i'm obviously missing something, cos as per my earlier post, i agree with your rules and t0 me they spell game-set-match for us getting viney at pick23, without doing anything but an obvious, yet uncalleable bluff that we will pass on him at 3 if forced to

Yes, C&B. I've done a bit more thinking on this, and I've come to conclusion that you are right.

Whilst, I still believe there may be some benefit to the under the table offer laid out in my OP, the key to us coming up trumps on draft day is for us to put in on the table that we will pass on JV at 3 if we are forced to do so by either team above us nominating him. And, this can't be an empty threat, we need to be willing to do it!!

And, I've come to this conclusion, simply by running the numbers. And, I defy any posters to suggest it's not the right way to go (unless you can convince me that the value of getting JV is significantly better than getting pick 2 - I'll get to this later).

Here are some rough numbers (based on assumptions made previously in this thread - sure, you can fiddle with these %s, but I think they are close enough to reality for the sake of doing some modelling of possible outcomes) ...

Chances of a JV nomination:

• Chance of pick 1 nominating JV - 5%
  
• Chance of pick 2 nominating JV - 25% (this may be able to be reduced by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP)
  

Outcomes of each option:

• Our picks if neither 1 or 2 nominates JV - 3, 4, 12-ish and JV
  
• Our picks if either 1 or 2 nominate JV and we nominate him - JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.
  
• Our picks if either 1 or 2 nominate JV and we default on him - 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.
  

Given we only need one of the top two picks to nominate JV for our hand to be forced, then the chance of a nomination is equal to <insert complex probability equation here> or 28.75%. This also raises the fact that any deals we do with one of the top two teams only knock out one of these risks, not both. So a deal with pick 1 is almost useless, as the chance of a JV nomination stays at 25%. A deal with pick 2 is better, but the 5% chance will still exist. Given that GWS are going to tank their way to the spoon, this makes the mini-draft trade touted elsewhere pretty much useless.

So, we are left with a nearly 30% chance that our hand will be forced (most likely by pick 2). And only two effective ways of reducing it; a deal with pick 2, or convincing them that we will default on JV and force them to give up their pick. Since it looks like GC will have pick 2, a deal is looking unlikely. But, we can certainly put it out there (as we have) that we may default on JV. And the more convincing we are, the lower the chance that they will nominate him. And, the best way to convince them that we will genuinely default on JV, is to actually be willing to do it. A mexican standoff is easier to win when you are willing to die.

So, to put some best-guestimate numbers around these options, I'm going to assume that the chances of JV being nominated drop from 28.75% to 20% if we try and bluff that we are prepared to default on him, and 10% if we can look teams in the eye and know we are prepared to default on him. (Again, these chances might be able to be lowered by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP).

To conclude:

Option A - We are not willing to default on JV, and make no effort to bluff that we are.

28.75% chance that we get JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

71.25% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Option B - We are not willing to default on JV, but do make an effort to bluff that we are.

20% chance that we get JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

80% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Option C - We are willing to default on JV, but make no effort to let teams know that we are.

28.75% chance that we get 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

71.25% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Option D - We are willing to default on JV, and let teams know that we are.

10% chance that we get 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

90% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Comparing options B and D (the two most obvious ones to choose between), it should be clear that option D is slightly, but significantly, more likely to result in our preferred result. Also, the difference between the non-preferred results for these options is:

Option B - JV, 3,12-ish and 23-ish

Option D - 2, 3,12-ish and 23-ish

Here's the crux!! -- To justify option B you would have to believe that not only was keeping JV as valuable as getting pick 2, but would actually be more valuable than pick 2 (greater enough value as to offset the 10% lower chance of actually getting our preferred outcome with this option).

So, to anyone espousing that we should take JV at pick 3 no matter what, you need to convince the rest of us that picking JV is significantly better option than having pick 2 at our disposal. I understand that there are non-tangibles, like the romance and his commitment to play for his father's side, but given that the best (non-biased) ranking I've seen on Viney is from that Bigfooty poster who ranked him around 3, and most others rank him around 5 to 15, I think you've got your work cut out for you.

