TARGETSlineup-aware
loading board…
MY ROSTER
—
NOMINATE
names to put up
that drain RIVALS' budgets — not names for you to buy
—
THE ROOM
TOOLS
HOW TO READ THIS · two different questions
The order of the target list answers "who do I want" — lineup-aware marginal value, which decays to nothing once a position is filled. The state answers "should I bid at today's price". They disagree often, and a #1-ranked PASS is not a bug: it means the best fit for your roster is currently overpriced. Sorting by the dollar surplus instead would put every $1 kicker above every real starter, and sorting by raw
YOUR MAX IS A PRICING REFERENCE, NOT A PERMISSION SYSTEM.
NOMINATE · whose name to put up, not whose name to buy
The NOMINATE panel is the flip side of the target list. Drain lists undrafted players your own completion is NOT buying, that at least two solvent rivals both need and can afford — nominating one spends THEIR money, not yours. A NOMINATE NOW chip can appear on a TARGETS row instead: it means nobody left in the room can mathematically outbid you on him, a proof rather than a model. It is measured to fire on well under 1% of real nominations, so a quiet screen is the expected state, not a broken one — it does not mean nobody is safe to nominate, only that this particular hard guarantee rarely applies.
The order of the target list answers "who do I want" — lineup-aware marginal value, which decays to nothing once a position is filled. The state answers "should I bid at today's price". They disagree often, and a #1-ranked PASS is not a bug: it means the best fit for your roster is currently overpriced. Sorting by the dollar surplus instead would put every $1 kicker above every real starter, and sorting by raw
edge finished 11th of 11 in the 2025 replay.
YOUR MAX IS A PRICING REFERENCE, NOT A PERMISSION SYSTEM.
livePrice is well-calibrated (MAE $2, bias +$0 across all
160 real 2025 bids). myMax is not trying to be — it is an indifference
price against YOUR OWN roster completion at today's shadow price per point, and a
seat-by-seat replay of ten real 2025 managers measured it saying BUY on
zero of the twelve $45+ elites, from all ten seats, while spending just $120
of $200 on average and never once reaching $180. A rule with no model in it at all —
buy anything you can still afford — outscored it by 47 points, median. On the top
tier this is a pricing reference, not a permission system — it will not green-light
an elite at any price this room has ever charged. Read a green STRONG/VALUE badge
as information, not as a go signal — and read a bare FAIR or PASS on a player you
actually want as a number to weigh, not as an order to stand down. In this room,
underspending has been the costlier mistake, not overpaying — see the pace warning
if one appears above MY ROSTER.
NOMINATE · whose name to put up, not whose name to buy
The NOMINATE panel is the flip side of the target list. Drain lists undrafted players your own completion is NOT buying, that at least two solvent rivals both need and can afford — nominating one spends THEIR money, not yours. A NOMINATE NOW chip can appear on a TARGETS row instead: it means nobody left in the room can mathematically outbid you on him, a proof rather than a model. It is measured to fire on well under 1% of real nominations, so a quiet screen is the expected state, not a broken one — it does not mean nobody is safe to nominate, only that this particular hard guarantee rarely applies.