jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I understand your opinion but I respectfully disagree. The notion that anybody would label two owners getting inverviewed by a paid employee a "town hall" is ridiculous at best. Not only that--when you have two very intelligent grown adults squirm and have difficulty answering the first question "If DFS is gambling" honestly--- it does become an infomercial. Bill Burr gets advertising revenue from Draftkings to do read throughs in his podcast--and he would refer to it as gambling. Draftkings would send him letters pressuring him to not refer to it as gambling--so the notion that companies that only get advertising revenue (and not revenue share) are not controlled by the DFS companies in regards to what they say is false (which is a point that Dodds and Bryant attempt to make) Playing any game for money is gambling period. If they were being honest--they coud have merely said "yes--by definition playing any game for money is gambling. However, our government has a legal carve out that views the world of fantasy sports as not being gambling".
The entire interview has the overtones of "hey--everybody should play DFS--but at appropriate levels--and play appropriate games/contests" which is far different than painting a complete picture of the DFS world. They never once get into what total percentage of DFS players actually turn a profit. They never go into detail about what percentage of the prize pools the big high volume lineup optimizing players have been representing. Yes--I do give them credit for mentioning a few ideas of how they think the DFS industry can improve--but that is far from painting an entire picture in a "town hall" format. I give them credit for the "late swap" ideas, and I do like how they both mention that the volume of lineups be capped. I do think they do under estimate the "corruption" possibilities in the world of DFS-as they only very lightly go over the negative attributes that scripting can be used for.
I also find it telling that they try to act like they always have been on the side of telling the truth--and don't do things for "money" because they frankly don't need the money. They tried to minimize their relationship with DFS companies by saying their relationship is only advertising based---and not revenue shared. In another forum--Dodds mentioned that the last few years--prior to the DFS explosion--the amount of subscriptions being sold was stagnant. They mention that in this interview that they have increased their staff on the DFS side drastically-while not "removing" any staffing from the non-DFS side. While this all sounds great--this essentially means that they have no interest in growing their business/content on the non-DFS side---a clear indication that all of their focus for future business growth is DFS. The FBG guys are essentially betting on DFS and their business is largely dependent on it. There is nothing wrong with this--and I wish them all the greatest of success--as it is well deserved through very hard work. However--for them to accept lots of advertising revenue from DFS--for them to acknowledge that DFS has been great for their subscriber base volume-but to tell us at the same time that what they say is completely "unfiltered" is frankly questionable at best. The number one rule in business is that you don't want to alienate your clients/revenue streams--so by definition they will be motivated to paint the DFS industry in the brightest light possible--while trying to look objective at the same time--and this is exactly what this "town hall"/infomercial is.
I want to make clear that I have no skin in the DFS game--nor in the FBG game--I'm not a subscriber. I do post here in the Shark Pool--and that's basically it. My opinions are based on what my eyes see and what my ears hear. I know there was another thread where non-dfs subscribers were airing out some frustration with the non-dfs content they were getting (and the timeliness of it)---and while Adam responded passionately and showed that he cared for the non-dfs side--Dodds response was less than inviting, sensitive or encouraging. I personally found that his response sounded very disinterested. The fact that he, Bryant, and the shill interviewer took the time to create this--while neither of them spent even 10-20 minutes answering the concerns of the non-dfs subscribers is telling how how vetted they are in DFS and how much it means to them.
In any case---I want to make clear that I'm not a hater nor I against anything the FBG's do. They are hardworking guys that run a business--which is what I do. I just wish they would more publically embrace their obvious relationships and loyalites with the DFS industry. I think that would be a far better look than accepting lots of money from the big DFS companies but trying to act impartial about it. With that being said--maybe them trying to appear impartial might end up being a good thing. My prediction is that if DFS were to continue for the next few years---that it's just a matter of time for some sort of scandal/cheating to be exposed. In this day and age--where cyber crime/hacking are at all time sophisticated levels--I would be shocked if the DFS industry were to completely avoid exposure to this. If and when that happens--it probably won't be a good look for the companies and people that all out supported DFS.
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.
