CQ ranking

[Dutchsmurf]

This game is in many ways a mathematics game and there is a formula and there is a right answer, and i think that you have come closer to getting the right answer than anybody else. The problem is, to speak metaphorically, you started the exam after everyone else, and there are people who are yet to sit.

No way to avoid that anymore tho, unless you start over completely. Still lots of days left until the first race of the season, so making everyone start over is an option. That will allow the people organizing to set rules and a new deadline. But else you just have to deal with people joining later with the knowledge of the people before them.

 

[Barrus]

No way to avoid that anymore tho, unless you start over completely. Still lots of days left until the first race of the season, so making everyone start over is an option. That will allow the people organizing to set rules and a new deadline. But else you just have to deal with people joining later with the knowledge of the people before them.

Or have seperate competitions, those that were entered earlier and those that entered at a later state when the other lists were already publicly available.

To be quite honest the moment the lists became public the entire dynamic of the game changed for everyone. All those who look over the lists to see what they want to include in their list really are playing the game completely wrong

 

[hrotha]

Or have seperate competitions, those that were entered earlier and those that entered at a later state when the other lists were already publicly available.

To be quite honest the moment the lists became public the entire dynamic of the game changed for everyone. All those who look over the lists to see what they want to include in their list really are playing the game completely wrong

Agreed 100%.

Furthermore, starting over would make this pretty dull unless the rules were completely revamped, otherwise expect all teams to look much the same.

 

[The Hitch]

Agreed 100%.
Expect all teams to look much the same.

Yep.

Like this

APPOLLONIO Davide 313
ARVESEN Kurt Asle 24
BAKELANTS Jan 279
BOASSON HAGEN Edvald 1216
BRAMMEIER Matthew 86
CHICCHI Francesco 287
COBO ACEBO Juan Jose 0
CUNEGO Damiano 659
DEIGNAN Philip 5
DENIFL Stefan 189
DI LUCA Danilo 113
DOWSETT Alex 10
FROOME Chris 126
GERRANS Simon 140
GOMEZ MARCHANTE Jose Angel 44
GOSS Matthew 634
HAUSSLER Heinrich 251
HOSTE Leif 165
KASHECHKIN Andrey 84
KENNAUGH Peter 75
MOLLEMA Bauke 524
PELLIZOTTI Franco 60
RENSHAW Mark 106
RICCO Riccardo 756
SEELDRAEYERS Kevin 40
SICARD Romain 174
STYBAR Zdenek 9
SWIFT Ben 203
TXURRUKA ANSOLA Amets 75
ULISSI Diego 246
URAN URAN Rigoberto 410
VAN POPPEL Boy 78
VANDE VELDE Christian 90

Total: 7,471

ps i was going to pm you with the message i sent to others, but according to the thing you were offline.

The gist of it is, the original 30 get an asterix to their name. We call it the purists league.

We can then decide if people whos lists are sufficiently stupid can join based on the fact that there lists might as well have been done in 5 minutes.

For example tgsgirl list. Her list does not include any steals, and uses the minimum ammount of riders.

 

[hrotha]

I'm a sneaky ******* so I have my preferences set to "always offline."

The purist thing is a good idea. The asterisk can also signify that the winner pulled a Riis, doped but couldn't be stripped of his title, and there'll always be a huge question mark on the victory.

 

[zapata]

well, late to the game, I just sent my team to hugo koblet by pm. Haven't studied the other teams, I swear! But should I also post it here? Why are people doing that?

 

[Mellow Velo]

I'm don't care about who wins. I'm just going to see whether my team ends up on the plus column. It's only a bit of fun, after all.
This would be a good result for me, since any rider I tip, tends to fall off and break a bone or several.
I do agree that it is far too easy to crib since the list went public, not that I'm saying anyone has plagiarized.....


......I probably would have, given the info.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

I didn't join myself (didn't have time yet and now I read too many teams so I'm spoiled), but I agree that having a separate competition for those who joined first might be the best way out. Unless you start over with completely different rules.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm don't care about who wins. I'm just going to see whether my team ends up on the plus column.

So you say

Thats what they all say. If you seriously think merely finishing on a + would be an achievment, you are underselling yourself. Your team is good.

Unless you start over with completely different rules.

Hardcore division.

3500 points, 25 riders, no more no less. Stybar Deignen and Cobo not allowed. - 100 points for everyday after thread creation that team is not submitted. If any rider on whole team is caught doping, total disqualification of poster from game

 

[luckyboy]

Who is Stybar with next year? Didn't even realise about him or Deignan. Putting a lot of hope on the Colombians/AC getting banned.


