Week six
Okay, all received picks have been entered. There are five missing that will get auto-assigned at 11:30. The teams at the top of the linesmaker odds list are the Redskins and Bengals.
There was a problem with the auto-assignment script last week, where a few people got assigned a team that they had already used. I think I’ve fixed the problem so this week should be okay.
All buybacks have been processed. It looks like the final pool is at $5,240.
Some of you might have missed it, but I think I’m going to eliminate buybacks next year. The only reason that I had buybacks was to keep the pool going longer into the season, but now that we have 300+ players signed up to begin the season, buybacks only increases the chance of having multiple winners after seventeen weeks.
We started with 367 players. Through five weeks, 82 players have been eliminated, so we are down to 285. Of those 82 no longer in the game, 9 were two-time losers (so they bought back and lost again). The others just chose not to buy back.
However, if we did not have buybacks this year, 99 of those 285 wouldn’t be in the game anymore because they have used a buyback. So after five weeks, we would have gone from 367 to 186 or roughly half. Just some interesting stats.
Go Phils!
October 18th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I like the buybacks. I think five weeks is perfect. I’d be interested to know what the pot would be if there were no buybacks this season. I think if you’d be better off limiting people to 3 entries next year instead of eliminating buybacks.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Why decrease the pot by eliminating buybacks? I say use a tie breaker have people pick more than 1 game on the final week & have a payout structure for top 3
October 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Lose the buybacks. After all it is a SURVIVOR POOL. You get one shot at it. If you want more chances, then buy more positions. This season and the way things are going, you are going to get mutiple winners as opposed to losing a few players in the first five weeks.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Issue with autopicks? Why are people who have more than 1 entry not getting the teams
with the highest spreads? For example a friend of mine mistakenly picked the packers & eagles however transposed his picks. He received the skins & bengals but still had the eagles & packers available. So it sounds like it is picking based of name. Therefore those people with one entry r at an advantage b/c the will always get the highest spread. Each entry should be treating the same
October 18th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
If he sent his picks in wrong, then there is nothing Bill can do about that. If he already picked those teams then the system probably treats it like he didn’t pick anyone at all..
Also, the auto-picks dont go by HIGHEST spread. It goes by the order of spreads on linesmaker.com, it takes the first spread that is available on their list. So washington was first and cincinnati was second on the list.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Eric knows the rules down pat. I stopped doing highest spread two years ago.
Also, there is no favoritism for people with multiple players. Each player is treated individually by the system. So this week if both of your players haven’t used Washington, you would have been assigned them for both players.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Okay cool I did not fully understand hoe the autopicks got generated. Thanks for the clarification. Now I just need to understand how the eagles lost to the raiders.
October 18th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Yeah, how the script works was described at the bottom of the week one blog entry.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:26 am
GO RAIDERS!!!!!!!!!!!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I vote for no buy backs….I picked correctly thru the first 5 weeks and lost yesterday, I don’t mind the fact I lost but it’s kinda unfair in my opinion some people have had 3 or 4 buybacks already and still have a shot at the pot, as opposed to the people who just lost for the 1st time sunday don’t even get one buyback. Anyway thanks for running the site and all the hard work you put in, see ya next season.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I kind of like the buybacks, but I could see making them progressively more expensive. Say, after Week 1, it’s $15 as it is now. After Week 2, it’s $20. After Week 3, $25. After Week 4, $30. And after Week 5, $35. If you REALLY want to buy back, you can, but it will cost you, and it will improve the pool size.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I like that, but the other way around. $35 after week 1 and $15 after week 5. The earlier you lose, the more you should have to pay. Limiting people to 3 entries instead of 5 would solve a lot of the issues people have with the buybacks. With the influx in entries… reducing to 3 entries max next year, then two the year after, then perhaps one, when you get a solid 500 or so recurring players. Eliminating the buybacks would ruin this thing as the BIG $$ potential is a huge drawing factor.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:07 am
some people have had 3 or 4 buybacks because they have 3 or 4 entries. no foul there in my opinion. then some of those people use the same teams on all of their entries with no buybacks available. to me that is just plain stupid. the first five weeks? sure, go for it. but not when it’s one and done. and i like the idea of progressive buyback costs. the potential for a larger pot would entice more entries and buybacks. the only reason i would see to eliminate buybacks or allow fewer entries is if Bill wanted to putless work into this. his game, his call.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Christopher N., the reason I’d have the progressive amounts getting higher later is that as the weeks go by, you have fewer weeks left that you have to pick correctly in order to make it all the way, and presumably, there will be fewer players remaining each week. Both of those things make the game “easier” as time goes by. That’s why a rebuy should be more expensive the later you are.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Not sure what limiting the number of entries per person would solve(except diminishing the pot)…if the pot is at say $5000, who cares how many entries each person has…the size of the pot is all that matters…as far as buy-backs, I like the progressive idea..week 1 BB = $10,week 2 BB = $20,week 3 BB = $30,week 4 BB = $40,week 5 BB= $50
October 21st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
[...] Survivor Pool HomeBlogRulesSign up2008200720062005200420032002 « Week six Oct 21 Week six [...]
October 21st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I agree with Graham. If someone is willing to pay the $$ per entry, then let them. If they end up losing then its more of their money in your pocket
I also agree that buybacks should NOT be totally eliminated. Week 1 you don’t really have a clue who is good yet or not (or even really in Week 2 yet) so why should you get knocked out if you didn’t know Tennessee was going to be absolutely terrible this year (no offense to all the Titan fans out there)? I like the idea of a progressive rebuy that Graham mentioned.
Just an idea…. could it work if you increased the dollar amount for each rebuy that you do. Say, the first time you rebuy its $20. Your second rebuy (per entry) is $40. Your third is $60… and so on. Or you could do $15, $30, $45, etc… don’t matter really. But still limit rebuys to however many weeks… Just more ideas to throw out there.
Thumbs UP to: progressive rebuys and multiple entries per person
Thumbs DOWN to: splitting the pot 100 different ways at the end of the year
There has to be a happy medium out there somewhere….
- Eric C.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Lose the buy backs all together. Scrap the auto picks. We are not children that have to be babied, because we forgot or are too lazy to submit our picks for the week. YOU SNOZE YOU LOSE
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
I second that… no more auto picks too. If they can’t get their picks in they shouldn’t move on.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Not that I use the auto picks, but I think they are necessary…doo doo happens and people may forget to do their picks…they paid their money,so there should be a “safety net” if needed.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
auto picks? BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!