Well even under those circumstances, 2 still picked GB so I would of been the 3rd. Either way I wouldn't have liked it and I wouldn't have been the lone person on GB, but thx for the heads up.

You don't get it. The circumstance was possible when a deal hadn't yet been made. Once people knew the deal was locked in, people knew they could pick whoever they wanted - that's what they were told.

The problem is that if everyone was waiting 5 min before game time for this guy to accept the deal, 1 person could've jumped in a picked Green Bay and been the only one on Green Bay because he could figure everyone else was going to wait to hear back from this guy before Sunday's games to make a deal.

That's not what happened, but that's what happened last week, albeit the guy picked a terrible game. Here, however, the 3rd best available game (based on Win % was available). Basically, trying to negotiate this deal without a firm deadline was a risky idea unless you were going to take Green Bay yourself if the last guy hadn't responded before the start of the Green Bay game.

Do you think either of those 2 guys would've picked Green Bay if the deal hadn't been reached yet? I doubt it. Not both of them. They most likely would've waited to make the deal Friday or Saturday rather than picking Green Bay and nullifying the deal.

You picking Cincinnati or Arizona today?

Kansas City

My opponent and I both advanced. I had KC while he took Houston. Glad I did not take Jacksonville.

I am quite certain most of these guys don't put this type of indepth analysis into their picks...

So sick of those last min calls against SF in that game. Since when is a sack considered roughing the passer? What a joke, another game controlled by idiot, puppet refs. Don't have an expert ex ref on live to talk about what the call should be when it's never upheld in the actual game, I've seen this time and again over the past few years and especially this year.

I was in the perfect spot, I was through with KC, 1 other through on CIN and 5 of the remaining 7 on ARI in which such calls were needed to advance. On to the next week, I'll take that spot anyday.

Does anyone have opinions on the ethics of buying a survivor entry that is deep?

Definitely wrong in poker, for some reason it seems less shady in Survivor. Also the e-mail I got says "There don’t seem to be any buyers left within the league, so I’m wondering if there might be potential buyers outside the league." Which tells me it's common and accepted for it to happen in this league. It's winner take all for 6 figures.

And let's be honest, it's one of those years where everyone still alive is probably not good at Survivor.

Thoughts?

No I don't think there is anything wrong with buying a Survivor entry. It seems like a good idea if you get a fair price.

Any thoughts on who I should pick this week? My options include:

Jets @ NYG
Bears vs. SF
Redskins vs. DAL
Texans @ BUF
Colts @ PIT
Vikings vs. SEA
Steelers vs. IND

My opponent has all of these available as well.


I'm thinking Redskins or Bears and then Jets (vs. TEN) or Colts (@ JAX) the following week.

Thanks for any help.

We've never encountered this that we know of in our pools, but I certainly wouldn't have any issue with it ethically. Deals are made all the time between players to share risk and prizes, so this would be along those lines. There's no tactical or strategic advantage that can be obtained by having a different player own the pick, vs having someone just advise you on your pick. There's no OPTAH in this thing- you can get whatever advice you want each week before you pick. So who cares who the owner of the entry is.

Pick whoever you think will win

It's unclear

Is there any way to see what professional oddsmakers and bettors think about the win probabilities?

Sure, I could visit any number of online sportsbooks and see what the point spreads are for the various games.

Think I like Bears a bit more; underrated Defense especially lately, Cutler quietly having a pretty decent year, and heck they even beat SF last year on the road when SF was a way better team.

What has your opponent's previous picks been? If he's the type that sees a starting QB is out (in this case Romo) and automatically picks against that team then you would probably be by yourself on CHI as well. If he's more been going by spread favorites, then you both might be on CHI, but both CHI or WAS really don't have much future value either way.

Hopefully u didn't take CHI, sorry. I'm out myself on the Pats, most improbable upset of the past century. What a joke. I quit NFL, GG.

Sorry I forgot to reply. I'm on the Redskins and my opponent is through with Denver.

Despite results, I was in the higher EV spot tho right?
7 left; 1 on CHI 71.4% to win (Loss), 4 on CIN 75.4% to win (Win), 2 including myself on NE 76.3% to win (Loss) according to survivorgrid.

The lone player on Chicago had the highest EV

Using your win probabilities, I get these EV's:
CHI +16.4%
NE +11.2%
CIN -12.9%


With perfect knowledge, Pittsburgh at 76% would have been the best play:
PIT +22.9%
NE +22.7%
CHI +10.7%
CIN -14.7%

Down to 9, you can repeat teams, all playoff games are in play. Picks lock at 1pm Sunday, so NE/KC and GB/ARI will be over by then.

Who should I take? Obviously injury news could go either way for Pittsburgh.

For large pools of 6000-8000 people is there a sweet spot of picks you would want given that you have no idea how many entries people would have? It could be a weird question but I was thinking about this recently. My main question is is there a certain amount of picks where you think it's too difficult to manage? Is it worth it to have 50 entries if you are basically going to toast away half of them by week 5? Is there any reading I can do on this topic? I'm in a pool of this size and wondering if I have a couple thousand dollars to spend on the pool what is a good number to actually spend.

Well for every suboptimal pick you lower your ev. Guess it's good to minimize variance tho

If you are willing to put in 20-30 entries on a large survivor pool what it would be smart in the opening weeks to take both sides of a complete toss up game like the 49ers/Rams or Falcons/Bucs where both teams are bottom 10 teams that you wouldn't use much going forward? I am having such a hard time strategically laying out what my 20-30 picks would be in this pool of 6,000+. Would anybody have any advise or reading material? I've searching online and there has been next to nothing about managing multiple entries in a large Survivor pool.

Go to SurvivorGrid.com and click around on past weeks. Generally speaking, the teams with an EV greater than 1 are good picks in the short run, and teams with an EV less than 1 are bad picks. In the short run means it doesn't take the future schedule into account.

If I had 30 entries in a 6,000 person pool, I would probably spread them around 4 teams in an average week 1, probably weighted something like 15-8-5-2. Try to find 4 +EV picks and spread them proportionally, and you'll probably be down to a reasonable number of picks after 4 or 5 weeks. Don't just blow them on coinflips because it's hard to manage them all.