Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

FPL Chips / Wildcard Strategy 2016/17

  • 23-07-2016 12:06am
    #1
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭


    Been touched on a few times already and thought it was worth a thread. I'm on hols next week so won't be on here much (probably will) so starting the discussion hoping for loads of wisdom to catch up on next week.

    I'm including Wildcards here as when to play them is very related to when and how to play BB in particular.

    So. Are you setting up to wildcard early and saving the second one for DGWs? Are you set on keeping the BB for a DGW and combining with a WC the week before? There was plenty of discussion on this last season and already this one, with some, Busts in particular advocating BB early or in a SGW. Perhaps tied in with the first WC. A GW1 BB was also suggested but thats a bit mad for me.

    I was initially interested in the early BB of the back of an early WC until somebody rightly noted that the advantages of the BB are almost certainly better exploited when you have 103 or 104m to spend rather than 100m. I won't be tied to keeping it for a DGW but too early to rule it out. I did rather well out of the DGW BB last year with 190pts.

    Regarding the wildcards I reckon that I'll be planning on using mine by GW3 or 4. There are huge fluctuations in player prices in these early weeks and ignoring that can cost 1 to 2m (more so in terms of value lost than gained to some degree). Also with Euro / Copa late starters and new managers I know I won't get my GW1 team anywhere near the mark unless I'm lotto winner lucky. I wildcarded GW3 last season and it went very well for both points and value.

    I'm working on some data on price change trends with a view to publishing an article on it. I won't get it done till August too, but some interesting points already. But thats a slightly different topic for another thread perhaps.


«13

Comments

  • #2
    F1ngers
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 10,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭F1ngers


    Why not have a re-read of last years thread - same chips, same discussions...


  • #3
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    F1ngers wrote: »
    Why not have a re-read of last years thread - same chips, same discussions...

    Last year theory. This year from experience. The thinking changed massively from the start of the season for many of us. And already several new approaches suggested in passing on other threads this year.


  • #4
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    Thanks for getting this thread started, I was hoping to get something like this started myself, but 2 kids find a way of getting in the way of FF matters!!

    I'm definitely planning on an early WC (after GW3 most likely) so I'm very interested to see what others with a similar strategy are doing with their initial team.

    My reasons for planning an early WC are:
    - some big hitters might not start the season due to Euro 2016
    - the difficulty in judging how new entrants to the league will settle. For every Aguero there is a Memphis.
    - allows for changes to teams based on any major signings on or around deadline day.
    - team value can fluctuate relatively significantly in the early weeks.
    - the sheer unlikelihood of picking 15 players and they performing as expected over a period longer than a few weeks.
    - there is no chance of any DGWs in the first half of the season.

    The only reason to keep the 1st WC is for a 'rainy day' when injuries and suspensions kick in. However, with a solid squad you would need 6 injuries/bans before getting into points hit territory.

    I haven't really looked at who will be in my initial squad (bar Aguero), but I plan on avoiding all late returners from international duty (Ozil, Ramsey etc), injury doubts (Brunt, Sanchez etc) and new arrivals (Ibrahimovic etc). Also, any 4.0 defenders and 4.5 midfielders will be low owned to avoid price drops.


  • #5
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    F1ngers wrote: »
    Why not have a re-read of last years thread - same chips, same discussions...

    Totally different discussion. Last season players used chips with no previous data available. With a full years information available, people's strategy might (will) change.

    I used the WC to set my team up for a BB in a DGW last season, I'd be amazed if I was to go down the same route this season.


  • #6
    F1ngers
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 10,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭F1ngers


    Benimar wrote: »
    I used the WC to set my team up for a BB in a DGW last season, I'd be amazed if I was to go down the same route this season.

    That was the general consensus reached by posters here in last years thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    F1ngers wrote: »
    That was the general consensus reached by posters here in last years thread.

    Yeah, but things might change this year. A bad winter with multiple postponements would change everything, as would a DGW containing teams with something to actually play for (unlike last year when Leicester and Spurs had no DGW).

    There are so many potential variables that just going on last years consensus might be the incorrect strategy.


  • #8
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    F1ngers wrote: »
    That was the general consensus reached by posters here in last years thread.

