2019 NRL.com Fantasy thread part 5

Random wrote:I want more information re Katoa. Is it just the fact that he will have Johnson inside him?

Also what are the Sharks backline?

Random wrote:I want more information re Katoa. Is it just the fact that he will have Johnson inside him?

Boozecluez wrote:

Haha well that all depends on how well they get to know each other really

Edited: Looks like I am not the only one who noticed that, I am sure he didn't do it on porpoise

Next thing thing you know the fish puns will come out again in 2019.........

Mighty Fishes wrote:

Random wrote:I want more information re Katoa. Is it just the fact that he will have Johnson inside him?

Also what are the Sharks backline?

I swear you do some of these on purpose

mattnz wrote:As a simplified example, my back 3 I have spent $1,368k on.

They all have <5% ownership and are all priced at points that I think even if they perform great, others may not see the value in them and overlook adding them into their teams in time to get them at a decent price point.

Instead I could have spent similar money to get
Ponga (36%) $795k
Lomax (44%) $230k (he is actually in my team as NPR, but just as an example)
Meaney (10%) $362k
Total 1,387k

If Ponga, Lomax and Meaney, as high ownership players start killing it early in the season, then everyone is likely to get them into their teams asap to avoid missing out, so that is a disadvantage compared to my far less popular PODs, that are less likely to be brought in.

Lets assume that:
1. who ever the best back 3 that could have been chosen within budget would score 200 points more than other combinations that could have been chosen; and
2. there is equal chance that my back 3 could be the best back 3 to have started the season with as these 3 highly owned players (or any other combination for the same money).

If there are 100k players in the comp, the number likely to have the popular 3 player combination is 100,000 x 0.36 x 0.44 x 0.10 = 1,496 players all with that same perfect combination from the start. Lots of competition for you even though you had a great start to the season with the perfect back 3 pick.

The odds on another player having my back 3 are 100,000 x 0.02 x 0.03 x 0.04 = 2 players that all start with the same perfect combination from the start (and I am one of those 2!), if my PODs paid off as the best possible combination by 200 points.

That is the power of having PODs. All other things being equal I am 200 points ahead of everyone except 1 other player that selected the same PODs vs being equally benefitted as 1,496 players, despite picking the perfect combination for the back 3 with the popular players. It is such a huge difference between the 2 scenarios.

One you are sharing the lottery 2 ways, the other you are sharing the lottery 1,496 ways.

At the end of the season 200 points is a huge difference to get you 1st place rather than 2nd.... vs no difference from 1500 other players that are still in the race.

Bagpipe wrote:My head hurts reading all this POD theory. I'm clearly too pissed to make any other assumptions other than pick the best team in your opinion.

Now, let's say Kurt Mann gets his 60ish minute role at 9. Would you consider playing him in one of your starting halves positions?

The reason I say that is to get reassurance as I can kick Cleary and get Edwards and Mann

my tv broke wrote:Just posting this for the sake of discussion. This is a list of the top money makers in the first 6 rounds last year.

I guess an interesting thing to note is that 25 of those 40 were over 300k. But its probably meaningless, as the majority of players getting a game are over 300k to start the year. A cheap cash cow is pretty easy to identify, the mid range cow is tougher to spot (albeit seemingly plenty on offer this year)

top money makers:

Chewie wrote:

Just crunching some numbers...

The top 25 money makers    of 2018 consisted of:

4 x HOK
2 x FRF
10 x 2RF  
3 x HLF
2 x CTR
4 x WFB

Looks like there was plenty of value in the 2nd row.
It's one of those positions where money is made, think of guys like Capewell, Twal, Burr, etc
If they can get a starting role the chances are high for them to do well

mattnz wrote:

Love that analysis. Typically players getting bigger roles / minutes at 2RF.

mattnz wrote:

Love that analysis. Typically players getting bigger roles / minutes at 2RF.

Mulvy wrote:

This is something we can agree on. 2nd rowers getting bigger roles/minutes make the best cash cows.

Chewie wrote:



I kinda knew this was the case, but seeing it in the numbers only confirms it. 10 out of 25 is a huge percentage.

Chewie wrote:Yeah Gosiewski comes to mind

Mulvy wrote:

I was thinking there was more than one! He wasn't that bad, but like all my cows last year got injured. Sorensen too. There's someone else I'm forgetting.

Mulvy wrote:

I was thinking there was more than one! He wasn't that bad, but like all my cows last year got injured. Sorensen too. There's someone else I'm forgetting.

Chewie wrote: