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

[Maurile Tremblay]

Most games played for money are both IMO unless its something like Chess where there is no luck involved.

I've gotten lucky at chess before. You know how, when you make a move, your analysis is sometimes woefully incomplete and the result ends up being much worse than you'd anticipated? I've done that lots of times; but more relevantly, I've also done just the opposite a few times. I've made a move based on woefully incomplete analysis and lucked into some undeservedly good results.

"Huh. That puts you in check? I totally missed that that. And it's mate in three, you say? I didn't see that at all. I was only trying to get my knight out of danger, but okay, I accept your resignation."

 

[Marauder]

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?

That's part of the problem when you are dealing with private companies in a totally unregulated industry. Of course, we can't prove it one way or the other. We're relying on the companies word on it.

 

[BoulderBob]

Exactly, I wasn't born yesterday, I know some of these pros that work for these companies benefited from inside information. I'd be an idiot to believe otherwise. Industry needs an overhaul, and it's right around the corner.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

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.

I have never said to "lock" DFS up--I have zero problem with it existing and thriving--as long as it's regulated properly. I only brought up the age concern in response to people completely overlooking the gambling aspect of DFS and saying it was strictly a game of skill. I think my points in this thread are well documented and are far more thought out than you taking a snapshot of one of my quotes--misinterpreting it--and then trying to clown me as if that was my entire opinion.

 

[cvnpoka]

Lock it up as in end the argument and close the thread bc you nailed it. I mean, 18 yrs old.

 

[cvnpoka]

I do find it pretty hilarious that the ppl hoping dfs is made illegal so it doesnt hurt season ff, have the audacity to call the dfs industry self serving

 

[JamieMurphy]

I do find it pretty hilarious that the ppl hoping dfs is made illegal so it doesnt hurt season ff, have the audacity to call the dfs industry self serving

I don't think anyone says make it illegal, just regulated so employees of the industry and their friends can't benefit from information not available to everyone.

Definitely make advertising DFS on TV illegal, though. I think that would make 95% of DFS detractors happy.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I do find it pretty hilarious that the ppl hoping dfs is made illegal so it doesnt hurt season ff, have the audacity to call the dfs industry self serving

You seriously might want to go back and re-read through this thread--because it really seems like you are misinterpreting a large portion of the opinions here. There is a giant difference between something being "regulated" and something being "illegal". The opinions of the vast majority of people on this thread that don't seem pro-DFS is not that they think it should be flat out illegal--they think it should be regulated. Most understand that this regulation can possibly spill over to the world of regular season long fantasy sports. The only reason why some of the pro-dfs guys are being called out for being self-serving is because anybody who admits that there is a "gambling" element involved in DFS--but doesn't want it to be regulated as "gambling"--solely because they have been profitable at it--is self serving by definition. Is your stance that there is no gambling element at all to DFS?

 

[Rimez]

STOP the Commercials !!!!!

It's enough already

this crap is ruining my 20 year old " Hobby"

ive started playing some DFS on the weekends and its pretty fun. BUT, the commercials are getting worse as they slowly run out of demographics. first it was the young cool guys outsmarting their buddies, then it was the introvert computer nerds playing it like an excel spreadsheet, then it was the big wall street broker types treating DFS like an investment, now they have commercials with dads on the couch picking up his kids to celebrate TDs (cringe). soon the commercials will be a group of middle aged housewives sitting around a beauty salon under hair dryers picking their lineups on cell phones.

 

[Marauder]

One other thing I want to mention. A lot has been made of the announcement the DK made that Haskell has been cleared of any wrongdoing by an external auditor. The problem I have with this is not that I don't believe the results, but that the investigation seems way to narrow. It sounds like they asked the question: "Did Haskell use the information he had to gain an advantage in the FD tourney he won?" I think I posted in this thread (or one of these threads) weeks ago that focusing on that question misses the bigger picture. What I would like to see is for both companies to hire a respected data security firm to do a complete audit of their internal data security to ensure that no employees have access to any data they don't need to specifically do their job, that they have the necessary safeguards in place to protect their data, that they do IP checks and take whatever other precautions they can to, as much as possible, ensure that Employees are not playing on their own site, etc.

Having worked for many years in IT for companies in regulated industries where these kinds of data security audits are done on a regular basis, it seems unfathomable to me that these companies seem not to have done this yet.

 

[MattFancy]

Well this is interesting: http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/10/28/nfl-yahoo-online-broadcast-ray-lewis-book-espn-interview

"4. I think I can report for The MMQB that ESPN has advised those directly covering daily fantasy not to participate in any cash prize contests."

 

[GreenNGold]

One other thing I want to mention. A lot has been made of the announcement the DK made that Haskell has been cleared of any wrongdoing by an external auditor. The problem I have with this is not that I don't believe the results, but that the investigation seems way to narrow. It sounds like they asked the question: "Did Haskell use the information he had to gain an advantage in the FD tourney he won?" I think I posted in this thread (or one of these threads) weeks ago that focusing on that question misses the bigger picture. What I would like to see is for both companies to hire a respected data security firm to do a complete audit of their internal data security to ensure that no employees have access to any data they don't need to specifically do their job, that they have the necessary safeguards in place to protect their data, that they do IP checks and take whatever other precautions they can to, as much as possible, ensure that Employees are not playing on their own site, etc.

Having worked for many years in IT for companies in regulated industries where these kinds of data security audits are done on a regular basis, it seems unfathomable to me that these companies seem not to have done this yet.

Agreed. That is the big picture and the issue I'm concerned with. The Haskell thing is minor in comparison, it just brought this into the spotlight.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

One other thing I want to mention. A lot has been made of the announcement the DK made that Haskell has been cleared of any wrongdoing by an external auditor. The problem I have with this is not that I don't believe the results, but that the investigation seems way to narrow. It sounds like they asked the question: "Did Haskell use the information he had to gain an advantage in the FD tourney he won?" I think I posted in this thread (or one of these threads) weeks ago that focusing on that question misses the bigger picture.

Yes. DraftKings treated this like a PR problem rather than a genuine possible cheating problem -- because, from the beginning, that's what they knew this was. DraftKings knew by checking its logs that Ethan didn't have the info in time to use it. The only reason DraftKings hired a third-party auditor was that they already knew what the findings would be (because DraftKings had already done its own investigation). Hiring an auditor was strictly a PR move, not a "let's finally get to the bottom of this" move.

It was a needed PR move, so I don't blame them for doing it. But it was never intended as anything other than that. If there was any chance that there was any actual wrongdoing, DraftKings wouldn't have let an auditor near the place. They would have fired Ethan and made him the scapegoat, not stood behind him while inviting outside scrutiny.

So you're right that the investigation focused on the wrong thing. But that's because the headlines focused on the wrong thing. The headlines were all about the "insider trading" "cheating" scandal -- which even many in this thread gave credence to -- so that's what the investigation PR move focused on in response.

There are, of course, larger issues with real legitimacy that are left largely unaddressed.

What I would like to see is for both companies to hire a respected data security firm to do a complete audit of their internal data security to ensure that no employees have access to any data they don't need to specifically do their job, that they have the necessary safeguards in place to protect their data, that they do IP checks and take whatever other precautions they can to, as much as possible, ensure that Employees are not playing on their own site, etc.

Having worked for many years in IT for companies in regulated industries where these kinds of data security audits are done on a regular basis, it seems unfathomable to me that these companies seem not to have done this yet.

I totally agree.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The only reason why some of the pro-dfs guys are being called out for being self-serving is because anybody who admits that there is a "gambling" element involved in DFS--but doesn't want it to be regulated as "gambling"--solely because they have been profitable at it--is self serving by definition.

I don't understand this claim. DFS players who think regulation would benefit DFS players will call for regulation. DFS players who think regulation would be bad for DFS players will oppose regulation. (Both sides can make plenty of good points supporting their respective positions.) In what way is either group being more self-serving than the other?

As a DFS player, I want what's good for the industry as a whole, especially including the players. (Without a DFS industry, there are no DFS players.)

People calling for "regulation" in the abstract without specifying what they have in mind are just blowing hot air. DFS sites are already "regulated" insofar as they have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and whatnot, but that's obviously not what people mean. It's hard to say what they do mean, though.

If they mean that sites should be required to keep player accounts separate from operating funds, I'm down with that. If they mean that employees of sites should not be able to play at those sites, I'm down with that. If they mean that anyone who plays DFS in Pennsylvania must do so through a brick-and-mortar Pennsylvania casino, I think that's really stupid.