    I'm still very open to which way to go re BB. Leaning toward a DGW but with a slightly different approach. Busts and a few others have already offered a few new perspectives and suggestions, eg a BB in the first few weeks as per my OP. There are also plenty of newcomers to the forum and to taking FPL seriously every year who may be interested.

    There are still a wide variety of views. I'm interested in those views. Maybe not everone is but I'm sure plenty of others are. If you have it all figured out and are not interested why not just unfollow the thread rather than being grumpy in it. :rolleyes:


  • #9
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    I've always done an early wildcard not saying it's the right way to go about things but if I think I can get a better team and if it's gonna cost me anything over 8 pts in hits I'll play a wildcard no hesitation. In 7 years I've never made it past gw 4 in terms of wildcard and I always played the Jan one straightaway and last year played the 2nd one straightaway.
    With the chips I'd discount aoa it's useless and total luck.
    Tc has to be played in a dgw and I value it the most important chip.
    BB I don't subscribe to the has to be used in a dgw approach by all means it's an option however I don't think the 15dgw players wildcard plan is the be all and end all. It has drawbacks that need to be considered. You have to think you are wildcarding to set up a BB so why not try that in the first half of the season when you don't have to just limit yourself to 8 dgw teams. In otherwords you don't need to take out form players. The budget argument for later in the season has some merits but it depends how the season pans out. Last season I don't think budget was important with the amount of key cheap players. Even this year an aguero injury for a few weeks and you can get a strong 15 handy enough. Another problem with dgw BB is that you will probably end up playing it in the dgw that is best for TC.
    My plan is hope to hold the wildcard but use it as soon as I'm contemplating big hits. Strongly consider a BB in the first half of the season in a gw that has no European football either side of it. 2nd wildcard as with the 1st wildcard hold until I'm considering hits. TC definetly use in the dgw with the best captain option's .


  • #10
    Ziegler1988
    Registered Users Posts: 8,747 ✭✭✭Ziegler1988


    I wouldn't BB early because of poor TV and not knowing enough about nailed players and form. I think the best strategy last season ended up being TC34 WC36 BB37 so will probably stick to saving both chips for a DGW again. 2nd wildcard I wouldn't save to the detriment of my team, since I don't mind taking hits for DGWs


  • #11
    Mr.Prodston
    Registered Users Posts: 16,305 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Prodston


    I feel I used my chips last year as well as I could. WC32, BB34, TC37 :cool:

    I went from about 200k to 16k in roughly that period which is quite frankly remarkable both by the jump and by the fact I was so far off the pace.

    My season usually follows the following script: Poor/average start, finds feet before going through a barren winter and early spring period before a moment of clarity as I finish strongly.

    I struggle early to find the rhythm of a season and then the monotony of form players maintaining form through the second third of a season leads me to go maverick too quickly.

    The players I decide upon in that lull usually start performing finally so end well.

    In relation to the chips then I see it as follows:

    I'm more confident of using the weapons when I feel I have more command of a season. DGWs are a double edged sword but I feel they're the best use of the chips and the fact they fall during a time I feel best equipped to use them reinforces my belief in using them later in a season.

    AOA is close to useless so can be used at any time, probably if a defensive crisis hits.

    Again due to early season uncertainty I don't give myself a week to use that first WC. Nobody knows how things will play out and ideally the transfer window and season rhythm is beginning to unfurl.

    There's no right or wrong way and the most important thing I could do is keep a steady ship during the second third of a season meaning I won't have to rely on the chips bailing me out :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    The reason I'm on the fence re BB is because I agree with most of Bust's arguments about this chip, yet I had an epic DGW34 BB last season which defined my season to a large degree. And that was even after getting hurt by Alli and others like everyone else.

    I think there's still merit in keeping the BB for one of the DGWs, but I'd be learning from the mistakes of last year. I think the 15 DGW players idea is a red herring. I think the benefit of the DGW BB would be that you can keep the form SGW players that we all foolishly shipped out last year, and then have 8 or 9 decent DGW players.

    The argument that BB is just 4 extra players is correct. But if you take it that the 5 or 6 SGW undroppables (like Alli and co last year) are starting no matter what then your 4 'extra' players can be DGW guys therefore you get 4x2 extra players from the chip - which you can't get in a SGW.

    AOA best use is for injuries at the back.

