Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?



  • I remember when I first started FI in October 2018, and I couldn't get my head round why Pogba was winning media all the time. Typical Scouse Ste, I was moaning about it on the forum and saying how shit it was and biased etc. You know by now how I roll 😜. You know what people on here said? Instead of moaning...just BUY him!" It was a big step back then to buy a United player πŸ˜† but I did. And I made good money.

    That's it, that's the end of the story πŸ‘πŸ»

    Oh no, wait, I knew there was something else. So this is tonight's media chart from a couple of hours ago, and it's pretty consistent with what it usually looks like...

    0_1591311880132_IMG_1630.PNG

    The message nearly TWO YEARS ON remains similar - don't moan that United players win media all the time....just buy them πŸ‘πŸ» Cool. Makes sense.

    Now.....let's talk about PB and where the hypocrisy comes in...
    I asked on a thread yesterday if anyone can give me even just ONE name of a player who wins PB at least 1 in 4 games. There are none. 1 in 5 games then? Probably not. Yet apparently the PB matrix is biased? Biased towards crosses in particular. Let's have a look at last night's PB winners then, from just single a game day...

    0_1591313992145_IMG_1632.PNG

    Ahhhh Filip Crosstic won! It must be true then. He executed 16 crosses last night. Excellent! So the same people telling you to buy United players instead of moaning, about the MB system are also telling you to buy attack-minded players (like Kostic and TAA) who see lots of the ball, dominate games and put in plenty of crosses and regularly get assists, yea?
    NOPE. Far from it.
    Surprisingly, instead of buying into the players most likely to win PB (although still a lottery and nowhere near as predictable as MB) they would rather see a change to the PB scoring system! Why?

    Ahh it must be because the weighting of crosses is so bad that it paints a completely different picture to what actually happened on the pitch (yet people are happy to earn payouts for a Pogba haircut instead of a Messi hat trick story πŸ™„). Well let's see. Let's have a look at sofascore from last night...

    0_1591313230846_IMG_1631.PNG

    Well it looks like Kostic is the highest rated starting player by sofascore, so that tells me that the PB matrix is pretty good. No glaringly obvious discrepancy. As I thought.

    So my question is this... WHY do so many people seem to be happy with a biased, predictable media system, yet seem hell-bent on fiddling with a PB system that is actually FAR from predictable, is still a lottery on most silver and gold days, and tweaking it will change the bets of THOUSANDS OF FI USERS?

    I ask this ahead of any surveys we get from FI in the next few days/weeks



  • I was really disappointed to hear Adam completely and beyond doubt rule out the idea of tiered PB going forward. The truth is, it is just so hard to win due to its lottery nature. I have a port geared up to win PB like TAA. But how often do I actually win on a silver + day? Maybe once a month realistically? I',m not gonna BS anyone and say I am winning most weeks. I'm not. Most of the players I hold is between 150-200 futures. So 10-20 quid per win. Whoopdy do.

    I think this may eventually hold back FI. Given there is unlikelihood of shared market with expansion, we need to maximise the UK market. And that will involve getting punters on board. Now, how excited are they gonna be with a 10-20 quid win every couple of months? We know the answer. They may get excited by the cap app side, but that looks alot like a pyramid scheme from a PB perspective. Not cap app, and infrequent wins will see most turn away after 4-5 months. We aren't at that point yet as we are still early stage enough, but i think we will hit that point.

    To counter this. I win about a multi once a month, and it is so much more exciting. Yeah, it is not all that often, but it is the thrill that I love. I do think FI need to capture that thrill by allowing more small wins. Even 1p payouts can get people excited and putting in more money. And tiered will take away some of the lottery nature



  • @ScouseSte said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    Not sure who fits the criteria you laid out.

    I think the changes they made to PB were a good start, I'd like to see them go further as I feel like the players who rise to the top of the market aren't the PB players, they are MB players, which is the wrong way around to me.



  • @ScouseSte

    The bias you show in your posts regarding a potential PB matrix change is crystal clear.

    You created this thread with the sole intention of protecting your current biggest investment, Trent Alexander Arnold.

    I can likely find several examples, using sofa score data, where Virgil Van Dijk has scored higher than TAA, yet was outscored on the Football Index PB matrix, almost exclusively due to the points awarded for crosses/attempted crosses.