Do I favor regulation? It depends on what the regulation consists of.

 

[Sabertooth]

Gambling addicts crack me up. You guys

 

[ChuckLiddell]

Gambling addicts crack me up. You guys

Wow. Is every person in a bar an alcoholic? Everyone who smokes weed a drug addict? Everyone who likes to have sex a sex addict? Do they crack you up too? Strange post all around.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

The only reason why some of the pro-dfs guys are being called out for being self-serving is because anybody who admits that there is a "gambling" element involved in DFS--but doesn't want it to be regulated as "gambling"--solely because they have been profitable at it--is self serving by definition.

I don't understand this claim. DFS players who think regulation would benefit DFS players will call for regulation. DFS players who think regulation would be bad for DFS players will oppose regulation. (Both sides can make plenty of good points supporting their respective positions.) In what way is either group being more self-serving than the other?As a DFS player, I want what's good for the industry as a whole, especially including the players. (Without a DFS industry, there are no DFS players.)

People calling for "regulation" in the abstract without specifying what they have in mind are just blowing hot air. DFS sites are already "regulated" insofar as they have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and whatnot, but that's obviously not what people mean. It's hard to say what they do mean, though.

If they mean that sites should be required to keep player accounts separate from operating funds, I'm down with that. If they mean that employees of sites should not be able to play at those sites, I'm down with that. If they mean that anyone who plays DFS in Pennsylvania must do so through a brick-and-mortar Pennsylvania casino, I think that's really stupid.

Do I favor regulation? It depends on what the regulation consists of.

I think the point is that you have businesses that clearly should be categorized as part of the "gaming industry" that are using a loophole to "end around" the typical "regulations" that the gaming industry requires. I work in an industry that has massive insurance, employee guideline, restrictions of what we can purchase or sell--and I have no choice but to comply with these regulations--even if they make doing business more difficult. It is what it is. If I were to attempt to paint my business into looking like it is something that it isn't to end around these regulations--it would be self serving of me to do so. It's just like paying taxes. We all need to do it--but none of us wants to do it. I think that everybody would agree that there is a giant "gaming/gambling" element to the world of fantasy/DFS and for supporters of it to not want it subject to local "gaming regulations" is completely self serving. With that being said--there is nothing wrong with being self serving--as we all try to do what is best for us. I don't know why people would get offended for being called out for their selfish tendencies--as we all have some. With that being said---I am not familiar with all of the regulations that are involved in the world of gaming--but I would think that the DFS/fantasy world world regulations would have to be based on those.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the point is that you have businesses that clearly should be categorized as part of the "gaming industry" that are using a loophole to "end around" the typical "regulations" that the gaming industry requires.

I don't think that's true. At the federal level, there are no regulations for the gaming industry. There's a ban on interstate sports betting (with an exemption for fantasy sports), but I wouldn't call that a regulation. It's a flat-out ban. There are also regulations involving transferring money into and out of online gaming sites (aimed mainly at financial institutions), but those regulations do apply to DFS.

I don't think there are any loopholes for any state or local regulations.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I think the point is that you have businesses that clearly should be categorized as part of the "gaming industry" that are using a loophole to "end around" the typical "regulations" that the gaming industry requires.

I don't think that's true. At the federal level, there are no regulations for the gaming industry. There's a ban on interstate sports betting (with an exemption for fantasy sports), but I wouldn't call that a regulation. It's a flat-out ban. There are also regulations involving transferring money into and out of online gaming sites (aimed mainly at financial institutions), but those regulations do apply to DFS.

I don't think there are any loopholes for any state or local regulations.

Okay--take it to a local level then. My business is subject to the local regulatory laws as well. Let's take a look at Nevada before they "paused" the DFS industry and said they need a gaming license. Before they did so--do you think there were more regulations on gaming companies like Caesars Palace, or MGM versus Fanduel/Draftkings? I think the answer here is obvious. Have you ever seen a DFS commercial that even attempts to disclose how their products might not be safe for people with gambling addictions? Have you ever seen them even attempt to feature "gamblers anonymous" information on their websites should somebody take DFS too far? Let's say somebody plays DFS--and they feel like they've been cheated out of a prize--who would they call? If somebody felt like they were cheated out of a win in Vegas--they can take their issue up with the Nevada gaming commission. Call it what you want--paint it the way you want to paint it--the DFS and fantasy industry has been getting away with regulatory murder compared to other gaming companies. Do you not agree with that?

