A little help from the blog archive ...

Mark posted 24/09

Wiki rules have been updated to reflect the 5 staff member options a team may buy mid season.

one maximum per team.

This initiative will be reviewed at end of season 60.  

http://www.vanillaconsulting.biz/seslwiki/index.php/SESL_Rules#*NEW_for_season_60*_Staff_Purchase_mid_season

Anyone else with strong opinions either may can put them on blog,
but the rule needs set in stone before first league matches in 10 days time.

"Most managers would have picked their captain before we knew we could add 20 SL."

So, while most of us had probably placed our pre-season orders by then, there was still a window of opportunity.
Arguing with most is, as usually, rather pointless anyway. 
Most of us win neither the wooden spoon nor the SESL Cup any season.

Sample: DEE's decisions 
The (only) initial captain choice was a weak 5/20 FW.
BUT the relevant decisions remained: 
1. When to buy a high-SL age 5 at what price, given the higher expected offers due to the SC option?
2. When to turn the new age 5 into a captain?

Decision #2 isn't as trivial as it looks, given that a 5/28 delivers much better coaching rewards than a 5/20.

So yes, those have been non-trivial decisions, well ahead of yesterday.

BTW: nobody "with strong opinions" against showed up.

Certainly there's "still time to change the PU" for the SCs.
Just as well there's still time to set all SLs of age 7 players to 42.
Both scripts can be run in seconds.
In both cases: Why?

There is a rule:

D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10.

It is not stated that an SL increase is PUed.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that each and any SL increase is PUed.

Some players may have noticed this and made decisions based on it.
Some of these decisions were made some time ago (e.g. player purchases and captain's choices).

Should those players who read the rules be punished retroactively?

I am all for dropping the SC option, as well as the staff options altogether.
If we keep it, then please make it PUed.
In fact, I'd prefer it if all SL increases were PUed.

But that's for next season only.
 

D) Senior Citizen: add 10 SL to a single age5+ player up to usual maximum PU of 10.

Seems to make it clear that the players getting +10 would also move up to 10 PU and not stay on 0 PU

No, it doesn't. 
I admit that I misunderstood the rules in the same way as you did, but Mark clarified them today.

Idea was so a Captain already on PU 10 did not get another 10 SL added.
The boosted senior citizen can go on and earn another 10 PU 2nd half of season, but for mid season maximum of 10 SL added before mid season boost.

So the effective training limit pre-senior-buff is 10 PU.
The PU after the buff remains the same (0 or whatever) as it was - and so the post-buff training potential stays.

New Captain: Kerr Waddell

I happened to notice that my former 'Bulgarian fly-catcher' GK Gadzhalov has evolved.

Player Achievements 
 Man of The Match      39 
 All-Time Top 10 MOM Awards      #2 
 
I looked into some of the usual suspects, but I couldn't find any player with more than 40 MoMs.
Does anyone know who is (still) number one?
 

Looks like an honest mistake by DEE to bid on resources rather than an auction player.

Why the game engine didn't void the player lot number 5 bid for having no name is a mystery.
But that is not DEE's fault.

Moreso because ELG bid on same lot 5 was voided. 
So game rules ought be applied and DEE bid also made void on lot 5.  

With Eduard's aggreement first though, player 5 ought go to next highest bidder CB.

Completely correct. 
I contacted Mark yesterday already and he offered to process lot #5 in CB's favour, especially since there are no dependencies in the bids below.
The reason why DEE's blank order was processed could not be determined.

Of course, this assumes that Craig/CB is still interested.
If not, I'll accept the trade as it is and just rename the player.

Hi William,

There's "good" news and bad news.
The bad news is that: EDI got an annoyingly low number of shots. As you correctly calculated, the expected shots were about 11–5.5 in EDI's favour.
BUT the "good" news is that: EDI's loss was still somewhat correct. 
The expected result was about 1.8–2.0, with the expected points at around 1.2–1.8 in NAI's favour - due to the GKs, shooters and offside.
So it's been certainly annoying, but not too unlucky.

The number of shots is by far the most random variable in the game engine, given it's calculated 90 times per match with a low probability each. Reducing the volatily would be rather easy, but it would take some major code changes.

So the only way to adjust is to make your squad even stronger - to survive the occasional bad rolls.
But even then, bad rolls turn up way too often (subjectively) - as proven by a recent cup tie.

There's no need to be afraid.
The STE and MOT T11 are almost as strong.

And the SESL group matches are certainly the easiest way to claim victory over Dundee anyway.