FanDuel/DraftKings Week 9 (1 Viewer)

[Tennessee_ATO]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.

It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

 

[snellman]

Looking at some entries from this past week, and granted there is still MNF to go, but I'm not seeing much distinction between 50/50 and Double Ups in terms of score required to be in the money. I played in several Doubles (at $10, $5, and $2) and 50/50s (at $5, $2, and $1). All were general Sunday-Monday games.

50/50 required scores to cash: 107, 111, 106, 111, 110, 113, 112, 111 (average = 110).

Double Up required scores to cash: 112 ($10), 108 ($5), 108 ($2). Average = 109)

Perhaps the Doubles, due to really large fields (these are the multi-entries) have more lineups with MNF players still to go, whereas the 100 entry 50/50s could be closer to "done". That's just a guess and unlikely to be significant. It could also have to do with the multi-entry format (more sub-optimal lineups in possible in theory if people plug in multiply, unique lineups).

In any case this makes me feel like strongly avoiding the 50/50s and focusing on Doubles because they aren't any harder, and pay 10% more. And the 50/50s don't offer the safety that H2Hs do.

Only problem with this is how many contests do you enter a week? The last few weeks the number of doubles have been lower than usual and this week they did not fire up any double ups on Sunday morning like they normally do which cut back on my number of contests this week. (keep in mind this is at the $5 level)

 

[James Daulton]

Having my best week yet (only been playing this season). Sitting at 148 with Andre Williams left in a $5GPP and at 104 with Bradshaw, Beckam, and Randall in a $10GPP.

I have never played H2Hs but the logic about using the same lineup across multiple formats makes a ton of sense.

 

[Joe T]

I know several people that set their lineups on Friday and do not make changes on the weekend.

I think someone mentioned this in a different thread / week, but I'm pretty sure there is an advantage to joining tourneys / leagues early in the week and then updating your lineup on Sunday. (Most people don't, I think)

 

[Keerock]

Can I ask why you guys play GPP games instead of just the 50/50s? Maybe it's me being more risk adverse, but cashing in the 50/50s is pretty easy overall and you can enter as many times as you'd like if the stakes don't meet your needs. It just seems like one game is playing poker (50/50s) and the other is buying a lottery ticket (GPP).

I've been playing 50/50s myself, $10 a pop. They seem pretty easy to me. My $100 deposit is now an over $200 balance. But I do think about money I left on the table. I finished 1st in a 50 team $10 50/50 this week for the second week in a row and my score would have been good enough to win more money in a tournament. I'll still probably stick to mostly 50/50s because I also am risk averse.

"Pro"-tip: for every $10 50/50 entry, add a $1 tourney or $1 100/250 player league with the same lineup. Juices your returns when you score big, costs only a little when you don't.

Better to enter each lineup in one multi-entry GPP or separate single-entry? Or doesn't matter?

 

[karmarooster]

Looking at some entries from this past week, and granted there is still MNF to go, but I'm not seeing much distinction between 50/50 and Double Ups in terms of score required to be in the money. I played in several Doubles (at $10, $5, and $2) and 50/50s (at $5, $2, and $1). All were general Sunday-Monday games.

50/50 required scores to cash: 107, 111, 106, 111, 110, 113, 112, 111 (average = 110).

Double Up required scores to cash: 112 ($10), 108 ($5), 108 ($2). Average = 109)

Perhaps the Doubles, due to really large fields (these are the multi-entries) have more lineups with MNF players still to go, whereas the 100 entry 50/50s could be closer to "done". That's just a guess and unlikely to be significant. It could also have to do with the multi-entry format (more sub-optimal lineups in possible in theory if people plug in multiply, unique lineups).

In any case this makes me feel like strongly avoiding the 50/50s and focusing on Doubles because they aren't any harder, and pay 10% more. And the 50/50s don't offer the safety that H2Hs do.