Comparing options B and D (the two most obvious ones to choose between), it should be clear that option D is slightly, but significantly, more likely to result in our preferred result. Also, the difference between the non-preferred results for these options is:

Option B - JV, 3,12-ish and 23-ish

Option D - 2, 3,12-ish and 23-ish

Here's the crux!! -- To justify option B you would have to believe that not only was keeping JV as valuable as getting pick 2, but would actually be more valuable than pick 2 (greater enough value as to offset the 10% lower chance of actually getting our preferred outcome with this option).

So, to anyone espousing that we should take JV at pick 3 no matter what, you need to convince the rest of us that picking JV is significantly better option than having pick 2 at our disposal. I understand that there are non-tangibles, like the romance and his commitment to play for his father's side, but given that the best (non-biased) ranking I've seen on Viney is from that Bigfooty poster who ranked him around 3, and most others rank him around 5 to 15, I think you've got your work cut out for you.

I don't want Viney because of who is Daddy is. He is exactly the type of player and person this club needs.

If you would like to talk to me about randomly arrived at percentages how about the percentage of the 18 year old we pick being less than what we hope. We would be running about 2 for 6 from Top 5 picks.

We will finish with Picks 3 and 4 and if the becomes argument that we shouldn't take Viney at what will be effectively Pick 4 because he is subjectively to armchair experts Pick 5 then that is not a very good argument.

Do deals to get him in the second round or get ready to see J Viney in ink at Pick 3.

I don't want Viney because of who is Daddy is. He is exactly the type of player and person this club needs.

If you would like to talk to me about randomly arrived at percentages how about the percentage of the 18 year old we pick being less than what we hope. We would be running about 2 for 6 from Top 5 picks.

We will finish with Picks 3 and 4 and if the becomes argument that we shouldn't take Viney at what will be effectively Pick 4 because he is subjectively to armchair experts Pick 5 then that is not a very good argument.

Do deals to get him in the second round or get ready to see J Viney in ink at Pick 3.

From all the thousands of words i have seen on this Subject rpfc yours are the ones that make sense.

If the kid is as good as they say then do whatever it takes.

As you say above use pick three and lets move on.

Yes, C&B. I've done a bit more thinking on this, and I've come to conclusion that you are right.

Whilst, I still believe there may be some benefit to the under the table offer laid out in my OP, the key to us coming up trumps on draft day is for us to put in on the table that we will pass on JV at 3 if we are forced to do so by either team above us nominating him. And, this can't be an empty threat, we need to be willing to do it!!

And, I've come to this conclusion, simply by running the numbers. And, I defy any posters to suggest it's not the right way to go (unless you can convince me that the value of getting JV is significantly better than getting pick 2 - I'll get to this later).

Here are some rough numbers (based on assumptions made previously in this thread - sure, you can fiddle with these %s, but I think they are close enough to reality for the sake of doing some modelling of possible outcomes) ...

Chances of a JV nomination:

• Chance of pick 1 nominating JV - 5%
  
• Chance of pick 2 nominating JV - 25% (this may be able to be reduced by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP)
  

Outcomes of each option:

• Our picks if neither 1 or 2 nominates JV - 3, 4, 12-ish and JV
  
• Our picks if either 1 or 2 nominate JV and we nominate him - JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.
  
• Our picks if either 1 or 2 nominate JV and we default on him - 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.
  

Given we only need one of the top two picks to nominate JV for our hand to be forced, then the chance of a nomination is equal to <insert complex probability equation here> or 28.75%. This also raises the fact that any deals we do with one of the top two teams only knock out one of these risks, not both. So a deal with pick 1 is almost useless, as the chance of a JV nomination stays at 25%. A deal with pick 2 is better, but the 5% chance will still exist. Given that GWS are going to tank their way to the spoon, this makes the mini-draft trade touted elsewhere pretty much useless.

