What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

DFS Scandals in E.F.F.E.C.T (1 Viewer)

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.
Here are some things that I believe are unquestionably true.

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:
Of course the majority of DFS contest don't have a average positive ROI either as the host site cant make money that way.
True, but host sites are not making money. ;) There is one site that never has a rake, so the worst game they offer has a 0% ROI (and any guaranteed contest that doesn't fill has a positive ROI). There is another site whose large guaranteed contests regularly only fill up to about 60% capacity.

Obviously, that can't be a long-term strategy for either site. It is just a substitute for spending money on advertising -- and disappointingly to me as someone who likes to believe in the rationality of crowds (but to my benefit as someone who likes playing DFS with a positive expectation), it doesn't seem to be working. People are flocking to the sites that spend money on advertising rather than to the sites that spend money on just giving it away.
Why are you using 'this site' and 'that site' without naming them?

 
Of course the majority of DFS contest don't have a average positive ROI either as the host site cant make money that way.
True, but host sites are not making money. ;) There is one site that never has a rake, so the worst game they offer has a 0% ROI (and any guaranteed contest that doesn't fill has a positive ROI). There is another site whose large guaranteed contests regularly only fill up to about 60% capacity.

Obviously, that can't be a long-term strategy for either site. It is just a substitute for spending money on advertising -- and disappointingly to me as someone who likes to believe in the rationality of crowds (but to my benefit as someone who likes playing DFS with a positive expectation), it doesn't seem to be working. People are flocking to the sites that spend money on advertising rather than to the sites that spend money on just giving it away.
Why are you using 'this site' and 'that site' without naming them?
FantasyDraft.com, among others, has had huge overlays all season. It has been discuss several times before in other threads. One week last season FantasyDraft had GPPs that did not even hit 40%. Another example of how good players that are doing some research can limit risk and win money without being stupid lucky.

MT has recommended these sites many times this season thru multiple outlets.

ETA: I was a good boy and did not link it with my promo code. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course the majority of DFS contest don't have a average positive ROI either as the host site cant make money that way.
True, but host sites are not making money. ;) There is one site that never has a rake, so the worst game they offer has a 0% ROI (and any guaranteed contest that doesn't fill has a positive ROI). There is another site whose large guaranteed contests regularly only fill up to about 60% capacity.

Obviously, that can't be a long-term strategy for either site. It is just a substitute for spending money on advertising -- and disappointingly to me as someone who likes to believe in the rationality of crowds (but to my benefit as someone who likes playing DFS with a positive expectation), it doesn't seem to be working. People are flocking to the sites that spend money on advertising rather than to the sites that spend money on just giving it away.
Why are you using 'this site' and 'that site' without naming them?
Because I don't want to sound like a shill, which people keep accusing me of.

FantasyUp has no rake. FantasyDraft has guaranteed contests that regularly fill up to about 60% capacity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Here are some things that I believe are unquestionably true.

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.

True and intuitive.

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.

Again, true and intuitive.

3. For any fixed number of lineups and contests entered, it's easier for a given player to to achieve a high ROI if he is experienced, 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.

Yep

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 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.

Had you made this point before, because I think it's key. If you had and I missed it, I apologize.

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.

You'll have to reconcile "exceptionally easy" with your point # 3 where actual work is involved. Also, online poker has freerolls. Is it exceptionally easy to make money there?

Is there anything there that you disagree with of find misleading?
On balance, I think we agree on a lot of points. However, I think the competition is much stronger than you're letting on and it's not exceptionally easy to make money. I would never say to someone, "oh yeah, all you have to do is enter the FBG's contest and expect 24% back on your money." There's a lot more to it than that and those who do wind up with a positive return are either lucky or have outworked the competition.

 
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.

You'll have to reconcile "exceptionally easy" with your point # 3 where actual work is involved. Also, online poker has freerolls. Is it exceptionally easy to make money there?
Playing with a positive expectation in a freeroll takes no work.

Yesterday FanDuel emailed me saying that if I entered a $2 NHL contest and won, I'd keep the money, but if I entered and lost, they'd refund me my entry fee.

I've never watched an NHL game in my life. I can't name a single NHL player, unless Wayne Gretzky is still playing. (I think he's probably not, but I'm not actually sure.)

I entered a lineup completely randomly, just clicking buttons without even really looking, until my lineup was filled. I think that qualifies as doing no work.

Guess what? I won $4!

Obviously, that's not going to happen very often, but it doesn't need to. It just needs to happen more than 0% of the time in order for me to have a positive expectation. And indeed, it will happen more than 0% of the time.

 
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 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.

Had you made this point before, because I think it's key. If you had and I missed it, I apologize.
I've made that point a number of times in a number of places, -- e.g., here.

Speaking of which, I need to stop posting in here and get to work on my lineups. I pulled an all-nighter last Saturday night and I'll probably do the same tonight even if I start working right now...

 
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.

You'll have to reconcile "exceptionally easy" with your point # 3 where actual work is involved. Also, online poker has freerolls. Is it exceptionally easy to make money there?
Playing with a positive expectation in a freeroll takes no work.

Yesterday FanDuel emailed me saying that if I entered a $2 NHL contest and won, I'd keep the money, but if I entered and lost, they'd refund me my entry fee.

I've never watched an NHL game in my life. I can't name a single NHL player, unless Wayne Gretzky is still playing. (I think he's probably not, but I'm not actually sure.)

I entered a lineup completely randomly, just clicking buttons without even really looking, until my lineup was filled. I think that qualifies as doing no work.

Guess what? I won $4!

Obviously, that's not going to happen very often, but it doesn't need to. It just needs to happen more than 0% of the time in order for me to have a positive expectation. And indeed, it will happen more than 0% of the time.
LOL.. Sounds like my approach to NHL is catching on!

 
I do not want to a speak for MT, but his "Viola" comment is accurate with explanation.

Viola is not I put $100 on Fandual, signed up for 4 $25 entries in the big tourney and lost all my money.

Viola is I read Cracking Fanduel, joined RotoGrinders, use the IVC, read multiple articles weekly on respected sites(Fade/Contrarian must reads), watch podcasts from respected people, follow forums, target sites with big incentives and overlays, spread my money around, use proper bankroll management and limit my risk while I am learning.

It will not always be this way, but right now if you use the right approach you can beat the rake without being particularly good or lucky. Now if you are waiting for someone to explain exactly how to do all of this for free, keep waiting. But many people have figured it out by getting bits of info hear and there, just like some of the info MT has dropped in this thread recently if you were paying attention.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both DFS and season long FF are gambling, but one is much more dangerous than the other for addictive personality types because they can chase losses weekly/daily and spiral out of control over longer periods. This phenomenon seems to be why society outlawed/regulated gambling in the first place.

Until DFS emerged, seasonal FF was a great outlet for gambling addicts to get their fix in a controlled manner. One "bet" lasted all season long. Much more than the skill vs. luck argument, this made sense to me as to why fantasy sports were exempted from gaming laws. But then DFS came along and effed it all up. Sooner or later we're going to start hearing anecdotes of people's lives being ruined by DFS addictions. At that point, societal tide will fully turn against these games and all fantasy sports gambling will be outlawed IMO. Baby out with the bath style.

Totally sux because greed will eventually take away what was a safe alternative to daily/weekly gambling in the form of season long contests. Based on that chessboard, I say eff Draftkings; eff Fanduel; eff DFS. Way to ruin a good thing, you jerks.

 
LawFitz said:
Both DFS and season long FF are gambling, but one is much more dangerous than the other for addictive personality types because they can chase losses weekly/daily and spiral out of control over longer periods. This phenomenon seems to be why society outlawed/regulated gambling in the first place.

Until DFS emerged, seasonal FF was a great outlet for gambling addicts to get their fix in a controlled manner. One "bet" lasted all season long. Much more than the skill vs. luck argument, this made sense to me as to why fantasy sports were exempted from gaming laws. But then DFS came along and effed it all up. Sooner or later we're going to start hearing anecdotes of people's lives being ruined by DFS addictions. At that point, societal tide will fully turn against these games and all fantasy sports gambling will be outlawed IMO. Baby out with the bath style.

Totally sux because greed will eventually take away what was a safe alternative to daily/weekly gambling in the form of season long contests. Based on that chessboard, I say eff Draftkings; eff Fanduel; eff DFS. Way to ruin a good thing, you jerks.
I think this is a fantastic post which is spot on. The amount of greed by the operators of DFS and affiliated firms is going to end up severely hurting this whole industry and I have to say the NFL and NFL teams are just as guilty. At a recent Broncos game, they advertised Draft Kings constantly at the stadium. A very sad story of an enjoyable experience for all of us which is likely to be killed in relatively short order.

I know this wont be popular but I have to say that I agree with regulators that think the DFS industry should be regulated or at least have amounts wagered limited to a certain amount per day/week.

 
LawFitz said:
Both DFS and season long FF are gambling, but one is much more dangerous than the other for addictive personality types because they can chase losses weekly/daily and spiral out of control over longer periods. This phenomenon seems to be why society outlawed/regulated gambling in the first place.

Until DFS emerged, seasonal FF was a great outlet for gambling addicts to get their fix in a controlled manner. One "bet" lasted all season long. Much more than the skill vs. luck argument, this made sense to me as to why fantasy sports were exempted from gaming laws. But then DFS came along and effed it all up. Sooner or later we're going to start hearing anecdotes of people's lives being ruined by DFS addictions. At that point, societal tide will fully turn against these games and all fantasy sports gambling will be outlawed IMO. Baby out with the bath style.

Totally sux because greed will eventually take away what was a safe alternative to daily/weekly gambling in the form of season long contests. Based on that chessboard, I say eff Draftkings; eff Fanduel; eff DFS. Way to ruin a good thing, you jerks.
I think this is a fantastic post which is spot on. The amount of greed by the operators of DFS and affiliated firms is going to end up severely hurting this whole industry and I have to say the NFL and NFL teams are just as guilty. At a recent Broncos game, they advertised Draft Kings constantly at the stadium. A very sad story of an enjoyable experience for all of us which is likely to be killed in relatively short order.

I know this wont be popular but I have to say that I agree with regulators that think the DFS industry should be regulated or at least have amounts wagered limited to a certain amount per day/week.
I definitely agree. I very much enjoy playing DFS, but these large tournaments are a lot of what is driving what is going on. Do we really need a $5 million tournament with at $1 million winner every week? The NFL Squib on Fanduel which is a single entry $1 tournament is a $150,000 this week and has been every week this year. That is 1 in 170,000 entries that you have a chance to win. Last year if I remember right the highest I saw that tournament was 27,000 entries.

