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

[Wadsworth]

1) We've already discovered that the vast majority in this thread who play DFS is making money. Very impressive to be in the company of so many outliers.

What's impressive is that so many people are not only able to win more often than they lose but are also able to pay the 10% vig and make a profit.

I have made a profit. That is the truth. Cute replies are not going to change that. I cannot speak for the "vast majority of people", but there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous about me staying I have made money off DFS. It seems to bother some people that everyone is not losing.

 

[jandyt]

1) We've already discovered that the vast majority in this thread who play DFS is making money. Very impressive to be in the company of so many outliers.

What's impressive is that so many people are not only able to win more often than they lose but are also able to pay the 10% vig and make a profit.

I have made a profit. That is the truth. Cute replies are not going to change that. I cannot speak for the "vast majority of people", but there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous about me staying I have made money off DFS. It seems to bother some people that everyone is not losing.

I am bit confused by how much it seems to bother some people everyone isn't losing. Of course lots of people are losing but some people including some not big money players are winning and why that bothers people I don't know. Honestly maybe some people here are lying about winning or how much they win but I honestly couldn't care less. I am small money player who has a positive ROI every week this year so far and if you don't believe it I don't care but I don't understand why it bothers you if I have.

 

[JamieMurphy]

What bothers me is that through greed and stupidity, DFS sites like FanDuel and DraftKings have jeopardized something I love doing. If regulating DFS saves season long FF, I am all for regulation. DFS invited this scrutiny by not having safeguards in place and allowing employees to gamble on rival sites, all while advertising their product ad nauseam. They screwed the pooch, they can take the fall. Leave the season long leagues alone as they are games of skill.

 

[tone1oc]

I'm not bothered in the least bit by people winning money at DFS. I am bothered that Maurile comes in here in states that "voila" you have a 24% ROI just for playing and being okay at fantasy.

Only a degenerate looks at fantasy football from a ROI perspective in my opinion.

I'm a software engineer that spends probably 20+ hours a week on fantasy, if I extrapolated the time investment in to my modest gains I'd have a severe case of bad ROI. But I, like many, don't view fantasy as a profitable venture. It is for me a challenging hobby that is endlessly humbling. In addition it creates a venture for old friends to stay connected and an avenue to create new ones.

DFS is the exact opposite, and when people of such influence in the community as MT want to spout of about how their, and in turn our liberty is at stake, it is just flat out pathetic. Especially when so many billions are being secured by a glorified web hosting company.

Get a grip.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

DFS is the exact opposite, and when people of such influence in the community as MT want to spout of about how their, and in turn our liberty is at stake, it is just flat out pathetic.

You can dislike DFS if you want, but please don't make up lies about me. I never spouted anything about how our liberty is at stake.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am bothered that Maurile comes in here in states that "voila" you have a 24% ROI just for playing and being okay at fantasy.

Do you believe I wrote anything inaccurate? (It's mathematically trivial to verify that number, but I can show my work if you want.) Or are you bothered by what I wrote despite its accuracy?

 

[tone1oc]

I am bothered that Maurile comes in here in states that "voila" you have a 24% ROI just for playing and being okay at fantasy.

Do you believe I wrote anything inaccurate? (It's mathematically trivial to verify that number, but I can show my work if you want.) Or are you bothered by what I wrote despite its accuracy?

Have you not advocated in FBG emails that fantasy football's very future is stake by the DFS microscope? If it wasn't you I apologize, perhaps it was Dodds. Either way it was sad and pathetic.

You did go off on a "libertarian" tangent, which always rings the cookoo clock.

And if you (or by FBG affiliation) are stating that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation, why wouldn't you (and FBG's) do all you can to make a clear distinction between the two instead of pretending we live in a world that lacks any nuance or reason? If you need DFS to make a buck, more power to you, but just because you hit an iceberg doesn't mean that our ship will sink.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Have you not advocated in FBG emails that fantasy football's very future is stake by the DFS microscope?

I've never sent out an FBG email.

You did go off on a "libertarian" tangent...

How do you figure that? Because I used the word "libertarian" before pointing out the shortcomings in the libertarian position?

And if you (or by FBG affiliation) are stating that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation, why wouldn't you (and FBG's) do all you can to make a clear distinction between the two instead of pretending we live in a world that lacks any nuance or reason? If you need DFS to make a buck, more power to you, but just because you hit an iceberg doesn't mean that our ship will sink.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it's not related to anything I've written in this thread or anywhere else.

 

[tone1oc]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, when someone says the "inner libertarian" in me, while making potshots at regulation that is sorely needed I consider that at best self serving and at worst hyper paranoia. All the while insinuating that DFS is such a complex institution that is above regulation, unless of course, the regulation came from DraftKings or FanDuel.

Can you affirm that there is a clear distinction between traditional fantasy football and DFS, and also that any "pending" or future litigation or regulation is mutually exclusive from the fantasy football that so many know and love?

 

[tone1oc]

Also can you please elaborate on the "voila" 24% ROI?

If you are really about helping the community get better at DFS why don't you post a few (or more) lineups in this thread.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can you affirm that there is a clear distinction between traditional fantasy football and DFS, and also that any "pending" or future litigation or regulation is mutually exclusive from the fantasy football that so many know and love?

No, this isn't the thread where I get cross-examined on issues I've never taken a position on.

 

[tone1oc]

Subject: "Fantasy Sports Under Attack"

Hi Folks,

In case you somehow missed it in the news, Fantasy Sports is under attack politically. States are out-right banning fantasy sports or proposing legislature that could do this shortly. And although the pressure is mostly centered around daily fantasy sports, some of this legislation doesn't try and make the distinction between daily and season-long games.

I am hoping you can step away from the bombardment of the commercials and the aggressive growth strategies of the DFS operators. We get it. No one likes their TV taken over. And we will be the first to say things aren't perfect. Super fast growth can create problems and some are appearing.

But most of you are on this email list because you love football and play some version of fantasy football. And make no mistake, it's all under attack. Congressman protecting their gambling interests in their states will just as easily make it all illegal.

All I ask is that you take a few minutes to read the petition. If it's something that you feel strongly about, sign it. If not, don't.

For posterity Mr. Tremblay, could you please let us know where you stand on this email.

 

[Wadsworth]

I'm not bothered in the least bit by people winning money at DFS. I am bothered that Maurile comes in here in states that "voila" you have a 24% ROI just for playing and being okay at fantasy.

Only a degenerate looks at fantasy football from a ROI perspective in my opinion.

I'm a software engineer that spends probably 20+ hours a week on fantasy, if I extrapolated the time investment in to my modest gains I'd have a severe case of bad ROI. But I, like many, don't view fantasy as a profitable venture. It is for me a challenging hobby that is endlessly humbling. In addition it creates a venture for old friends to stay connected and an avenue to create new ones.

DFS is the exact opposite, and when people of such influence in the community as MT want to spout of about how their, and in turn our liberty is at stake, it is just flat out pathetic. Especially when so many billions are being secured by a glorified web hosting company.

Get a grip.

I can tell you are passionate about this issue which is cool, but your passion is clouding your vision. Fanduel, at least until recently, was the fastest growing company on the planet. Let that sink in. The idea that a site focused on fantasy football(FBG) would or should ignore the explosion of a new form of the sport is just plain silly.

This is Paris in the 20s for fantasy. A time of spectacular growth and opportunity. It simply must be addressed and even if daily crashes and burns it will be talked about for years to come. You seem to be upset that the Mets game was cancelled because the Beatles were playing Shea Stadium, go inside and enjoy the music.

 

[tone1oc]

Can you affirm that there is a clear distinction between traditional fantasy football and DFS, and also that any "pending" or future litigation or regulation is mutually exclusive from the fantasy football that so many know and love?

No, this isn't the thread where I get cross-examined on issues I've never taken a position on.

Quoting and responding selectively isn't a good look.

I'm not bothered in the least bit by people winning money at DFS. I am bothered that Maurile comes in here in states that "voila" you have a 24% ROI just for playing and being okay at fantasy.

Only a degenerate looks at fantasy football from a ROI perspective in my opinion.

