DFS Scandals in E.F.F.E.C.T (3 Viewers)

[jvdesigns2002]

He's tries to say that it's getting harder for the whales/sharks to win.

I didn't say that at all. I said any specific person should have a higher expected ROI if he enters just a few lineups or contests than if he enters hundreds or thousands. I'm right about that.Is it getting harder for the sharks to win? I hope so. That's our explicit goal here at Footballguys. We want to educate the masses so effectively that the pros can't win anymore. Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence that we've succeeded. The games still seem eminently beatable to me.

He has also referred to online poker as a "hobby" that should still be legal today. Really? So if I play poker in a casino--it's gambling--but if I play it online--it's now a "hobby". Calling it a hobby is a clear indication of self-serving semantics.

It's a hobby either way. I don't see how that's debatable. Hobbies and gambling aren't mutually exclusive. (On my staff bio page, I've been listing poker as one of my hobbies for about 15 years now. How would it not be a hobby?)

First of all--I want to thank you for coming on here and posting on this thread. However--I do think it is telling that you glazed over an entire post--and cherry picked two items and completely ignored the part about "not painting an entire picture". The following is copied and pasted from a post that you made earlier in this thread

"It's actually harder for the pros than it is for the hobbyists. But they compensate by spending way, way, way more hours per week at it than the casual hobbyist does. That's where their advantage comes from."

First of all--that is a base-less "un-provable" statement. There is no way to know how much time and effort any random 'joe" DFS players puts into DFS. I know people that eat, breathe and sleep fantasy--but they are not profitable--and I assure you that they were never a part of any survey that weighs how much work they have put in to their "hobby" as you would say.

Secondly---yes--you might be right--that the word "gambling" and "hobby" aren't mutually exclusive---but one of those words paints an accurate and complete picture of what something is--while the other leaves a vast self-serving grey area. Should an "alcoholic" call themselves a very "passionate hobbyist of consuming alcohol"--is that a clear picture of the truth? I think it's pretty obvious why you would prefer to call DFS (or online poker) a hobby--because I'm sure referring it to "gambling" would be frowned upon by the DFS companies that give you advertising dollars.

Again--I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or any of the FBG's--as I think you are all hard working great people. Like I said--every one of us is self serving to a certain extent--and there is nothing wrong with that. However--I do think that at this very moment--where the politics of the industry--and the future of the industry are being debated--and are ambiguous--that full clarity and an entire picture is more valuable to anybody than just calculated words and omitted facts that work to downplay the risks that currently exist.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

The way MT is defending The scandal here makes me wonder if FBG or others with a large financial stake in those companies don't have insider access to data the average user doesn't have. Because MT is certainly being disingenuous with his claims about the big fish in DFS.

agree. Normally MT is very well reasoned and has valid points. This is honestly embarrassing.

To which part are you agreeing? Because that post is way more embarrassing than anything I've seen from Maurile.

No offense to anyone else on the board, but I consider MT the smartest guy here. Shame to see him putting money first.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing. It's his business and there is a chorus of irresponsible and inappropriate accusations on his company's message board. Everything I've seen from Maurile has been reasonable and understandable. If they all remained silent there would be whining about that.

In my opinion--I think the only thing that Maurile is guilty of is painting an incomplete picture in order to paint the DFS landscape as a far friendlier place than it actually is. Nobody is accusing him of lying---but to me it certainly feels like a lot of facts are being left out by him--and this omission of information--is misleading in my opinion. He's tries to say that it's getting harder for the whales/sharks to win. If this is the case--please show me the breakdown of what percentage of DFS winnings are going to these high volume lineup-optimizing sharks--versus the average/good fantasy player. Let us digest those numbers to see how "hard" it is for them to win. Please tell us what percentage of DFS players actually turn a profit overall. Please show me any data that a regular/good fantasy player has a likelihood of winning in the world of DFS--like their advertisings claim. He has also referred to online poker as a "hobby" that should still be legal today. Really? So if I play poker in a casino--it's gambling--but if I play it online--it's now a "hobby". Calling it a hobby is a clear indication of self-serving semantics. How about online sports wagering---is that a "hobby" too? Not only that---I think that at this very moment in time--where any state could decide to ban or "temporarily" ban DFS--that any advice from an "authority" in the business should have a mention of saying "play DFS cautiously in these ambiguous times". Again---I want to make clear that I'm not trying to impune MT's or any of the FBG's character--as we are all self serving to a certain extent. However--I do think that painting an incomplete picture to motivate people to play DFS in these ambiguous times is worse than painting no picture at all.