I understand that if you advertise a million dollar winner it will draw more players than if you advertise $100K winner, and putting a limit on the # of entries per player would be a big help also. However these companies have been looking at only one thing and that is rake. The more entries you get the higher rake you get.

DFS definitely needs to be regulated, but I am not sure who is best to have regulate it. Do we really want politicians who don't have a clue what Fantasy football or DFS is regulating the industry? Do we really want Vegas who are basiclly glorified DFS companies regulating the industry? Someone needs to regulate it, but the question is who.

 
I don't think both sides on this subject will budge and this thread will just continue in circles.

Going to be pretty much impossible to change anyone's opinion on it.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that??? ;)
I could swear FBGs took the position of Fantasy Football NOT being gambling. Is that not true?

 
I'm pretty sure Footballguys has never taken a position on whether fantasy football is gambling. Whether it's gambling depends entirely on which definition of 'gambling' is used, and I can't think of a reason for Footballguys to have a position on a purely semantic issue like that.

 
Hmm, I recall otherwise. But forget it for now and let's get to the task at hand. I know you have work to do, good luck!

 
182 in, 290 out. Close to 60% ROI. Someone please protect me from these pros taking advantage of me.

Big props to MT for helping put someone more cash in my pocket.

 
182 in, 290 out. Close to 60% ROI. Someone please protect me from these pros taking advantage of me.

Big props to MT for helping put someone more cash in my pocket.
I don't think anybody said that you were a bad DFS player or that Maurile wasn't a great fantasy mind. Congrats to you and Maurile for your successes--and I truly mean that. The issue here is of if DFS (something that is clearly gambling) should be regulated as if it was gambling. Of course--people like you or Maurile (who are benefiiciaries of this lack of regulation) would prefer that things remain the way that they are. However---don't let your success--and Maurlies great fantasy mind (and his success) blur your vision from what the non-dfs guys are saying here. Nobody is saying that you, Maurile or any other random player cannot be successful--so there is zero need to advertise your results--as it doesn't contribute any anything of value to this conversation. In fact--it only makes your position look more self serving. "hey--we should regulate something that is clearly gambling--as if it weren't gambling--because I can turn an easy profit". Facts are facts--and the facts clearly show that people like you and Maurile are in a very small minority when it comes to successes in DFS. The facts show that the high volume pros with lineup optimizing software are winning the vast majority of the payouts. The fact that you have won--or that Maurile can help people win more easily---doesn't change these facts or dynamics. The only thing that it shows is that you guys are good fantasy players, that represent the small minority that tend to win playing DFS--and for that I say well done and congrats.

By the way--as a side note--I want to make clear that I view all fantasy sports as gambling (season long and DFS)--and I have no problem with gambling. However--I do believe that gambling needs to be regulated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
182 in, 290 out. Close to 60% ROI. Someone please protect me from these pros taking advantage of me.

Big props to MT for helping put someone more cash in my pocket.
I don't think anybody said that you were a bad DFS player or that Maurile wasn't a great fantasy mind. Congrats to you and Maurile for your successes--and I truly mean that. The issue here is of if DFS (something that is clearly gambling) should be regulated as if it was gambling. Of course--people like you or Maurile (who are benefiiciaries of this lack of regulation) would prefer that things remain the way that they are. However---don't let your success--and Maurlies great fantasy mind (and his success) blur your vision from what the non-dfs guys are saying here. Nobody is saying that you, Maurile or any other random player cannot be successful--so there is zero need to advertise your results--as it doesn't contribute any anything of value to this conversation. In fact--it only makes your position look more self serving. "hey--we should regulate something that is clearly gambling--as if it weren't gambling--because I can turn an easy profit".Facts are facts--and the facts clearly show that people like you and Maurile are in a very small minority when it comes to successes in DFS. The facts show that the high volume pros with lineup optimizing software are winning the vast majority of the payouts. The fact that you have won--or that Maurile can help people win more easily---doesn't change these facts or dynamics. The only thing that it shows is that you guys are good fantasy players, that represent the small minority that tend to win playing DFS--and for that I say well done and congrats.

By the way--as a side note--I want to make clear that I view all fantasy sports as gambling (season long and DFS)--and I have no problem with gambling. However--I do believe that gambling needs to be regulated.
I agree with you that some regulation or oversight would be welcomed. I've always done well in season long ff and took a beating in threads around here when I say it's more than 50% luck. I have no problem calling regular ff gambling much less dfs. Many of these season long ff contests cost $350+ to enter. I find it amusing that some on a ff board have sacred cows like season long ff but then a totally different opinion of dfs.

The reason why I'm posting results is because several disputed MTS claims that the average player could compete against the pros. If fact several got down right ugly with him claiming that he was posting inaccurate information because he made money in dfs. Several posters were saying dfs is a losing proposition versus the pros. That's simply not true

You stated that I'm a good ff player. Thanks for the compliment, but being "good" or let's say successful at dfs comes down to three things.

1. Being smart about where you enter your money. Overlays are obvious, but Thur-Mon slates are another example. You can take advantage of some people's tendencies to over invest in Thursday night player's and their failure to read the injury reports.

