Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
FanDuel/DraftKings Week 9 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
snellman
Footballguy
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
The only problem is it's Fitzpatrick.
Of course I can't talk. My Cam/Benjamin stack is looking useless. How can an NFL QB be 5-15 at home against the Saints?
jeaton6
Footballguy
It could be my 85 year old aunt and she'd blow up against Philly. Fitz has a great shot at an 18-20 point game.
karmarooster
Footballguy
Well, Cam and Benjamin sucked but Ingram and Graham made up for it.
snogger
Footballguy
I'll take 23.5 points from a running back any week..snogger said:Felt like trying out a Thursday to Monday game for the first time so put this together:
Colin Kaepernick
Mark Ingram
Andre Ellington
T.Y. Hilton
Antonio Brown
Anquan Boldin
Larry Donnell
Brandon McManus
Cleveland Browns
Ingram.. 
snellman
Footballguy
It will still show percentages on your roster, but you will not be able to see other rosters.
Warhogs
Footballguy
I just started playing on fanduel last week. This week I entered a contest with 250 teams and payouts to the top 25 teams. Just curious what sort of strategies I should employ to try to finish in the money. In such large leagues do you reach deep for a couple guys you think will surprise with a big week and then load up on the best sure things after that? I'm thinking in order to get into that top 10 you probably need to hit on a cheap guy and then have your top guys do well. Just curious to hear some helpful strategies.
snogger
Footballguy
Best bet is to read the articles John Lee put together
Just replace part 1 at the end of URL with part2 to continue on.. I believe there were 3 in total
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe T
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Presumably because people would enter a Thursday-start contest with the "pros," then effectively copy their lineups for the Sunday-start contests. With this change, you can't see which Sunday players each person is starting until the games start on Sunday.
John Lee
Footballguy
Thanks Snogger--Glad to see those articles still in use...spent a lot of time on them! [There were 4, in total]Best bet is to read the articles John Lee put together
Just replace part 1 at the end of URL with part2 to continue on.. I believe there were 3 in total
FanDuel has been receiving complaints for a few years now that people enter Thursday night contests against, say, CONDIA (or some other high-level player), for $5 and then use his lineups on Sundays in 100 x $25 games...which isn't necessarily 'fair' because the person paying $5 for the information would up making $100's from it without doing any work.
The fault (IMO) fell more on guys like CONDIA, than FanDuel, because he was trying to feed off the lower level players and capitalize on their inexperience. However, people got wise to his antics and started using his behavior against him.
In the end, hiding opposing players' lineups is a better practice because it minimizes the amount of information that the average user has access to prior to kickoff...all of which maximizes the level of skill required to win in DFS...and as long as DFS is considered a 'game of skill,' it will remain legal.
[Note that I used CONDIA's name here, but he was not the only person doing it...I just know that most of you know his name, so I used it for 'illustration purposes']
Warhogs
Footballguy
Thanks. This is a valuable start.Best bet is to read the articles John Lee put together
Just replace part 1 at the end of URL with part2 to continue on.. I believe there were 3 in total
ahartig
Footballguy
Just started Fanduel last week and am loving it so far. Made the mistake of starting Crow and Tate last week in most of the leagues, bad idea. Realized starting two RBs on same teamr eally limits your upside.... anyways. There was a freeroll last week that I joined in on, but I cant seem to find one this week? Am i not looking in the right place? I have only used my iPhone so far, so maybe i actually need to login from a web browser.
Also, Jeremy Hill and Andre Williams are very cheap RBs this week that could net you RB1 numbers easily..... Ingram was as well....
Also, Jeremy Hill and Andre Williams are very cheap RBs this week that could net you RB1 numbers easily..... Ingram was as well....
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I still don't get this logic. Sure, it's easier for you to pick the right players due to the smaller player pool, but that's true for all of your opponents, too. If I think I'm better at identifying value than other people, I want the player pool to be as large as possible, because then I can exploit the skill gap between myself and everyone else. Making it easier for people to pick the right players (even by accident) just reduces any advantage I might have. (On the other hand, if I don't think I'm better at identifying value than other people, I wouldn't play at all, since at best I'd just expect to lose money to the rake over time).Skoo said:
But maybe Maurile's right that because it theoretically doesn't make sense for good players to play these types of games, only bad players end up playing in them, which ends up making them profitable after all.