    TC definitely the most important but only just and has to be for DGW. But the approach all depends on the layout of the DGWs. Last year the biggest DGW in terms of numbers of DGW teams also had the best individual captain options in terms of individual players and their 2 fixtures. That may not be the case this year. A 'small" DGW with just 4 double teams could have the standout TC option.

    I think a return of 20 extra points from TC and 15 from BB would be decent.


  • #13
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    Ziegler1988 wrote: »
    I wouldn't BB early because of poor TV and not knowing enough about nailed players and form. I think the best strategy last season ended up being TC34 WC36 BB37 so will probably stick to saving both chips for a DGW again. 2nd wildcard I wouldn't save to the detriment of my team, since I don't mind taking hits for DGWs

    The problem with keeping the BB and not the 2nd wildcard is there is a huge temptation to take a lot of hits and a lot of your transfers get used up focusing on getting in BB players. Trust me when I say that strategy is a nightmare. This is what happened me last year I reckon BB cost me points in the end.


  • #14
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    The big DGW this year is likely to be no more than 8 DGW teams. DGW 34 is going to have teams with doubles , teams with sgws and teams with blanks . Really complicated balancing act that I'm not sure I want to throw a BB into the mix.
    DGW 37 is very late in season and likely to have no more than a maximum of 8 DGW teams the teams that had a league match cancelled in 34.


  • #15
    Paully D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,710 ✭✭✭✭Paully D


    I'll be setting up a team for 3 GW's and then wildcarding. I generally always wildcard early anyway, but that's after spending considerable time trying to develop a team with a long-term plan. This year I figured, what's the point? Why not try out just building for 3 weeks and then wildcarding when 100% of the time I have been playing the game I have wildcarded by GW4 anyway? These are my reasons, in no particular order:

    1) Not increasing value as the first international break is slow for this, but actually maintaining value. For example, last year I was big on Walcott and Ritchie but actually lost £0.2m on them straight away as both dropped early on and I had no access to the internet that time as I was away. This put me at an immediate disadvantage and it was only GW3!

    2) We spend weeks and weeks planning and making decisions, but despite this these decisions will go wrong through no fault of our own. Last year many of us had Sunderland defenders and it was clear after 3 weeks that they were poison. Walcott above is another example. Kane was woeful for a few months. 3 or 4 of these decisions and your team needs drastic surgery. There will also be players no-one expects to explode that become must haves early on, e.g. Mahrez.

    3) With City, United and Chelsea all having new managers we just don't know what players they will fancy or what personnel they will set up with. This becomes very clear after 3 GW's. It's not only the top sides. Koeman, Moyes, Puel and Mazzarri too.

    4) Finding the DEF's that will be clean sheet magnets. There's always going to be teams in the your initial side that you think will be solid options for clean sheets that end up leaking goals like mad and vice-versa. While 3 GW's doesn't seem like long enough to identify these sides, it gives us a much clearer idea in any case.

    5) Linking with point 3, with major tournaments having being played this summer some top players will be coming back into 90 minute action for GW4.

    6) The deadline will be closed at this stage.

    With regards to the chips, I'll 100% be using the TC during a DGW. It can be very annoying seeing someone use it early on and earn a mountain of points (i.e. Aguero v Newcastle last season) as it can take what feels like forever to catch them back, but patience is the key with this one. Sanchez was my TC for that DGW last season and it paid off massively. Even if there's only a few DGW teams in say GW34 this season, there's likely to be a nice TC option in there somewhere and I'd rather take my chances with using it in a DGW.

    My second wildcard generally goes early if I'm having a dip in January, but ideally I'll try to keep it for a little longer than that this year. That said, I'll use it when I feel I need to and won't be keeping it with plans in mind.

    No idea what I'll do with BB yet.

    I always play 3-4-3 with a cheap bench. Though I aim to have the bench full of guaranteed starters (with maybe the exeption of a £4m DEF if I'm £0.5m short of an ideal team), AOA doesn't even really register on my radar because I'd have to be lucky to make any points off it and could easily lose points from it. For example, playing someone like Darren Fletcher at home to Sunderland as opposed to a cheap £4.5m DEF away to a top side. Fletcher is likely to score 2 points max there while on their day the DEF could come out with 6. That said, if/when the cheaper midfield players start popping up I'll plan accordingly then. For example, I could have made a decent amount of points by utilising the chip on Dele Alli last year but never got it right and left points on the bench quite a few times. Ironically, this is actually the reason why I favour the cheapest bench possible of players that play.


  • #16
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    Paully D wrote: »
    1) Not increasing value as the first international break is slow for this, but actually maintaining value. For example, last year I was big on Walcott and Ritchie but actually lost £0.2m on them straight away as both dropped early on and I had no access to the internet that time as I was away. This put me at an immediate disadvantage and it was only GW3

    100% going the same WC strategy Paully.

    As I've mentioned before I'm crunching some stats on price change trends over the past 2 seasons (since the major changes in the system) and you are spot on.

    I'm turning it into an article and i really hope to get it done in the next week. While some of it confirms stuff we pretty well already knew the extent of the variability on the first few weeks is instructive.

    For example, and working from memory at the moment, after an always quiet GW2 for prices GWs3 to 7 last year were by far the highest for rises and especially falls. Over 100 drops each week. And the spread of falls is very wide, 200 players dropped by 0.2 or more over those 5 weeks. Several dropped 0.4 or even 0.5 (Theo). While only i think 40 odd rose 0.2 or more, but the concentration was higher on the bandwagoners with 10 or so rising 0.4 or more. Some went 0.6, 0.7 or 0.8 (Mahrez of course).

    Get stuck with a few of the former and miss a couple of the latter and you'll soon be 2m+ behind as well as haemorrhaging points.

    The number of 0.2 rises in a single GW is tiny. So while there is no great killing to be made in any particular week the point is that aligning your team to have the right set of players over that early period can have big impacts on value, as well as points.

    I really can't see a more advantageous time to play the first wildcard.


  • #17
    ElTel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭ElTel


    Should be right up your street FHFC
    https://fpldiscovery.wordpress.com/category/research/

    I must admit that I've had a tendency to hold the WC as long as I've played the game. I'm not sure if I can say it was because the first WC did not have an expiry; (Am I remembering correctly?) but will fight this impulse this year. I guess the "use it or lose it" WC format doesn't suit my DNA makeup!


  • #18
    SantryRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,224 ✭✭✭✭SantryRed


    Due to experience, I will be doing the following:

    First WC: After GW3 unless I've hit a home run with my team. I generally always have a poor start and the early wildcard sorts my team out and I begin to climb the rankings. So this year, instead of having a long term view from GW1, I'm purely going to be looking at the first three GWs. A WC will then occur to reshuffle my team.

    TC/WC/BB will all be used near the end of the season for DGWs. I like the potential boost from it coming to the end and it can perk you up the rankings. I will not be TC-ing Lukaku though. He'll be lucky to ever find his way into my team this year.

    I couldn't care about AOA. I'll use it the first time I see value in all eight of my mid/fwd players.


  • #19
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    Iused2likebusts wrote: »
    The big DGW this year is likely to be no more than 8 DGW teams. DGW 34 is going to have teams with doubles , teams with sgws and teams with blanks . Really complicated balancing act that I'm not sure I want to throw a BB into the mix.
    DGW 37 is very late in season and likely to have no more than a maximum of 8 DGW teams the teams that had a league match cancelled in 34.

    Just to expand on this. Last year 10 league games were cancelled . 2 because of the league cup and 8 because of the fa cup.
    We had dgw 33 palace Everton
    Dgw 34 Newcastle City
    West ham Watford
    Utd palace
    Liverpool Everton
    Arsenal wba
    Dgw 37 west ham man Utd
    Norwich Watford
    Everton Sunderland
    Liverpool chelsea
    This year the available midweeks for rescheduled games are gw 26,34,37
    The games that are going to get cancelled are gw26 lc final , gw28 fa cup qf, gw 34 fa cup sf. The key difference here is that the fa cup sf which causes a blank is the same gw when the dgws get rearranged. So in effect we have less doubles. Last year the fa cups sf was gw 35 so we had a load of doubles followed by some blanks in gw 35.
    If we apply last year's data to this year's changed circumstances it's quite possible that this happens.
    Gw26 Newcastle City and Liverpool Everton get cancelled due to carling cup. Newcastle and city can get rearranged for the midweek of gw 26 as both teams are out of fa cup. That midweek is also set for fa cup replays so Everton and Liverpool can't get refixed as Everton are still in the cup.
    Gw 34 Last year we had 10 dgw teams. This year we potentially lose Newcastle and city, Everton , Utd , Watford , and palace will not have a double as they would have an fa cup game on the weekend of 34 so just a sgw for them. West ham won't have a double as there weekend game against Utd gets called off due to utds fa cup sf. This leaves us with 3 dgw teams instead of 10 Liverpool arsenal and wba. You can say 5 best case scenario if city and Newcastle doesn't get refixed in gw26. The odd team will have a blank to make it more complicated.
    Gw 37 The doubles remain the same as above with a best case scenario of 8 dgws. Bear in mind it's the end of the season and rotation is rife.
    Barring postponements there is going to be less dgw teams this year and the bigger week is most likely going to be dgw37. As mentioned above the fa cup sf being the same gw as the doubles is what will reduce the doubles. As for every double you need a skinny week. We are only going to have 1 real skinny week this year gw 28 fa cup qf weekend.
    This is what would be pushing me towards a non dgw BB.