2. Reading the threads in the dfs forum and the shark pool. I didn't know Diggs from a hole in the ground. He was a "cheap" play last week that allow for me to load up my daily lineup with studs.

3. Using the fbg projection and IVC tools. It's been verified that Dodds is one of the best in the industry when it comes to projections. He's good enough to overcome the rake. The tools fbg provides will basically build a lineup for you. Pick two guys you like and push a button to get an optimized lineup. Where I listened to their tools last week (Chanderiwick), I was very successful.

The pros are better at dfs than me but I don't have to chose to battle in their arena. The time may come where the odds of winning aren't stacked in my favor and at that time I'll quit. Daily basketball is a prime example of an area I quit when it became obvious that I wasn't good enough to compete successfully.

 
Cool site I found this week called Fantasy Hub. They had a $10 game that only filled up about 60% and paid out what would have been to the top 30% - so roughly a 50/50 shot at winning (these are not exact numbers - but they are close). This is the kind of overlay opportunity that others have discussed. They are out there. $100K in cash prizes was paid out with $10K going to first place. They lost money on this contest, and those who played had a great chance of winning.

Best part - 10% of the winnings go toward the charity of your choice instead of a huge rake for the company. For those so opposed to the "sleazy" profiteering of the capitalist society that we live in...this is an alternative. This was easy money too, even without the benefit of algorithms. I entered 21 teams (100 is the max), and 2 of those were free rolls given to me for depositing money via paypal. $190 in, $600 out ($410 profit)...and I honestly rushed through getting my lineups set so that I could get them all in before kickoff. I didnt even get my last one in on time. Won a little bit on free rolls in other contests too, plus another $10 contest with a huge overlay. With that kind of overlay, anyone with any knowledge has an incredible chance of winning. Plus, I was able to give $63.50 to Susan G Komen instead of a huge vig to the company.

You may not like the big guys, but maybe keep open the possibility that there is still a baby in the bathwater.

ETA: The contest was supposed to be 10,000 total entries with payout going to the top 4030. It only filled up to 6381, so 4030/6381 got paid. Thats incredible odds!

ETA for those who wont believe that this can actually happen:

Games Entered​
7
Total Wins​
20
Total Winnings​
$600
Charitable Contributions​
$63.50
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool site I found this week called Fantasy Hub. They had a $10 game that only filled up about 60% and paid out what would have been to the top 30% - so roughly a 50/50 shot at winning (these are not exact numbers - but they are close). This is the kind of overlay opportunity that others have discussed. They are out there. $100K in cash prizes was paid out with $10K going to first place. They lost money on this contest, and those who played had a great chance of winning.

Best part - 10% of the winnings go toward the charity of your choice instead of a huge rake for the company. For those so opposed to the "sleazy" profiteering of the capitalist society that we live in...this is an alternative. This was easy money too, even without the benefit of algorithms. I entered 21 teams (100 is the max), and 2 of those were free rolls given to me for depositing money via paypal. $190 in, $600 out ($410 profit)...and I honestly rushed through getting my lineups set so that I could get them all in before kickoff. I didnt even get my last one in on time. Won a little bit on free rolls in other contests too, plus another $10 contest with a huge overlay. With that kind of overlay, anyone with any knowledge has an incredible chance of winning. Plus, I was able to give $63.50 to Susan G Komen instead of a huge vig to the company.

You may not like the big guys, but maybe keep open the possibility that there is still a baby in the bathwater.

ETA: The contest was supposed to be 10,000 total entries with payout going to the top 4030. It only filled up to 6381, so 4030/6381 got paid. Thats incredible odds!

ETA for those who wont believe that this can actually happen:

Games Entered​
7
Total Wins​
20
Total Winnings​
$600
Charitable Contributions​
$63.50
Congrats Chuck!

This is exactly the type of stuff MT has been talking about for weeks.

 
1) We've already discovered that the vast majority in this thread who play DFS is making money. Very impressive to be in the company of so many outliers.
What's impressive is that so many people are not only able to win more often than they lose but are also able to pay the 10% vig and make a profit.
I have made a profit. That is the truth. Cute replies are not going to change that. I cannot speak for the "vast majority of people", but there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous about me staying I have made money off DFS. It seems to bother some people that everyone is not losing.
Amen to this. Im not killing it, but I am profitable and having a great time playing. No clue why so many people find that so offensive.
The advertising bombardment is what is offensive and I, for one, hope the DFS industry crumbles because of it.

 
1) We've already discovered that the vast majority in this thread who play DFS is making money. Very impressive to be in the company of so many outliers.
What's impressive is that so many people are not only able to win more often than they lose but are also able to pay the 10% vig and make a profit.
I have made a profit. That is the truth. Cute replies are not going to change that. I cannot speak for the "vast majority of people", but there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous about me staying I have made money off DFS. It seems to bother some people that everyone is not losing.
Amen to this. Im not killing it, but I am profitable and having a great time playing. No clue why so many people find that so offensive.
The advertising bombardment is what is offensive and I, for one, hope the DFS industry crumbles because of it.
I hear ya, can't wait for the RNC and DNC to fill the airwaves next season. Also feel sad that I'm missing out on my Verizon ads.

 
Need more ads with middle aged couples sitting in tubs on a mountainside talking about how they cant get it up without drugs anymore.

