4H Scalping Trading System - Forex Strategies - Forex ...

Against Buying Low: A Meditation On Our Favorite Fantasy Tactic, Which Might Not Actually Work

Warning: Novel-length post ahead.
It’s that time of the season when this forum—along with much of the fantasy basketball punditry across the web—is fixated on buying low. It seems like the majority of threads here, and columns across the fantasy basketball web, are focused on identifying good buy low candidates.
Which, to me, begged the question: does buying low actually work? And the answer was: I had no fucking idea. Sure, there was a wealth of anecdotal evidence, but that could lead you in very different directions, depending upon whether you had bought low last year on Danny Green, or on Chris Paul. There was no metric of how effective a strategy it is on the whole.
So I set out to create one.
There’s a lot of uncertainty involved in buying low on players, and so by necessity we should be making probabilistic predictions: talking in terms of the odds that something will happen, rather than a binary will-it-or-won’t-it position. Anyone who says “Player X will certainly bounce back from their slow start” or “Player Y certainly won’t” is talking out of their ass. The truth is, we can’t say for sure: NBA statistics are the product of a complex system, not quite as complex as, say, the weather, but complex nonetheless. I can state with a pretty high degree of confidence that Kawhi Leonard will post top 10 value over the rest of the season (much like a meteorologist can estimate with pretty high confidence what the high temperature will be tomorrow). But ask a meteorologist what the high temperature will be on January 20th, or ask me whether Paul Millsap will post top 25 value the rest of the season, and now neither of us is quite so confident. The meteorologist would be hard pressed to do better than just guessing the average January 20th temperature from the last 20 years. And I’d probably be best off trying to figure out guys similar to Paul Millsap who have started slow, and asking what percentage of them ended up posting top 25 value.
Now, of course I am not suggesting that a statistical model could give you all of the information you need to determine whether it’s a good idea to buy low on someone. Things like team situation, minutes, injury history, etc. matter of course, and there’s no easy way to build a statistical model to account for them. But it’s still essential that we have some sort of model to give us an overall understanding of how effective buying low is. When we’re thinking about buying low, we tend to start with the “inside view” (whether a guy’s coach likes him; whether he’s spending extra time working on his FT shooting; whether he’s in a contract year), but in reality, we should be looking first at the “outside view:” what % of all buy low candidates end up getting their shit together? That number should be our jumping-off point, and then, when we have it, we can adjust it for situation-specific info like their minutes, their team situation, etc. If we start by looking at the inside view, we can fool ourselves into thinking: “Everything’s set up for this guy to succeed; there’s probably a 90% chance he bounces back this year.” When, in reality, that’s probably a pretty terrible estimate, and the outside view shows us why.
[A note on the data (feel free to skip this): I have taken players who have started slow over the first 32 days of the previous 3 seasons (2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16). These are “struggling” players. In each year, I have limited the data set to players who were in the top 75 in final average value the previous year, per bbm, and I define “struggling” players as those who are underperforming their previous year’s ranking by at least (5 x round #). So if a player finished 32nd the year before, they would need to be at 47th (32 + [5 x 3]) or lower over the first 32 days of the following season in order to qualify as “struggling.” Of course, these distinctions are, to an extent, arbitrary, and you could slice the data somewhat differently (though I think the general principle would still hold). My rationale for cutting off the pool at top 75: players below that level generally aren’t “buy low” candidates, because their owners tend to cut them if they’re really struggling early in the season. As for determining what qualifies someone as “struggling,” I wanted to capture the fact that a 1st round pick who slides 10 spots is a much bigger disaster than a 6th round pick who slides 10 spots. I don’t think the method I came up with is perfect, but it does at least have a reasonably even distribution of “struggling” players in each round. Also, I tossed out anyone who played fewer than 50 games in their prior full season, or fewer than 10 games over their “struggling” month. I wanted this to reflect guys who are basically healthy; buying low on injured players is a whole other can of worms.]
There are 78 “struggling” starts over these 3 seasons. (And some guys lay claim to multiple slow starts; looking at you, Serge Ibaka.) In looking at end results, I have grouped players into 5 categories. Category 1 encompasses players who, for the remainder of the season, actually outperform the value they put up the previous year. So if a guy was ranked 30th in 2014-15, and then slides to 60th in the first month of 2015-16, but then posts 25th-ranked value for the rest of 2015-16, he’s in Category 1. A player in Category 2 did not match his value from the previous year, but came close enough to it over the rest of the season that he wouldn’t qualify as “struggling,” per the definition above. Players in Category 3 qualified as “not struggling” under a less stringent definition: 10 x round #, instead of 5 x round #. Category 4 encompasses players who improved upon their terrible start, but didn’t play well enough to qualify for Categories 1, 2, or 3. So a player who ranked 40th the year before, and then 120th over the first month of the season, and then 100th over the rest of the season, would fall into Category 4. Players in Category 5 went on to perform even worse for the rest of the season than they did in the first month.
