THE FLOATING DONUT

[Jroo]

A floating donut is used to utilise the captain loophole. It's a non-scoring player (a player who is not playing) who is put onto your field and made captain if you are happy with your vice captain's score, meaning you'll get your vice captain's score as captain. Ultimately, you can get two bites of the cherry each round when selecting your captain, which is vital if you want SuperCoach success.

Due to the rolling lockout, a floating donut is now important. When selecting a floating donut you should pick them in the position you need least, which is your fourth ruckman. Because you only need two ruckman on your field, it's not vital to have a strong bench there. I would only look to pick one bench ruckman who is likely to play games, so you can use him as an emergency and cash cow, but your other bench ruckman should be as cheap as possible. This guy will be your floating donut.

The position left blank is your fourth ruckman. He can be used as the floating donut. I'll give you the best options to fill this position.

Usually when selecting your fourth ruckman, you wouldn't put much time into it. But now your fourth is now an important part of your SuperCoach side, as selecting the right one can be the difference between a win and a loss in a league game or even $50k.

When looking for a floating donut, there are four possible options this year, who are all priced at the minimum price of  $102,400. They are Jason Holmes (St.Kilda), Max King (Melbourne), Patrick Mitchell (Sydney) and Archie Smith (Brisbane). Now I'll help you pick the best option.

To fully utilise the captain loophole, we'll be looking for players whose team plays as late as possible in the round, meaning we get more options when using the captain loophole. So I've gone through the fixtures of each of these four player's teams, to see who is the best player to select to as our floating donut.

Sydney and Brisbane each play only four Sunday games this year, so straightaway they're crossed off the list. So it's down to Max King (Melbourne) vs. Jason Holmes (St.Kilda).

St.Kilda play eight games on Sunday/Monday, while Melbourne play 10 games on Sunday/Monday, from a possible 21 (please note the fixture is only available for 21 games, as the round 23 fixture is yet to be announced).

Max King is the guy you should lock in as your fourth ruckman, as his side Melbourne regularly plays late in the round, meaning you have more choices to pick from, when using the captain loophole. It's unlikely that he'll get any game time this year, but he'll still make a valuable contribution to your SuperCoach side.

However, there are some people who oppose the floating donut, as it can be considered risky. Some people like to start the year with a SuperCoach team full of players who are playing in round one. If you're fourth ruckman is getting games he can't be used for the captain loophole, but he'll be making money, which is equally important. If he's playing you can also use him as an emergency, just in case one of your ruckman is injured, suspended or rested throughout the year and he could save you a donut. Also, selecting your vice captain's score over your captain's score may not always be beneficial, as this is a game of skill as well as luck, so you wontt always pick the right option.

If you're not looking at selecting a floating donut as your fourth ruckman, then you should look at selecting one of Sam Michael, Craig Moller, Michael Apeness, Dan Currie, Tom Derickx, Fraser Thurlow, Ben Brown, Toby Nankervis or Rory Lobb, as the guys are much more likely to get games than the others, but they'llll cost you a bit more than your floating donut options.

In my opinion, I'd look to save the cash and go for a floating donut, in Max King. I think it will be more beneficial to your side and it's rare that you actually need to use your fourth ruckman on-field and you will be left behind if you don't use the captain loophole, as most other teams are getting two chances to pick their captain, while you'll only get one, unless you have another player who isn't playing.

What do you think? Will you go for a floating donut in Max King or Jason Holmes, or will you pick a ruckman who's likely to get games this season such as Dan Currie or Toby Nankervis?

http://www.supercoachhq.com/16/post/2014/02/1.html

Thanks for reading  :)

EDIT: Sorry about the SuperCoach refrences, but I thought this may be useful for AFLFantasy so I posted it here as well, hopefully you guys don't mind.  :)

[Mr.Craig]

Never used the loophole. I don't believe it's in the spirit of the game.

[Nige]

Never used the loophole. I don't believe it's in the spirit of the game.

Amen to this.

[truBLUE]

Never used the loophole. I don't believe it's in the spirit of the game.

Amen to this.

+1 never even thought about it

[eaglesman]

was not even aware you could do this in fantasy, but no i wont be picking a player who definitely wont play ... ill pick thurlow and if he plays and makes cash it is a bonus but if he doesnt no biggy ill use him for the loophole

its all good and all to not think it is in the spirit of the game ... but if ya wanna win you must utilise all possible means ... you wont win if other players are doing this

good luck to yas though

[Mr.Craig]

its all good and all to not think it is in the spirit of the game ... but if ya wanna win you must utilise all possible means ... you wont win if other players are doing this

That's presuming people using the loophole make the correct judgement while those not using it make the wrong one, and consistently enough to gain a significant advantage over the course of a season. It just doesn't work like that in my experience.

