2018 WoV Picks game (discussion thread)
Quote: RigondeauxThe Raiders on the brink of collapse is sweet.
Normall I don't really care about sports teams much. But when the steals $1 billion from the city where I live, like to see them fail.
If Gruden is this bad, a 10 year $100 million commitment will hopefully make them the new Browns.
He said he doesn't want the money if they are not successful, that's why I keep making jokes about hoping he hasn't cashed any checks yet. I definitely agree with you about the tax, but it seems like a tax on hotel guests rather than a property tax, or something. IOW, most of the money comes from out-of-state, (and even out of country) but I'm still not a fan. I didn't like how Kansas City used a similar $1.50/night guest room tax to fund their arena, which was much less expensive.
Quote: Mission146He said he doesn't want the money if they are not successful, that's why I keep making jokes about hoping he hasn't cashed any checks yet. I definitely agree with you about the tax, but it seems like a tax on hotel guests rather than a property tax, or something. IOW, most of the money comes from out-of-state, (and even out of country) but I'm still not a fan. I didn't like how Kansas City used a similar $1.50/night guest room tax to fund their arena, which was much less expensive.
Well this has been discussed before but, ultimately tax revenue is tax revenue. There is no magical way to generate it so that it doesn't count.
It will be $1 billion less spent in the city. Instead it will be given to a billionaire.
We will lose marginal tourists because the price point is that much higher.
Either it is an excessive tax, or the tax money was just sitting there up for grabs.
If it was just sitting there up for grabs, politicians diverted it from roads, education, tax relief for residents. and other such options into the pockets of a billionaire who lives in California.
Each of us will be giving about $300 out of our pocket to Mark Davis, an heir who has never held a job.
They should all do 20 years.
Quote: RigondeauxWell this has been discussed before but, ultimately tax revenue is tax revenue. There is no magical way to generate it so that it doesn't count.
It will be $1 billion less spent in the city. Instead it will be given to a billionaire.
We will lose marginal tourists because the price point is that much higher.
Either it is an excessive tax, or the tax money was just sitting there up for grabs.
If it was just sitting there up for grabs, politicians diverted it from roads, education, tax relief for residents. and other such options into the pockets of a billionaire who lives in California.
Each of us will be giving about $300 out of our pocket to Mark Davis, an heir who has never held a job.
They should all do 20 years.
Pretty sad Nevada ranks 49th in quality of education for pre-K thru 12th grades, but they had a billion to throw at a billionaire.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
Mission's analysis of the week's games is interesting and well-written, but I didn't agree with some of what he wrote.
I actually think the story of this season is that the new rules limiting the hours that players practice has greatly affected how well some teams play in the first few weeks, and how long it takes them to get their act together. The decline in practice hours has had its greatest effect on defenses.
The 2nd story of the season to date is Paul Mahomes - unmentioned by Mission.
Other important story arcs involve the ascendancy of the Rams, the improvement of the Browns (yes, Baker Mayfield but also Myles Garrett and the Cleveland defense), the aging and decline of the Patriots, and the early weakness of preseason favorites like the Steelers and Saints.
I will keep my other thoughts to myself and use them as a competitive edge in this contest (because I need every edge I can get.)
Quote: RigondeauxWell this has been discussed before but, ultimately tax revenue is tax revenue. There is no magical way to generate it so that it doesn't count.
It will be $1 billion less spent in the city. Instead it will be given to a billionaire.
We will lose marginal tourists because the price point is that much higher.
Either it is an excessive tax, or the tax money was just sitting there up for grabs.
If it was just sitting there up for grabs, politicians diverted it from roads, education, tax relief for residents. and other such options into the pockets of a billionaire who lives in California.
Each of us will be giving about $300 out of our pocket to Mark Davis, an heir who has never held a job.
They should all do 20 years.
I'll be honest with you, my big problem with the, "Arena Tax," type things is that it is the precise definition of taxation without representation as it pertains to tourists. Here they are getting taxed to fund something that stands to benefit them in absolutely no way whatsoever. Even if employment and tourism increases as a result, it doesn't increase employment where they live and increased tourism only drives up the prices they pay should they ever want to go back to LV.
There's really no other choice if your goal as a state is to bring the Raiders in, the main problem is that is not a worthy goal (imo) for the state to have. I say there's no other choice because I have to believe a sales tax vote or property tax bond levy would almost definitely fail.