In more basic terms, you can think of it like this: Buying low on a Category 1 player is an Excellent Decision, buying low on a Category 2 player a Good Decision, buying low on a Category 3 player a Neutral Decision, buying low on a Category 4 player a Bad Decision, and buying low on a Category 5 player is a Terrible Decision. So generally speaking, in a reasonably competitive league, in order for a buy low trade to actually help your team, you’ll need the guy you receive to fall into either Category 1 or Category 2.
[Aside: There’s no way for me to know how intelligent the other managers in your league are; of course, if you can get a struggling guy who was drafted in the 2nd round for waiver wire fodder, then go forth (and you don’t need this guide). But in my experience it’s usually hard to buy really low on medium-to-high draft picks. You can cite the sunk cost fallacy all you want, but on some level, owners’ aversion to selling low makes sense; your objective should always be to win your league, and if you sell a guy that you took in the 2nd round for someone whose ceiling is 6th round value, you may have improved the floor of your overall team, but you’ve almost certainly made yourself less likely to come in 1st than if you just held onto your 2nd round pick and prayed.]
So let’s take a look at the data. What percentage of struggling guys end up falling into each of our 5 categories?
The breakdown isn’t very encouraging:
Category # of Players
1 15
2 20
3 10
4 11
5 22
If you buy low on a random player, the single most likely outcome of these 5 is that he’s going to go on to play even worse than the month of games that made him a buy low candidate in the first place. There’s a 42.3% chance that buying low on him is going to be a Bad Decision or a Terrible Decision, and a 44.8% chance, roughly comparable, that it’s going to be a Good Decision or an Excellent Decision. And given the sort of value you usually have to give up to buy low, it’s likely that the Category 4 and 5 players are going to hurt you more than the Category 1 and 2 players are going to help you. (I.e., it’s unusual for someone who is top 75 to begin with, and then sucks for a month, to suddenly get it together and start playing significantly better than their baseline ability. But it’s not that unusual for someone to suck for a month, and then continue sucking for the next 4 months.)
“Okay,” you might say, “Buying low in aggregate isn’t an amazing idea, but given my fantasy basketball knowledge, I can determine which players are going to be Category 1 and Category 2 guys, rather than just buying low at random.”
This was basically what I believed about myself. So I thought about which factors might lead me to think a single particular player was a good “buy low” candidate. The first thing that came to mind was the round they would have been picked in, based off of value the previous year. Surely 1st and 2nd round picks are safer investments, more likely to sniff 1st or 2nd round value despite their slow starts than a 6th round pick would be likely to approach 6th round value if he starts out badly. Right?
Well, basically, no.
If you look at the breakdown, higher-round slow starters are just as likely to flame out as their lower-round counterparts. And they aren’t any more likely to exceed their value from the previous year, either.
Round Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
1 2 6 0 3 4
2 3 6 1 2 4
3 3 2 4 3 5
4 2 2 2 3 4
5 3 2 1 0 1
6-7 2 2 2 0 4
Round Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
1-3 8 14 5 8 13
4-7 7 6 5 3 9
Then I scrutinized the list of high-ranking players, and wondered if there was a better indicator than round value to demonstrate someone’s consistency or safety as a pick. After all, Danny Green posted 2nd round value in 2014-15, but no one was drafting him in the 2nd round in 2015-16. So how about sorting guys by their usage rates? Usage is a pretty solid indicator of how involved a player is in his team’s offense. It stands to reason that someone like LeBron, who has a sky-high usage every year, is a safer selection, relative to where he’s drafted, than someone like Danny Green, who touches the ball less and thus is more vulnerable if his team’s tactics evolve (like, say, to accommodate the arrival of LaMarcus Aldridge).
So I sorted the players in my data set into 3 categories: High Usage (someone with a usage rate above 26.5 in the full previous season); Medium Usage (someone with a usage rate between 20 and 26.5 in the full previous season); and Low Usage (someone with a usage rate under 20 in the full previous season).
Surprisingly, the correlation isn’t especially strong here either. It’s true that on the whole, high usage players are somewhat safer bets, and are less likely to end up in true disaster territory (Category 5) than low usage players, with the middle-usage guys falling in the middle. But it’s not a hugely strong correlation, and it’s also true that low usage players are more likely to fall into Category 1 than high usage players are.
Usage Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
High 5 9 1 5 4
Medium 2 9 6 2 8
Low 8 2 3 4 10
http://imgur.com/a/9bTFv http://imgur.com/a/ltLJT http://imgur.com/a/XS6IE
Next, I wondered whether position might be the better metric to look at. Sure, some of the benefits and drawbacks of position are captured by usage (with Cs and SGs tending to have lower usage rates than PGs and SFs), but perhaps there were other pieces of the puzzle that usage didn’t capture. Maybe centers, due to higher risk of injury and a more dramatic dropoff late in their careers, were at greater risk of not recovering from a slow start. Maybe point guards were more insulated due to their central role in a team’s offense.
