Round 3 VC/C

[tommy10]

Lock in Danger. Not gonna get too greedy.

[Colley Dogs]

128 is awkward. Macrae against GC could be on that at 3QT

Agree. Awkward.

The usual line I take is:
- 129 or below: leave
- 130-134 = grey (Captain’s opponent dictates whether to take or leave)
- 135 or above: take

This creates a rule on whether to employ the loophole from week to week; I only allow gut feel to enter the equation when the VC scores 130-134. It’s an approach that’s stood me well over the years.

I’m therefore leaving the 128, and running with Fyfe as my C.

But... I have this nagging feeling I should take the 128; I WISH Danger had scored 130, because if he had I’d definitely be locking it away.

[AaronKirk]

Anything above 120 generally I take. I will be taking danger's 128

[Money Shot]

125+ I always lock away...

120-125 is that awkward range that I usually pass on.

Therefore I will be taking Danger.

If Gawn (my captain option) goes 140 I miss out on 12 points if he goes 100 I gain 28...

[js19]

128 is awkward. Macrae against GC could be on that at 3QT

Agree. Awkward.

The usual line I take is:
- 129 or below: leave
- 130-134 = grey (Captain’s opponent dictates whether to take or leave)
- 135 or above: take

This creates a rule on whether to employ the loophole from week to week; I only allow gut feel to enter the equation when the VC scores 130-134. It’s an approach that’s stood me well over the years.

I’m therefore leaving the 128, and running with Fyfe as my C.

But... I have this nagging feeling I should take the 128; I WISH Danger had scored 130, because if he had I’d definitely be locking it away.

So you're willing to risk it because he didn't get 2(!) more points? And really, you're chasing another 7 to get to 135.

Say your VC scored 128 every week, and every week you risked another C chasing the 7 points. That means you'd have to nail it 6 times in a row to break even with that one time your C fails and scores 87 (like Grundy rd1)

Hypotheticals of course, but over the course of the season, the chances of breaking even if you're giving up VC scores over 120 really aren't that great that they're worth the risk... My 2 cents

[Marstar]

If my initial (C) averages higher than my (VC) score then I’ll take the theoretic >50% chance and pass on the VC. Easier to do the deeper we move into the season, but Dangers 128 is lower than Fyfe’s current average and I expect him maintain that average based on form and fixture.

[Colley Dogs]

128 is awkward. Macrae against GC could be on that at 3QT

Agree. Awkward.

The usual line I take is:
- 129 or below: leave
- 130-134 = grey (Captain’s opponent dictates whether to take or leave)
- 135 or above: take

This creates a rule on whether to employ the loophole from week to week; I only allow gut feel to enter the equation when the VC scores 130-134. It’s an approach that’s stood me well over the years.

I’m therefore leaving the 128, and running with Fyfe as my C.

But... I have this nagging feeling I should take the 128; I WISH Danger had scored 130, because if he had I’d definitely be locking it away.

So you're willing to risk it because he didn't get 2(!) more points? And really, you're chasing another 7 to get to 135.

Say your VC scored 128 every week, and every week you risked another C chasing the 7 points. That means you'd have to nail it 6 times in a row to break even with that one time your C fails and scores 87 (like Grundy rd1)

Hypotheticals of course, but over the course of the season, the chances of breaking even if you're giving up VC scores over 120 really aren't that great that they're worth the risk... My 2 cents

You’re missunderstanding my point. It’s a strategic approach, to take a line that over a period of time has a higher EV. If you take 128, does that mean you would take 127? Does that mean you would take 126?

The question being: what is the exact, precise score that you’ll pass on your VC?

I’ve found it productive to create a rule, to remove gut-feel & emotion from the decision. Yes, I may lose this weekend with Fyfe scoring less than 128. But I believe by adhering  to this line, I’ll gain more points overall by the end of the season than if I wing it from week-to-week (and go, well, 128 is only 2 points shy of 130, so I should take it). I only allow gut-feel and fixtures to enter the equation for scores between 130-134.

Look... I’m happy to record my VC/C loophole scores this season, as an experiment, and share my results (if anyone’s interested) i.e

Record the points I gain by the brackets listed above

V.

Points I would’ve gained/lost taking the loophole with scores 125-129

V.

Points I would’ve gained/lost  by taking the loophole with scores 120-124

(But for it to be relevant there needs to be a pre-defined parameter; you can’t do it ad hoc week-2-week because 128 is 2 points away from 130. In your response you said: what if your VC scores 128 every week? Well, that never happens. If my VC scored 128 with regularity, I’d of course take it. But that only happens in La La Land. Scores go up, down, left, and right. Chasing it is futile. It’s therefore optimal to create a rule. For those who play poker, it’s like understanding the correct odds to call a flush draw i.e the objective isn’t to win that specific hand; it’s to play that hand in a manner that gives the greatest probability of being profitable over a period of time).

[sammy123]

125+ I always lock away...

120-125 is that awkward range that I usually pass on.

Therefore I will be taking Danger.

If Gawn (my captain option) goes 140 I miss out on 12 points if he goes 100 I gain 28...

My exact rule. Except for round 1 went i didnt take cripps 126

[MontyJnr]

No way I’m settling for a 128 and missing out on Macrae v GC haha

Rule was 130+ for me this round and Danger failed to reach that.

Macrae C is locked.

[jvalles69]

Might not be able to take dangers VC if sweet is named...

[js19]

128 is awkward. Macrae against GC could be on that at 3QT

Agree. Awkward.

The usual line I take is:
- 129 or below: leave
- 130-134 = grey (Captain’s opponent dictates whether to take or leave)
- 135 or above: take

This creates a rule on whether to employ the loophole from week to week; I only allow gut feel to enter the equation when the VC scores 130-134. It’s an approach that’s stood me well over the years.

I’m therefore leaving the 128, and running with Fyfe as my C.

But... I have this nagging feeling I should take the 128; I WISH Danger had scored 130, because if he had I’d definitely be locking it away.

So you're willing to risk it because he didn't get 2(!) more points? And really, you're chasing another 7 to get to 135.

Say your VC scored 128 every week, and every week you risked another C chasing the 7 points. That means you'd have to nail it 6 times in a row to break even with that one time your C fails and scores 87 (like Grundy rd1)

Hypotheticals of course, but over the course of the season, the chances of breaking even if you're giving up VC scores over 120 really aren't that great that they're worth the risk... My 2 cents

You’re missunderstanding my point. It’s a strategic approach, to take a line that over a long period of time will have a higher EV. If you take 128, does that mean you would take 127? Does that mean you would take 126?

The question being: what is the exact, precise score that you’ll pass on your VC?

I’ve found it productive to create a rule, to remove gut-feel & emotion from the decision. Yes, I may lose this weekend with Fyfe scoring less than 128. But I believe by adhering  to this line, I’ll gain more points overall by the end of the season than if I wing it from week-to-week (and go, well, 128 is only 2 points shy of 130, so I should take it). I only allow gut-feel and fixtures to enter the equation for scores between 130-134.

Look... I’m happy to record this as an experiment this year, and share my results, if anyone is interested i.e

Record the points I gained by the brackets listed above

V.

Points gained taking the loophole with scores 125-129

V.

Points gained by taking the loophole with scores 120-124

(But for this to be relevant there needs to be  pre-defined parameters; you can’t just do it ad hoc because 128 is 2 points away from 130. For those who play poker, it’s like understanding the correct odds to call a flush draw i.e the objective isn’t to win that specific hand; the objective is to play that hand in a manner that will result in being profitable over a long period of time)

I do take your point, and was being a bit facetious here.

I see the reasoning, but I've been burnt so many times by a failing C as well. It's working on the assumption that you catch players getting their average or above, when there are so many variables.

For example, you could lock in a 135 VC on the day Danger gets 200, and pass on a 128 on the day Danger scores 95. Not saying any is more likely than the others, but for me, I reckon I've lost more points chasing a few extra over the years, so a bit more cautious now

[Ringo]

As the season progresses you gain an idea of which of your premiums are maintaining consistency, However this is a little difficult to judge eg Gawn, Grundy week 1 to week 2. So I will be taking Dangers VC this week. Do not have Macrae but who is to say he will not have a down week against Suns at this stage.
My option would be Neale or Fyfe and say they maintain current average I would only be losing 7 points. So decision for me is do I risk a safe 128 points to possibly gain 12. As they say a Bird in the hand.

Talking of Rules these are mine.
Below 125 pass
125 - 130 Assess against Average and if average is 10ppg above score take. Also look at opponents choices if chasing League wins. And yes I was another who did not take Cripps 126.
130+ Bank.

[Mongoose528]

No way I’m settling for a 128 and missing out on Macrae v GC haha

Rule was 130+ for me this round and Danger failed to reach that.

Macrae C is locked.

I think I'm going Macrae as well, 189 against the Sun's last year, and I remember reading a stat here that he has 9 or so consecutive tons at the Etihad. He's also started the season off quite well, so I think I'm going to take the risk.

[ubeaut]

Macrae could get tagged.
Fyfe will be tagged and his record vs St. Kilda isn't great.
Not sure if I trust Grundy or Gawn yet.

Danger VC Bines C

[Keeper27]

while i agree with a lot of the points made here i am not passing up on a guaranteed 128.
anything can happen, thats the way life is... macrae/Fyfe could get tagged... he could get injured in the 1st 5 mins.
128 is a decent Captain score. anything over 125 is a lock for me... no point risking guaranteed points for a chance of an extra 15+ that you might not get.