What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

DFS Week 10 (1 Viewer)

eoMMan

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.

See above.

860 of 36000 have the same lineup and are chopping the pot.
 

TwinTurbo

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
 

eoMMan

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
I hear you about the sites spitting out lineups (such as FBG and ETR) but where are the bad rec players? I just feel like there should be so many more “average Joe” players putting in hand built lineups that are different. It’s getting less and less it seems.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
I hear you about the sites spitting out lineups (such as FBG and ETR) but where are the bad rec players? I just feel like there should be so many more “average Joe” players putting in hand built lineups that are different. It’s getting less and less it seems.

You can see it in the participation here. FD/DK and their 19% juice killed the golden goose. With legalized gambling, you can play player props and replicate dfs with much better odds.
 

FairWarning

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
I hear you about the sites spitting out lineups (such as FBG and ETR) but where are the bad rec players? I just feel like there should be so many more “average Joe” players putting in hand built lineups that are different. It’s getting less and less it seems.
The bad rec players are probably betting on FD and DK if it’s legal in their state. It’s exactly like the online poker where big money swallow up the guppies. There is so much info out there now that even bad players with money can win some money with chalky lineups.
 

TwinTurbo

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
Sure I didn't mean actual hedge funds rather the concept that you have groups of players that are pooling resources and tools , targeting contests across multiple user accounts, to enter more than 150 lineups. There are accounts that appear to be colluding with each other based on the lineup constructions and have been doing so for years. And other than the husband/wife former Bachelor example that got a lot of press back in 2020 which forced DK to act, it seems like a most of this just flies under the radar and is probably a rampant problem that the sites don't plan to actually address.

Also I can't speak to the other sites, but on DK those qualifier contents almost always fill 100% across all of the entry fee levels.
 
Last edited:

TwinTurbo

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
I hear you about the sites spitting out lineups (such as FBG and ETR) but where are the bad rec players? I just feel like there should be so many more “average Joe” players putting in hand built lineups that are different. It’s getting less and less it seems.

You can see it in the participation here. FD/DK and their 19% juice killed the golden goose. With legalized gambling, you can play player props and replicate dfs with much better odds.
It's still profitable if you can win the low entry fee qualifiers and ladder up (e.g. $19 qualifier to win $1130 ticket for qualifier for a live final). But those same lineups in the milly maker win a few hundred bucks at best.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
I hear you about the sites spitting out lineups (such as FBG and ETR) but where are the bad rec players? I just feel like there should be so many more “average Joe” players putting in hand built lineups that are different. It’s getting less and less it seems.

You can see it in the participation here. FD/DK and their 19% juice killed the golden goose. With legalized gambling, you can play player props and replicate dfs with much better odds.
It's still profitable if you can win the low entry fee qualifiers and ladder up (e.g. $19 qualifier to win $1130 ticket for qualifier for a live final). But those same lineups in the milly maker win a few hundred bucks at best.

You should probably switch to FD. I have regularly seen qualifiers only 30-50% full. I wouldn't play any over 60% because they are collecting 3x juice on that ladder concept.
 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
Sure I didn't mean actual hedge funds rather the concept that you have groups of players that are pooling resources and tools , targeting contests across multiple user accounts, to enter more than 150 lineups. There are accounts that appear to be colluding with each other based on the lineup constructions and have been doing so for years. And other than the husband/wife former Bachelor example that got a lot of press back in 2020 which forced DK to act, it seems like a most of this just flies under the radar and is probably a rampant problem that the sites don't plan to actually address.

Also I can't speak to the other sites, but on DK those qualifier contents almost always fill 100% across all of the entry fee levels.
I thought it was proven out at the big dfs message board that fewer entries was the optimal return. Somebody did a study and the low entry guys were beating the socks off the 50+ guys on a percentage basis.
 

FairWarning

Footballguy
I feel like DFS is a lot like online poker these days. It’s not nearly as soft as it was years ago. For example, I played three $5 H2Hs on DK and all three opponents had the exact same lineup. Crazy times.
I play in GPP only and it's the toughest year yet. The only area where I have modest success is with single game showdown. There is simply no way to even have a long shot at meaningful prize money in full slate unless you play max lineups and that's also no guarantee. My take is there is also a ton of collusion with groups of top players, multiple accounts, etc and the sites look the other way. It's why you see variants of the same lineups in gpp with lineups that nobody would pick even if they could max lineup 100x over 150. It leads me to believe there are well financed groups colluding across multiple accounts to enter a large number of coordinated lineups in GPP and single entry tournaments. This is also why you see the same names winning most of the qualifier tickets to the big prize in-person contests. My analogy is most players are retail Robinhood traders going up against hedge funds that have deep pockets and don't play by the rules.
Disagree. Hedge funds aren't playing against 19% juice. FBG has a program that spits out weird lineups. 20 FBGs using it accomplishes what you are talking about. Regardless, it has been shown in the past that fewer lineups is the best strategy.

The reason you see the same names winning the qualifier tickets is that the smart money is playing qualifier tourneys that are only 30-50% filled.
Sure I didn't mean actual hedge funds rather the concept that you have groups of players that are pooling resources and tools , targeting contests across multiple user accounts, to enter more than 150 lineups. There are accounts that appear to be colluding with each other based on the lineup constructions and have been doing so for years. And other than the husband/wife former Bachelor example that got a lot of press back in 2020 which forced DK to act, it seems like a most of this just flies under the radar and is probably a rampant problem that the sites don't plan to actually address.

Also I can't speak to the other sites, but on DK those qualifier contents almost always fill 100% across all of the entry fee levels.
I thought it was proven out at the big dfs message board that fewer entries was the optimal return. Somebody did a study and the low entry guys were beating the socks off the 50+ guys on a percentage basis.
Surprising
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top