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, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick

Re: Re:

13 Jan 2017 02:47

skidmark wrote:
Jakob747 wrote:
Maybe I should take him for the Emerging Riders game?


I'd say he is worth a punt. However, you are totally right, in general, its better not to hype a rider all too much, too soon.

I must admit I was truly under pressure this year. With 3 days to go, I only had 13 secure riders, so it was a race against time really. I added Chris Hamilton as the last rider on my squad and I must admit I kinda regret that now. Also when you take into consideration I apparently only spend 7395 points, so I had over 100 points budget wise to play with and could have added Max Walschied for example. A sprinter I actually believe can have a very good 2017.

Still, Chris Hamilton is a good talent and there must be a reason Sunweb signed him on a 3 year contract, I just think 2017 still is all too early for him.

I look forward to the Australian summer, though. I hope Brendan Canty can surprise some people on here, just as I have high hopes for Jhonthan Restrepo. Katusha comes with a very, very strong squad, though, so its actually very interesting to see who they will actually ride for. On paper, they have several riders who are perfectly suited for those 10-15 min efforts the Australian hills require.
Jakob747
Member
 
Posts: 312
Joined: 10 Jun 2009 17:33
Location: Colombia

Re: Re:

13 Jan 2017 07:43

Gigs_98 wrote:What I don't understand is why so many people took Egan Bernal (who btw has his 20th birthday tomorrow) who is extremely young, especially for a climber, and costed over 150 points. I mean how many climbers make 300 points with 20 years even if they are incredibly talented.

Mostly a heart decision.
I've seen him race twice and fell in love.
User avatar SafeBet
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,255
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 13:38
Location: Milano, Italy

13 Jan 2017 10:37

My team for TDU :

GERRANS Simon
GESINK Robert
MAISON Jérémy
POZZOVIVO Domenico

I could score big but others will too.
Since I didn't consider too many aussies in my team, I should wait a bit the return to Europe before really starting my season
Nicosix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 17:30
Location: Vichy,France

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

13 Jan 2017 11:59

My team for the TDU:

BONIFAZIO Niccolo
BRESCHEL Matti
EWAN Caleb
GESCHKE Simon
GESINK Robert
MACHADO Tiago Jose Pinto
VALLS FERRI Rafael

Bonifazio and Ewan should be able to get some top 5 placings, hopefully Gesink and Valls can get in the top 10 for the GC.
Total Package
New Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 12:02

Re: Re:

13 Jan 2017 23:48

Squire wrote:
Netserk wrote:You cannot put a number on it a priori, absolute or relative (just take the hypothetical scenario where every rider scores exactly the same as the year before). You're average rider will cost 227. If the (average) return for many of the best picks around that price is 400, then the value of a rider costing 0 with a return of 100 will depend on how larger the return (in absolute measures) of a more expensive pick is than that of the average rider. In this case, you only have to find a single rider with a cost of 454 (or less) and a return of more than 700 for the swap to be good. If there's two above average priced riders, they will have to have a combined cost of 681 (or less) and a return of more than 1100 for the swap (of three average riders with the cheap rider and the two more expensive riders) to be favorable.

In a year with many good very low cost riders, the expensive riders will not have to be as good as in other years, and vice versa, just like if the return of an average cost rider is high, more of those will be able to out-perform a more diverse selection.

So in short, both relative and absolute return is important for all picks, and the market decides how those two needs to be combined for a pick to be good.

*Sometime, I will take a closer look on last year's game and the market of the most picked riders (probably top-100) and analyze how good picks they/(some of them) were, or rather how much of a return a rider would have to have in the different price ranges to be a contributing factor for a top team.


Yes, to put it in a more simple way: For any N amount of riders you have (in practice I work with pairs or trios, for simplicity), you need to be sure that there is not another combination of N riders at the same price which together will score a higher (probable) amount of CQ points (in absolute measures). Which is what I wrote last year. Then of course you need to weigh the points ceiling/floor for a rider against his average expected score (if he rode an infinite amount of seasons) and decide how much risk you want to take. I think hakkie2's theory is much closer to this than the notion that every rider needs to double his points.

On another note; you seem to take an interest in this game, so it's a pity you didn't submit a team. I'm sure you would've done well.

Edit: Oh, and about the analysis for last year that you're planning. I remember Skibby once did an analysis on the optimal team for one of the years, and calculated the "penalty" for not including each rider, i.e. how much less points the optimal team without that rider would score. That's kind of what you're thinking about, isn't it?


