Log in:  

Register

The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

Come in and talk about betting, computer games and cycling simulations, and your office's or online fantasy cycling leagues.

Moderators: Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

24 Dec 2016 01:50

Last year I made the mistake of overlooking European pro-continental/ continental teams who had riders who excelled, this year I'm trying to change that but am probably only feeling a connection to riders due to feeling and youth, not by knowledge (which can work out sometimes).
greenedge
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,547
Joined: 27 Mar 2011 04:23

Re: Re:

24 Dec 2016 03:04

Jancouver wrote:
Kazistuta wrote:Seriously, do you have trust issues?

I think your phrasing is respectful, but the substance isn't.

How far along is your team? Have you submitted yet? If not, why so?

I think I have around 10 open spots (have a prelim team) and will wait between Christmas and New Year to decide for the last ones. Still need to plough through some cycling pages though.



I don't have a trust issues and all this started when I mentioned to someone that I don't take Skidmark's team seriously because he got access to all the teams. Very simple.

This year, he could avoid this by submitting his team prior to the official start of the game but he again chose to pick 25 riders and is planning to add the rest based on what he sees around.

Look, I'm not taking away his skills and I'm regretful for all his work but the way he goes around submitting his team, I simply have to put a big asterisk next to his name, same as all those late submissions.

As per my team, it has been the same for about a week and only have four riders (different price levels) ready to swap a (single) rider in case of an injury, doping etc. otherwise I'm not planning on making any changes.

EDIT: I just sent my team to Brullnux as well and I will not make any changes unless there is major reason for that (injury etc)


Cool, whatevs. It's about 20 riders for the last 7 slots, as Brullnux said, all low-cost, low-gain. I just haven't decided what configuration I want. I also identified a few replacements for one expensive rider on my team should anything change in the last week. Either way, I've won the game twice and am hosting it, if people want me to be held to a higher standard because of it that's cool. I'll send the final team to Brullnux tomorrow; I still have 4 submissions - do you feel like that is too many and I would be influenced by them? If so, there's nothing I can really do to satisfy your skepticism. But really, for me it's just a matter of having the time to put together a team rather than anything else. I don't really care about finalizing a team 'early', that has never been the issue, I just spend a ton of time working on my team so it's hard to find the time to get it done super early. I tried extra hard this year though, so I'm close. I'll do it tomorrow.

Just want to address this comment:

This year, he could avoid this by submitting his team prior to the official start of the game but he again chose to pick 25 riders and is planning to add the rest based on what he sees around.

Why do you think you know what my motivation is? It seems like in order to reach that conclusion you'd have to be reverse engineering an argument of 'he's done well at this game and has access to riders; therefore he must use that access to the riders to do well at the game". How do you explain me winning in 2012 and having the 2nd most popular team, before I even had access to any of the teams submitted? I feel like I've been as open as I can about the fact that I couldn't care less about who other people select. I'm not sure how I can submit a team 'before' the game if I have to wait to see who submits a team before I can send it to them. Brullnux sent the first team, I asked if I could send mine, he said yes, I sent it, and I had four entries at that time (they all came in the same day). Perhaps next year we could find a non-game participant to agree early to receive my team; I just never took that step because I didn't fathom that someone might take it that seriously. It sounds like what you're saying is that any amount of flexibility allows me to gain some kind of advantage, which I also didn't imagine was the issue, so I'll address that best I can by finalizing asap.

Like I said, I'll submit my final team (save for changes based on injury/suspension info) tomorrow. Then, when the teams are published, I'll post all the riders who were on my shortlist and people can see the ones that I chose (when there were four entries) and the ones I didn't choose. (I feel like it will be clear that any of the most popular riders are ones I've already chosen for certain on my team, as I'd imagine the last ones I pick will not be obvious picks in anyone's mind) Transparency is fine, this doesn't have to be an opaque process. If for some reason you think I'm lying about how many teams I have received, I have received teams from Brullnux, Polliwop, Martin, and Hakkie2. If I'm somehow running a mysterious information-gathering racket, anyone other than these people who have submitted teams can expose me as a fraud right here in this thread.