Only problem with this is how many contests do you enter a week? The last few weeks the number of doubles have been lower than usual and this week they did not fire up any double ups on Sunday morning like they normally do which cut back on my number of contests this week. (keep in mind this is at the $5 level)

This week I had 88, but almost half that was a mix of H2H and 3-player leagues.

I like the $10 and $5 doubles that are multi-entry because the total pool is something like 22k and the top 10k are in the money. Just seems like there's lot of dead money. Just a slight preference against the regular double ups that have about 223 and the top 100 cash. Any lineup that doesn't blow chunks will at least be near the cutoff.

I usually try to get my lineups set on Saturday and use Sunday am for cherry picking 3 player leagues with newbs. I think the reason why there were fewer big doubles this week is that they had a significant overlay last week in one double up, where 60-65% of the entries were in the cash.

 

[karmarooster]

Can I ask why you guys play GPP games instead of just the 50/50s? Maybe it's me being more risk adverse, but cashing in the 50/50s is pretty easy overall and you can enter as many times as you'd like if the stakes don't meet your needs. It just seems like one game is playing poker (50/50s) and the other is buying a lottery ticket (GPP).

I've been playing 50/50s myself, $10 a pop. They seem pretty easy to me. My $100 deposit is now an over $200 balance. But I do think about money I left on the table. I finished 1st in a 50 team $10 50/50 this week for the second week in a row and my score would have been good enough to win more money in a tournament. I'll still probably stick to mostly 50/50s because I also am risk averse.

"Pro"-tip: for every $10 50/50 entry, add a $1 tourney or $1 100/250 player league with the same lineup. Juices your returns when you score big, costs only a little when you don't.

Better to enter each lineup in one multi-entry GPP or separate single-entry? Or doesn't matter?

I don't think it really matters, but I prefer the single entry or 250 player leagues (e.g. the smallest possible GPP setups) because a good cash lineup that puts up 130 or 140 points will be at or near the cash. In the huge, huge $5 multi-entry GPPs, you have to consider how unique your lineup is.

Although, on the flip side, the huge GPPs certainly have more upside (1st in the $1 250 player league is just $50).

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.

It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't say I'm gung ho about it, but I do like the feature, especially after I had players with no injury, suddenly show up in Friday's practice with one and then be declared out, leaving me no other option. I don't think it dumbs anything down. I think it makes for less of a "gamble" and more about skill. And I'm all for that. And I'm pretty sure Hill was also owned by a sizable percentage in Thursday contests.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

We're not going to link to it from the main site, but if you want to see something kind of funny, check out On The Daily for the Mon-Thurs contests.

We'll make it live for Thanksgiving week. But most other weeks, there's really not a lot of variance as to what constitutes a good Mon-Thurs lineup. There are just so few realistic decisions to make...

 

[Cabby]

Ended up 170 in one of my gpp's despite a poor performance from griffin and Wallace. I had maclin in that lineup insead of Wallace but switched him out to upgrade at TE and my upgrade at TE didn't score much more than my original TE. What could have been! In other games Steve smith hurt my chances as well.

 

[Ever Present Lurker]

Took a couple of 100 team tournies, did pretty well in 50/50, still have a lot of Hilton and Randle left, but not terribly impressed with my h2h games

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I know several people that set their lineups on Friday and do not make changes on the weekend.

I think someone mentioned this in a different thread / week, but I'm pretty sure there is an advantage to joining tourneys / leagues early in the week and then updating your lineup on Sunday. (Most people don't, I think)

I see that as totally different than joining a Thursday league then changing you Sunday/Monday players right before their kick offs. It requires some degree of planning and foresight to maximize your plays now in FD. That hurts the "slop it together" masses.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't say I'm gung ho about it, but I do like the feature, especially after I had players with no injury, suddenly show up in Friday's practice with one and then be declared out, leaving me no other option. I don't think it dumbs anything down. I think it makes for less of a "gamble" and more about skill. And I'm all for that. And I'm pretty sure Hill was also owned by a sizable percentage in Thursday contests.