This is what you've got? MT is a bad guy misleading people because he called DFS a hobby?!?!?! FFS

And people actually like and agree with this POV?

I have never said MT is a bad person or even hinted anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have always respected the work and efforts of the FBG's and I resent any implication that I impune anything about their character. I merely have a different point of view in how I think they should present the current situation in the world of DFS. Nothing more. Period. Is that clear enough?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Does anyone think it shouldn't be regulated? I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Players obviously need to be protected both against outright fraud and against just bad policies by DFS sites. How to best achieve that is an interesting question.

The libertarian in me is skeptical of regulation for a few reasons, preferring the threat of tort litigation (in the case of fraud) or competition for consumer loyalty (with regard to bad policies).

But what's currently going on with DFS is challenging my libertarian instincts.

In theory, competition among sites should lead to better experiences for consumers. The "insider trading" and "cheating" headlines regarding DraftKings were off base, but there are legitimate questions about which employees have access to what information, subject to what oversight or encryption practices, etc. If DFS players aren't comfortable with DraftKings' policies or transparency on those issues, they can play at another site instead. FantasyScore, for example, provides a live feed of ownership percentages from the time a contest opens. Nobody can have access to secret ownership data because none of it is secret. It's right out in the open. There are good and bad things about this, but the DFS players themselves can make their own choices about what their priorities are and what kind of sites they'll play on.

I say "in theory" because, in practice, it turns out that most DFS players don't pay attention to that kind of stuff. They just sign up wherever they saw an ad and start playing without giving much thought to specific encryption policies or anything else. Why do I say this? Because the single most important thing a DFS player can do to increase his ROI is to find overlays. Why enter a contest in which the average entrant will lose 13% when you can instead play in a contest in which the average entrant will make 24%? The latter contests are not all that difficult to find -- and yet most people mostly play in the former contests.

If people aren't going to spend time looking for sites with overlays, they're surely not going to spend time looking for sites with superior encryption technologies.

So competition for consumer loyalty doesn't seem like as strong a force as I would like it to be. Tort lawsuits are still a good check against fraud and other malfeasance (and several have been filed recently in response to the DraftKings leak), but lawsuits can be horribly inefficient when viewed up close. I'm not really convinced that regulation can't do a better job of policing the sites than the threat of litigation can.

On the other hand, regulation comes with its own set of problems. Most lawmakers are not avid DFS players, so we can't trust that whatever regulations they come up with will be reasonable or even make sense. That's where industry lobbyists come in -- they'll hand legislators drafts of bills written by industry insiders who at least know the subject matter of the regulation. But industry lobbyists don't always have the general public's best interests at heart. (Understatement alert!) It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

So I think your question is a hard one, massraider. There are problems in the DFS industry that the tort system and competition may not solve very well, but that regulation may not solve very well, either. Few things in life are perfect, though, and I expect that we'll muddle through with a combination of all three approaches (regulation, litigation, competition) and it will be messy, but hopefully it will be good enough.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The following is copied and pasted from a post that you made earlier in this thread

"It's actually harder for the pros than it is for the hobbyists. But they compensate by spending way, way, way more hours per week at it than the casual hobbyist does. That's where their advantage comes from."

First of all--that is a base-less "un-provable" statement. There is no way to know how much time and effort any random 'joe" DFS players puts into DFS. I know people that eat, breathe and sleep fantasy--but they are not profitable--and I assure you that they were never a part of any survey that weighs how much work they have put in to their "hobby" as you would say.

It's not baseless. I'm quite confident that it's true.

I know from personal experience how much work it takes to construct a great many lineups and enter a great many contests on a given site. There is no question that entering more contests takes more time and effort than entering fewer contests -- and there is also no question that entering more contests reduces your ROI because it forces you to be less picky about which contests you enter. (It also makes last-minute edits based on the inactive list a tremendous challenge.) If you're going to play more than $10,000 a week, you're not going to be able to just stick to playing overlays. You're going to have to play fully raked games. That's harder.

