How many cash lineups for a new DFS player? (1 Viewer)

[jwarren90]

Hey guys, I'm new to DFS this year, and have been soaking up everything I can find over the last month, including powering through the Cracking Fanduel eBook over the last 24 hours.

I'd like to follow Dodds' advice for players with smaller bankrolls ($1K for me this year) and stick to $1 50/50s (100 players) and $2 Double Ups (300+ Players). Assuming I play 10% - 20% of my bankroll on a weekly basis, and I'm sticking entirely with cash games, how many lineup combinations should I roll out each week? I'm leaning towards 2 or 3, but would love others' thoughts on this.

Also, assuming I only roll out 2-3 lineups a week, what are your opinions on having 100% exposure to positions like DEF, K, and potentially other "must-have" skill position player locks for any given week. I fear that in an effort to diversify my lineups, I'll create sub-optimal teams just for the sake of being different.

Thanks!

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Hey guys, I'm new to DFS this year, and have been soaking up everything I can find over the last month, including powering through the Cracking Fanduel eBook over the last 24 hours.

I'd like to follow Dodds' advice for players with smaller bankrolls ($1K for me this year) and stick to $1 50/50s (100 players) and $2 Double Ups (300+ Players). Assuming I play 10% - 20% of my bankroll on a weekly basis, and I'm sticking entirely with cash games, how many lineup combinations should I roll out each week? I'm leaning towards 2 or 3, but would love others' thoughts on this.

Also, assuming I only roll out 2-3 lineups a week, what are your opinions on having 100% exposure to positions like DEF, K, and potentially other "must-have" skill position player locks for any given week. I fear that in an effort to diversify my lineups, I'll create sub-optimal teams just for the sake of being different.

Thanks!

My take, which is far from the most researched in the world, is that you should start with no more than a couple lineups and little less than your "normal" bankroll the first week or 2. You want to be able to be comfortable managing the site before you add the complexity of too many lineups to the equation. Figuring out the mechanics of switching out a late scratch can be tough enough with just 1 or 2 lineups. Nothing is worse than seeing a big ole "0" next to a WR in your lineup because you couldn't get a guy switched out fast enough. It's not necessarily fatal in a cash game, but it's darn sure close to a mortal wound.

As far as diversification and how many you "should" play, it depends on your risk tolerance. Multiple lineups are really just hedging, which helps minimize risk but reduces reward too. I typically like to reduce risk, but that's a personal preference. If you have a lineup you think is the best play, every time you enter another lineup you are reducing the "best" play you think you have. That said, if you're wrong on that "best" lineup you might lose 100% of your cash action, so having other alternatives in play is nice. I tend to focus on worst-case scenarios while other focus on best-case scenarios. Whatever you think is the most enjoyable approach is what you should do. My brother can't stand multiple lineups. He would rather win or lose it all with his best lineup. He swings up and down more than me, which would drive me crazy, but he enjoys that.

As far as PK and DST, I tend to vary there the most. PK especially are nigh to impossible to predict, so I tend to identify several cheap options and rotate them around a bit just so I'm not too invested in the really good PK who scores 2 points for reasons completely outside of his control.

 

[NixonMask]

This season is also going to be the first time I really turn my attention to DFS. My strategy is going to be as follows:

10-20% GPPS and 4x's and 80-90% double and triple ups. (I did take a few shots at the million dollar contests week 1, but Im funding that outside my normal bankroll).

Every one of my GPP plays is going to be a unique lineup

With the cash plays I am starting with the quarterbacks I like for the week and making 2 sets of lineups for each quarterback (This week I like 4 guys so 8 lineups total). From there Im rotating in and out (for this week anyway) 5 RBs I like, and 7 WRs to diversify a bit. The only requirement Im setting for myself is different RBs on each of the two sets of lineups for a quarterback, and atleast 2 different WRs. Keeping track of it on an excel spreadsheet is pretty easy.

