Strategy Discussion: Resource management, balance, fluidity.

[Beeznik]

Excited to find out that after about a year of not being able to post any more screenies Windows actually has a built in virtual keyboard with the Print-Screen function!! So I'm back to copy/paste visuals and the first one is an example of great resource management for this thread. Below is a screeny of a 5.19 pick who is basically as perfect as the real world gets for a MLB in my scheme, which NEVER blitzes the MLB:



Give him some blitzing skills, which I'd NEVER use, and he's a 70+ OVR easily... which would cost me immensely more for skills that are 100% useless for me. As is he's a perfect MLB for my scheme at a peanut's cost of a late 5th rounder.

I also took the screeny to point out his apparent double move to MLB. I don't know if that ever had effect but he was a TC Bump and the reason for the double move is that I exported twice via the same gamefile. I forget how it actually played out.

EDIT: To be clearer I changed his position to MLB during a mid-week export which Matt ran. Then I failed to DL the latest file when I actually made my gameplan so I again changed him to MLB during that export. Not sure if this resulted in a "double bump" to the new position. Could be an FOF bug I've come across.

This is a solid point Jester. If you don't blitz, there is zero need to have a pr rushing, big bar ILB. Similarly, I wouldn't waste resources on an 80/80 OLB as my WLB if I'm running a 3-4. It's much better to find a cheaper option at WLB who has the necessary bars(IMO, RD, PRT, PRS and you're good). I've had many many 40ih rated WLBs get a lot of sacks. In the USFL, I have two 40/40 WLBs that split time. One of them has good run defense but not as good PRT, so he plays in my base packages AND the nickel packages. The other has very high PRT but no run defense, he goes in Dime. Anyhow, I feel the 80/80 rated LB would be much better suited as the MLB in a 3-4 if he can make the move, because his high pass defense bars would be a pretty big waste if he's rushing the passer every down.

Just a thought.

[JesterBlaze]

I feel the 80/80 rated LB would be much better suited as the MLB in a 3-4 if he can make the move, because his high pass defense bars would be a pretty big waste if he's rushing the passer every down.

You've got me wondering if the 80/80/ LB is a waste in some way(s) by definition...

[Beeznik]

You've got me wondering if the 80/80/ LB is a waste in some way(s) by definition...

The only way I would personally keep one around is if he played MLB. But yeah, if you don't blitz, I would say he might be. Give me an 80/80 DE any day. I also think highly rated DTs are a waste. I rotate run stuffers in my base/nickel and pass rushing DTs in Dime/nickel., ,team pending a lot of the time.

[JesterBlaze]

DTs are an open case in my detective log. It's either that they're useless or that they appear in other ways. When I had the IFL's highest rated (98 OVR) DT to start the league I was getting sacks from my less-than-stellar DE's. Now that I have great DE's I get sacks from my less-than-steller DTs. I wonder if it's a matter of there being a "total push" on Dline and one person gets the sack, not necessarily first to the ball.

[DakotaGeorge]

Time to talk balance... or The Power of 50/50.

Before going any further let's just point out that if a choice is left/right on a % basis and you choose 100% in either direction then your opponent can also go 100% in that direction and stop you. 50/50 rather and your opponent can counter with 50/50 and still be wrong 100% of the time theoretically if all their "lefts" match up with your "rights" regardless of the fact they chose the correct odds to start.

I'll let this one simmer a little before even going further.

ERMMMMM a disturbance in the force there is.

[JesterBlaze]

Hopefully a growth spurt as opposed to a disturbance. A Champion should be a Champion of the People, not a Champion above the people. The IFL will be better in 2026 than it was in 2023.... I hope.

[Kobeck]

http://youtu.be/mhlc7peGlGg

[JesterBlaze]

At 3:25 of your video they state that sticking to your original choice leaves you with 1/3 chance... This is incorrect. The choices are no longer divided by 3. The "host" reveals one of the non-choices as a goat, not changing anything on the original selection but opening a new box of the 2 prior-non-choices. The New choice is a separate discussion and is 50/50 regardless. Molding 2 choices into one opens the way for "fuzzy math" as someone brought up in one of my threads already.

Monty Python seems to be a successful comedian but not a precise mathematician. Unless I"m wrong, which I'm always at risk, willing or not, to be.

[markc]

At 3:25 of your video they state that sticking to your original choice leaves you with 1/3 chance... This is incorrect. The choices are no longer divided by 3. The "host" reveals one of the non-choices as a goat, not changing anything on the original selection but opening a new box of the 2 prior-non-choices. The New choice is a separate discussion and is 50/50 regardless. Molding 2 choices into one opens the way for "fuzzy math" as someone brought up in one of my threads already.

Monty Python seems to be a successful comedian but not a precise mathematician. Unless I"m wrong, which I'm always at risk, willing or not, to be.

In this scenario, 1/3 chance is correct...
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MontyHallProblem.html
http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Monty_Hall/Monty_Hall.html

[JesterBlaze]

1/3 chance is correct (I've read the links and they appear wrong in logic not math) on the 1st choice.

Then a 2nd choice is presented. What none of the videos/links seem to recognize is exactly what they say... a 2nd choice. This is a new math problem. No math problems involve changing the variables.

On the 2nd choice it's 50/50 whether you stay or change... thus the indifference that most of us think initially seems correct. This is a separate problem not a continuation of the 1st. 1 out of 3 is 33%... if you reveal an option then the NEW math problem (not relating to the old at all) is now a separate 50/50 choice. This isn't an improvement on odds of the current game, but a choice to play an entirely new game.

Unless I'm wrong of course.

[JesterBlaze]

BTW - In practice this seems to be ripe for "outside intervention" such as visual body leans, conversation, and a host of other "cheats" that the magician doesn't speak of.

"Nobody pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gallagher."

[SteveBsFan]

The Monty Python Problem one is confusing because of the variable of the game show host.

In that specific problem, should you go into the game knowing the host will open the wrong door, and you are going to swap regardless, you have a 66% chance of picking the correct door. You want to pick a door with a goat, not the car because of what the host knows.

Remove the game show aspect to it and Jester is right. You have 3 doors. You pick 1, that door is opened to reveal if you won or not. That's 33%. If the door reveals you lost, but are given a second chance, you now have a 50% of picking the correct door.

The one little variable of the host's involvement in the game turns it from a simple 33 to 50% problem into something a bit more complex.

[Matt]

You'll notice that in the latest patch, LB's with big sexy red bars are fewer and far between I would never "waste" a LB and play him at WLB. So many times I've seen that guy there.......80/80 WLB playing only in running downs in teh 4-3 and only as a passrusher in the 3-4.