Luck or not?

[baganboy]

Yes Lateriser is on podcasts sometimes and he is a very solid player - I do listen to his opinions. Martial(c) was a move that, as you say, is a volatility move. Dod also claimed, iirc, that volatility moves were often not the percentage plays. Therefore, I don't like volatility moves unless I'm close to winning FPL (so never) or enough behind a ML leader to warrant it. If Martial had gotten 11-12pts, no-one would have blinked, Lateriser was, unfortunately I'm going to say it, incredibly fortunate for the hattrick. (based on Delboy's "who dares wins"?)

How many moves can we find from LRiser (and others) of the same ilk as that Martial one that didn't pay off - no-one flags those up. However the risk/reward is perhaps what can make the game exciting. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong, having to turn to vodka on a Saturday night.

More seriously, a good example of success in this game and others: say we have 10 Laterisers playing to win FPL on the same point; there are so many mids at the moment to pick, they all pick different combos of 5. The winner will very likely be the luckiest one. That's the way this game is when judging a single season. I want to improve for next season, that's my goal, as if I get top1000, I'll have beaten many players better than me, and if I finish 900k, then I'll almost certainly have been beaten by many worse players than me. This isn't the Premier League, where luck is far more minimal, it's FPL where it has an enormous effect.

I'm going to captain Sterling this weekend. I DO NOT believe this is the percentage move - It's close but I think Fernandes(c) is - however my ML is dictating and to boot, it will be more exciting. Cue, more spirits for moi no doubt as I don't expect it to work. I'm just hoping for a Lateriser slice of 'luck'.

Excellent post - a quick mail does not do justice to your considered response. Detailed post to follow therefore.
Perhaps the most important point to understand is 'what is one's reason for playing the FPL'. - Dod had pinned his mast on 'I want to win the FPL and everything else is secondary' board, and that necessitates such high-volatility 'luck' moves. If one (like me) has more modest ambitions, (which for me has morphed to a very specific and rather arbitrary points-target of 2456 due to there being only two DGWs - details later, but you have followed my RMT, so you know my thought process here), perhaps one can take less of the high-volatility moves.

I have been keeping tabs on my score in comparison with different rank buckets (1, 100, 1k-5-10-25-50-100-250-500k) with a modicum of detail this season, and I know that from the point (GW 11) that I felt keeping tabs made sense, I was not in the race for no.1 anyway.
Helps that winning FPL was not a botheration for me.

[baganboy]

I said 'feel' deliberately because we each can have different sources, models, data etc. and none of these sources are absolute or perfect, so I didn't want to say definitively, but intuitively Sterling seems like the right choice and it's not super close as I think an extra point or so can be grinded out here.

There are also other factors like possible restings that can affect things, so Salah was one of the best options for captaincy last gameweek, if you knew for sure that he would start.

No definite xPts? Intuitive? But, but, you said...

And this is why the only true metric of who is the best FPL manager is the total number of xPts over many seasons combined, looking at individual seasons or ranks is totally pointless but I do smile when I see people care about individual season ranks,

So basically, you do not have any numbers. But you also think that your numbers should be the "only true metric of who is the best FPL manager".

PS: numbers don't have feelings mate.

[Football Hero]

I said 'feel' deliberately because we each can have different sources, models, data etc. and none of these sources are absolute or perfect, so I didn't want to say definitively, but intuitively Sterling seems like the right choice and it's not super close as I think an extra point or so can be grinded out here.

There are also other factors like possible restings that can affect things, so Salah was one of the best options for captaincy last gameweek, if you knew for sure that he would start.

No definite xPts? Intuitive? But, but, you said...

And this is why the only true metric of who is the best FPL manager is the total number of xPts over many seasons combined, looking at individual seasons or ranks is totally pointless but I do smile when I see people care about individual season ranks,

So basically, you do not have any numbers. But you also think that your numbers should be the "only true metric of who is the best FPL manager".

PS: numbers don't have feelings mate.

No, I am just not willing to give out numbers when they are not perfect, as there is no absolute true xPts is there. There is still some subjectivity involved, I thought my previous answer was clear on that.

Numbers are used for the true best FPL manager, namely the number of FPL points accumulated by that person that will be larger than all other managers FPL points over the same large period. I was assuming that xPts would converge to FPL points given enough gameweeks, but in reality only 'true' xPts would actually do that, so the metric for judgement will still be FPL points collected, but over a massive amount of gameweeks.

[baganboy]

Haah, you are just playing with us now. The below is what you sound like to me.

I have the numbers, but I will not tell you what they are.
I will tell you this though --- you are all rubbish. All of you.
My numbers told me that.

I think I would leave you to your xPts now. Cheers.

[Sutter Kane]

Perhaps the most important point to understand is 'what is one's reason for playing the FPL'.

Agree totally.

Could be decent rank, winning it, just for fun, ML, etc. With different frames of reference in mind, we all therefore have differing opinions on many aspects of FPL. You often end up having a discussion trying to argue things that others aren't even proposing...

[blahblah]

I said 'feel' deliberately because we each can have different sources, models, data etc. and none of these sources are absolute or perfect, so I didn't want to say definitively, but intuitively Sterling seems like the right choice and it's not super close as I think an extra point or so can be grinded out here.

There are also other factors like possible restings that can affect things, so Salah was one of the best options for captaincy last gameweek, if you knew for sure that he would start.

No definite xPts? Intuitive? But, but, you said...

And this is why the only true metric of who is the best FPL manager is the total number of xPts over many seasons combined, looking at individual seasons or ranks is totally pointless but I do smile when I see people care about individual season ranks,

So basically, you do not have any numbers. But you also think that your numbers should be the "only true metric of who is the best FPL manager".

PS: numbers don't have feelings mate.

Not true 9 is scared of 7 as 7 ate 9.

[Stu255]

Interestingly the player with the highest cumulative xFPL based on the xG model in all of FPL is "The Normal One (Ademir Ovcina)", his cumulative score using xG is 2,174

He is currently rank #3 OR with 2,287 pts.


If you strip out his over performance (luck), then a score of 2,174 would put him at rank 906 OR.


He has outperformed the xG model by 113 pts. Whereas most of the people in the top100 have outperformed their xG score by 200+ pts.
So whoever this guys is, he looks interesting to watch.

His recent history looks like this...

2017/18..... Rank 104
2018/19..... Rank 9524
2019/20..... Rank 3


Wow!


Is xG perfect? No.
Might the models improve a bit over the next few years? Sure.

Has this guy played the perfect xG season, or did he make some mistakes?


There are almost 2 big areas for playing FPL.

1). Accuracy of predicting performance
2). Gameplay - ability to make the best transfers / chips given your assumptions of performance.

You can be good at one and bad at the other, or good at both, or bad at both.

[blahblah]

If it were Close Season is read through the dissertations in this thread but it isn't....

Are the terms defined anywhere?

I really have no comment re Massive W(r)ank.

[Talkie Toaster]

The figures seem more sensible for me now that we're no longer in the middle of a GW:

	Points	Rank
FPL	2,030	97,679
xG	2,002.76	28,993
Odds	2,090.87	20,039
Massive	2,027.06	8,422
Luck	-3.86	47%

Which I'm reading as I've been picking teams which would be expected to perform well enough for a top 20k rank. Luck hasn't really affected the results, but the lower xG ranking suggests my players are underperforming somewhat in the actual matches, and then I've been overtaken by about 65,000 teams that were either overperforming or just plain luckier than me.

Not that I'm bitter about it or anything.

[baganboy]

There are almost 2 big areas for playing FPL.

1). Accuracy of predicting performance
2). Gameplay - ability to make the best transfers / chips given your assumptions of performance.

You can be good at one and bad at the other, or good at both, or bad at both.

Good catch for this FPL manager Stu, and I agree with the above what you mention...

[baganboy]

Not true 9 is scared of 7 as 7 ate 9.

Haha nice

[blahblah]

Not true 9 is scared of 7 as 7 ate 9.

Haha nice

Not for 9

[baganboy]

Perhaps the most important point to understand is 'what is one's reason for playing the FPL'.

Agree totally.

Could be decent rank, winning it, just for fun, ML, etc. With different frames of reference in mind, we all therefore have differing opinions on many aspects of FPL. You often end up having a discussion trying to argue things that others aren't even proposing...

Oh yes! Super true, and I cannot say I have not been the one to blame at times too

[baganboy]

Not true 9 is scared of 7 as 7 ate 9.

Haha nice

Not for 9

[Football Hero]

What is this 'Elite 1k Managers' that it talks about? EV-wise I am beating most from this 'elite' group. Am I really that good? I am sceptical.

I'm guessing this is Villa Ronke and managers of his ilk?

[baganboy]

Antonio IS luck.

[hancockjr]

Antonio IS luck.

Tell that to Magnus Carlsson

[blahblah]

Antonio IS luck.

Playing any CF vs Narwich is a strategy?

[Sutter Kane]

Antonio IS luck.