 

[Fantasysports1]

1 or 2 at most for cash.

 

[jandyt]

For cash I typically go with 2-4 lineups depending on my confidence level and how closely I have the guys at the top ranked(based on projections). This week I'm going to be using 3 but there are some players in all three lineups.

 

[karmarooster]

Hey guys, I'm new to DFS this year, and have been soaking up everything I can find over the last month, including powering through the Cracking Fanduel eBook over the last 24 hours.

I'd like to follow Dodds' advice for players with smaller bankrolls ($1K for me this year) and stick to $1 50/50s (100 players) and $2 Double Ups (300+ Players). Assuming I play 10% - 20% of my bankroll on a weekly basis, and I'm sticking entirely with cash games, how many lineup combinations should I roll out each week? I'm leaning towards 2 or 3, but would love others' thoughts on this.

Also, assuming I only roll out 2-3 lineups a week, what are your opinions on having 100% exposure to positions like DEF, K, and potentially other "must-have" skill position player locks for any given week. I fear that in an effort to diversify my lineups, I'll create sub-optimal teams just for the sake of being different.

Thanks!

My take, which is far from the most researched in the world, is that you should start with no more than a couple lineups and little less than your "normal" bankroll the first week or 2. You want to be able to be comfortable managing the site before you add the complexity of too many lineups to the equation. Figuring out the mechanics of switching out a late scratch can be tough enough with just 1 or 2 lineups. Nothing is worse than seeing a big ole "0" next to a WR in your lineup because you couldn't get a guy switched out fast enough. It's not necessarily fatal in a cash game, but it's darn sure close to a mortal wound.

As far as diversification and how many you "should" play, it depends on your risk tolerance. Multiple lineups are really just hedging, which helps minimize risk but reduces reward too. I typically like to reduce risk, but that's a personal preference. If you have a lineup you think is the best play, every time you enter another lineup you are reducing the "best" play you think you have. That said, if you're wrong on that "best" lineup you might lose 100% of your cash action, so having other alternatives in play is nice. I tend to focus on worst-case scenarios while other focus on best-case scenarios. Whatever you think is the most enjoyable approach is what you should do. My brother can't stand multiple lineups. He would rather win or lose it all with his best lineup. He swings up and down more than me, which would drive me crazy, but he enjoys that.

As far as PK and DST, I tend to vary there the most. PK especially are nigh to impossible to predict, so I tend to identify several cheap options and rotate them around a bit just so I'm not too invested in the really good PK who scores 2 points for reasons completely outside of his control.

I echo everything Tennessee ATO said above.

Also, I would throw at least $1 or $2 at a large GPP or two. That way you can take a look at how crazy large the field is peruse the top lineups and see just how crazy you have to be to get up in the very top of a large GPP field. And I would definitely aim for 5-10% of your bankroll, with the intent of bumping it up to the 10-20% range in a week or two.

 

[David Dodds]

I generally go with 2-3 cash lineups per slate. I don't worry a ton about overlap, but history tells me you should diversify PK and Def at a minimum.

I also do this (which almost NO cash player seems to do), but it works for me. I stack my QB with a WR or TE. My logic is that I prefer to create variance with multiple starting stacks.

for example in the Thursday slate:

I can see starting with these three:

Brady / Gronk ($16,500)

Bradford / Matthews ($14,300)

Taylor / Watkins ($12,600)

because these starting pairs are so differently priced, you are going to likely end up with different players when you optimize.

 

[AnchorDrops]

As a new player I would highly recommend that you split up your bankroll for week one and concentrate on creating one lineup per slate for the week. For example; play one lineup in a Sun-Mon slate, another in an All-Day Sunday slate and another in an Early Only Sunday 1 PM slate.

I'm not suggesting this as a winning strategy, however I suggest this as an early season learning session. By splitting up your action into different slates it will force you to search for player value with varying player pools. Regardless of success or failure I would do the same thing for week two. The player salaries have been out for so long that there are so many over/under valued players for week one. Most of that should be corrected for week two, forcing you to look harder for player value.

