Here are some things that I believe are unquestionably true.Yet you say it's "harder for the pros" whose large number of entries significantly reduce that variance. It's not "harder for the pros" to achieve a better risk adjusted return. Again, I think you're leaving out (whether intentional or unintentionally) critical information which makes it sound like winning in DFS is easy ("voila"). We're obviously headed towards agreeing to disagree here.
1. It's harder for a given pro (or anyone else) to maintain a high percentage-ROI if he enters more lineups and contests rather than fewer.
2. It's harder for a given pro (or anyone else) in terms of hours and effort if he enters more lineups and contests rather than fewer.
3. For any fixed number of lineups and contests entered, it's easier for a given player to achieve a high ROI if he is experienced, is well-informed, knows where to look for good contests, and has access to good projections and other tools. In other words, this game on the whole is generally easier for pros than for casual players (if "ease" is not measured in man-hours, but in likelihood of success).
4. For high-volume players, it can be worthwhile to increase the number of lineups and contests they enter. Despite the fact that it's harder (in terms of time, effort, and ROI), the reduction in variance can allow them to wager larger sums without increasing their risk of ruin, and wagering larger sums is beneficial as long as they have a positive expectation. What they lose in percentage-ROI, they more than make up for in total expectation, which is why they do it.
5. Playing DFS with a positive expectation -- if you're willing to play with minimal volume -- is exceptionally easy. It is "voila" easy. To avoid being misleading, I'll state the obvious example: freerolls.
Is there anything there that you disagree with or find misleading?
Last edited by a moderator: