Using delisted riders

Its not really in the spirit of the game...

why should you be able to choose riders who aren't starting the race?

It makes no sense!

I still think some people are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Let it go, its done now and no amount of whingeing will make it change.

Makes it very hard to pick an overall purist team if you're limited to only riders racing in the next stage...

I think picking riders who don't start but are cheap isn't an issue it's a tactic,

I've ended up with riders who've been greyed out as they've been pulled before the start and I've not looked, but I've left them in as Id take the chance wuth the extra points for start riders and better DS's over the game so Im riding light through the game.

No changes to this please Dave but can the points budget go up please? inflation and all......

The fact is no rules have been broken....Personally I think that its a loophole that should not be there...I spotted the option and chose not to do it....For me it was not morally right,I play with riders declared for the race.....and always will....

Yeah, by freeing up what is actually around 0.8 - 1.5 credits (2.3 point DS instead of the minimum 2.7 in the race or likely more as he already had Izagirre/Bernaudeau) you can bring in other riders costing more than you would otherwise have been able to afford.

Dave is right in that you still need to pick the right guys and that this in no way is a guarantee of success but what you can do is pick a team otherwise unavailable to you (Wiggins, Froome, Voeckler, Kessiakoff, Pinot, Izagirre, Bernaudeau +2 non-riders). By keeping these non-riders in through the rest of the tour you also get to keep those credits for every subsequent stage assuming you don't make transfers.

It all depends on how who you want but it can be the difference on one stage between picking Goss or Griepel for example or being able to keep Kessiakoff throughout the mountains rather than having to juggle him in and out to get other riders in.

In the case of johnking he's brought the two non-riders in well before the stages where he's scored loads of points and it's difficult to see how much advantage there's been until you get to stage 16/17 at which point without having the non-riders he would not have been able to afford the team he had. He may have chosen to drop Pinot and lose a handful of points or he may not have been able to bring in Voeckler and therefore lost out on maybe 150 points...

I'm not arguing that he's not done well, he's made the right picks and fair play to him, he deserves his prize, but there's a clear advantage to having those non-riders in there.

Stumps, Instead of picking a DS thats 2.5/7, but picking a 2.3 who's not riding, may just free up the 0.2/4 you needed to bring in your 4 star riders who you could not squeeze into the 150 budgets by just picking riders in the race

Marginal gains as Sky would say

Before this explodes into another helmet type discussion where we all go round and round without getting anywhere can someone explain how by picking a rider valued at 2.4 or 2.5 who is not in the race compare to picking someone who was in the race at maybe 2.6 going to effect the game in the long run ?

By my reckoning you score by about 0.5 credits per stage ?

Is it much different to a real life team selecting a sprinter to snatch a few early stage victories, knowing 100% that they can go full gas in the first few days as they are going to drop out before the mountains, thus offering no further support to any of the rest of the team?

I ask this as a non-player so I have nothing at all to benefit from this.

Yes, maybe the problem isn't that you can do it, but that some people didn't realise you can do it

Also I dont think people are calling it to be changed now, i think the issue is being raised to be looked at on Dave's list of things that may change for next years game, not this years.

Aye, if it's something that people want to keep then keep it, but the rules need to be beefed up to make sure nothing is left to interpretation.

The game's grown and expanded quickly over the last couple of years but it's still operating in the same vein that it was at the start, as a bit of fun. The problem is that people are now paying to play and have a chance at winning big value prizes. Take the rules seriously (even if the full set of 'extended' rules are made available separately to the easy to follow 'how to' page) and make sure everything is covered, everything is clear and nothing is left open to interpretation or unclear.

Keep it as it is, but make a point in the rules section that its allowed, so no-one can claim they didn't realise it was an option. Simple.

I didn't read the rules for the game, nor did I write them, but I sussed out that you could pick non-participating riders to make up your team on day 1 of our first game last year because the pick riders button was obviously a filter button that could be flipped to all riders.

I haven't done it in Grand Tours because I don't think it's that useful in GTs where there are usually enough low value stars and DS riders - it is much more useful in one day races. I also think it is a valid tactic (which is in the rules if you do read them) because as has been said above you are taking a risk. You are only going to stretch your buying power fractionally so it's not as advantageous as an extra transfer, so the risk matches the potential reward. Also let's not forget that last year your budget grew with success over the game and during races - so the better your riders did the more budget you got.

