GPP- Does Ownership Really Matter (1 Viewer)

So I want to preface this by saying that this will be 2nd full year doing DFS (dabbled in it 2 years ago). I'm not a high volume player, my standard weekly $$ to wager will be between $100-200. I had some modest success last year winning in over $1k. I say all this because I think it helps bring context to my question by the type of player I am.

So my question is why does ownership percentage and using contrarian plays really matter? I can't fully wrap my head around why I would consider using what I view as a much less than optimal player, just because I think/know he will be lightly owned. The way I think about it is that sure I may go with 7/9 pretty chalky player (considering obvious value), but the likelihood that someone or many people have the same exact lineup as me is unlikely. And if they do, who cares? We can split the top two prizes. My chances of winning (at least in my opinion) goes down if I throw in some contrarian plays for the sake of trying to be so. My thought is that perhaps it increases the expected value of an entry. Is this the case?

If so, isn't this a much bigger concern to the volume players than someone like me who at least partially feels the effect of not cashing in a for example $10 buy in GPP?

This is something I've heard and heard over and over, and it just doesn't make much sense in my opinion. That's not to say I totally dispute it, I'd just like to get the full breakdown.

The Milk Man said:

The way I think about it is that sure I may go with 7/9 pretty chalky player (considering obvious value), but the likelihood that someone or many people have the same exact lineup as me is unlikely. And if they do, who cares? We can split the top two prizes.

Click to expand...

Lets take last year's DraftKings Millionaire Maker as an example: It was $1,000,000 for 1st and $100,000 for 2nd. The difference between getting 1st by yourself($1,000,000) and tying for 1st($550,000) was FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. To answer your question of "who cares?", everybody who plays should care a lot about this because its a ton of money!

The Milk Man said:

My chances of winning (at least in my opinion) goes down if I throw in some contrarian plays for the sake of trying to be so. My thought is that perhaps it increases the expected value of an entry. Is this the case?

Click to expand...

Contrarian plays will probably make your chances of cashing go down, but they will increase your chances of getting 1st place. In extremely top heavy tournament structures(anything where 1st place is 1.5x or more than 2nd place) you want to be maximizing your odds of getting 1st place.

The Milk Man said:

I can't fully wrap my head around why I would consider using what I view as a much less than optimal player, just because I think/know he will be lightly owned.

Click to expand...

Ideally you'll be using a slightly less than optimal player who will be low owned due to the optimal play being on everyone's radar.

The Milk Man said:

So my question is why does ownership percentage and using contrarian plays really matter?

Click to expand...

If 90% of entrants have the guy who goes off for 50 fantasy points, then having that guy means you almost certainly beat the other 10% of the people but you are still on equal footing with 90%.

If only 2% of entrants have the guy who goes off for 50 fantasy points, then having that guy means you almost certainly beat 98% and only have to worry about competing with 2% of people.

The Milk Man said:

If so, isn't this a much bigger concern to the volume players than someone like me who at least partially feels the effect of not cashing in a for example $10 buy in GPP?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you may be making big bankroll management mistakes if you "feel the effects" of not cashing in a GPP. Drop down much lower in stakes imo. Proper bankroll management is essential to have any hope at long term profit.

Thanks, those are definitely good points there. The huge events are really top-heavy so that's true that it's a big difference between 1st and 2nd. For the record, when I said I would feel the effects, I meant it more in a way that when I deposit money onto a site, I hope to not have to re-deposit ever, and just play from my cash game and 50/50 winnings. Truthfully, I think the largest buy-in GPP I bought into last year was a $5 or $10. Those events don't have the life-changing money that you're talking about.

Again this was really helpful though, since I've planned on ramping it up a bit this year and taking my shots at the millions.

I have been playing DFS for two years now and I still struggle a bit with this idea.

I know that teams that win usually have a few guys that were really low owned, but I am still not convinced that the low ownership is a direct cause.

I am familiar with the theory behind it and it makes sense to me, but I just don't think it matters as much when you are talking about a roster of 8 or 9 guys.

