Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL)



  • This is something that came out of another thread I started and I think is massively important for the stability of the platform to get this right, regardless of what is and isn't changed in the upcoming reviews. Frequency of change is more important than details of change.



  • Too few options to choose from.

    If they fixed it and stuck to it,
    They wouldn't of been able to change the MB payment dates for this covid period. They wont commit to such a thing as they need to keep things fresh to keep everyone interested.
    Review annually inline with changes to the landscape. (Euros/world cups/pandemics) also inline with FI finances!



  • @ScouseSte

    I'd be happy with them reviewing it at the end of every season and having all changes locked in 2 months before the season starts. That way people have time to adjust their port before the new season.



  • @ScouseSte I think too many people are seeing the word review and thinking instant changes. If they tweak it so be it, but realistically they won't change it every 12 months continually. Reviewing it after each season makes sense, they have almost 12 months of data for use and can see what might or might not need to change.



  • @Dan-w said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    Too few options to choose from.

    If they fixed it and stuck to it,
    They wouldn't of been able to change the MB payment dates for this covid period. They wont commit to such a thing as they need to keep things fresh to keep everyone interested.
    Review annually inline with changes to the landscape. (Euros/world cups/pandemics) also inline with FI finances!

    MB payment dates has nothing to do with MB scoring system mate - the review of MB is with regards to what publications qualify, the points value of certain words etc. These are all factors that people have placed their 3 year bet on. If these changes are made, they can't then be changed again in 12 months time..

    Too much short-termism will harm this platform in the long run. We have serious competitors now and FI needs to play to its strengths



  • @Shippers said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    @ScouseSte I think too many people are seeing the word review and thinking instant changes. If they tweak it so be it, but realistically they won't change it every 12 months continually. Reviewing it after each season makes sense, they have almost 12 months of data for use and can see what might or might not need to change.

    BINGO! You've hit the nail on the head mate. Square on!

    The fact they have said they will be "reviewing" it has already prompted sell-offs of certain players and traders gambling on possible beneficiaries of any anticipated changes (GK's will see their annual rise soon, no doubt followed by their subsequent sell-off 🙈).

    People on the forum and twitter are now openly admitting to withholding large cash injections into the platform, some are withdrawing, and sadly some are leaving completely to join a competitor. All due to uncertainty.

    If we had a guarantee of no interference in scoring systems for 2 years at a time, trading would flourish.

    Honestly, I don't know how people can't see the damage that this will do (and is doing already!) if we don't speak up and demand no changes for a significant period of time. 12 months is not significant - it will take a couple of months for players to get match fit and find their form, and only then will we see who really benefits from any matrix change. So if we buy in November, what? We've got till about March before traders start worrying about the next matrix review and stop buying or start offloading those players? So your 3 year bet is probably valid for 4-5 months..Great.

    See my point mate?

    Football Index NEEDS STABILITY.
    There are already too many variables to be able win to divs without their constant interference.



  • @ScouseSte they should include every media article (good or bad) in my opinion. Said this all along. I don't agree with the discrepancies with some articles being removed for some players and not for others. Recently the Lockdown rule breaks as an example. PB was the area I was referring to originally as this does need tweaking, not changing fully imo.



  • @Dan-w said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    @ScouseSte they should include every media article (good or bad) in my opinion. Said this all along. I don't agree with the discrepancies with some articles being removed for some players and not for others. Recently the Lockdown rule breaks as an example. PB was the area I was referring to originally as this does need tweaking, not changing fully imo.

    Yep, whatever you want mate 👍
    Whatever changes are implemented to PB and MB based on the surveys, I'm 100% ok with that 👍. So long as it stays in place for 2 years minimum! We will all have had our say, and then anyone new joining after that will get their say within the following two years.

    It's stressful and difficult enough to make investment decisions based on players ability, form, media appeal, transfer potential etc without the system we use to judge these bets being too fluid as well.

    I ask you Dan, and EVERYONE else reading this post - what is even one negative aspect of keeping MB and PB systems fixed every two years?



  • @Dan-The-Man said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    @ScouseSte

    I'd be happy with them reviewing it at the end of every season and having all changes locked in 2 months before the season starts. That way people have time to adjust their port before the new season.

    Completely agree with this, with a product still in its growth phase, if anything I support them making tweaks to it every season, as long as we had a time frame to react, like 2 months which seems reasonable. That’s what’s missing in all of this, it would also prevent a lot of this uncertainty as well.

    Not that the amount of uncertainty makes any sense. I don’t hold Trent, who seems to be the only player who could possibly be affected by a PB Matrix change. But I do hold Neymar and Pogba for MB. Now I support changing the rules around having first and second names, and I welcome capping of no. of articles per newspaper. Neither will be good decisions for my port, but I would welcome some time to adjust my portfolio because I understand the need for FI to evolve these things, but limit the impact on traders.

    I can’t speak for every trader, but withholding large amounts of money for long periods of time, will probably end up costing you more than a slight PB Matrix tweak.



