2019 NRL.com Fantasy thread part 5

my tv broke wrote:On the topic of PODs, I don't particularly like the term, and a player won't be a POD for very long if he's scoring well. There may be some merit to picking a "POD" towards the end of the year, but IMO, its more about getting lucky and avoiding an injury, or a guy who gets rested, more than pure scoring. Here are the top players by "last 5 average" from 2018 (just gonna have to ignore aitkens/drinkwater.) + some analysis, which I've hidden behind spoiler, as its dribble.

Top last 5 averages:

In summary, I don't think PODs would of really made much difference to your team. If anything, you probably were worse off. The key was having trades, and being able to get all the best scorers in at the right time in the run home.

There are other competitive systems where multiple buyers compete to maximise earnings over volatile and discrete inputs. Finance is likely the most heavily studied of these.

The POD/max return debate we’re having here in finance is studied as ‘portfolio theory’. THis is a large and dense field, but a typical analysis would talk about putting together a portfolio of players (or shares) that had a high return. But in finance theory when we’re discussing return we also need to discuss risk. Risk in NRLFF can be thought of as the likelihood of a player returning his average - in portfolio theory you would think of a portfolio of assets returning the same as the rest of the market. If your portfolio has a different variance to all the other portfolios, then your are negatively correlated with market volatility. This is what hedge funds seek to do.

This is all a bit wanky and long winded, but the key insight is that market participants seek to maximise return and minimise risk. So do we. If PODs are owned by few other teams but have the same return, then finance theory would recommend the be bought in preference, as their individual volatility will differ from the heavily-owned players, and so therefore will your teams.

So, yes. Reseach says buy the players who will return the most as a first guide. Then preference those least-owned by other teams. These preferences will overlap at the bottom and top of the distributions, so someone we think will do really-kinda well and is owned by sub 1% could be preferred to player with 20% who will do (probably) only a tiny little bit better.

TL:DR - PODs are good. Good scorers are better. Undervalued good scorers who are little-owned are best.





Edit: This screed was bought to you by the society for the blatantly obvious delivered in overly complex academic language.

L-Jimmy wrote:

There are other competitive systems where multiple buyers compete to maximise earnings over volatile and discrete inputs. Finance is likely the most heavily studied of these.

The POD/max return debate we’re having here in finance is studied as ‘portfolio theory’. THis is a large and dense field, but a typical analysis would talk about putting together a portfolio of players (or shares) that had a high return. But in finance theory when we’re discussing return we also need to discuss risk. Risk in NRLFF can be thought of as the likelihood of a player returning his average - in portfolio theory you would think of a portfolio of assets returning the same as the rest of the market. If your portfolio has a different variance to all the other portfolios, then your are negatively correlated with market volatility. This is what hedge funds seek to do.

This is all a bit wanky and long winded, but the key insight is that market participants seek to maximise return and minimise risk. So do we. If PODs are owned by few other teams but have the same return, then finance theory would recommend the be bought in preference, as their individual volatility will differ from the heavily-owned players, and so therefore will your teams.

So, yes. Reseach says buy the players who will return the most as a first guide. Then preference those least-owned by other teams. These preferences will overlap at the bottom and top of the distributions, so someone we think will do really-kinda well and is owned by sub 1% could be preferred to player with 20% who will do (probably) only a tiny little bit better.

TL:DR - PODs are good. Good scorers are better. Undervalued good scorers who are little-owned are best.





Edit: This screed was bought to you by the society for the blatantly obvious delivered in overly complex academic language.

Again hard to argue with that. Like I said, for me I try to pick the best scorer. Low ownership is just a bonus. I just hope to get better at picking the best scorer!

multiple.scoregasms wrote:

One try in 13 games from the fullback of a top 4 contender was one of my reasons behind picking him to start last year. Was going fantastic until another injury. Back on the horse for another crack this year

And this guy. (At the risk of increasing his ownership)

Rapture_NRL wrote:

This got a downvote so assuming someone fat fingered it?

Rapture_NRL wrote:

Also, now you have figured it out, can you help SI out?

@SI Not sure if you caught it in the last thread, the half we were talking about was Samisoni Langi

Mulvy wrote:

Rapture_NRL wrote:

Also, now you have figured it out, can you help SI out?