karmarooster
Footballguy
Condia or any other "pro" could have avoided giving away their precious, propriety lineups (they aren't really that special, mostly just some solid value plays built around studs with good matchups that most anyone in this thread or reading FBGs could come up with) by simply not playing in Thursday night games. Of course, since they are "pros" and carpet bomb every single game offered above the $5 mark to get every bit of action available on Fanduel as well as every other site, they demand to be able to play in Thursday games, but to do so in a way that protects their lineups until Sunday.Thanks Snogger--Glad to see those articles still in use...spent a lot of time on them! [There were 4, in total]Best bet is to read the articles John Lee put together
Just replace part 1 at the end of URL with part2 to continue on.. I believe there were 3 in total
FanDuel has been receiving complaints for a few years now that people enter Thursday night contests against, say, CONDIA (or some other high-level player), for $5 and then use his lineups on Sundays in 100 x $25 games...which isn't necessarily 'fair' because the person paying $5 for the information would up making $100's from it without doing any work.
The fault (IMO) fell more on guys like CONDIA, than FanDuel, because he was trying to feed off the lower level players and capitalize on their inexperience. However, people got wise to his antics and started using his behavior against him.
In the end, hiding opposing players' lineups is a better practice because it minimizes the amount of information that the average user has access to prior to kickoff...all of which maximizes the level of skill required to win in DFS...and as long as DFS is considered a 'game of skill,' it will remain legal.
[Note that I used CONDIA's name here, but he was not the only person doing it...I just know that most of you know his name, so I used it for 'illustration purposes']
I don't think there's anything more obnoxious than dudes who think they've got it all figured out by playing poker "full time" to grind out small profits. Maybe that was cool in 2005, not anymore. This is the even less cool cousin of the wanna-be-pro poker player.
I understand that FD will bend to the will of Condia or Primetime420 (a real gem, that one) or Mbomb because they generate such an insane amount of rake. If you look at Dodd's profile, who has played with $50 k each of the last couple years, he's got a couple thousand football entries (7k iirc). Look at Condia's profile, and for football he has several tens of thousands in football (was either 70k or 270k, cant remember, but orders of magnitude more than Dodds), and with thousands of other entries in basketball, CFB, etc. He literally must generate 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars in annual rake for a single site. And now, he can play more $5 Thursday games without giving away lineups.
F THAT.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Why do you seem so mad about it?Condia or any other "pro" could have avoided giving away their precious, propriety lineups (they aren't really that special, mostly just some solid value plays built around studs with good matchups that most anyone in this thread or reading FBGs could come up with) by simply not playing in Thursday night games. Of course, since they are "pros" and carpet bomb every single game offered above the $5 mark to get every bit of action available on Fanduel as well as every other site, they demand to be able to play in Thursday games, but to do so in a way that protects their lineups until Sunday.Thanks Snogger--Glad to see those articles still in use...spent a lot of time on them! [There were 4, in total]Best bet is to read the articles John Lee put togetherJust replace part 1 at the end of URL with part2 to continue on.. I believe there were 3 in total
FanDuel has been receiving complaints for a few years now that people enter Thursday night contests against, say, CONDIA (or some other high-level player), for $5 and then use his lineups on Sundays in 100 x $25 games...which isn't necessarily 'fair' because the person paying $5 for the information would up making $100's from it without doing any work.
The fault (IMO) fell more on guys like CONDIA, than FanDuel, because he was trying to feed off the lower level players and capitalize on their inexperience. However, people got wise to his antics and started using his behavior against him.
In the end, hiding opposing players' lineups is a better practice because it minimizes the amount of information that the average user has access to prior to kickoff...all of which maximizes the level of skill required to win in DFS...and as long as DFS is considered a 'game of skill,' it will remain legal.
[Note that I used CONDIA's name here, but he was not the only person doing it...I just know that most of you know his name, so I used it for 'illustration purposes']
I don't think there's anything more obnoxious than dudes who think they've got it all figured out by playing poker "full time" to grind out small profits. Maybe that was cool in 2005, not anymore. This is the even less cool cousin of the wanna-be-pro poker player.
I understand that FD will bend to the will of Condia or Primetime420 (a real gem, that one) or Mbomb because they generate such an insane amount of rake. If you look at Dodd's profile, who has played with $50 k each of the last couple years, he's got a couple thousand football entries (7k iirc). Look at Condia's profile, and for football he has several tens of thousands in football (was either 70k or 270k, cant remember, but orders of magnitude more than Dodds), and with thousands of other entries in basketball, CFB, etc. He literally must generate 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars in annual rake for a single site. And now, he can play more $5 Thursday games without giving away lineups.