 

[LawFitz]

There is a federal BAN on interstate gambling. If they remove the fantasy exemption, say goodbye to DFS, except via local casinos or foreign websites.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's take a look at Nevada before they "paused" the DFS industry and said they need a gaming license. Before they did so--do you think there were more regulations on gaming companies like Caesars Palace, or MGM versus Fanduel/Draftkings?

I think I largely agree with the point you're trying to make. You're just phrasing it in a way that leads me to disagree.

I can sign onto this:

1. A lot of states have laws that make operating blackjack or roulette games a lot more difficult (often impossible) than operating fantasy sports contests (including DFS), even though they all belong in the same broad category of "gambling."

2. Some states have ambiguous laws that arguably (but not certainly) should make operating fantasy sports contests (including DFS) just as difficult as operating certain other gambling games, but those laws have either been interpreted not to apply to fantasy sports, or have just not been enforced with respect to fantasy sports. This seems to be changing here and there.

3. For the states that treat roulette and fantasy sports differently -- whether because of what laws are on the books, or because of how such laws are interpreted or enforced -- maybe they shouldn't. Or maybe they should treat roulette and season-long fantasy sports differently, but not roulette and DFS.

4. Most states do not "regulate" gambling so much as ban it. So if you want roulette and fantasy sports (or just DFS) to be treated the same, we're talking about banning fantasy sports (or just DFS). That's pretty stupid, IMO. But I think roulette should be legal as well.

Have you ever seen a DFS commercial that even attempts to disclose how their products might not be safe for people with gambling addictions? Have you ever seen them even attempt to feature "gamblers anonymous" information on their websites should somebody take DFS too far?

No, DFS sites typically deny that DFS is gambling. If you think sites should have gamblers anonymous information on their sites, I don't necessarily disagree (although I have no idea how effective that is). If that's what you mean by "regulation," I'm on board. That's not what I think most people mean, but it's hard to say because they seldom offer specifics.

Let's say somebody plays DFS--and they feel like they've been cheated out of a prize--who would they call?

Their lawyer and maybe the state attorney general, same as if McDonald's cheated them out of something in the Monopoly Sweepstakes.

If somebody felt like they were cheated out of a win in Vegas--they can take their issue up with the Nevada gaming commission.

Yes. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Nevada Gaming Commission, but from the stories I've heard, it pretty much always sides with casinos. It's generally accused of being in the pocket of the casinos. This is not completely unexpected, and may be one of the drawbacks to regulation.

Call it what you want--paint it the way you want to paint it--the DFS and fantasy industry has been getting away with regulatory murder compared to other gaming companies. Do you not agree with that?

You are still phrasing things in a way calculated to get me to disagree with you (the DFS industry has not been "getting away" with anything, much less any kind of murder), but I'd agree that there are a number of possible regulations that could be beneficially applied to the DFS industry -- very preferably at the federal level while superseding any state regulations.

Among them:

1. Possibly have gamblers' anonymous info in ads and on websites, depending on how effective that actually is.

2. Require that player funds be held in segregated accounts that cannot be used for operations (and perhaps cannot be used to satisfy judgments by creditors).

3. Maybe require that the rake be stated explicitly instead of making players do math to figure it out.

4. Require some kind of ID check to verify that players are over 18.

5. Prohibit the false advertising about deposit bonuses (when they clear so slowly).

I'm sure we can all think of other stuff as well.

What I oppose completely are money grabs by state or local governments, or protection of local gambling businesses from out-of-state competition, which is what's going on in Nevada and Pennsylvania.

 

[BassNBrew]

There is a federal BAN on interstate gambling. If they remove the fantasy exemption, say goodbye to DFS, except via local casinos or foreign websites.

And the mfl10s and fpc and possibly league safe.

 

[LawFitz]

There is a federal BAN on interstate gambling. If they remove the fantasy exemption, say goodbye to DFS, except via local casinos or foreign websites.

And the mfl10s and fpc and possibly league safe.

I've heard talk of adding a time element to the exemption. Thay would save the baby and only throw out the bathwater.