Why does it make it more about skill to allow mid-stream changes? Injuries are a part of the game and part of planning. I let my brother talk me out of a Weeden, Hill, Ingram nucleus in a Thursday tournament because it had too much risk. That's the kind of play that SHOULD be rewarded. I've found a massive edge in Thursday plays precisely for that type of reason.

I don't think allowing late changes rewards skill. It eliminates a big component of the risk/reward analysis that goes in to constructing lineups. Why is a late-week injury scratch any different than an early game injury?

If that change happens it penalizes the analytical players -- players for whom "luck" plays a smaller role.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't think I am. Anything that makes it "easier" to have a strong lineup helps the less prepared.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't say I'm gung ho about it, but I do like the feature, especially after I had players with no injury, suddenly show up in Friday's practice with one and then be declared out, leaving me no other option. I don't think it dumbs anything down. I think it makes for less of a "gamble" and more about skill. And I'm all for that. And I'm pretty sure Hill was also owned by a sizable percentage in Thursday contests.

Why does it make it more about skill to allow mid-stream changes? Injuries are a part of the game and part of planning. I let my brother talk me out of a Weeden, Hill, Ingram nucleus in a Thursday tournament because it had too much risk. That's the kind of play that SHOULD be rewarded. I've found a massive edge in Thursday plays precisely for that type of reason.

I don't think allowing late changes rewards skill. It eliminates a big component of the risk/reward analysis that goes in to constructing lineups. Why is a late-week injury scratch any different than an early game injury?

If that change happens it penalizes the analytical players -- players for whom "luck" plays a smaller role.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't think I am. Anything that makes it "easier" to have a strong lineup helps the less prepared.

You said in your original post that you like to "roll the dice" on injury situations. So you like guessing/gambling on injury situations in hopes of guessing right and getting an edge. But everyone else in Thursday lineups are also guessing/gambling on those situations. Having the ability to change the lineup, if something changes, takes some of the guess out of it. Hence more skill and less guess/gamble. Unless you work in sports injury field or something where you really have an advantage, then you are just guessing on injuries.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I hate that FD is now not starting any new low buy in tourneys on Sunday morning. We are still 2 hours from game time and there is currently 1 tourney with a buy in under $10. Lame.

amen

I wonder if part of it is because there are so many openings left in their $3 M contest and they are trying to get them filled. They normally open quiet a few $5 double ups on Sun Morning and there have not been any so far this week.

Curious. Is there a difference between 50/50 and double ups?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I hate that FD is now not starting any new low buy in tourneys on Sunday morning. We are still 2 hours from game time and there is currently 1 tourney with a buy in under $10. Lame.

amen

I wonder if part of it is because there are so many openings left in their $3 M contest and they are trying to get them filled. They normally open quiet a few $5 double ups on Sun Morning and there have not been any so far this week.

Curious. Is there a difference between 50/50 and double ups?

Yes. 50/50 pays the top half, but only 80% of the original wager ($18 return on $10 bet). Double-ups pay double the wager, but only pay the top 45ish%.

 

[GreenNGold]

I hate that FD is now not starting any new low buy in tourneys on Sunday morning. We are still 2 hours from game time and there is currently 1 tourney with a buy in under $10. Lame.

amen

I wonder if part of it is because there are so many openings left in their $3 M contest and they are trying to get them filled. They normally open quiet a few $5 double ups on Sun Morning and there have not been any so far this week.

Curious. Is there a difference between 50/50 and double ups?

The 50/50's pay half of the field, but you don't quite double your money (for example, in a $5 50/50 with 200 entrants, the top 100 will each win $9)

The double ups will double your money but pay a little less than half the field (for example, a $5 double up might have 223 entries and only pay the top 100, but each winner gets $10).

It would be nice if they lowered the rake a bit (I think they are paying affiliates too much especially since there is no rakeback).

 

[snellman]

I hate that FD is now not starting any new low buy in tourneys on Sunday morning. We are still 2 hours from game time and there is currently 1 tourney with a buy in under $10. Lame.

amen

I wonder if part of it is because there are so many openings left in their $3 M contest and they are trying to get them filled. They normally open quiet a few $5 double ups on Sun Morning and there have not been any so far this week.