But, running the numbers, there wasn’t much to glean here either. Perhaps big men are slightly riskier buy low candidates, but the upside seems to be greater as well.
Position Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
PG 2 5 2 3 3
SG 1 5 1 2 5
SF 4 3 2 2 3
PF 3 3 2 1 5
C 4 4 3 3 6
Then I looked at the fantasy category in which each buy low candidate was struggling the most. Maybe guys who start the year in a shooting slump are more likely to bounce back than guys who see a reduction in rebounds, for instance. I had expected that FG% would be the most common category here, but I was shocked by just how common it was. 34 out of 78 players (43.6% of them) had a greater dropoff in FG% than in any other category. The other very popular category was steals, which was the biggest problem for 13/78 players (16.7%).
Based on the data I’ve got here, there’s no category that seems to clearly suggest whether a player is a good buy low candidate. Even dropoffs in points and rebounds, which you would think would be indicators that a player has entered a less favorable team situation, don’t tell us much about how they’re likely to perform moving forward (though the sample is, admittedly, limited). This suggests that even players whose situations change dramatically usually find ways to make themselves useful from a fantasy perspective, whether it’s improving their efficiency (FG% and TOs) or focusing more on defensive stats. A dropoff in 3PT is probably the most concerning based on this data, but with just 6 players in that category, I’d be wary of drawing too firm a conclusion from that. On the whole, the category a player struggles in isn’t especially helpful in projecting their performance moving forward.
Fantasy Cat Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
3PT 1 1 0 1 3
AST 1 0 0 0 0
BLK 4 0 1 0 1
FG 6 11 3 4 10
FT 2 0 1 3 0
PTS 0 4 1 1 1
REB 0 1 1 1 0
STL 1 3 3 1 5
TO 0 0 0 0 2
So what about age? Finally, here, a pattern begins to emerge:
Age Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
24 and under 2 4 0 2 0
25 5 6 0 1 3
26-28 2 1 4 3 7
29-30 5 6 3 3 4
31 and above 1 3 3 2 8
Age Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
25 and under 7 10 0 3 3
26 and older 8 10 10 8 19
At first glance, this surprised me. Certainly, I expected there to be a significant dropoff as players aged into their 30’s, as this data includes guys from the Garnett/Pierce/Nowitzki generation as they gradually slipped from reliable early round players, to middle-rounders, to scrubs. So that piece of the aging curve (with the brutal track record for players 31+) is pretty much exactly what I expected.
It’s the younger half of the aging curve that initially confused me. I think the traditional understanding is that athletes in many sports, including basketball, tend to peak statistically around the age of 26-28. So I had thought that we would see the best buy low options in that age range. Instead, it skews significantly younger, with age 25 appearing to be the cutoff: guys 25 and younger are, on the whole, much stronger buy low candidates, and then once they hit 26, it’s no longer a good idea to buy low on them.
But the more I thought about it, the more this made sense. After all, when we talk about guys peaking in the 26-28 range, we’re talking about their absolute performance, whereas in fantasy we’re more concerned with their performance relative to the previous year, and hence relative to where they were likely to be drafted. And players almost always make the biggest gains in fantasy value between the ages of 22 and 25. Now, of course, some of this expectation of improvement is baked into guys’ average draft positions; players like Towns and Porzingis are going to be drafted above where they finished the previous year on the expectation that they will develop and improve. But it seems like this assumption of improvement often goes out the window when a young guy starts slow; people are often willing to cut the cord on underperforming young guys, whether due to a fear of the “sophomore slump” or a suspicion that, given their limited NBA track records, they may just not be good enough yet to justify their high ADP (see, for example, all of the people panicking about Towns’s somewhat slow start).
In my experience, people seem to be more willing to unload an underperforming young player at a reasonable price, than they would be willing to unload an underperforming 30-year-old with a solid fantasy track record of many years. But they shouldn’t be: buying low on young players is not only higher-upside, it’s also, surprisingly, a safer bet than buying low on veterans, or even buying low on guys in the 26-28 range, which I would have thought to be the safest age range of all.
So if there’s one thing you should look at when you consider buying low, it’s the dude’s birthday.
Now, is there an appropriate time for buying low on guys older than 25? Of course. It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that (for me, at least, and I suspect for many other players) fantasy sports are an all-or-nothing exercise, e.g., you’d rather give yourself a chance of coming in 1st and a chance of coming in 8th, instead of locking in a 4th place finish. So if your team is struggling, it makes sense to pursue volatile, high-risk-high-reward strategies. And that’s exactly what buying low is.
But on the whole, buying low is not an efficient way of generating value. Trades rarely are. The most reliable way to generate value is to draft well; then, trades should be used primarily to solidify punting strategies, not to generate value. Sure, occasionally you’ll strike it hot with a random buy low candidate, but overall, it’s not a reliable way to improve one’s team. Yes, if your team is already bad, you might as well leverage a high-risk strategy and give it a shot, but “buying low” is often touted as THE essential fantasy basketball strategy, and there’s not a lot of evidence to support that.
submitted by Rodekio to fantasybball [link] [comments]

Why a change to the intentional foul rule is inevitable

tldr: somebody's going to figure out that hacking anybody on the floor is better than letting elite scorers do elite things.
Intentional fouling is an overpowered defensive tactic, which will limit teams' offensive options and kill the watch-ability of games once defenses figure out the right way to use it. Once a team gets into the bonus, they have the option to put any player at the free throw line for exactly two shots. That's a HUGE advantage. Going into the game you know everybody's FT capability, so you can calculate the amount of points you can expect to give up in the long term. With that knowledge and film on your opponent, you can find situations where you're giving up points by not fouling even 60, 70, and 80% FT shooters. It's a bit rich to tell an 80% free throw shooter, "Just make your free throws dude."
The way teams are using intentional fouling in the current game is barbaric. The thought process is "DeAndre's bad at free throws, make him shoot free throws." There's no nuance or awareness of the game-state. It's only a matter of time until some enterprising coach realizes that free throw shooting isn't a binary, good/bad, but a curve, so he can use fouling on certain players in certain game states. One situation where it's easy to identify is on three point shooters.
Take this clip for example. JJ Redick in the corner for a wide open three. His shot chart here says that he's shooting the corner three at a 43% rate, but that's for all corner threes. You'd have to bump that stat up some for a shot that wide open and in rhythm. Hell, Jamal Crawford went ahead and bumped it up to 100%, but let's just bump it up to 50%. In the long run, you'd expect JJ Redick to be making 1.5 points per shot in that situation. In the paint watching the play unfold you have Thiago Splitter, Tim Duncan, and Blake Griffin. Splitter to close out while the ball's on it's way to JJ, but it's way too lat at that point, so he boxes Blake out instead. What he should be doing is seeing the pass and giving Blake a big hug before the ball even gets to Redick's hands.
Here's why:
Blake Griffin is shooting about 70% from free throws this year, which nobody seems to consider bad, but that's still just 1.4 points per trip to the line, vs 1.5 points per wide open corner three attempt from Redick. If you bump JJ's percentage on that shot up even more, once he's shooting 66% on that shot you have to foul anybody on the floor because he'll be making 2 points every time he takes that shot, whereas even a 95% free throw shooter will only be making 1.9 points per trip to the line.
This is one example from me, a fan with google and basic arithmetic, seeing the above clip and thinking, "Why are they just standing there?! He's wide fucking open!" I'm sure it's only a matter of time before a front office and coaching staff who have SportsVu cameras, detailed stats, and professional experience, start sniffing inefficiencies in fouling strategies. Electing to send decent free throw shooters to the line instead of allowing elite players to do what they're good at. The culmination will be the most boring NBA Championship team ever, with finals games lasting 5 hours because of all the fouls. Then we'll see the end of intentional fouling, because you can't tell a 100% free throw shooter to just make his free throws, when teams find situations where hacking him is the right play.
submitted by UCantRunFromRockets to nba [link] [comments]

Binary Options Strategies 2014  Trading Binary Options ... Best Binary Options Trading Strategies  Binary Options ... Binary Options Trading Strategy 2014  Contrary Trading ... Binäre Optionen Strategie für Dummies Binary Options Trading Strategy 2014  Earn $1,389 A Day ... Binary Options Trading Strategies  How to Make $7,935 in ... Binary Options Trade Signals Hit For 3 600 00 On The EUR/JPY Binary Options Trading Strategy 2014  Earn $1,389 A Day ... Binäre Optionen diese Strategie knallt Binary Options trading strategy 2014 Drift Shifter sexy ...

