What's new
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.

I made a video blog (1 Viewer)

Good video once again.

On the rayofhope issue ... I don't know why people play H2H contests at all. I haven't played one in years. I just assume that they're infested with pros. I believe that I can beat most pros more than 50% of the time in NFL, but I don't think I can win 56% of the time to avoid taking a loss. And even if I could win a little more than 56% of the time, why would I do that instead of focusing on bigger contests where I'll have a much better ROI?

In any case, I agree with you philosophically that it's not up to you to avoid playing against beginners; it's up to beginners to avoid playing against you. I don't think it's bad form to play in whatever game you want to play in as long as you do so within the rules (without a bum-hunting script that violates the terms of service, etc.).

By the same token, I don't think you have grounds for complaining when rayofhope takes all your H2H action. You can play in whatever contests you want, and he can play in whatever contests he wants. You might argue for the setting-versus-taking distinction, but I don't think that's very moving.

If you don't want to play rayofhope heads up for rolls (LOL), I'd tell you the exact same thing I tell my beginner friends: don't play H2H contests.

Normally, you have an advantage that beginners don't have: you've got a reputation that causes other pros to leave you alone, so H2H games are actually beatable for you. rayofhope has decided to deprive you of that advantage and remind you how the other half lives, and that is his right. It is, after all, not up to rayofhope to avoid you; it's up to you to avoid him.

JMHO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another quick comment. You mention that you don't really put a lot of effort into predicting Sunday ownership % by looking at Thursday lineups. Neither do I. I know some very successful DFS players who put a big emphasis on ownership percentage, but I could never bring myself to care about it all that much because, while I acknowledge that it's useful in principle, I think its usefulness is significantly overestimated in contests with nine roster spots. (It would make a much bigger difference with much smaller rosters.)

Anyway, it got me thinking about another analogy to poker. In poker, there's exploitive play and game-theory-optimal play. With exploitive play, you're trying to identify and take advantage of specific mistakes your opponents are making, and you'll depart from standard play yourself in order to do so. With game-theory-optimal play, you're trying to avoid making mistakes yourself -- to avoid being exploited by others -- and in the process you'll automatically benefit from others' mistakes even without specifically identifying them. It's helpful to have both styles of play in your arsenal, but the general oversimplification is that you'll maximize your win-rate against bad opponents by playing exploitively, and you'll do better against other experts by using a game-theory-optimal strategy.

It occurs to me that a similar distinction exists in GPP strategy. In GPPs, it helps to own under-owned players and to fade over-owned players. There are two ways to do this. (1) You could try to determine how frequently a player should be owned, then try to anticipate how often he will actually be owned, and then go out of your way to roster players from the first category and avoid players from the second category. (2) Or you could try to determine how frequently a player should be owned, and then try to own him with that optimal frequency. In so doing, you will automatically have a higher ownership percentage of under-owned players and a lower ownership of over-owned players than the field -- all without ever paying attention to anticipated ownership percentages at all.

I'm partial to the second method. It might leave some money on the table when there are genuine ownership anomalies from time to time. (For example, Tom Brady was apparently 25% owned in the Thursday contests this week, which is probably too high. If I think he should be owned 9% on Sunday, I might actually be better off owning him 0%-4% rather than 9% in order to exacerbate my fade of an over-owned player.) But for the most part, the big crowds aren't usually off by that much all that often. So my time might be better spent working on my own evaluation of his optimal ownership frequency instead of worrying about how often other people are likely to own him.

 
Really enjoying the Vlog series, keep up the great work! Picked up a H2H against you just for ####s and giggles. :shark:

 
Assani Fisher said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GCd1uayKkQ

DFS Video Blog #4: Topics include my first losing NFL week, the recent Ethan Haskell controversy, & another attempt at addressing the issue of pros playing low stakes HU matches.
Click to expand...
Great stuff. You have a talent for speaking off the cuff (for a half hour straight!) and keeping it entertaining and insightful. Really enjoyed that.

How much would you charge to let someone sit and look over your shoulder for a day while you prepare for an NFL sunday? I may have missed it but have you ever talked about your specific process? Or would you never divulge that?

 
Joe T said:
Any actual tips in these or will it continue to be industry / high stakes chat?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean. If you mean "am I going to give specific plays I like for the coming week" then no. Or if you're looking for a bunch of basic guidelines such as "don't play reverse-correlated players on the same GPP team" then you can probably find better ones elsewhere. But I think I give plenty of tips regarding the general mindset and approach it takes to succeed.

 
Willie Neslon said:
Assani Fisher said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GCd1uayKkQ

DFS Video Blog #4: Topics include my first losing NFL week, the recent Ethan Haskell controversy, & another attempt at addressing the issue of pros playing low stakes HU matches.
Click to expand...
Great stuff. You have a talent for speaking off the cuff (for a half hour straight!) and keeping it entertaining and insightful. Really enjoyed that.