Curious. Is there a difference between 50/50 and double ups?

Yes. 50/50 pays the top half, but only 80% of the original wager ($18 return on $10 bet). Double-ups pay double the wager, but only pay the top 45ish%.

And the Double ups are guaranteed no matter how may entries, while the 50/50s only start if they are filled.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't say I'm gung ho about it, but I do like the feature, especially after I had players with no injury, suddenly show up in Friday's practice with one and then be declared out, leaving me no other option. I don't think it dumbs anything down. I think it makes for less of a "gamble" and more about skill. And I'm all for that. And I'm pretty sure Hill was also owned by a sizable percentage in Thursday contests.

Why does it make it more about skill to allow mid-stream changes? Injuries are a part of the game and part of planning. I let my brother talk me out of a Weeden, Hill, Ingram nucleus in a Thursday tournament because it had too much risk. That's the kind of play that SHOULD be rewarded. I've found a massive edge in Thursday plays precisely for that type of reason.

I don't think allowing late changes rewards skill. It eliminates a big component of the risk/reward analysis that goes in to constructing lineups. Why is a late-week injury scratch any different than an early game injury?

If that change happens it penalizes the analytical players -- players for whom "luck" plays a smaller role.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't think I am. Anything that makes it "easier" to have a strong lineup helps the less prepared.

You said in your original post that you like to "roll the dice" on injury situations. So you like guessing/gambling on injury situations in hopes of guessing right and getting an edge. But everyone else in Thursday lineups are also guessing/gambling on those situations. Having the ability to change the lineup, if something changes, takes some of the guess out of it. Hence more skill and less guess/gamble. Unless you work in sports injury field or something where you really have an advantage, then you are just guessing on injuries.

Absolutely, but all any of us does is "guess" on anything. We "guess" on our projections, roster composition, anticipated usage, etc. What we wager on is the fact that our "guesses" are based on better data and analysis of that data than the masses. The fact that only 10ish% of players rostered Hill in Thursday contests is a pretty clear indicator that the masses don't "guess" on injuries worth a flip. I absolutely believe I get more, better, and deeper information on injuries than the masses. Obviously there are guys who have better information than me, but I (literally) bet that group is a small minority.

Like I said before, fundamentally anything that makes it easier for the masses to cobble together a good lineup hurts the analytic player. It shrinks the distance that separates the +EV players from the rank-and-file dice rollers. Maybe I'm deluded, but I fancy myself a +EV player. If I'm not, I'm trying to get there at the very least.

 

[ahartig]

Anybody else's entries for this week suddenly disappear? Fanduel has no record of my entries for week 9 (5 total), or my deposits. Wtf?!

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't say I'm gung ho about it, but I do like the feature, especially after I had players with no injury, suddenly show up in Friday's practice with one and then be declared out, leaving me no other option. I don't think it dumbs anything down. I think it makes for less of a "gamble" and more about skill. And I'm all for that. And I'm pretty sure Hill was also owned by a sizable percentage in Thursday contests.

Why does it make it more about skill to allow mid-stream changes? Injuries are a part of the game and part of planning. I let my brother talk me out of a Weeden, Hill, Ingram nucleus in a Thursday tournament because it had too much risk. That's the kind of play that SHOULD be rewarded. I've found a massive edge in Thursday plays precisely for that type of reason.

I don't think allowing late changes rewards skill. It eliminates a big component of the risk/reward analysis that goes in to constructing lineups. Why is a late-week injury scratch any different than an early game injury?

If that change happens it penalizes the analytical players -- players for whom "luck" plays a smaller role.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't think I am. Anything that makes it "easier" to have a strong lineup helps the less prepared.

You said in your original post that you like to "roll the dice" on injury situations. So you like guessing/gambling on injury situations in hopes of guessing right and getting an edge. But everyone else in Thursday lineups are also guessing/gambling on those situations. Having the ability to change the lineup, if something changes, takes some of the guess out of it. Hence more skill and less guess/gamble. Unless you work in sports injury field or something where you really have an advantage, then you are just guessing on injuries.

Absolutely, but all any of us does is "guess" on anything. We "guess" on our projections, roster composition, anticipated usage, etc. What we wager on is the fact that our "guesses" are based on better data and analysis of that data than the masses. The fact that only 10ish% of players rostered Hill in Thursday contests is a pretty clear indicator that the masses don't "guess" on injuries worth a flip. I absolutely believe I get more, better, and deeper information on injuries than the masses. Obviously there are guys who have better information than me, but I (literally) bet that group is a small minority.

Like I said before, fundamentally anything that makes it easier for the masses to cobble together a good lineup hurts the analytic player. It shrinks the distance that separates the +EV players from the rank-and-file dice rollers. Maybe I'm deluded, but I fancy myself a +EV player. If I'm not, I'm trying to get there at the very least.

Yes, we all "guess" to some extent. But, how much is a gamble vs. how much is skill, is based on how much we are guessing vs. how much data and analysis and intelligence and experience and time go into putting together a lineup. Some are way on the gamble side, others way on the skill side, others somewhere in between. But I think most can agree that injuries are a "wildcard" that adds more "risk" to the equation, making it more of a "gamble". You can do all of your homework, but if a guy with no injury suddenly gets injuried in Fridays practice, there is no amount of skill involved in predicting or avoiding that. Injuries are much more of a guess/gamble than skill. I don't think there is anything about switching your lineup that cobbles together the masses, as you say. And I don't think guessing on injuries in Thursday matchups, 3 days ahead of time, is anything that requires more skill than gamble.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Nice week for me. +120%. Could have been so much more though. Just a few points from real money in 3 GPPs. One of my cash lineups scored 124 and went 0-7. That wasn't a terribly good score this week, but I would have thought it was good enough to at least go 2-5 or 3-4. Oh well.

 

[FlipsideRM]

I just requested a check on DraftKings. Does anyone know how long the checks take to arrive and has anyone actually deposited the check into their bank before? Any problems, etc?

 

[GreenNGold]

I just requested a check on DraftKings. Does anyone know how long the checks take to arrive and has anyone actually deposited the check into their bank before? Any problems, etc?

No problems but if you have won more than $600 you will need to provide your SSN and stuff to pay taxes on your winnings.

 

[John Lee]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.

It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't worry too much about FD switching to a roster-swap format. I've spoken with Nigel (CEO of FanDuel) and he is not the type of person to switch away from a model that works. Personally, I think it's nice to have options...if you like late-swap, you can play on DK; if you don't, FD is your option.

Kickers, on the other hand, are still up in the air. Again, when I spoke with Nigel on the subject, he said that they have kept it thus far because the masses want it (via these surveys) and expect it as part of fantasy football (because their season-long leagues have it).

Overall, I wouldn't expect too many changes from FD...they're killing it and you don't change directions when you're winning the race.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Survey on the main FD page goes through a bunch of questions and then what they are really looking for: Remove Kickers?...And taking the next step in allowing lineup changes all the way up to kickoff of any game (ala DraftKings). Figured that the latter was coming.

I'm curious about why everyone is gung-ho to be allowed to change players at the last minute. For me that will be a huge turn-off if it happens. I like the fact that I have a chance to roll the dice a bit on injury situations. Take this week's Thursday games. I ran Hill out quite a bit knowing he was a risk. It paid off. If everyone could just wait til Sunday morning to decide on him, there is no edge to being prepared. It just seems like it's dumbing it down for the masses.It also strongly favors folks who have wide-open Sundays to worry about last minute roster changes. I'm up to about 15 different rosters now, all of which I develop over time during the week. I have neither the time nor inclination to be worrying about changes to all of them because the weather changes or someone tweaks a hammie in warm ups.

If FD goes that route I'll probably move on.

I wouldn't worry too much about FD switching to a roster-swap format. I've spoken with Nigel (CEO of FanDuel) and he is not the type of person to switch away from a model that works. Personally, I think it's nice to have options...if you like late-swap, you can play on DK; if you don't, FD is your option.

Kickers, on the other hand, are still up in the air. Again, when I spoke with Nigel on the subject, he said that they have kept it thus far because the masses want it (via these surveys) and expect it as part of fantasy football (because their season-long leagues have it).

Overall, I wouldn't expect too many changes from FD...they're killing it and you don't change directions when you're winning the race.

Good. On the academic side, I would be interested to know your take on allowing late changes. Do you think it reduces the edge for the analytic player?

 

[Joe T]

Finished +100 on the week, but could have been so much better if I avoided San Diego D. Oof.

 

[Wadsworth]

Strange how the cheap QB seemed to work pretty well last season, but this season has been a money drain.

 

[ctrlaltdefeat]

Sanchize this week!

 

[nastynate]

Main team went for 144 on fanduel and barely broke even. Lost 7 of 9 H2Hs. my secondary team finished at 138 and ended up fairing better in my H2Hs. Hit a few quintuples, but a week like this is typically be up 100+ instead of the 20 I was up.

 

[(HULK)]

Sanchize this week!

Dear god I'm probably going to do this.

My Weeden lineup scored 165, so I guess it worked. Not that Weeden was any good, but I spent that extra money pretty wisely.

 

[andrewd173]

Just wanted to say thanks to FBG and everyone on here, I've had the best week of DFS in my life! Really appreciate the information and ideas everyone!

 

[eoMMan]

When does FD have to post people's winnings to their account?

I won some contests over the weekend and the money hasn't hit my account yet.

 

[snogger]

When does FD have to post people's winnings to their account?

I won some contests over the weekend and the money hasn't hit my account yet.

Every week the timing is different.. I've had one of my winnings added for this week, but not the other one yet.. Patience grasshopper

 

[mrip541]

My secondary lineup scored 129 but only cashed in 25% of double ups. Ouch.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just chugging along...

Wk	Entered	  Won	  Net	 ROI1	$224	$335.00	$111.00	 49.6%2	$208	$315.00	$107.00	 51.4%3	$377	$311.60	-$65.40	-17.3%4	$419	$633.80	$214.80	 51.3%5	$392	$413.80	 $21.80	  5.6%6	$540	$626.40	 $86.40	 16.0%7	$500	$682.80	$182.80	 36.6%8	$513	$568.50	 $55.50	 10.8%9	$620	$760.00	$140.00	 22.6%

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Sanchize this week!

Yes! I'm all over that.

Also I think Weeden might not be a terrible idea to take a second shot on this weekend if Romo can't go vs Jax.

 

[karmarooster]

Looking at some entries from this past week, and granted there is still MNF to go, but I'm not seeing much distinction between 50/50 and Double Ups in terms of score required to be in the money. I played in several Doubles (at $10, $5, and $2) and 50/50s (at $5, $2, and $1). All were general Sunday-Monday games.

50/50 required scores to cash: 107, 111, 106, 111, 110, 113, 112, 111 (average = 110).

Double Up required scores to cash: 112 ($10), 108 ($5), 108 ($2). Average = 109)

Perhaps the Doubles, due to really large fields (these are the multi-entries) have more lineups with MNF players still to go, whereas the 100 entry 50/50s could be closer to "done". That's just a guess and unlikely to be significant. It could also have to do with the multi-entry format (more sub-optimal lineups in possible in theory if people plug in multiply, unique lineups).

In any case this makes me feel like strongly avoiding the 50/50s and focusing on Doubles because they aren't any harder, and pay 10% more. And the 50/50s don't offer the safety that H2Hs do.

Def fill in the blanks here tomorrow on how that finished up.