I would also suggest that you include some head-to-head games in you cash game selection. This helps you reduce your risk if you have a lineup that may be good but not great. If your lineup falls in the 40% of 50/50s and double ups you win nothing...in head-to-heads you may still win 40% of your contests, reducing your losses.

 

[WhoDat]

1 LU per game slate for cash in early, late, prime time

2 LU for Sun-Monday

3 GPP, higher price pt contests

Then, if there is an itch, many $1-$5 GPP variants

I Ppan on 1 cash LU per game slate; cheaper GPP per game slate and many cheaper GPP full game slate first month

Too much pricing is based off last year and far too many unknowns to go deep pockets early on

Opinion, easiest money will be H2H with the new and driver permit types. Experience is that they post H2H 20-30 minutes prior to KO. I am talking the "hey, everyone is doing it types" ... And there will be more than a few

 

[Rock Lonemilk]

I generally go with 2-3 cash lineups per slate. I don't worry a ton about overlap, but history tells me you should diversify PK and Def at a minimum.

I also do this (which almost NO cash player seems to do), but it works for me. I stack my QB with a WR or TE. My logic is that I prefer to create variance with multiple starting stacks.

for example in the Thursday slate:

I can see starting with these three:

Brady / Gronk ($16,500)

Bradford / Matthews ($14,300)

Taylor / Watkins ($12,600)

because these starting pairs are so differently priced, you are going to likely end up with different players when you optimize.

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

 

[David Dodds]

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

My logic is this. If the QB fails to be at least average, you are in a tough spot to cash. By pairing, I generally remove all doubt. If the stack performs badly, I have lost. Conversely if the WR on the stack scores a TD, I am well on my way to cashing.

In addition to the stack, I nearly almost also will play the best WR/TE option from the opposing team in the same game. My logic is this. If the stack hits, then there is pressure on the other team to pass as well. I like to play these lineups both in double and triple ups. When all goes well they cash at a great rate in triple ups as well.

This week I created a whopping 14 different lineup stacks+. I am going to cash in at least 12 of those (The Rodgers / Cobb stack is unknown at this time).

Cam / Olsen only

Palmer / Fitzgerald only

Luck / Hilton and Kendall Wright

Brady / Edelman and Hurns

Brady / Gronk and Hurns

Wilson / Graham only

Mariota / Wright and TY Hilton

Eli Manning / Odell Beckham Jr and Jordan Reed (Thu)

Matt Ryan / Julio Jones only

Roethlisberger / Brown and Kenny Britt (This roster is going to lose)

Foles / Britt and Antonio Brown

Bortles / Hurns and Edelman

Still to play:

Rodgers / Cobb and Kelce - Right on the bubble at 85 points in the bank. Too early to tell.

Alex Smith / Kelce and Cobb - This looks dead just based on the other players I used here. I would need 65+ to cash

 

[karmarooster]

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

My logic is this. If the QB fails to be at least average, you are in a tough spot to cash. By pairing, I generally remove all doubt. If the stack performs badly, I have lost. Conversely if the WR on the stack scores a TD, I am well on my way to cashing.

In addition to the stack, I nearly almost also will play the best WR/TE option from the opposing team in the same game. My logic is this. If the stack hits, then there is pressure on the other team to pass as well. I like to play these lineups both in double and triple ups. When all goes well they cash at a great rate in triple ups as well.

This week I created a whopping 14 different lineup stacks+. I am going to cash in at least 12 of those (The Rodgers / Cobb stack is unknown at this time).

