Interesting - shades of Stephen Bradbury.
The first 10 gamers only landed 3 successful player picks - besides @SCarey who was locked in already.
I think @Kj_11 smack gambit forced @benny to match it and they both imploded. Leaving @hambo to skate through to the lead, followed by @SCarey
If we get through to the next round I will struggle to pass @hambo going on past form, including this round, I would either go for the same picks or, on reflection, wish I had .
Mind you it will be interesting trying to work out if Hooker will be back in or not.
If true, thatâs madness by Benny, but at least itâs funny to know I brought someone down with me.
I had to make that play, it was the only possible scenario that could see me winning, but it was a massive Hail Mary.
In truth I definitely knew it wouldnât be happening, with that picture in the training thread being a massive give away to the coaches plans.
Only a late injury to Bellchambers would get you guys back in it.
And me right out of it.
I was in 13th place at one stage. I arsed this game big time 
Itâs not over yet Hambro!
Oh yeah true. Itâs not all over yet though. Weâre gonna win on Saturday. Carn the Bombers.
edit: beat me to it
Canât believe you guys didnât Trauma on Jobe in Round 23.
I won the Coleman⌠Doesnât matter how
Many you kick after that 
Really itâs going to be 20 degrees and sunny on Saturday. If we only go in with 2 tall forwards Joey is going to get slaughtered so I thought we wouldâve picked someone to give him a chop out. $12 was a good return and I felt like a gamble after playing like a accountant all year.
Smack is still alive until the opening bounce.
Final Panic Dollars holdings and rankings after Final loss to Swans.
Fund Report
Overall it was a very poor performance for the fund which failed to hit the predicted $10m mark. This week produced the lowest return % of the year with lots of red ink for investors at the top of the table.
It seemed like investors preferred to go out all guns blazing with a strategy that might jag a win as opposed to an honourable loss - perhaps a bit like a football team we know. I am not sure why the coaches are getting so much stick for this when we all seem to make the same type of decisions in similar situations when things are in reality just a game.
Thanks for the game.
It was very interesting and a lot of fun.
Just wish Iâd jumped on board earlier.
Here are some trends in how the game was played over the year.
The brown line is how many Gamers there were, and the green line at the top is how many player selections they made. The red line is what I was interested in - how many different players were being picked each week. This stayed between 20-25 all year which is half the squad - although obviously there are some passive investors in there.
This is a good outcome I think. I was setting the rules to try to encourage different strategies and interest in a range of players so you had variation in outcome, not everyone picking the same players every week so there was no movement in the table.
Thanks for the game. @Kay_Eff_See , it was fun, and it went down to the wire.
Congratulations to @hambo on the win, picking the right players each week and ditching the stress options when you could see there was more panic dollars to be made on individual investments as you approached your panic $ millionaire status.
Colyer proved to be a pivotal player with many Blitzers wanting him dropped, but his speed keeping him in the side except for the week he was rested costing @Kj_11 dearly. Otherwise he was a good investment all year and if he hadnât played the last game the result would have been different. So in the end he won it for hambo and lost it for kj.
Damnit.
Missed it by that much.
Thanks for these suggestions.
As Iâve said my goal with the options and rates is to have a range or players and options selected every week. So I am trying to encourage situations where different Gamers will make different choices, not make a clear best pick or option.
At the moment each player only has 1 rate each week. It would add a much higher level of complexity and time for me if there were multiple rates for each player in each period, say for 1 week or 2, 3 or 5 week periods. For example if a player was doubtful for this week, say $8, then he wouldnât necessarily be $179 ($8 by 5 weeks compounding) if I had to set a rate for him to play the next 5 weeks.
In terms of making the loss for not playing much bigger, say 10%. I donât want to make the penalties so big that a Gamer cannot come back from 1 bad week - this would just make people not play after they missed on a return in a week. Remember that they already lose about 30-40% relative to their successful rivals who move ahead of them.
