Standard deviation and other perversions poker taught me about FPL

Poker mirrors FPL in many unsuspected ways.  At the heart of both games are strategies to maximise the accumulation of points.  It's just that in poker, the points are in the form of chips.  In tournament poker and FPL we have to keep in mind how our chip stack or total score is faring relative to others on our table or in our mini-league, as well as compared to those on the overall leaderboard.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of hands is as important in poker as it is with our squads in FPL.  Knowing whether a hand plays better in raised pots, heads up against single opponents say, rather than limped ones multi-way, is a little like weighing up whether transfers help or hinder our planned orientation to a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 formation.

In poker, it's really important to strike the right balance between 'value betting' and bluffing.  Otherwise, we'll be pegged as easy-to-read, fit-or-fold type players, and we'll never get paid-off when we have a big hand.  This brings to mind the balance we need to strike between template players and differentials in FPL.  After all, it's difficult to make any headway in our mini-leagues if we've got pretty much the same team as those above us in the standings.  And, as pointed out to me by @kingsoflyon7, having too many differentials is akin to the rookie error of calling bets on the 'flop' and 'turn' chasing a 'runner runner' 'gutshot' straight draw, which relies on improbably catching perfect cards on both the turn and the river.

Another balance to strike in poker concerns the careful sizing of bets that keep as many options open to us as possible depending on what our opponents do next.  This translates to FPL in terms of the spread of player price ranges within our squad.  It is a balancing act we must perform well if we are to succeed, and relates to the proportion of our budgets we allocate to different positions within our squads.  Going uber-cheap on defence, for example, by starting the season with five 4.5m-or-under defenders runs the high risk of our squads requiring immediate surgery should the GW1 lineups feature few if any of our bargain basement buys.  Having a good balance of price ranges insures us against unforeseen circumstances such as bans and injuries.

An undeniable fact of FPL is that the so-called big hitters will sometimes blank, just like the best hands in poker (pocket aces, pocket kings) are often busted by lesser hands.  Having the best cards or players is no guarantee of success in either game.  The skill/luck quotient feels very similar, with our skill constantly being tested against our opponents' luck.  Both games involve numerous risk/reward decisions.  In neither game will perfect decisions always be rewarded.

On the contrary, they are often punished.  Like when we transfer out players who are in poor form and about to embark on difficult fixture runs.  Trading such players out for ones in good form facing easy fixtures seems like a no-brainer, but time and again, discarded players make a mockery out of the form book.

It's like making disciplined folds in a poker tournament with a marginal hand like Ace10 off-suit in early position on a high action table, only to suffer the torment of a King, Queen, Jack rainbow flop, meaning we'd have had the best hand possible (AKQJ10 for the nut straight) had we not folded.  And then we die a little more inside as two players go all-in and fail to overtake our nut straight, meaning we could have trebled our chip stack.   

Does this mean we were wrong to transfer/fold those players/hands?  Of course not.  It's simply 'standard deviation'.  Take flipping a coin 100 times.  On average you'd expect there to be 50 heads, but because of 'standard deviation', around 32% of the time there will be fewer than 45 heads or more than 55.  In other words, swings (up and down) are inevitable.  The right way to deal with downswings is to simply accept the fact that they happen, remain calm and keep playing your best game.

An understanding of probability is a key component of both games.   More often than not a player considered most likely to score a goal in a match is best priced by bookmakers at odds against to do so, meaning they deem it more likely he won't score than he will.  This weekend, for example, Jesus and Kane are currently both only even money (50/50) to score against newly promoted sides Brighton and Newcatsle

Last year's top points scorer in FPL, failed to score in 21 of the 38 games he played in, which is roughly 55% of the time.  What's more, Sanchez only provided an assist from those 21 games on 6 occasions, meaning in 15 games (39.5%) he scored no attacking points whatsoever.

Let us assume, however, that we 'know' Sanchez will score in half of the games he plays over the next 3 seasons.  It would be well within the normal distribution of goals predicted by 'standard deviation' for him to go 8 games in a row without scoring.  Especially if those are the gameweeks that I own him!  Actually, a sequence of 8 blanks in a row over the course of 100 games can be expected to occur around 17% of the time.  Likewise for 8 scoring games in a row, which naturally will happen when I don't own him!

'Tilt' is a poker term for a state of mental or emotional confusion 

or frustration in which a player adopts a less than optimal strategy, 

usually resulting in the player becoming over-aggressive - Wikipedia.

Going on tilt is something that FPL players are also particularly prone to, commonly in the form of making 'rage transfers' for multiple hits, especially after low scoring gameweeks.  Playing hundreds of thousands of hands, however, has reconciled me to the harsh reality of 'downswings' being an inevitable part of poker.  Poker has taught me to be a lot more accepting of bad luck, which in turn has helped me to handle the bad beats routinely administered by FPL with more serenity than most managers are seemingly able to muster.