I also know that the typical casual player is not putting in anywhere near that much effort. How do I know this? Because the typical casual player loses money at DFS. It's almost impossible to have a negative expectation if you devote even just four hours a week to DFS, if you do it intelligently. It's not that hard to submit an above-average lineup if you use decent projections (some are freely available on the web) and a decent lineup optimizer (I believe some may still be free, but I'm not sure -- in any case, there are plenty that aren't very expensive). But you don't even need an above-average lineup to play with a positive expectation. All you need is an average lineup and an overlay (or freeroll). They're there if you look for them.

 

[That one guy]

What *advantage* do the sharks/whales have over the recreational player aside from time and money? In that regard, those 2 things are more like resources than advantages. The recreational player could always pony up more money and put more effort into lineup creation if they wanted to but most likely find such a risk not worth the opportunity cost.

The issue of insider information is important, but is there any accusations of the big players having access to that or is it isolated to the employees of the 2 companies? Either way, that info along with actual submitted lineups are the only type of actual advantage I could see one player having over others. Keeping lineups hidden I get, but has there been an offered explanation as to why ownership percentages aren't made public? Also, I've not looked into it but are player prices concrete once posted? I would assume so, but should confirm.

Lastly, it's gambling, always has been and always will be. Year long leagues are gambling. Anytime you put money up against someone else under the premise of a certain uncontrollable outcome, it's gambling. Investing is a totally different ballgame, but one could certainly argue that those going in it inexperienced and lacking knowledge might be analogous to gambling. It's time this country grew up and quit worrying about how others like to spend their money. Gambling = fun for a lot of people. Gambling addiction = bad for everyone. Alcohol = good for a lot of people. Alcoholism = bad for everyone. But the first part in no way whatsoever necessarily leads to the second. Regulation is good as long as it is focused on keeping everyone on an even playing field; prohibition is downright stupid.

 

[tone1oc]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

 

[BassNBrew]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

 

[tone1oc]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

 

[jandyt]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

Year long fantasy football is also gambling and most people also probably have a negative ROI on it as well. I think the big difference is ROI is seldom the motivation for playing and thus most players don't track it. In my main dynasty league going on its 15th year probably 75% of the 16 members have a negative ROI over there time in league. I have a positive ROI but without going back over each years league website I couldn't tell you what it is because its not the reason I play. I do know(track) my ROI on DFS because while its not the only reason I play it is a key reason I play. I would quit if I had negative ROI over the long term while in my year long league I wouldn't.

And no one can guarantee a positive ROI in a game that is partially luck based. But history would say that some players can feel very confident, although not 100%, about long term positive ROI.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Does anyone think it shouldn't be regulated? I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Players obviously need to be protected both against outright fraud and against just bad policies by DFS sites. How to best achieve that is an interesting question.

The libertarian in me is skeptical of regulation for a few reasons, preferring the threat of tort litigation (in the case of fraud) or competition for consumer loyalty (with regard to bad policies).

But what's currently going on with DFS is challenging my libertarian instincts.

In theory, competition among sites should lead to better experiences for consumers. The "insider trading" and "cheating" headlines regarding DraftKings were off base, but there are legitimate questions about which employees have access to what information, subject to what oversight or encryption practices, etc. If DFS players aren't comfortable with DraftKings' policies or transparency on those issues, they can play at another site instead. FantasyScore, for example, provides a live feed of ownership percentages from the time a contest opens. Nobody can have access to secret ownership data because none of it is secret. It's right out in the open. There are good and bad things about this, but the DFS players themselves can make their own choices about what their priorities are and what kind of sites they'll play on.

I say "in theory" because, in practice, it turns out that most DFS players don't pay attention to that kind of stuff. They just sign up wherever they saw an ad and start playing without giving much thought to specific encryption policies or anything else. Why do I say this? Because the single most important thing a DFS player can do to increase his ROI is to find overlays. Why enter a contest in which the average entrant will lose 13% when you can instead play in a contest in which the average entrant will make 24%? The latter contests are not all that difficult to find -- and yet most people mostly play in the former contests.

If people aren't going to spend time looking for sites with overlays, they're surely not going to spend time looking for sites with superior encryption technologies.

So competition for consumer loyalty doesn't seem like as strong a force as I would like it to be. Tort lawsuits are still a good check against fraud and other malfeasance (and several have been filed recently in response to the DraftKings leak), but lawsuits can be horribly inefficient when viewed up close. I'm not really convinced that regulation can't do a better job of policing the sites than the threat of litigation can.