Ok I'm finally caught up with this thread. Just wanted to throw in my agreement that this is absolutely the right way to think about it - a combination of three factors: 1) raw points return (the percentage can be lower for higher priced guys, I'd expect a 1200 point rider to get 5-600 more at least, I'd expect a 50 point rider to get 200-300 more at least), 2) availability and quality of replacements at that level, 3) availability and quality of substitutes at other levels.

This last one is the real kicker for expensive picks, as you can pick a guy for 1600 points and if they get you 600 more points, that's not double but it also opens up the team to pick more other guys (instead of picking 3 guys that cost 500ish points, you can get one for 1600 and a couple of cheap riders that can rake in a higher percentage return). It took me until 2013 to realize the value of that, I didn't even look at expensive riders before then (I guess getting burned by Ricco a month into the first game left a mark). On the other hand, if it's a really deep class of quality 500 pointers, it might be better to pick them all and forget about the expensive guy.

Squire, I bolded your comment above about the average score because that's exactly what convinced me to take Nibali. I was hemming and hawing about his inclusion, going back and forth about his points potential, and then I finally said 'screw it' and left it up to the numbers. I averaged his CQ totals the last 7 years (since he first won a GT) and it was 1823, including his last two years of lower scores. That's enough of a yield for me to make a 1200-pointer worthwhile on its own, but the combination of the fact that he's going to a team that is clearly behind him at every step, and playing 'what if' with some of last year (Olympics crash taking him out for that race and giving him no motivation for the end of season) was more than enough to convince me to take him on. I'm just curious what you (and the 124 other people in this game that didn't pick him) weighed in the decision to not take him as a rider. Was it simply what I said last paragraph - too much quality in the mid-expensive range?
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,726
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

Re: Re:

14 Jan 2017 00:46

skidmark wrote:
Squire wrote:
Netserk wrote:You cannot put a number on it a priori, absolute or relative (just take the hypothetical scenario where every rider scores exactly the same as the year before). You're average rider will cost 227. If the (average) return for many of the best picks around that price is 400, then the value of a rider costing 0 with a return of 100 will depend on how larger the return (in absolute measures) of a more expensive pick is than that of the average rider. In this case, you only have to find a single rider with a cost of 454 (or less) and a return of more than 700 for the swap to be good. If there's two above average priced riders, they will have to have a combined cost of 681 (or less) and a return of more than 1100 for the swap (of three average riders with the cheap rider and the two more expensive riders) to be favorable.

In a year with many good very low cost riders, the expensive riders will not have to be as good as in other years, and vice versa, just like if the return of an average cost rider is high, more of those will be able to out-perform a more diverse selection.

So in short, both relative and absolute return is important for all picks, and the market decides how those two needs to be combined for a pick to be good.

*Sometime, I will take a closer look on last year's game and the market of the most picked riders (probably top-100) and analyze how good picks they/(some of them) were, or rather how much of a return a rider would have to have in the different price ranges to be a contributing factor for a top team.


Yes, to put it in a more simple way: For any N amount of riders you have (in practice I work with pairs or trios, for simplicity), you need to be sure that there is not another combination of N riders at the same price which together will score a higher (probable) amount of CQ points (in absolute measures). Which is what I wrote last year. Then of course you need to weigh the points ceiling/floor for a rider against his average expected score (if he rode an infinite amount of seasons) and decide how much risk you want to take. I think hakkie2's theory is much closer to this than the notion that every rider needs to double his points.

On another note; you seem to take an interest in this game, so it's a pity you didn't submit a team. I'm sure you would've done well.

Edit: Oh, and about the analysis for last year that you're planning. I remember Skibby once did an analysis on the optimal team for one of the years, and calculated the "penalty" for not including each rider, i.e. how much less points the optimal team without that rider would score. That's kind of what you're thinking about, isn't it?


Ok I'm finally caught up with this thread. Just wanted to throw in my agreement that this is absolutely the right way to think about it - a combination of three factors: 1) raw points return (the percentage can be lower for higher priced guys, I'd expect a 1200 point rider to get 5-600 more at least, I'd expect a 50 point rider to get 200-300 more at least), 2) availability and quality of replacements at that level, 3) availability and quality of substitutes at other levels.

This last one is the real kicker for expensive picks, as you can pick a guy for 1600 points and if they get you 600 more points, that's not double but it also opens up the team to pick more other guys (instead of picking 3 guys that cost 500ish points, you can get one for 1600 and a couple of cheap riders that can rake in a higher percentage return). It took me until 2013 to realize the value of that, I didn't even look at expensive riders before then (I guess getting burned by Ricco a month into the first game left a mark). On the other hand, if it's a really deep class of quality 500 pointers, it might be better to pick them all and forget about the expensive guy.