I'm a software engineer that spends probably 20+ hours a week on fantasy, if I extrapolated the time investment in to my modest gains I'd have a severe case of bad ROI. But I, like many, don't view fantasy as a profitable venture. It is for me a challenging hobby that is endlessly humbling. In addition it creates a venture for old friends to stay connected and an avenue to create new ones.

DFS is the exact opposite, and when people of such influence in the community as MT want to spout of about how their, and in turn our liberty is at stake, it is just flat out pathetic. Especially when so many billions are being secured by a glorified web hosting company.

Get a grip.

I can tell you are passionate about this issue which is cool, but your passion is clouding your vision. Fanduel, at least until recently, was the fastest growing company on the planet. Let that sink in. The idea that a site focused on fantasy football(FBG) would or should ignore the explosion of a new form of the sport is just plain silly.

This is Paris in the 20s for fantasy. A time of spectacular growth and opportunity. It simply must be addressed and even if daily crashes and burns it will be talked about for years to come. You seem to be upset that the Mets game was cancel because the Beatles were playing Shea Stadium, go inside and enjoy the music.

I'm passionate about everything I do. FanDuel probably is or was the fastest growing company, and they as a glorified web hosting company are not capable of ensuring a safe and fair playing field for all the greed and seedy folks that DFS attracts.

Also I've been to Paris, the Beatles are overrated and Shea Stadium was a dump

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also can you please elaborate on the "voila" 24% ROI?

Sure. Let's start with accurately quoting what I actually said.

In the FanDuel contest exclusively for Footballguys subscribers, for example, the average entrant has a 24% ROI (including the value of tickets to the Week 11 contest with $40,000 added). So just enter that and be average, and voila, you have an expected ROI of 24%.

The fact that the average entrant has an ROI of 24% follows from the fact that the prize pool is 24% larger than the sum of the entry fees.

Here's the contest in question.

If the contest fills, it will have 1130 entrants paying $10 a piece, so the total amount in entry fees is $11,300. The prize pool is $10,000 plus a number of tickets to the Week 11 contest, which will have no entry fee (beyond the ticket) and a prize pool of $40,000 kicked in by FanDuel. You can think of that $40,000 as being spread out over the first ten weeks, so $4,000 per week. (That's what the tickets are worth, on average.) So the total prize pool each week is $14,000.

14,000 / 11,300 = 1.24

So the ROI for the average entrant in that contest is 24%.

(If the contest doesn't fill, the ROI will be greater than that.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, you completely made up your attribution of it to me.

 

[tone1oc]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, you completely made up your attribution of it to me.

So could you state that you disagree with the email that Dodds sent out on behalf of the FBG's, which you are a part of.

Perception is reality. Please let us know where you stand on the email in question (quoted above)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, you completely made up your attribution of it to me.

So could you state that you disagree with the email that Dodds sent out on behalf of the FBG's, which you are a part of.

Perception is reality. Please let us know where you stand on the email in question (quoted above)

No, I haven't taken a position on it. I'm not taking a position on it, at least not right now with you in this thread. I don't trust you not to twist whatever I say about it into something inaccurate (again). Sorry if that comes across as rude, but you've falsely imputed stuff to me enough times that I'm wary.

 

[tone1oc]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, you completely made up your attribution of it to me.

So could you state that you disagree with the email that Dodds sent out on behalf of the FBG's, which you are a part of.

Perception is reality. Please let us know where you stand on the email in question (quoted above)

No, I haven't taken a position on it. I'm not taking a position on it, at least not right now with you in this thread. I don't trust you not to twist whatever I say about it into something inaccurate (again).

Spoken like a true schill.

It's not that hard of a question. It's binary. Yes or no.

Do you believe that pending or future DFS regulation will put traditional fantasy football at risk?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Spoken like a true schill.

And you wonder why I don't find it worthwhile to engage you further?

 

[tone1oc]

We've engaged enough. I'll let the jury decide. Good night sir.

 

[Squintz82]

Speaking the truth about DFS makes you a shill?

 

[Short Corner]

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.

People have lost a ton of money assuming that it can't happen.

 

[Short Corner]

Speaking the truth about DFS makes you a shill?