So, we are left with a nearly 30% chance that our hand will be forced (most likely by pick 2). And only two effective ways of reducing it; a deal with pick 2, or convincing them that we will default on JV and force them to give up their pick. Since it looks like GC will have pick 2, a deal is looking unlikely. But, we can certainly put it out there (as we have) that we may default on JV. And the more convincing we are, the lower the chance that they will nominate him. And, the best way to convince them that we will genuinely default on JV, is to actually be willing to do it. A mexican standoff is easier to win when you are willing to die.

So, to put some best-guestimate numbers around these options, I'm going to assume that the chances of JV being nominated drop from 28.75% to 20% if we try and bluff that we are prepared to default on him, and 10% if we can look teams in the eye and know we are prepared to default on him. (Again, these chances might be able to be lowered by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP).

To conclude:

Option A - We are not willing to default on JV, and make no effort to bluff that we are.

28.75% chance that we get JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

71.25% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Option B - We are not willing to default on JV, but do make an effort to bluff that we are.

20% chance that we get JV, 4 (which essentially becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

80% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Option C - We are willing to default on JV, but make no effort to let teams know that we are.

28.75% chance that we get 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

71.25% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Option D - We are willing to default on JV, and let teams know that we are.

10% chance that we get 3 (becomes 2), 4 (becomes 3),12-ish and 23-ish.

90% chance that we get 3, 4, 12-ish and JV

Comparing options B and D (the two most obvious ones to choose between), it should be clear that option D is slightly, but significantly, more likely to result in our preferred result. Also, the difference between the non-preferred results for these options is:

Option B - JV, 3,12-ish and 23-ish

Option D - 2, 3,12-ish and 23-ish

Here's the crux!! -- To justify option B you would have to believe that not only was keeping JV as valuable as getting pick 2, but would actually be more valuable than pick 2 (greater enough value as to offset the 10% lower chance of actually getting our preferred outcome with this option).

So, to anyone espousing that we should take JV at pick 3 no matter what, you need to convince the rest of us that picking JV is significantly better option than having pick 2 at our disposal. I understand that there are non-tangibles, like the romance and his commitment to play for his father's side, but given that the best (non-biased) ranking I've seen on Viney is from that Bigfooty poster who ranked him around 3, and most others rank him around 5 to 15, I think you've got your work cut out for you.

good post but the part I don't get from yourself and others is the importance of whether the other clubs 'believe' us when we say we are not going to take him at 3. From their POV it makes no difference, if they don't believe us and call our bluff they they HAVE TO take him, so unless they truly believe he is 1st/2nd best in the draft they simply won'tdo it - why would they? and as I said earlier, they will know damn well that if they rain on our parade they will be facing a certain go-home factor in exactly 2 years time and nobody wants that do they. Even if it all backfires and the end of the day we'll have at least upgraded our pick 3 to a pick 2 and some other hopeful will come to the club at 23. we can't really lose here

I don't want Viney because of who is Daddy is. He is exactly the type of player and person this club needs.

If you would like to talk to me about randomly arrived at percentages how about the percentage of the 18 year old we pick being less than what we hope. We would be running about 2 for 6 from Top 5 picks.

We will finish with Picks 3 and 4 and if the becomes argument that we shouldn't take Viney at what will be effectively Pick 4 because he is subjectively to armchair experts Pick 5 then that is not a very good argument.

Do deals to get him in the second round or get ready to see J Viney in ink at Pick 3.

Your first point applies to Viney too. Admittedly we know more about Viney than pick 2, but pick 2 is rated by the experts as a better prospect than Viney. Not a convincing reason to choose Viney over pick 2. Saying that, I recognise that Viney is the sort of player we need, and don't have a huge issue with us taking him at (effectively) 4. But that doesn't mean it is the best option.

I addressed you second point re deals.

So a deal with pick 1 is almost useless, as the chance of a JV nomination stays at 25%. A deal with pick 2 is better, but the 5% chance will still exist. Given that GWS are going to tank their way to the spoon, this makes the mini-draft trade touted elsewhere pretty much useless.