Cam / Olsen only

Palmer / Fitzgerald only

Luck / Hilton and Kendall Wright

Brady / Edelman and Hurns

Brady / Gronk and Hurns

Wilson / Graham only

Mariota / Wright and TY Hilton

Eli Manning / Odell Beckham Jr and Jordan Reed (Thu)

Matt Ryan / Julio Jones only

Roethlisberger / Brown and Kenny Britt (This roster is going to lose)

Foles / Britt and Antonio Brown

Bortles / Hurns and Edelman

Still to play:

Rodgers / Cobb and Kelce - Right on the bubble at 85 points in the bank. Too early to tell.

Alex Smith / Kelce and Cobb - This looks dead just based on the other players I used here. I would need 65+ to cash

This is something I have not really considered much before, but I like the logic. If you had done it with Dalton-AJ Green and then SS.... that's the stuff of GPP dreams.

It works kind of like a second level stack. If you combine with some other strategies, it's possible to get a triple stack:

(1) QB-WR, plus (2) the opposing WR/TE, plus separately (3) a RB/Def stack. Although the RB/Def setup didn't work to well this past week in Seattle or Carolina, it worked really well Week 1 for Ivory/NYJ.

 

[Scoresman]

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

My logic is this. If the QB fails to be at least average, you are in a tough spot to cash. By pairing, I generally remove all doubt. If the stack performs badly, I have lost. Conversely if the WR on the stack scores a TD, I am well on my way to cashing.

In addition to the stack, I nearly almost also will play the best WR/TE option from the opposing team in the same game. My logic is this. If the stack hits, then there is pressure on the other team to pass as well. I like to play these lineups both in double and triple ups. When all goes well they cash at a great rate in triple ups as well.

This week I created a whopping 14 different lineup stacks+. I am going to cash in at least 12 of those (The Rodgers / Cobb stack is unknown at this time).

Cam / Olsen only

Palmer / Fitzgerald only

Luck / Hilton and Kendall Wright

Brady / Edelman and Hurns

Brady / Gronk and Hurns

Wilson / Graham only

Mariota / Wright and TY Hilton

Eli Manning / Odell Beckham Jr and Jordan Reed (Thu)

Matt Ryan / Julio Jones only

Roethlisberger / Brown and Kenny Britt (This roster is going to lose)

Foles / Britt and Antonio Brown

Bortles / Hurns and Edelman

Still to play:

Rodgers / Cobb and Kelce - Right on the bubble at 85 points in the bank. Too early to tell.

Alex Smith / Kelce and Cobb - This looks dead just based on the other players I used here. I would need 65+ to cash

Would love to see this kind of stuff get posted on the blog. The blog's been kind of stale recently with nothing but a bunch of redirects to FBG content, most of which I had already read.

 

[David Dodds]

I blogged about this.

 

[Wadsworth]

I run one cash game line up per slate. Focusing on the heavy chalk, high floor value and players that benefit from injury.

 

[Wadsworth]

I blogged about this.

I saw that, very interesting approach.

 

[podunker]

Like the thought process. Like tonight Rodgers/Cobb and Kelce!

I've been running two cash game lineups on each site. Thinking about going with four though.

 

[Rock Lonemilk]

I blogged about this.

 

[jwarren90]

I blogged about this.

http://crackingfanduel.footballguys.com/2015/09/a-counter-strategy-i-use-in-cash-games.html

 

[BassNBrew]

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

My logic is this. If the QB fails to be at least average, you are in a tough spot to cash. By pairing, I generally remove all doubt. If the stack performs badly, I have lost. Conversely if the WR on the stack scores a TD, I am well on my way to cashing.

In addition to the stack, I nearly almost also will play the best WR/TE option from the opposing team in the same game. My logic is this. If the stack hits, then there is pressure on the other team to pass as well. I like to play these lineups both in double and triple ups. When all goes well they cash at a great rate in triple ups as well.

This week I created a whopping 14 different lineup stacks+. I am going to cash in at least 12 of those (The Rodgers / Cobb stack is unknown at this time).