Anyway, we pretty much agree 100% in principle that it's ridiculous, it just ticks us off for different primary reasons.
Quote: Mission146I'll be honest with you, my big problem with the, "Arena Tax," type things is that it is the precise definition of taxation without representation as it pertains to tourists. Here they are getting taxed to fund something that stands to benefit them in absolutely no way whatsoever. Even if employment and tourism increases as a result, it doesn't increase employment where they live and increased tourism only drives up the prices they pay should they ever want to go back to LV.
There's really no other choice if your goal as a state is to bring the Raiders in, the main problem is that is not a worthy goal (imo) for the state to have. I say there's no other choice because I have to believe a sales tax vote or property tax bond levy would almost definitely fail.
Anyway, we pretty much agree 100% in principle that it's ridiculous, it just ticks us off for different primary reasons.
Polls showed that even this silly scheme would have failed with voters. Not many people are THAT stupid. That's why it was rushed through back channels.
I never really thought about the unfairness of taxing visitor s. Again, I think this is partly a deception, and we are still largely taxing ourselves. But it's a pretty complicated thing to sort out.
Quote: gordonm888I agree with Mission's ruling on Romes. Romes didn't do anything wrong.
#RomesDidNothingWrong! #FreeRomes
Quote:Mission's analysis of the week's games is interesting and well-written, but I didn't agree with some of what he wrote.
That's awesome, thanks! I emphasize that I keep every game to fifty, or fewer, words in the hopes someone will actually read it!
Quote:I actually think the story of this season is that the new rules limiting the hours that players practice has greatly affected how well some teams play in the first few weeks, and how long it takes them to get their act together. The decline in practice hours has had its greatest effect on defenses.
It is what it is, but I don't know what you're disagreeing with me about here. I never said anything about this one way or another. The Saints have had a terrible defense for years, though.
Quote:The 2nd story of the season to date is Paul Mahomes - unmentioned by Mission.
I said that I hate that the Chiefs SEEM to be right about Mahomes and got rid of Alex Smith, casting him into the Hell that is being an employee of Dan Snyder. Alex Smith is handling it the only way Alex Smith can, with poise, grace and dignity. Alex Smith is legit one of the best dudes in the NFL.
Quote:Other important story arcs involve the ascendancy of the Rams, the improvement of the Browns (yes, Baker Mayfield but also Myles Garrett and the Cleveland defense), the aging and decline of the Patriots, and the early weakness of preseason favorites like the Steelers and Saints.
The Browns are irrelevant and will not make the playoffs. I don't know why going from abysmal to, at best, mediocre should be a big story. Call me when the Browns are actually good.
The Rams were really good last year, no bones about it. They are legit NFC Super Bowl contenders, in fact, they'd be my favorites to go to the big dance with nobody else even close. Minnesota, Green Bay, Philadelphia, New Orleans (anything can happen in a shootout) are all credible threats.
As far as the, "Aging and decline of the Patriots," as a Patriots fan, I've heard this line every time they have lost a game for the last five years and for the last five years, everyone to say it has been wrong. I fully acknowledge that someone will eventually say it and be right. It might be now. Brady is tied for tenth in TD's thrown and is 19th in QB Rating...so I'm honestly not sweating it yet. He's 15th in QB Rating if you eliminate non QB's and that's after 1/3 games being against Jacksonville's vaunted defense. Again, from the standpoint of a fan, it's tough to be dissatisfied with his performance so far.
The Steelers and Saints have both been defensively awful for years. The losing tie to the Browns was a fluke, a gift from Roethlisberger, a gift from the Steelers running up so many penalty yards AND, most importantly, a gift from the referees for giving the Browns the ball despite the punt hitting a Browns helmet and being recovered by the Steelers. The only way that game could have went more the Browns' way is if God himself intervened...and they still only tied.
Quote:I will keep my other thoughts to myself and use them as a competitive edge in this contest (because I need every edge I can get.)
Nice!
Quote: gordonm888This contest is JohnZimbo and the 37 Dwarves. As a group, we contestants are so much worse than a random 0.500 that we look like loaded dice and weighted coins.
It seems like every game is falling the way I predict, that of course is not normal and will not last.