  • @ScouseSte won't rehash the same debate here, but just want to reiterate that although I have voted for a review every off season, I actually completely agree with you that stability is key and is FI's USP, we just slightly disagree on what will do more damage.

    I don't want major changes in one go, therefore I'd rather see small changes annually (if they have to be made) rather than double the number changes every other year which I think would be more disruptive.

    Also means that if any glaring issues come to light, we won't be stuck with them for twice as long.

    I'm happy to trust FI to be sensible with their reviews and not do anything to damage their product, as it's not in their interest to see people cash out and leave.



  • @ScouseSte said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    I ask you Dan, and EVERYONE else reading this post - what is even one negative aspect of keeping MB and PB systems fixed every two years?

    This is a weird question to ask, I wouldn’t be against it, but I also understand if FI want to tweak the matrix at the end of each season whilst it’s still in its growth phase, especially the PB Matrix, which in the scheme of things is quite new. Over time they’ll gather more data and create a fairer more accurate system.

    What needs to change is the clarity on it, we need to know if it will change each season, and a period of time between the announcement and the implementation of the changes (in normal times that would just be the summer when there’s no football for PB).

    I’m not against them doing it every two years, why would I be? And I don’t see any really negative aspects of it. But if they want to do it every year as well I can sympathise with that too.



  • @Daniel agree with the above. One of the points I've wanted to make, but you've worded it better than me!



  • @Mintyfresh

    I don't mind rehashing it mate, it's a civil debate with the sole purpose of making the FI experience better for all.

    I am happy to go over it again because I do think many people are not quite seeing the bigger picture.

    To many traders, 3 points for a cross is a glaring error. Its overweighted, i agree. But guess what? They weren't changed in the last matrix review.
    So we've had to suffer this grave injustice for 2 years nearly! The index has plummeted and traders left in their droves!

    Oh hang on. No. Wait. That didn't happen. What happened was people bought the GOOD players whose excellent form has been ever so slightly accentuated by the matrix (yes, TAA) and made good money. FI weren't complaining, the only people complaining were the ones that didn't buy him way back then and ever since. Instead of playing the hand dealt, they'd rather fold and moan that the card game is broken.

    With the upcoming review, any changes will produce a different group of TAA's. It will take a couple of months to assess who they are but (if it's a 2 year fixed period) I'll be buying them players instead of campaigning for a system change! And the rises will be fantastic, AS LONG AS THE PLAYERS KEEP PERFORMING (that is something people also aren't taking into account. If TAA was average, the matrix wouldn't mask that and he'd be £4 max. But he's boss😉)
    The rises wouldn't be fantastic if the matrix was only guaranteed for the next 9 months or so since the beneficiaries were identified/bought. Growth will be stunted.
    We won't see the rises that have pushed these players to the top of the index and subsequently pulled everyone else up with them. These prices, which add weight to the requirement of a dividend increase (this is also just a "review" promised, remember).

    Stability over 2 years is so much more beneficial than every season being filled with uncertainty in anticipation of yet more changes. It's no good for us and no food for FI.



  • @ScouseSte said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    I ask you Dan, and EVERYONE else reading this post - what is even one negative aspect of keeping MB and PB systems fixed every two years

    Everyone buys the same players & the we just sit accruing capital appreciation.

    Newer users are encouraged to come on-board & are ultimately caught with their pants down when changes occur as it ultimately becomes a case of last in loses most.

    A glorified pyramid scheme.

    Regular changes gives everyone a level playing field every 12 months, allowing new users just the same opportunity as existing ones & making sure no one feels they have missed the boat.

    It's healthy for the platform to constantly evolve & keeps things fresh.



  • @ScouseSte
    I agree with your point of view but to answer your question I will give you one example.
    New users which is the most important part of the platform or growth. I literally had to give up on explaining mb to some gambling enthusiasts who love their ball lokking to invest. They couldn’t get there head around the tripe around some United fodder players dominating mb tables.
    I know they are highest reported club , fine with that but had an example of Luke Shaw a thoroughly bang average player scoring points galore for mentioning what mr Scotland scot mac tominay had for breakfast.
    2 thoroughly inconsequential players that in horse racing parlance would be would be running in selling handicaps both scoring well just because the word united is mentioned and some reporter from some shit tabloid ragpaper like the express wants to write 5 arcticles in 5 minutes about this shit.
    Meanwhile the best player in world mbappe scores no points in an article in the athletic where the debate is who is best player in world now and ronaldo loses out to Fred as the mirror had the audacity not to mention Christianito name in a headline under best player of premiership era. That shit for me needs fixing ASAP



  • @Daniel said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    @ScouseSte said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    I ask you Dan, and EVERYONE else reading this post - what is even one negative aspect of keeping MB and PB systems fixed every two years?

    This is a weird question to ask, I wouldn’t be against it, but I also understand if FI want to tweak the matrix at the end of each season whilst it’s still in its growth phase, especially the PB Matrix, which in the scheme of things is quite new. Over time they’ll gather more data and create a fairer more accurate system.

    What needs to change is the clarity on it, we need to know if it will change each season, and a period of time between the announcement and the implementation of the changes (in normal times that would just be the summer when there’s no football for PB).