We specialize in teaching traders of all skill levels how to trade stocks, options, forex, cryptocurrencies, commodities, and more. We provide content for over 100,000+ active followers and over 2,500+ members. Our mission is to address the lack of good information for market traders and to simplify trading education by giving readers a detailed plan with step-by-step rules to follow. For example, binary options positions can be held for 1 minute or 5 minutes. Another interesting feature is that you can configure the entry of the operation to occur in the future, for example, in the next 3 minutes. A little more about the company The company was founded in 2013 and is regulated by CySEC in Europe. IQ Option is also licensed by the EEA. However, due to EEA regulations, IQ ... binary options robot 2014 / NASA объявило об обнаружении трех пригодных для жизни планет ; Home Strategia migliore per opzioni binarie . Strategia migliore per opzioni binarie. Articolo di approfondimento sulle strategie per investire nelle opzioni binarie. Ma quali sono le migliori strategie nel mercato binario? Le principali tipologie ... Binary Options USD 35 No Deposit Bonus from iMarkets360 Broker. Register an account and get $35 Bonus credit without any phone verification. The Promotion is […] Get Bonus iMarkets360 Review. Comments No 11 Offer - No Deposit End Date - 31 Dec, 2018 . $500 USD no-deposit bonus – Binary Extra Option. Binary Extra Option gives No deposit bonus of $500 USD to the new clients of the company ... To learn more about how to trade binary options in-depth and for binary options signals, trading strategies, tools and trade rooms see ApexInvesting.com a service provided by Darrell martin. Compare the pros & cons of different forex strategies. Read on to find forex trading strategies that can work for you from day trading to position trading. Strategieë vir wins in binêre opsies Verskillende handel strategieë Net soos-beurs, binêre opsie handel vereis dat die kennis en gebruik van... Alle Finanzen Tipps Willkommen bei allen Finanzen Tipps Egal, welches Stadium des investierenden Lebenszyklus Sie sich finden, ist unsere We... Binary Options Strategies II; Binary Options Strategies III; Scalping Forex Strategies; Scalping; 1# Double CCI and RSIOMA ; 2# Scalp with EmaPredictive; 3# Neptune System; 4# Neptune Advanced; 5# Open Range Scalp; 6# 60 minute after open; 7# Scalp Pattern; 8# The 5 minute standard deviation scalp; 9# The Anti; 10# Bollinger Bands, RSI and ADX; 11# Keltner Channels and EMA; 12# Support and ... "Our Auto Binary Signals review reveals that it works with each and every single kind of binary alternative trading systems; something that numerous of its rivals fall short to permit," mentions Stevenson. "An integrated secret approach, composed by Roger himself, determines not just the field self-confidence, however the durability and possibility of the signal being an effective field. You ...

[index] [3448] [19486] [22049] [29028] [17323] [26483] [18707] [27718] [12757] [19443]

Binary Options Strategies 2014 Trading Binary Options ...

Ein weiterer Vorteil: Vorkenntnisse im Börsenhandel sind nahezu unnötig, auch Einsteiger können mit sehr einfachen Binäre Optionen Strategien recht schnell Gewinne erzielen. http://tinyurl.com/Binary-Options-2014 = Best Forex Expert Adivisor 2014 Binary Options Trading Strategy 2014 Earn $1,389 A Day Using A Unique Method - Ar... http://tinyurl.com/Binary-Options-2014 = Best Forex Expert Adivisor 2014 Binary Options Strategies 2014 Trading Binary Options Strategies And Tactics 2014... Our first binary options trading strategy in 2014 that we released and share for free on our site has been well received. In this video we decided to share a... http://tinyurl.com/Forex-Binary-Expert = Binary Options Expert Adivisor Binary Options Trading Strategy 2014 Contrary Trading Techniques for Currency Trad... Binary Options Strategy For One Touch Trading Makes $3,600.00 In 4 Minutes For more free binary signal videos and training advice, click on our blog at the top of this Binäre Optionen Strategie für Dummies und 24option http://option.go2jump.org/SHQHb0 . Wer mit Trading Geld verdienen möchte, muss kein professioneller Broker... http://tinyurl.com/GOptions-2014 = Binary Options Platform 2014 http://tinyurl.com/Binary-Options-2014 = Binary Options Software 2014 (Click the first "Ins... http://tinyurl.com/Forex-Binary-Expert = Binary Options Expert Adivisor (Use the first "Instant Access" button) Binary Options Trading Strategies How to M... http://tinyurl.com/Forex-Binary-Expert = Binary Options Expert Adivisor Binary Options Trading Strategy 2014 Earn $1,389 A Day Trading Binary Options - Au...