Ah, of course
50% nervous Langford and 50% stress on hooker.
Read blue line in this table …
Not all bad … you get to have a tin-rattlers party with riolio and barnz
McKenna 50% STRESS
Hooker 50% STRESS
doesnt the bye, by its very nature remove all traumas?
My available funds all on McKenna - Anxiety please.
Yes, just like dreams but then you wake up and they are still there just like before.
Wat? You complained about low nervous rates last week. This week I’ve wound everyone on the edge or outside the team out to higher rates and you squib it by picking two 25% options. Where’s your sense of adventure?
Is the bookmaker allowed to goad his clients into more risky bets?
Panic Dollars indeed.
Stress Langford and Baguley please-50% each of course.
You might have a point if I was taking anyone’s money. But I am giving out the virtual money - I want to have as many Gamers as possible to have a chance to win in the last few rounds. So rest assured when I make comments or question any Gamer’s strategy it is to make them think whether there are better options for them in their situation.
Just doing a bit of virtual kidding
Just the regular investment thanks
I have no confidence in the essendon selection committee when it comes to our young players and no confidence in your rates.
Could’ve gone Guelfi and Langford but if they’d gotten picked you would’ve put them at $20 dollars alongside Hepp after that then they’d have been dropped the week after
If you lock someone in for a stress, do you get the nervous rate at point of locking them in, or only the updated nervous rate in subsequent weeks?
You get the nervous rate applicable in each week, so it changes. The lock qualifies you for the bonus payment you don’t lock the weekly rate.
If there was an option to lock the rate, it wouldn’t have a bonus payment at the end as well.
Since there have been a few questions about rates, the following information might be useful - and let’s face it everyone loves a graph.
This shows how many players were at each Nervous Rate in each round …
At the bottom are the actual number of team changes in each round. Plus the average Nervous rate for the 22 players who played that game (R6 is much higher because it had Ambrose at 1000%).
The only time I had 22 players at 30% or less was round 2, when there were no team changes, so I don’t think anyone can complain about that.
From R6 on the max number of players on the lowest rate (20%) is 8. For example Hooker has never been at 20% this year. So Benny’s suggestion that Langford or Guelfi would go to 20% once they got in the team is remote (although I realise he said this in jest).
In retrospect in rounds 3, 7, 8 and 9 after bad losses, I had too many players at 35% - expecting team changes. While I could make a good case as to why each of the players at 35% outside the team was close to being picked in the team, the reality is that all of them were unlikely to be brought in at the same time. So I should forced myself to split these into 2 or more groups - some at 35% and some higher.
I had less players at 35% for R10 and will try to keep this for the future. Although since there will be no more bad losses this year in our rise to the premiership I am not sure this will be that big an issue.
Here is table for likely new Blitzcoin holdings and rankings, assuming no late changes and team plays as selected.
Obviously this does not include best players bonus payments.
Best players on EFC site match report: Heppell, Zaharakis, Zerrett, Baguley, Smith, Saad.
Bellchambers a bit stiff.