SoSH Survivor Pool - Week 2 Discussion

[glennhoffmania]

The problem with that strategy though is that if you lose 2 or 3 picks per week you're going to quickly run out of picks to spread around.  I think we're all gun shy now because of yesterday but we didn't play it stupidly.  If 2 of those 3 teams had won we would've been in good shape, and had the flexibility to spread it around a little more in tougher weeks.  It was the perfect storm of shit.

 

[tims4wins]

The more I think about it, the more I think the strategy, at least early on, is to go heavy on a few teams and then spread single picks out to random games. If we had, say, 5 picks on NO, 5 picks on MIA and 3 picks on BAL, we could have spread the other 8 picks on 4-8 other teams. That way you're likely to get some picks through in case a situation like this occurs.
 
The goal is to have the last pick standing and I think our mindset is to get the most picks through each week. We should be willing to sacrifice some picks here and there to ensure that we get at least SOME picks through.

 
I agree with this fully. I kind of alluded to it earlier, but we were in a unique position of having 22 entries. The goal was never to get 22 entries to the finish line, it was to get a single entry to the finish line. By only using 3 teams - 2 of which were road teams - we gave up any advantage we had of having 22 entries.
 
I get that yesterday was a total bloodbath (and who knows, tonight may be as well), but to me there is no excuse for losing 21 entries in a single week. At the very very least we should have carried through at least 3 or so entries, and there were also some proposals to go 7-7-7 on the 3 home favorites - NO, Pitt, Indy. That scenario could have possibly sent through 14 entries.
 
I am unlikely to join a 2nd chance pool as I think I bring a different mentality to this than a lot of other people - I am better off managing my own share - that way I only have myself to blame.

 

[tims4wins]

The problem with that strategy though is that if you lose 2 or 3 picks per week you're going to quickly run out of picks to spread around.  I think we're all gun shy now because of yesterday but we didn't play it stupidly.  If 2 of those 3 teams had won we would've been in good shape, and had the flexibility to spread it around a little more in tougher weeks.  It was the perfect storm of shit.

 
But as long as we were doing better than the pool average then we would be in good shape. The goal is not to get 22 entries as far into the season as possible - it is to get 1 entry all the way through. I realize that slow attrition isn't good but if the pool gets smaller than our entry total that is a GOOD thing.
 
Edit: and I still disagree that we made the right move yesterday by picking 2 road teams and passing on a couple of big home favorites. My first rule in survivor is never take road teams unless you really have to.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I agree with you in general but the problem is we can't just do better than average.  We need to beat thousands of people.  I avoid road teams and Thu. night games whenever possible, but Miami going up to Jax seemed pretty much like a lock.  Oakland looked terrible and was beat up, and while Bal isn't a great team they should've beaten the crap out of them.  And of course, NO was home, vs. a shitty team, and was the most heavily favored team of the week.  Everyone has their own strategies but mine has always been to try to evaluate future value as best as possible, and tweak as necessary when more info becomes available.  Pit had way too much future value to burn yesterday when there were other really good options.

 

[tims4wins]

I agree with you in general but the problem is we can't just do better than average.  We need to beat thousands of people.  I avoid road teams and Thu. night games whenever possible, but Miami going up to Jax seemed pretty much like a lock.  Oakland looked terrible and was beat up, and while Bal isn't a great team they should've beaten the crap out of them.  And of course, NO was home, vs. a shitty team, and was the most heavily favored team of the week.  Everyone has their own strategies but mine has always been to try to evaluate future value as best as possible, and tweak as necessary when more info becomes available.  Pit had way too much future value to burn yesterday when there were other really good options.

 
But if we do better than the pool average each week, then we improve our odds each week. I get that future value matters and we need to beat thousands of people. But if we had put say 3 on Pittsburgh and 3 on Indy and had 6 of our original 22 entries left - 27% or whatever - wouldn't that actually be a very good position compared to the rest of the pool having only 10% of its entries left? I get that there would still be a long way to go and that we would have burned Indy and Pitt already but I would rather take my chances in that scenario.

 

[Stitch01]

Yes, if we knew that Miami and Baltimore were going to lose yesterday we would have been better off not picking them.

 

[tims4wins]

Yes, if we knew that Miami and Baltimore were going to lose yesterday we would have been better off not picking them.

 
Clearly that is not what I am saying.
 
I am saying the goal each week is to do better than the pool average. Glennhoff said we need to do better than beating the average. I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

 

[Stitch01]

That's sort of the crux of it though.  We picked the wrong teams.  We decided to avoid Pittsburgh and Indy for various reasons based on how they looked, who they played, future value etc. and decided not to get off New Orleans in a good matchup despite high ownership percentage.  We picked the wrong teams.
 
There's no secret strategy to winning this thing.  We try to make the right picks based on current and future EV and ownership percentage.  Having 22 entries isn't a real strategic advantage other than making us 22 times more likely to win the pool.  Results wise, diversification can work if you pick the right teams, concentrated betting can work if you pick the right teams (if we had gone 7-7-6 or whatever with Pittsburgh/NE/Arizona we'd be in great shape).  You can try and bet heavily early and get teams through so that you can diversify later.  You can diversify a lot early and then have fewer entries to pick later.   Getting knocked out in week 13 because we split everything up every week and then had to pick some 7 point underdog isn't worse than getting knocked out in week 2.  99.999% of the time we'll get knocked out at some point because we picked the wrong teams on the wrong week.
 
The discussion this week addressed present value, future value, and ownership percentage, under/overweighting teams, different scenarios of who to pick etc....in the end we just didn't pick the right teams.  I'm not losing a lot of sleep over the strategy here, we all didn't agree on the teams or how to weight the factors or anything but the discussion hit on all the key factors. 

 

[Buffalo Head]

I'd play i fthey offer a second chance pool...despite the craptastic outcome - this has been fun for me.  I've not followed the NFL very closely for years - this has given me reason to get back into it a bit and I've enjoyed it.
 
In terms of methods of trying to break up the groupthink a bit...splitting into smaller substets with different folks involved in each group is one way...or - this may be too much for Tony to manage, I dunno - but maybe have small teams for each ticket.  If you buy a whole $75 share you get to run a ticket by yourself, with groups of 2 or 3 running tickets if they bought $25 or $50 worth.  As tickets get knocked out - those folks can still opine on other tickets....then we don't get into the larger groupthink mode until later in the process when only a few tickets are left.

I second this. I said it here right after the games ended yesterday. The global discuss/vote method doesn't work.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yeah, I'm with Stitch.  I mean it would've been nice if we took Pit with a couple of entries so we could keep going.  But in the end I think we would've ended up in the same place.  I had Pit targeted for week 10 against Cleveland.  The other options that looked good at the time were Dallas at TB, which is obviously less good now, and Bal against Jax, which also looks less good now.  Plus I had Bal in week 5 against Cleveland with some pretty meh alternatives.  So in that scenario we'd be pretty stuck in week 10.  The week 2 options we used looked much better.  It just didn't work out.

 

[tims4wins]

This is what I meant when I view this fundamentally differently from a few others on here. I get looking at future value but week 10 is a long ways away and things change in the NFL in a cocaine heartbeat.
 
Also in week 10 GB hosts Detroit, the Rams host a horrible Bears team, Cincy hosts what looks to be a bad Houston team... etc. The comment of "having to pick a 7 point underdog" by stitch just isn't reality IMO
 
Edit: in today's NFL, where the preseason doesn't really exist any more, I am of the opinion that it takes several weeks to figure out who is truly good and who is truly bad, which is why I advocate diversifying early.
 
I also disagree with stitch that having 22 entries doesn't give us an advantage. I would imagine that most people in the pool have 1-2 entries so they do not have the ability to diversify. They have to go with either the best bet for the week or maybe the second or third best based on future value. Whereas with 22 we have the luxury of splitting picks

 

[Buffalo Head]

No one is arguing we picked the wrong teams. But with 22 entries, limiting to three teams was just dumb. I'm sorry. It was. Tims is exactly right. Having 22 entries means you diversify and risk losing 2-3 sheets a week as insurance against a scenario like yesterday. If we averaged losing two sheets a week, we'd have still been alive in Week 10. I would absolutely have signed on for that outcome. There was no logical reason not to throw a couple sheets on Pittsburgh yesterday, especially considering people explicitly voted for them.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

In terms of methods of trying to break up the groupthink a bit...splitting into smaller substets with different folks involved in each group is one way...or - this may be too much for Tony to manage, I dunno - but maybe have small teams for each ticket.  If you buy a whole $75 share you get to run a ticket by yourself, with groups of 2 or 3 running tickets if they bought $25 or $50 worth.  As tickets get knocked out - those folks can still opine on other tickets....then we don't get into the larger groupthink mode until later in the process when only a few tickets are left.