F THAT.
Edit: Not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just genuinely curious why you seem so worked up about it. I don't feel strongly about the change one way or the other.
Last edited by a moderator:
snellman
Footballguy
I usually play a couple $2 tourneys for the Sun night - Mon and Mon-Thurs games if for nothing else than to have something on line for the games (probably makes me an addict..lol), but I will not play any of the 50/50 or double ups for those games because it does seem to come down to more luck than anything. I usually don't play the 1pm only games either because of the same reason of the smaller pool. Seems to level the playing field a lot more. Or maybe I am just not good enough and picking the right players in the smaller contestsI still don't get this logic. Sure, it's easier for you to pick the right players due to the smaller player pool, but that's true for all of your opponents, too. If I think I'm better at identifying value than other people, I want the player pool to be as large as possible, because then I can exploit the skill gap between myself and everyone else. Making it easier for people to pick the right players (even by accident) just reduces any advantage I might have. (On the other hand, if I don't think I'm better at identifying value than other people, I wouldn't play at all, since at best I'd just expect to lose money to the rake over time).Skoo said:
But maybe Maurile's right that because it theoretically doesn't make sense for good players to play these types of games, only bad players end up playing in them, which ends up making them profitable after all.
karmarooster
Footballguy
To be honest it doesn't really affect me since I prefer to look at the "percent ownership" rather than who e.g. Condia is playing. It just bugs me that a big (er, up and coming) company like FD would cater to a select few revenue generators rather than their general customer base, all in an effort to allow the "Pros" to more successfully carpet bomb lower-dollar Thursday night entries. Of course it's easy to see why they cater to the 'pros' given how much money they contribute to FD coffers.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
There were actually a lot more regular players than just condia calling for this. Also, draftkings has had this feature in place for a while now. It's just the logical thing to do imo. Why should you be able to see the other team's players before they play? Attributing this whole thing to a couple pros is just wrong from my perspective. Also, and maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to have a general grudge against people who make a living from non traditional means. Why?
karmarooster
Footballguy
I'm all for making a living from non-traditional means (living off the grid, mini-houses, free lance writers or photographers, etc.). It just so happens that most of the guys I know from HS/college whose job is "online poker" are major tools, therefore I unfairly generalize that against others.
Anyways it's a different story with DK because there you can modify your lineup for a Thursday entry up until the applicable Sunday game kicks off. So, the lineup is subject to change.
In any case, with the % owned still available, it doesn't really affect my strategy.
I also just happen to love stirring the pot, so maybe got a little too uppity here, will tone it down.
Anyways it's a different story with DK because there you can modify your lineup for a Thursday entry up until the applicable Sunday game kicks off. So, the lineup is subject to change.
In any case, with the % owned still available, it doesn't really affect my strategy.
I also just happen to love stirring the pot, so maybe got a little too uppity here, will tone it down.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steeler
Footballguy
Draft kings doesn't reveal the percentage owned for any player until his game starts, even if he is on your roster. So you can never get that information ahead of time at that site. But the way FD is doing it now the "percentage owned" article is still possible, it's just more difficult to get the data. Is there some effort by FBG to crowd source this data? Is anyone interested in crowd sourcing this by sharing the percentage owned from their own rosters?
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
I'm shocked by the percentage ownership on Hill. Thought it would have been much lower on Thursday games.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
The difference on DK and FD is that on DK you can actually change your lineup until kickoff of the players game. I'm not able to change any of my Sunday players on Thursday contests right now on FD, unless I'm doing something wrong.
jeaton6
Footballguy
I think many figured even if Gio went he would be limited making Hill a value. Him being out is just icing.
what do you guys think of these options for FanDuel?
QB: Alex Smith (still has yet to throw a TD to a WR, unbelievable. Maybe this changes?)
RB: Ahmad Bradshaw (what with TRich back, could vulture), Denard Robinson
WR: Michael Crabtree, and either Hawkins or Miles Austin (who benefits from Cameron being out, and a good match-up). In FanDuel I kind of want to go with Austin b/c of touchdown potential
QB: Alex Smith (still has yet to throw a TD to a WR, unbelievable. Maybe this changes?)
