys are all mainstream thinking here but PODs in the comp. A huge opportunity to show that as a group we know our stuff. Willing to bet that the group team here massively outperforms the comp with a top 1,000 performance.

I don't think you can rely on current ownership percentages for what is going to be a POD come round 1 kickoff.
For what its worth, and despite the current averages you have posted, I would consider Macca, Arrow and maybe even Edwards as part of a cookie cutter side.
Egan, Mahoney and Nikora will also be in everybodies side if it turns out they are worth having in a side come TLT.

We might be talking about the same thing just with different parameters.
We are looking at players which have value regardless of ownership.
For example: Stimson should be there if he gets the starting gig, despite 30% of the comp who will no doubt own him. Taumalolo should not be there, even though 30% of people will jump on because they like him.

The problem is planning for players like Nikora, Egan etc. and everybody deciding they want them and then finding out on TLT that they are undesirables. It makes it hard to plan because it has such a knockon effect on the rest of the team.

I think the best that can happen at this stage is agreeing on a core group whose role is under no microscope: Macca, Arrow, Murray, Morgan etc
and then a seperate group of likely players if the conditions are met: Stimson, TPJ, Egan, Mahoney etc

mattnz wrote:

I would rather see us have a team that reflects a balance of both high ownership players and some PODs that are highly owned here but not popular elsewhere. It then reflects the analysis and views of the team here.

I think the current team balances both pretty well.

Guys that show the character and differences of this discussion forum like:
McCullough (11% throughout the comp vs 55% of teams posted here) vs Smith/Cook
Mahoney (6% vs in 60% of teams here)
Arrow (10% vs 70% here)
Nikora (6% vs 60% here)
Edwards (5% vs 70% here)
Egan (3% vs 60% here)

These guys are all mainstream thinking here but PODs in the comp. A huge opportunity to show that as a group we know our stuff. Willing to bet that the group team here massively outperforms the comp with a top 1,000 performance.

Some of those differences are mind blowing, even as a shit fantasy player I can see value in some of those guys without the forum. But it does raise the question are we all a bunh of sheep ?

filthridden wrote:We could also get ourselves three different base teams by three different selection processes and vote on which one of those three teams turned out the best.

We still have three weeks til the season starts.

Milchy - do you mind if I resubmit my 50 point 21 players tonight? Will do it more in the spirit of the team (ie; I will exclude Aubbo)

I don't mind the idea of having 3 teams to choose from.

Maybe this would be a good way to decide which team to go with after TLT. Put 3 similar teams together based on Milchy's findings and vote

No Worries wrote:

Some of those differences are mind blowing, even as a shit fantasy player I can see value in some of those guys without the forum. But it does raise the question are we all a bunh of sheep ?

I'm happy to be convinced by a great argument on the reasons to select a player. I have all but McC in my team of these.

All it takes is a random article saying Egan likely to get the start and play 80, that 97% dont read but it gets posted here, for this to happen.

No Worries wrote:

Some of those differences are mind blowing, even as a shit fantasy player I can see value in some of those guys without the forum. But it does raise the question are we all a bunh of sheep ?

Probably. Most of the other teams are probably all autofill given theres still 4 weeks until the season starts though.