On the other hand, regulation comes with its own set of problems. Most lawmakers are not avid DFS players, so we can't trust that whatever regulations they come up with will be reasonable or even make sense. That's where industry lobbyists come in -- they'll hand legislators drafts of bills written by industry insiders who at least know the subject matter of the regulation. But industry lobbyists don't always have the general public's best interests at heart. (Understatement alert!) It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

So I think your question is a hard one, massraider. There are problems in the DFS industry that the tort system and competition may not solve very well, but that regulation may not solve very well, either. Few things in life are perfect, though, and I expect that we'll muddle through with a combination of all three approaches (regulation, litigation, competition) and it will be messy, but hopefully it will be good enough.

I have to smile at your dilemma between your ideology and reality, which really points to the short comings of being an ideologue.

Your mention of tort litigation leads me to ask how did that work for those involved the WCOFF incident? Did anyone actually ever get restitution? The other issue with this position is that it requires resources and deep pockets for class action suits, making this course of action available to very few.

Reasonable regulations are the best answer. The problem is that regulations often have unintended consequences, and may require amendments. But too often the knee jerk reaction is too throw out the regulations instead of refining them, or resisting any regulations at all.

 

[Squintz82]

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

 

[Apple Jack]

I take it back. Why bother.

 

[tone1oc]

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

are favorable and positive not interchangeable in this context?

 

[BassNBrew]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

Honestly if you followed his advice to play at Stars earlier this year and used the FBG IVC you couldn't help but have a positive ROI. You had 50/50s that were paying 60%+ of the entires. You have 15000 player contests that were only filling to 10000 people. 2100 player contests only filling to 1500 players. You could be submitting below average lineups and still returning a small ROI. The FBG IVC made it pretty easy to submit an above average lineup.

I half assed things and took out $350 profit on a $100 investment over 3 weeks so I averaged north of 100% ROI per week over 3 weeks.

 

[cstu]

It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports. I believe the money involved is blinding all of the fantasy websites to what they are actually involved with and causing them to ignore the long-term ramifications to the hobby. My concern is that people lose so much money gambling on DFS that it turns them off to fantasy football entirely.

 

[Squintz82]

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

are favorable and positive not interchangeable in this context?

Who guaranteed anything? This is why these arguments are ridiculous.

 

[BassNBrew]

It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports. I believe the money involved is blinding all of the fantasy websites to what they are actually involved with and causing them to ignore the long-term ramifications to the hobby. My concern is that people lose so much money gambling on DFS that it turns them off to fantasy football entirely.

You should drop Hillary for Huckabee.

 

[jandyt]

It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports. I believe the money involved is blinding all of the fantasy websites to what they are actually involved with and causing them to ignore the long-term ramifications to the hobby. My concern is that people lose so much money gambling on DFS that it turns them off to fantasy football entirely.

I agree that DFS is having a negative effect on the quality of information provided by fantasy websites on year long leagues. I would hope though that your final point will prove untrue. I know for me I look at DFS and year long as two separate hobbies of mine. If my DFS play suddenly went south I would quit DFS eventually but it would have no effect on my participation in long term leagues. Actually for me if I stopped playing DFS I might add a long term league or two as I would have more time.

 

[Squintz82]

It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports. I believe the money involved is blinding all of the fantasy websites to what they are actually involved with and causing them to ignore the long-term ramifications to the hobby. My concern is that people lose so much money gambling on DFS that it turns them off to fantasy football entirely.

So you really feel that players that try DFS and don't like it, were originally willing to try season long, but now they aren't?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports.

"Real" fantasy sports is gambling as well. What's wrong with gambling?

 

[tone1oc]

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

are favorable and positive not interchangeable in this context?

Who guaranteed anything? This is why these arguments are ridiculous.

Someone is making a claim that those who are following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI, which is ridiculous.

Not doubting MT probably has a positive ROI, but if you think for one second that a professional gambler is giving away all his secrets and not just feeding the masses some good plays you are foolish.

 

[jandyt]

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

are favorable and positive not interchangeable in this context?

Who guaranteed anything? This is why these arguments are ridiculous.

Someone is making a claim that those who are following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI, which is ridiculous.

Not doubting MT probably has a positive ROI, but if you think for one second that a professional gambler is giving away all his secrets and not just feeding the masses some good plays you are foolish.

Saying that many of those following MT are seeing a positive ROI is different from saying they are guaranteed a positive ROI. I read some of his stuff although I can't say I follow his advice in creating my lineups but I am certainly not a professional gambler and I have a positive ROI every week so far. And feel good about the fact I can maintain a positive ROI over the year although I am sure to have some losing weeks during the season

 

[snellman]

maybe because the vast number of people following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI.

So are we making the claim that players who follow MT's advice are guaranteed a positive ROI?

are favorable and positive not interchangeable in this context?

Who guaranteed anything? This is why these arguments are ridiculous.

Someone is making a claim that those who are following MT's advice are seeing a favorable ROI, which is ridiculous.

Not doubting MT probably has a positive ROI, but if you think for one second that a professional gambler is giving away all his secrets and not just feeding the masses some good plays you are foolish.

I follow MT's advice and I have a positive ROI. Is it a large ROI on the hours I have invested? No, but 1) I am doing the research for my season long anyway and 2) I look at it as a hobby and nothing more. I don't play anything higher than a $5 entry and have not entered the millionaire maker tourneys at all this year. Am I going to get rich doing this? No, and I understand that, but it does give me extra spending money and it also pays for my season long entries.

 

[cstu]

It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports. I believe the money involved is blinding all of the fantasy websites to what they are actually involved with and causing them to ignore the long-term ramifications to the hobby. My concern is that people lose so much money gambling on DFS that it turns them off to fantasy football entirely.

So you really feel that players that try DFS and don't like it, were originally willing to try season long, but now they aren't?

It's purely speculation how it will affect other people getting started in the hobby, but I will say that if I had got my initial introduction to fantasy football by losing money in DFS I probably wouldn't be playing fantasy football today.

 

[cstu]

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports.

"Real" fantasy sports is gambling as well. What's wrong with gambling?

You can frame it any way you want but even though I'm in some $250-$300 dynasty leagues my primary goal is not to win money. I'm in a $20 redraft work league and no one is in it for the big gambling win.

I promise you that in 10 years you'll look back and realize DFS was horrible for health of this hobby.

 

[Squintz82]

It's not uncommon for regulators to end up having their strings pulled by industry puppeteers, and the result of regulation is not consumer protection so much as industry protection. FanDuel and DraftKings will support regulations that make it harder for smaller sites to compete with them, for example; how is that good for the public?

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports. I believe the money involved is blinding all of the fantasy websites to what they are actually involved with and causing them to ignore the long-term ramifications to the hobby. My concern is that people lose so much money gambling on DFS that it turns them off to fantasy football entirely.

So you really feel that players that try DFS and don't like it, were originally willing to try season long, but now they aren't?

It's purely speculation how it will affect other people getting started in the hobby, but I will say that if I had got my initial introduction to fantasy football by losing money in DFS I probably wouldn't be playing fantasy football today.

I'm willing to speculate that when people try things for the first time, they have a reasonable expectation that they aren't going to be great at it. After practice and research, they get better. I also speculate that people that really don't care much for fantasy sports are not that likely to keep playing any platform. But that's just me.

 

[tone1oc]

Amazing that so many in this thread are an outlier. Or just a liar.

 

[Tom Hagen]

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports.

"Real" fantasy sports is gambling as well. What's wrong with gambling?

That's not always true. Many people here play in Zealots leagues in which no money is wagered or won, they simply enjoy the competition. Does anyone play DFS for fun with no money involved?

 

[snellman]

Amazing that so many in this thread are an outlier. Or just a liar.

Why, just because we said we made a few hundred? I lost in NBA last year and what I tried of baseball this summer, I lost also. I have no reason to lie. If you would like, I can scan my 1099 from last year that said I won almost $700 and had to report it on my taxes.

If you don't like it, don't play it, but don't go bashing everyone that does play it.

 

[tone1oc]

Amazing that so many in this thread are an outlier. Or just a liar.

Why, just because we said we made a few hundred? I lost in NBA last year and what I tried of baseball this summer, I lost also. I have no reason to lie. If you would like, I can scan my 1099 from last year that said I won almost $700 and had to report it on my taxes.

If you don't like it, don't play it, but don't go bashing everyone that does play it.

Would you really scan your 1099 and send it to stranger on the internet? Or is that, dare I say, a lie?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Nothing about DFS is good for the public.

It's gambling - pure and simple - and does a disservice to 'real' fantasy sports.

"Real" fantasy sports is gambling as well. What's wrong with gambling?

That's not always true. Many people here play in Zealots leagues in which no money is wagered or won, they simply enjoy the competition. Does anyone play DFS for fun with no money involved?

Yes, people do. I don't know who, exactly, but pretty much every site has free contests (with no prize pool) and people do play.

 

[Apple Jack]

Spit the hook, snell.

The only people I know who play no-money fantasy football are families with children playing.

 

[tone1oc]

Spit the hook, snell.

The only people I know who play no-money fantasy football are families with children playing.

I play in a lot of $50 leagues.. It's enough to ensure people will be diligent with their team but not so much that it's the reason I play. It's a true hobby that can once a year pay out modest gains. Most people that I play fantasy with are not looking at fantasy from an "ROI" perspective.

 

[snellman]

Amazing that so many in this thread are an outlier. Or just a liar.

Why, just because we said we made a few hundred? I lost in NBA last year and what I tried of baseball this summer, I lost also. I have no reason to lie. If you would like, I can scan my 1099 from last year that said I won almost $700 and had to report it on my taxes.

If you don't like it, don't play it, but don't go bashing everyone that does play it.

Would you really scan your 1099 and send it to stranger on the internet? Or is that, dare I say, a lie?

Here is bank roll summary from Rotogrinders since I started playing in 2013

NFL:

Buy Ins $8017.00

Winnings $9607.27
Profit $1590.27
ROI 19.84%
Win Rate 45.34%
Contests Entered 802
Average Buy-In $3.51
Total Entries 2283

NBA:
Buy Ins $6592.00
Winnings $6205.78
Profit $-386.22
ROI -5.86%
Win Rate 36.52%
Contests Entered 1010
Average Buy-In $2.16
Total Entries 3053

MLB:
Buy Ins $1807.00
Winnings $1326.43
Profit $-480.57
ROI -26.59%
Win Rate 36.46%
Contests Entered 463
Average Buy-In $2.04
Total Entries 886

Spit the hook, snell.

The only people I know who play no-money fantasy football are families with children playing.

Yep, time to walk away. I have leagues that I don't play for money in with friends and leagues that I do play for money in. DFS is a fun addition to that, but I also know to some that it will be looked at as the evil stepchild. (commercials this year sure didn't help with that).

 

[JamieMurphy]

I consider season long FF more a game of skill than gambling.

DFS is flat out gambling, IMO.

I love playing FF and play in one high stakes league, but I won't play DFS because I know the odds are against me.

 

[tone1oc]

What's wrong with gambling?

There is nothing wrong with gambling per se..

BUT I will say that while not every person who gambles regularly is sleazy, pretty much every person I know who is sleazy is a gambler. Gambling can be just as addictive and destructive as drugs. It's also illegal in most jurisdictions, and if not, the it is highly regulated.

DraftKings, FanDuel et al are in way over there head as leader's of the industry.

And I can tell you that the "libertarian" BS that many of the DFS advocates are spewing (blaming MSM, big government, special interests) is falling on deaf ears and really makes the DFS community look.... sleazy.

 

[jonessed]

MT is really defending his cashcow in the shark pool

The idea that a firm hired by a corporation to investigate their own corporate malfeasance is "a neutral third-party" is completely absurd.

Well, most companies pick the CPA firm of their choice to do their audits.....this really isn't much different. Definitely not absurd.

There is a pretty big downside to getting caught fudging corporate financial numbers. There is no downside here. There are no regulations, no accountability. It's purely PR.Completely different.

So you really think this third party....independent party....would risk it's reputation and it's livelihood by possibly missing fraud or or other wrong doing solely for a quick payday from DK?Sorry, but you are mistaken. It doesn't work that way.

Of course it does. Their only obligation is to their client who decides what they have access to and how they access it.It's nothing like an audit. The whole process is voluntary with no controls, legal obligations, or repercussions.

 

[Pipes]

MT is really defending his cashcow in the shark pool

The idea that a firm hired by a corporation to investigate their own corporate malfeasance is "a neutral third-party" is completely absurd.

Well, most companies pick the CPA firm of their choice to do their audits.....this really isn't much different. Definitely not absurd.

There is a pretty big downside to getting caught fudging corporate financial numbers. There is no downside here. There are no regulations, no accountability. It's purely PR.Completely different.

So you really think this third party....independent party....would risk it's reputation and it's livelihood by possibly missing fraud or or other wrong doing solely for a quick payday from DK?

Sorry, but you are mistaken. It doesn't work that way.

Audits aren't done to detect fraud. No CPA firm in their right mind will issue a report indicating that no fraudulant activity is occurring. Audits provide reasonable assurance that proper controls are in place to prevent such activity but it's not an absolute.

