I'm clarifying the above post -- sorry if it's rude.

1) In my illustration above, even the forced position dollar values aren't perfect either, although to my eye they are better than the dollar values computed when the forced position option is turned off. The problems are because (i) one bids in dollar increments not in pennies and (ii) no owner can bid more than his remaining dollars minus $1 for each roster spot greater than one. The fact that the pricing model doesn't adjust for those problems would not trouble us nearly as much if we were dealing with a real life situation involving lots of fantasy owners and lots of players to be auctioned. I'll also assert that the magnitude of the forced position problem does not shrink dramatically when we deal with a real life situation involving lots of fantasy owners and lots of players to be auctioned. You may choose to believe my assertions or not but try not to let those other problems distract you from the point I was trying to make with my simplified illustration.

2) Perhaps I should explain how the forced positions method of allocating dollars works because the second set of dollar values was not random given that we had the first set of dollar values. Each player has a single number representing his value. It could be his standing gain points, the sum of his z-scores, the number of projected points if one is in a points-based league, or his Rotisserie dollar value prior to factoring in forced positions -- define that number as "value." The projected dollar value for each player including forced positions is computed as $1 + leaguewide marginal value above replacement player value / leaguewide dollars to be allocated above $1 per player to be rostered, assuming that $1 is the minimum bid and that replacement player value is computed based on the guy's position.

1) In my illustration above, even the forced position dollar values aren't perfect either, although to my eye they are better than the dollar values computed when the forced position option is turned off. The problems are because (i) one bids in dollar increments not in pennies and (ii) no owner can bid more than his remaining dollars minus $1 for each roster spot greater than one. The fact that the pricing model doesn't adjust for those problems would not trouble us nearly as much if we were dealing with a real life situation involving lots of fantasy owners and lots of players to be auctioned. I'll also assert that the magnitude of the forced position problem does not shrink dramatically when we deal with a real life situation involving lots of fantasy owners and lots of players to be auctioned. You may choose to believe my assertions or not but try not to let those other problems distract you from the point I was trying to make with my simplified illustration.

2) Perhaps I should explain how the forced positions method of allocating dollars works because the second set of dollar values was not random given that we had the first set of dollar values. Each player has a single number representing his value. It could be his standing gain points, the sum of his z-scores, the number of projected points if one is in a points-based league, or his Rotisserie dollar value prior to factoring in forced positions -- define that number as "value." The projected dollar value for each player including forced positions is computed as $1 + leaguewide marginal value above replacement player value / leaguewide dollars to be allocated above $1 per player to be rostered, assuming that $1 is the minimum bid and that replacement player value is computed based on the guy's position.

## Comment