CAVENDISH Mark 1241

SCHLECK Andy 1190

MENCHOV Denis 882

NIEMIEC Przemyslaw 426
BOZIC Borut 370
KONOVALOVAS Ignatas 180
VANSUMMEREN Johan 147
SIUTSOU Kanstantsin 121
VANDE VELDE Christian 90
LE LAY David 85
KIRCHEN Kim 38
ARVESEN Kurt Asle 24
USOV Alexandre 3
JOLY Sébastien 0

RICCO Riccardo 756
CUNEGO Damiano 659
CAPECCHI Eros 137
DI LUCA Danilo 113
MASCIARELLI Francesco 66
PELLIZOTTI Franco 60
MASCIARELLI Simone 0
GRILLO Paride 0

TXURRUKA ANSOLA Amets 75
COBO ACEBO Juan Jose 0

RUJANO GUILLEN Jose Humberto 261

DUARTE AREVALO Fabio Andres 181
QUINTANA ROJAS Nairo Alexander 72
LAVERDE JIMENEZ Luis Felipe 65
HENAO MONTOYA Sergio Luis 61
CANO ARDILA Alex Norberto 56
PANTANO GOMEZ Jarlinson 51
SOLER HERNANDEZ Juan Mauricio 47
BETANCOURT GOMEZ Carlos Alberto 45

7500 points
33 riders

 

[skidmark]

luckyboy, stybar's with quickstep.

And to Hitch and all folks for that discussion, here's the timeline as I remember it:

- contest was announced, Dec 31st deadline set.
- the next day, HK got overwhelmed with response, and in surprise/caution for creating too big of a task, he set a new 'deadline' of 25 entrants
- HK quickly got 25 teams and, thinking the contest entry period over, published them
- people who hadn't logged on during these hours were upset that they couldn't play, and HK rethought the situation
- within hours, through help from other forum posters, he realized he could accommodate more entries, and reverted back to the original Dec 31st deadline.
- every new entry has published their picks

So. To my reckoning, the people who are getting 'screwed', if anyone can be said to be, are those that entered before seeing anybody's lists, thinking they would not be published. Right? That's what you're all saying too. However, most of the people who did that didn't make mistakes and 'hastily submit' a team because of a perceived deadline, they responded in the first day of their own volition, even knowing they had until the 31st. It was only those people who responded in the few hours between the perception of the contest's 'close' and it's reopening that were possibly affected by this (which was pretty much Hitch, Timmy-Loves-Rabo and I don't even know who else).

What I mean to say is that allowing changes is opening a can of worms, and if that's an option, I think it should only be explored in those few cases that match your own (ie. people who would have waited to enter but briefly thought they had to get their picks in asap).

As well, it might be fun to have a sub-game for the 'original' entrants, ie. the ones who didn't see any other lists. I'd imagine the spreadsheets could handle that, or at the very least, someone who knows the original entrants can post a ranking in the contest thread. But it's all for fun, so I think the overall winner should be the winner, regardless of what advantages they had. Kudos to someone who can do well without a 'cheat sheet' handed to them, to carry out the exam analogy.

I think it would be fun to have a sub-game that you suggest, Hitch, with the 3500 points or whatever. Whew! I'd be happy to enter that one if you organized it, more games mean more fun things to distract me with cycling during the year. Seems like the spreadsheet tracking system is set up, you could probably use it.

All this maybe could be taken into account for next year, when the secret lists can stay secret until the deadline. But this contest seems like it'll still be great and competitive, and I think we're gonna see that there will be tons of surprises anyway.

Anyone have thoughts on these things?

 

[The Hitch]

luckyboy, stybar's with quickstep.

And to Hitch and all folks for that discussion, here's the timeline as I remember it:

- contest was announced, Dec 31st deadline set.
- the next day, HK got overwhelmed with response, and in surprise/caution for creating too big of a task, he set a new 'deadline' of 25 entrants
- HK quickly got 25 teams and, thinking the contest entry period over, published them
- people who hadn't logged on during these hours were upset that they couldn't play, and HK rethought the situation
- within hours, through help from other forum posters, he realized he could accommodate more entries, and reverted back to the original Dec 31st deadline.
- every new entry has published their picks

So. To my reckoning, the people who are getting 'screwed', if anyone can be said to be, are those that entered before seeing anybody's lists, thinking they would not be published. Right? That's what you're all saying too. However, most of the people who did that didn't make mistakes and 'hastily submit' a team because of a perceived deadline, they responded in the first day of their own volition, even knowing they had until the 31st. It was only those people who responded in the few hours between the perception of the contest's 'close' and it's reopening that were possibly affected by this (which was pretty much Hitch, Timmy-Loves-Rabo and I don't even know who else).

What I mean to say is that allowing changes is opening a can of worms, and if that's an option, I think it should only be explored in those few cases that match your own (ie. people who would have waited to enter but briefly thought they had to get their picks in asap).

As well, it might be fun to have a sub-game for the 'original' entrants, ie. the ones who didn't see any other lists. I'd imagine the spreadsheets could handle that, or at the very least, someone who knows the original entrants can post a ranking in the contest thread. But it's all for fun, so I think the overall winner should be the winner, regardless of what advantages they had. Kudos to someone who can do well without a 'cheat sheet' handed to them, to carry out the exam analogy.

I think it would be fun to have a sub-game that you suggest, Hitch, with the 3500 points or whatever. Whew! I'd be happy to enter that one if you organized it, more games mean more fun things to distract me with cycling during the year. Seems like the spreadsheet tracking system is set up, you could probably use it.

All this maybe could be taken into account for next year, when the secret lists can stay secret until the deadline. But this contest seems like it'll still be great and competitive, and I think we're gonna see that there will be tons of surprises anyway.

Anyone have thoughts on these things?

good post, but a few points.

Firstly i see im being painted as the leader of this mutiny, which isnt my intention as i have been leading the praise for Hugo, who has been nothing but hard working, generous and respectful (especially to me) throughout.

But i simply think (after deliberation with the Comission) that seperating the originals from the rest (sorry to all the rest) might be a good idea

Remember the poll "if you were a pro, would you dope". A large number of people said yes. So if there are posters who would risk their health for a cycling win, what stops them from having a sneek peak at the comments in a little internet game

What then stops them from denying it, pointing out theyve never tested positive

2nd of all, it wasnt just me and Timmy who were effected by the early deadline. Mellow, Jens and NV pachi.

And i know that some people who sent their posts to Hugo originally did so under the impression that they would be able to make a change over the coming 4 weeks, so they too are at a disadvantage compared to new entrants.

HAving said that, i think the december 9th deadline did help in some ways. If we had waited till December 31st, a lot of us would far more similar teams, and a lot of us would have found Stybar or Tammarei or Deignan eventually.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

i think we just leave it as it is.
Yes were are relying on integrity (on a forum..) and honestly, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter, just a fun game.

Plus 2011 edition can be used as a trial and error for 2012.

 

[Kazistuta]

I personally have a clean conscience (saw two rider names predicted as steals and therefore decided to avoid those two), but can see the dilemma... there's gotta be some late entrants who took advantage of knowledge gained in this thread. This is a game for fun with no prizes, so I can't see why anyone would be interested in cheating himself/herself to a win in this contest. Where's the honour in that? Well, I guess it's human nature to try and take the easy road sometimes

Regardless what the solution becomes, I'll support it - as long as I'm able to be part of it in some way or another.

And if anyone decides for another type of game it should be "pick 20 riders, no budget, noone at 0 points, and award the team with the highest percentual increase with the winner title" - of course there'd have to be a slight degree of calculation variation, so f.i. riders at 1-100 all are accounted for as start value 100 (easy to get a high percentual increase on the cheaper riders, and a minimum start amount would diminish this "exploit")... Just a thought

 

[luckyboy]

luckyboy, stybar's with quickstep.

Ah ok, thought it was either them or FDJ.

The winner of this challenge is the one whos team has the highest aggregated value by the end of the 2011 season.

Does this mean that the whoever has increased by the most in relation to their old score wins? Or whoever has the most points at the end?

E.g.
Person A spends 7400 points and ends up with 7800.

Person B else spends 7500 and ends up with 7850.

Does A win for having a bigger points increase? Or does B win for ending up with more..

 

[auscyclefan94]

Ah ok, thought it was either them or FDJ.




Does this mean that the whoever has increased by the most in relation to their old score wins? Or whoever has the most points at the end?

E.g.
Person A spends 7400 points and ends up with 7800.

Person B else spends 7500 and ends up with 7850.

Does A win for having a bigger points increase? Or does B win for ending up with more..

Person A because I thought it was about making the biggest overall gain/profit.

 

[ingsve]

Person A because I thought it was about making the biggest overall gain/profit.

No, it's the team that collects the most overall CQ points with their team that wins. So there is no benefit of going "under budget" so to speak.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I agree ingsve.

Most points win simple.
we had 7,500 points to spend, fine if used them, but if you didn't thats fine too, but you shouldn't get an advantage for doing so.

IMO it wouldn't feel right if someone had the most points and wasn't the winner.

 

[skidmark]

Yeah, most points wins I'm pretty sure. It doesn't make sense to just do a differential from starting point, since because you were allowed to spend up to 7500 everyone's starting point should be considered 7500. Otherwise I could win just by picking all low scoring guys from last year and spending 5000 points on 33 riders or something.