    Liverpool 1 - 0 Wolves. 29/12/2019

    0_1591330612979_Screenshot_20200605-051455_SofaScore.jpg

    Yet, using your own data thread 'daily dividend winners', Trent outscored Van Dijk.

    0_1591330690987_Screenshot_20200605-051749_Samsung Notes.jpg

    In world football, of the 10 most expensive defenders in history, 7 of those are central defenders (admittedly, Lucas Hernandez is a hybrid and can play both LB or CB).

    0_1591330891867_Screenshot_20200605-052101_Samsung Notes.jpg

    Meanwhile, on the Football Index, of the 10 most expensive defenders, 7 are full backs/wing backs.

    0_1591330927234_Screenshot_20200605-051942_Samsung Notes.jpg

    To me, the reasons for this are clear and obvious.

    This is why, whenever a neutral like myself is asked their opinion on the PB scoring matrix, I feel that the points awarded for crosses/attempted crosses, and the fact that you can have an inaccurate cross that is NOT registered as a misplaced pass, is causing the scoring system to be biased in favour of full backs/wing backs.

    I want the Football Index to mirror real life.

    Many others feel the same.

    You want the Football Index to protect your investment and your post reeks of self preservation.



  • The biggest team in England gets more media than anyone else is pretty obvious. Makes sense.
    Hitting lots of useless crosses isn’t - to a new user why does that give you more points? Baffling.



  • @johnboywalker I agree. Why an unsuccessful cross isn't counted the same as a misplaced pass just baffles me. If they counted mis placed passes in the Same way as crosses then i reckon Eric Dier would be Β£12!



  • If any of us bet on a horse and after the start the bookies said they would change the bet so that every time the whip was used a yard would be deducted, none of us would ever bet on the horses again.

    FI can only upset people by changing the matrix.



  • @johnboywalker

    John I will respond to you first, because you are the one furthest from the truth -

    Firstly, you are wrong in your assumption that I hold large amounts in TAA anymore and are incorrect in your accusation that this thread is all about protecting my investment. Far from it. Unfortunately you seem to always try and make things personal with me. Please stop, it's clouding your judgment. Although it's interesting that TAA was on your watch list at Β£6.48 or something, yet you never bought? The uncertainty of possible PB matrix changes (which I'm sure is why you didn't pull the trigger) cost you money and this is my point in all this...

    We NEED stability. We NEED trust. We NEED to know that the players we buy now, based on the research we do which prompts us to buy them, are not going to be suddenly handicapped by random matrix changes (or positional reclassifications, another story!)

    Wanting to keep the matrix as stable as possible is not a selfish act to protect any particular player I hold now - its to give me and the rest of the platform a degree of confidence in future buys. The matching engine was meant to be the thing that brought whales to the platform, yet now they have undermined that with hints of more changes to the way we win

    I asked again and again, so i will ask you directly John - who is winning PB 1 in 5 times at least? I can't find anyone! It's not too far off real life. Why is changing the PB matrix something so many want to see?

    If they change the PB matrix now, then I want a guarantee that it doesn't change for another 3 years, in line with the length of a "bet" on FI.



  • So to clarify, the argument is....

    PB Scoring is flawless but the div wins are a lottery
    &
    MB Scoring is biased but div wins are completely consistent

    Not arguing whether your point is right or wrong and not suggesting either system is perfect but if that’s your view why do you play the lottery when you can win another way?

    It’s like a golfer hitting ridiculously high shots all and then moaning that the wind affected his score.

    Surely you play the game as you see it and if conditions change you adapt?

    As someone mentioned above this sniffs a lot of self preservation



  • @ScouseSte he makes a very good point, many moan that they cant change PB because it affects out bet but are happy to see MB changed and vice versa. MB being changed is going to affect your bet just as much so is one ok and not the the other.

    Personally i hope any changes on the horizon will be the last so they can lock down both of the matrix, i put this down to a young platform evolving now to protect itself in the long run.



  • I absolutely agree with this post. I think the last PB changes were pretty good, though there's still a bit too much of a weighting to GWG (I would propose only awarding the points if the game has a 1 goal difference, and reducing the points to 25). But otherwise I hope they don't make any changes, and an annual review is just too often in my opinion.