  • #20
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    FHFC wrote: »
    For example, and working from memory at the moment, after an always quiet GW2 for prices GWs3 to 7 last year were by far the highest for rises and especially falls. Over 100 drops each week. And the spread of falls is very wide, 200 players dropped by 0.2 or more over those 5 weeks. Several dropped 0.4 or even 0.5 (Theo). While only i think 40 odd rose 0.2 or more, but the concentration was higher on the bandwagoners with 10 or so rising 0.4 or more. Some went 0.6, 0.7 or 0.8 (Mahrez of course).

    Checked this as was working on it earlier.

    It was actually only 21 players that rose 0.2 or more (cumulatively) in the 5 week period.


  • #21
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    An interesting read about using your WC early

    https://mathematicallysafe.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/the-loss-of-fpl-player-value-and-the-case-for-the-early-wildcard/


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    Benimar wrote: »
    An interesting read about using your WC early

    https://mathematicallysafe.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/the-loss-of-fpl-player-value-and-the-case-for-the-early-wildcard/

    That article may have stole fhfcs thunder.


  • #23
    Mr.Prodston
    Registered Users Posts: 16,305 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Prodston


    Iused2likebusts wrote: »
    That article may have stole fhfcs thunder.

    *gathers the pitchforks*

    If I'm reading statistical analysis to better my team it had better be from a boardsie.


  • #24
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    Mr.Prodston wrote: »
    *gathers the pitchforks*

    If I'm reading statistical analysis to better my team it had better be from a boardsie.

    Fhfc has been gathering price rise and falls data for years. The results of that data is expected imminently. The fsa world is on the edge of its collective seat.


  • #25
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    Iused2likebusts wrote: »
    Fhfc has been gathering price rise and falls data for years. The results of that data is expected imminently. The fsa world is on the edge of its collective seat.

    Article written and sent to fplupdates.com who have given very positive feedback. Should be up Monday.

    As for the other article. I've been talking to the guy, a good article but his figures are wrong. He seemed to take the total values of players at the end of each GW from the FPL site player profiles, which didn't accurately assign them to the GW the rise/fall took place so his rise/fall per GW chart while giving a general idea of the trend is inaccurate.


    His figure for the overall loss of value is way low, around 150m nett reduction in the value of the FPL roster last year, I suspect because it didn't allow for players joining midway through season.

    So his graph and article are broadly saying the right thing, but inaccurately.


  • #26
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    FHFC wrote: »
    Article written and sent to fplupdates.com who have given very positive feedback. Should be up Monday.

    As for the other article. I've been talking to the guy, a good article but his figures are wrong. He seemed to take the total values of players at the end of each GW from the FPL site player profiles, which didn't accurately assign them to the GW the rise/fall took place so his rise/fall per GW chart while giving a general idea of the trend is inaccurate.


    His figure for the overall loss of value is way low, around 150m nett reduction in the value of the FPL roster last year, I suspect because it didn't allow for players joining midway through season.

    So his graph and article are broadly saying the right thing, but inaccurately.

    You'll never beat the fsa, you'll never beat the fsa.


  • #27
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    It's actually http://fantasyfootballpundits.com/ that will be publishing article.


  • #28
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    FHFC wrote: »
    His figure for the overall loss of value is way low, around 150m nett reduction in the value of the FPL roster last year, I suspect because it didn't allow for players joining midway through season.

    So his graph and article are broadly saying the right thing, but inaccurately.