 
Need more ads with middle aged couples sitting in tubs on a mountainside talking about how they cant get it up without drugs anymore.
Nope, can't do that...parents might have to talk to their kids then, and that's just just too hard*

*sarcasm, since I can't use emoticons on mobile format

 
The notion that DFS is a game of "skill" and not "gambling" is ridiculous. The same kind of information and algorithms that DFS sharks use to create optimal lineups can also be used to simulate/calculate/predict scores for actaul NFL games that could be used for sports betting---and we have no problem to consider that gambling. What are we trying to say here--if you use data to predict a game score and place a bet--it's gambling--but if you use data to predict an individuals stats to place a bet---it's skill? Not only that--if it is truly a game of skill---then why do most of the fantasy websites require that players be a minimum of 18 years old? Last I checked--are games of skill only available to legal adults?
Lol flawless logic here

 
Congrats Chuck!
This is exactly the type of stuff MT has been talking about for weeks.
... do newcomers have to worry about these overlays disappearing as the market saturates, so to speak? The sites are obviously trying to vigorously fill all their games now. But what about in the future? Would games that get "overlayed" too often just disappear?

I understand having loss leader games now. But that it not the DFS sites' long-term financial goal, right? Eventually, won't they want to run leaner?

 
Congrats Chuck!
This is exactly the type of stuff MT has been talking about for weeks.
... do newcomers have to worry about these overlays disappearing as the market saturates, so to speak? The sites are obviously trying to vigorously fill all their games now. But what about in the future? Would games that get "overlayed" too often just disappear?

I understand having loss leader games now. But that it not the DFS sites' long-term financial goal, right? Eventually, won't they want to run leaner?
Certainly seems logical. But for now, there is opportunity to win fairly easily, and at the same time in this case donate to a good cause of your choice (they have several options for charities).

 
Congrats Chuck!
This is exactly the type of stuff MT has been talking about for weeks.
... do newcomers have to worry about these overlays disappearing as the market saturates, so to speak? The sites are obviously trying to vigorously fill all their games now. But what about in the future? Would games that get "overlayed" too often just disappear?

I understand having loss leader games now. But that it not the DFS sites' long-term financial goal, right? Eventually, won't they want to run leaner?
They will thin the games. You can still find some overlays at the big sites when they post last minute contests. It's a delicate balance for these sites. They are trying to gain marketshare and you can't do that if all your contests are filled. Players will move to sites with more contests. They also have to factor in new customers vs. exist customers that bust out.

Once the overlays disappear, then the smart players will reevaluate their ROI and adjust accordingly.

One site I joined this week was offering a 100% bonus up to $1500. It pays back at 8% of the money you play so that brings the 10% rake down to 2%. If you used a credit card that gives you cash back you could reduce that by another 1%. Basically if you deposited $1000, you'll have to play $12500 in contests to get your $1000 credited to your account.

 
I understand having loss leader games now. But that it not the DFS sites' long-term financial goal, right? Eventually, won't they want to run leaner?
Think about what drug dealers do.

 
I understand having loss leader games now. But that it not the DFS sites' long-term financial goal, right? Eventually, won't they want to run leaner?
Think about what drug dealers do.
Or any business that wants to introduce their product to a market. But since many here are former gambling junkies, it's like drug dealers. Players are merely helpless victims and the public at large should suffer for it. It's just like a schedule 1 narcotic and should be treated as such.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The notion that DFS is a game of "skill" and not "gambling" is ridiculous. The same kind of information and algorithms that DFS sharks use to create optimal lineups can also be used to simulate/calculate/predict scores for actaul NFL games that could be used for sports betting---and we have no problem to consider that gambling. What are we trying to say here--if you use data to predict a game score and place a bet--it's gambling--but if you use data to predict an individuals stats to place a bet---it's skill? Not only that--if it is truly a game of skill---then why do most of the fantasy websites require that players be a minimum of 18 years old? Last I checked--are games of skill only available to legal adults?
Lol flawless logic here
Be careful--you might want to limit the amount of content you put to back up your opinion. The mountains of examples and data that you used to back up your opinion -and to attempt to "clown" mine -are hard to navigate through. Pardon my sarcasm--but I personally find it annoying when people post things to try to "clown" or "disagree" with other peoples opinions--without contributing anything of relevance to back up why they are doing so. Feel free to disagree with me (or anybody else) all you want--but if you are going to attempt to do so--please at least contribute something of value to the discussion. "Lol" doesn't quite cut it.

 
The notion that DFS is a game of "skill" and not "gambling" is ridiculous. The same kind of information and algorithms that DFS sharks use to create optimal lineups can also be used to simulate/calculate/predict scores for actaul NFL games that could be used for sports betting---and we have no problem to consider that gambling. What are we trying to say here--if you use data to predict a game score and place a bet--it's gambling--but if you use data to predict an individuals stats to place a bet---it's skill? Not only that--if it is truly a game of skill---then why do most of the fantasy websites require that players be a minimum of 18 years old? Last I checked--are games of skill only available to legal adults?
Lol flawless logic here
Be careful--you might want to limit the amount of content you put to back up your opinion. The mountains of examples and data that you used to back up your opinion -and to attempt to "clown" mine -are hard to navigate through. Pardon my sarcasm--but I personally find it annoying when people post things to try to "clown" or "disagree" with other peoples opinions--without contributing anything of relevance to back up why they are doing so. Feel free to disagree with me (or anybody else) all you want--but if you are going to attempt to do so--please at least contribute something of value to the discussion. "Lol" doesn't quite cut it.
My problem with your statement is you seem to assume that it cant be both gambling and a game of skill. Poker is gambling but also is a game of skill even blackjack is both gambling and a game of skill. Most games played for money are both IMO unless its something like Chess where there is no luck involved. Also limiting it to only those 18 and over makes senses regardless since those under 18 in most cases cant enter into contracts and thus legally could attempt to void any payments and losses made to a DFS site.

 
The notion that DFS is a game of "skill" and not "gambling" is ridiculous. The same kind of information and algorithms that DFS sharks use to create optimal lineups can also be used to simulate/calculate/predict scores for actaul NFL games that could be used for sports betting---and we have no problem to consider that gambling. What are we trying to say here--if you use data to predict a game score and place a bet--it's gambling--but if you use data to predict an individuals stats to place a bet---it's skill? Not only that--if it is truly a game of skill---then why do most of the fantasy websites require that players be a minimum of 18 years old? Last I checked--are games of skill only available to legal adults?
Lol flawless logic here
Be careful--you might want to limit the amount of content you put to back up your opinion. The mountains of examples and data that you used to back up your opinion -and to attempt to "clown" mine -are hard to navigate through. Pardon my sarcasm--but I personally find it annoying when people post things to try to "clown" or "disagree" with other peoples opinions--without contributing anything of relevance to back up why they are doing so. Feel free to disagree with me (or anybody else) all you want--but if you are going to attempt to do so--please at least contribute something of value to the discussion. "Lol" doesn't quite cut it.
My problem with your statement is you seem to assume that it cant be both gambling and a game of skill. Poker is gambling but also is a game of skill even blackjack is both gambling and a game of skill. Most games played for money are both IMO unless its something like Chess where there is no luck involved. Also limiting it to only those 18 and over makes senses regardless since those under 18 in most cases cant enter into contracts and thus legally could attempt to void any payments and losses made to a DFS site.
I appreciate your post and your opinion. You bring up some solid points. I totally agree that skill and gambling are not "mutually exclusive". The fact of the matter is that virtually everything can be "gambled on". The issue here is how DFS/fantasy should be regulated (if at all). The other thing to consider here is that the fantasy world (including DFS) is becoming more and more institutionalized. Using your examples--poker and blackjack (both games that involve skill--you can get better at them if you practice and play more)--if I were to open up a poker/blackjack parlor in my city--do you not think that I should get a gaming licence and be in compliance with the local gaming commissions? That is the issue that we are talking about here. The fact that people are wagering on a game (even if it's a game of skill) automatically makes it gambling. It's no different than sports betting. Instead of betting on a real team--you are creating a "hypothetical" team and betting on that. I think the legal adult part of your post makes a ton of sense--and I think that the age restrictions obviously exist to protect thei DFS compaiies interests in the "wagering" aspect of DFS--which is the gambling aspect of it. They key here is the institutionalized part that I brought up earlier. If I were to have a random poker night with some of my buddies at my house for $50 twice a year---I can't imagine that the authorities would want to get involved in enforcing gambling laws for in essense "a poker night with the buddies".. I also don't see them being interested in enforcing the $25 fantasy buy in leagues at work..etc. However--when you have institutions that are appealing to the masses to gamble--this is where regulatory bodies become interested. I sometimes wonder what would have happened to antsports or phenoms--should they have had to have gambling licences and complied with gaming commission laws. I honestly have no idea--but I'm wondering if there would have been any protections the the effected players should that have been the case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The notion that DFS is a game of "skill" and not "gambling" is ridiculous. The same kind of information and algorithms that DFS sharks use to create optimal lineups can also be used to simulate/calculate/predict scores for actaul NFL games that could be used for sports betting---and we have no problem to consider that gambling. What are we trying to say here--if you use data to predict a game score and place a bet--it's gambling--but if you use data to predict an individuals stats to place a bet---it's skill? Not only that--if it is truly a game of skill---then why do most of the fantasy websites require that players be a minimum of 18 years old? Last I checked--are games of skill only available to legal adults?
Lol flawless logic here
Be careful--you might want to limit the amount of content you put to back up your opinion. The mountains of examples and data that you used to back up your opinion -and to attempt to "clown" mine -are hard to navigate through. Pardon my sarcasm--but I personally find it annoying when people post things to try to "clown" or "disagree" with other peoples opinions--without contributing anything of relevance to back up why they are doing so. Feel free to disagree with me (or anybody else) all you want--but if you are going to attempt to do so--please at least contribute something of value to the discussion. "Lol" doesn't quite cut it.
My problem with your statement is you seem to assume that it cant be both gambling and a game of skill. Poker is gambling but also is a game of skill even blackjack is both gambling and a game of skill. Most games played for money are both IMO unless its something like Chess where there is no luck involved. Also limiting it to only those 18 and over makes senses regardless since those under 18 in most cases cant enter into contracts and thus legally could attempt to void any payments and losses made to a DFS site.
I appreciate your post and your opinion. You bring up some solid points. I totally agree that skill and gambling are not "mutually exclusive". The fact of the matter is that virtually everything can be "gambled on". The issue here is how DFS/fantasy should be regulated (if at all). The other thing to consider here is that the fantasy world (including DFS) is becoming more and more institutionalized. Using your examples--poker and blackjack (both games that involve skill--you can get better at them if you practice and play more)--if I were to open up a poker/blackjack parlor in my city--do you not think that I should get a gaming licence and be in compliance with the local gaming commissions? That is the issue that we are talking about here. The fact that people are wagering on a game (even if it's a game of skill) automatically makes it gambling. It's no different than sports betting. Instead of betting on a real team--you are creating a "hypothetical" team and betting on that. I think the legal adult part of your post makes a ton of sense--and I think that the age restrictions obviously exist to protect thei DFS compaiies interests in the "wagering" aspect of DFS--which is the gambling aspect of it.They key here is the institutionalized part that I brought up earlier. If I were to have a random poker night with some of my buddies at my house for $50 twice a year---I can't imagine that the authorities would want to get involved in enforcing gambling laws for in essense "a poker night with the buddies".. I also don't see them being interested in enforcing the $25 fantasy buy in leagues at work..etc. However--when you have institutions that are appealing to the masses to gamble--this is where regulatory bodies become interested. I sometimes wonder what would have happened to antsports or phenoms--should they have had to have gambling licences and complied with gaming commission laws. I honestly have no idea--but I'm wondering if there would have been any protections the the effected players should that have been the case.
I absolutely agree that DFS needs to be regulated and that although both are gambling there is a big difference between DFS and year long leagues is almost all cases. I enjoy DFS and have made a nice ROI on it although on small wagering amount but have no problem with regulation. My issue is when people, not saying you, paint DFS as some kind of evil that is going to destroy FF and is only winnable by pros who win all the money while the small money players all go broke.

 
182 in, 290 out. Close to 60% ROI. Someone please protect me from these pros taking advantage of me.

Big props to MT for helping put someone more cash in my pocket.
I don't think anybody said that you were a bad DFS player or that Maurile wasn't a great fantasy mind. Congrats to you and Maurile for your successes--and I truly mean that. The issue here is of if DFS (something that is clearly gambling) should be regulated as if it was gambling. Of course--people like you or Maurile (who are benefiiciaries of this lack of regulation) would prefer that things remain the way that they are. However---don't let your success--and Maurlies great fantasy mind (and his success) blur your vision from what the non-dfs guys are saying here. Nobody is saying that you, Maurile or any other random player cannot be successful--so there is zero need to advertise your results--as it doesn't contribute any anything of value to this conversation. In fact--it only makes your position look more self serving. "hey--we should regulate something that is clearly gambling--as if it weren't gambling--because I can turn an easy profit".Facts are facts--and the facts clearly show that people like you and Maurile are in a very small minority when it comes to successes in DFS. The facts show that the high volume pros with lineup optimizing software are winning the vast majority of the payouts. The fact that you have won--or that Maurile can help people win more easily---doesn't change these facts or dynamics. The only thing that it shows is that you guys are good fantasy players, that represent the small minority that tend to win playing DFS--and for that I say well done and congrats.

By the way--as a side note--I want to make clear that I view all fantasy sports as gambling (season long and DFS)--and I have no problem with gambling. However--I do believe that gambling needs to be regulated.
I agree with you that some regulation or oversight would be welcomed. I've always done well in season long ff and took a beating in threads around here when I say it's more than 50% luck. I have no problem calling regular ff gambling much less dfs. Many of these season long ff contests cost $350+ to enter. I find it amusing that some on a ff board have sacred cows like season long ff but then a totally different opinion of dfs.

The reason why I'm posting results is because several disputed MTS claims that the average player could compete against the pros. If fact several got down right ugly with him claiming that he was posting inaccurate information because he made money in dfs. Several posters were saying dfs is a losing proposition versus the pros. That's simply not true

You stated that I'm a good ff player. Thanks for the compliment, but being "good" or let's say successful at dfs comes down to three things.

1. Being smart about where you enter your money. Overlays are obvious, but Thur-Mon slates are another example. You can take advantage of some people's tendencies to over invest in Thursday night player's and their failure to read the injury reports.

2. Reading the threads in the dfs forum and the shark pool. I didn't know Diggs from a hole in the ground. He was a "cheap" play last week that allow for me to load up my daily lineup with studs.

3. Using the fbg projection and IVC tools. It's been verified that Dodds is one of the best in the industry when it comes to projections. He's good enough to overcome the rake. The tools fbg provides will basically build a lineup for you. Pick two guys you like and push a button to get an optimized lineup. Where I listened to their tools last week (Chanderiwick), I was very successful.

The pros are better at dfs than me but I don't have to chose to battle in their arena. The time may come where the odds of winning aren't stacked in my favor and at that time I'll quit. Daily basketball is a prime example of an area I quit when it became obvious that I wasn't good enough to compete successfully.
the fact that you are posting on a ff message board pretty much means you are way more dedicated than the average player. But we're sort of talking past the real point of the companies themselves were acting unscrupulously.

I think all gambling should be legal. I don't think that fanduel or draft kings have acted in good faith and should be punished for utilizing inside information to their own benefit.

 
Does anyone think it shouldn't be regulated? I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Exactly. Ppl are talking like regulation is going to hurt or even kill dfs which is rediculous. Regulation will help to legitimize dfs and it will grow.