 

[jabarony]

Let's take a look at Nevada before they "paused" the DFS industry and said they need a gaming license. Before they did so--do you think there were more regulations on gaming companies like Caesars Palace, or MGM versus Fanduel/Draftkings?

I think I largely agree with the point you're trying to make. You're just phrasing it in a way that leads me to disagree.

I can sign onto this:

1. A lot of states have laws that make operating blackjack or roulette games a lot more difficult (often impossible) than operating fantasy sports contests (including DFS), even though they all belong in the same broad category of "gambling."

2. Some states have ambiguous laws that arguably (but not certainly) should make operating fantasy sports contests (including DFS) just as difficult as operating certain other gambling games, but those laws have either been interpreted not to apply to fantasy sports, or have just not been enforced with respect to fantasy sports. This seems to be changing here and there.

3. For the states that treat roulette and fantasy sports differently -- whether because of what laws are on the books, or because of how such laws are interpreted or enforced -- maybe they shouldn't. Or maybe they should treat roulette and season-long fantasy sports differently, but not roulette and DFS.

4. Most states do not "regulate" gambling so much as ban it. So if you want roulette and fantasy sports (or just DFS) to be treated the same, we're talking about banning fantasy sports (or just DFS). That's pretty stupid, IMO. But I think roulette should be legal as well.

Have you ever seen a DFS commercial that even attempts to disclose how their products might not be safe for people with gambling addictions? Have you ever seen them even attempt to feature "gamblers anonymous" information on their websites should somebody take DFS too far?

No, DFS sites typically deny that DFS is gambling. If you think sites should have gamblers anonymous information on their sites, I don't necessarily disagree (although I have no idea how effective that is). If that's what you mean by "regulation," I'm on board. That's not what I think most people mean, but it's hard to say because they seldom offer specifics.

Let's say somebody plays DFS--and they feel like they've been cheated out of a prize--who would they call?

Their lawyer and maybe the state attorney general, same as if McDonald's cheated them out of something in the Monopoly Sweepstakes.

If somebody felt like they were cheated out of a win in Vegas--they can take their issue up with the Nevada gaming commission.

Yes. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Nevada Gaming Commission, but from the stories I've heard, it pretty much always sides with casinos. It's generally accused of being in the pocket of the casinos. This is not completely unexpected, and may be one of the drawbacks to regulation.

Call it what you want--paint it the way you want to paint it--the DFS and fantasy industry has been getting away with regulatory murder compared to other gaming companies. Do you not agree with that?

You are still phrasing things in a way calculated to get me to disagree with you, but I'd agree that there are a number of possible regulations that could be beneficially applied to the DFS industry -- very preferably at the federal level that supersedes any state regulations.

Among them:

1. Possibly have gamblers' anonymous info in ads and on websites, depending on how effective that actually is.

2. Require that player funds be held in segregated accounts that cannot be used for operations (and perhaps cannot be used to satisfy judgments by creditors).

3. Maybe require that the rake be stated explicitly instead of making players do math to figure it out.

4. Require some kind of ID check to verify that players are over 18.

5. Prohibit the false advertising about deposit bonuses (when they clear so slowly).

I'm sure we can all think of other stuff as well.

What I oppose completely are money grabs by state or local governments, or protection of local gambling businesses from out-of-state competition, which is what's going on in Nevada and Pennsylvania.

6. Make ownership %'s public so DFS employee's do not have an advantage over their customers.

7. Not self-regulate i.e. "we hired an auditor and he found nothing wrong".

 

[Short Corner]

I do find it pretty hilarious that the ppl hoping dfs is made illegal so it doesnt hurt season ff, have the audacity to call the dfs industry self serving

Nobody is saying make it illegal Jethro.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Footballguys DFS Town Hall

 

[BassNBrew]

Gravy train rolls on.

 

[Short Corner]

Footballguys DFS Town Hall

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Footballguys DFS Town Hall

Town hall? A town hall is an informal public meeting where the public gets to discuss/question topics with people of importance relative to that topic. This was no "town hall". This was a flat out "infomercial" for DFS and Football Guys. Apparently the Barber brothers, and that one dude who's weekends are far more interesting now that he's won $351, were not available to be a part of this wonderful production.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Cliff Notes?

Is it basically FBG telling us everything with Draftkings and FanDuel is 100% legit and no one has access to data that the public doesn't have as well?