    Yeah, he says in it that he's only using players that were active in the game on GW1.

    I agree that his figures are a bit rough and ready, but his conclusion is solid...or maybe we just agree with it:)

    The early WC is a cert for me anyway.

    Looking forward to seeing your article on it.


  • #29
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    Benimar wrote: »
    Yeah, he says in it that he's only using players that were active in the game on GW1.

    I agree that his figures are a bit rough and ready, but his conclusion is solid...or maybe we just agree with it:)

    The early WC is a cert for me anyway.

    Looking forward to seeing your article on it.

    I'm not really pushing any particular strategy but looking to explode some myths and bring some facts to the table to inform decisions. For example the notion of building value by banking 0.2 rises when wildcarding is dead. It's been dead for 2 seasons now yet very few seem to have absorbed that fact. Still put forward as a strategy on a number of advise websites and twitter accounts.


  • #30
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    A little preview for my FSA stalwarts.

    2015/16 price rises and drops by gameweek:

    393087.jpg

    636 price rises. 2,133 price drops!! Over 30% of all the drops took place from GW3 to GW7.

    Full analysis of these figures, and more coming soon on http://fantasyfootballpundits.com/ @FFPundits


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    iroced
    Registered Users Posts: 6,262 ✭✭✭iroced


    @FHFC: Do you have the data from 3 seasons ago before FPL changed the rules regarding price changes?


    From last year's graph, the first (early) WC mainly allows to save your team value from the inevitable price drops one's team is gonna experience and in terms of rises there's very little to use during your WC bar getting several players you want before they rise without raking points hit(s).

    I guess the difference between the first and second international breaks lies in all the players who already used their WC from whom transfers are taken into account by then. But it looks very marginal.


  • #32
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    iroced wrote: »
    @FHFC: Do you have the data from 3 seasons ago before FPL changed the rules regarding price changes?


    From last year's graph, the first (early) WC mainly allows to save your team value from the inevitable price drops one's team is gonna experience and in terms of rises there's very little to use during your WC bar getting several players you want before they rise without raking points hit(s).

    I guess the difference between the first and second international breaks lies in all the players who already used their WC from whom transfers are taken into account by then. But it looks very marginal.

    I don't have any pre 2014/15 data. And I only have the data till GW6 from 14/15 which i collected whwn doing some comparisons here of the ratio of rises to falls.

    The 2014/15 data very closely mirrors last season.

    I do more analysis of the trends of the drops, that big spike in price drops is key as owning 3 or 4 of the wrong guys then will kill you.

    Regarding rises there is no such thing as playing the banking 0.1s game any more. Its more about having the select few high climbing players in that period cumulatively rather than what you can gain in ine week.

    Guess what the max number of double and treble rises in any GW in 2015/16 or to GW6 the year before?


  • #33
    iroced
    Registered Users Posts: 6,262 ✭✭✭iroced


    FHFC wrote: »
    Guess what the max number of double and treble rises in any GW in 2015/16 or to GW6 the year before?
    Well. Last year, I'd say there was only 3 or 4 trebles over the whole season (Mahrez, Vardy & Kane and maybe Agüero after his 5 goals - I actually don't think so since he was that expensive -) so max 1 in any given GW? Doubles? Max 3 maybe (same guys as above)?

    And I'd say figures were close the year before.


  • #34
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    iroced wrote: »
    Well. Last year, I'd say there was only 3 or 4 trebles over the whole season (Mahrez, Vardy & Kane and maybe Agüero after his 5 goals - I actually don't think so since he was that expensive -) so max 1 in any given GW? Doubles? Max 3 maybe (same guys as above)?

    And I'd say figures were close the year before.

    Max of 4 multiple rises (0.2 or 0.3) in any gameweek. As low as 2 or 3 in some of the early wildcard weeks. And considering many of those are likely to be players you'd be keeping in final WC team, the notion of chasing 0.2 rises is dead and not a reason or consideration in wildcarding.