I think my logic is sound. The deal option just doesn't stack up, unless it at least takes out pick 2. Ideally we'll need two deals, one for each team above us. Unless these deals are at least break-even when treated in isolation, then we are paying the cost of the deal to get the same thing we would be 90% chance of getting if we just play hard ball. If a break-even deal that takes out pick 2 is put forward, then I am all for it! That is looking unlikely unless GWS beat GC and us.

Edit: realised they only need to beat GC.

good post but the part I don't get from yourself and others is the importance of whether the other clubs 'believe' us when we say we are not going to take him at 3. From their POV it makes no difference, if they don't believe us and call our bluff they they HAVE TO take him, so unless they truly believe he is 1st/2nd best in the draft they simply won'tdo it - why would they? and as I said earlier, they will know damn well that if they rain on our parade they will be facing a certain go-home factor in exactly 2 years time and nobody wants that do they. Even if it all backfires and the end of the day we'll have at least upgraded our pick 3 to a pick 2 and some other hopeful will come to the club at 23. we can't really lose here

Don't think that is quite correct. If they call our bluff, and we fold and say "OK, we'll take him at 3", then they don't have to take him. We take him.

It's still a bluff! We have to force them to take him, or fold and take him ourselves. But, it's not a bluff if we fully intend on forcing them to take him. And in this scenario, it's like going into the mexican standoff prepared to let others shoot first - we know we might get killed, but we are also increasing the chance we will be the last left standing.

Someone correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

Chances of a JV nomination:

• Chance of pick 1 nominating JV - 5%
  
• Chance of pick 2 nominating JV - 25% (this may be able to be reduced by applying the under the under-the-table trade in the OP)
  

I don't agree with these assumptions at all ...

Chances of Gold Coast nominating Jacky Viney 5% - GC have had a horrible year and can't afford to get too smart and they don't want Viney full stop.

Chances of GWS nominating Jack Viney 95% - Sheedy, Silvagni and Allan's modus-operandi is being too smart, vindictive and conniving.

And just for good measure ...

Chances of MFC taking Viney at pick 3 if he's nominated = 100%

Don't think that is quite correct. If they call our bluff, and we fold and say "OK, we'll take him at 3", then they don't have to take him. We take him.

nope

http://www.afl.com.a...px?newsid=66411

"f the club nominating the father-son player declines to match the selection nominated, the club with the successful bid must use that selection at the draft on that player.

Any club that makes a successful bid on a father-son selection is bound to use the pick they nominate."

which makes old55's point about them being 'cunning' totally irrelevant, surely we are not so self-obsessed we would think that Sheedy is going to take a player 5-10 spots ahead of where he should go purely to pizz us off, that is paranoid crazy talk. 17 clubs will hate it, but they won't be able to do anything about it and we'll get viney 15-16 picks cheaper than market value... and at the end of it we'll have 4 of the top 12 in the draft. Oh yes.

Chances of Gold Coast nominating Jacky Viney 5% - GC have had a horrible year and can't afford to get too smart and they don't want Viney full stop.

Chances of GWS nominating Jack Viney 95% - Sheedy, Silvagni and Allan's modus-operandi is being too smart, vindictive and conniving.

And just for good measure ...

Chances of MFC taking Viney at pick 3 if he's nominated = 100%

and 5 out of 4 people don't understand maths...

Sheedy will nominate Viney. I'd put my house on it.

Shedy will nominate Viney. I'd put my house on it.

Why is everyone ignoring what I am saying

Have you or have you not understood the concept that if he nominates him HE HAS TO TAKE HIM

So you are saying he will think 'well there are several better players available but gee I hate Melbourne"

please explain

Why is everyone ignoring what I am saying

Have you or have you not understood the concept that if he nominates him HE HAS TO TAKE HIM

So you are saying he will think 'well there are several better players available but gee I hate Melbourne"

please explain

I think you should re-read the FS rules C&B

nope

http://www.afl.com.a...px?newsid=66411

"f the club nominating the father-son player declines to match the selection nominated, the club with the successful bid must use that selection at the draft on that player.