 

[cheese]

Footballguys DFS Town Hall

Town hall? A town hall is an informal public meeting where the public gets to discuss/question topics with people of importance relative to that topic. This was no "town hall". This was a flat out "infomercial" for DFS and Football Guys. Apparently the Barber brothers, and that one dude who's weekends are far more interesting now that he's won $351, were not available to be a part of this wonderful production.

If it makes you feel any better, the "town hall" they did preseason was also not a town hall. Obviously, FBG has an agenda here but pretty sure they just use that term incorrectly across the board.

 

[jandyt]

Agreed while you can accuse FBG of pimping the DFS industry, the use of town hall meeting is just a general miss use of the term not some attempt to promote it as something it was not.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Thanks for the clarity guys. I'm not a subscriber so I'm glad to see that the use of the word "town hall" wasn't just cherry picked for this particular situation.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Cliff Notes?

Is it basically FBG telling us everything with Draftkings and FanDuel is 100% legit and no one has access to data that the public doesn't have as well?

The idea of the video is for Joe and David to give some honest opinions about daily fantasy. For you guys' benefit - not for the DFS sites. A lot of the content is actually them saying what the industry needs to do to allay those kind of genuine fears.

 

[snellman]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I love how everyone screams that FBG is bowing to the DFS gods and selling the subscriber's souls. The owners do a podcast that gives IMO their honest opinion. One of the biggest things I took away from it was Bryant's statement saying the FBG is taking advertising dollars from the DFS sites, but they are not taking %'s of players entries. It is flat advertising $, could they have made more had they taken the %? Probably, but they didn't chose that route for reasons that Joe elaborated on.

I really need to stay out of this thread, the negativity is dragging.

 

[Warrior]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I love how everyone screams that FBG is bowing to the DFS gods and selling the subscriber's souls. The owners do a podcast that gives IMO their honest opinion. One of the biggest things I took away from it was Bryant's statement saying the FBG is taking advertising dollars from the DFS sites, but they are not taking %'s of players entries. It is flat advertising $, could they have made more had they taken the %? Probably, but they didn't chose that route for reasons that Joe elaborated on.

I really need to stay out of this thread, the negativity is dragging.

I'm confused about this and maybe they can clarify.

Did Bryant mean that they also didn't get any $ for FBG members that signed up through their "deposit $20 on ____ and get a 1 year FBG subscription"? Or just that it was a one-time fee for every FBG subscriber that they "sold" to the DFS site?

I also chuckled at this Youtube comment: "Why do I picture tobacco execs debating the hazards of smoking when I watch this?" It's a good point...it's tough to totally trust a "town hall" where all the speakers are being paid directly by the sites/games they are "debating".

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I love how everyone screams that FBG is bowing to the DFS gods and selling the subscriber's souls. The owners do a podcast that gives IMO their honest opinion. One of the biggest things I took away from it was Bryant's statement saying the FBG is taking advertising dollars from the DFS sites, but they are not taking %'s of players entries. It is flat advertising $, could they have made more had they taken the %? Probably, but they didn't chose that route for reasons that Joe elaborated on.

I really need to stay out of this thread, the negativity is dragging.

Nah…you can keep coming back. Hit all nine of my double ups that closed last night. It's not all negative.

 

[GregR]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I love how everyone screams that FBG is bowing to the DFS gods and selling the subscriber's souls. The owners do a podcast that gives IMO their honest opinion. One of the biggest things I took away from it was Bryant's statement saying the FBG is taking advertising dollars from the DFS sites, but they are not taking %'s of players entries. It is flat advertising $, could they have made more had they taken the %? Probably, but they didn't chose that route for reasons that Joe elaborated on.

I really need to stay out of this thread, the negativity is dragging.

I'm confused about this and maybe they can clarify.

Did Bryant mean that they also didn't get any $ for FBG members that signed up through their "deposit $20 on ____ and get a 1 year FBG subscription"? Or just that it was a one-time fee for every FBG subscriber that they "sold" to the DFS site?

I also chuckled at this Youtube comment: "Why do I picture tobacco execs debating the hazards of smoking when I watch this?" It's a good point...it's tough to totally trust a "town hall" where all the speakers are being paid directly by the sites/games they are "debating".