RB: Ahmad Bradshaw (what with TRich back, could vulture), Denard Robinson
WR: Michael Crabtree, and either Hawkins or Miles Austin (who benefits from Cameron being out, and a good match-up). In FanDuel I kind of want to go with Austin b/c of touchdown potential
ctrlaltdefeat
Footballguy
Question for you sharks - go with a cheap running back or cheap qb?
Kaep vs St. Louis with Tre Mason or Alex Smith vs the Jets with Lamar Miller? Which combo puts up more points?
Kaep vs St. Louis with Tre Mason or Alex Smith vs the Jets with Lamar Miller? Which combo puts up more points?
ctrlaltdefeat
Footballguy
And doesn't Gio being ruled out kind of hurt the owners who were on Hill from the start? Now his owned percentage will skyrocket.
jeaton6
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger
Footballguy
I'm rolling with Bradshaw in one lineup since he is facing the Giants on Monday night in what could be considered a "Revenge" game for him
snellman
Footballguy
Wasn't a very big advantage because the numbers were already very high in the Thurs games. Will be even higher in the weekend games but will still probably go with him just because of the cap room it clears for other positions.
jeaton6
Footballguy
He was 5-12% in my Thursday GPPs. That's a pretty big advantage on my book. Now Ingram at 45-54% less so. That said 3.8x salary still huge.
snellman
Footballguy
Definitely agree, it's just that Hill's numbers were quite a bit higher than I was expecting. I agree on Ingram and hopefully his numbers will help offset the lineups I had Benjamin or Cooks in.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
I enjoy your candid posts, fwiw.
It hurts the owners who were on Gio from the start.
It helps the owners who were on Hill.
A rise in percentate-owned is more than offset by the rise in projected points. Projected points are far more important.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Do I want Player X on my roster?
Code:
Fantasy Points Scored (relative to price) High Low +------------+------------+ | | | High | Yes | No | | | |Ownership % +------------+------------+ | | | Low | Yes | No | | | | +------------+------------+
dmac37
Footballguy
Some interesting calls at RB in the mid/cheap range this week.
Everyone seems to be all over Hill this week, I'm a little concerned with the Jax defense stepping up lately. In the same price range on draft kings at least there is Morris and Gore.
Neither are used in the passing game but I'm thinking Gore could be in for a good stretch as Hyde has really done nothing with his chances since the first couple of weeks and SF seems to do better when Gore is the go to guy. Morris will have RGIII back and this is when he has thrived running the ball.
Everyone seems to be all over Hill this week, I'm a little concerned with the Jax defense stepping up lately. In the same price range on draft kings at least there is Morris and Gore.
Neither are used in the passing game but I'm thinking Gore could be in for a good stretch as Hyde has really done nothing with his chances since the first couple of weeks and SF seems to do better when Gore is the go to guy. Morris will have RGIII back and this is when he has thrived running the ball.
Another cheap back that is a interesting possibility especially in GPP at least is Rainey who is very involved in the passing game and could get a heavy workload.
While Morris is a option, I think Hill is just as likely as Morris to score a TD and he is involved in the passing game so I cant see going with Morris over Hill.
While Morris is a option, I think Hill is just as likely as Morris to score a TD and he is involved in the passing game so I cant see going with Morris over Hill.
ctrlaltdefeat
Footballguy
Sims is back this week though and who knows how much TB plans on testing him. If he looks good it will hurt Rainey.
I agree he could which is why I would only use him in GPP but I also think being its his first week back that Sims role could be fairly limited.
ffinmyblood
Footballguy
So it appears to me that the interactive value charts for DFS are based on Cash games, is that a fair assumption?? Hmmm, so how would one use those then for GPP's?? Or would value still be value regardless, and points be points, or would the projections be completely different??
Wadsworth
Footballguy
With any wagering it is dangerous to deal in absolutes. That said, the way FD prices players there are few bargains and you can make a strong case that the risk/reward of Hill this week justifies 100% usage. He is a small investment and even if he has a bad game, his ownership will be so high that it will not hurt you much in cash games. If he has a good game, basically anyone who does not have him loses.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
The IVC can be used for both, but you have to filter the data yourself. If you just play the guys near the top for each position then the line up you produce will likely be a better cash game line up since these will usually be consensus strong plays that are heavily owned.