Finally, I'd say that 'loophole' makes the game even more realistic - because in the real peloton, as in every other big money sport - teams and players will seek to gain any advantage that isn't specifically banned.

OK Dave, you're right there. Voeckler wasn't 'definitely' going to win all of those points and if Froome had it would have been a different story all together. We can never be sure who's going to do anything and in that sense the game is a bit random and a lot of fun. I really enjoy it.

One of the reasons I rarely get involved with forums is my expectation that whatever I write will be misrepresented or blown out of proportion. These forums also have a tendency to become personal which is not what it should be about; we all love this game and forums should be a place where everyone can put their point of view, good or bad.

Those who read my post in the way it was intended will note that I said I was very happy to win the kit, regardless of who bent what rules, and I am. By the way Dave, I take size 2 (small) kit, cheers : )

My point was two fold. Firstly if the rules are now going to change that is to say that this practice, which people who have posted on here seem to believe has been going on for ages, is wrong and that it should be stopped. That isn’t fair to a) the people who use this “loophole”, such as the guy who won, or b) those who lost out to the people who use the loophole such as me. Secondly, this “loophole” is not well advertised at all and in fact unless you have been trawling the forum you wouldn’t know otherwise. The rules are only clear in saying that greyed out riders are ok but are not specific enough for those who wouldn’t think it would be possible to pick a rider who was not even starting a race for which you are trying to win a prize.

Rules are rules and if you’re going to be charging for people to win prizes then the rules should be clear for everyone, not just those who regularly keep up on the forum. I would also point out that if it’s been debated on here several times before and not been changed there’s no reason to change it now. There is, however, plenty of evidence in this thread of people who didn’t know about it and that’s what needs to be addressed.

My only reason for being miffed is that I would have liked, as nicobec who came third did, the choice. Now I know that this is possible I can make the choice as to whether I want to run my team that way, rather than being in the dark. That’s the only reason I am disappointed at coming second (which in response to all those who are alluding to me being a sore loser is still better than nothing!), because I like many others didn’t know you can do this and if I had who knows....maybe I would have gambled and I’d be in the lantern rouge end of the fantasy cycling league.

Like I said, I am happy with what I got; I’ve actually never won anything like this before and whilst I, like others, do play it for fun, I didn’t become a premium member for fun and I am pleased that my way of playing paid off.

interesting take on it, nickobec, thanks

therealsmallboy - you say you couldn't afford voeckler, but you transferred in froome on that day who's more expensive. had you chosen voeckler instead you would have been 80-odd points to the good. who's to say whether you'd have got the win from there?

my point is that contentious as it seems to be, transferring in cheap non-riding DSs isn't some kind of magic bullet and like nickobec says, it's a risky strategy because you're guaranteeing that that some of your riders won't score

I play this game to be competitive and are very pleased to of finished 3rd.

Am I miffed that the winner made use of loophole in the rules and made me miss out on a BMC kit, no.

I have been playing here since the 2010 Vuelta and knew about the tactic of transferring in cheaper non participating riders, it has been discussed on the forum a few times.

I could of used it myself, but choose not to, as I considered it too risky. When the winner had two 2.3 point non participating riders, I was racking up points in the mountains with Martinez and Feillu. Low cost DSs were scoring well in the mountains and sprints (Impey, Boeckmans, Simon)

Seriously I though johnking who was 10 points ahead was going to get overrun by the therealsmallboy on the last stage. therealsmallboy had 4 sprinting DSs and johnking none prior to the final transfers. johnking brought in Cav, Griepel and Boeckmans. Cav and Boeckmans won the bike for him in the end.

Me, I made some mistakes, I had the choice between Rolland and Voeckler on stage 16 (I had the points as I did not have both Wiggins & Froome) and chose Rolland. I stuck with Evans (instead of Froome), Gallopin (when sick) and Vichot for far too long. Dropped Sagan for stage 14 and did not pick Wiggins for the prologue and stage 18 needed to be 500m shorter

As for an "old boys forum"....I'm neither, old nor a boy

I've only been around the forum a couple of months longer than yourself, 16 weeks by looks at our profiles.

The reason my post count is so high, last year I had plenty of spare time to watch the racing as work was on a pick and choose basis. So whenever I was around, I would post up a bit of commentary for anyone who wasn't able to watch live or catch highlights. They could keep up with going's on and I hoped it helped them to make transfers and so on. Sometimes dropping in the odd red herring

But I know as much as anyone else about the game and pro racing as most others on the forum.