    I'm not sure why people are cross about the crossing points on this matrix - it was the same points as with the old one, so nothing changed there.

    I also agree that tiered PB should be a consideration in the future. Even if it was just 1p for 2nd place in each category. But maybe they are concentrating on the "team of the month" rather than this. But one hopes the dividends on offer for that are juicy.



  • @ScouseSte said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    @johnboywalker

    I asked again and again, so i will ask you directly John - who is winning PB 1 in 5 times at least? I can't find anyone! It's not too far off real life. Why is changing the PB matrix something so many want to see?

    Messi won 10 times (6 times outright) in the period from early oct to early March just prior to the Spanish league shutting down so i suspect that meets the 1 in 5 criteria
    0_1591342883824_upload-4691b00b-113d-47e2-a9f6-58ad785d7e73



  • @Tom77 said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    The biggest team in England gets more media than anyone else is pretty obvious. Makes sense.
    Hitting lots of useless crosses isn’t - to a new user why does that give you more points? Baffling.

    I get that many don't like the crossing scoring but it's not JUST about that mate. If enough people kick up a fuss about unsuccessful dribbling, will THAT be changed too? Headed clearances? Etc.

    The system is what it is and for us to constantly be involved in having opinions on how it is changed is wrong now. It should be left alone for a sustained period of time, 3 years from each change. In line with the "bet" we place based on that system's rules.

    As it stands, we've been given 2 - 3 months notice. It's not good enough mate. We need stability, and clarity from FI that the goalposts can't be moved within a certain timeframe. That will see BIG money come into the index, which we will all benefit from πŸ‘πŸ»

    As for the man united media bias - I'm not moaning about it. I play the game in front of me and have made good money off Pogba and Rashford. But It's not solely to do with them once being the biggest team in England mate, a lot of it's to do with the word United scoring very high on the index - a glitch/bias in the MB scoring. Yet there is not even a whisper from any corner that this needs changing. That's the hypocrisy in all this mate. And it makes no sense

    People want bets protected in one arena, yet overhauled in another.



  • @RedknappsEyelids said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    So to clarify, the argument is....

    PB Scoring is flawless but the div wins are a lottery
    &
    MB Scoring is biased but div wins are completely consistent

    Not arguing whether your point is right or wrong and not suggesting either system is perfect but if that’s your view why do you play the lottery when you can win another way?

    It’s like a golfer hitting ridiculously high shots all and then moaning that the wind affected his score.

    Surely you play the game as you see it and if conditions change you adapt?

    As someone mentioned above this sniffs a lot of self preservation

    You obviously didn't read my post mate.

    If you did, you'd see that initially I moaned about the bias of MB when I first joined until the obvious was pointed out to me .. don't moan, just buy the players who are winning. So I did.
    Just like I would advocate buying certain players who have a good chance, not guaranteed mind, of winning PB...if the system was not under threat of alteration LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER THE LAST OVERHAUL

    This post has little to do with personal interest directly, but more personal interest based on the platform growing and traders having faith in it.

    As I said, if it changes now, we need a GUARANTEE that it will remain in its new state for three years. That's fair and in line with bets we make in future, knowing a change is scheduled



  • @ScouseSte you could also argue that a player crossing a lot is heavily involved in the game and a key player that deserves to score highly because of that.

    I do think crossing does score too highly but not as high as many would suggest

    They definitely do need to stop fiddling with fundamentals of the index and concentrate on improving it in all the other areas that drastically need it



  • @Advinculas-Index said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    @ScouseSte said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    @johnboywalker

    I asked again and again, so i will ask you directly John - who is winning PB 1 in 5 times at least? I can't find anyone! It's not too far off real life. Why is changing the PB matrix something so many want to see?

    Messi won 10 times (6 times outright) in the period from early oct to early March just prior to the Spanish league shutting down so i suspect that meets the 1 in 5 criteria
    0_1591342883824_upload-4691b00b-113d-47e2-a9f6-58ad785d7e73

    thanks @Advinculas-Index πŸ‘πŸ»

    Messi has won more than 1 in 5 times. Well then, the matrix must be clearly flawed then if Messi, the greatest player in the world, is winning so often πŸ€”πŸ˜‚

    Sarcasm aside, if Messi is the only example...where is the fault with the matrix? Where are all those consistent wins from the crossing kings?