I'll await your PM Rapture

The difference between finance and fantasy. In finance  finishing in the top 30% of all participants would, in most cases, be considered a good result. Finishing outside the top few in fantasy gives no reward but a feeling of self worth.

Every one wants to do something to differentiate from the pack, but the longer term you consider, the harder it is to beat the market. Lachlan Fitzgibbon could quite likely outscore Angus Crichton in any given week, but over the course of the season, you'd want to back Crichton in. If you have decided Fitzgibbon is likely to outscore Crichton, good luck to you. If you're right, it's the sort of decision that will give you a good chance at winning.

Last thing on PODs (for now at least) percentage ownership at this point of pre-season means little. If your sneaky pod does end up getting a starting spot come TLT, he might not be a POD for long

Milchy wrote:The difference between finance and fantasy. In finance  finishing in the top 30% of all participants would, in most cases, be considered a good result. Finishing outside the top few in fantasy gives no reward but a feeling of self worth.

Every one wants to do something to differentiate from the pack, but the longer term you consider, the harder it is to beat the market. Lachlan Fitzgibbon could quite likely outscore Angus Crichton in any given week, but over the course of the season, you'd want to back Crichton in. If you have decided Fitzgibbon is likely to outscore Crichton, good luck to you. If you're right, it's the sort of decision that will give you a good chance at winning.

Late in the season, betting someone like Fitzgibbon could outscore the other guns for a couple/few rounds? Yep nothing wrong with that and exactly what I did last season bringing him in and captaining him (Did I mention that already ?) But start of season, no.

Milchy wrote:Last thing on PODs (for now at least) percentage ownership at this point of pre-season means little. If your sneaky pod does end up getting a starting spot come TLT, he might not be a POD for long

True dat. Hopefully no one finds out about my super secret POD.......

Mulvy wrote:

True dat. Hopefully no one finds out about my super secret POD.......

Ownership percentage in guns will tend to stay pretty similar pre-season to TLT providing they are named. The 18% of teams with JTurbo aren't likely to join the 3.5% in favour of Crichton for example. Similar with Cook(19.6%), Smith(16.1%) and McInnes(6.4%)

multiple.scoregasms wrote:

Ownership percentage in guns will tend to stay pretty similar pre-season to TLT providing they are named. The 18% of teams with JTurbo aren't likely to join the 3.5% in favour of Crichton for example. Similar with Cook(19.6%), Smith(16.1%) and McInnes(6.4%)

Is that right? Like I said I don't care all that much about ownership and my last comment was a joke but I love your insights MS, have you done analysis on ownership early vs late preseason or anecdotal and if the latter I'd back it anyway.

multiple.scoregasms wrote:@SI Not sure if you caught it in the last thread, the half we were talking about was Samisoni Langi

Was driving myself mad on Friday thinking about it! I still remember how impressive he was, but yeah, just a trial I guess. Playing Centre for Catalans.

Mulvy wrote:

Is that right? Like I said I don't care all that much about ownership and my last comment was a joke but I love your insights MS, have you done analysis on ownership early vs late preseason or anecdotal and if the latter I'd back it anyway.

Haven't done any analysis on it just purely anecdotal. I'm thinking if you spend all pre-season selling yourself on a certain gun it isn't likely to change in the TLT panic

Ok, POD theory.....

Lets say you have 2 possible teams. One is cookie cutter, basically take all the most owned players and assume conventional wisdom that the masses are choosing the right players generally and that is why they are popular. You have a team of 21 players that all have high ownership.

By contrast I am hoping to have lets say 10 PODs, with 11 players in common with the other team (not just choosing PODs for the sake of it, but if I have 2 equal choices, I would go with the POD). Lets assume each team performs just as well as the other and of the 10 players that are different in each team, 8 do great and 2 not so great in round 1. I don't feel a compulsion to suddenly add lots of non-PODs. Those that dont have my PODs may start getting a couple of them in, but they arent going to get all my 8 PODs in, especially while they are increasing in value over the first few rounds. At most they could only get 2 per round and they are still less likely to be selected than the equally well performing non PODs in the other team.

I am only looking to win the comp, not just get top 1000, top 100 or whatever. Having differentiation assists this goal. If it was entirely random like a lottery, you don't want to have the same numbers (players) as everyone else.