Quote: JohnzimboIt seems like every game is falling the way I predict, that of course is not normal and will not last.
Enjoy it! Congrats on the amazing start.
Quote: onenickelmiraclePolicy has to change regarding defaults. He says he just got on 6 hours after kickoff, but nobody knows if that true. That's the key. Not mission's interpretation. It's Rome's responsibility to be clear, not mission's, not mission's fault. The games in were finished before Romes said anything or well in progress. This 1 game probably won't be a difference, but it could be. Rome's is too smart to be careless, if anything he was careless on purpose so he could improve his odds. The original picks must stand.
We could 'what if' this to death. For example, let's say the misinterpreted default picks lead to a better result than the intended picks... Would we have seen a correction?
I guess we have to trust the judges since we can't see the default language.
Quote: onenickelmiraclePolicy has to change regarding defaults. He says he just got on 6 hours after kickoff, but nobody knows if that true. That's the key. Not mission's interpretation. It's Rome's responsibility to be clear, not mission's, not mission's fault. The games in were finished before Romes said anything or well in progress. This 1 game probably won't be a difference, but it could be. Rome's is too smart to be careless, if anything he was careless on purpose so he could improve his odds. The original picks must stand.
It is my fault. If this were the first time Romes ever had a default strategy, then it would have been on Romes. His strategy is exactly the same as it was last year.
Quote: prozemaWe could 'what if' this to death. For example, let's say the misinterpreted default picks lead to a better result than the intended picks... Would we have seen a correction?
I guess we have to trust the judges since we can't see the default language.
I'll share it if Romes is fine with it.
Quote: Mission146I'll share it if Romes is fine with it.
I'm not too worried about it either way, I was just making the point without seeing the language its tough to make an informed call on the interpretation.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you and I really do appreciate the confidence.
In any case, there is a PM record of his default strategy for this year as well as last and they are definitely the same thing. The reason for the misinterpretation is that I looked at this year’s PM without remembering, much less considering, what his default strategy was last year.
Romes honestly doesn’t go to default too often, so last year’s may have only been once or twice. I would be happy to quote from both PM’s with Romes’ approval, especially since it can’t be taken for granted that he will even use his defaults, and I assume especially not if he’s in contention near the end.
Quote: JohnnyQBut we have to put our trust somewhere. And I'll put mine with M146 to be reasonable whenever an issue comes up.
If WOV comes out with a crypto currency, its motto will be branded "In Mission we Trust"
Please note these results...
...reflect the corrected default picks by Romes.
...include the addition of Michael99000 who replaced Nathan. In doing so, Michael has already taken his Skip Week (Week 1) and took Nathan's 0-5 forfeit record in Week 2.
...reflect a Skip Week this week for TroopScott, who inadvertently submitted an invalid (in this case, ambiguous) pick.
Mission146 (0-5)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
Patriots OVER 53.5 (loss)
Vikings -16.5 (loss)
Vikings OVER 40.5 (loss)
Raiders +3 (loss)
Fleastiff (2-3)
Steelers UNDER 53.5 (loss)
Patriots UNDER 53.5 (win)
Chiefs UNDER 55.5 (loss)
Redskins +3 (win)
Raiders UNDER 44.5 (loss)
terapined (2-3)