In his defense, nobody else from this site (minus DD) will endorse it either, but they don't disassioate themselves from it either. All of the apologists pretend it never happened.

 

[snellman]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, you completely made up your attribution of it to me.

So could you state that you disagree with the email that Dodds sent out on behalf of the FBG's, which you are a part of.

Perception is reality. Please let us know where you stand on the email in question (quoted above)

No, I haven't taken a position on it. I'm not taking a position on it, at least not right now with you in this thread. I don't trust you not to twist whatever I say about it into something inaccurate (again).

Spoken like a true schill.

It's not that hard of a question. It's binary. Yes or no.

Do you believe that pending or future DFS regulation will put traditional fantasy football at risk?

Will it put drafting with your buddies in the garage the week before the opening game at risk? Probably not, but definitely possible. Did you know that in Iowa currently it is illegal to play fantasy sports for money? Are they going to come after your buddy league, probably not. However, if you live in Iowa you are not eligible to win the Footballguys subscriber contest, you can't play in the FBG players championship, you can't play in the WCOFF, you can't play in public money leagues on CBS, ESPN, or Yahoo and you sure can't play daily.

Do I feel daily needs to be regulated? Yes I do, but we are walking a very thin line because the politicians aren't going to differentiate DFS and season long. They are going to see it as fantasy sports and playing for money and are going to lump it all together. That is what I took the e-mail from FBG as meaning. Did the DFS companies bring this on themselves? Yes, they were growing too fast and anytime you start throwing that much money around, greed is going to take over and some people will try to do whatever it takes to get a piece of that.

But don't think that if we make them go away, everything will return to the way it was because it won't. Pandora's box has been opened and just like gun control and other things affecting our country, this is going to fall under the "gambling" argument whether it is season long or daily and someone will try to shut it down.

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

Also can you please elaborate on the "voila" 24% ROI?

Sure. Let's start with accurately quoting what I actually said.

In the FanDuel contest exclusively for Footballguys subscribers, for example, the average entrant has a 24% ROI (including the value of tickets to the Week 11 contest with $40,000 added). So just enter that and be average, and voila, you have an expected ROI of 24%.

The fact that the average entrant has an ROI of 24% follows from the fact that the prize pool is 24% larger than the sum of the entry fees.

Here's the contest in question.

If the contest fills, it will have 1130 entrants paying $10 a piece, so the total amount in entry fees is $11,300. The prize pool is $10,000 plus a number of tickets to the Week 11 contest, which will have no entry fee (beyond the ticket) and a prize pool of $40,000 kicked in by FanDuel. You can think of that $40,000 as being spread out over the first ten weeks, so $4,000 per week. (That's what the tickets are worth, on average.) So the total prize pool each week is $14,000.

14,000 / 11,300 = 1.24

So the ROI for the average entrant in that contest is 24%.

(If the contest doesn't fill, the ROI will be greater than that.)

Yeah. This is misleading. If the contest was set up so that one person won the entire pot while the remaining 1,129 lost their $10, would you say, "the average entrant's ROI is 24%"? The ROI of the pool is 24%, but the ROI of "average entrant" is negative.

 

[Short Corner]

Ok MT, I've completely made up the narrative that fantasy football is at risk by DFS regulation.

Yes, you completely made up your attribution of it to me.

So could you state that you disagree with the email that Dodds sent out on behalf of the FBG's, which you are a part of.

Perception is reality. Please let us know where you stand on the email in question (quoted above)

No, I haven't taken a position on it. I'm not taking a position on it, at least not right now with you in this thread. I don't trust you not to twist whatever I say about it into something inaccurate (again).

Spoken like a true schill.

It's not that hard of a question. It's binary. Yes or no.

Do you believe that pending or future DFS regulation will put traditional fantasy football at risk?

Will it put drafting with your buddies in the garage the week before the opening game at risk? Probably not, but definitely possible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also can you please elaborate on the "voila" 24% ROI?

Sure. Let's start with accurately quoting what I actually said.

In the FanDuel contest exclusively for Footballguys subscribers, for example, the average entrant has a 24% ROI (including the value of tickets to the Week 11 contest with $40,000 added). So just enter that and be average, and voila, you have an expected ROI of 24%.