But it can still be useful in many ways for GPPs. One example is if you know you want to play a Kaep/V. Davis stack, with Hillman, LaFell and the Minn D. You can put these in and get suggestions on how to finish out the roster. If the IVC keeps putting in a heavily owned player you do not want, click the green circle to remove him and look at other options.
Play around with it. Look deeper on the lists. Look at average results and individual results for each persons rankings. The IVC to me is a suggestion tool. Sometimes it does not help, but other times I find a player or combination of players I had not considered. That is useful for both cash games and GPPs.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
This. I felt the same way about Ingram in my Thursday contest too. A cheap RB ensured the lion's share of work is too valuable to pass up. Sure, maybe he has 14 carries for 36 yards, but that's a risk almost any RB has. The $4000 or so he frees up is huge.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
Exactly. The goal is points accumulation. The whole uniqueness thing is WAY overblown. Who cares if 60% of owners had Ingram? His return on investment was great. If Hill scores 18 I'm not going to care that 70% owned him.
They're intended to be helpful to find lineups for both cash games and tournaments.
The value charts should help you find lineups that are expected to score a lot of points. That should be the main objective in either type of contest.
To further refine things, in cash games, you mainly want players with high floors, while in tournaments you may prefer players with high ceilings. In cash games, you may have a slight preference against QB-WR combos, while in tournaments your preference may favor them. In cash games, you shouldn't care at all about how widely owned a player is, while in tournaments you may have a preference for players not so widely owned.
You have to do that further refinement on your own -- but I think a lot of that refinement is overblown anyway.
With some exceptions, generally the high-floor guys are the high-ceiling guys. (DeMarco Murray, Arian Foster, Andrew Luck, Antonio Bryant, etc.) When someone is expected to score a decent number of points, he'll usually have both a higher floor and a higher ceiling than someone with a lesser projection. There are a few exceptions here and there (e.g., Charles Sims may have a lower floor and higher ceiling this week than many RBs with similar projections), but for the most part such situations are relatively minor.
On the QB-WR (or QB-TE) stacks, it's perfectly possible to build a great cash-game lineup that includes a stack, or to build a great tournament lineup without a stack. Stacking is something that increases variance at the margin (which is good for tournaments, bad for cash games), but the effect is rather smaller than most people believe, I think.
Similarly, on percentage owned, by far the more important consideration is that the player you select outscore the players your opponents select. Given that the player you select outscores your opponents' corresponding players by five points, in a tournament you'd rather have a guy who's 5% owned (thus giving you an edge over 95% of the field) than a guy who's 40% owned (thus giving you an edge over 60% of the field) -- but by far the more important consideration is that you have an edge at all by picking the higher-scoring player. [in a cash game, the possibility of having an edge over 95% of the field is offset by the possibility of being at a disadvantage compared to 95% of the field. In a tournament, you'd prefer the 95% swing either way to the 60% swing either way because the possibility of an extreme benefit more than offsets the possibility of an extreme detriment.] Still, though, I think the quest for uncommonly owned players is generally overblown. You establish uniqueness through your overall lineup, not through any one given position, and your overall lineup is likely to be unique even if it comprises individual players who are [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]commonly owned[/SIZE].
In my opinion, a good lineup is a good lineup, no matter the type of contest. There are some theoretical differences between the optimal cash-game lineup and the optimal tournament lineup, but as a practical matter, by far the most important factor in either is putting together a lineup that is expected to score a lot of points.
To the extent that you do want to differentiate between cash-game lineups and tournament lineups (as you should if you're looking to extract every ounce of EV possible -- just don't put more emphasis on the differences than is warranted), there are two basic approaches:
(1) Start with what kind of contest you're entering, and find a lineup that fits that contest. If you're in a cash-game contest, you may want to exclude players with low floors compared to their projections, like Charles Sims. If you're in a tournament, you may want to enter a QB-WR stack as part of your lineup before letting the app fill in the blanks. You may want to enter a sparsely owned player into your lineup before filling in the blanks. And so on.
(2) Start with a high-scoring lineup, and find a contest that the lineup is well suited for. Just find a lineup expected to score as many points as possible, and then examine the lineup to see if it has more cash-game characteristics or tournament characteristics. Does it have a QB-receiver stack? Is it filled with boom-or-bust players or Steady Eddies? And so on. Based on the characteristics of the lineup, determine whether it should be entered in a cash game or a tournament.
You can use either of those approaches with the interactive value charts to craft lineups for both cash games and tournaments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