I only played in the big multi-entry $10, $5, and $2 double ups, and only played in $5, $2, and $1 50/50s (100 player fields each) but here are the results:

50/50 avg score to cash = 127.4 (range of 124 to 129, with majority clustered at 127, 128, and 129), median 128, sample size of 9

Doubles avg score to cash = 126 (range of $10 = 129, $5 = 124, $2 = 125), median 125, sample size of 3

What's worse, the FBGs 50/50 even though it didn't fill and had an overlay came in at 130.66. 902 entries (max was 1000), so top 500 out of 902 paid.

All this tells me to (1) avoid 50/50s in general, and (2) avoid the FBGs 50/50 in particular, unless you really want to get those tickets for the big contest. Although I think the regular season part of it is over, or there's just one more week. 50/50s are either harder, or equally difficult, and yet they pay out less. The only reason I can think of using them is if you like to play the 1pm only or Sunday only games, and for those there are no doubles/triples but there are 50/50s.

Would anyone who played in regular double-ups (e.g. single-entry) be willing to share some of the data to compare the multi-entry vs. single entry?

 

[Keerock]

Just chugging along...

Wk Entered Won Net ROI1 $224 $335.00 $111.00 49.6%2 $208 $315.00 $107.00 51.4%3 $377 $311.60 -$65.40 -17.3%4 $419 $633.80 $214.80 51.3%5 $392 $413.80 $21.80 5.6%6 $540 $626.40 $86.40 16.0%7 $500 $682.80 $182.80 36.6%8 $513 $568.50 $55.50 10.8%9 $620 $760.00 $140.00 22.6%

So that I don't have to re-scan the threads... what games do you play?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just chugging along...

Wk Entered Won Net ROI1 $224 $335.00 $111.00 49.6%2 $208 $315.00 $107.00 51.4%3 $377 $311.60 -$65.40 -17.3%4 $419 $633.80 $214.80 51.3%5 $392 $413.80 $21.80 5.6%6 $540 $626.40 $86.40 16.0%7 $500 $682.80 $182.80 36.6%8 $513 $568.50 $55.50 10.8%9 $620 $760.00 $140.00 22.6%

So that I don't have to re-scan the threads... what games do you play?

Almost entirely 50/50s. This week I mixed it up with a handful of GPP entries because I caught some overlays right before the games started at 1pm, but otherwise I never play those.

 

[Keerock]

Just chugging along...

Wk Entered Won Net ROI1 $224 $335.00 $111.00 49.6%2 $208 $315.00 $107.00 51.4%3 $377 $311.60 -$65.40 -17.3%4 $419 $633.80 $214.80 51.3%5 $392 $413.80 $21.80 5.6%6 $540 $626.40 $86.40 16.0%7 $500 $682.80 $182.80 36.6%8 $513 $568.50 $55.50 10.8%9 $620 $760.00 $140.00 22.6%

So that I don't have to re-scan the threads... what games do you play?

Almost entirely 50/50s. This week I mixed it up with a handful of GPP entries because I caught some overlays right before the games started at 1pm, but otherwise I never play those.

ELI5... overlay is when a GPP is not full therefor paying out a greater % of entrants?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Would anyone who played in regular double-ups (e.g. single-entry) be willing to share some of the data to compare the multi-entry vs. single entry?

Try this please: http://o.ffense.com/fanduel/b2.php

I threw it together quickly so I'm not 100% sure it works but give it a shot. You'll have to do it quickly, because it pulls from the live entries data, so as soon as they get archived to your history (which should've happened by now, I think) it won't work (I'll work on a more permanent solution later).

This should create a table of all your contests, with the number of entries, entry fee, and the min score needed to cash.

Edit: Anyone who tries this, please feel free to share your results. I'll post mine in a minute.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

ELI5... overlay is when a GPP is not full therefor paying out a greater % of entrants?

Correct. It effectively reduces the rake the site takes, which makes it a better play.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Would anyone who played in regular double-ups (e.g. single-entry) be willing to share some of the data to compare the multi-entry vs. single entry?

I only entered 10 single-entry double-ups this week. Here were the scores needed to cash:

127.2

127.96

128.12

128.38

128.96

130.68

132.18

132.46

133.22

134.18

 

[karmarooster]

Just chugging along...