Planning ahead is key to being a good poker player.  There are 3 streets of betting after the pre-flop action.  Namely, flop, turn and river.  In order to run an effective 'triple barrel bluff', for example, we need to size our bets on the first 2 streets (flop and turn) in such a way so as to be able to make a big enough bet on the third (river) to discourage opponents from calling.  The mistakes novice players make often arise from not thinking ahead.  As a result, they'll fire pot-sized semi-bluffs on the flop and turn say, only to discover if they miss their draws that they only have enough chips left to bet a small fraction of the pot on the river.  This makes 'crying calls' or 'hero calls' of their bluffs so much more likely.  When I act on the flop, I do so with a clear plan for how I intend to play the next 2 streets (turn and river) also.

Carrying this mindset over to FPL means I'm always thinking two or three gameweeks ahead at the very least when making transfers.  In this way, self-inflicted predicaments can be avoided.  A good example from last season was my keeping a Spurs slot free in my squad (as well as sufficient funds in the bank*), for when Harry Kane returned from his second injury spell.  That was at a time when lots of managers already had 3 Tottenham assets in their team (predominantly drawn from Walker,

Davies, Alli, Eriksen and Son), which meant a minimum of 2 transfers would be required for them to acquire Kane.   

[*NB:  Good 'bankroll management' is essential in both games: in FPL to ensure funds are available for our marquee signings; and, in poker to avoid going bankrupt!]

FPL managers are generally reluctant to take points hits for so-called 'sideways moves' no matter how preferable an alternative player from the same team might be, and my late charge up the rankings towards the end of last season probably owed much to the significant number who stuck with Alli and Eriksen, rather than twist to Kane.  Such an aversion to sideways moves was to prove especially costly, as Kane scored a massive 71 points in the last 7 games, averaging just over 10 points per match (PPM), on his way to winning a second consecutive golden boot. 

Most of the decisions I make when playing poker are informed by the concept of 'expected value' (EV).  Essentially, I'm always asking whether or not my next actions are '+EV' or '-EV', and if my lines are the ones that extract the most value on average.  My aim, therefore, is to find the sweet spot with bet sizing and actions that make me indifferent to what my opponents do next, because in the long run these lines of play will show a profit.

In the Pot-Limit Omaha cash games I play, it's not unusual to be heads-up facing an all-in pot-sized bet on the flop, when I am 50/50 to win the hand.  Effectively, each player is getting 2/1 odds on an even money shot, so it's a +EV scenario for both.  Setting aside what has already been invested into the pot hitherto, the EV of folding to the all-in shove is zero, whereas the EV of calling is half the pot-sized bet, because the amount I win is twice as much as that I lose:  

0.5*2 + 0.5*-1 = 0.5

So if facing a $60 bet, a call would on average yield $30 profit.  Naturally, this is only in the aggregate.  It's not actually possible for me to win half the pot-sized bet on an individual call, as I can only either win 2 bets or lose 1.  Calling is clearly better than folding.  Somewhat perversely perhaps, calling in the example above is still correct even if we 'know' we only have a 40% chance of winning and are more likely to lose than win:  

0.4*2 + 0.6*-1 = 0.2

No matter how many of these 'coin flips' are lost to begin with, calling will always come out ahead in the long run.  Our friend 'standard deviation', however, ensures that the long run can be much longer than most people think.

Maximising expected value is at the core of winning at poker.  And so many decisions in FPL can be thought of as EV ones too, where we weigh up the relative pros and cons of our next moves.  We are continually faced with 'coin flip' situations in FPL.  Viewing transfer options through the prism of EV leads to more optimal play in my opinion.   

By way of example, I remember an EV decision I made with my second FPL wildcard last season, concerning which two attacking assets from Spurs to own.  Namely, whether to go (for reasons of budgetary constraints) with Kane and Son, or Alli and Eriksen, both of whom were in a rich vein of form, and a popular double up at that time.  My calculation that the expected value of the former was greater than the latter proved to be vindicated in no uncertain terms, and propelled me up the overall rankings to good effect. 

Obviously, the variables in FPL are infinitely harder to quantify than is the case with the precise probabilities that apply to poker.  The best we can do is analyse available historical data, and consider metrics like points per match (PPM), or minutes per point (MPP).  Furthermore, we can cross reference these findings with big chances (BC) and shots on target (SOT), which I deem to be the reported statistics* with the strongest correlation to future goals, and FPL points.

[*NB:  xG or Expected Goals have now begun to be reported more widely this season, and are even better indicators in my opinion.]

In the case of Kane & Son vs Alli & Eriksen, I don't have any record of my estimates at that time, but for the sake of argument, let's say my expectation was that Kane would average 9 PPM, Alli 7, Eriksen 6 and Son 5.  Such a process would lead me to conclude Kane and Son were the optimal pairing as (9+5) > (7+6).   