Ownership % is really a secondary concern for me and something I only think about in the extreme. Like when there is a value RB that you know is going to be like 60% owned. In that case, I understand that it might make sense to not use him and try to get a leg up on 60%. But if we are talking about a QB that will be 15 or 20%, I am probably still using him

Exactly, that echoes my thoughts perfectly. That situation with the obvious, low priced rb is really the only time I ever see very high ownership. Some weeks there are 3 or 4 similarly priced value options. Not everyone is going to choose the same one or two in that situation.

I'm not convinced that the uniqueness of a lineup that fades a 35% owned player is worth the harm doing so could do to my chances of cashing. Again, I'm then knowingly forgoing using what I view as a top option so that I can use what I think is an almost good option that will probably be owned less. I feel like it unnecessarily hurts my chances of cashing (in my own mind prior to kickoff), so I can throw darts.

For the people who believe this, is your process primarily quantitative or qualitative? Mine is some of each but more qualitative (outside of my own mental calculus). Maybe this is more for people who use almost all quantitative reasoning. For me, I believe/hope each week that I'm using the absolute best 1 or 2 lineups I can choose, so why vary?

I'm unconvinced.

I am convinced that ownership concerns are very over blown. For me, ownership is a secondary concern most of the time. With rosters of 9 players, the odds are pretty long for a tie for first. But with even one "unique" player the odds are substantially longer.

I cashed two GPP entries last year at 20th and 21st place in 100k+ entry tourneys. There was nothing particularly "unique" about my rosters...that is, except that fact that I would have likely won first place if they had not unexpected pulled Rodgers and Jordy in the second half because they destroyed the other team so quickly. (sigh)

I think the point is that you have to have SOME uniqueness, and can't just go 9 for 9 with chalk plays.

Think of it like an NCAA tourney bracket. If you take the favorite like UK, so will 50% of the field you're playing with. Even if UK wins it all, you're going to have to nail your early round upsets to set you apart from everyone else who has Kentucky. But if you take an unpopular 3 seed to win it all, you'll be setting yourself apart if they actually pull it off. In a deep field, I'd say the odds of having your 3 seed win it all are higher than having the heavy favorite UK win it all AND you getting your early round upset picks right to set you apart from everyone else who has UK.

And unique doesn't necessarily mean cheap. If you think Hill will have a high ownership at Draft Kings going against the Raiders for $7100, but you want a stud RB to plug in, you could go with, say, Lynch at $7,300 @ the Rams. The consensus may think the Rams' rush D is tough, Seattle is away from home, Seattle has a weakened OL, all true, but there is certainly the potential for Lynch to bust a 100 yard and 3 TD game. If he does that, then you're setting yourself apart, rather than taking Hill with everyone else, needing Hill to go off, AND hitting on your other guys.

bigmiiiiike said:

I think the point is that you have to have SOME uniqueness, and can't just go 9 for 9 with chalk plays.

Think of it like an NCAA tourney bracket. If you take the favorite like UK, so will 50% of the field you're playing with. Even if UK wins it all, you're going to have to nail your early round upsets to set you apart from everyone else who has Kentucky. But if you take an unpopular 3 seed to win it all, you'll be setting yourself apart if they actually pull it off. In a deep field, I'd say the odds of having your 3 seed win it all are higher than having the heavy favorite UK win it all AND you getting your early round upset picks right to set you apart from everyone else who has UK.

And unique doesn't necessarily mean cheap. If you think Hill will have a high ownership at Draft Kings going against the Raiders for $7100, but you want a stud RB to plug in, you could go with, say, Lynch at $7,300 @ the Rams. The consensus may think the Rams' rush D is tough, Seattle is away from home, Seattle has a weakened OL, all true, but there is certainly the potential for Lynch to bust a 100 yard and 3 TD game. If he does that, then you're setting yourself apart, rather than taking Hill with everyone else, needing Hill to go off, AND hitting on your other guys.

Click to expand...

I think that those are all good points, Mike. But let me extrapolate on my point a bit, using your example...the favorite in the NCAA, KY.