If you or anyone has any other ideas on how I can be more clear or transparent that I'm not using my position in running this game to gain any advantage, I'm open to hearing them.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,523
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

Re: Re:

24 Dec 2016 05:14

skidmark wrote:
Jancouver wrote:
Kazistuta wrote:Seriously, do you have trust issues?

I think your phrasing is respectful, but the substance isn't.

How far along is your team? Have you submitted yet? If not, why so?

I think I have around 10 open spots (have a prelim team) and will wait between Christmas and New Year to decide for the last ones. Still need to plough through some cycling pages though.



I don't have a trust issues and all this started when I mentioned to someone that I don't take Skidmark's team seriously because he got access to all the teams. Very simple.

This year, he could avoid this by submitting his team prior to the official start of the game but he again chose to pick 25 riders and is planning to add the rest based on what he sees around.

Look, I'm not taking away his skills and I'm regretful for all his work but the way he goes around submitting his team, I simply have to put a big asterisk next to his name, same as all those late submissions.

As per my team, it has been the same for about a week and only have four riders (different price levels) ready to swap a (single) rider in case of an injury, doping etc. otherwise I'm not planning on making any changes.

EDIT: I just sent my team to Brullnux as well and I will not make any changes unless there is major reason for that (injury etc)


Cool, whatevs. It's about 20 riders for the last 7 slots, as Brullnux said, all low-cost, low-gain. I just haven't decided what configuration I want. I also identified a few replacements for one expensive rider on my team should anything change in the last week. Either way, I've won the game twice and am hosting it, if people want me to be held to a higher standard because of it that's cool. I'll send the final team to Brullnux tomorrow; I still have 4 submissions - do you feel like that is too many and I would be influenced by them? If so, there's nothing I can really do to satisfy your skepticism. But really, for me it's just a matter of having the time to put together a team rather than anything else. I don't really care about finalizing a team 'early', that has never been the issue, I just spend a ton of time working on my team so it's hard to find the time to get it done super early. I tried extra hard this year though, so I'm close. I'll do it tomorrow.

Just want to address this comment:

This year, he could avoid this by submitting his team prior to the official start of the game but he again chose to pick 25 riders and is planning to add the rest based on what he sees around.

Why do you think you know what my motivation is? It seems like in order to reach that conclusion you'd have to be reverse engineering an argument of 'he's done well at this game and has access to riders; therefore he must use that access to the riders to do well at the game". How do you explain me winning in 2012 and having the 2nd most popular team, before I even had access to any of the teams submitted? I feel like I've been as open as I can about the fact that I couldn't care less about who other people select. I'm not sure how I can submit a team 'before' the game if I have to wait to see who submits a team before I can send it to them. Brullnux sent the first team, I asked if I could send mine, he said yes, I sent it, and I had four entries at that time (they all came in the same day). Perhaps next year we could find a non-game participant to agree early to receive my team; I just never took that step because I didn't fathom that someone might take it that seriously. It sounds like what you're saying is that any amount of flexibility allows me to gain some kind of advantage, which I also didn't imagine was the issue, so I'll address that best I can by finalizing asap.

Like I said, I'll submit my final team (save for changes based on injury/suspension info) tomorrow. Then, when the teams are published, I'll post all the riders who were on my shortlist and people can see the ones that I chose (when there were four entries) and the ones I didn't choose. (I feel like it will be clear that any of the most popular riders are ones I've already chosen for certain on my team, as I'd imagine the last ones I pick will not be obvious picks in anyone's mind) Transparency is fine, this doesn't have to be an opaque process. If for some reason you think I'm lying about how many teams I have received, I have received teams from Brullnux, Polliwop, Martin, and Hakkie2. If I'm somehow running a mysterious information-gathering racket, anyone other than these people who have submitted teams can expose me as a fraud right here in this thread.

If you or anyone has any other ideas on how I can be more clear or transparent that I'm not using my position in running this game to gain any advantage, I'm open to hearing them.


Thanks for running this game Skidmark. I know it's a lot of work starting it each year, getting all the teams in order, putting out weekly updates throughout the whole year, wrapping the game up each year, and then starting all over again. We all appreciate the work you put into this. I think it's safe to say that 99% of the players trust that you're not a cheater and trying to gain any unfair advantage. You pick great teams - you don't need to look at other teams to help yourself. Not finishing your team till later makes perfect sense. It does take a lot of time to build a good team. Perhaps Jancouver is some sort of cheat in his own personal life and he can't help but push this character trait on others...you never know. We definitely shouldn't assume he/she has good moral character....wouldn't want to assume that.
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,103
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

24 Dec 2016 07:51

IMO a person with as much cycling knowledge as Skidmark is at a substantial disadvantage by running this game the way he does. Apart from the time it takes to organize this thing, he apparently feels like he "has to" finalize his short list and final team way early, while other team managers who have been consistently good/great can and often will send in their team shortly before the deadline.

I personally think it's ridiculous that he feels pressured into submitting his final team around Christmas.
18-Valve. (pithy)
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,442
Joined: 04 May 2011 12:50

24 Dec 2016 10:23

^^aye

skidmark, I think it's understandable that you want to engage with the criticism, but in this case I think it's unnecessary. I really, really don't think (m)any others have the need for you to handicap yourself like this.



Anyway, thank you for running the game again, and merry Christmas to you and the others here on the forum.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,887
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

24 Dec 2016 11:31

With most other decisions in this game taken somewhat democratically, it would in my view not be fair if one person should dictate the rules for skidmark's team selection/submittal.

For any serious CQ game player, being able to react to riders' schedules/other news right up to the deadline is an advantage. Last year, I wasn't going to pick Lopez until it was announced that he'd ride San Luis, Langkawi and Austria. Also, a few potential picks for this year haven't announced their team yet. Not to mention that CQranking haven't announced the categorisation of the new WT races.

If skidmark is already willing to handicap himself by restricting his shortlist for the remaining spots to 20 riders (and missing out on potential gems that might be discovered in the remaining week), then it's way over the top to make him finalise his team already now.
User avatar Squire
Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: 28 Dec 2010 23:39
Location: Shanghai

24 Dec 2016 11:42

Merry Christmas to all! As the above posters I feel that skidmark does more than enough to participate in this game on equal terms with the rest of us. I have just put my version 1.0 of the 2017 team together, but I'm sure there will be some changes. But now I will try to take a few days off and celebrate Christmas :razz:
User avatar vladimir
Member
 
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Aug 2011 14:04
Location: Norway

24 Dec 2016 12:21

Many thanks to Skidmark for once again taking the considerable time and effort to organise and run the game for another year. It must be getting increasingly frustrating for you to have keep defending yourself from baseless accusations that are repeatedly coming from one poster and one poster only.

I myself and am sure the many others that have participated in this game have never doubted or questioned your integrity or indeed that'll the previous organisers of the game.

I am not sure what Jancouver issue is, but it does seem that he/she has serious trust issues if he thinks that you are gaining some form of advantage after only 4 teams have been submitted. If anything, as has been pointed out, you are actually at a disadvantage. I really fail to see how much more you could do to prove transparency and honesty.

Your work and time is appreciated by all bar one of the games particpants.
adamski101
Junior Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 11:49

Re:

24 Dec 2016 15:00

adamski101 wrote:Many thanks to Skidmark for once again taking the considerable time and effort to organise and run the game for another year. It must be getting increasingly frustrating for you to have keep defending yourself from baseless accusations that are repeatedly coming from one poster and one poster only.

I myself and am sure the many others that have participated in this game have never doubted or questioned your integrity or indeed that'll the previous organisers of the game.

I am not sure what Jancouver issue is, but it does seem that he/she has serious trust issues if he thinks that you are gaining some form of advantage after only 4 teams have been submitted. If anything, as has been pointed out, you are actually at a disadvantage. I really fail to see how much more you could do to prove transparency and honesty.

Your work and time is appreciated by all bar one of the games particpants.


First of all, I didn't even bring it up in this thread, Skidmark did. All I said in the 2016 thread that his team should be taken with a grain of salt as he got access to all the teams and again, this year he announced how he only submitted 25 riders and will add the rest later. Sorry, but that does not sound exactly convincing if you think about it.

So it was not about that only four teams were submitted so far, it is that he announced he will be adding bunch of riders by the deadline. No mention about low cost pics etc in his post. Even between the low cost picks, he was probably waiting to see who got what and decide based of that because nobody needs to wait extra week to decide on a bunch of low cost picks.

