Jump to content


Member Since 14 Jul 2008
Offline Last Active Today, 10:37 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Bargain Bin Dynasty Adds: 2015 Offseason

Today, 10:40 AM

Albert Wilson. I'll play the inner city blues for you.

In Topic: DFS general strategy thread

15 December 2014 - 03:26 PM

Copy that.  I'm talking about whether it makes sense to enter 5 lineups (for example, could be 20 lineups) into the same GPP.   If you enter 20 lineups, there's 19 other lineups by other people that couldn't be entered.  


Getting the feeling it doesn't really matter, from a 'math' standpoint. 


If you're entering several different lineups into the same GPP, that doesn't make much difference. If your lineups are very similar to each other then that will hurt you a little (for the same reason that it's good to avoid using players that lots of other people are using). But if your lineups are all different from each other by at least a few players, then entering several different lineups (vs. 1 lineup) basically makes no difference.

In Topic: Phenoms going under

15 December 2014 - 02:12 PM




Like I said earlier, he probably looked at the year over year decrease in funds coming in and decided to steal the cash now




This is my guess, as well.


Dailys are crushing it, and I know several people dropping the head-to-head leagues to concentrate on FanDuel.  Great time to walk away with everyone's investment.  


Serious question...what's to stop FanDuel or any of the other dailys from doing the same thing.  Granted you wouldn't have the time invested but what  if, after they collected a bunch of deposits at the beginning of the year they just closed up shop and bailed with people's cash?  Hard to trust any website tied in any way to gambling.



DFS sites are required by law to keep player funds separate from operating costs. As opposed to required by industry convention, or required by a promise they made on their own website.


Also, FD and DK raised over $100m in venture capital between them this past offseason. They're not small operations. The sheer size alone offers some protections- just like you are probably safe leaving your money with a Vegas casino while you go gamble with their chips.



Thanks for this info, Adam!


Does anyone have information on how much we can trust LeagueSafe, or the various smaller DFS sites?

In Topic: DFS general strategy thread

15 December 2014 - 01:38 PM

Let's talk multiple entry contests.  Do you:


1.  Enter the same lineup across several contests.


2.  Saturate a contest with several lineups.  


3.  Whittle it down to a few lineups, and enter them equally in several contests.


4.  Throw different lineups in several/many contests.



This past weekend, I found myself with different lineups in several different GPP, and considering the scores that cash seem pretty consistent across the different GPP, I wondered why I felt the need to enter different contests.  Seems like your odds improve, when you have multiple entries in the same contest.  This might be obvious to some, but I'm just realizing it.  


I'm also pretty sure the more different lineups I have, the better.  I made money this weekend, and may make a lot more if Martellus has a nice night, but the percentage of my lineups that cashed was about 15%.  


A simple way to think about it: your second entry in a GPP with the same lineup cannot win 1st place. If you enter the same lineup in 2 different GPPs (and it turns out to be an amazing lineup), you can win 1st place in both of them. If you enter it twice into the same GPP, you will win 1st place and 2nd place.


So if it's a big money GPP where a large fraction of the payout goes to first place, then you do not want to enter the same lineup more than once. If the payout for 1st place is pretty small (relative to the total payout), then you don't lose much expected money by multi-entering the same lineup. And if it's a game with lots of entries and flat payouts (where everyone who wins gets the same amount, like a 50/50 or a triple up) then you basically don't lose anything by multi-entering.

In Topic: ArmChair's Dynasty Rankings

13 December 2014 - 01:37 PM

It looks like you're trying to project a single future for each player, when what you really want is a probability distribution over possible futures.


CJ Anderson is his team's RB1 right now, and he might remain their RB1 for years to come, or he might tumble back down the depth chart. Stedman Bailey has been a 2.26 per touch guy on the field in a small sample size; he might actually be a 2.26 per touch guy, or he might just be a standard 1.50 per touch guy, or he might be something else. Marqise Lee is just a rookie, and we don't know yet if he'll turn out to be a great receiver, or a good one, or an average one, or worse. Lee has been his team's WR3 or WR4 most of this year (playing behind Shorts, Robinson, and Hurns when they were healthy), but if he pans out in terms of talent then he'll probably take on the role of WR1 or WR1a. Emmanuel Sanders might be Peyton Manning's WR1a for the next few years, or he might leave Denver in a year, or he might find himself on the post-Manning Broncos. And so on.


For many players (especially young ones), most of their expected fantasy value comes from a relatively optimistic possibility which isn't all that likely. More likely than not, Carr is an average QB (or worse) and will never be a top 12 fantasy QB. But there is maybe a 10% chance (to make up a number) that he turns out to be a great QB who is consistently a fantasy QB1, and so he's worth owning to see if that 1 in 10 possibility comes to pass. We could debate over whether he's currently the 28th best QB in the NFL or the 18th best, but that actually doesn't matter that much (neither one would make him a fantasy starter) - the important thing is how likely it is that he becomes one of the 10 best. That's why I'd like to own him over guys like Eli Manning or Alex Smith, who have established themselves as competent NFL passers but are very unlikely to become a consistent fantasy QB1 because there is much less uncertainty about how good they are - they have a long track record of being outside that range.


It's very hard to set up a systematic, quantitative way of doing dynasty rankings which captures the range of possibilities in the right way, instead of just focusing on the median case or projecting the current situation to continue. I haven't tried to do it; I use my intuitions for my dynasty rankings (while trying to ask myself the right questions, and looking into relevant numbers to help inform my judgments). But that seems to be the main thing that your current method is missing.