The fact that the average entrant has an ROI of 24% follows from the fact that the prize pool is 24% larger than the sum of the entry fees.Here's the contest in question.If the contest fills, it will have 1130 entrants paying $10 a piece, so the total amount in entry fees is $11,300. The prize pool is $10,000 plus a number of tickets to the Week 11 contest, which will have no entry fee (beyond the ticket) and a prize pool of $40,000 kicked in by FanDuel. You can think of that $40,000 as being spread out over the first ten weeks, so $4,000 per week. (That's what the tickets are worth, on average.) So the total prize pool each week is $14,000.

14,000 / 11,300 = 1.24

So the ROI for the average entrant in that contest is 24%.

(If the contest doesn't fill, the ROI will be greater than that.)

Yeah. This is misleading. If the contest was set up so that one person won the entire pot while the remaining 1,129 lost their $10, would you say, "the average entrant's ROI is 24%"? The ROI of the pool is 24%, but the ROI of "average entrant" is negative.

In the context of EV calculations, average always means mean, not median or mode. That is not misleading.

ETA: And the contest is structured as a double-up, so if it overlays by enough (as it sometimes does) even the median and mode results are positive! In that case, the median ROI is 100%!

 

[cstu]

I can tell you are passionate about this issue which is cool, but your passion is clouding your vision. Fanduel, at least until recently, was the fastest growing company on the planet. Let that sink in. The idea that a site focused on fantasy football(FBG) would or should ignore the explosion of a new form of the sport is just plain silly.

This is Paris in the 20s for fantasy. A time of spectacular growth and opportunity. It simply must be addressed and even if daily crashes and burns it will be talked about for years to come.

DFS is not fantasy football - it's gambling disguised as fantasy football.

FBG had an opportunity to take the high road on this issue but instead it joined the money grab. If they had taken the advertising money but been honest about DFS being gambling, not fantasy football, then I could have respected them. Instead they tried like every fantasy site (that I've seen) to pull the wool over people's eyes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

 

[cstu]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

Life is gambling so should we not make any distinctions?

 

[That one guy]

Gambling: the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes (dictionary.com)

Semantics and nuance is pointless, both season long and daily fantasy football are gambling...and that doesn't make either one of them bad

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

Life is gambling so should we not make any distinctions?

There are plenty of common-use and statutory definitions of gambling that include fantasy football but exclude life, so your post is kind of silly.

I do not know of any common-use or statutory definitions of gambling that include DFS but exclude season-long leagues. Do you know of any?

 

[JamieMurphy]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

So do you think DFS and season long fantasy are both gambling and are on the same footing?

 

[Apple Jack]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

Life is gambling so should we not make any distinctions?

We've reached the train wreck portion of the program.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

So do you think DFS and season long fantasy are both gambling and are on the same footing?

In my view, gambling is best described as a state of mind. Every activity in life where money is at stake can be described in terms of its expectation and variance. To me, a person is gambling if he is engaging in an activity for the sake of variance, and he is not gambling if he is engaging in an activity despite variance (for the sake of expectation or for other reasons, like fun that is independent of monetary variance).

In my view, a great many DFS players are gambling, but not all of them. A few season-long players are gambling, but not very many. In my view, it's a lot more accurate to say that DFS is gambling than it is to say that season-long FF is gambling.

But my view and definition of gambling are not shared by many. Under most people's definitions (including all statutorty definitions that I know of), DFS and season-long FF are in the exact same category with respect to being gambling or non-gambling.

 

[jandyt]

Seems there are people on both sides here that can only see in black and white.

Clearly under most definitions of gambling both DFS and season long leagues are gambling.

Also clearly there is a difference between putting down a 100 for a season long league and risking a 100 a week on DFS.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yes, I understand the difference between median and mean. That's why I called it misleading as opposed to incorrect.

But using standard terms in the standard way is not misleading. When people discuss which contests have a positive expectation, or what the expected ROI is for a given contest -- which is a pretty common discussion -- it is always in terms of mean.

Would you take exception to a lottery commercial that says the average entrant has a positive ROI?