Tell that to Magnus Carlsson

...who got rid of KDB for Sterling. A small part of me thinks he's trying to win FPL as well as chess, and will retire from FPL immediately if he wins. Well I have Sterling(c) so expecting a huge fail for Magnus there. Volatile moves by him or what!

On the topic of the thread though, insane amount of points for Antonio, that FPL result must have been about 10000 to 1 odds. 8 points, yes - even 11, but 26 is ML defining at least. This is what I was talking about with some imaginary top players going for the win with different midfield combos ...and the one with Antonio wins...

Come on Blah, a good pick but that's all, not a 26 point pick. That's where the fortune comes in.

[Sutter Kane]

This game rewards and punishes disproportionately from time to time. You can buy a lottery ticket every week, and not win every week.

[blahblah]

Well yes to the scale, but not a total leftfield choice with the "main man" vs Narwich. That sort of thing has been mentioned loads on here, but I don't know of any who have done it.

TAA being rested was no great surprise? Thankfully Lpool conceded when he came on and bar Robbo they blanked...

[Gambit]

My luck rank was minus 11%!

Was almost in the top 5k a few weeks back, now nearer 50k, game keeps kicking me in the b0llock5!

[Football Hero]

This game rewards and punishes disproportionately from time to time. You can buy a lottery ticket every week, and not win every week.

From time to time? You mean like week to week?

[Football Hero]

Well yes to the scale, but not a total leftfield choice with the "main man" vs Narwich. That sort of thing has been mentioned loads on here, but I don't know of any who have done it.

TAA being rested was no great surprise? Thankfully Lpool conceded when he came on and bar Robbo they blanked...

You have a habit of putting question marks when it seems like you're trying to make a statement. This gives the impression that you are perpetually unsure of yourself.

[blahblah]

Well yes to the scale, but not a total leftfield choice with the "main man" vs Narwich. That sort of thing has been mentioned loads on here, but I don't know of any who have done it.

TAA being rested was no great surprise? Thankfully Lpool conceded when he came on and bar Robbo they blanked...

You have a habit of putting question marks when it seems like you're trying to make a statement. This gives the impression that you are perpetually unsure of yourself.

Nope, just asking questions.

[Bixer]

Because that's literally what the entirety of the game is based upon. And I don't just mean FPL either, I mean football itself. We don't pick and choose when one season ends and another begins, the football calendar does.

I know luck doesn't even itself out over 38 games, but with your logic, Liverpool were fools to celebrate winning the league this year as it doesn't really count and instead they should only be concerned about an arbitrary hypothetical league based on multiple seasons worth of points/games. That's not how trophies are won.


To each their own, but I think you've completely lost sight of the game (it is only a game after all) if you don't think the standings after GW38 are even worth acknowledgement.


EDIT: Replied to this before reading the rest of the thread, but yeah 'no eye deer' has essentially summed up all my thoughts already.

You are yet another person that is talking in real life Premier League terms and not FPL terms. Liverpool can celebrate their title over 38 games because while there is some luck that affects real teams over that period, they are also in a position to directly affect the outcome of their matches by playing better, something which is not in the FPL manager's control as we do not directly affect any outcomes, so wins and silverware that is handed out to real life teams can be celebrated by them.

However FPL is more about making the most +EV decisions and this requries variance to even out, for the best FPL managers to achieve victory over the merely very good FPL managers, and this affect will only become apparent by looking over large samples of gameweeks, not small samples of gameweeks such as 25 or 38 or 47 gameweeks. Then when that large sample has occurred, the best FPL managers can then celebrate their victory over the very good FPL managers.

I think we fundamentally disagree as you’re separating the two (real football and fpl) when I don’t think they’re that different at all.

Luck is a fundamental part of this game and if you’re trying to dampen that aspect then you’re trying to play a different game. We have the same amount of ‘control’ over our own FPL seasons as every other FPL manager, therefore it’s as level a playing field as the real game and us competing against 7,500,000 other FPL managers is arguably no different to Liverpool competing against 19 other Premier League teams - we all start from 0 in GW1 and it’s the decisions we make along the way that determine where we are in GW38. That’s the game - your decisions are your control.

Teams like Liverpool and United will acknowledge a longer term competition over who has the most Premier League titles, but any one season isn’t then seen as irrelevant because the other club still has more titles overall. Just like no one will think Leicester are as big a club as either of those two just because they won it once in 2016, but that doesn’t then lessen that achievement. I don’t see how that’s any different to an FPL manager rightfully celebrating a good season, as opposed to thinking ‘Well I finished 500k for the last 3 seasons so this doesn’t really count’.