    But I will say again, and we should all be behind this, if the matrix changes again this summer, we must all be vocal that it stays the same in whatever form it takes, for three years. We need stability here gentleman.



  • My biggest gripe is the value attached to GWG especially when its something like 5-2 and the losing team scores a late consolation goal thus affecting everything, it seems to add to the "Lottery" element.

    I think there should also be points awarded for players when they win a penalty (e.g by drawing a foul)



  • @Black-wolf said in Football index hypocrisy - MB v PB - why?:

    @ScouseSte you could also argue that a player crossing a lot is heavily involved in the game and a key player that deserves to score highly because of that.

    I do think crossing does score too highly but not as high as many would suggest

    They definitely do need to stop fiddling with fundamentals of the index and concentrate on improving it in all the other areas that drastically need it

    I'm against media changing too much but since I joined in Oct 2018, the scoring system and outlets used has not been tampered with.
    It has remained stable for years and this is reflected in certain players prices - these could be adversely affected if it is changed this summer (which we have had plenty of notice about that it will be tweaked) so I would want a similar guarantee that it remains fixed for a 3 year term, in line with the lifetime of a "bet", to avoid this volatility in future



  • @ScouseSte don't disagree, although I guess we all have our reasons. Indeed, I believe you have been vocal in saying that MB needs to change but you want PB left.

    Ultimately, consistency is important, but I do believe that PB is still not quite fit for purpose, as there is too much of a discrepancy between positions. CBs and gks are not favoured as much as full backs, for example and there have been countless excellent players that have appeared underpriced because it's deemed that their game doesn't suit the matrix. I suspect it's never going to be possible to get it perfect, but I'd like the rankings to fit what we see on the pitch, so the player who has had the best game is at the top. TAA has probably exaggerated the point and made it a bigger issue for some, as at the start of the season he wasn't even guaranteed to be England's no. 1 and I know some of the pundits were saying his style was going to cost Liverpool at some point in a game as defensively he doesn't read the game like a top level player should. Whether you agree with that is personal opinion, but I think it's pretty fair to say he's not even the best defender in his own team, yet he's by far and away the most expensive defender, which does look odd.

    I know you could say play the game as it stands, but the same could be said to you about MB. I just think that football and tactics move on and the matrix needs to keep up with this. I would therefore want and expect an annual review of the entire product, so PB, MB, type and level of dividend, etc. so that the product can keep improving.

    For anyone saying about an open bet, I get that but if you applied that logic, there could never be any changes. This type of product doesn't really exist elsewhere in the mainstream so it can't keep being compared with other bookies.

    Finally, we all knew that changes were possible, as they announced annual reviews with the last dividend change and it wasn't a massive stretch to think that the matrix would be looked at as part of that. Whilst opinions varied as to whether it would happen, I can't believe anybody didn't realise it was a possibility as there were huge threads on it here.



  • @Mintyfresh

    As I said mate, media scoring has been unchanged since before I started so if anything needs updating it's MB. But if it was to remain unchanged then it would do the platform no real harm (although the United bias does get commented on a lot from new users baffled by the players of a team fighting for fourth in the league winning so many dividends πŸ€·πŸ»β€β™‚οΈπŸ˜)

    I was fuming when they opened up media to the entire index, as that was yet another change to our bets. And initially it did have a much higher impact than the 7% figure FI threw at us - I'd be interested to know what % of the squad have won media now, after a few months of it running.

    Th e only thing I want changing with MB is single name bias removed - it literally makes ZERO sense to not win points because Deeney doesn't get his first name mentioned. How many Deeneys are there??? It's pathetic really.

    So in that respect, I too am a hypocrite I suppose. but when this change (and any others are made) then that's got to be it for three years.
    If PB is changing too, fine. But then leave that for 3 years too.
    That is all I want.

    Let the players on the pitch and the writers in the offices provide the randomness and uncertainty in our bets, not the tinkermen at FI towers! It's only serving to prevent stability, confidence and further growth with too many changes too often.


Log in to reply