Cam / Olsen only

Palmer / Fitzgerald only

Luck / Hilton and Kendall Wright

Brady / Edelman and Hurns

Brady / Gronk and Hurns

Wilson / Graham only

Mariota / Wright and TY Hilton

Eli Manning / Odell Beckham Jr and Jordan Reed (Thu)

Matt Ryan / Julio Jones only

Roethlisberger / Brown and Kenny Britt (This roster is going to lose)

Foles / Britt and Antonio Brown

Bortles / Hurns and Edelman

Still to play:

Rodgers / Cobb and Kelce - Right on the bubble at 85 points in the bank. Too early to tell.

Alex Smith / Kelce and Cobb - This looks dead just based on the other players I used here. I would need 65+ to cash

I'm not buying it as sound strategy for a 50/50. With your ability to create sound projections, if your QB hits you should cash regardless. If your QB doesn't hit and you haven't tied him to a boat anchor, your projections should carry you over the top at the other positions. If the margin for winning is so thin that a stack is needed as a winning strategy in a 50/50, most of us have no chance v. the rake.

 

[karmarooster]

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

My logic is this. If the QB fails to be at least average, you are in a tough spot to cash. By pairing, I generally remove all doubt. If the stack performs badly, I have lost. Conversely if the WR on the stack scores a TD, I am well on my way to cashing.

In addition to the stack, I nearly almost also will play the best WR/TE option from the opposing team in the same game. My logic is this. If the stack hits, then there is pressure on the other team to pass as well. I like to play these lineups both in double and triple ups. When all goes well they cash at a great rate in triple ups as well.

This week I created a whopping 14 different lineup stacks+. I am going to cash in at least 12 of those (The Rodgers / Cobb stack is unknown at this time).

Cam / Olsen only

Palmer / Fitzgerald only

Luck / Hilton and Kendall Wright

Brady / Edelman and Hurns

Brady / Gronk and Hurns

Wilson / Graham only

Mariota / Wright and TY Hilton

Eli Manning / Odell Beckham Jr and Jordan Reed (Thu)

Matt Ryan / Julio Jones only

Roethlisberger / Brown and Kenny Britt (This roster is going to lose)

Foles / Britt and Antonio Brown

Bortles / Hurns and Edelman

Still to play:

Rodgers / Cobb and Kelce - Right on the bubble at 85 points in the bank. Too early to tell.

Alex Smith / Kelce and Cobb - This looks dead just based on the other players I used here. I would need 65+ to cash

I'm not buying it as sound strategy for a 50/50. With your ability to create sound projections, if your QB hits you should cash regardless. If your QB doesn't hit and you haven't tied him to a boat anchor, your projections should carry you over the top at the other positions. If the margin for winning is so thin that a stack is needed as a winning strategy in a 50/50, most of us have no chance v. the rake.

Your logic could be true if he were ONLY playing 50/50s. But I suspect that he is playing mostly a cash base with 50/50s and Doubles, but has some juice on top with Triples and Quintuples. That way, you "scale" your lineups so that if you are much above the cash cut line (for example, due to a stack paying off), your return is much better than just a 80% or Double up.

 

[David Dodds]

Ideally I like to have my spread look like this:

50% at 2X

30% at 3X

20% at 5X

so that I capitalize on the upside.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think you're the first person I've ever seen who recommends stacking in cash games.

My logic is this. If the QB fails to be at least average, you are in a tough spot to cash. By pairing, I generally remove all doubt. If the stack performs badly, I have lost. Conversely if the WR on the stack scores a TD, I am well on my way to cashing.

In addition to the stack, I nearly almost also will play the best WR/TE option from the opposing team in the same game. My logic is this. If the stack hits, then there is pressure on the other team to pass as well. I like to play these lineups both in double and triple ups. When all goes well they cash at a great rate in triple ups as well.

This week I created a whopping 14 different lineup stacks+. I am going to cash in at least 12 of those (The Rodgers / Cobb stack is unknown at this time).