 
182 in, 290 out. Close to 60% ROI. Someone please protect me from these pros taking advantage of me.

Big props to MT for helping put someone more cash in my pocket.
I don't think anybody said that you were a bad DFS player or that Maurile wasn't a great fantasy mind. Congrats to you and Maurile for your successes--and I truly mean that. The issue here is of if DFS (something that is clearly gambling) should be regulated as if it was gambling. Of course--people like you or Maurile (who are benefiiciaries of this lack of regulation) would prefer that things remain the way that they are. However---don't let your success--and Maurlies great fantasy mind (and his success) blur your vision from what the non-dfs guys are saying here. Nobody is saying that you, Maurile or any other random player cannot be successful--so there is zero need to advertise your results--as it doesn't contribute any anything of value to this conversation. In fact--it only makes your position look more self serving. "hey--we should regulate something that is clearly gambling--as if it weren't gambling--because I can turn an easy profit".Facts are facts--and the facts clearly show that people like you and Maurile are in a very small minority when it comes to successes in DFS. The facts show that the high volume pros with lineup optimizing software are winning the vast majority of the payouts. The fact that you have won--or that Maurile can help people win more easily---doesn't change these facts or dynamics. The only thing that it shows is that you guys are good fantasy players, that represent the small minority that tend to win playing DFS--and for that I say well done and congrats.

By the way--as a side note--I want to make clear that I view all fantasy sports as gambling (season long and DFS)--and I have no problem with gambling. However--I do believe that gambling needs to be regulated.
I agree with you that some regulation or oversight would be welcomed. I've always done well in season long ff and took a beating in threads around here when I say it's more than 50% luck. I have no problem calling regular ff gambling much less dfs. Many of these season long ff contests cost $350+ to enter. I find it amusing that some on a ff board have sacred cows like season long ff but then a totally different opinion of dfs.

The reason why I'm posting results is because several disputed MTS claims that the average player could compete against the pros. If fact several got down right ugly with him claiming that he was posting inaccurate information because he made money in dfs. Several posters were saying dfs is a losing proposition versus the pros. That's simply not true

You stated that I'm a good ff player. Thanks for the compliment, but being "good" or let's say successful at dfs comes down to three things.

1. Being smart about where you enter your money. Overlays are obvious, but Thur-Mon slates are another example. You can take advantage of some people's tendencies to over invest in Thursday night player's and their failure to read the injury reports.

2. Reading the threads in the dfs forum and the shark pool. I didn't know Diggs from a hole in the ground. He was a "cheap" play last week that allow for me to load up my daily lineup with studs.

3. Using the fbg projection and IVC tools. It's been verified that Dodds is one of the best in the industry when it comes to projections. He's good enough to overcome the rake. The tools fbg provides will basically build a lineup for you. Pick two guys you like and push a button to get an optimized lineup. Where I listened to their tools last week (Chanderiwick), I was very successful.

The pros are better at dfs than me but I don't have to chose to battle in their arena. The time may come where the odds of winning aren't stacked in my favor and at that time I'll quit. Daily basketball is a prime example of an area I quit when it became obvious that I wasn't good enough to compete successfully.
the fact that you are posting on a ff message board pretty much means you are way more dedicated than the average player.But we're sort of talking past the real point of the companies themselves were acting unscrupulously.

I think all gambling should be legal. I don't think that fanduel or draft kings have acted in good faith and should be punished for utilizing inside information to their own benefit.
I've seen this mentioned several times. I know they have access to information, but have it been proven it's been utilized for their own benefit?

 
The notion that DFS is a game of "skill" and not "gambling" is ridiculous. The same kind of information and algorithms that DFS sharks use to create optimal lineups can also be used to simulate/calculate/predict scores for actaul NFL games that could be used for sports betting---and we have no problem to consider that gambling. What are we trying to say here--if you use data to predict a game score and place a bet--it's gambling--but if you use data to predict an individuals stats to place a bet---it's skill? Not only that--if it is truly a game of skill---then why do most of the fantasy websites require that players be a minimum of 18 years old? Last I checked--are games of skill only available to legal adults?
Lol flawless logic here
Be careful--you might want to limit the amount of content you put to back up your opinion. The mountains of examples and data that you used to back up your opinion -and to attempt to "clown" mine -are hard to navigate through. Pardon my sarcasm--but I personally find it annoying when people post things to try to "clown" or "disagree" with other peoples opinions--without contributing anything of relevance to back up why they are doing so. Feel free to disagree with me (or anybody else) all you want--but if you are going to attempt to do so--please at least contribute something of value to the discussion. "Lol" doesn't quite cut it.
Some opinions are just so fully developed that any argument is futile. I mean its 18 yrs old plus, lock it up.

 
1) We've already discovered that the vast majority in this thread who play DFS is making money. Very impressive to be in the company of so many outliers.
What's impressive is that so many people are not only able to win more often than they lose but are also able to pay the 10% vig and make a profit.
I have made a profit. That is the truth. Cute replies are not going to change that. I cannot speak for the "vast majority of people", but there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous about me staying I have made money off DFS. It seems to bother some people that everyone is not losing.
Amen to this. Im not killing it, but I am profitable and having a great time playing. No clue why so many people find that so offensive.
The advertising bombardment is what is offensive and I, for one, hope the DFS industry crumbles because of it.
AMEN.

It's bordering on insanity.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top