 

[jandyt]

MT is really defending his cashcow in the shark pool

The idea that a firm hired by a corporation to investigate their own corporate malfeasance is "a neutral third-party" is completely absurd.

Well, most companies pick the CPA firm of their choice to do their audits.....this really isn't much different.Definitely not absurd.

There is a pretty big downside to getting caught fudging corporate financial numbers. There is no downside here. There are no regulations, no accountability. It's purely PR.Completely different.

So you really think this third party....independent party....would risk it's reputation and it's livelihood by possibly missing fraud or or other wrong doing solely for a quick payday from DK?

Sorry, but you are mistaken. It doesn't work that way.

Audits aren't done to detect fraud. No CPA firm in their right mind will issue a report indicating that no fraudulant activity is occurring. Audits provide reasonable assurance that proper controls are in place to prevent such activity but it's not an absolute.

True but reasonable assurance is considered to be a fairly high level of assurance which is far different than the assurance of given by internal company person or 3rd party hired to look at things. Also comparing a company hired to look at things by a company to a CPA picked by the company is ridiculous. A CPA firm who audits a company is very limited in what else they can do for that company which limits the alliance any CPA firm would have to any one company it audits. Also CPA firms have a lot more to lose if they were to choose to intentional ignore errors or control weaknesses they found.

 

[BassNBrew]

1527 in entries

1884.19 in winnings

That's all sport combined. I'm probably down $25-$50 in basketball.

 

[Wadsworth]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

If you pay site fees or use buy in money for anything besides payout then season fantasy leagues are negative ROI as well. But the reality is that no one cares about the "vast majority of people". If I am winning money in seasonal or daily fantasy I do not care about the return for the "vast majority of people".

 

[Wadsworth]

Your longtime 12 team redraft league has an owner quit. Someone's brother in law that has never played agrees to take the spot. At this point all of the other owners in the league smile. The new guys is going to be a at real disadvantage until he gets up to speed. But if he puts in some work and has some luck he could do well soon enough.

DFS has grown so fast that it is the reverse. It is more like one long time owner in a league with 11 new people. The people that have been doing it for years have an advantage right now. But over time the average player will catch up and eventually it will end up similar to seasonal now. As with anything new it takes time.

 

[tone1oc]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

If you pay site fees or use buy in money for anything besides payout then season fantasy leagues are negative ROI as well. But the reality is that no one cares about the "vast majority of people". If I am winning money in seasonal or daily fantasy I do not care about the return for the "vast majority of people".

Two things..

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.

2) We've established that "ROI" is not something that vast majority of season long players care about. It's a hobby and fun.

 

[Tool]

Your longtime 12 team redraft league has an owner quit. Someone's brother in law that has never played agrees to take the spot. At this point all of the other owners in the league smile. The new guys is going to be a at real disadvantage until he gets up to speed. But if he puts in some work and has some luck he could do well soon enough.

DFS has grown so fast that it is the reverse. It is more like one long time owner in a league with 11 new people. The people that have been doing it for years have an advantage right now. But over time the average player will catch up and eventually it will end up similar to seasonal now. As with anything new it takes time.

Can't say i agree. The little guy will always be screwed in this game.

 

[jandyt]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

If you pay site fees or use buy in money for anything besides payout then season fantasy leagues are negative ROI as well. But the reality is that no one cares about the "vast majority of people". If I am winning money in seasonal or daily fantasy I do not care about the return for the "vast majority of people".

Two things..

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.

2) We've established that "ROI" is not something that vast majority of season long players care about. It's a hobby and fun.

1) The few people who have responded claim a positive ROI which I have no reason to doubt but the overall number who have responded isn't that large so I don't find it surprising especially if you consider that people who have a positive ROI are much more likely to respond to this thread.

2) Its a hobby and fun and gambling if money is invovled. Which I have no problem with.

 

[tone1oc]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

If you pay site fees or use buy in money for anything besides payout then season fantasy leagues are negative ROI as well. But the reality is that no one cares about the "vast majority of people". If I am winning money in seasonal or daily fantasy I do not care about the return for the "vast majority of people".

Two things..

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.

2) We've established that "ROI" is not something that vast majority of season long players care about. It's a hobby and fun.

1) The few people who have responded claim a positive ROI which I have no reason to doubt but the overall number who have responded isn't that large so I don't find it surprising especially if you consider that people who have a positive ROI are much more likely to respond to this thread.