 
I don't think that breaking our entries into that many votes would be a good idea because if you only have one vote, you're really locked into taking the favorite.  For example, people with one ticket should voted for NO; in that case, we would have all 21 entries on NO. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I also disagree with stitch that having 22 entries doesn't give us an advantage. I would imagine that most people in the pool have 1-2 entries so they do not have the ability to diversify. They have to go with either the best bet for the week or maybe the second or third best based on future value. Whereas with 22 we have the luxury of splitting picks

 
I would doubt that most people only have one or two entries.  Look at the guy who picked TB in week 1 for example.
 

No one is arguing we picked the wrong teams. But with 22 entries, limiting to three teams was just dumb. I'm sorry. It was. Tims is exactly right. Having 22 entries means you diversify and risk losing 2-3 sheets a week as insurance against a scenario like yesterday. If we averaged losing two sheets a week, we'd have still been alive in Week 10. I would absolutely have signed on for that outcome. There was no logical reason not to throw a couple sheets on Pittsburgh yesterday, especially considering people explicitly voted for them.

 
Look, if you spread 'em out and the favorites win, we're going to be in a slow bleed where the majority of the pool hasn't lost a pick but we've lost 50+%.  The only time it's right to diversify is when you know the favorites are going to lose - otherwise, statistically, you're going to be losing pick on games with "lower" odds of victory (ignoring for the moment KFP's point about ignoring odds completely).
 
Look back, for example, last year, when we picked three teams with 8 entries.
 
My larger point is that it's hard to know when diversification works and when it doesn't - so maybe it's best to employ BOTH strategies.  At the very least, i think we need to come at the strategic part in a different way than just consensus voting.

 

[Buffalo Head]

 
I don't think that breaking our entries into that many votes would be a good idea because if you only have one vote, you're really locked into taking the favorite.  For example, people with one ticket should voted for NO; in that case, we would have all 21 entries on NO. 

Except that I would have taken Pittsburgh and KFP would have likely taken Arizona. That's two right there. Maybe others would have done similar but are afraid to voice an opinion in this thread because there's a herd/bully mentality that takes over and leads to all chalk entries, because anything outside the box gets shouted down. 

 

[tims4wins]

 
I would doubt that most people only have one or two entries.  Look at the guy who picked TB in week 1 for example.
 
 
Look, if you spread 'em out and the favorites win, we're going to be in a slow bleed where the majority of the pool hasn't lost a pick but we've lost 50+%.  The only time it's right to diversify is when you know the favorites are going to lose - otherwise, statistically, you're going to be losing pick on games with "lower" odds of victory (ignoring for the moment KFP's point about ignoring odds completely).
 
Look back, for example, last year, when we picked three teams with 8 entries.
 
My larger point is that it's hard to know when diversification works and when it doesn't - so maybe it's best to employ BOTH strategies.  At the very least, i think we need to come at the strategic part in a different way than just consensus voting.

 
Well we did better than the pool in week 1 and if we had used a few on Pitt like a lot of us wanted then we might have done better than the pool in week 2 as well. You can't just throw out a blanket comment like that.

 

[glennhoffmania]

There's no heard mentality or bullying.  Everyone's votes were counted and respected.  Tony put together a bunch of reasonable scenarios based on almost a week's worth of discussion and anyone who was paying attention could've voted for their preference.  Personally I changed my position because some other people made good points that convinced me, but I wasn't bullied into it.

 

[Stitch01]

Yeah I didn't see that, but if others did we should work to make sure its more open.  The only way to assure you get the picks that you want is to buy your own ticket, everything with a group is going to be a compromise.

 

[edmunddantes]

I must have missed the shouting down or bullying going on.
 
I had 2 shares, and I stayed silent for the most part.
 
Thankfully I used some of the knowledge from this board to talk myself off of St Louis and onto Pittsburgh.
 
I felt like there was a pretty good discussion that went on here, and other than maybe taking 1 or 2 picks to take flyers on teams to avoid the complete wipeout. The strategy was fairly decent. (Other than my noted disqust for NO purely based upon them gakking last year in the same spot and knocking me out of my private pool).
 
Maybe the goal is to go for 2-3 strong plays with 1 or 2 flyers in the early weeks to avoid the complete wipeout, but that could easily get you killed in the right week so not sure it really solves the problem. 

 

[tims4wins]

Not so much herd / bullying, but the vote on Sunday morning was definitely skewed. There was a lot of support for Pittsburgh in this thread. We went to bed on Saturday thinking the vote % was going to be used for allocation and that changed Sunday morning.
 
Also, to WBCD's point about the slow bleed, it is not like we were advocating taking flyers on more iffy games - even Arizona at Chicago and Carolina vs. Houston did not garner much support. I agree with the point that we shouldn't just be throwing away entries or trying to "sneak" through some bad teams. But the games we are talking about here are Pittsburgh at home on 10 days rest vs. a likely bad team flying west to east after playing on MNF and an Indy team that has been to the divisional round or beyond back to back years at home against a team with a 5-11 pythag the last two years. If anything those were better plays than NO, Baltimore, or Miami.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Well we did better than the pool in week 1 and if we had used a few on Pitt like a lot of us wanted then we might have done better than the pool in week 2 as well. You can't just throw out a blanket comment like that.

 
Week 1 was a really unusual week.  I think we all agree week 2 is as well.
 
Look - I'm not saying diversifying isn't a good strategy on occasions.  My larger macro point is that on a theoretical basis, if we diversify and the favorites win, then we will likely be doing less well than the average. 
 
However, I think (hope) you know that I respect your opinions and you absolutely turned out to be right this time through.  So if you have $25 bucks to spare, join the second chance pool (if there is one); maybe you and BH and whoever else shares your thoughts can be in charge on 1/2 of the picks and GHM and whoever else shares his philosophy can be in charge of the other half and that way we'll have both strategies (hopefully) covered.
 
Whatever way we work the next pool, I think the one thing we cannot do is simply take a consensus from everyone.  That seems to be a proven loser.

 

[johnmd20]

I didn't do this but yesterday was just a tough day. That happens. The only thing I would say is that "future value" of a team should generally be ignored in a survivor pool. It's about advancing, not worrying about Week 8.
 
I would be interested in joining the group for a second chance possibility. I don't even care who gets picked, Survivor pools are just fun to be involved in. Yesterday was simply a brutal one. NO was really a shock.

 

[tims4wins]

 
Week 1 was a really unusual week.  I think we all agree week 2 is as well.
 
Look - I'm not saying diversifying isn't a good strategy on occasions.  My larger macro point is that on a theoretical basis, if we diversify and the favorites win, then we will likely be doing less well than the average. 
 
However, I think (hope) you know that I respect your opinions and you absolutely turned out to be right this time through.  So if you have $25 bucks to spare, join the second chance pool (if there is one); maybe you and BH and whoever else shares your thoughts can be in charge on 1/2 of the picks and GHM and whoever else shares his philosophy can be in charge of the other half and that way we'll have both strategies (hopefully) covered.
 
Whatever way we work the next pool, I think the one thing we cannot do is simply take a consensus from everyone.  That seems to be a proven loser.

 
I appreciate the sentiment - thank you for that. Means a lot.
 
I am trying to understand your point about the favorites. The thing about the NFL is that usually something weird does happen. Week 1 was almost weird in that something weird didn't happen. It looked like the hardest survivor week ever and then we got 21 of 22 through. There is always an upset. Any given Sunday yadda yadda. I think we all had teams we were "scared" of this week but somehow being scared of Pitt and Indy won out over being scared of the other 3 teams that lost.

 

[edmunddantes]

What was scaring you about NO, Bal, or Mia going into last week?
 
Or are you simply arguing too much was put into their baskets?

 

[amarshal2]

I don't think you guys can blame yourselves for yesterday.  That was a totally wild day that I don't think anybody could have seen coming.  
 
The problem you face is that by involving lots of people in a consensus based approach with no leader or differentiating strategy is that you're not going to be able to think differently. By adding in lots of voices you're just going to reflect the market.  There are two ways to win this type of thing.  
 
1. Find a strategy that takes advantage of the collective intelligence of the people involved.  This strategy is definitely not voting on the top 3 teams to place bets on.  I don't know what the strategy is, I just know it's not that.
2. Go for some high-variance, non-consensus picks and get lucky.  This doesn't require lots of people.  This requires only one or two people making decisions and either a) getting really lucky or b) actually being better than everyone else.  (I think it's much more likely to be A than B -- if you actually have talent you should be a pro gambler.)
 
In any situation where you're hoping for B, that lucky/talented person is going to get shouted down if you're just voting for the top 3.  It's a guarantee.
 
Maybe a potential system can have some way of dividing your picks among the safe/smart bet every week and then forcing yourselves to pick X% of your games on 1-2 risky bets.  You can have people submit their arguments for the risky bets (as defined by spreads or whatever) and you can vote on which of the risky bets you collectively think is the best one to make.  It's probably not a winning strategy but it's better than just picking the consensus.
 