Any club that makes a successful bid on a father-son selection is bound to use the pick they nominate."

which makes old55's point about them being 'cunning' totally irrelevant, surely we are not so self-obsessed we would think that Sheedy is going to take a player 5-10 spots ahead of where he should go purely to pizz us off, that is paranoid crazy talk. 17 clubs will hate it, but they won't be able to do anything about it and we'll get viney 15-16 picks cheaper than market value... and at the end of it we'll have 4 of the top 12 in the draft. Oh yes.

Yeah, I think we are both saying the same thing, but misunderstanding each other.

If we (the team nominating the father-son player) decline to match their first round bid (pick 1 or 2) with our first round bid (pick 3), then they are required to take him. Correct! But, they are only required to use their pick, if we decline to use ours.

Hence, there is an element of bluffing. It is not written in stone, like you seem to suggest. Either we call their bluff and hand them Viney and they lose their pick 1 or 2. Or they call our bluff that we won't take Viney at 3, and force us to pull the trigger at 3, losing the chance for Viney in the second round.

There is risk for both parties, which I why I also think Old55s point is invalid.

Yeah, I think we are both saying the same thing, but misunderstanding each other.

If we (the team nominating the father-son player) decline to match their first round bid (pick 1 or 2) with our first round bid (pick 3), then they are required to take him. Correct! But, they are only required to use their pick, if we decline to use ours.

of course! if we don't decline then we are taking him at 3 so obviously they arent required to take him - he's already ours? so how can there be any scenario where they nominate him and don't end up having to take him?

we nominate, they bid

we accept - viney to melb at 3

we decline - viney to GWS/GC at 1/2

essentially it is impossible for Viney to go anywhere but 1,2 or 3 in the first round (IF GC/GWS nominate)

my point is that they won't nominate

Or they call our bluff that we won't take Viney at 3, and force us to pull the trigger at 3, losing the chance for Viney in the second round.

if they call that bluff, that means they aren't nominating, which means straight to round 2 for Viney? seewhat i mean? if they say yeah right melbourne we know you will take him at 3' then they still cant stop us from making him slide, THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN is to nominate themselves, and if they do that THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE HIM so why would they take a risk like that for no reward whatsoever

Wow my head hurts guys...

I think gws will beat gc easily and gc will finish last.

If that is the case, we do have option of a 'handshake' deal with gws and say if you don't touch viney we will trade pick 4 for martin in u17 deal.

So gc 1, gws 2, melb 3 + melb 4 (martin) + jv second round. Or as someone else said earlier we deny the handshake deal existed and keep pick 4!

I don't agree with these assumptions at all ...

Chances of Gold Coast nominating Jacky Viney 5% - GC have had a horrible year and can't afford to get too smart and they don't want Viney full stop.

Chances of GWS nominating Jack Viney 95% - Sheedy, Silvagni and Allan's modus-operandi is being too smart, vindictive and conniving.

And just for good measure ...

Chances of MFC taking Viney at pick 3 if he's nominated = 100%

OK, I get your rhetoric about the likelihood being related to team - ie GWS > GC. But you don't think risk comes into it? If GWS finish last they risk missing out on Lachie, if 2nd last, they miss out on one of a small group of others who are all similarly rated and perhaps on a par with JV. Surely you recognise that draft position is a huge factor too?

And regarding MFC taking Viney, can I assume that you think the club believes that picking JV is significantly better option than having pick 2 at our disposal. Or are they just committed now, and won't back out. Or, are there other intangibles involved?

Wow my head hurts guys...

I think gws will beat gc easily and gc will finish last.

If that is the case, we do have option of a 'handshake' deal with gws and say if you don't touch viney we will trade pick 4 for martin in u17 deal.

So gc 1, gws 2, melb 3 + melb 4 (martin) + jv second round. Or as someone else said earlier we deny the handshake deal existed and keep pick 4!