Squire, I bolded your comment above about the average score because that's exactly what convinced me to take Nibali. I was hemming and hawing about his inclusion, going back and forth about his points potential, and then I finally said 'screw it' and left it up to the numbers. I averaged his CQ totals the last 7 years (since he first won a GT) and it was 1823, including his last two years of lower scores. That's enough of a yield for me to make a 1200-pointer worthwhile on its own, but the combination of the fact that he's going to a team that is clearly behind him at every step, and playing 'what if' with some of last year (Olympics crash taking him out for that race and giving him no motivation for the end of season) was more than enough to convince me to take him on. I'm just curious what you (and the 124 other people in this game that didn't pick him) weighed in the decision to not take him as a rider. Was it simply what I said last paragraph - too much quality in the mid-expensive range?


Obviously, risk management is the number one reason why super expensive picks should always be avoided. Because if the rider gets hurt, or whatever, you just lost 1217 points and got nothing in return.

Clearly, because of that, Rohan Dennis (738) + Caleb Ewan (552) or any other multi-rider combo is a safer combination IMO :D
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,644
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

14 Jan 2017 01:19

For me I didn't pick Nibali because I think Bahrain will not be a strong enough team for him at the Giro to compete against the likes of Astana or Sky, (though he should still be regarded as the favourite if only for his experience and past ability) so it lowers his chances of winning. Riders like Aru and Landa as a combo then equal around Nibali's total and I'd have chosen Kruijswijk or Zakarin over Nibali. I still hope Nibali can go well all year round though!
greenedge
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,626
Joined: 27 Mar 2011 04:23

14 Jan 2017 02:00

I actually don't think risk in itself matters. If anything, it's a positive. If two riders cost the same (let's say 1000) and their averaged expected outcome is the same as well (let's say 1600), the only difference between the two would be the spread in expected outcome. So the riskier (with higher spread) will give you a higher chance to be extraordinary, and the value of that outweighs the risk of failure, imo.

For most of those in the top-10 last year, if they could toss a coin and either gain or lose 1000, most would take the gamble (at least I would if I wasn't 1st and was within 1000 points of the win) simply because the difference in value for the top positions are greater than for the lower positions (even when you factor in that a given amount of points will move you more positions in the middle than the top).

Over your portfolio the risk evens out and you will in average still get your average return. As long as you are able to sort the average expected return from the likely return, risk is not an issue.
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,997
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

14 Jan 2017 02:31

greenedge wrote:For me I didn't pick Nibali because I think Bahrain will not be a strong enough team for him at the Giro to compete against the likes of Astana or Sky, (though he should still be regarded as the favourite if only for his experience and past ability) so it lowers his chances of winning. Riders like Aru and Landa as a combo then equal around Nibali's total and I'd have chosen Kruijswijk or Zakarin over Nibali. I still hope Nibali can go well all year round though!


Without trying to create any more controversy, I think Skidmark would have probably skip Nib if he didn't agree to not change his team after seeing all the other teams. I don't think he would take the risk knowing he is such a rare pick. I think his entire game is now dependable on one rider :cool:
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,644
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

Re: Re:

14 Jan 2017 07:48

Jancouver wrote:
greenedge wrote:For me I didn't pick Nibali because I think Bahrain will not be a strong enough team for him at the Giro to compete against the likes of Astana or Sky, (though he should still be regarded as the favourite if only for his experience and past ability) so it lowers his chances of winning. Riders like Aru and Landa as a combo then equal around Nibali's total and I'd have chosen Kruijswijk or Zakarin over Nibali. I still hope Nibali can go well all year round though!


Without trying to create any more controversy, I think Skidmark would have probably skip Nib if he didn't agree to not change his team after seeing all the other teams. I don't think he would take the risk knowing he is such a rare pick. I think his entire game is now dependable on one rider :cool:
A rare pick doesn't necessarily = a bad pick. If anything, I suspect Skidmark and the other 5 (IIRC) people who have Nibali will be cautiously optimistic at this point. That they may have an edge that the other teams don't. Especially because it now seems likely that Nibali will skip the Tour de France in favor of the Vuelta.
18-Valve. (pithy)
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,594
Joined: 04 May 2011 12:50

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

14 Jan 2017 14:10

Jancouver wrote:Obviously, risk management is the number one reason why super expensive picks should always be avoided. Because if the rider gets hurt, or whatever, you just lost 1217 points and got nothing in return.

Clearly, because of that, Rohan Dennis (738) + Caleb Ewan (552) or any other multi-rider combo is a safer combination IMO :D

I don't agree that super expensive picks are necessarily riskier. Sure, they can get hurt but so can every other rider and increasing the number of riders that are responsible for the heavylifting in term of scoring actually makes you more liable to injury. Let's take Nibali + Power (skidmark's closest combo point wise to your combination) vs Dennis + Ewan for example.