Edit: at the very least this strategy will probably keep you guys around longer (just by virtue of betting more teams) which is maybe more than half the point (the entertainment value).

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
I appreciate the sentiment - thank you for that. Means a lot.
 
I am trying to understand your point about the favorites. The thing about the NFL is that usually something weird does happen. Week 1 was almost weird in that something weird didn't happen. It looked like the hardest survivor week ever and then we got 21 of 22 through. There is always an upset. Any given Sunday yadda yadda. I think we all had teams we were "scared" of this week but somehow being scared of Pitt and Indy won out over being scared of the other 3 teams that lost.

 
OK.  Take a look at 2013 week 1.  http://www.survivorgrid.com/2013/1
 
IND (-11) v. OAK was picked by 41% of the pool.  NE (-10) @ BUF was picked by 18% of the pool.  The next two were PIT (-6) v TEN and TB (-4) @ NYJ, picked by approximately 8% each.
 
Without going back and looking at the games, the right move would have been to put 1/2 on NE and 1/2 on IND.  If we had diversified to PIT and TB, both of whom were lost - even if we had 2 picks each - we would have lost almost 1/4 of our picks, which would have put us behind the average pool.
 
In 2012, the top 3 picks won, and the fourth pick (picked by 5.3% of the pool) lost.
 
The math goes something like this.  If you want the highest chances of getting all 21 picks through, you should only bet on one game.  If you want the highest chance of getting 1 pick through, you should bet on all 16 games.  The more teams you bet on, the less likely you will get all 21 picks through but the more likely you will get some picks through.  It's really a trade-off.  The question is which trade-off do we want.  There is no right answer to this, but obviously people have different philosophies when it comes to this, which is why this week was such a clusterbomb in terms of voting.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

This is what I meant when I view this fundamentally differently from a few others on here. I get looking at future value but week 10 is a long ways away and things change in the NFL in a cocaine heartbeat.
 
Also in week 10 GB hosts Detroit, the Rams host a horrible Bears team, Cincy hosts what looks to be a bad Houston team... etc. The comment of "having to pick a 7 point underdog" by stitch just isn't reality IMO
 
Edit: in today's NFL, where the preseason doesn't really exist any more, I am of the opinion that it takes several weeks to figure out who is truly good and who is truly bad, which is why I advocate diversifying early.
 
I also disagree with stitch that having 22 entries doesn't give us an advantage. I would imagine that most people in the pool have 1-2 entries so they do not have the ability to diversify. They have to go with either the best bet for the week or maybe the second or third best based on future value. Whereas with 22 we have the luxury of splitting picks

Oh. NOW they're horrible.

 

[tims4wins]

Oh. NOW they're horrible.

 
Realize you are sorta kidding but home game vs. road game..

 

[tims4wins]

What was scaring you about NO, Bal, or Mia going into last week?
 
Or are you simply arguing too much was put into their baskets?

 
NO: the fact that last year Tampa should have beat them, as well as the fact that last year they lost at home by 40+ to Atlanta and then went into Pittsburgh the following week and won, and the fact that NO had lost 5 straight home games coming in. I wouldn't say I was extremely scared about this game, I just definitely wanted to put a smaller % of picks on them than the rest of the pool
 
Balt: I had major questions about their offense, and also some questions about their D after losing Suggs. I thought Pitt was a better selection
 
Mia: they didn't play well in week 1, and have a history of inconsistency under Philbin, but I actually advocated overplaying them in week 2
 
Like I said upthread we were all wrong on multiple things this week. Ultimately it wasn't that we used picks on those teams, was that we used too many. Road games are tough.

 

[tims4wins]

 
OK.  Take a look at 2013 week 1.  http://www.survivorgrid.com/2013/1
 
IND (-11) v. OAK was picked by 41% of the pool.  NE (-10) @ BUF was picked by 18% of the pool.  The next two were PIT (-6) v TEN and TB (-4) @ NYJ, picked by approximately 8% each.
 
Without going back and looking at the games, the right move would have been to put 1/2 on NE and 1/2 on IND.  If we had diversified to PIT and TB, both of whom were lost - even if we had 2 picks each - we would have lost almost 1/4 of our picks, which would have put us behind the average pool.
 
In 2012, the top 3 picks won, and the fourth pick (picked by 5.3% of the pool) lost.
 
The math goes something like this.  If you want the highest chances of getting all 21 picks through, you should only bet on one game.  If you want the highest chance of getting 1 pick through, you should bet on all 16 games.  The more teams you bet on, the less likely you will get all 21 picks through but the more likely you will get some picks through.  It's really a trade-off.  The question is which trade-off do we want.  There is no right answer to this, but obviously people have different philosophies when it comes to this, which is why this week was such a clusterbomb in terms of voting.