That is definitely one of my preferred outcomes (and I love the kick in the tail re pick 4).

But I just can't see a tanking GWS losing to GC at Metricon.

of course! if we don't decline then we are taking him at 3 so obviously they arent required to take him - he's already ours? so how can there be any scenario where they nominate him and don't end up having to take him?

we nominate, they bid

we accept - viney to melb at 3

we decline - viney to GWS/GC at 1/2

essentially it is impossible for Viney to go anywhere but 1,2 or 3 in the first round (IF GC/GWS nominate)

my point is that they won't nominate

if they call that bluff, that means they aren't nominating, which means straight to round 2 for Viney? seewhat i mean? if they say yeah right melbourne we know you will take him at 3' then they still cant stop us from making him slide, THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN is to nominate themselves, and if they do that THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE HIM so why would they take a risk like that for no reward whatsoever

OK, I'm getting confused now.

It's seems we do agree on some things, though. That it is unlikely that GWS or GC will actually bid on Viney due to the inherent risk, and it becomes less likely the more we raise the realistic specter of us making them take him. Btw, it's nice to have you in the rationalist camp.

I say, go hard Demons. Have the balls to risk losing him, and reap the rewards (which include not losing him).

of course! if we don't decline then we are taking him at 3 so obviously they arent required to take him - he's already ours? so how can there be any scenario where they nominate him and don't end up having to take him?

we nominate, they bid

we accept - viney to melb at 3

we decline - viney to GWS/GC at 1/2

essentially it is impossible for Viney to go anywhere but 1,2 or 3 in the first round (IF GC/GWS nominate)

my point is that they won't nominate

if they call that bluff, that means they aren't nominating, which means straight to round 2 for Viney? seewhat i mean? if they say yeah right melbourne we know you will take him at 3' then they still cant stop us from making him slide, THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN is to nominate themselves, and if they do that THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE HIM so why would they take a risk like that for no reward whatsoever

I think you and Cheesecake are in agreement, with the 2nd post i've quoted being the source of the confusion.

I think the bluff most people refer to is that GWS will call our bluff by nominating Viney to stop him sliding into the 2nd round and us getting an additional top 4pick. You have also contradicted yourself by saying if they nominate they have to take him in your 2nd post, when you've already highlighted that we have the option to match their bid with our first live pick, #3. Hope this clears up the confusion a bit.

Can we take trade pick 3 and 1-2 players for pick 1??? Guaranteeing Viney in second rd? I could be off with this one but it seem viable.

F/S nominations occur before tradeweek

Can we take trade pick 3 and 1-2 players for pick 1??? Guaranteeing Viney in second rd? I could be off with this one but it seem viable.

No the F/S nominations are on the Monday before trade week.

On the rest of the arguments being thrown around. Why wouldn't GC or GWS nominate Viney?. Pick 1 or pick 5....will there be THAT much difference simply to give us the sh..ts?

Guarantee Sheedy would do it. Worst situation for them is they get a very good player or a very good player.

Likewise would other clubs between us and Essendon nominate Daniher......too right! He is the best player available this year. So why would you not nominate him? Even if you don't get him then it forces Essendon to use their first pick.

Shedy will nominate Viney. I'd put my house on it.

I have a spare room in my place for you, after your house is gone.

which makes old55's point about them being 'cunning' totally irrelevant, surely we are not so self-obsessed we would think that Sheedy is going to take a player 5-10 spots ahead of where he should go purely to pizz us off, that is paranoid crazy talk. 17 clubs will hate it, but they won't be able to do anything about it and we'll get viney 15-16 picks cheaper than market value... and at the end of it we'll have 4 of the top 12 in the draft. Oh yes.

I would prepare yourself for the fact we will be taking Viney at pick 3. If he slips to the second round it is a bonus but that won't happen. Everyone knows we will take Viney at 3 if we have to so they are not risking anything by nominating him with pick 1 or 2.