[eaglesman]

its all good and all to not think it is in the spirit of the game ... but if ya wanna win you must utilise all possible means ... you wont win if other players are doing this

That's presuming people using the loophole make the correct judgement while those not using it make the wrong one, and consistently enough to gain a significant advantage over the course of a season. It just doesn't work like that in my experience.

well works a dream when 90% of people lock in ablett for captain in an early game during the week and he gets injured in the first quarter with a score of 30 n u can switch to someone else who pumps a 100 ... 70 points made just there ... there is a risk but just as it is a rick there is a safety thing to it all as well

its a not brainer and people should be exploiting this where possible ... if not the serious fantasy players have already beaten u

[Mr.Craig]

Let's look at the loophole games last year....

Round 1 Carl vs Rich - Gibbs 131, Cotchin 101. Other scores that round -  Ablett 135, Swan 123, Pendles 124.

Round 5 Ess vs Coll, StK vs Syd - Riewoldt 153, Sidebottom 143, Swan 120, Stanton 114, Watson 109, Pendlebury 108. Other scores that round - Ablett 131.

Round 14 WC vs Ess - Watson 122, Cox 104, Stanton 103. Other scores that round - Pendlebury 112, Ablett 109, Swan 73.

The only decent advantage would have been in Round 5 if you were crazy enough to pick NRoo ahead of Swan, Pendles or Watson (which didn't require the loophole anyway) or if you took the gamble in holding Watson's 122 in Round 14 when you knew Swan, Pendles and Ablett were still to come.

Let's go deeper and look at 2012...

Round 1 Rich vs Carl - Cotchin 120, Murphy 116, Gibbs 104. Other scores that round - Ablett 136, Pendlebury 132, Swan 102.

Round 2 Carl vs Bris - Judd 136, Waite, 131, Simpson 119, Murphy 115. Other scores that round - Ablett 143, Pendlebury 122, Swan 116.

Round 5 Coll vs Ess - Swan 171, Pendlebury 113, Watson 104.

Round 12 WC vs Carl - Naitanui 136, Carrazzo 118, Cox 96. Other scores that round - Ablett 148.

No advantage in Round 1 and none in Round 2 unless you somehow had Judd in your team, loopholed him and everyone else picked Swan. With GAJ out in Round 5 and Swan coming off 130+ anyone who was silly enough not to captain Swan deserved to be punished, loophole or not. Collingwood had the bye in Round 12 so most serious coaches would have been on Ablett meaning there was no loophole advantage to be had.

Maybe the future will throw up some amazing loophole win but the past shows no such situation.

[Rusty00]

The loophole is more relevant for SC with the rolling lockout.

You may as well use it if you are able to, however I wouldn't be purposely picking a non-playing rookie over a playing one given there are only 3-4 rounds you can use it.

[zeddyzed]

Rolling lockout in Real DT too yeh?

[Mr.Craig]

Rolling lockout in Real DT too yeh?

Just in Round 1, then the normal partial lockouts.

[elephants]

Doesn't hurt to have the safety of a locked in 120-125 score as captain even if another players scores 10-20 points more. They could just as eaily get injured and score 20-120 points less!

[Jroo]

Let's look at the loophole games last year....

Round 1 Carl vs Rich - Gibbs 131, Cotchin 101. Other scores that round -  Ablett 135, Swan 123, Pendles 124.

Round 5 Ess vs Coll, StK vs Syd - Riewoldt 153, Sidebottom 143, Swan 120, Stanton 114, Watson 109, Pendlebury 108. Other scores that round - Ablett 131.

Round 14 WC vs Ess - Watson 122, Cox 104, Stanton 103. Other scores that round - Pendlebury 112, Ablett 109, Swan 73.

The only decent advantage would have been in Round 5 if you were crazy enough to pick NRoo ahead of Swan, Pendles or Watson (which didn't require the loophole anyway) or if you took the gamble in holding Watson's 122 in Round 14 when you knew Swan, Pendles and Ablett were still to come.

Let's go deeper and look at 2012...

Round 1 Rich vs Carl - Cotchin 120, Murphy 116, Gibbs 104. Other scores that round - Ablett 136, Pendlebury 132, Swan 102.

Round 2 Carl vs Bris - Judd 136, Waite, 131, Simpson 119, Murphy 115. Other scores that round - Ablett 143, Pendlebury 122, Swan 116.

Round 5 Coll vs Ess - Swan 171, Pendlebury 113, Watson 104.

Round 12 WC vs Carl - Naitanui 136, Carrazzo 118, Cox 96. Other scores that round - Ablett 148.

No advantage in Round 1 and none in Round 2 unless you somehow had Judd in your team, loopholed him and everyone else picked Swan. With GAJ out in Round 5 and Swan coming off 130+ anyone who was silly enough not to captain Swan deserved to be punished, loophole or not. Collingwood had the bye in Round 12 so most serious coaches would have been on Ablett meaning there was no loophole advantage to be had.

Maybe the future will throw up some amazing loophole win but the past shows no such situation.

Great work MC, some good stats there.
The loophole isn't as important in DT/AF as it is in SC.