And to the Hitch, sorry, I didn't mean to paint you as a leader of some kind of mutiny, just an active voice in the discussion around this game. At any rate, to be clear my comments weren't meant to paint you in a negative light or anything like that, just to have a discussion. And you're right, I did forget about a few other folks that had been affected similarly to you.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I'm sorry to see that some people feel like getting "exploited" by others joining later and picking their "steals" etc. I agree that it's an annoying trend because it takes away some of the fun.

Unfortunately I don't really know what to do about it. I took the decisions I did based on the information available to me at the time and with the purpose to please as many people as possible. We're now at roughly 55 competitors so deciding to re-open the competition (after the 25 max limit) was a good decision based on that purpose, though I feel bad for those sending in their teams before the 25-deadline.

However, this is the first time I've been arranging something like this so my experience is limited, but like someone said, next year it will be a lot better as I know what to do differently

I have already urged anyone new entering the competion not to "cheat" because what fun is that? Unfortunately, there's no way to tell if someone has been stealing every single good idea.

As a compensation, I'd like to propose the following parallel competion based on someone's suggestion (sorry, don't remember who suggested it). Since I already have the spreadsheet done it should be no problem for me to manage another competition.

A hardcore competition:

- A set number of riders on each team (25?)
- A much lower amount of points available (3500?)
- No teams will be made public before the competition starts.

If a few people would like to do this, let me know and we should easily get this going.

Together we should just decide what to do with riders like Deignan, Stybar, Cobo, Pelizotti etc. that will probably be in everyone's team.

 

[bicing]

I suggest: Put an asterisk in the spreadsheet next to the names of those who entered teams with help from others and leave it at that. Then we can see clearly who received help while keeping everyone in the same competition.

It's just a game so I think people shouldn't worry about fairness and jealousy. And next year, since we have the infrastructure now (the spreadsheet) HK can keep the teams private until the deadline, and manage the whole project.

I can't wait until the deadline to start talking about the "ideal team". Putting all of our brains together to come up with the ultimate team.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I suggest: Put an asterisk in the spreadsheet next to the names of those who entered teams with help from others and leave it at that. Then we can see clearly who received help while keeping everyone in the same competition.

It's just a game so I think people shouldn't worry about fairness and jealousy. And next year, since we have the infrastructure now (the spreadsheet) HK can keep the teams private until the deadline, and manage the whole project.

I can't wait until the deadline to start talking about the "ideal team". Putting all of our brains together to come up with the ultimate team.

Sure, it's no problem putting an asterisk next to the names of those entering either before or after the "25 deadline". And I agree: it's only a game and I think if someone sending in a team based on all the cheap buys and great finds we all would know that, and he probably wouldn't get that much credit as if he had send in a team with his own findings.

Actually, from what I've seen, it hasn't been that big of a deal. A lot of people sending in new teams have created "their own" so to speak, with new unique riders and few include "the cheap ones" found by others. Sure there are some exceptions, but generally I think people have been fair.

Though, the two things are not mutually exclusive. We could easily have a hardcore competion alongside the first one if people wants to join. Whether it should be 3500 points or 2500 points I'll let you people who would like such a competition to decide, as well as what riders that shouldn't be allowed to be included.

And I've been thinking of such an "ideal team" also, so sure it will be fun to discuss. Although if I were to create a new team, I don't think I would change that much. I prefer having a team of riders I sympathize with and root for - although I do have a few of those cheap riders I suspect will do well next year

 

[hrotha]

I prefer the asterisks. I want to be hardcore without having to think of another team.

(Although I'd probably participate in the hardcore competition too because I'm BORED)

 

[ingsve]

Though, the two things are not mutually exclusive. We could easily have a hardcore competion alongside the first one if people wants to join. Whether it should be 3500 points or 2500 points I'll let you people who would like such a competition to decide, as well as what riders that shouldn't be allowed to be included.

Ya, a hardcore version of the competition sounds like fun. I think 2500 points and 25 riders exactly sounds like a good setup. I would first of all exclude all the obvious doper picks like Pellizotti, Di Luca, Kashechkin. To make it even harder I think setting the lowest allowed cost to 10CQ$ is also a good idea to stop people from grabbing 4-5 expensive riders and filling out with lots of cheap riders like Cobo, Deignan, Stybar etc.

 

[LukeSchmid]

Ya, a hardcore version of the competition sounds like fun. I think 2500 points and 25 riders exactly sounds like a good setup. I would first of all exclude all the obvious doper picks like Pellizotti, Di Luca, Kashechkin. To make it even harder I think setting the lowest allowed cost to 10CQ$ is also a good idea to stop people from grabbing 4-5 expensive riders and filling out with lots of cheap riders like Cobo, Deignan, Stybar etc.

It sounds good. I will give it ago, although I expect I will do very badly in this given my great lack of cycling knowledge. Be interesting to see who the most expensive rider picked is.