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!
I know what you mean, I'm talking about the principle. People using inside information to profit off of "investing." I guess it is truly "unregulated" but it won't be for long. And whatever this falls under it's definitely prosecutable.BusterTBronco said:
Well, I appreciate this compelling anecdotal evidence that people don't make money on GPPs.
What I was trying to say is that you have to place in the top 1% of a tourament to get into the big prizes, or 90% of the money (which is why people play the tournaments, to try to win the big money) It doesn't matter if there is 1 tournament or a thousand tournaments, you still have to place in the top 1% to win the big prize so of course the top 1% will have the bulk of the money because of the large payouts for placing in the top 1%.
Because a multimillion dollar industry which is the raison d'etre of this site is facing it's first scandal ever?
It seems a lot of people who don't play it have an anger towards it for some reason...
For sure, so instead of getting butt hurt about it, why not join the small percentage?
Depends on your definition of big. There are tournaments that pay 100k to first prize almost every day of the week. NBA, NHL, MLB, CFB, NFL, EPL, MMA, NASCAR, Sure the biggest ones are in NFL but winning 100k is not minor.
Has anyone even ventured to contemplate this, yet? This *scandal* makes no sense for this very reason.
I don't play, and I have zero anger about it.
Ok, that would do it for me. As I understand it, that is NOT the nature of the current issue. Seems like a lot of flimsy assumptions at this point, but it's not the first time the media and public have flipped out without thinking this through very well.
Looks like we are going to get our answer about Ethan and Matthew (PetrGibbons). They have requested every single result from both of their screen names. Wins and losses, money spent vs. money earned, etc.
My understanding was that the employees traded it to each other and with other insiders (on a forum?) since they weren't allowed to play on their own sites? Not sure if that is accurate.
I don't think that's true. i know some people who play and make a lot of money doing it (they use scripts and all the other cheap stuff), but even they admit the whole industry is a train wreck and are trying to milk it for all they can before things fall apart.
An article posts one lineup from one particular week about the ownership percentages of a handful of players on each site and people take it as gospel as they very similar. I'd like to know how similar the ownership percentages actually are.
If he's making those investments based on the "knowledge and research" he's gained in his employment, where said knowledge and research isn't available to the public ... that's pretty much the definition of "insider trading".
I don't think one thing has anything to do with the other. I was only responding to the posts about people losing their minds. I haven't read every post but I've noticed some people who don't play have a real anger about the whole idea of it. I'm not saying that is right or wrong or care much about it one way or the other, just noting an observation.
The knowledge is public afterwards. He also did not play on his own site so it isn't "insider" information.
got ya, i agree. it has to do with the onslaught of advertising, it's annoying the general public.
I think the difference here is your examples represent a translation of learned skill then applied but in this case, it is a translation of data and information applied in the same format.
A research analyst at Fidelity hears from the CFO of a company he follows on Thursday that their quarterly earnings (to be announced publicly next Monday) are gonna miss expectations. He logs onto his account at TD Ameritrade Friday morning and buys a shipload of put options on the stock.The knowledge is public afterwards. He also did not play on his own site so it isn't "insider" information.
That is a good point.
No because that isn't the same thing. The employee only had draftkings knowledge. He didn't have fanduel knowledge.A research analyst at Fidelity hears from the CFO of a company he follows on Thursday that their quarterly earnings (to be announced publicly next Monday) are gonna miss expectations. He logs onto his account at TD Ameritrade Friday morning and buys a shipload of put options on the stock.The knowledge is public afterwards. He also did not play on his own site so it isn't "insider" information.
By your yardstick, he's all good. Right?
If you don't think there's a significant correlation between FD and DK ownership percentages or that having that knowledge ahead of time isn't massively valuable, then I'm not really sure what I'm going to say to convince you.No because that isn't the same thing. The employee only had draftkings knowledge. He didn't have fanduel knowledge.A research analyst at Fidelity hears from the CFO of a company he follows on Thursday that their quarterly earnings (to be announced publicly next Monday) are gonna miss expectations. He logs onto his account at TD Ameritrade Friday morning and buys a shipload of put options on the stock.The knowledge is public afterwards. He also did not play on his own site so it isn't "insider" information.
By your yardstick, he's all good. Right?
Just to be clear, I'm not making any assumptions or accusing anybody of anything. I'm just responding to the idea that people don't understand how it could help.
yeah I was pretty disappointed at how much damage control was done by all of the radio hosts. I could pretty much envision the meeting first thing this morning...don't insult our sponsors, don't have the sheep run for the hills....it's still fun everyone! Keep playing!
I believe that data is valuable but just think this is a little overboard in terms of calling it a scandal for something where the employee didn't break any rules or policies. That may be the more important thing in this, is that it isn't regulated and this can happen as a result.If you don't think there's a significant correlation between FD and DK ownership percentages or that having that knowledge ahead of time isn't massively valuable, then I'm not really sure what I'm going to say to convince you.No because that isn't the same thing. The employee only had draftkings knowledge. He didn't have fanduel knowledge.A research analyst at Fidelity hears from the CFO of a company he follows on Thursday that their quarterly earnings (to be announced publicly next Monday) are gonna miss expectations. He logs onto his account at TD Ameritrade Friday morning and buys a shipload of put options on the stock.The knowledge is public afterwards. He also did not play on his own site so it isn't "insider" information.
By your yardstick, he's all good. Right?
Personally, what I'm convinced of is that "insiders" at FD have been sharing these percentages with their DK counterparts, and vice versa, every single week (or day, in the case of MLB/NBA/NHL). Why? Because human greed knoweth no bounds.
It's odd the issue seemed put to rest there, yet here some of the same posters are still misinformed. % owned is huge. It was posted for both sites in the dfs forum for the 350k winning lineup and the percentages were very close. You do not need precision. You need to know who the high and low percentage owned players are. DK's data provides that for FD contests with NO special math required.