Ravens -5.5 (win)
Packers -3 (loss)
Bucs +1.5 (loss)
Bills +16.5 (win)
Chargers +7 (loss)
PlayYourCardsRight (1-5)
Jaguars -6.5 (loss)
Dolphins -3 (win)
Cowboys +1.5 (loss)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
Buccaneers +1.5 Confidence (loss)
VegasRider (2-4)
Patriots - 6.5 Confidence (loss)
Chiefs OVER 55.5 (win)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
Falcons -3 (loss)
Rams -7 (win)
BeachBumBabs (0-6)
Bears -5.5 Confidence (loss)
Jaguars -6.5 (loss)
Bucs +1.5 (loss)
Packers -3 (loss)
Jaguars OVER 39.5 (loss)
Joeman (0-5)
Jaguars -6.5 (loss)
Falcons -3 (loss)
Packers -3 (loss)
Bears -5.5 (loss)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
IndyJeffrey (2-4)
Eagles -6.5 (loss)
Jaguars -6.5 (loss)
Falcons -3 Confidence (loss)
Bills +16.5 (win)
Rams -7 (win)
GenWyzgy (5-0)
Colts + 6.5 (win)
Bengals OVER 43.5 (win)
Chargers OVER 48 (win)
Patriots UNDER 53.5 (win)
Steelers OVER 53.5 (win)
onenickelmiracle (2-4)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Raiders +3 (loss)
Vikings -16.5 Confidence (loss)
Saints +3 (win)
Bengals OVER 43.5 (win)
GWAE (3-3)
Colts +6.5 (win)
Titans +6.5 (win)
Vikings OVER 40.5. Confidence (loss)
Chiefs -6.5 (win)
Chargers +7 (loss)
MidwestAP (2-3)
Bengals +3 (loss)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Chiefs -6.5 (win)
Cowboys +1.5 (loss)
Steelers -1.5 (win)
JW17 (1-5)
Broncos +5.5 Confidence (loss)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
Bears -5.5 (loss)
Dolphins-3 (win)
SOOPOO (1-5)
49ers+ 6.5 Confidence (loss)
Broncos+ 5.5 (loss)
Titans +6.5 (win)
Vikings-16.5 (loss)
Patriots OVER 53.5 (loss)
JohnZimbo (5-1)
Rams -7 Confidence (win)
Steelers UNDER 53.5 (loss)
Seahawks -1.5 (win)
Ravens -5.5 (win)
Dolphins -3 (win)
scolist (3-2)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Chargers OVER 48 (win)
Chiefs -6.5 (win)
Dolphins -3 (win)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
JohnnyQ (2-4)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Bills +16.5 (win)
49ers UNDER 55.5 (loss)
Seahawks -1.5 (win)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
Bruce1 (3-3)
Colts UNDER 47.5 (win)
Bengals OVER 43.5 (win)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
49ers UNDER 55.5 (loss)
Cardinals +5.5 (win)
Michael99000 (3-2)
Redskins +3 (win)
Cowboys OVER 41.5 (loss)
Colts +6.5 (win)
Chargers +7 (loss)
Chiefs -6.5 (win)
Ayecarumba (1-5)
Panthers -3 (win)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Patriots -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Bears OVER 38 (loss)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
Wizard (2-4)
Bengals +3 (loss)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Saints +3 (win)
Redskins +3 (win)
Chargers +7 (loss)
GordonM888 (1-4)
Saints +3 (win)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
49ers +6.5 (loss)
Chargers +7 (loss)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
unJon (2-4)
Saints +3 (win)
Broncos OVER 44.5 (loss)
Giants OVER 42 (win)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
Rainman (2-4)
Cowboys +1.5 Confidence (loss)
Bengals +3 (loss)
Rams -7 (win)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Saints +3 (win)
Sparty10k (1-5)
Bengals +3 Confidence (loss)
Falcons -3 (loss)
Seahawks -1.5 (win)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
miplet (2-4)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Saints +3 (win)
Redskins +3 (win)
Bears -5.5 (loss)
Buccaneers +1.5 (loss)
EdCollins (3-3)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Bills +16.5 (win)
Chargers +7 (loss)
Chiefs -6.5 (Confidence) (win)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
kuma (2-4)
Bengals +3 (loss)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Saints +3 (win)
Raiders +3 (loss)
Redskins +3 (win)
Prozema (4-2)
Eagles -6.5 (loss)
Eagles UNDER 47.5 (win)
Saints +3 Confidence (win)
Ravens OVER 44.5 (loss)
Redskins +3 (win)
DJATC (5-1)
Eagles UNDER 47.5 (win)
Saints +3 (win)
Ravens UNDER 44.5 Confidence (win)
Bills OVER 40.5 (loss)
Seahawks UNDER 41.5 (win)
MaxPen (3-3)
Bills +16.5 (win)
49ers +6.5 (loss)
Cardinals +5.5 (win)
Seahawks OVER 41.5 Confidence (loss)
Steelers -1.5 (win)
FourFiveFace (4-2)
Colts +6.5 (win)
Broncos +5.5 (loss)
Giants +6 (win)
Chiefs -6.5 Confidence (win)
Chargers +7 (loss)
odiousgambit (2-4)
Raiders +3 (loss)
Cardinals +5.5 (win)
Eagles -6.5 (loss)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Chiefs -6.5 (win)
RisingDough (4-2)
Jaguars-6.5 (loss)
Saints+3 Confidence (win)
Ravens OVER 44.5 (loss)
Giants OVER 42 (win)
Redskins+3 (win)
VCUSkyhawk (1-5)
Jaguars -6.5 Confidence (loss)
Eagles -6.5 (loss)
Patriots -6.5 (loss)
Chiefs -6.5 (win)
Bears -5.5 (loss)
Romes (3-3)
Eagles -6.5 (loss)
Panthers -3 (win)
Jaguars -6.5 (loss)
Falcons -3 (loss)
Ravens -5.5 Confidence (win)
Rigondeaux (3-2)
Dolphins -3 (win)
Colts +6.5 (win)
Bills +16.5 (win)
Bengals +3 (loss)
Bears -5.5 (loss)
| Name | Wins | Losses | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| JohnZimbo | 14 | 2 | 87.50% |
| DJatc | 15 | 3 | 83.33% |
| GenWyzgy | 10 | 5 | 66.67% |
| Rigondeaux | 10 | 5 | 66.67% |
| GWAE | 11 | 7 | 61.11% |
| kuma | 11 | 7 | 61.11% |
| onenickelmiracle | 11 | 7 | 61.11% |
| RisingDough | 10 | 7 | 58.82% |
| Prozema | 9 | 7 | 56.25% |
| Terapined | 8 | 7 | 53.33% |
| JohnnyQ | 9 | 8 | 52.94% |
| Bruce1 | 8 | 8 | 50.00% |
| Gordonm888 | 8 | 8 | 50.00% |
| MaxPen | 9 | 9 | 50.00% |
| Romes | 9 | 9 | 50.00% |
| UnJon | 9 | 9 | 50.00% |
| Fleastiff | 7 | 8 | 46.67% |
| EdCollins | 7 | 9 | 43.75% |
| Joeman | 7 | 9 | 43.75% |
| OdiousGambit | 7 | 9 | 43.75% |
| Troopscott | 5 | 7 | 41.67% |
| MidwestAP | 6 | 9 | 40.00% |
| Mission146 | 6 | 9 | 40.00% |
| Scolist | 4 | 6 | 40.00% |
| Miplet | 7 | 11 | 38.89% |
| Wizard | 7 | 11 | 38.89% |
| IndyJeffrey | 6 | 11 | 35.29% |
| PlayYourCardsRight | 6 | 11 | 35.29% |
| Sparty10k | 6 | 11 | 35.29% |
| VCUSkyhawk | 6 | 11 | 35.29% |
| BeachBumBabs | 6 | 12 | 33.33% |
| FourFiveFace | 6 | 12 | 33.33% |
| Vegasrider | 6 | 12 | 33.33% |
| Rainman | 5 | 11 | 31.25% |
| Michael99000 | 3 | 7 | 30.00% |
| SOOPOO | 5 | 13 | 27.78% |
| JW17 | 3 | 13 | 18.75% |
| Ayecarumba | 2 | 16 | 11.11% |
| Totals | 284 | 336 | 45.81% |
Record of Skip Weeks:
Michael99000 - Week 1
scolist - Week 1
TroopScott - Week 3
Congrats to JohnZimbo and Djatc who are absolutely on fire.
Oh, I modified the automated grading program to accept a single O or OVER and a single U for UNDER. So you can ignore my earlier request to please use the full word. (Although I recommend using the full word for clarity.)
Quote: EdCollinsConfidence Picks were just 7-20.
Congrats to JohnZimbo and Djatc who are absolutely on fire.
Oh, I modified the automated grading program to accept a single O or OVER and a single U for UNDER. So you can ignore my earlier request to please use the full word. (Although I recommend using the full word for clarity.)
Thanks, EdCollins!
1.) Jesus Christ! Did I ever go 0-5 making my own picks? Maybe, but I don't remember, if so. My default strategy sucks!
2.) Please type the full words, "OVER," and, "UNDER," when submitting the Picks. I like the way everything looks uniform on the Picks posts when the proper format is adhered to.
3.) EdCollins, thank you again, so much, because your program saves me from what was the most time-consuming part of this game.
Quote: Mission146Thanks, EdCollins!
1.) Jesus Christ! Did I ever go 0-5 making my own picks? Maybe, but I don't remember, if so. My default strategy sucks!
2.) Please type the full words, "OVER," and, "UNDER," when submitting the Picks. I like the way everything looks uniform on the Picks posts when the proper format is adhered to.
3.) EdCollins, thank you again, so much, because your program saves me from what was the most time-consuming part of this game.
Be careful trying to win your own "You suck award",
nsfw you pervert
Yeah the only reason is I’m in Europe right now (posting from a train with WiFi headed from Amsterdam to Germany :p). I didn’t go back a page or two to look (slow internet) but as you mentioned my default was the same as last year, which you correctly did for me a couple times (many thanks).Quote: Mission146...Romes honestly doesn’t go to default too often, so last year’s may have only been once or twice. I would be happy to quote from both PM’s with Romes’ approval, especially since it can’t be taken for granted that he will even use his defaults, and I assume especially not if he’s in contention near the end.
I don’t exacrly just want to post that (because if it happens to have a couple good weeks others might follow and this change the overall play/outcome/etc.
The verbiage in question is “top 5” which I meant to be from the top of the list, and mission took differently. Again though, it’s the same as last year and documented the way I mentioned, so there shouldn’t be any huffs or puffs from anyone else over this. It’s quite black and white in my opinion. Thanks for your help mission. I’m still going to try to get on WiFi and out picks in this week.
Quote: Romes
The verbiage in question is “top 5” which I meant to be from the top of the list, and mission took differently. Again though, it’s the same as last year and documented the way I mentioned, so there shouldn’t be any huffs or puffs from anyone else over this. It’s quite black and white in my opinion. Thanks for your help mission. I’m still going to try to get on WiFi and out picks in this week.
I'm pretty sure that's enough that anyone who wants to could figure it out. Essentially, when Romes said, "Top 5," in his PM, he meant the Top 5 teams in his strategy that fit his criteria on the list of lines. I took, "Top 5," to mean, "Biggest 5," relative to his criteria. Like I said, it was, "Top 5," fitting the criteria relative to the list last year, as well.
Quote: RomesYeah the only reason is I’m in Europe right now (posting from a train with WiFi headed from Amsterdam to Germany :p). I didn’t go back a page or two to look (slow internet) but as you mentioned my default was the same as last year, which you correctly did for me a couple times (many thanks).
I don’t exacrly just want to post that (because if it happens to have a couple good weeks others might follow and this change the overall play/outcome/etc.
The verbiage in question is “top 5” which I meant to be from the top of the list, and mission took differently. Again though, it’s the same as last year and documented the way I mentioned, so there shouldn’t be any huffs or puffs from anyone else over this. It’s quite black and white in my opinion. Thanks for your help mission. I’m still going to try to get on WiFi and out picks in this week.
This all makes sense to me. I think Mission made the correct ruling.
Quote: onenickelmiraclePolicy has to change regarding defaults. He says he just got on 6 hours after kickoff, but nobody knows if that true.
If someone notices late Sunday after the games are completed, that mission had their default picks incorrect, but those incorrect picks happen to have gone 5-0.. is that person still going ahead and pointing out that the picks were wrong ?
Basically it becomes a freeroll
That’s the problem with the current rule
I think what we’re going to do next season is allow for Default Picks at a player’s option, but the Default Picks will automatically be whatever random.org chooses for the player. Problem solved.
Quote: Mission146JohnnyQ,
Thank you and I really do appreciate the confidence.
In any case, there is a PM record of his default strategy for this year as well as last and they are definitely the same thing. The reason for the misinterpretation is that I looked at this year’s PM without remembering, much less considering, what his default strategy was last year.
Romes honestly doesn’t go to default too often, so last year’s may have only been once or twice. I would be happy to quote from both PM’s with Romes’ approval, especially since it can’t be taken for granted that he will even use his defaults, and I assume especially not if he’s in contention near the end.
Does Romes’ corrected default pick formula apply to any of the previous weeks? If the correction is allowed to apply now, it should apply to past mistakes too.
Edit: I would be 16-2 if I faded my own picks. I’m going to try it this week...
i haven’t used my default yet this season, and don’t plan to a lot, just happened due to travel.Quote: AyecarumbaDoes Romes’ corrected default pick formula apply to any of the previous weeks? If the correction is allowed to apply now, it should apply to past mistakes too.
