I think that's worthy of a hot topic tbh 🙂

I agree on the hit theory. You can do so much more with 2 FTs. Using 1 weekly for the sake of it isn't a great choice. Tend to find better results when you can shift the money around in the attacking positions.

One of my favourite topics 🙂

Ive always found peoples views on hits quite amusing. Taking hits is often quoted as bad - the main evidence given to support this is that those finishing at the top usually have very few hits.

However, if you stop and think about it for a minute this is making too concrete a link between cause and effect. The goal of FPL is to finish with the most points from players scoring you points. Clearly if you can do this with less transfers you will incur less penalties. Hence for those that finish at the top, the transfers made is really a sign that they were closer to the ideal points scoring scenario with less transfers incurred.

Our goal each week should be to score the maximum number of points (obviously). If your team is quite a way removed from the logical ideal for that week (for example Suarez and Aguero both play at home against weak opposition and you have neither) then there is a good argument for spending points to bring them both in for example (this is clearly over simplifying but the point should be obvious).

Another related point is the risk of stagnating or always playing catch up. If your team is far from the 'ideal' then 1 transfer a week aint going to cut it. I think Mark has fallen in to this particular trap. In his shoes I would definitely have got in Suarez this week (as well as having Sturridge).

Finally taking hits could be viewed in gambling terms. An informed 'gamble' can pay off. Or more to the point, hopefully your success rate should outweigh any points incurred across the season as not all will pay off.

We should also try to figure out when not to gamble (perhaps when we're ahead of the game? ie if your last 4 have paid off?). I certainly think theres a case for being more reserved when the fixtures for the forthcoming gameweek dont look likely to throw up big scores (this one coming up might be a case in point).

Switched the hot topic status from your original post to this one as more active debate is being triggered here - hope that's ok Zep 🙂

Just for ease of accessibility, I will post this here...

In response to the relative merits of team value building by using FTs (and hits) to chase price rises and transfer out players losing value to prevent TV dropping...

I think this is an excellent addition to this discussion... the dynamic of rising/falling value of players within the game is a huge factor when you are considering transfers...

When you intersect prices rises/falls with the quest to find the inherent value of a FT, we are faced with yet another problem...

How much value gained in a player over a set period of time (and/or the prevention of lost value in a player) will make up for the use of a FT?

Is this future benefit of increased team value (TV) in your team going to outweigh the disadvantages of spending a FT needlessly (or indeed a negative points hit) to chase such value in the first place?

What if, throughout the season, you focused more on objectively finding the best possible transfer each week that would be projected to give you the maximum return on your FT investment? Would this person be at a disadvantage to the player with less points but more TV?

Doesn't it seem logical that if this player was focused on selecting the best player each week for points, then the TV accumulation would take care of itself?

Great thread..Simple for me...I'd sooner finish inside the top 100k and take a hit a week (hopefully better) than the top 10k with a few transfers...I just like playing the game rather than sitting on my hands.

Well, personally, I don't see transfers as a one week thing. I personally like to see out the following 3 gameweeks, and compare the players that I have brought in against the ones that I have dumped. Also, value comes into play here too. There are gains and losses involved with the pricing, most of the times, you have gained value with your transfers, the points you've scored might not be too much (or might even be negative), but that doesn't take away the fact that you've gained value, which is bound to help you sometime during the season. I think it's very tough to actually quantify the value of a free transfer, but this is as close as I could get in estimating the quality of the free transfers I've made.

this is a stupid topic, 4 pts is the answer, end of story.

There are just too many variables at play here; DGWs, wildcard's, team rotation, that to put any number on it (even 4) would be dangerously naïve. For example if you used your free transfer then did Benteke->suarez for a hit, did the first transfer cost you 4 points or did the second benefit you by 30something and how do you weigh the value of each. It makes it impossible to predict an average cost/worth even with foresight.

Seeing as 1ft a week gives a negligible chance of having the ideal team (apart from when wildcarding), the true worth is generally based on your estimate of how many points the new player will exceed the old player by in the next few weeks minus 4. How long that time period should be and the difference in points is decided by you alone (to allow for rotations etc). This is fairly rational logic and if we were all capable/bothered to calculate such decisions I expect there would be a lot more transfers as few would see it as 'costing' 4 points for a hit.


I agree with Berbilly though it's very much a Phd level question to try and answer.

I think the fact that not one manager posting here advocating hits has a history of being consistently in the top 10k should tell everyone that as the verve used to sing "the hits hits don't work"