It depends on whether it was true. In most lotteries, I believe the expected ROI is about -45%. But if some lottery somewhere actually has a positive expected ROI, that ought to be publicized. It would be newsworthy.

 

[BoulderBob]

I don't believe, for one damn second, that certain people have and have used inside information not available to the public regarding ownership percentaGes and lineups. I'd have my head in the sand if I belIeved otherwise. Regulation is needed badly.

With all of that being said, I'll still throw in my five bucks a week and roll the dice. It's fun for me.

It's sad to see where fantasy football is going

 

[jandyt]

Fantasy football is gambling. Why won't you take the high road like me and admiti that???

So do you think DFS and season long fantasy are both gambling and are on the same footing?

In my view, gambling is best described as a state of mind. Every activity in life where money is at stake can be described in terms of its expectation and variance. To me, a person is gambling if he is engaging in an activity for the sake of variance, and he is not gambling if he is engaging in an activity despite variance (for the sake of expectation or for other reasons, like fun that is independent of monetary variance).

In my view, a great many DFS players are gambling, but not all of them. A few season-long players are gambling, but not very many. In my view, it's a lot more accurate to say that DFS is gambling than it is to say that season-long FF is gambling.

But my view and definition of gambling are not shared by many. Under most people's definitions (including all statutorty definitions that I know of), DFS and season-long FF are in the exact same category of gambling or non-gambling.

If doing something for the sake of expectation is not gambling does it matter if that expectation is realistic? I think there are many people who gamble with the expectation of positive return but realistically for them that is not going to happen.

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

Yes, I understand the difference between median and mean. That's why I called it misleading as opposed to incorrect.

But using standard terms in the standard way is not misleading.

Would you take exception to a lottery commercial that says the average entrant has a positive ROI?

It depends on whether it was true. In most lotteries, I believe the expected ROI is about -45%. But if some lottery somewhere actually has a positive expected ROI, that ought to be publicized. It would be newsworthy.

Yeah, I deleted my post because I realized that the overall ROI of the lottery is actually negative. So I'll state it in another way and I referenced this example in another post: Same # of entrants (1,130), same payout ($14,000), but there's only 1 winner. Same average ROI, but 1,129 participants suffer an ROI of -100%. Do you not feel it's misleading to highlight the average ROI in this instance?

You're correctly stating certain facts of the contest. However, leaving out vital information regarding how those facts are derived and only presenting the positive terms, in my opinion, is misleading, and something that advertising companies do to sell product.

 

[jandyt]

Yes, I understand the difference between median and mean. That's why I called it misleading as opposed to incorrect.

But using standard terms in the standard way is not misleading. When people discuss which contests have a positive expectation, or what the expected ROI is for a given contest -- which is a pretty common discussion -- it is always in terms of mean.

Would you take exception to a lottery commercial that says the average entrant has a positive ROI?

It depends on whether it was true. In most lotteries, I believe the expected ROI is about -45%. But if some lottery somewhere actually has a positive expected ROI, that ought to be publicized. It would be newsworthy.

Don't think we will ever see a lottery with a positive ROI. Of course the majority of DFS contest don't have a average positive ROI either as the host site cant make money that way.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If doing something for the sake of expectation is not gambling does it matter if that expectation is realistic? I think there are many people who gamble with the expectation of positive return but realistically for them that is not going to happen.

People can be mistaken about their expectation, of course (where "expectation" means the sum of all possible outcomes weighted by their respective probabilities). But if they are trying to minimize variance rather than trying to get an adrenaline rush from it, I wouldn't say that their state of mind is a gambling one.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Of course the majority of DFS contest don't have a average positive ROI either as the host site cant make money that way.

True, but host sites are not making money. There is one site that never has a rake, so the worst game they offer has a 0% ROI (and any guaranteed contest that doesn't fill has a positive ROI). There is another site whose large guaranteed contests regularly only fill up to about 60% capacity.