The game of football itself is inherently luck based because it’s a low scoring game with fine margins where the best team doesn’t always win. But then basketball for example much less so because it’s much higher scoring and so the better team on the day tends to win more often. So where do you draw the line? Should football teams not celebrate their success as much as basketball teams because they aren’t in as much control of it? No. I know FPL is based on the game of football, but like football and like basketball it’s its own game, so why can you celebrate success in other games but not FPL? Where is the luck vs. control line from game to game drawn?

Basically, I don’t understand your logic that in one game played within its own rules and boundaries it’s okay to celebrate success, but in another it’s not.

[Football Hero]

I think we fundamentally disagree as you’re separating the two (real football and fpl) when I don’t think they’re that different at all.

Luck is a fundamental part of this game and if you’re trying to dampen that aspect then you’re trying to play a different game. We have the same amount of ‘control’ over our own FPL seasons as every other FPL manager, therefore it’s as level a playing field as the real game and us competing against 7,500,000 other FPL managers is arguably no different to Liverpool competing against 19 other Premier League teams - we all start from 0 in GW1 and it’s the decisions we make along the way that determine where we are in GW38. That’s the game - your decisions are your control.

Teams like Liverpool and United will acknowledge a longer term competition over who has the most Premier League titles, but any one season isn’t then seen as irrelevant because the other club still has more titles overall. Just like no one will think Leicester are as big a club as either of those two just because they won it once in 2016, but that doesn’t then lessen that achievement. I don’t see how that’s any different to an FPL manager rightfully celebrating a good season, as opposed to thinking ‘Well I finished 500k for the last 3 seasons so this doesn’t really count’.

The game of football itself is inherently luck based because it’s a low scoring game with fine margins where the best team doesn’t always win. But then basketball for example much less so because it’s much higher scoring and so the better team on the day tends to win more often. So where do you draw the line? Should football teams not celebrate their success as much as basketball teams because they aren’t in as much control of it? No. I know FPL is based on the game of football, but like football and like basketball it’s its own game, so why can you celebrate success in other games but not FPL? Where is the luck vs. control line from game to game drawn?

Basically, I don’t understand your logic that in one game played within its own rules and boundaries it’s okay to celebrate success, but in another it’s not.

No.

There is no point celebrating success in one season when you can't get anywhere near to repeating it in other seasons, it just means that you ran super lucky in that season and that it was an outlier.

Like Sutter Kane said, he respects managers that consistently finish fairly high, as opposed to a manager with one or two extremely good seasons and a load of mediocre or outright bad seasons. I completely agree with him, as the manager that consistently finishes fairly high will have a far higher FPL points total over say 10 seasons, than the lucky and inconsistent manager.

Take this example: you could have a particular mini league where from GW1 to GW6 in season 1, a manager scores poorly, then from GW7 in season 1 all the way through to GW33 of season 2 he scores the most points of all the managers in that mini league, (that's right, a 65 gameweek consecutive streak of being the best), but then from GW34 to GW38 in season 2 he scores poorly again.

As a result of the small poor runs he doesn't win the mini league in either season 1 or season 2, but instead places 2nd in one season and 3rd in the other. He comfortably scores the most points of all managers in that mini league when you combine both seasons together, he's also proven that he can be the best for a period of well over 38 gameweeks in a row, (as he was the best for 65 consecutive weeks), but he has no mini league titles. In my mind he would appear to be the best manager in this mini league as he comfortably out-pointed everyone else over the still small sample of 76 gameweeks, but according to you he has nothing to celebrate in either of the seasons as he didn't win anything and was not the best over two particular runs of 38 gameweeks. Therefore you would suggest that he should change his strategy to a more 'winning' style, whereas myself and Sutter Kane would advise him to keep on doing exactly what he's already doing as it is so effective.

[Bixer]

As for your first paragraph - how is that any different to when Leicester won the league in 2016? They were in a relegation scrap shortly thereafter and had to sack Ranieri. Was their title not worthy of celebration as it was clearly only ever going to be a one off?

As for your second, I completely and utterly agree, but that’s irrelevant as that’s not what we’re debating. We’re not talking about the level of long-term respect an FPL manager deserves, nor whose opinion we would be more inclined to listen to.

As for your examples, again you’re creating your own arbitrary bookends that don’t exist. If that FPL manager doesn’t win at the end of GW38 then that’s his tough luck, as GW38 is the point at which the tables are halted and reset. It’s the same as when they occasionally create hypothetical tables based on that particular calendar year only and how often the team at the top didn’t actually win the last title. Again, that’s irrelevant as the way the table looks in May is all that matters, not December.