    I’m not against them doing it every two years, why would I be? And I don’t see any really negative aspects of it. But if they want to do it every year as well I can sympathise with that too.

    I guess it's a weird question to ask because the answer is "there isn't one!"

    Traders keep reiterating this constant desire to have the pb matrix reflect the action on the pitch as accurately as possible. It will NEVER be perfect and you can't please all the people all the time. It will change EVERY year because there will always be new beneficiaries and others disadvantaged by even the subtlest changes, and that's not good for growth.
    At least with are review every 2 years you actually have enough time to react to change, build a position and make trades confidently throughout the entire season without being forced to reign it in during March/April for fear of the next set of tweaks.

    Right now, players are scoring and playing well and winning PB...yet their prices are absolutely STAGNANT - paralysed by the fear of change!

    So on the one hand you've got traders wanting the PB matrix to accurately represent actions on the pitch, whilst ironically the actions on the pitch are currently seen as unimportant because the fear of changes in August has kicked in. People are just buying youth and transfer rumours now. Actual reward for playing good football is being stifled.



  • @ScouseSte but it probably needs reviewing every 12 months, let me put into perspective, people moaned about the media changes opening up to all, here we are 8 months later, same winners as before even though it felt like a huge change, yes you do still get the odd cheap player winning . Previous PB changes, I'd say if anything two players stand out consistently, Trent and Kimmich. Other than that any small tweaks wont effect things hugely, may benefit those already winning regularly if anything. It's the user/market panicking whereas realistically not that much has changed. Maybe CB's took an initial hit last time out but actually I've seen plenty of CBs winning. How much can they actually change, I think 12 month review is fair and keeps things fresh. Any changes prior, collect the necessary data and review in the off season. The other product your talking about, trust me it's not all rose's, see people moaning over there as well, it's probably behind FI in growth which is what's keeping people interested because of the potential. I think everything realistically is boiling down to lack of comms and patience from FI and the User respectively.



  • Not enough choices...

    Personally, I'd like FI to publish a definitive road map for the product. Doesn't have to be about growth of the product or expansion, it just needs to tell us when certain items are up for review.

    My own preference in-terms of scoring matrices long term would be for a bi-annual approach. One year MB, the next PB. For the next few years I am happy to see them annually.
    Dividends should be reviewed annually in my opinion.
    Stability is key, progress is vital.. A definitive road map (whatever it may be) on when changes will be reviewed on matrices and divs, would be a big step forward for achieving that.
    We can handle change, it is just difficult when we don't know exactly when they will be. We need to be able to make informed decisions. Not knowing just creates situations where we are all forced to argue amongst ourselves and second guess intentions. It's not healthy for the forum or platform in general



  • @Ericali said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    @ScouseSte said in Frequency of PB & MB reviews/changes (POLL):

    I ask you Dan, and EVERYONE else reading this post - what is even one negative aspect of keeping MB and PB systems fixed every two years

    Everyone buys the same players & the we just sit accruing capital appreciation.

    Newer users are encouraged to come on-board & are ultimately caught with their pants down when changes occur as it ultimately becomes a case of last in loses most.

    A glorified pyramid scheme.

    Regular changes gives everyone a level playing field every 12 months, allowing new users just the same opportunity as existing ones & making sure no one feels they have missed the boat.

    It's healthy for the platform to constantly evolve & keeps things fresh.

    I'll tackle this first....everyone buying the same player and we buy and just sit on cap app? ERMMMM YES!? IS THAT A NEGATIVE??? That is the dream scenario because it can only mean that player is performing well. That's why TAA is the beacon of light in the big matrix debate. He's one of the best wingbacks in the world and is performing to that level. And despite the matrix being supposedly biased, Van Dijk has pipped him to PB on a fair few occasions.

    If you think that's negative for FI, far from it. The whales buy new issue shares and the price goes up and sure FI pay out some divs but TAA is hardly raking it in. And the more he rises the more others look cheap and so big money goes into them (happened to Reece Nelson)
    Over 2 years, we make a fair few divs and nice cap app and make a killing in commission (ME buys/sells) and from new issue shares.
    And then it will happen again with other players after the next review that's fixed for 2 years.

    If you change every 12 months you dont get the confident money invested and prices don't rise as much and then nobody is dragged up and of course no dividends increase is warranted.

    Please, everybody, try and look beyond your short-termism.
    Wanting reviews every 12 months is like turkeys voting for Christmas



  • You know something guys, maybe Ste is right ... 😐

    Is that what you hope to hear by constantly repeating yourself?

    I'll happily say it, just to save the rest of the forum from listening to you.

    Or perhaps we need to USE MORE BLOCK CAPITALS, or maybe italicise our sentences in the hope that you might take on board what others are saying and allow us to have an opinion, even if it doesn't match yours.

    As it stands, any user that doesn't agree with your position is immediately portrayed as being mad about receiving anal sex ... 🤔

    Now that may be the case, however ... 🤣🤔🤣


Log in to reply