With hindsight we know Kane and Son averaged 10.1 and 5.7 PPM respectively, for a combined 15.8 PPM, whilst Alli and Eriksen averaged 5.3 and 6.1, for just 11.4.  My EV decision averaged 4.4 PPM more than the alternative over the last 7 games, netting me an extra 31 points overall.

Unquestionably though, 10 PPM is not sustainable by any player, but I'd argue that the lower output elsewhere merely serves to highlight that 'regression to the mean' is just as much a feature of FPL, as it is in poker, and most other places besides.

 

Now you might feel this is a case of me finding facts to fit my theory.  After all, this is the same Harry Kane who incurred the wrath of managers earlier in the season by scoring appearance points only in consecutive home matches against Burnley and Hull.  Happily for me, disproving allegations of planting and rigging the evidence, doesn't fall within the remit of this article.

Meanwhile, may the FPL flops be with you.

Coley a.k.a @barCOLEYna

What FPL and Poker have in common

Etiquette

It always makes me smile when FPL managers express the hope that others will have a good gameweek.  It reminds me of the way poker players wish each other "good luck" when strictly speaking that's the last thing they should want.  In reality, they usually don't care much whether or not your luck is good, just as long as it doesn't affect how much they win.  Similarly, when FPL managers say "may your arrows be green", they usually don't mind if they are, just so long as theirs are greener!

But that's okay because the world is a better place for such niceties.  Less friendly are the passive aggressive congratulations given to players who have clearly 'lucked out'.  So in poker, aggrieved players often say "nice hand" or "well played" to their arch-nemeses with barely suppressed sarcasm.  The same dynamic is also seen sometimes in replies to FPL tweets when screenshots of lucky autosub outcomes are posted.

One of the most obvious similarities between the two worlds is with the abundance of 'bad beat' stories.  In poker, these are told by victims of perceived misfortune.  In FPL the same kind of hardluck stories are seen all the time regarding either the big points scored by recently transferred out players, or the big points missed on a coin-flip decision.  Deep down we all know it's wrong to inflict such self-pity onto our peers, but it's a compulsion we find tough to resist.

The bête-noire of poker etiquette, however, is the 'slowroll', where someone leads you to believe that you have won a hand, but then turns over a very strong hand.  The FPL counterparts of these offenders are the grandstanders who, having amassed an impressive gameweek score, tweet to ask everyone how many points they've scored before then revealing their own better one.

Same Answers Different Questions

 

The correct answer to most questions posed by poker novices is "It depends."  The same is true in FPL.  Most "Should I transfer in Joe Bloggs for John Doe?" type questions would benefit from precautionary "It depends" first responses.  For example:

• Do you have more pressing problems elsewhere?
• Where are you in your Mini-League(s)?
• How does your squad compare to your ML rivals?
• How will future transfer plans be affected?

These are all valid questions to ask before giving yes or no answers.  In poker, this is like being asked how to play a specific hand in early position in a tournament, where the comparable "it depends" type answer might include the following preliminary questions:

• Are you nearing 'the bubble', i.e., the prizemoney?
• How many chips do you have in relation to the other players at your table?
• Will you have enough chips left to make a move later if losing the hand, e.g., stealing the blinds from passive players to your left?

Skill

One hallmark of a good poker player is discipline when it comes to bankroll management, and most good FPL managers exercise budgetary discipline also.  A bad one makes kneejerk transfers to bring in premium priced players with little regard for no longer being able to afford to replace or upgrade any of their other out-of-form squad members.

Clearly, there are aspects of both games that are beyond our control.  In poker it's the cards we are dealt, and in FPL it's events like injuries and suspensions.  All we can do is try to play optimally in the areas within our control. 

One such area is the weekly free transfer.  A FPL 'shark' knows these should always be used to increase 'expected value', primarily in terms of points, but also with regard to team value.  The 'fish', however, is more likely to make kneejerk moves that leave them wishing they'd hung fire and/or maverick moves that usually share the same fate as those made by poker players guilty of 'fancy play syndrome'.

There is a tendency in the FPL community to describe any transfer not conforming to template as maverick, but there is a distinction to be made between maverick moves and calculated risks.

Luck

Few things in poker are more maddening than being 'rivered' when 'all in' as a massive favourite to win a hand, only for the final face-up card dealt to be the one and only card that gives your opponent a better hand.

The same frustration is felt in fantasy football when head-to-head or mini-league rivals hit the FPL equivolent of such 'one outers' by having an autosub goalkeeper (Gomes, say) make two penalty saves in the same gameweek say, or an autosub outfield player score a brace on a Monday night.

