- This topic has 235 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
Moist von Lipwig.
-
CreatorTopic
-
January 28, 2015 at 1:02 pm #23120
Nix
The next major competition I am looking at getting organised for is the Spring Classics 2015. I would also like to get some prizes organised for a mini-league if it is still possible to run a standard mini-league competition.
Is anyone able to tell me how the Spring Classics will run this year?
For example:
– Will they be the same 12 races as last year, which will mean Omloop Het Nieuwsblad will be first on 22nd Feb … that’s less than a month away.
– Will it be possible for players to run a mini-league for this with just standard scoring on its own, i.e. not standard + purist + whatever scores all added together as aggregate league “scores”.
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
dave atkinson
enrique wrote:Here’s the
enrique wrote:Here’s the short version then… :WLet’s have…
1. A purist competition with 8 or 9 transfers between the Cobbled Classics and the Ardennes and…
2. A standard competition with 4 transfers between races and a full reboot for the Ardennes…
There… No fruits or vegetables to worry about…
transfers are frontloaded. so if you have nine, it’s nine to use whenever you want. which isn’t purist.
not mentioning any other
not mentioning any other games of the ‘velo’ variety by name… but last years spring classics consisted of a squad of 12 with 24 transfers spread overMilano – Sanremo
Dwars door Vlaanderen
E3 Harelbeke
Gent – Wevelgem
Ronde van Vlaanderen
Scheldeprijs
Paris – Roubaix
De Brabantse Pijl
Amstel Gold Race
La Fleche Wallonne
Liege – Bastogne – Liegeand its EXCELLENT.
enrique
Here’s the short version
Here’s the short version then… :WLet’s have…
1. A purist competition with 8 or 9 transfers between the Cobbled Classics and the Ardennes and…
2. A standard competition with 4 transfers between races and a full reboot for the Ardennes…
There… No fruits or vegetables to worry about…
TERatcliffe26
Sorry enrique but i stopped
Sorry enrique but i stopped reading as soon as i saw supermarket. This is a game with restrictions, not a free for all where u choose what u want like a supermarket.enrique
Joelsim wrote:I’d also like
đŸ˜• Let’s say you go to the supermarket and you’re given a budget and you’re told you can come back and exchange any items you’re unhappy with and exchange them for other items you’d like to eat instead of what you have in your house… đŸ˜• But, you can only come twice a year… đŸ˜• And you have to feed yourself in a country with only 2 seasons… Summer and Winter… đŸ˜• You would buy certain items but your cart may look pretty similar to your neighbors… đŸ˜• But let’s suppose that now you could come and exchange items 12 times a year… I bet your cart would at each turn be different than your neighbors because you have more times to make different choices… I think your expectation that teams would be more similar with more transfers is flawed… đŸ˜•Joelsim wrote:I’d also like to add that increasing the number of transfers would make all the teams more similar….
Now look at what you’ve done! You’ve made me come up with a stupid supermarket analogy to try to prove we need more transfers! :W What about the transition from summer to winter? Don’t you see you have to completely change food types? :W We need (!) a complete overhaul for the Ardennes! :W Why is that so difficult to comprehend? :WMaybe the analogy would work better if we tried clothing instead of food?… :W
From another perspective, I can’t imagine but that everybody will have Boonen and Cancellara in their teams… That already, for me, makes all teams 1/4 the same, assuming 8 man teams, for all the Cobbled races…
I also think you may want to change your 3.0 riders, which may be where if you pick the wrong one – he may produce no points at all all compeititon – and the other 4 or 5 spots we may try to fill with the race pre-favorites, but if we get more chances to transfer people in and out, well you get more and more different teams… This is not (!) a GT, where by the end of it everybody has the same GC contenders because you already know who’s climbing well!… :W
Why would you think they’d be more similar?…
I look at it like Purist vs. Standard… I bet because there are no transfers, at any given moment in time, Purist teams will be more like each other than Standard teams…
If we swap out 4 riders a day, there’s still (!) 4 riders that have to stay in… Look at how different Strade and San Remo are… I think, too, that you take the joy out of it if because you’re thinking of the long run so you have to put together a boring team, bland team into either one of those races because you have to think of the long term (!)… I want the game to be exciting day by day!…
Anyways, I propose we play Purist as described above: No transfers until the Ardeness, then unlimited transfers for the Ardennes, then no more transfers until the end of the competition for Purists. That should give the obsessive planners some thought provoking choices to make and keep them happy. It wouldn’t be boring for them ’cause you’d have a lot of planning to do, but I’d probably avoid it! đŸ™‚
But let us Standard players have our boatload of transfers between all these races! What I’m proposing gives the ‘Planners’ a Purist competition to plan for and a Standard player the thrill of making 4 transfers a day, so we can have our excitement and our fix of adrenaline by lettingus tinker a lot with our teams between races… That should please both camps! đŸ™‚ Please! We need a lot of transfers for the different races to be cool and exciting for us! And we need a total reboot for the Ardennes… Please! :W
Joelsim
I’d also like to add that
I’d also like to add that increasing the number of transfers would make all the teams more similar as you would, as you say, cut down the chance element.I, for one, would prefer as is suggested that the number of transfers is cut down.