This article discusses this phenomenon, where if you chose the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 that there are 10,000 others that choose this same sequence every week. https://www.lottoland.co.uk/magazine/why-you-should-avoid-the-most-popular-lottery-numbers.html

If you won first prize, you would win very little money because you would be sharing first prize so many ways. Instead of 5 million pounds on your own, you get 500 pounds each.

It isnt that the chances of hitting these numbers is any more or less likely than any other sequence, but that their popularity reduces what you win.

Applying this game theory to Fantasy, selecting PODs doesn't make them any more likely to score higher, but means if I hit the jackpot and all my player numbers come up as winners, the rarity of my player pool amongst all other players makes it far more valuable.

Lets say that the chances of my first round players all killing it in round 1 and getting 1,000 points is equal in both the 10 POD scenario as in the 0 POD scenario. If I get it with the 0 POD team, everyone goes wow what a huge round, everyone scored amazingly well. There are likely 50 other teams over 1000 that same round and yeah I have done well, but there are others around me.

In the alternative scenario, my 10 PODs absolutely kill it and I get 1,000 points. My unique lottery numbers that no one else has picked all came up at once and I have 100 point lead in first place.

Same likelihood of happening, different outcome if it does happen.

Thats the POD theory.

Just reading that Rapana is expected to be out till round 13. So whoever gets the nod between CNK, Oldfield and Abbey at fb and wing should have plenty of time to make some coin (if you think they will).

Rapture_NRL wrote:

Looking forward to seeing your contributions to Page 51 parties!

What's the consensus on Turbo v Tedesco? After all this POD chat, do we think it's worth going Turbo on the basis of his lower ownership and his general trend of improvement as a player?

mattnz wrote:Ok, POD theory.....

Lets say you have 2 possible teams. One is cookie cutter, basically take all the most owned players and assume conventional wisdom that the masses are choosing the right players generally and that is why they are popular. You have a team of 21 players that all have high ownership.

By contrast I am hoping to have lets say 10 PODs, with 11 players in common with the other team (not just choosing PODs for the sake of it, but if I have 2 equal choices, I would go with the POD). Lets assume each team performs just as well as the other and of the 10 players that are different in each team, 8 do great and 2 not so great in round 1. I don't feel a compulsion to suddenly add lots of non-PODs. Those that dont have my PODs may start getting a couple of them in, but they arent going to get all my 8 PODs in, especially while they are increasing in value over the first few rounds. At most they could only get 2 per round and they are still less likely to be selected than the equally well performing non PODs in the other team.

I am only looking to win the comp, not just get top 1000, top 100 or whatever. Having differentiation assists this goal. If it was entirely random like a lottery, you don't want to have the same numbers (players) as everyone else.

This article discusses this phenomenon, where if you chose the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 that there are 10,000 others that choose this same sequence every week. https://www.lottoland.co.uk/magazine/why-you-should-avoid-the-most-popular-lottery-numbers.html

If you won first prize, you would win very little money because you would be sharing first prize so many ways. Instead of 5 million pounds on your own, you get 500 pounds each.

It isnt that the chances of hitting these numbers is any more or less likely than any other sequence, but that their popularity reduces what you win.

Applying this game theory to Fantasy, selecting PODs doesn't make them any more likely to score higher, but means if I hit the jackpot and all my player numbers come up as winners, the rarity of my player pool amongst all other players makes it far more valuable.

Lets say that the chances of my first round players all killing it in round 1 and getting 1,000 points is equal in both the 10 POD scenario as in the 0 POD scenario. If I get it with the 0 POD team, everyone goes wow what a huge round, everyone scored amazingly well. There are likely 50 other teams over 1000 that same round and yeah I have done well, but there are others around me.

In the alternative scenario, my 10 PODs absolutely kill it and I get 1,000 points. My unique lottery numbers that no one else has picked all came up at once and I have 100 point lead in first place.

Same likelihood of happening, different outcome if it does happen.

Thats the POD theory.

How about the opposite situation where your 10 PODs under perform. Stock standard puts up a 1000 point week and you score 800 points. 200 points back floundering outside the top 10,000. Perhaps at this point you start doubting your choices and figure out that not only is your POD(let's say Katoa) being outscored by the masses, you have also spent an extra 150k over a Corey Allen tier player. That is the difference between a Leeson Ah Mau(who could still be scoring at priced average of 42 instead of Jai Arrow.

Picking a POD for the sake of choosing a POD isn't the way to win fantasy. It's a nice way to lose it in the first 3 rounds.