The game begins in GW1 and ends in GW38. Those are the rules of the game and they’re not for you or I to change. One FPL manager with a good run across two seasons can claim the moral high ground all they like, again it’s who’s top in GW38 that actually matters on your record - hence why that’s the only record you can see in your ‘Gameweek History’. There’s no ‘But look at this great run they had in the middle of the season!’ section. The best advice you could give to that hypothetical manager would of course be to keep doing what they’re doing as it will inevitably provide results eventually, but that doesn’t change the fact that they still lost that season.

Also as a side note - who’s place is it to say that any FPL manager simply got lucky that season, as opposed to making mostly good decisions based on how that season was unfolding? Just because they can’t repeat that level again, doesn’t mean anyone can claim to what extent they did or didn’t know what they were doing.

It’s arguably sheer arrogance to assume you’re still ‘better’ than another based only on your history, as for that particular season no, they were better than you across those 38 GWs no matter which way you look at it. Whether you’ll then go on to be better than them next season is similarly irrelevant as for that season - you still weren’t.

Again, you don’t get to choose the bookends, they’re the same for all of us every year whether you like that or not.

[Football Hero]

As for your first paragraph - how is that any different to when Leicester won the league in 2016? They were in a relegation scrap shortly thereafter and had to sack Ranieri. Was their title not worthy of celebration as it was clearly only ever going to be a one off?

As for your second, I completely and utterly agree, but that’s irrelevant as that’s not what we’re debating. We’re not talking about the level of long-term respect an FPL manager deserves, nor whose opinion we would be more inclined to listen to.

As for your examples, again you’re creating your own arbitrary bookends that don’t exist. If that FPL manager doesn’t win at the end of GW38 then that’s his tough luck, as GW38 is the point at which the tables are halted and reset. It’s the same as when they occasionally create hypothetical tables based on that particular calendar year only and how often the team at the top didn’t actually win the last title. Again, that’s irrelevant as the way the table looks in May is all that matters, not December.

The game begins in GW1 and ends in GW38. Those are the rules of the game and they’re not for you or I to change. One FPL manager with a good run across two seasons can claim the moral high ground all they like, again it’s who’s top in GW38 that actually matters on your record - hence why that’s the only record you can see in your ‘Gameweek History’. There’s no ‘But look at this great run they had in the middle of the season!’ section. The best advice you could give to that hypothetical manager would of course be to keep doing what they’re doing as it will inevitably provide results eventually, but that doesn’t change the fact that they still lost that season.

Also as a side note - who’s place is it to say that any FPL manager simply got lucky that season, as opposed to making mostly good decisions based on how that season was unfolding? Just because they can’t repeat that level again, doesn’t mean anyone can claim to what extent they did or didn’t know what they were doing.

It’s arguably sheer arrogance to assume you’re still ‘better’ than another based only on your history, as for that particular season no, they were better than you across those 38 GWs no matter which way you look at it. Whether you’ll then go on to be better than them next season is similarly irrelevant as for that season - you still weren’t.

Again, you don’t get to choose the bookends, they’re the same for all of us every year whether you like that or not.

Stop bringing up real life Premier League examples, I've already covered how that is different due to the direct effect that the participants have on their own outcomes. Stick only to FPL examples like I am doing.

Everyone's goal in FPL is to maximise the FPL points they get by applying their own unique strategy to the game. Whether consciously or unconsciously, everyone has a strategy that they gradually tweak and change as they try to improve. So if a player has the most FPL points over many hundreds of gameweeks, and the FPL scoring system has been fairly consistent over that time, and the players being compared over that time have had teams set up through the entire duration of that sample, then the manager with the most FPL points has the more effective strategy, and they are therefore better at the game. They may have never won a mini league in their life, but if they have the most points by a reasonably clear margin, then they are top dog.

How else do you think Villa Ronke and co. have been discoverd and revered in the past? Because of great performances over a larger sample size than just random isolated seasons. Villa Ronke never won the overall FPL league once. The managers that know FPL properly understand this concept, but the ones that don't, don't. Maybe one could argue that I don't understand FPL properly because if I did, I should be able to teach a 5 year old what I am trying to teach here, and since you are older than 5 I should easily be able to teach this to you too. However I think there are special cases where certain adults can be so bullheaded and stubborn in their beliefs that they are just not open to listening and so those particular people can not be taught this, and it is not necessarily a fault of the teacher who is using clear to understand examples and logic which I feel I am using.

Maybe someone else that is smarter than I can help explain all this to Bixer?

[blahblah]

Erm, some of us just play for a laugh