2) Its a hobby and fun and gambling if money is invovled. Which I have no problem with.

If you are a complete dolt and lack the cognitive ability for nuance, then yes, season long fantasy football is indeed gambling.

 

[Wadsworth]

Your longtime 12 team redraft league has an owner quit. Someone's brother in law that has never played agrees to take the spot. At this point all of the other owners in the league smile. The new guys is going to be a at real disadvantage until he gets up to speed. But if he puts in some work and has some luck he could do well soon enough.

DFS has grown so fast that it is the reverse. It is more like one long time owner in a league with 11 new people. The people that have been doing it for years have an advantage right now. But over time the average player will catch up and eventually it will end up similar to seasonal now. As with anything new it takes time.

Can't say i agree. The little guy will always be screwed in this game.

I am a little guy. I started with $100 on Fanduel and did not enter a tournament with a fee over $10 for nearly a full season. I still play with a very limited bankroll in comparison to my winnings since I have taken off 90% of my profit. I do not run spreadsheets, applets, tools or have insider info. I struggled to keep my head above water for most of my first year of play but after a while I started seeing a return.

DFS is not an ATM. It is also not a blackjack deck without aces.

 

[snellman]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

If you pay site fees or use buy in money for anything besides payout then season fantasy leagues are negative ROI as well. But the reality is that no one cares about the "vast majority of people". If I am winning money in seasonal or daily fantasy I do not care about the return for the "vast majority of people".

Two things..

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.

2) We've established that "ROI" is not something that vast majority of season long players care about. It's a hobby and fun.

1) The few people who have responded claim a positive ROI which I have no reason to doubt but the overall number who have responded isn't that large so I don't find it surprising especially if you consider that people who have a positive ROI are much more likely to respond to this thread.

2) Its a hobby and fun and gambling if money is invovled. Which I have no problem with.

Even if I don't have a "positive ROI" what is the difference between me playing daily and season long?

When I first started playing daily, my average total buy in was $25 a week. Take that times 16 weeks (usual length of a season long) and If I don't win at all, I am down $400 for the year. Same as a high buy in season long. Not much more than the WCOFF or the FPC.

You guys forget that not everyone is dropping 10K plus a week. The most I have ever put down on a week was $200 and the vast majority of that was in safer "cash play" contests where 40 or 50 % of the field win.

If you don't want to play it, that is fine (to each his own). But don't rip those that do play it and make them seem like a bunch of degenerates who are throwing money down the toilet. If you are going to cast stones at those who play, you better not go anywhere near a casino, lottery, or even a bingo parlor.

 

[jandyt]

Why are we using the term ROI? DFS is gambling, and has a negative ROI on a vast majority of the players.

If you pay site fees or use buy in money for anything besides payout then season fantasy leagues are negative ROI as well. But the reality is that no one cares about the "vast majority of people". If I am winning money in seasonal or daily fantasy I do not care about the return for the "vast majority of people".

Two things..

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.

2) We've established that "ROI" is not something that vast majority of season long players care about. It's a hobby and fun.

1) The few people who have responded claim a positive ROI which I have no reason to doubt but the overall number who have responded isn't that large so I don't find it surprising especially if you consider that people who have a positive ROI are much more likely to respond to this thread.

2) Its a hobby and fun and gambling if money is invovled. Which I have no problem with.

If you are a complete dolt and lack the cognitive ability for nuance, then yes, season long fantasy football is indeed gambling.

So 15 guys and I pay money for a FF league where the winner is determined by the season long performance of athletes. The winner receives the money minus league hosting fee. But this is not gambling either because I am a dolt or I lack cognitive ability. Ok well at least I have a positive ROI both gambling on DFS and having fun with year long leagues.

I'm also able to comprehend that although both year long fantasy football and DFS are both gambling that they are not the same thing which why I have a spread sheet showing my ROI for DFS but without going back over league sites for 15 years couldn't tell you my ROI in my main dynasty league. I also have never made any comments against regulation because I believe there should regulation. But I also don't believe DFS is some evil force taking advantage players anymore than casinos or the lottery are. Although honestly all three can lead to gambling addicts and if you want to campaign against them all then that fine. I though believe they all can be legitimate forms of entertainment if handled by player correctly. That said I would never play the lottery because games with no skill involved don't appeal to me.

 

[cstu]

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.