Wk Entered Won Net ROI1 $224 $335.00 $111.00 49.6%2 $208 $315.00 $107.00 51.4%3 $377 $311.60 -$65.40 -17.3%4 $419 $633.80 $214.80 51.3%5 $392 $413.80 $21.80 5.6%6 $540 $626.40 $86.40 16.0%7 $500 $682.80 $182.80 36.6%8 $513 $568.50 $55.50 10.8%9 $620 $760.00 $140.00 22.6%

So that I don't have to re-scan the threads... what games do you play?

Almost entirely 50/50s. This week I mixed it up with a handful of GPP entries because I caught some overlays right before the games started at 1pm, but otherwise I never play those.

ELI5... overlay is when a GPP is not full therefor paying out a greater % of entrants?

Yes.

Would anyone who played in regular double-ups (e.g. single-entry) be willing to share some of the data to compare the multi-entry vs. single entry?

Try this please: http://o.ffense.com/fanduel/b2.php

I threw it together quickly so I'm not 100% sure it works but give it a shot. You'll have to do it quickly, because it pulls from the live entries data, so as soon as they get archived to your history (which should've happened by now, I think) it won't work (I'll work on a more permanent solution later).

This should create a table of all your contests, with the number of entries, entry fee, and the min score needed to cash.

Edit: Anyone who tries this, please feel free to share your results. I'll post mine in a minute.

Awesome, looks like it works. FYI the FBGs 50/50 is pretty close to a triple up (130 vs. 135) in terms of score required, but pays 1.8x rather than 3x.

 

[karmarooster]

Would anyone who played in regular double-ups (e.g. single-entry) be willing to share some of the data to compare the multi-entry vs. single entry?

I only entered 10 single-entry double-ups this week. Here were the scores needed to cash:

127.2

127.96

128.12

128.38

128.96

130.68

132.18

132.46

133.22

134.18

What dollar level are these Doubles? I suspect higher than $5 and $10....

Adding to the above:

50/50 avg score to cash = 127.4 (range of 124 to 129, with majority clustered at 127, 128, and 129), median 128, sample size of 9

Doubles (multi-entry) avg score to cash = 126 (range of $10 = 129, $5 = 124, $2 = 125), median 125, sample size of 3

Doubles (single entry) avg score to cash = 130

 

[James Daulton]

Having my best week yet (only been playing this season). Sitting at 148 with Andre Williams left in a $5GPP and at 104 with Bradshaw, Beckam, and Randall in a $10GPP.

I have never played H2Hs but the logic about using the same lineup across multiple formats makes a ton of sense.

Scored 140 in my $10GPP and didn't cash. The $5GPP final score was 168 and was worth a $25 win.

 

[SwampDawg]

Cashed on 12 of 16, I'm not your typical high roller FBG. Total wagered was only $56, total winnings $95, $39 profit.

50/50 Cash Out scores:

$5 - 124.86

$5 - 126.36

$5 (Sunday Only) - 128.12

$10 (Sunday Only) - 132.1

Other Cash Games:

$5 Double Up - 130.78

$2 Quintuple Up - 142.16

$2 Double Up - 125.46

I scored between 142.98 and 147.76 in all of the above.

 

[Pantherz]

Would anyone who played in regular double-ups (e.g. single-entry) be willing to share some of the data to compare the multi-entry vs. single entry?

Try this please: http://o.ffense.com/fanduel/b2.php

I threw it together quickly so I'm not 100% sure it works but give it a shot. You'll have to do it quickly, because it pulls from the live entries data, so as soon as they get archived to your history (which should've happened by now, I think) it won't work (I'll work on a more permanent solution later).

This should create a table of all your contests, with the number of entries, entry fee, and the min score needed to cash.

Edit: Anyone who tries this, please feel free to share your results. I'll post mine in a minute.

This works great, but how do I close it once it opens?

 

[Bobcat10]

Looks like a nice week for a bunch of us! Really helps my numbers when I devour my friends in our two side contests. Nice job