If Nibali stays healthy, he's a proven 1800pts scorer, he'll get there at least (and if he goes off like 2013, you can forget about Ewan/Dennis matching him). You would need both Dennis and Ewan to not only stay healthy but also have (very) good season for their standards (which is a risk in itself) just to match Nibali (so you are banking on two rider instead of one staying healthy) and that's not even accounting for the "risk" of Power going off.

Another point that hasn't been made about injury, is that not all riders are affected equally. Superstars like Nibali can get points at pretty much any time in the season. If they miss a few weeks, they'll adjust their race program, add a few more races later in the year and absorb a large part of the deficit. Riders that are a couple tiers below, like Dennis and Ewan, are far less flexible in their ability to score. If Ewan misses the TDU for instance, that's a chunk of point he won't be able to make up because he won't get that same opportunity later in the year.
User avatar EvansIsTheBest
Member
 
Posts: 429
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 06:49

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

14 Jan 2017 16:04

My riders for TDU:
EWAN Caleb
BRESCHEL Matti
MACHADO Tiago
MAS NICOLAU Enric
THEUNS Edward

Hope for stage points for Ewan and GC points for Machado
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 30,843
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

14 Jan 2017 16:50

My riders for TDU:
GESINK Robert
HAAS Nathan
WOODS Michael
BONIFAZIO Niccolò
MAS NICOLAU Enric
PEDERSEN Mads

Hope for stage points for Bonifazio,Haas and Woods,and GC points for Gesink (top 10?),Woods (top 5?) and Haas (top 10?)
5th June 1999, the day cycling died
User avatar ThePirate81
Junior Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: 02 Jun 2016 13:37
Location: Savona,Italy

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

14 Jan 2017 17:00

My riders for TDU

EWAN, Caleb
VALLS, Rafael
BRESCHEL, Matti
MEINTJES, Louis

Hoping for stage wins from Ewan and some GC points from Valls and Meintjes.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,557
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

Re: The 2017 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

14 Jan 2017 22:53

Hey all,

it seems like CQ quietly added a post-Aussie nats update a few days ago to their downloads section without advertising it on the main page! That's exciting - I'm currently tied up for today (North America time), but will get out the first update tomorrow.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,726
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

Re: Re:

14 Jan 2017 23:04

Jancouver wrote:
greenedge wrote:For me I didn't pick Nibali because I think Bahrain will not be a strong enough team for him at the Giro to compete against the likes of Astana or Sky, (though he should still be regarded as the favourite if only for his experience and past ability) so it lowers his chances of winning. Riders like Aru and Landa as a combo then equal around Nibali's total and I'd have chosen Kruijswijk or Zakarin over Nibali. I still hope Nibali can go well all year round though!


Without trying to create any more controversy, I think Skidmark would have probably skip Nib if he didn't agree to not change his team after seeing all the other teams. I don't think he would take the risk knowing he is such a rare pick. I think his entire game is now dependable on one rider :cool:


You kidding me? I'm thrilled to have a competitive advantage in terms of the scarcity of a rider that I think is going to do well! Checking the numbers after filling the popularity tab, that was my biggest and most pleasant surprise. The only risk with Nibali is a) injury or b) decline. I don't believe he's in decline yet, and he'll have enough opportunity over the course of the year that even a minor (say, he's out for 3-4 weeks) injury probably wouldn't affect his point total tremendously (unless it's as poorly timed as last year's injury). I feel like we already saw 'low point' Nibali last year when he performed the Giro below his normal level, didn't quite have it at the Tour, but then timed it for great form at the Olympics and crashed out, losing not only hundreds of points but effectively the rest of his season. If he has stable early-season performances and two form peaks (Giro and Vuelta/Lombardia), he will be a force. If he doesn't quite get up to form and has an injury, I don't see how he doesn't at least break even. Yeah, not really too worried about Nibali.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,726
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

Re:

15 Jan 2017 06:10

ThePirate81 wrote:My riders for TDU:
GESINK Robert
HAAS Nathan
WOODS Michael
BONIFAZIO Niccolò
MAS NICOLAU Enric
PEDERSEN Mads

Hope for stage points for Bonifazio,Haas and Woods,and GC points for Gesink (top 10?),Woods (top 5?) and Haas (top 10?)


Ah glad to finally find who else had Haas, hopefully he can go well.