  • #35
    iroced
    Registered Users Posts: 6,262 ✭✭✭iroced


    FHFC wrote: »
    Max of 4 multiple rises (0.2 or 0.3) in any gameweek. As low as 2 or 3 in some of the early wildcard weeks. And considering many of those are likely to be players you'd be keeping in final WC team, the notion of chasing 0.2 rises is dead and not a reason or consideration in wildcarding.
    I think this notion was only really valid for one single season anyway. Before THAT season (3 years ago) and despite WC transfers being taken into account, the rises were going slower because of the weighting factors and there were not that many players you'd only get in for making a £0.1m immediate profit. I only remember doing it twice (and for one player I regretted it and got him back a coupe of GWs later :rolleyes:...).


  • #36
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    iroced wrote: »
    I think this notion was only really valid for one single season anyway. Before THAT season (3 years ago) and despite WC transfers being taken into account, the rises were going slower because of the weighting factors and there were not that many players you'd only get in for making a £0.1m immediate profit. I only remember doing it twice (and for one player I regretted it and got him back a coupe of GWs later :rolleyes:...).

    I've no experience before 3 years ago. But when I was researching the game for that season this tactic seemed to be well established. And the thing is, many players, twitter accounts and advice websites still recommend it, suggesting that tidy profit can be made.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    iroced
    Registered Users Posts: 6,262 ✭✭✭iroced


    FHFC wrote: »
    I've no experience before 3 years ago. But when I was researching the game for that season this tactic seemed to be well established. And the thing is, many players, twitter accounts and advice websites still recommend it, suggesting that tidy profit can be made.

    Yeah but I feel it was a bit overplayed. And you can verify that with the current nonsense to still recommend it.
    If you were lucky (I mean if unusual players had an unusual blinder in the first 2 GWs) you could make 2 or 3 profits, but I can't remember many more. The other players you were happy to keep them. While 3 seasons ago, that was just huge. After 4-5 days most performing players had reached their 3rd rise and were quickly guaranteeing a 4th one on the deadline saturday evening if you were happy enough to keep them for that very GW.

    I said it already but I found, by very far, the system in place when I started playing (2010-11) to be the best one with the weighting factors.


  • #38
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    This article going live tomorrow afternoon now.


  • #39
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    http://fantasyfootballpundits.com/early-season-fpl-price-change-trends-and-implications-for-wildcard-strategy/


  • #40
    Mr.Prodston
    Registered Users Posts: 16,305 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Prodston


    FHFC wrote: »
    http://fantasyfootballpundits.com/early-season-fpl-price-change-trends-and-implications-for-wildcard-strategy/

    Here's my review of your thesis:

    *opens link as the following song begins to play in my head:
    *

    giphy.gif

    *comes across mention of Jovetic and cue flashback to Pre-Gameweek 3 in 2014*
    Mr.Prodston wrote: »
    media_httpwwwoffthepo_nHEGu.gif

    Oh and Pelle scored tonight too, it's peaked my interest with my need for a forward 7.9 or less. But then Jovetic. It's quite the pickle...
    FHFC wrote: »
    Currently trawling for Dzeko injury updates and Pellegrini quotes on Jovetic. My madness is a thorough type of madness.

    Things in his favour are that having got away with no City players v Liverpool it's not attractive to have none v Stoke, plus my captain options are mainly Rooney and Mata at present.

    You may have to stay up late for this one....
    Mr.Prodston wrote: »
    Yeah I know. Ramsey is a viable captaincy option this week I think. A nice rest tomorrow too and it's games like Leicester away that he can come into his own.

    Part of my brain tells me if I don't act tonight then I can't make the transfer and it's out of my hands. But that's the part that probably told me Yaya was not going to be in my team ever
    Mr.Prodston wrote: »
    Feck it! Might as well just do it and stop thinking about it, should work well enough this week anyway. It's future Mr. P's problem then :pac:
    FHFC wrote: »
    Mainly on the basis of your Mick McCarthy GIF I have also decided to give it a bash. I love Mick McCarthy GIFs. They are the best thing about the Internet.

    Jovetic (c)
    Mr.Prodston wrote: »
    Well at least that's settled, we can blame Mick if it all goes wrong :)

    Last call on the Jovetic express tonight. All aboard. Destination: Unknown.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91925500

    - Post GW3:
    Mr.Prodston wrote: »
    Jovetic off - Dzeko on. Austin scores

    That captaincy and transfer went suitably tits up. Serves me right anyway I guess!
    FHFC wrote: »
    And as for the whole Jovetic thing....

    320398.jpg

    Mick works in mysterious ways.....