You suggested that KY might have up to 50 percent ownership. Now, since they were the favorite, it might be reasonable to suggest that the other 3 seeds would have slightly lower ownership, but for the sake of my point, let's say that all of the first seeds had 50 percent ownership. In such a case, if each of the final four first seeds had had 50 percent ownership, what are the odds that a person would have all four teams in their lineup? Granted, a few more entries might well have all four first seeds due to the fact that the teams were seeded, and some people might just place all of the first seeds in their lineups as a strategy unto itself. But remember, football players aren't really seeded, and their are a lot more "teams" (players) who might qualify as "first seeds" for each position, and there are NINE positions.

In this example, it might be reasonable to assume that about 1 in 16 entries would have all four teams (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x1/2). In DFS, that already gets you in the money in most tourneys, and it certainly isn't desirable if you philosophy is "first or bust" (A philosophy I have seen in print on many sites). But now consider that, again, DFS players here are not seeded, and there are NINE positions for them. I would suggest that you could TRY every single week to pick the top ownership players just to see if anybody else had your exact entry, and there would many weeks that you would not, even in spite of your effort. If there were a clear number one seed for each position, and each had 50 percent ownership, you are now looking at about 1 in 2800 entries being identical. Still not where you want to be in a GPP. But, now factor in the number of "first seed" players, the fact one must afford a lineup that fits the salary cap, and all nine positions, and you might begin to see what I mean.

Now, where I DO think a player could get into trouble is if they look at a popular sight, such as FFG, rotogrinders, etc, and simply copy the suggested optimal lineups. Copying those lineups, instead of just using them as a guide is folly, but you gotta know several people do it.

There are probably some holes in my logic, and I would be interested in addressing those... But, my overarching point is that I think ownership concerns are overblown. In the end, I probably do look for that one player that offers a higher degree of uniqueness, or use it as a tie breaker as I decide on players. But this concern is never so high on my priority list as many articles suggest it should be.

Assani Fisher said:

The Milk Man said:

The way I think about it is that sure I may go with 7/9 pretty chalky player (considering obvious value), but the likelihood that someone or many people have the same exact lineup as me is unlikely. And if they do, who cares? We can split the top two prizes.

Click to expand...

Lets take last year's DraftKings Millionaire Maker as an example: It was $1,000,000 for 1st and $100,000 for 2nd. The difference between getting 1st by yourself($1,000,000) and tying for 1st($550,000) was FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. To answer your question of "who cares?", everybody who plays should care a lot about this because its a ton of money!

The Milk Man said:

My chances of winning (at least in my opinion) goes down if I throw in some contrarian plays for the sake of trying to be so. My thought is that perhaps it increases the expected value of an entry. Is this the case?

Click to expand...

Contrarian plays will probably make your chances of cashing go down, but they will increase your chances of getting 1st place. In extremely top heavy tournament structures(anything where 1st place is 1.5x or more than 2nd place) you want to be maximizing your odds of getting 1st place.

The Milk Man said:

I can't fully wrap my head around why I would consider using what I view as a much less than optimal player, just because I think/know he will be lightly owned.

Click to expand...

Ideally you'll be using a slightly less than optimal player who will be low owned due to the optimal play being on everyone's radar.

The Milk Man said:

So my question is why does ownership percentage and using contrarian plays really matter?

Click to expand...

If 90% of entrants have the guy who goes off for 50 fantasy points, then having that guy means you almost certainly beat the other 10% of the people but you are still on equal footing with 90%.

If only 2% of entrants have the guy who goes off for 50 fantasy points, then having that guy means you almost certainly beat 98% and only have to worry about competing with 2% of people.

The Milk Man said:

If so, isn't this a much bigger concern to the volume players than someone like me who at least partially feels the effect of not cashing in a for example $10 buy in GPP?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you may be making big bankroll management mistakes if you "feel the effects" of not cashing in a GPP. Drop down much lower in stakes imo. Proper bankroll management is essential to have any hope at long term profit.

Click to expand...

Glad you're here man, welcome back of sorts