Also I don’t think ONM’s comment was about the timing of my picks, but just in case - since I defaulted timing doesn’t matter - I never made picks, my default did. It’s the same way they were defaulted last year.
Ps I’m crushing that average bar! lol
Quote: AyecarumbaDoes Romes’ corrected default pick formula apply to any of the previous weeks? If the correction is allowed to apply now, it should apply to past mistakes too.
No, because he didn’t use default picks in Weeks 1 or 2.
Quote: AyecarumbaI would be 16-2 if I faded my own picks. I’m going to try it this week...
You and Johnzimbo are both tails on the same distribution.
Quote: Romesi haven’t used my default yet this season, and don’t plan to a lot, just happened due to travel.
Also I don’t think ONM’s comment was about the timing of my picks, but just in case - since I defaulted timing doesn’t matter - I never made picks, my default did. It’s the same way they were defaulted last year.
Ps I’m crushing that average bar! lol
I think ONM was referring to the timing of when you alerted mission to the fact that your picks were incorrect , which was 7:57pm ET, about 30 minutes after the entire Sunday afternoon group of games had gone final
Brilliant. I would extend this to say that anyone, for whatever reason, who doesn't get their picks in on time gets a set of default picks (like others have pointed out, life happens ! ). I would also suggest that you keep it straight-forward enough that you don't have to spend too much time on it.Quote: Mission146I think what we’re going to do next season is allow for Default Picks at a player’s option, but the Default Picks will automatically be whatever random.org chooses for the player. Problem solved.
Hey, as official game administrator, I wouldn't care if you made that change now for next week, since it would affect everyone equally. At the risk of repeating myself at that risk in this situation of repeating , you shouldn't have to spend too much extra time dealing with this.
ALSO, what about putting the weekly standings in the OFFICIAL thread ? I had to search around to figure out what page the standings are on on this thread. Twice as many below 0.500 as above it ! As Arte Johnson would say, VERY INTERESTING.
Quote: JohnnyQBrilliant. I would extend this to say that anyone, for whatever reason, who doesn't get their picks in on time gets a set of default picks (like others have pointed out, life happens ! ). I would also suggest that you keep it straight-forward enough that you don't have to spend too much time on it.
I like the Random.org option, it's not time-consuming at all. However many games there are, you just multiply that by four, and that's how many total possible picks that there are. You then tell random.org to pick five integers between 1 and however many possible picks there are, then you're done. You could also have it just put all the numbers in the random order and take the top five listed, after that, you just see what pick the numbers correspond to.
Quote:Hey, as official game administrator, I wouldn't care if you made that change now for next week, since it would affect everyone equally. At the risk of repeating myself at that risk in this situation of repeating , you shouldn't have to spend too much extra time dealing with this.
I would actually like to, but I have reviewed all of the other default strategies and I don't think there will be a similar mistake. Also, we've already started the year allowing for default strategies.
We'll go with Random.org next year and it won't be possible to miss weeks anymore. There will still be one allowed Skip Week, but the player must make a conscious decision to use it and announce in PM he/she is doing so.
Quote:ALSO, what about putting the weekly standings in the OFFICIAL thread ? I had to search around to figure out what page the standings are on on this thread. Twice as many below 0.500 as above it ! As Arte Johnson would say, VERY INTERESTING.
I've been posting the standings for the previous week along with the Picks from the current week, but I guess I could start putting the updated standings in there right away.
You’d have to do it somehow where it doesn’t randomly pick those opposing bets
Quote: michael99000You can’t do random.org exactly the way you described above. Let’s say there’s 15 games, so 60 possible picks and 60 integers to pick 4 at random . But 2 of those 60 integers will be the over and Under in the same game/ and two teams playing each other.
You’d have to do it somehow where it doesn’t randomly pick those opposing bets
Not exactly. When it generates the list of all of the integers, suppose two of them are opposing lines, you just keep the first one listed and then add the sixth one as long as it doesn't oppose anything else.
For example, let's say the list looked partially like this:
1, 2, 7, 29, 14, 5, 9, 10...
In this case, 1 and 2 would be opposite sides ATS in the same game (the first listed), so we would throw out the second result and then take the sixth result which would be the first team listed ATS in the second listed game. In fact, the Picks would be:
RandomPlayer:
First Team, First Game, ATS (1)
Second Game, Any Team, OVER (7)
First Team, Eighth Game, ATS (29)
Fourth Game, Second Team, ATS (14)
Second Game, First Team, ATS (5)
But, if default strategies are going to be used, at least make it based on some reasoning (largest dogs, road favorites, games played indoors, etc).
Quote: MidwestAPAt the risk of being a contrarian, I don't like using a random default strategy. In my opinion, it devalues the overall contest goal which was intended to reward excellence in game selection, not luck of a RNG. I personally don't think default strategies should be allowed at all. Let those that are invested in making selections get some advantage over those who are more lackadaisical. The skip week was supposed to represent the 'live happens' scenarios. I'd be more in favor of two skip weeks than allowing RNG game selections.
But, if default strategies are going to be used, at least make it based on some reasoning (largest dogs, road favorites, games played indoors, etc).
I agree. I think there should be no defaults and have 2 skip weeks. However maybe there should be a rule, no skip weeks after week 14.
Quote: beachbumbabsPretty sad Nevada ranks 49th in quality of education for pre-K thru 12th grades, but they had a billion to throw at a billionaire.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
Keep them dumb. We will always need service industry workers.
6/38 had Buffalo +16.5
3/38 had Minnesota -16.5
not counting confidence
The Week 4 Lines are as follows:
Dolphins (+6.5) @ Patriots (-6.5) O/U 48
Texans (+1) @ Colts (-1) O/U 47
Bengals (+4) @ Falcons (-4) O/U 53.5
Bills (+9.5) @ Packers (-9.5) O/U 45
Lions (+3) @ Cowboys (-3) O/U 44
Jets (+7.5) @ Jaguars (-7.5) O/U 38.5
Buccaneers (+3) @ Bears (-3) O/U 46.5
Eagles (-3.5) @ Titans (+3.5) O/U 41
Seahawks (-3) @ Cardinals (+3) O/U 39
Browns (+2.5) @ Raiders (-2.5) O/U 45
49ers (+10.5) @ Chargers (-10.5) O/U 46.5
Saints (-3) @ Giants (+3) O/U 50.5
Ravens (+3) @ Steelers (-3) O/U 51
Chiefs (-4.5) @ Broncos (+4.5) O/U 55
Quote: unJonCan’t remember the last time there were this many home dogs.
I count 4 home underdogs and 10 home favorites. One of us is reading the list incorrectly.
That would be me! I somehow went temporarily dyslexic.Quote: gordonm888I count 4 home underdogs and 10 home favorites. One of us is reading the list incorrectly.
1. A contestant could realistically decide to never enter any picks and let Mission's RNG pick the bets. Sounds like a plausible strategy to win the Mr Average award and it has a non-zero chance of winning the overall contest and earning the big payout. But a contestant who never submits any picks at all should not be rewarded this way.
2. Anyone who wants to make random picks can do that before the season starts -we all know the games that are scheduled for every week of the year. Preseason, you can submit random picks for all 17 weeks as your default strategy. Right now, anyone of us can submit random picks for weeks 5-17 to Mission as our default picks for this season. Or we can submit educated guesses as default picks for the entire season. Or we can do nothing. But those are our choices as contestants.
3. Scenario: You are tied for 1st place with one week to go and go 5-1 in the last week and lose to an opponent who doesn't submit any picks in Week 17, and for whom Mission's RNG routine picked 5 default picks for Week 17 that happens to go 5-0.
And you will say "F**K that SH*T." You will feel like you lost to Mission's rng code rather than to a skillful human opponent.
4. Consider the troopscott scenario. Troopscott submitted 5 picks but made a typo error in one of the picks -so its a skip week. What would it be next year- would 5 random picks be substituted for troopscott's submission? Or would his other 4 picks stand and would Mission randomly substitute for the single pick with the typographical error? Or would troopscott face the Nathan penalty and be assigned an 0-5 and disqualified from the consolation prizes? And if so, why should making a typo on 1 of 5 picks have a harsher penalty than not submitting any picks at all???
Again, anyone who has a scheduled trip or event can simply submit their own picks in advance (without knowing the line.) For the rest of you, you should be buggered - because you either forgot to submit picks or you just didn't care enough. Welcome to the real world.
Logic and fairness go out the window when you attempt to have automated rng remedies for forgetfulness, sloth and indifference.