    Glad I did it but then my outgoing player did feck all too so only cost me the 4 points.

    Good work though. And yes I clearly have far too much time on my hands while I'm waiting to start a new job :pac:


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Good stuff FHFC. I particularly liked "Value Vampires".


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    FHFC wrote: »
    http://fantasyfootballpundits.com/early-season-fpl-price-change-trends-and-implications-for-wildcard-strategy/

    Not to just bump this but would have hoped for more critical feedback from the people who inspired some of this analysis. Iroced, Busts and others.

    (No offence to Mr Ps highly lucid review either :))


  • #43
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    FHFC wrote: »
    Not to just bump this but would have hoped for more critical feedback from the people who inspired some of this analysis. Iroced, Busts and others.

    (No offence to Mr Ps highly lucid review either :))
    Its a well written article . The whole price rise and fall thing is a side of the game that although I pay attention to wouldn't be something I'm overly interested in. I've always wildcarded early so I suppose it helps me reinforce that decision.


  • #44
    ElTel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭ElTel


    Iused2likebusts wrote: »
    Its a well written article . The whole price rise and fall thing is a side of the game that although I pay attention to wouldn't be something I'm overly interested in. I've always wildcarded early so I suppose it helps me reinforce that decision.

    I liked it a lot and would conclude that the early WC has become less effective as a strategy as well. I've only followed the price changes from last season. So that makes (say) a -8 for 4 transfers after GW3 a more viable counter-strategy against the early WC.
    FHFC; What's your thoughts on the "dead team" effect on volatility as season progresses and a tweek in the transfer thresholds mid-season (I think) wrt your conclusions? Could something be gleaned from the drops that correlates with ownership of the player?


  • #45
    FHFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,274 ✭✭✭✭FHFC


    Iused2likebusts wrote: »
    Its a well written article . The whole price rise and fall thing is a side of the game that although I pay attention to wouldn't be something I'm overly interested in. I've always wildcarded early so I suppose it helps me reinforce that decision.

    I know thats your position, I wonder would the number make you any more likely to pay more attention to it over thise first 5 weeks or so? Especially for drops. Did you hold Walcott for long last year?

    Edit: Thinking of doing a piece about points hits so might get some more arguments outa you then! ;)


  • #46
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    FHFC wrote: »
    I know thats your position, I wonder would the number make you any more likely to pay more attention to it over thise first 5 weeks or so? Especially for drops. Did you hold Walcott for long last year?

    Edit: Thinking of doing a piece about points hits so might get some more arguments outa you then! ;)
    Its time to take my points hit theory to the masses. I think I took one price drop max from Walcott moved him fairly quickly. Ye I'll probably pay more attention to drops . I think my inability to hold onto a wildcard accidentally protected me from price falls over the years.


  • #47
    iroced
    Registered Users Posts: 6,262 ✭✭✭iroced


    FHFC wrote: »
    Not to just bump this but would have hoped for more critical feedback from the people who inspired some of this analysis. Iroced, Busts and others.

    (No offence to Mr Ps highly lucid review either :))

    To be 100% sincere, I found it a little messy in the wording at times (not sure how to phrase that) and a bit too long to go to the point, but it may very well also be me de-rusting my english after a month off :D.


    On the content, as you said, we talked about it many times on this forum and globally agree on the matter. So not only your conclusions are spot on but if they can enlight the masses :p...
    You should apply for a position in fiso ;).


  • #48
    manual_man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,264 ✭✭✭✭manual_man


    GW1 bench boost. Wildcard straight after. It's an option. Just putting it out there


  • #49
    dahat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭dahat


    With an abundance of midfield talent this season, should early WC be considering a 352 formation instead of the standard 343?


  • #50
    Shedite27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,427 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    dahat wrote: »
    With an abundance of midfield talent this season, should early WC be considering a 352 formation instead of the standard 343?
    I think so, there's so many potential options in the 5.5-7.5 range I reckon we should all have 5 midfielders we will play rather than Darren Fletcher.


  • #51
    dahat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭dahat


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    I think so, there's so many potential options in the 5.5-7.5 range I reckon we should all have 5 midfielders we will play rather than Darren Fletcher.

    It's something I'm going to look at later on and if i feel its worth a risk to save a WC in GW3 i might go for it.

    3rd striker has to be a 4.5 though with a tight early season budget.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement