Suggestions for the 2013 season

drheaton wrote:

Stumps:

dave_atkinson wrote:

next year the rider values will work on a different basis and a rider's value will change between competitions, rather than being set at the start of the year. also, there'll be a more consistent base value for DSs

from above.

I agree, if the values are wildly different it might get confusing and messy but if it's broadly consistent with a limited amount of change (either limited by %age or by a few credits) then it might be ok.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

here's how it'll basically work:

1) there's a maximum rider value of 40 and a minimum rider value of 3, more or less as there is now

2) individual competitions will be turned on as they approach, ie you won't be able to pick your tour of beijing team in january. generally the competitions will be opened when we know which teams are participating

3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true.

What will it mean for rider values?

1) It'll mean that the values of riders for the start of the 2013 season will be pretty wildly different to their 2012 values. but you'd expect that

2) It'll mean that a DS who does particularly well in a race might see his value jump considerably, but the values of star riders who've already amassed a lot of points in 2012 will change less radically from one race to the next

3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on;

4) It'll mean that riders will be valued according to their ability to score in the game. true sprinters won't be as expensive as GC riders, because they generally don't score as many points even though they win as many stages

alles klar?

dave_atkinson wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Stumps:

dave_atkinson wrote:

next year the rider values will work on a different basis and a rider's value will change between competitions, rather than being set at the start of the year. also, there'll be a more consistent base value for DSs

from above.

I agree, if the values are wildly different it might get confusing and messy but if it's broadly consistent with a limited amount of change (either limited by %age or by a few credits) then it might be ok.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

here's how it'll basically work:

1) there's a maximum rider value of 40 and a minimum rider value of 3, more or less as there is now

2) individual competitions will be turned on as they approach, ie you won't be able to pick your tour of beijing team in january. generally the competitions will be opened when we know which teams are participating

3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true.

What will it mean for rider values?

1) It'll mean that the values of riders for the start of the 2013 season will be pretty wildly different to their 2012 values. but you'd expect that

2) It'll mean that a DS who does particularly well in a race might see his value jump considerably, but the values of star riders who've already amassed a lot of points in 2012 will change less radically from one race to the next

3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on;

4) It'll mean that riders will be valued according to their ability to score in the game. true sprinters won't be as expensive as GC riders, because they generally don't score as many points even though they win as many stages

alles klar?

Ah, right, so thats how its done

here's how it'll basically work:

1) there's a maximum rider value of 40 and a minimum rider value of 3, more or less as there is now

2) individual competitions will be turned on as they approach, ie you won't be able to pick your tour of beijing team in january. generally the competitions will be opened when we know which teams are participating

3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true.

What will it mean for rider values?

1) It'll mean that the values of riders for the start of the 2013 season will be pretty wildly different to their 2012 values. but you'd expect that

2) It'll mean that a DS who does particularly well in a race might see his value jump considerably, but the values of star riders who've already amassed a lot of points in 2012 will change less radically from one race to the next

3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on;

4) It'll mean that riders will be valued according to their ability to score in the game. true sprinters won't be as expensive as GC riders, because they generally don't score as many points even though they win as many stages

alles klar?

OK, that's interesting. Only problem is with only 150 points it'll be difficult to get more than 4 or 5 riders scoring if all the ones who are likely to score are expensive. I see quite a lot of cheap 'dead wood' to afford riders who'll score. Would be better if we had 175 points as before to get a more balanced team so you can afford to take a few risks with potential breakaway riders who are moderately expensive DSs.

The other option which I've thought of to get more varied teams is to keep the star/DS distinction but make it more meaningful by having a point cap on the stars. If we had 150 points then you can only use 100 for stars and 50 for DSs. This would restrict the use of high-value stars and force people to make more choices as was necessary when we had 1GC, 1PC etc. This would lead to more varied teams (I'm thinking of the Vuelta especially, but it applied to some extent in all the main Grand Tours when the GC settled down and it was obvious who was going to do well.)

This wouldn't be a big change and would keep most of the good aspects of this year's game and add some elements from the previous year which have been lost.

drheaton wrote:

Totally agree, I'm worried that we'll all resort to picking 4 or 5 'scoring' riders then load up on junk riders just to get a team in budget. For races like the Vuelta that'd mean we pretty much all had exactly the same riders because we'd all have picked Rodriguez, Contador, Valverde +1 then 5 cheap crap DSs who are seriously unlikely to score anything.

i don't agree - up it to 175 and you're just getting extra cash to spend on one more sure thing. the trick is to pick the DSs that score, like Gkam says. anyone can pick the top GC guys

by the end of a grand tour everyone's team at the top is going to be similar, that's inevitable, and i don't see how it would be changed or even that it needs to be

"3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true."

It seems to me like you're gonna do much of the thinking for us... I'm pretty worried that this might lead to winning by pure luck...

cgipryan wrote:

"3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true."

It seems to me like you're gonna do much of the thinking for us... I'm pretty worried that this might lead to winning by pure luck...

really? because all we're doing is using the available data to set rider values, like we did last year. the only difference being this time we're using *actual* data, rather than data in our heads.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

... all we're doing is using the available data to set rider values, like we did last year. the only difference being this time we're using *actual* data, rather than data in our heads.

I'm wondering what criteria you'll use to determine if a rider is a Star. How many points they scored in a competititon? If they were Top 10 in GC or Top 10 in a Classics race? How many points they scored in the previous race they rode?... Take Westra, for example, Got 3nd in GC at Paris-Nice 2012, had 3rd highest point total in the Roadcc competition, I think, what would you do with him for Paris-Nice next year?...

I still think the amount of Star Riders per competition should be cut down and that the Star Rider criteria, having 4 of them, should be set as an upper limit, not as a requirement, of filling 4 slots, only with Stars...

enrique wrote:

Dave Atkinson wrote:

... all we're doing is using the available data to set rider values, like we did last year. the only difference being this time we're using *actual* data, rather than data in our heads.

I'm wondering what criteria you'll use to determine if a rider is a Star. How many points they scored in a competititon? If they were Top 10 in GC or Top 10 in a Classics race? How many points they scored in the previous race they rode?... Take Westra, for example, Got 3nd in GC at Paris-Nice 2012, had 3rd highest point total in the Roadcc competition, I think, what would you do with him for Paris-Nice next year?...

I still think the amount of Star Riders per competition should be cut down and that the Star Rider criteria, having 4 of them, should be set as an upper limit, not as a requirement, of filling 4 slots, only with Stars...

Dave already explained earlier how the value system for riders works.

My dad and probably numerous others have said "if it aint broken, why try and fix it".

This can be said of the game at the mo. Everyone has ideas but until something within the game blatantly doesnt work why change it. Its easy for newcomers to get to grips with and the more you pour into the game the more complicated it gets thus ruling out a probable large majority of users. You just have to look at the scores in the leagues, teams from pages 24 to 28 have zero points (thats a 1000 users) and if you make the game more complicated these numbers are just going to increase.

stumps wrote:

...Dave already explained earlier how the value system for riders works...

Yeah, I guess I'm looking for more clarity on, not the value of a rider, but whether he becomes a Star Rider or a DS... and whether the 4 Stars per team requirement is up for discussion or whether it'll pretty much stay the same...

Dave Atkinson wrote:

cgipryan wrote:

"3)at the point at which the competition is turned on the rider values will be calculated. They'll be calculated based on a rider's performance in the year preceding that date; ie all races up to one year in the past will be considered

4) the scores of each rider will be totted up to generate averages for each type of stage; they'll be weighted according to the importance of the race, and how many of each kind of stage features in the upcoming race

5) based on that, each rider will be given a value, and the highest-ranked riders will be star riders. so a rider won't necessarily stay a star if they do badly over a season, and the reverse is also true."

It seems to me like you're gonna do much of the thinking for us... I'm pretty worried that this might lead to winning by pure luck...

really? because all we're doing is using the available data to set rider values, like we did last year. the only difference being this time we're using *actual* data, rather than data in our heads.

I don't think this is all you're doing, because you are also anticipating how the race is going to go... especially when you say, I quote, "3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on".
This is where you're practically gonna organize the riders (weighting in their current form and abilities on the specific terrain) according to price, and we're gonna be left pretty much with randomly picking a set of 9 from the pre-organized (according to winning chances) rider list. It sounds to me like you're willing to organize the rider list for a race like the betting odds lists before a race. And that already indicates the riders who have the largest chances of winning and also forces the participants in the game to take chances (lucky ones, basically) if they want to win much more than now, I think...

cgipryan wrote:

I don't think this is all you're doing, because you are also anticipating how the race is going to go... especially when you say, I quote, "3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on".
This is where you're practically gonna organize the riders (weighting in their current form and abilities on the specific terrain) according to price, and we're gonna be left pretty much with randomly picking a set of 9 from the pre-organized (according to winning chances) rider list. It sounds to me like you're willing to organize the rider list for a race like the betting odds lists before a race. And that already indicates the riders who have the largest chances of winning and also forces the participants in the game to take chances (lucky ones, basically) if they want to win much more than now, I think...

So you think that by organising the riders values by how well they did LAST season and depending on the type of race, Small tour, Classic, Grand tour. Then Dave and the people behind the game are some how indicating who has a chance of winning the race??

You know when riders line up, they all want to win and there are no guaranteed winners in cycling. So by setting the values depending on their performance from the year previous means nothing. Just look at Gilbert this season. He couldn't do what he did in 2011

cgipryan wrote:

I don't think this is all you're doing, because you are also anticipating how the race is going to go... especially when you say, I quote, "3) It'll mean that rider values will be weighted towards the riders that will do well on certain types of terrain; if a race is all flat stages then sprinters will be more expensive, and so on".
This is where you're practically gonna organize the riders (weighting in their current form and abilities on the specific terrain) according to price, and we're gonna be left pretty much with randomly picking a set of 9 from the pre-organized (according to winning chances) rider list. It sounds to me like you're willing to organize the rider list for a race like the betting odds lists before a race. And that already indicates the riders who have the largest chances of winning and also forces the participants in the game to take chances (lucky ones, basically) if they want to win much more than now, I think...

you go with picking your riders randomly and i'll go with attempting to pick a squad i think will score well, and we'll see how that pans out.

one thing i've learned from three years running the game is that some people are really good at it. the rules might change a bit from year to year but it definitely takes skill to win, and that'll be the case next year too.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

one thing i've learned from three years running the game is that some people are really good at it. the rules might change a bit from year to year but it definitely takes skill to win, and that'll be the case next year too.

Something I have learnt from playing for 2.5 years. Skill = lots of time to researching the riders and race route, understanding the rules and scoring system, planning well ahead and making the right decisions.

Personally I do not see the need for "Oh crap, picked the wrong DSs for a GT, I need a magic bullet to fix it and be competitive"

This was my starting line up for the TDF
Peter Sagan
Fabian Cancellara
Edvald Boasson Hagen
Samuel Dumoulin
Daryl Impey
Julien Simon
Jonathan Cantwell
Gustav Erik Larsson
Kris Boeckmans

I made some bad transfers during week 1, and was outside the top 100. I improved after that, finishing 3rd, I did not win the TdF comp because I picked Pierre Rolland over Thomas Voeckler on Stage 16.

I do not want to see a change to only bank transfers for one day or lose them. It has caused me problems in the past and will in the future, but it makes you study the race route and plan ahead. Otherwise you reward lazy players with stage wins.

I would like to see the artificial 4 star 5 DS rule removed because:
1. It makes the game a little more complex;
2: Gives players far more options in team strategy and make up.
3. There have been times I would of preferred 3 stars and a couple of high value DSs, but could not as I need to spend points on a 4th cheap star to fill out the roster. Other times, I could afford 5 or even 6 stars.

Happy to see the points value of riders change throughout the season, as long as the point cost distribution remains the same.

Personally I would prefer it if all the riders in a race was magically ranked behind the scenes (so we can't complain and the top rider in a race cost 40 (note all these numbers are just plucked out of the air)) , the 2nd ranked rider 39, the 3rd 38 so on, until in the case of the TDF 179th to 188th ranked riders cost 3.2 and the 189th to 198th ranked riders cost 3 or something similar.

So some unknown 180th ranked DS worth 3 points rides stunning Tour of Qatar wins a stage, has a couple of top 10 places and then is ranked 30th in a weak field in the Tour of Oman and costs 15 points. Does not do anything special in the Tour of Oman, next is Tour of Flanders, and the field is stronger and the rider is now ranked 90th in the race and cost 6 points. Disastrous classic campaign, overall ranking falls and by the time of the Giro is ranked 130th in the race and worth 4 points.

Love the idea of a KOM and Points jersey comp for the GT (GC is a bit naff, rewards the safe players, the KOM is for the risk takers and points if awarded in Giro/Vuelta style is for the consistent picker of stage wins, ignoring the safer jersey points and team bonuses etc).

Not a fan of the 2 riders per team limitation, but see it as necessary evil for TTTs.

What I'm saying is that if you organize the rider prices according to their CURRENT form (not last year's form) and especially according to their chances of winning IN THAT PARTICULAR RACE (WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROFILE), we're going to play more against you than against other players. It's like when you bet, where you have two possibilities: a) you bet against the house because you think they've misjudged one rider's odds; b) you play safe by taking one of the the favourites.
So, basically you're going to make the game easier for everyone by indicating the favourites for that particular race, and you're going to force those who think they know better to take much more chances if they want to beat those who just go with the designated (by you) favorites.
The idea is precisely that I DON'T want to pick my team randomly (I was 6th in the overall table this year, so I hope my teams weren't picked randomly...). Of course, this is just my impression, it might not be confirmed when this system is actually tested, with actually implemented prices per rider and with the obligation to pick 9 riders effectively taking part in that race...

cgipryan wrote:

What I'm saying is that if you organize the rider prices according to their CURRENT form (not last year's form) and especially according to their chances of winning IN THAT PARTICULAR RACE (WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROFILE), we're going to play more against you than against other players. It's like when you bet, where you have two possibilities: a) you bet against the house because you think they've misjudged one rider's odds; b) you play safe by taking one of the the favourites.

So, basically you're going to make the game easier for everyone by indicating the favourites for that particular race...

Yeah, I see your point... Anyone can have a pretty decent team if they choose the higher valued riders...

Then again, you still have to choose your DS's...

You know, but if that is the case, then I feel more strongly towards limiting the Stars to just 2 or 3... 'Cause it forces, or might force, much more diferent teams than if we have to pick 4 Stars...

cgipryan wrote:

What I'm saying is that if you organize the rider prices according to their CURRENT form (not last year's form) and especially according to their chances of winning IN THAT PARTICULAR RACE (WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROFILE), we're going to play more against you than against other players. It's like when you bet, where you have two possibilities: a) you bet against the house because you think they've misjudged one rider's odds; b) you play safe by taking one of the the favourites.
So, basically you're going to make the game easier for everyone by indicating the favourites for that particular race, and you're going to force those who think they know better to take much more chances if they want to beat those who just go with the designated (by you) favorites.
The idea is precisely that I DON'T want to pick my team randomly (I was 6th in the overall table this year, so I hope my teams weren't picked randomly...). Of course, this is just my impression, it might not be confirmed when this system is actually tested, with actually implemented prices per rider and with the obligation to pick 9 riders effectively taking part in that race...

i don't think you're quite understanding how it would work. for a start the values will be based on a year of form to the date of the race, not just last year's race. And although the prices will be weighted according to what kind of stages are in the race, neither that nor the year's form will be a perfect indicator of race form. there'll still be bargains, and expensive flops.

Also, i'm not sure why you think that the riders most likely to win shouldn't be the most expensive? yes you could do okay just picking favourites, but it's not going to get you the win, and anyway you won't be able to just pick all the favourites because you'll run out of cash. the four most expensive stars for a race would likely use up all your budget.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

i don't think you're quite understanding how it would work. for a start the values will be based on a year of form to the date of the race, not just last year's race. And although the prices will be weighted according to what kind of stages are in the race, neither that nor the year's form will be a perfect indicator of race form. there'll still be bargains, and expensive flops.

Also, i'm not sure why you think that the riders most likely to win shouldn't be the most expensive? yes you could do okay just picking favourites, but it's not going to get you the win, and anyway you won't be able to just pick all the favourites because you'll run out of cash. the four most expensive stars for a race would likely use up all your budget.

I think I finally get your point. So, a question just to see if I did get it right. For example, Cav will have a value of 40 in the Tour of Quatar next year (based on a year of form and on the profile of ToQ). But afterwards, when we move to the classics, his value will drop on account of him only having realistic chances in say 2 classics (say Milan-San Remo, and maybe one of the smaller early races in Belgium). But, because he still retains pretty much the same one year of form that was used as a base in ToQ, his value will not drop for the classics from 40 credits to 5 or 7 credits, but will only drop, let's say, to 30 credits. Let me know if I got it right this time. Because if this is how you intend to change things, then I think it's ok.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

... here's how it'll basically work:

1) there's a maximum rider value of 40 and a minimum rider value of 3...

Dave, I love riders that can be gotten for less than 3 points, just so you can have some flexibility to stack your team a little, and so we don't have people resorting to picking riders at 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5 points that aren't riding, and are grayed out... How about giving us a few of these in each race? Surely there'll be no-name domestiques we can afford to do this with... Huh?

enrique wrote:

Dave, I love riders that can be gotten for less than 3 points, just so you can have some flexibility to stack your team a little, and so we don't have people resorting to picking riders at 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5 points that aren't riding, and are grayed out... How about giving us a few of these in each race? Surely there'll be no-name domestiques we can afford to do this with... Huh?

not sure i understand. the point of the 3 credit minimum is that there'll be no point picking greyed-out riders as there won't be any cheaper riders not participating. it could easily be 2.5, or 2, or whatever

Dave Atkinson wrote:

... not sure i understand. the point of the 3 credit minimum is that there'll be no point picking greyed-out riders as there won't be any cheaper riders not participating. it could easily be 2.5, or 2, or whatever

What I mean is having riders at less than 3 sometimes lets you cram in another star... It was wonderful this year to have M. Astarloza and J. Moreno at 2.5 points , G. Izaguirre for 2.7, J. Barta and N. Quintana for 2.9 and so on, which let you fit in higher priced riders, so I'd like it if we had a few riders below 3 points in each competition... Thanks!...

drheaton wrote:

I think the change to 4/5 splits was a small change from the previous year where it was 1 GC rider, 1 all-rounder, 1 climber and 1 sprinter plus 5 DSs. It was an incremental change that wasn't a massive departure from previous years.

For what's it's worth, I think the current system is infinitely better than last year and I wouldn't be particularly upset if in the end it didn't change.

Re transfers, I don't think the game would improve if we went to a 'Halfords' style transfer system where you get a batch of transfers to use over a number of days. Apart from the fact that it might hurt site traffic (as you may choose to make all your weeks transfers in one go or every few days and not be on the site every day) it'd also take some of the fun of having to change your team in small batches. Having a floating two transfers you can use at any time or something similar would be good but I don't think being given all 40 in one go would make things any better.

It was two all-rounders and 4 DSs last year and you had 175 points as well, which could go up (although it was reset for GTs). The problem this year is the lack of points and the fact that everyone ends up with the same limited number of cheap DSs as expensive ones are not worth the punt. Who had Cataldo when he went on a break? Without a Star/DS distinction everyone will have the same team after a while. It's happened in the Vuelta, which from a fantasy point of view has been a bit boring, even when the GC racing has been good.

Without decent KOM and break points it's impossible to get back in the game if you have even a little bit of bad luck, (the Valverde-Intxausti crash situation cost me dearly early on). Since then I've had very little chance to get back in the game but from a worse position in the TdF I went from 74th to 12th in Premium by doing very well on 2 stages (winning one). Even if I'd done the same in the Vuelta I wouldn't have caught up much. If anything I would like KOM points on the final climb to count, after all they do in the real race and I think the points in the race should reflect fantasy points as much as possible.

I'll make another post later about my own views when I've got more time and I've thought about it a bit more.

drheaton wrote:

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

drheaton the changes that you suggest would just make the game easier....and I repeat would just narrow the point difference between players.....

Your premise seems to be that giving players the chance to fix poor first stage choices would make the game easier, I say it just makes the game fairer.

If for one of the Vuelta sprint stages instead of picking Degenkolb & Davis I picked Swift and Rojas I would suffer and probably lose alot of points. That's fine, I made those choices and that's the way the game is. But the next day when we go back to the hills I can take those riders out and swap them for whoever I like. The error is fixed and it only hurt me for one stage. That's not too bad.

If for stage one I pick the wrong DSs (De Weert and Rasilla for example) given the way that races play out I have no chance to change these riders until maybe the first rest day. Not only does this hurt me for stage 1, 2, 3 etc it continues to hurt me stage after stage. So, for one stage's worth of poor picks I'm at a disadvantage for the first 7 - 10 stages. Is that fair? Yes I made those choices and I can live with being stuck with them for a stage or two but with the way the races go and the transfer limits I may not have been able to get those crap DSs out of my team until this week (without severly sacrificing points by not picking Rodriguez/Contador etc). In the end I chose to lose 40 points by taking penalty transfers.

Why is making the game farier (so that all bad picks count equally and some are not overly penal) making the game easier?

Also, if you made the right picks then you've got two more transfers or something else which will allow you to do something different and get more points. Whatever changes you make you still need to pick the right people on the right day. That won't change.

As a compromise to all the suggestions (10 point penalty transfers, more banking of transfers etc) how about we just make stage 1 (or the prologue) effectively a rest day? 4 transfers for the first stage isn't too much and the better players will use that to their advantage while the rest of us will be trying to fix our teams. In addition, that also makes each 1/3rd of the race (up to the 1st rest day, between the two rest days and after the 2nd) equal in that you go into them with 2 extra transfers.

We shall agree to differ my friend.... .....Now I need to get back to my head scratching for tomorrows stage.....tough one to call......