My team is Porte, Haas, Mas and Restrepo, for the latter two it depends on how well Vakoc and Machado perform, though I hope they can maybe top 20. For the first two I would expect Top 10's at the least.

Edit: Doull as well.
Last edited by greenedge on 15 Jan 2017 13:02, edited 1 time in total.
greenedge
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,626
Joined: 27 Mar 2011 04:23

Re: Re:

15 Jan 2017 12:09

skidmark wrote:Squire, I bolded your comment above about the average score because that's exactly what convinced me to take Nibali. I was hemming and hawing about his inclusion, going back and forth about his points potential, and then I finally said 'screw it' and left it up to the numbers. I averaged his CQ totals the last 7 years (since he first won a GT) and it was 1823, including his last two years of lower scores. That's enough of a yield for me to make a 1200-pointer worthwhile on its own, but the combination of the fact that he's going to a team that is clearly behind him at every step, and playing 'what if' with some of last year (Olympics crash taking him out for that race and giving him no motivation for the end of season) was more than enough to convince me to take him on. I'm just curious what you (and the 124 other people in this game that didn't pick him) weighed in the decision to not take him as a rider. Was it simply what I said last paragraph - too much quality in the mid-expensive range?


I shortly considered Nibali and I don't think he's a risk as he will probably at least reach his 2016 score. But I think he is declining although right now he still is the favorite for me winning this years Giro. I just fear he won't be as motivated afterwards and I doubt the team spirit of his team. Yes, he has a bunch of riders that will ride for him and only him no matter what. But he will be missing quality domestiques like Kangert and Scarponi.

Finally I have some riders competing:
Santos Tour Down Under 2.UWT
BYSTRØM Sven Erik
DOULL Owain
THEUNS Edward

Pretty meh. Theuns should be good for some stage points, maybe Bystrom too.
User avatar rote_laterne
Member
 
Posts: 457
Joined: 06 Jan 2014 20:21

15 Jan 2017 13:27

Starting the year with:
MCCARTHY, Jay
VALLS, Rafael
CINK, Ondrej
GESINK, Robert

Curios how Cink will fare. McCarthy and Valls might do something and then there's Bobby...
HelgeBlendet
Junior Member
 
Posts: 256
Joined: 29 Dec 2011 09:43

Re: Re:

16 Jan 2017 00:00

skidmark wrote:
Jancouver wrote:
greenedge wrote:For me I didn't pick Nibali because I think Bahrain will not be a strong enough team for him at the Giro to compete against the likes of Astana or Sky, (though he should still be regarded as the favourite if only for his experience and past ability) so it lowers his chances of winning. Riders like Aru and Landa as a combo then equal around Nibali's total and I'd have chosen Kruijswijk or Zakarin over Nibali. I still hope Nibali can go well all year round though!


Without trying to create any more controversy, I think Skidmark would have probably skip Nib if he didn't agree to not change his team after seeing all the other teams. I don't think he would take the risk knowing he is such a rare pick. I think his entire game is now dependable on one rider :cool:


You kidding me? I'm thrilled to have a competitive advantage in terms of the scarcity of a rider that I think is going to do well! Checking the numbers after filling the popularity tab, that was my biggest and most pleasant surprise. The only risk with Nibali is a) injury or b) decline. I don't believe he's in decline yet, and he'll have enough opportunity over the course of the year that even a minor (say, he's out for 3-4 weeks) injury probably wouldn't affect his point total tremendously (unless it's as poorly timed as last year's injury). I feel like we already saw 'low point' Nibali last year when he performed the Giro below his normal level, didn't quite have it at the Tour, but then timed it for great form at the Olympics and crashed out, losing not only hundreds of points but effectively the rest of his season. If he has stable early-season performances and two form peaks (Giro and Vuelta/Lombardia), he will be a force. If he doesn't quite get up to form and has an injury, I don't see how he doesn't at least break even. Yeah, not really too worried about Nibali.



What a bunch of baloney.

Looking at your past teams, clearly, picking a rare expensive rider is nothing what you have done in the past. The opposite is truth, you always made sure you didn't miss out on an important common pick ... such as Gaviria is this year. I'm 100% sure you would have a Gaviria on your team if you knew he will be so popular (and Nib unpopular) and therefore, you would have no choice but to drop Nib.

Your cocky attitude kind of reminds me of Bradley Wiggins. Very accomplished and successful rider, but again, by using TUEs, he just wanted that little edge over the field and looking at all the teams and picking based on that, is your way if using a TUE. This year, you got no TUE (unless there was some late change to your team that you did not disclose) and because of that, your team will depend on one rider because of that.
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,644
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Games and Fantasy Cycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shalgo and 1 guest

Back to top