Cam / Olsen only

Palmer / Fitzgerald only

Luck / Hilton and Kendall Wright

Brady / Edelman and Hurns

Brady / Gronk and Hurns

Wilson / Graham only

Mariota / Wright and TY Hilton

Eli Manning / Odell Beckham Jr and Jordan Reed (Thu)

Matt Ryan / Julio Jones only

Roethlisberger / Brown and Kenny Britt (This roster is going to lose)

Foles / Britt and Antonio Brown

Bortles / Hurns and Edelman

Still to play:

Rodgers / Cobb and Kelce - Right on the bubble at 85 points in the bank. Too early to tell.

Alex Smith / Kelce and Cobb - This looks dead just based on the other players I used here. I would need 65+ to cash

I'm not buying it as sound strategy for a 50/50. With your ability to create sound projections, if your QB hits you should cash regardless. If your QB doesn't hit and you haven't tied him to a boat anchor, your projections should carry you over the top at the other positions. If the margin for winning is so thin that a stack is needed as a winning strategy in a 50/50, most of us have no chance v. the rake.

Your logic could be true if he were ONLY playing 50/50s. But I suspect that he is playing mostly a cash base with 50/50s and Doubles, but has some juice on top with Triples and Quintuples. That way, you "scale" your lineups so that if you are much above the cash cut line (for example, due to a stack paying off), your return is much better than just a 80% or Double up.

Agreed. However that wasn't specifically mentioned in his posts and could be less than optimal advice for guys playing mostly 50/50s.

DD's follow up post sheds more light onto his typically cash slate.

 

[17seconds]

When you are at the lower limits does number of duplicated lineup entries matter?

For example you have $10 to put in double ups and you are using a single lineup in different contests.

10 $1 entries

or

2 $5 entries

Does it make a difference?

It's definitely easier to track 2 results among all your other action than 10

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Ideally I like to have my spread look like this:

50% at 2X

30% at 3X

20% at 5X

so that I capitalize on the upside.

This is almost exactly what I do, plus I add at least 1 100 or 250 person league for low dollars. Nothing worse than smashing a cash lineup without getting a nice payoff.

 

[jandyt]

When you are at the lower limits does number of duplicated lineup entries matter?

For example you have $10 to put in double ups and you are using a single lineup in different contests.

10 $1 entries

or

2 $5 entries

Does it make a difference?

It's definitely easier to track 2 results among all your other action than 10

Data has shown that cut lines climb as dollar amounts rise so as long as enough action can be found at 1 dollar level for how much you want to play I would play there.

 

[David Dodds]

another thing to consider here is this talk that a second lineup is less optimal than the first, etc.

I routinely make a prediction that looks like this 6 catches, 83 yards and 0.7 TDs.

No matter what, the TD part is wrong. That player is going to score 0, 1 or more TDs.

So a player that is projected for 6 / 83 / 0.7 really is quite similar to a 5 / 79 / 0.6 especially when they both end up scoring.

 

[BassNBrew]

another thing to consider here is this talk that a second lineup is less optimal than the first, etc.

I routinely make a prediction that looks like this 6 catches, 83 yards and 0.7 TDs.

No matter what, the TD part is wrong. That player is going to score 0, 1 or more TDs.

So a player that is projected for 6 / 83 / 0.7 really is quite similar to a 5 / 79 / 0.6 especially when they both end up scoring.

Very good post. I think you can easily come up with multiple cash lineups that will score within a couple of points based on projections.

My theory has always been to diversify. I figure if I'm using the best projections in the business (yeah you DD), then I should try to come up with multiple lineups in case a player gets hurt. Seems like in a cash game it's more about not selecting underperforming players or poor values then selecting the best player.

 

[Odach]

Newbie here - longtime redraft player, and week 4 is my first week playing DFS (DraftKings only). Read Cracking Draft Kings, and have been soaking up as much info as possible the first 3 weeks - held out on actually playing so I had some 2015 data points to work with.