Obviously, that can't be a long-term strategy for either site. It is just a substitute for spending money on advertising -- and disappointingly to me as someone who likes to believe in the rationality of crowds (but to my benefit as someone who likes playing DFS with a positive expectation), it doesn't seem to be working. People are flocking to the sites that spend money on advertising rather than to the sites that spend money on just giving it away.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So I'll state it in another way and I referenced this example in another post: Same # of entrants (1,130), same payout ($14,000), but there's only 1 winner. Same average ROI, but 1,129 participants suffer an ROI of -100%. Do you not feel it's misleading to highlight the average ROI in this instance?

No, that's not misleading. That's how those things are measured. But like I said, there are two components -- expectation and variance. That contest would have a positive expectation, but also an extremely high variance, which is also worth pointing out.

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

So I'll state it in another way and I referenced this example in another post: Same # of entrants (1,130), same payout ($14,000), but there's only 1 winner. Same average ROI, but 1,129 participants suffer an ROI of -100%. Do you not feel it's misleading to highlight the average ROI in this instance?

No, that's not misleading. That's how those things are measured. But like I said, there are two components -- expectation and variance. That contest would have a positive expectation, but also an extremely high variance, which is also worth pointing out.

Yet you say it's "harder for the pros" whose large number of entries significantly reduce that variance. It's not "harder for the pros" to achieve a better risk adjusted return. Again, I think you're leaving out (whether intentional or unintentionally) critical information which makes it sound like winning in DFS is easy ("voila"). We're obviously headed towards agreeing to disagree here.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

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.

The vast majority of the people in this thread are avid fantasy football fanatics who DO have an advantage over the average Joe who annually wins his free work league and thinks he is awesome at fantasy sports. It isnt that surprising that those taking the time to read this thread who do play DFS are holding their own. Not everyone playing on FanDuel spends hours looking at fantasy football forums - specifically threads about DFS.

 

[Wadsworth]

I can tell you are passionate about this issue which is cool, but your passion is clouding your vision. Fanduel, at least until recently, was the fastest growing company on the planet. Let that sink in. The idea that a site focused on fantasy football(FBG) would or should ignore the explosion of a new form of the sport is just plain silly.

This is Paris in the 20s for fantasy. A time of spectacular growth and opportunity. It simply must be addressed and even if daily crashes and burns it will be talked about for years to come.

DFS is not fantasy football - it's gambling disguised as fantasy football.

FBG had an opportunity to take the high road on this issue but instead it joined the money grab. If they had taken the advertising money but been honest about DFS being gambling, not fantasy football, then I could have respected them. Instead they tried like every fantasy site (that I've seen) to pull the wool over people's eyes.

You seem to be drawing a bizarre line between what is and is not gambling.

When fantasy started it was almost always season long leagues with total points being the goal. For football, touchdown only leagues dominated for a time. Then points for yards, receptions, head to head play weekly, scoring bonuses, etc started being added. Daily is a big change from the traditional, but do not fool yourself, it is the same thing just a different version.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

1) We've already discovered that the vast majority in this thread who play DFS is making money. Very impressive to be in the company of so many outliers.

What's impressive is that so many people are not only able to win more often than they lose but are also able to pay the 10% vig and make a profit.

I have made a profit. That is the truth. Cute replies are not going to change that. I cannot speak for the "vast majority of people", but there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous about me staying I have made money off DFS. It seems to bother some people that everyone is not losing.

Amen to this. Im not killing it, but I am profitable and having a great time playing. No clue why so many people find that so offensive.

 

[jandyt]

If doing something for the sake of expectation is not gambling does it matter if that expectation is realistic? I think there are many people who gamble with the expectation of positive return but realistically for them that is not going to happen.

People can be mistaken about their expectation, of course (where "expectation" means the sum of all possible outcomes weighted by their respective probabilities). But if they are trying to minimize variance rather than trying to get an adrenaline rush from it, I wouldn't say that their state of mind is a gambling one.

The problem I see here is that for even the person with a real positive expectation there is also adrenaline rush from a big win. So while I may say or even think that I am doing something for the sake of expectation it may actually be that rush that blinds me to the reality of the situation and keeps me coming back. Which is why I have trouble seeing DFS as not as least in part gambling.

I play DFS with a positive ROI every week this year so far but I feel I am gambling but admittedly not in the same sense as if I was spending money on lottery tickets.