Either way, I don't really give a crap as I always pick a team of riders that I like and it is already frustrating to be including bunch of "must have" riders that I dislike just because I want my team to be somewhat competitive, as that is the purpose of this game.

Perhaps my opinion is not politically correct, but again, if it smells like ...

Image
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,395
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

24 Dec 2016 19:29

Skids IMO you don't have to finalize your team tomorrow. As others say, you are probably at a disadvantage by organizing the game, so you shouldn't have to limit yourself even further. Just my 2 cents.
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,136
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

25 Dec 2016 03:14

Thanks for the support, to the folks who responded here in the last day. Anyway, I sent my full team to Brullnux just now. Mostly, I find this conversation distracting, and in my opinion, completely and utterly boring. So I'm pretty done having it.

Really Jancouver, if you understood how much time it takes to process these teams and enter each of them into the popularity tab, you'd understand that it would be totally ridiculous to pick a team at the last minute based on what other people picked, because by getting about 80-90% of the teams in the last two days it's all I can do to keep it straight what team tab I've just created and make sure I'm keeping up with them. If someone were to divine a pattern of which popular riders to pick and which not to pick from looking at that data and somehow win the game, it'd be sheer, dumb luck. I've got an idea - you pick a team within 10 hours of when all the teams are published, based on looking at who picked who, and post it here. If you (unofficially) win the game with that team, I'll see your point and submit my full team early every year. If you don't, you stop talking about this subject. Sound good?

I know Hugo submitted his full teams in advance which put him at a disadvantage, which was why I said this when I agreed to take over the game (on the last page of the 2013 game thread):

I want to gauge how people feel about me processing teams while I still have some uncertainties in my team. Looking at it right now, there are 16 riders who are a lock for my team, and probably spending half an hour looking through my 115-rider long list will give me 5 more I can be for sure about. So I'm comfortable saying that I'll send a provisional team to the first person to submit their finalized team, but I want to give it a few days to give people a chance to say if they're really opposed to that, in which case we can explore more complicated options.

Of course, it'd be easier for everyone but me if I would just finalize my team right away, but I just don't want to do that. I think sending 20 riders for sure with another 30 I'm going to pick the rest of my team from is an okay compromise. Ultimately what I think I want to guard against is that I'll be alerted to a rider I've never considered by other people picking them, and this will be eliminated by limiting my team in such a way.


So I've never tried to hide that this is what I am doing and how I'm doing it.

Anyway Jan, I appreciate your contributions to the thread when the game is on week by week, but it's incredibly frustrating how accusatory your tone has been in this conversation. You mentioned a few times in the last thread that you thought I should be more clear about how I submit a team, and then when I did that you complained some more that I didn't meet the invisible goalposts you had set up as your criteria. I responded yesterday by asking you several questions about what you would consider fair, and you responded to absolutely none of them and then vaguely accused me again, and used some kind of meme to insinuate I was lying. So I can see you're not being part of this discussion in good faith. As such, I'm done with it. I've submitted my full team for this year because I really don't care to have this conversation any more, but next year if I am too busy and can't get it together I will just do it the way I've done it, because I think it's clear to pretty much everyone that it's fair. I can live with you putting an asterisk next to my name in your mind.

Okay, that's it for this topic. Hope everyone has a nice Christmas time.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,523
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

25 Dec 2016 11:05

I'm starting to feel the pressure here. Too many riders I want to jam into my team and too few cheap riders. I don't think I've had such a hard time create a team that I'm happy with.
User avatar Hugo Koblet
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,763
Joined: 09 May 2010 08:08

25 Dec 2016 11:55

I've too many neos I want to pick. Can't have 15 neos :D
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,136
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re:

25 Dec 2016 12:30

LaFlorecita wrote:I've too many neos I want to pick. Can't have 15 neos :D

I can feel that I followed cycling as closely last year as I used to. My knowledge of neo-pros and other up-and-coming youngsters is definitely not as good at it has been, which is what I think makes it difficult for me this year.
User avatar Hugo Koblet
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,763
Joined: 09 May 2010 08:08

25 Dec 2016 17:37

Just submitted my team.

Unless there are some major announcements, the next few days should not make any difference and this way, at least Skidmark wont be receiving all teams at the last minute.

I doubt that I will have any unique picks, but I can imagine some of my picks my be picked by just a few teams, and that is the point. Some "must haves" but not all because there wouldn't be enough room for the riders I like.

Also more than few riders that I really like or would like to see succeed but probably should not be picked.

Merry Christmas and good luck to all.
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,395
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

Re:

25 Dec 2016 18:59

Squire wrote: Not to mention that CQranking haven't announced the categorisation of the new WT races.



The new races will be categorized halfway between .WT2 and .HC. Winner of Tour of Turkey for example will get 190 points, winner of Dwars Door Vlaanderen 180 points.

Everybody who finishes the race will get at least 5 points.

Probable point scales as posted on another forum:

2.WT3
1 190
2 145
3 120
4 100
5 90
6 80
7 70
8 64
9 58
10 52
11 46
12 40
13 35
14 30
15 27
16 24
17 22
18 20
19 18
20 16
21 14
22 13
23 12
24 11
25 10
26 9
27 8
28 7
29 6
30 5
vanaf31 5

Leader 9
1 30
2 18
3 12
4 7
5 4
6 2


1.WT3
1 180
2 108
3 92
4 78
5 70
6 62
7 54
8 46
9 40
10 36
11 30
12 27
13 24
14 22
15 20
16 18
17 16
18 14
19 12
20 11
21 10
22 9
23 8
24 7
25 6
26 5
27 5
28 5
29 5
30 5
vanaf31 5
Hakkie2
Junior Member
 
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Feb 2015 16:48

25 Dec 2016 21:16

The score tables are on the CQ site, rather obfuscated by being under the Old tables tab at http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/pointsTablesM.asp

You are correct for one day races, but 2.WT3 stage races are currently shown (as below) as the same as 2.WT2; I guess that means they await updating.
1 220
2 165
3 140
4 116
5 104
6 95
7 86
8 77
9 68
10 59
11 50
12 45
13 40
14 35
15 32
16 29
17 26
18 23
19 20
20 18
21 16
22 14
23 13
24 12
25 11
26 10
27 9
28 8
29 7
30 6
>30 5
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,396
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

26 Dec 2016 10:38

Mother of god! Just as I thought I had it all figured out, I found out that I had completely left out a 500+ rider that I wanted in my team. Back to the drawing board.
User avatar Hugo Koblet
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,763
Joined: 09 May 2010 08:08

26 Dec 2016 16:24

Somehow I still feel it is not entirely clear how we want that the rules on ex-dopers apply to certain specific case we have this year. As per the opening post, "Riders who have been suspended for doping and had that affect their 2016 score will not be available simply for their 2016 score. ... Riders who have been suspended by the UCI are on this list ...".
So does this imply that everyone who is on that particular list is not available simply for their 2016 score? Or those, who are on the list, but to whom sanction was not imposed, are they excluded from that rule, because their score was not affected by suspension (although might have been affected by disqualification)?
PeterB
Member
 
Posts: 474
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 13:53

Re:

26 Dec 2016 23:10

PeterB wrote:Somehow I still feel it is not entirely clear how we want that the rules on ex-dopers apply to certain specific case we have this year. As per the opening post, "Riders who have been suspended for doping and had that affect their 2016 score will not be available simply for their 2016 score. ... Riders who have been suspended by the UCI are on this list ...".
So does this imply that everyone who is on that particular list is not available simply for their 2016 score? Or those, who are on the list, but to whom sanction was not imposed, are they excluded from that rule, because their score was not affected by suspension (although might have been affected by disqualification)?


Sorry, you're right! We had a discussion in the 2016 thread and I forgot to carry it over to the opening post. I've amended it to now include the following: **note that this year there is the exceptional case of some riders that are on this list but were found to have no fault. Those riders are available at 2016 score as there was essentially no doping infraction**

As of yet, CQ has not adjusted these riders' scores to reflect the races in which the positives were found, so if you are picking any of them, be mindful that the CQ December 31st update is the final arbeiter of the scores.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,523
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

PreviousNext

Return to Games and Fantasy Cycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Back to top