Right, just going on what was said as I don't know much more about this aspect than you. But sounded like FBGs gets paid to run the ad, of course. And if a DFS site chooses to hand out FBG memberships as a promotion, of course they have to pay for them the same as anyone else would. No one is going to let someone else hand out their product for free.

But from what I understood from what Joe said, that's it. FBG doesn't get a percentage of the rake from what the person plays or anything like that.

 

[zeeshan2]

Mike Garafolo

✔@MikeGarafolo

A class action lawsuit filed by attorneys for Redskins WR Pierre Garçon (on behalf of all NFL players) vs FanDuel.

3:02 PM - 30 Oct 2015

https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/660184941343449088

 

[Soulfly3]

Players trying to take down Fanduel

This is so amazingly funny

 

[RC94]

A little more about the class action law suit: http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14011070/pierre-garcon-washington-redskins-leads-class-action-lawsuit-fanduel

 

[jandyt]

A little more about the class action law suit: http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14011070/pierre-garcon-washington-redskins-leads-class-action-lawsuit-fanduel

Had not realized DK had a licensing agreement but FD did not.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Cliff Notes?

Is it basically FBG telling us everything with Draftkings and FanDuel is 100% legit and no one has access to data that the public doesn't have as well?

The idea of the video is for Joe and David to give some honest opinions about daily fantasy. For you guys' benefit - not for the DFS sites. A lot of the content is actually them saying what the industry needs to do to allay those kind of genuine fears.

Watching now. Dodds has a lot of great ideas to improve DFS as a whole. The threads on all the forums here would be better off if he posted those opinions instead of some of the other employees just 100% defending DFS no matter what. My 2 cents.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

i think they were pretty honest in their "town hall". They are a FF business and daily DFS is a big part of FF currently. They openly criticized a lot of the things going on in DFS, it wasn't an infomercial.

I don't think their season long coverage material has suffered as a result, if people don't care about DFS they don't have to read any of those articles.

 

[flapgreen]

:X

 

[BassNBrew]

Lost $2 tonite…Shut It Down.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A little more about the class action law suit: http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14011070/pierre-garcon-washington-redskins-leads-class-action-lawsuit-fanduel

This sounds a little like the lawsuit by college basketball players vs the NCAA for using/selling their likenesses in video games. Does anyone know why this would not apply to overall traditional FF? I may not understand the issue or maybe it's been discussed, if so I'm open ears, thanks.

 

[Short Corner]

Cliff Notes?

Is it basically FBG telling us everything with Draftkings and FanDuel is 100% legit and no one has access to data that the public doesn't have as well?

The idea of the video is for Joe and David to give some honest opinions about daily fantasy. For you guys' benefit - not for the DFS sites. A lot of the content is actually them saying what the industry needs to do to allay those kind of genuine fears.

Watching now. Dodds has a lot of great ideas to improve DFS as a whole. The threads on all the forums here would be better off if he posted those opinions instead of some of the other employees just 100% defending DFS no matter what. My 2 cents.

I agree they brought up some great ideas of how DFS sites can become more transparent and avoid transparency. I thought it was laughaable that in the first three minutes DD is doing mental gymnastics to argue that DFS is not gambling, then Joe follows up using the pronoun 'we' in describing and defending the format.

 

[Jed]

Cliff Notes?

Is it basically FBG telling us everything with Draftkings and FanDuel is 100% legit and no one has access to data that the public doesn't have as well?

The idea of the video is for Joe and David to give some honest opinions about daily fantasy. For you guys' benefit - not for the DFS sites. A lot of the content is actually them saying what the industry needs to do to allay those kind of genuine fears.

Watching now. Dodds has a lot of great ideas to improve DFS as a whole. The threads on all the forums here would be better off if he posted those opinions instead of some of the other employees just 100% defending DFS no matter what. My 2 cents.

I agree they brought up some great ideas of how DFS sites can become more transparent and avoid transparency. I thought it was laughaable that in the first three minutes DD is doing mental gymnastics to argue that DFS is not gambling, then Joe follows up using the pronoun 'we' in describing and defending the set up.

It's mental gymnastics to simply say it's not gambling defined by current law?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Several states do consider it gambling, but did the other states really ever make a ruling whether it really wasn't gambling or did it just happen and take hold without any actual determination ever having been made?