Bad players of poker and FPL will frequently 'suck out' on us, and be rewarded for poor game management, but the good news is that being rewarded for playing badly only encourages them to go on playing badly!

All poker players and FPL managers will experience 'downswings'.  What seperates the wheat from the chaff is how well they cope mentally with an inevitable aspect of the game.  In poker, most players are prone to going 'on tilt' when they experience bad luck.  Such players are as a result more likely to lose money because they’ll be making decisions based on anger and frustration.  In FPL the same can be true if playing in cash prize mini-leagues.
 

Last season, for example, I was so filled with self-loathing about my failure to confirm activation of my Bench Boost chip in GW34, thereby costing me 43 points, that I self-destructively wasted my Triple Captain chip the next gameweek by gambling on serial cameo appearer Coutinho (1 point!).  

Admittedly, I was comfortably winning my main money mini-league at the time, but my fog of despair was so dense that a few weeks passed by before I realised I'd sabotaged any prospect of cashing out in any of my other money leagues.  I'd been knocking on the door of the top one thousand club for several weeks, and those 43 points would have seen me well and truly kick the door down!

Days Of Future Past

The way FPL has evolved over the past few years reminds me of the sea change that happened in the poker world after 2003.  There was a sudden growth in interest in poker after the $2.5 million first prize World Series of Poker Main Event was won that year by Chris Moneymaker, a 27-year-old accountant and amateur poker player from Tennessee, who had won his seat into the event through a $86 satellite tournament in a PokerStars online poker card room.  The 'Moneymaker Effect' would give rise to a new breed of internet poker players who honed their skills online before facing off against old-school competitors.

The poker player stereotypes that had been around for an age were transformed over the course of a decade. The old-school competitors who believed in poker being an art, not a science, based on feel, instincts and reads, were quickly overrun. A new breed of math nerd, guys using a mountain of sortable data from the millions of hands played online began to dominate the game. Math whizzes changed the game using probability theory to their advantage.

Similarly, I think the generation of fantasy football managers, who believed that football knowledge and a 'good eye' were the only requirements for success, are in the process of being overthrown by algorithm builders, probability theorists and statisticians.

Consider yourself warned if you're one of those who underestimates the relevance of maths in FPL. That geeky person who invited you to join his or her money mini-league is probably hustling you!

I think there might have been a typo in Matthew 5:5; perhaps it should have read:

 

Blessed are the Math gEEKs!

Good luck at the tables y'all!

Coley
FPL Poker Player @barCOLEYna

FPL Mangers Treating First WildCard Like A Reload In A Poker Tournament

Seems like this season's first bandwagon is the GW3 WildCard Plan.  It's catching on like wildfire, and leaving me feeling somewhat bemused by how quickly the consensus can change from preaching delayed gratification last season to advocating immediate gratification this.

Some of the data put forward to support this groupthink strikes me as manipulating stats to suit your purpose.  I think the methodology of comparing the number of price fallers versus price risers, particularly in the early weeks of a season, and the aggregate value lost against that gained is too simplistic.  Such analysis is not nuanced enough to take into account the full range of reasons behind market volatility early on.  

Consider, for example, how many casual players are caught out by their selections not getting gametime in the first couple of weeks.  My hunch is they'd account for a sizeable proportion of players dropping value.

The gung-ho attitude I'm observing towards WC1 reminds me of the only live poker tournament I played last year.  It was a reload tournament costing £30 to enter, with the option of paying another £30 for an extra starting stack worth of chips anytime during the first couple of hours.  

I found that this reload option made many players far more liberal with their gambles than they usually are in tournaments where there are no second chances.  At the end of the reload period, all players with their option still intact were invited to top up their stacks.  

Nearly all the remaining players did so, but I declined as I was happy enough with my above average stack.

And as it happened, I finished 4th out of 82, and picked up £425.  By not reloading I'd won 14 times my buy-in, instead of only 7 times had I reloaded.  Obviously, I'll never know if I'd have won more with an additional outlay, but my feeling was it made little difference.

My point here is that, in the same way people played fast and loose with their starting stacks, because they could always reload if things didn't go well in the early stages, many FPL managers are being too short-term in their thinking about playing an early WildCard.  It's like they're treating the first couple of gameweeks as a freeroll, with nothing lost if they don't get off to a good start.  

Just to be clear, I'm not against playing WC1 early.  By all means do so if circumstances dictate it.  I'd have reloaded in my poker tournament too if my stack had been decimated early on. 

As so often with FPL, the sample size in this debate is too small to be meaningful.  And stats only tell us what has happened in the past, not what will happen in the future.  It's not possible to know in advance when our WC1 will prove most useful.  

To actively plan to dispense with it less than a sixth of the way through the first half of the season, though, potentially THIRTY gameweeks before playing WC2, seems unnecessarily loose-aggressive to this poker player.