How much would you charge to let someone sit and look over your shoulder for a day while you prepare for an NFL sunday? I may have missed it but have you ever talked about your specific process? Or would you never divulge that?
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Re: "letting someone sit and look over my shoulder for a day"...I'm not really interested in coaching, but I'd probably say the market price would be anywhere from $1000-2000/hour....but its such a weird thing to try to price- for the huge majority of people, they'd be far better off getting a beginner's coach for $50/hour instead. But for a select few the information learned can be worth thousands and thousands of dollars as it will enable them to rise from the medium stakes games to the high stakes games.

My process isn't super intricate- lots of research on trusted sites(like FBGs) combined with discussion with my close group of friends.

 
I have to disagree on your point on sports betting. The fact that sports books limit winners should not matter. The reason sports books may have to limit is because of scaling. This doesn't prove that it isn't a game of skill. If someone had been winning consistently now has to play with different rules that doesn't prove anything. It is the independent choice of the sports book to limit, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enjoyed your blog. You are very talented.

One suggestion, keep the FD high roller luxury box booze flowing food runneth over stories to yourself. It's not the public image dfs needs right now. You come off as that hedge fund manager living the high life at the expense of the uneducated masses. Do get me wrong, I'm cool with what your doing, we just don't need that clip appearing in the congressional hearings. it just lends itself to the appearance that FD/DK are in cahoots with a few select players.

 
BassNBrew said:
Enjoyed your blog. You are very talented.

One suggestion, keep the FD high roller luxury box booze flowing food runneth over stories to yourself. It's not the public image dfs needs right now. You come off as that hedge fund manager living the high life at the expense of the uneducated masses. Do get me wrong, I'm cool with what your doing, we just don't need that clip appearing in the congressional hearings. it just lends itself to the appearance that FD/DK are in cahoots with a few select players.
Click to expand...
A person who wasn't centered on these things probably wouldn't gamble for a living.

 
Fantasysports1 said:
I have to disagree on your point on sports betting. The fact that sports books limit winners should not matter. The reason sports books may have to limit is because of scaling. This doesn't prove that it isn't a game of skill. If someone had been winning consistently now has to play with different rules that doesn't prove anything. It is the independent choice of the sports book to limit, etc.
Click to expand...
Yea, we see things a bit differently here. Now let me be clear: I think sportsbetting should be legal, and I don't think it should matter whether or not its classified as a game of skill or a gambling game. However, if we are using that distinction in order to determine the legality then I think a game of skill is only a game of skill if you allow the skilled players to continue to play as much as the un-skilled players.

 
BassNBrew said:
Enjoyed your blog. You are very talented.

One suggestion, keep the FD high roller luxury box booze flowing food runneth over stories to yourself. It's not the public image dfs needs right now. You come off as that hedge fund manager living the high life at the expense of the uneducated masses. Do get me wrong, I'm cool with what your doing, we just don't need that clip appearing in the congressional hearings. it just lends itself to the appearance that FD/DK are in cahoots with a few select players.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I usually try to promote the sites when they give me free stuff because I assume thats what they want- they want to create this image that they are giving their users the "ultimate sports fan experience". Also while it certainly helps to be a high-volume user, they actually have given out similar stuff to plenty of players who play much lower volume.....many of the people I meet at events like these are small time players whose SNs I have never heard of.

I can understand what you're saying about public perception though, especially given the recent political issues.

 
Assani Fisher said:
Fantasysports1 said:
I have to disagree on your point on sports betting. The fact that sports books limit winners should not matter. The reason sports books may have to limit is because of scaling. This doesn't prove that it isn't a game of skill. If someone had been winning consistently now has to play with different rules that doesn't prove anything. It is the independent choice of the sports book to limit, etc.
Click to expand...
I think a game of skill is only a game of skill if you allow the skilled players to continue to play as much as the un-skilled players.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you explain?

 
Peyton Marino said:
Assani Fisher said:
Fantasysports1 said:
I have to disagree on your point on sports betting. The fact that sports books limit winners should not matter. The reason sports books may have to limit is because of scaling. This doesn't prove that it isn't a game of skill. If someone had been winning consistently now has to play with different rules that doesn't prove anything. It is the independent choice of the sports book to limit, etc.
Click to expand...
I think a game of skill is only a game of skill if you allow the skilled players to continue to play as much as the un-skilled players.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you explain?
Click to expand...
Not sure what more to say really....if you want to call something a "skill game" then you can't disallow the skilled players to play or else you're making it into a "game of chance" by eliminating the skill advantage certain players have(by not letting them play).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
(Media Optics) Should Biden Apologize To Border Patrol For False Migrant Whipping Claims? (4/19/22 18:50PST)
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Boston
Boston
LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
Henry Ford
An Older, Conservative Man's Viewpoint After A Semester Of First Hand Experience In An Ivy League School
Replies
12
Views
1K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top