Let’s say we are doing the following races
Omloop
KBK
Strade
MSR
E3
G-W
Ronde
Scheldeprijs
Roubaix
Amstel
Fleche
LBLThat’s 12 races, some have similar riders, some don’t. An allowance of 35 transfers to cover all of these would be really interesting – 3 per race plus 2 spare. Don’t forget we only have 8 in a team and the 3.0 fillers don’t make a lot of difference typically and don’t need to be changed too often. The skill in picking a team for this would be apparent yet there would be enough transfers to cover the odd mistake/bit of bad luck.
The managers would need to plan this carefully, which is half the fun of the game.
cgipryan wrote:Nix wrote: For
cgipryan wrote:Nix wrote:For example you make 1 big bet at roulette you might get lucky and win, but if you make 1,000s of small bets you will certainly loose.Just out of curiosity, does this work with heads or tails? Intuitively, I’d say it doesn’t. If you make 1 throw, you get 50% chances of winning and 50% chances of loosing. If you make 1000 throws you are almost certainly going to finish the run even (so you do not lose). Am I right?
Yes you ‘lose’ at casino games from playing long term because of the house cut. If the all the bets are returned as winnings you break even long term as you suggest, rather than lose.
But taking your heads and tails with no house cut – it works like this. You and I each have $1000.
Scenario 1: We agree to toss once, with a $2000 pot. Expected outcome is someone gets $2000, other person gets $0. There is no 50% outcome on 1 toss. So chance is a big factor here and is able to redistribute money. If I am ‘lucky’ I may get an extra $1000.
Scenario 2: We agree to toss 1,000 times for $2 pots. Expected outcome after 1,000 tosses is we each have our $1,000. Chance is stopped from being a significant factor by the number of tosses. To win $1,000 here you would have to get the toss 100% correct 1,000 times – how likely is that?! Nothing like the 50% chance of scenario 1.
And this holds for any toss count comparison with the same total $ – you are more likely to win big$ on a reduced number of tosses if ‘lucky’, than you are to win the same big$ amount on a greater number of tosses.
Removing chance opens up opportunities for better skill and knowledge to change the odds from 50:50 – e.g. can my tossing technique influence outcome? or do I know one side of coin is heavier?
The other issue is duration of advantage / disadvantage. If you have more game experience and cycling knowledge you get more advantage from that in a low trade game than a high trade game – the effects of each good choice and each bad choice run for longer (i.e. last for more races) in purist, than in an unlimited trade game.
Knowledge is a factor, but it is more widely distributed the closer you get to race start each day. So again the way to negate the advantage of more specialist sources of inside knowledge is to allow more trades as late as possible before each race start.
So an unlimited trade game is inherently “fairer” to all types of players – the effect of both luck and prior experience and knowledge is reduced. It comes down to who can call each team’s strategy and the development and outcome of each race, on the day, for the most days – with largely the same level of information. Not sure why anyone would have difficulty with that.
LukeClosely
Hello to all. As someone who
Hello to all. As someone who plays exclusively purist all year I can see the classics present a bit of a purist problem. What would be better for the purist competition: to have them all as individual events as last year with unlimited transfers (which in itself doesn’t seem particularly purist) or to bunch them up into groups and have separate purist competitions for each bunch of races? Certainly a no transfer policy across the whole set of classics would reduce the purist game to one of almost pure luck. A set of limited transfers would also surely take the game outside the purist bracket? I confess to not knowing the solutioncgipryan
Nix wrote: For example you
Nix wrote:For example you make 1 big bet at roulette you might get lucky and win, but if you make 1,000s of small bets you will certainly loose.Just out of curiosity, does this work with heads or tails? Intuitively, I’d say it doesn’t. If you make 1 throw, you get 50% chances of winning and 50% chances of loosing. If you make 1000 throws you are almost certainly going to finish the run even (so you do not lose). Am I right?
chiv30
Just my 2p worth
I’ve played
Just my 2p worthI’ve played the last two years , and as such experienced both scenarios ….I wasn’t a fan of last year’s unlimited version hence I also participated in the forums , purist style comp which only allowed transfers between the two classics styles ( total roster change for the 2nd part)
I know a few others participated and it was fun , you had to research startlists as well as determine who was going for what plus you hoped your riders kept themselves off the deck
I think Dr ran it (I may be wrong) but I’d base a purist just for fun comp at least on that if not the std classics comp as well only differing by allowing 2 trades per race , it would keep the std interesting and still involve some research and knowledge of the sport
Joelsim wrote:Nix wrote: I
Joelsim wrote:Nix wrote:I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren’t household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.That’s the whole basis of a fantasy league isn’t it? Skill and knowledge rather than just luck, although I appreciate there will always be an element of the latter.
As someone who has studied stats I can tell you the more choices you make in a game the less luck is a factor. For example you make 1 big bet at roulette you might get lucky and win, but if you make 1,000s of small bets you will certainly loose. So luck is a much bigger factor in the purist game than a game with unlimited trades. That’s why I never play purist. You need more skill and knowledge to finish top 10 in unlimited trades than to finish top 10 in purist.
Like your numbers Enrique.
enrique
Ok, I’m going to up the ante
Ok, I’m going to up the ante on getting the transfers between races up to 4 or more… đŸ˜€ in a particularly sneaky way… đŸ˜€ This may backfire of course ( đŸ˜€ )… but here goes… How are you going to load the teams? Are you going to load every rider on every team? đŸ˜• All of them before the competition starts? A lot of the 3.0 riders will be coming from the smaller teams… Out of curiousity, have all the invites been made and accepted to the ‘Cobbled races’? If anyone knows what teams are going to which races, I’d love to know! đŸ™‚ Anyways, here’s another statistic to shore up support for more transfers:Of the 334 riders that participated in the ‘Cobbled races’ – OML, KBK, E3, GW, FLA, and PRB –
95 riders rode only 1 race
49 riders rode 2 races
52 rode 3 races
73 rode 4 races
49 rode 5 races
43 rode all 6 racesThe numbers would probably be even more (!) astounding if I included the teams and riders that went to San Remo and the Ardennes ( :O )! I wish I had the time to do those (!) too! But, the numbers are really (!) quite impressive, aren’t they? đŸ˜‰ I think we deserve at least 4 transfers between races and a complete reboot before the Ardennes! đŸ™‚ Have I said that before? We must (!) offer 4 or more transfers! đŸ˜€ Otherwise we also risk teams becoming too much like each other, too, with people playing it safe trying to have riders that will stay and produce throught the whole competition! đŸ™‚ I have nothing else to do, I know… đŸ˜€ I think I’ll take a break now… đŸ™‚ Thanks for the mention, Nix…
Nix wrote: I would also like
Nix wrote:I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren’t household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.That’s the whole basis of a fantasy league isn’t it? Skill and knowledge rather than just luck, although I appreciate there will always be an element of the latter.
Thanks to Enrique for taking
Thanks to Enrique for taking up the fight for me. My feeling about the total number of starters in all classics and the number who ride in most events was about as borne out by his spreadsheet. I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren’t household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.However, I also want to thank Dave Atkinson for his comments acknowledging he understands the issues.
Without a purist form of the classics I can see it is going to be difficult to pick a trade number that keeps both the players who prefer to play purist and the players who prefer to play standard happy.
Looking forward to seeing the launch email to see what races there are and how it all hangs together.
enrique
Dave Atkinson wrote:…my
If you’re going to do that, I’d ask for 8 transfers, if it’s 8 rider teams, or 9 transfers, if it’s 9 rider teams, just because I think it’s fair to do a complete overhaul from the Cobbbled races to the Ardennes Classics… looking at the races as two groups, Cobbled Races vs. Ardennes Classics, only the following riders scored at least 1 point in both groups of races:Dave Atkinson wrote:…my current plan is to run the spring classics as one comp with more transfers than you’d get in a grand tour but less than you’d need to swap your whole team around each time. so maybe base it on three transfers per race for the grouped races and six in the transitions. with an explanatory email going out to everyone (but aimed at new users) giving an overview of how the races fall into groups..
Bjorn Leukemans
Tony Gallopin
Dries DevenynsI honestly think the transition from the Cobbled Classics to the Ardennes merits a full reboot of one’s team. And, if you ask me, I’d offer at least 4 transfers between races, just because of the sheer magnitude of roster changes, the different teams in each race, the inclement weather, our collective ineptitude at putting together decent teams and, of course, the life threatening, season ending or career ending crashes these riders are exposed to in these races… We do have to protect our riders, you know?… đŸ˜€
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.