Came here for the discussion on how many lineups to play on any given week while I was researching how to best manage exposure...My first set of lineups were only about 20% unique, and so I felt I was too exposed to a handful of players/games....So I redid them all, but in retrospect, after reading this thread, I feel like my next pass was way too far on the other end of the spectrum. I ended up with 13 unique lineups that all had a bit of overlap (I used those 13 lineups in 13 different entries: 5x $3 GPPs, 5x $5 3-player, and 3x $5 doubles - all Sunday-Monday slates - you can see what I ended up with here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/owhqz9vfjv7lkf4/AABUsmRhEJ89kIDaKmLTJRPZa?dl=0 - it's looking like I'll end up breaking even, which maybe isn't so bad given how wacky this weekend was).

As for what kind of player I'd like to be, since a few people made that comment, I'd prefer consistent winning over large swings. My intuition says that over the long term, consistency will win out over the latter - is that a poor assumption?

Going to try rolling with 3-4 identical lineups across all my cash games next week, and try to enter a lot more contests with smaller buy-ins per jandyt's suggestion. Rolling with just 1-2 lineups seems too risky to me (granted, I have 0 experience prior to this week) - Walking Boot's logic seems to makes sense:

- if you go 1 or 2 and 1 misses, you either lose money or break even...and in the NFL, the likelihood of 1 miss isn't that low

- if you go 3, 2 hit and 1 miss, you make money

- if you go 4, 2 hit and 2 miss, you break even

For GPP, I'm thinking of sticking to more or less the same approach I took this week: make 1 lineup per stack I like...But how overlap is ok in the non-stack portion of these lineups? And should I worry about overlap/exposure between my GPP lineups and my cash game lineups? Or should exposure/overlap be managed separately for GPP vs cash games?

Since I'm planning to drastically reduce my number of lineups per week, therefore increasing my overlap/exposure, I'm back to having a difficult time understanding what my goals should be regarding properly managing my exposure...In 'Cracking Draft Kings' there's a chart on page 136 "Ideal Positional Exposure Based on Rankings" with "Exposure Percentage" on the Y axis and "Total Exposure Ranking (Cash Game + Tournament) on the X axis - I don't get it. I understand the Y axis, but not the X. Is the lesson here important? Can someone explain? I've reread that section a dozen times and still can't figure it out...

Any suggestions for analyzing and balancing exposure? Useful tools perhaps? I'm playing around with Daily Crusher right now, but didn't utilize it for actually putting my lineups together.

I'm surprised that Dodds said "I don't worry a ton about overlap" - doesn't that mean "I don't worry a ton about my exposure"? Am I worrying too much about this metric?

One thing that really shocked me in this thread was the suggestion of playing 10-20% of ones bankroll. Seems like A LOT to me. I decided my bankroll for this week by calculating how much cash I have per week if I were to win $0 every week. I deposited $600, so with 14 weeks left I had $42 to spend per week. Since I figured I should win some each week, I bumped my budget to ~$50/week. I realize this is wayyyyy too conservative, but since it was my first week, I thought that was a good place to start. 10-20% seems wayyyy aggressive to me - you could go broke within 5-6 weeks. I think my logic on this stems from my previous experience playing a lot of poker in casinos...Can someone elaborate on where the 10-20% strategy comes from?

A somewhat unrelated question that I thought of while reading this thread - any particular reason why content like the David Dodds cash game stacking strategy is not blogged on both Fanduels and DraftKings blogs? I'm currently only following DraftKings blog since that's where I play, but it seems applicable/interesting for everyone, regardless of which site they play, no? Does this happen often, and so I should follow both?

Apologies in advance for the wall of text

 

[chet]

Is there a link to the FD ebook or is it simply the blog that's linked in DD's sig?

 

[snellman]

Is there a link to the FD ebook or is it simply the blog that's linked in DD's sig?