 
Thanks - you laid it out nicely and I get where you are coming from now. Want to mull on this a bit more.

 

[tonyandpals]

Not so much herd / bullying, but the vote on Sunday morning was definitely skewed. There was a lot of support for Pittsburgh in this thread. We went to bed on Saturday thinking the vote % was going to be used for allocation and that changed Sunday morning.
 

 
I'd have to disagree. They had 26 out of 310 votes @ 1.7%
 
I read through all the pages of the thread in the AM and there was support for PIT, and they were in 3 of the scenarios, of which a non-PIT won out. I had to look back and see where I'd say we would just go w/ the vote, and I did find it. Honestly I went to be that night thinking I had to get some scenarios up in the AM for everyone to vote on.  Chalk that one up to fatigue.
 
In the end, it sucks. Wish I could have represented us all better here.  Not sure how to make it better for the future, but all ears.

 

[tims4wins]

 
I'd have to disagree. They had 26 out of 310 votes @ 1.7%
 
I read through all the pages of the thread in the AM and there was support for PIT, and they were in 3 of the scenarios, of which a non-PIT won out. I had to look back and see where I'd say we would just go w/ the vote, and I did find it. Honestly I went to be that night thinking I had to get some scenarios up in the AM for everyone to vote on.  Chalk that one up to fatigue.
 
In the end, it sucks. Wish I could have represented us all better here.  Not sure how to make it better for the future, but all ears.

 
Just want to be clear that in no way am I laying any blame on you for this, you put a lot into consolidating everything for us each week and it is greatly appreciated. I got my vote in on Sunday morning, others may have not.
 
Edit: also, it was clear all week that we were a house divided. We didn't even get to scenarios until Sunday morning. We tried at various times but never got any traction because opinion was all over the place

 

[glennhoffmania]

Tim, I also respect your opinion and I think about what you write.  If we all agreed on everything then this would be boring and we'd probably lose every time.  But I just want to restate this in case it's still a source of miscommunication.  I absolutely, totally, 100% agree with you that Pit was a better choice than Bal this week.  There was no question about it.  If I had to bet $1000 on one of those two games I'd pick Pit.  But that doesn't mean they were a better pick in a survivor pool.  Despite the results I still say Bal was the better pick.  Obviously you disagree but hopefully if this continues with a 2nd chance pool we can all at least identify what we disagree on (the use of future value) as opposed to stuff we all agree on (like Pit v. Bal straight up this week).

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
In the end, it sucks. Wish I could have represented us all better here.  Not sure how to make it better for the future, but all ears.

 
I agree that it sucks but I definitely do not agree that you didn't do a great job representing us.  I think the fact that we were a bit uneasy about all games; we had two competing philosophies; and I think that people went out of their way to not step on people's toes, which sort of led us to not having a consensus until late.
 
You are doing us a huge favor and doing a great job of just tabulating and entering the votes.
 
The problems we have are the ones inherent to having 40-50 strangers on an internet message board try to figure out a consensus action.  I'm also not sure how to make it better but not to beat a dead horse, I agree that we have to come up with something.
 
Particularly if there is a second chance pool.

 

[tims4wins]

Tim, I also respect your opinion and I think about what you write.  If we all agreed on everything then this would be boring and we'd probably lose every time.  But I just want to restate this in case it's still a source of miscommunication.  I absolutely, totally, 100% agree with you that Pit was a better choice than Bal this week.  There was no question about it.  If I had to bet $1000 on one of those two games I'd pick Pit.  But that doesn't mean they were a better pick in a survivor pool.  Despite the results I still say Bal was the better pick.  Obviously you disagree but hopefully if this continues with a 2nd chance pool we can all at least identify what we disagree on (the use of future value) as opposed to stuff we all agree on (like Pit v. Bal straight up this week).

 
Thanks. And the feeling is reciprocal - to you and WBCD and anyone else I have disagreed with.
 
Based on what you wrote, it sounds like the crux of our disagreement is future value. Some of us place more value on it than others. Personally I place less value on it, and I also place a higher value on avoiding road games unless necessary.
 
I think there are also two types of future value: burning a team that you may need down the road, vs. using teams that don't have much future value. In the case on Baltimore and Pittsburgh, both had future appealing home games, so I didn't understand why Baltimore was a better survivor pick than Pittsburgh given that Baltimore was on the road and Pittsburgh was home.
 
