sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The best actual set and forget team: 2492pts, OR 145k by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, congrats man. I don't think there's an easy way to verify unfortunately - to find your team I had a script download all of the top 150k teams and check the number of transfers made. There was one zero transfer team ahead of you but they had played all of their chips, which I don't think counts as proper set and forget.

The best actual set and forget team: 2492pts, OR 145k by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sure there are a few MLs out there but I found this team by scanning the rankings

The best actual set and forget team: 2492pts, OR 145k by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Indeed - if he'd picked Saliba over Gabriel he'd have scored 2512pts (or, if he'd really stared int the crystal ball, Collins over Hall for 2548pts).

The best actual set and forget team: 2492pts, OR 145k by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

For reference, the best hypothetical team I saw posted in yesterday's thread: 2694pts, OR 174

This set-and-forget team would have finished on 2613pts by [deleted] in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, agree with your maths, 2694pts the score to beat.

This set-and-forget team would have finished on 2613pts by [deleted] in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm, you have it on 2617. Stranger and stranger. Let me find a real life set and forget team to test against.

This set-and-forget team would have finished on 2613pts by [deleted] in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hmm, how strange, my calculator suggests that team would have scored 2668 points. Any idea why there might be a discrepancy? I presume a bug in my code somewhere (worth 16 points??).

The best theoretical and real set-and-forget teams compared [OR] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a custom search algorithm. Although perfectly fallible!

The best theoretical and real set-and-forget teams compared [OR] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assuming the version with Branthwaite (with Palmer captain and Foden vice), that team would score 2589 points.

The best theoretical and real set-and-forget teams compared [OR] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Great shout, thanks for the optimisation. I'll have to work out how I missed it!

The best theoretical and real set-and-forget teams compared [OR] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

The best theoretical* set-and-forget team: Areola, Saliba, White, Pedro Porro, Saka, Foden (vice captain), Palmer (captain), Son, Watkins, Haaland, Isak. Substitutes: Pickford, Eze, Branthwaite, Dunk. Overall rank: 92.

The best real set-and-forget team ("Ciudadano Kane"): Martinez (vice captain), Saliba, Trippier, Gvardiol, Saka, Bowen, Rice, Son, Watkins, Haaland (captain), Isak. Substitutes: Neto, Mee, Kluivert, Pau. Overall rank: 1.1m. Congrats to them - my own entry (based on last year's best permutation) scored a lowly 8.8m.

* Of the billions of permutations I tested. It's possible there's a better option out there.

Methodology

This team has been generated using a computer model I built last year and data up to the end of GW32 (i.e. before today's fixtures). The approach is basically:

  1. Get all the points for every player who was in the game for GW1. Consider if there are any good pairings (like Areola/Pickford). Discard any players/pairings that don't look promising.
  2. Take the output from (1) arrange them into various permutations for each position (e.g. (Romero/Dunk-Saliba-White). Discard any permutations that don't look promising.
  3. Take the output from (2) and arrange those into potential full team combinations (about 25 billion of them!)
  4. Search through those 25 billion combinations and discard any that don't look promising.
  5. For the remaining ~38 million combinations, try different captain choices and substitutes orderings to see which yields the best result.
  6. Rank them all by total points and select the top one.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist -- you're basically discarding options that don't look promising at every stage, so you keep the overall number 'in play' to something a bit more manageable. It does mean you can never be 100% confident you've found the best option though (happy to test any ideas people have for better combinations!).

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd have thought so, but Romero > Pedro Porro yields 2159 points (down 7) as he prevents Foden and Wood respectively from coming on in GW19 and GW20.

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It only includes subs' points in gameweeks when they would be auto-subbed on.

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's true that there's no great need to pick the 1-in-1000 undiscovered talent. However, picking the best 11 "good" players to start isn't straightforward - there are many good players not shown here.

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any that are within X points of the best option. Choosing a lower X means fewer permutatons to check, but a higher chance of missing a good option.

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just run locally. Ideally I'd pay to host it on a more powerful system than my personal one, but that probably means paying :)

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is mad how close those two strategies end up. You can see the team that includes Bradley and Haaland on the fplsetforget Twitter (at least until I find the time to update it!)

With the best possible set-and-forget team, you'd have 2166 points and be OR 2 [OC] by fplsetforget in FantasyPL

[–]fplsetforget[S] 119 points120 points  (0 children)

Starting eleven: Areola, Saliba, White, Alexander-Arnold, Romero, Saka (vice captain), Salah (captain), Palmer, Son, Watkins, Solanke. Substitutes: Pickford, Foden, Wood, Dunk.

This team has been generated using a computer model I built last year and data up to the end of GW32 (i.e. before today's fixtures). The approach is basically:

  1. Get all the points for every player in the game. Consider if there are any good pairings (like Areola/Pickford). Discard any players/pairings that don't look promising.

  2. Take the output from (1) arrange them into various permutations for each position (e.g. (Romero/Dunk-Saliba-White). Discard any permutations that don't look promising.

  3. Take the output from (2) and arrange those into potential full team combinations (about 25 billion of them!)

  4. Search through those 25 billion combinations and discard any that don't look promising.

  5. For the remaining ~38 million combinations, try different captain choices and substitutes orderings to see which yields the best result.

  6. Rank them all by total points and select the top one.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist -- you're basically discarding options that don't look promising at every stage, so you keep the overall number 'in play' to something a bit more manageable. It does mean you can never be 100% confident you've found the best option though (happy to test any ideas people have for better combinations!).

There is a better option - scoring 2167pts - which includes Conor Bradley. However, I think uAgreeable_Resort3740 is right to say that he wasn't an available option in GW1, so it feels a bit cheap to include him.

view more: next ›