Condoning the use of two riders in a TdF fantasy team that are riding for teams that were not in the TdF proper is very loyal TERatcliffe26.

By the way I think Drheaton agrees with me.

I love playing this game what ever changes I'll always play it and treat it as fun and somewhere to have a good banter and a crack about our passion that it CYCLING!
I'll admit i'm not the best at this but always try my best. Hell i even won a stage on the your of Poland!!(pure luck)
As it's allowed Vuelta is gonna be fun

I have no problem with using delisted riders. It's the equivalent of saying, I don't care if I get no points for these delisted riders, because it opens up my budget to fit in riders I want! I'm ok with that, 'cause I think that we should be able to use our budgets as we wish. Teams end up finishing the Grand Tours with just 4 or 5 riders, well, this is the equivalent of saying I'm playing with 7 riders, not 9. I'm ok with that. I'm all for having complete control of the budget and if someone wants to race with just 6 riders one day on the Tour, so what? Let them!...

exactly what Raleigh has said a case of 'I lost but didn't win in many cases' and has been blown out of proportion

Most of us on this forum (Gkam, Raleigh, Drheaton etc) play the game as we enjoy the game and not to win....and you will have seen that based on th purist races we organised ourselves prior to the premium aspect, and also the track cycling comp Drheaton is overseeing. And us that debate the rules most often never win however and see it from both sides despite having different opinions, and thus the rules do end up being set in the fairest manner and are constantly reviewed. Therefore to call it the 'old boys forum' is rather unfair as we are in it for the seeing the best the game game can offer not necessarily for the prizes. the forum at the end of the day is open to all and Dave will take into account each and everyones opinion on rules, however most only bring up an issue after they dont agree with it, rather than in threads that have been set up beforehand where each and every player is more than welcome to voice a concern before the rule for the following season are implemented

Mrdowen i respect your opinion like i do everyone elses, however i totally disagree that the attitude is wrong. The rules on how riders can be used were outlined before the season, and yes you may see that as so called 'bending' but as Gkam said, under the current rules people are well within there right to run with riders not participating in that race. As far as i understand it so long as you have 9 riders within budget you team is complete and will score points, thus not an illegal team. But this is not an attitude thing as it will be reviewed by Dave, and this game is not perfect but will always aim to get better.

wow nice loop-hole! I agree seems to have been blown out of proportion abit, but maybe altering the game for next year might be wise, provided the budget goes up to reflect the riders values. Otherwise might as well leave this loop-hole in because the way i see it at least 4 if not 5 riders will probably go upto 40 points plus alot of good ds's will become stars!

As we are paying it is something to think about!

I think it should stick.

I'll put my hands up and say that I've done this, unwittingly though.

In the Giro I picked Theo Bos, who was the cheapest star by far the day he dropped out on stage 16.

I also picked the cheap DS from Europcar in this year's tour, in the days leading up to his abandonment.

If you don't like it, ask for 25 more credits like last year, then you could've had Froome, Wiggins, Voeckler, Nibali AND Pinot.

Also, the phrase, "blown out of all proportion," springs to mind.

A classic case of 'I lost but I should've won.'

Sorry, having a half complete purist team due to people dropping out is ENTIRELY different to bringing in two cheap riders who's teams aren't even IN THE RACE!

It's a loophole, a massive one, and it needs fixing. Working to a budget and picking your riders based on what you can afford is part of the game. Picking 2 or 3 guys not racing because they allow you to get more expensive stars is not. Why not just pick 4 riders and call that a team? Use you whole budget on them and have 5 "open slots", what's the difference?

I'm all for consistency in the rules and not changing things just because a few people don't like it but this smacks of a few people wanting the loophole left open because they know something no-one else does and it gives them an advantage.

All the rules are defined here http://fantasy.road.cc/howto

An incomplete team is NOT bending the rules, I played purist and had 3 riders who didn't finish. Thats no different from using riders not in the race in my eyes.

Using whatever riders to make your team is all part of the game. If you don't like it.....fair enough.

drheaton wrote:

Boo! For one day races surely there's no excuse to not picking actual riders!

There is in the Olympics, because we have a fair idea who's going to be at the finish first, so to fit 4/5 of them in, I need to use cheapo DS's