In the case of Miami, I did support using them because they had no future value and I liked their chances.
 
So maybe I lean towards not valuing future value in future weeks, but using teams that have no future value, if that makes sense.
 
This is a productive discussion, I am learning about my own thoughts and tendencies, as well as the collective yours.

 

[Buffalo Head]

Bullying was probably too strong, but contrarian, off-the-chalk suggestions are generally not given an audience. It happened to me last year and I feel like it happened this week, especially with KFP's pick of Arizona. He put it out there and was quickly rejected by the "load up on NO/MIA" crowd. He backed down because of it. I wish he hadn't.
 
Which leads me to another comment: When you have 22 (or 21) tickets, and someone in this group, which is presumably equal across the board, suggests using a team, why are we not using that team on at least one sheet? Every team that gets nominated should get a place at the table. KFP knows what he's talking about, his pick of Arizona should have been honored. The PIT picks should have been honored. Everyone here has the same goal of winning and no one is suggesting teams lightly. If we lose a sheet, we lose a sheet. But when there are (considerably) more tickets than proposed teams in a given week, everyone should have those picks represented, even if just on one sheet. Sometimes the "crazy" picks are actually good ones.*
 
 
 
*-and yes, I am still a little bitter about last year when I suggested Cleveland at home vs. Pittsburgh in Week 5 (i think) and was hooted out of the thread for even raising it ("Is this a serious suggestion?"), even though Cleveland was playing well at the time, the Steelers looked terrible and Cleveland had taken PIT to overtime in Pittsburgh in Week 1. The picks we wound up using that week crapped out and Cleveland won. It really bothered me then and the way this week unfolded reminds me of it.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Thanks. And the feeling is reciprocal - to you and WBCD and anyone else I have disagreed with.
 
Based on what you wrote, it sounds like the crux of our disagreement is future value. Some of us place more value on it than others. Personally I place less value on it, and I also place a higher value on avoiding road games unless necessary.
 
I think there are also two types of future value: burning a team that you may need down the road, vs. using teams that don't have much future value. In the case on Baltimore and Pittsburgh, both had future appealing home games, so I didn't understand why Baltimore was a better survivor pick than Pittsburgh given that Baltimore was on the road and Pittsburgh was home.
 
In the case of Miami, I did support using them because they had no future value and I liked their chances.
 
So maybe I lean towards not valuing future value in future weeks, but using teams that have no future value, if that makes sense.
 
This is a productive discussion, I am learning about my own thoughts and tendencies, as well as the collective yours.

 
Honestly I initially was against using both Bal and Pit because of future value and only using NO and Mia and maybe a third team like STL.  But when it became clear that we were going to use at least three teams I thought Pit had more future value so I'd rather burn Bal.  Basically I was totally wrong this week because I thought NO and Mia were virtual locks and we could get almost all of our entries into week 3 with a ton of flexibility for future weeks.  We could've mixed and matched Bal, Pit, AZ, Ind, NE and Den, who all have some really good matchups coming up.
 
And I get your point about future value.  I think both Mia and NO could fall into your definition since Mia had basically none and NO had one good game left but not until week 16. 
 
And BH, I see what you're saying but I don't know if the math will work.  If 50 guys share 20 entries then we all can't get our top picks.  Pooling has advantages and disadvantages.  The downside is you have to compromise, and I think everyone does to some extent.  The only way I see guaranteeing it is if we all buy and manage our own entry but agree to split any winnings with the whole group.  So you'd maintain control of one pick but you'd have a greater chance to win a smaller pot.

 

[Stitch01]

I looked back and I really didnt see any posts strongly rejecting the Arizona pick.  There was a mix of "that's an interesting thought" and "I like other games better because of X". I think I was the strongest voice in opposition so I'll take the blame there, but even I said I dont like the matchup but if others do throw it in on a sheet or two.  I guess if you buy three shares you can force one pick, but yeah, otherwise the math doesnt really work.  Best way to ensure you get the pick you want every week is to do your own  entry, otherwise everyone is going to have a thought or a pick at some point that gets rejected with 40 people or w/e pooling up.

 

[Buffalo Head]

What are you talking about? If we have 21 entries and 8 teams get nominated, you get all 8 teams on sheets as a baseline and you add more heavily-considered teams among the 13 remaining tickets. We could have still loaded up on NO/MIA/BAL yesterday and found room for ARI/PIT and any number of other teams people might have wanted represented. My point is, why are we rejecting or arguing against anyone's suggestion when there are so many entries to work with? Let everyone have their pick and own it.
 