Here you go: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=15Cracking_FanDuel

It is subscriber material

 

[jandyt]

Odach

Lot to read there. Here's my input.

1. Reading the fanduel blog or threads that are titled fanduel here can be beneficial even if you don't play on fanduel as the theory and general thoughts on players cross over. Just cant assume value comments cross over as the pricing is different for every site and rules as well.

2. If you looking to be a steady grinder then I would cut back to about 10-15% of money in play on GPP. I have found on a weekly basis ROI for cash games or even X5 is better than GPP. For me its actually pretty much always better because I just don't seem to be very good at GPP. I cash regularly but for small amounts.

3. I actually put about 30% of my bank in play weekly. But I couldn't actually lose it all in a few weeks because if I loss then the amount I play would drop because it would be 30% of a smaller bank. This year my amount wagered has been climbing every week because I'm winning but if I have a bad week then it would drop. Now if your looking at bank as a set number which doesn't change regardless of winning or losing then you might want to keep the percentage lower. History has also shown me that while I'm likely to have some bad weeks I'm not likely to actually lose all my money in play even on a bad week. I may of jinxed myself into getting crushed next week now.

4. I believe the chart on page 136 is meant to say that for the RB or WR he has the most money into that exposure should be about 50% for while a QB/TE it should 40%. For the RB he has the 4th most into the exposure should be 35%, WR 30%, and QB/TE 10%. This appears to me to be a safe conservative exposure strategy. While some weeks my exposure might follow somewhere along these lines it is often much riskier. But I think this is a measure of how much risk your willing to take and how strongly you feel about a certain player. If I have 5 WRs I think are fairly equal value then I probably wont have over 50% exposure to any but if one really stands out I may have close to 100%.

 

[chet]

Is there a link to the FD ebook or is it simply the blog that's linked in DD's sig?

Here you go: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=15Cracking_FanDuel

It is subscriber material

Got it, thanks!

 

[Odach]

3. I actually put about 30% of my bank in play weekly. But I couldn't actually lose it all in a few weeks because if I loss then the amount I play would drop because it would be 30% of a smaller bank. This year my amount wagered has been climbing every week because I'm winning but if I have a bad week then it would drop. Now if your looking at bank as a set number which doesn't change regardless of winning or losing then you might want to keep the percentage lower. History has also shown me that while I'm likely to have some bad weeks I'm not likely to actually lose all my money in play even on a bad week. I may of jinxed myself into getting crushed next week now.

Good point. I failed to consider the fact that: 1) the pool will get smaller while the percentage stays the same, so you wouldn't bust out in 5 weeks, and 2) it's highly unlikely I'll lose all my money in any given week, let alone X straight weeks. 20% doesn't seem to aggressive after considering these points.

4. I believe the chart on page 136 is meant to say that for the RB or WR he has the most money into that exposure should be about 50% for while a QB/TE it should 40%. For the RB he has the 4th most into the exposure should be 35%, WR 30%, and QB/TE 10%. This appears to me to be a safe conservative exposure strategy. While some weeks my exposure might follow somewhere along these lines it is often much riskier. But I think this is a measure of how much risk your willing to take and how strongly you feel about a certain player. If I have 5 WRs I think are fairly equal value then I probably wont have over 50% exposure to any but if one really stands out I may have close to 100%.

Ahhhhh! Ok, the chart makes total sense to me now...So typically he has:

• 10 WR's across all his lineups, with the exposure of 1 at about 50%, 2 at 45%, 1 at 40%, etc...
• 7 RB's across all his lineups, with the exposure of 1 at about 50%, 1 at 45%, 1 at 40%, etc...
• 4 QB/TE/DEF across all his lineups, with the exposure of 1 at about 40%, 1 at 30%, etc...

I made a spreadsheet to help me visualize this better: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmo6yoeaext8dlv/Ideal%20Exposure%20Table.xlsx?dl=0

I'll try to use this spreadsheet as a guide for building my lineups for next week...

Thanks!