Obviously culling the picks down to the top 3 did not and does not work.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Ok and what happens when we're down to four entries and five teams are nominated?

 

[Stitch01]

We arent really equally weighting things then, but yeah, we probably could put all teams nominated early on at least one sheet.  Its definitely going to be suboptimal in terms of winning, but since we are doing this as a group is more for fun rather than as a money making exercise and it will make it more enjoyable for everyone Im OK with that.

 

[tims4wins]

We arent really equally weighting things then, but yeah, we probably could put all teams nominated early on at least one sheet.  Its definitely going to be suboptimal in terms of winning, but since we are doing this as a group is more for fun rather than as a money making exercise and it will make it more enjoyable for everyone Im OK with that.

 
Ditto, I really enjoy these threads. I missed them when we tapped out last year, and I am going to miss them the rest of this season

 

[Buffalo Head]

Ok and what happens when we're down to four entries and five teams are nominated?

Please read what I wrote again. I said when there are more (or in this case considerably more) sheets than picked teams. 

 

[Buffalo Head]

We arent really equally weighting things then, but yeah, we probably could put all teams nominated early on at least one sheet.  Its definitely going to be suboptimal in terms of winning, but since we are doing this as a group is more for fun rather than as a money making exercise and it will make it more enjoyable for everyone Im OK with that.

As opposed to the super-optimal results we got yesterday. Do you and Glenn understand that we are eliminated and that it could have been avoided if we didn't take 21 entries and load them onto 3 teams?

 

[Stitch01]

Yes.  Sometimes when I flip a coin it comes up heads four times in a row.  Sometimes when I get aces I lose to a worse hand.  Sometimes in a survivor pool with like a zillion entries we don't win the pool.  Im not very upset about it.  Im also 100% fine with changing our process so that we put on more teams if it will make people happier, I just don't think letting anyone who wants to nominate a team put a team on there is going to increase our chances of winning the pool, that's all.  But Im fine with it.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Please read what I wrote again. I said when there are more (or in this case considerably more) sheets than picked teams. 

 
I don't understand why you're being antagonistic.  If you want to control a pick every week then you're free to enter on your own.  When you join a large group you don't have that freedom.  That's the downside of not going solo.  Sure, when there are 21 sheets left everyone could get a pick.  Then when you're down to only a few you change the whole allocation strategy?  And if in week 1 I pick Oakland at NE the other 49 guys can't veto that?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Obviously culling the picks down to the top 3 did not and does not work.

 
So I went back and checked 2014 just for fun.  In the first 13 weeks (before you had to switch to double picks), the #1 pick won 10 out of 13 times.  The number 2 pick won 11 out of 13 times.  The number 3 pick won 9 out of 13 times.
 
What's my take-away from this?  There is probably not one strategy that is going to win things other than getting lucky and figuring out which 10-point favorite isn't going to win.
 
You know upon thinking this whole thing through, our best strategy is probably to pre-pick the entire season before any of the games start.  That way we would have baseline that has nothing to do with spreads or experts or anything like that.
 
1/2 joking.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I just checked my other pool, since they don't post everyone's pick right away.  Out of 50 people 3 won yesterday and 2 have Indy.  The 3 winners were AZ, Pit and Min.  The losers were 4 Mia, 7 Bal, 1 NYG and the rest NO.  Luckily for most of us it's double elimination so most people are still alive.

 

[Dan Murfman]

I'm in two different pools one had 18 remaining in one and the other is double elimination with 17 players. In both of those the only person who didn't get one wrong is the guy who picked the Colts tonight.

 

[DJnVa]

What was scaring you about NO, Bal, or Mia going into last week?

 
Well, for NO, they had lost 5 straight home games. Last year they beat Tampa twice, once in OT and once by 3, in a game that required coming back from a 13 point 4th quarter deficit. Why is Rex Ryan's history against Brady (even though he's like 1-7 in his last 8) more relevant than NO's home troubles and tough games last year against TB? Also, NO was 7-9 last year (won only 9 of last 23 games) but seem to be still given deference they maybe don't deserve anymore. Not until they right themselves.
 
The Miami and Baltimore were defensible (although Miami required a 4th quarter punt return TD to beat Washington in week 1), but I would not have wanted to load up on both of them.
 
And saving a team until week 10 just strikes me as putting the cart 18 miles ahead of the horse.
 
My main point though is that the Saints suck and everyone should cross them off any list they have of teams to always look at until they start winning again.