FanDuel/DraftKings Week 10 (1 Viewer)

[IgglesFan]

Some stats from my lineup in my 223 entrant Double-up:

McCown - 4.9% owned

D. Murray - 15.7%

Hillman - 16.6%

J. Hunter - 2.7%

J. Jones - 38.6%

Evans - 14.3%

J. Graham - 17%

McManus - 3.1%

Seattle - 45

Hill was owned in 77.6%

AJ Green was 2.2%

Hoyer was .9%

West was 1.3%

Sanu was 5.4%

I'm looking good heading into the weekend....

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

In my big 2x 1280 of 2272 had only Hill going last night.

 

[dancingbones]

Like others, had Hill in my Thurs lineups - mostly 3 person contests.

Out of 7 contests for $5 or over (14 opponents), only 4 opponents didn't have him - and one of those had Sanu, who did worse.

So, not the start you want from your cheap RB option, but better than an expensive RB option ####ting the bed!

 

[karmarooster]

Some stats from my lineup in my 223 entrant Double-up:

McCown - 4.9% owned

D. Murray - 15.7%

Hillman - 16.6%

J. Hunter - 2.7%

J. Jones - 38.6%

Evans - 14.3%

J. Graham - 17%

McManus - 3.1%

Seattle - 45

Hill was owned in 77.6%

AJ Green was 2.2%

Hoyer was .9%

West was 1.3%

Sanu was 5.4%

I'm looking good heading into the weekend....

Adding a couple (from $5 multi entry double):

Sanchez = 21%

Ryan = 11%

Rodgers = 6%

Forsett = 11%

McCoy = 19%

ABrown = 26%

Evans = 11%

Adams = 14%

Marshall = 11%

Calvin = 3.5%

[SIZE=13.63636302948px]Graham = 14%[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.63636302948px]JT = 6%[/SIZE]

 

[snellman]

Anyone know why Fanduel is having these lager double ups and fewer small double ups. Yes, the total prize looks larger, but you are still only winning double.

 

[karmarooster]

Anyone know why Fanduel is having these lager double ups and fewer small double ups. Yes, the total prize looks larger, but you are still only winning double.

I dunno, but i prefer the multi-entries. The score may be slightly lower. Also seems easier to be in the top 10,000 out of 22.3k rather than the top 100 out of 223 for some reason.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Anyone know why Fanduel is having these lager double ups and fewer small double ups. Yes, the total prize looks larger, but you are still only winning double.

Do they actually have fewer small contests? It seems about the same to me, but I don't always play them. Plus I think they used to be much smaller - the $5 double ups, for instance, would be 223 people, now they're 670. So I'd guess they're still offering as many, probably more, seats than they used to even if the number of contests is smaller.

Even though it's the same payout, the large total prize surely has some psychological pull to it. I'm sure that's part of it. People are probably more enticed by a $150,000 NFL Double Up than a $2,000 NFL Double Up.

And apparently people are willing to pay a bigger rake on the big contests.

 

[karmarooster]

Anyone know why Fanduel is having these lager double ups and fewer small double ups. Yes, the total prize looks larger, but you are still only winning double.

Do they actually have fewer small contests? It seems about the same to me, but I don't always play them. Plus I think they used to be much smaller - the $5 double ups, for instance, would be 223 people, now they're 670. So I'd guess they're still offering as many, probably more, seats than they used to even if the number of contests is smaller.

Even though it's the same payout, the large total prize surely has some psychological pull to it. I'm sure that's part of it. People are probably more enticed by a $150,000 NFL Double Up than a $2,000 NFL Double Up.

And apparently people are willing to pay a bigger rake on the big contests.

This kind of irks me. Shouldn't the rake be SMALLER, in theory, for the huge contests, given that they should have fewer administrative costs when running 1 double up with 22k entries rather than 100 double ups with 220 entries?

 

[mrip541]

In the games I've played, the larger the double up the lower the required score to cash. Could just be random is random.

 

[Pantherz]

In the games I've played, the larger the double up the lower the required score to cash. Could just be random is random.

I don't doubt what you are saying, but I always assumed the multi-entries would have more "pros" putting in max entries to get more on the table, vs the single entry being more casual players?

 

[karmarooster]

In the games I've played, the larger the double up the lower the required score to cash. Could just be random is random.

I don't doubt what you are saying, but I always assumed the multi-entries would have more "pros" putting in max entries to get more on the table, vs the single entry being more casual players?

Or, people could go with more sub-optimal lineups in a multi-entry and use with their main lineup in single entry.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In the games I've played, the larger the double up the lower the required score to cash. Could just be random is random.

Are you referring to multi-entry vs. single-entry, or larger single-entry vs. smaller single-entry?

 

[mrip541]

In the games I've played, the larger the double up the lower the required score to cash. Could just be random is random.

Are you referring to multi-entry vs. single-entry, or larger single-entry vs. smaller single-entry?

The lager ones are generally multi and the smaller ones are virtually all single, which I completely overlooked. I usually scroll through to pick up the single entries but that's looking like a mistake, as a couple people have suggested.

 

[Joe T]

I've limited myself pretty much to single entry contests.

 

[ffinmyblood]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

 

[Pantherz]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

I'll do that in cash games with an expected high scoring team where the QB or the RB are pretty cheap. In GPP it's counter productive since it's unlikely they both have a great day.

 

[Wadsworth]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

It is an option, especially with a RB that catches a lot of passes(Cutler, Forte), but for GPPs you want upside. Having the QB/RB limits the potential of both of them going nuts. The QB might have a great game, but if he is getting all the TDs(like Big Ben the last two weeks), then is likely the RB will under-perform.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

The problem you have is you're generally defeating the philosophy behind the stack: 1 TD pass scores for 2 guys. Going QB/RB generally means that if 1 has a big game, likely the other doesn't.

I don't think you can do it w/ 2 high priced guys because you're really increasing the probability that 1 high-priced guy underperforms his salary. Maybe something like a (this week) Flacco/Forsett stack may work is you think Balt jumps out early w/ the passing attack then comes back w/ a heavy dose or Forsett in the 2nd half. That's a relatively cheap stack so maybe that might have some validity.

That said, I do think there is some legitimacy to something like a Cutler/Forte stack because Forte is targeted like a high-volume WR. I've mentioned that before but no one seemed to agree with me.

 

[karmarooster]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

The problem you have is you're generally defeating the philosophy behind the stack: 1 TD pass scores for 2 guys. Going QB/RB generally means that if 1 has a big game, likely the other doesn't.

I don't think you can do it w/ 2 high priced guys because you're really increasing the probability that 1 high-priced guy underperforms his salary. Maybe something like a (this week) Flacco/Forsett stack may work is you think Balt jumps out early w/ the passing attack then comes back w/ a heavy dose or Forsett in the 2nd half. That's a relatively cheap stack so maybe that might have some validity.

That said, I do think there is some legitimacy to something like a Cutler/Forte stack because Forte is targeted like a high-volume WR. I've mentioned that before but no one seemed to agree with me.

QB-WR stack is ideal for tournaments, where if that WR gets two TDs, you get 4 TDs.

The QB-RB stack is ideal for cash games. I used it last year to good effect with Manning/Moreno, and Wilson/Lynch. It's lower upside, but fairly safe. Unless the RB2 or FB or something vultures a TD, you're sure to get the points one way or another.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

The problem you have is you're generally defeating the philosophy behind the stack: 1 TD pass scores for 2 guys. Going QB/RB generally means that if 1 has a big game, likely the other doesn't.I don't think you can do it w/ 2 high priced guys because you're really increasing the probability that 1 high-priced guy underperforms his salary. Maybe something like a (this week) Flacco/Forsett stack may work is you think Balt jumps out early w/ the passing attack then comes back w/ a heavy dose or Forsett in the 2nd half. That's a relatively cheap stack so maybe that might have some validity.

That said, I do think there is some legitimacy to something like a Cutler/Forte stack because Forte is targeted like a high-volume WR. I've mentioned that before but no one seemed to agree with me.

QB-WR stack is ideal for tournaments, where if that WR gets two TDs, you get 4 TDs.The QB-RB stack is ideal for cash games. I used it last year to good effect with Manning/Moreno, and Wilson/Lynch. It's lower upside, but fairly safe. Unless the RB2 or FB or something vultures a TD, you're sure to get the points one way or another.

But how many points are you getting? If you're into QB and RB for $17,000 combined you need an awful lot of points out of those 2 spots, points that are (at least w/ Lynch) mutually exclusive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what's the opinion of the masses here on being somewhat contrarian and rather than a QB/WR stack...going with a QB/RB stack instead?? My thought would be...that way if that team scores, you score, no?? I see some good possibilities with this.

The problem you have is you're generally defeating the philosophy behind the stack: 1 TD pass scores for 2 guys. Going QB/RB generally means that if 1 has a big game, likely the other doesn't.I don't think you can do it w/ 2 high priced guys because you're really increasing the probability that 1 high-priced guy underperforms his salary. Maybe something like a (this week) Flacco/Forsett stack may work is you think Balt jumps out early w/ the passing attack then comes back w/ a heavy dose or Forsett in the 2nd half. That's a relatively cheap stack so maybe that might have some validity.

That said, I do think there is some legitimacy to something like a Cutler/Forte stack because Forte is targeted like a high-volume WR. I've mentioned that before but no one seemed to agree with me.

QB-WR stack is ideal for tournaments, where if that WR gets two TDs, you get 4 TDs.The QB-RB stack is ideal for cash games. I used it last year to good effect with Manning/Moreno, and Wilson/Lynch. It's lower upside, but fairly safe. Unless the RB2 or FB or something vultures a TD, you're sure to get the points one way or another.

But how many points are you getting? If you're into QB and RB for $17,000 combined you need an awful lot of points out of those 2 spots, points that are (at least w/ Lynch) mutually exclusive.

The QB and RB need to both be good values in their own right. But if they are, "stacking" them (we may need a different term for QB-RB combos) reduces variance, which is good in a cash game.

Suppose that Russell Wilson, Marshawn Lynch, and Jamaal Charles are all good values on their own. Let's compare a Wilson-Lynch combo to a Wilson-Charles combo.

To simplify everything as much as possible, let's say that the Seahawks and the Chiefs will both score three touchdowns, and all rushing touchdowns by those teams (but no receiving touchdowns) will be scored by Lynch or Charles. That's obviously unrealistic, but should still be instructive.

A Wilson-Lynch combo is guaranteed to get you exactly three touchdowns

A Wilson-Charles combo can get you anywhere from 0 to 6 touchdowns.

Holding other things equal, a QB-RB pair from the same team should be favored in cash games but disfavored in tournaments. (Just the opposite of a QB-WR pair from the same team.)

The preference for a QB-RB pair in cash games should be very slight, though. You should not be willing to sacrifice many expected points to select such a pair. You have to keep your expected points above the expected median for it to make sense to enter a cash game at all. In a tournament, it's okay to sacrifice a few points to get a QB-WR pair, but in a cash game, your preference for a QB-RB pair really shouldn't be much more than a tie-breaker.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Top 20 QB-Receiver stacks this week based on total expected points (average of MT, DD, SB) per dollar, in order:

I've built these into the value charts for each site now. I haven't tested it in different browsers or on different-sized monitors, so let me know if the formatting/sizing of the popup is awkward.

(I also don't have different lists for different game-times. Just the overall top 20 for the week.)

 

[ffinmyblood]

Top 20 QB-Receiver stacks this week based on total expected points (average of MT, DD, SB) per dollar, in order:

I've built these into the value charts for each site now. I haven't tested it in different browsers or on different-sized monitors, so let me know if the formatting/sizing of the popup is awkward.

(I also don't have different lists for different game-times. Just the overall top 20 for the week.)

This is fantastic Maurile! Was hoping you could somehow get it incorporated...one thing....anyway you can make it sortable by points?? Or at least list the stacks in order?? I see it's in order by value.

 

[ffinmyblood]

As far as the stack goes...thinking about this more, how vital really is it for a GPP?? Wouldn't you still just be better off taking the best player you can at QB/WR regardless of if they are on the same team or not?? For example... Let's use the McCown/Evans stack this week as an example....lets say McCown goes for 225 and 2 TD's...both to Evans..That math tells us McCown's day was good for 17 pts on Fanduel. 4+4(two TD's) + 225 pass yds=17. Now lets say Evans catches 6/79 and the two TD's=The math tells us that's 22.9 pts. So combined they got 39.9 pts. That's pretty good. Now....for arguments sake, lets say we replace McCown with Aaron Rodgers but keep Evans as one of our WR's...Rodgers goes for 325 and 3 Td's(very easily attainable). That's 4+4+4+13=25. We know that Evans had 22.9. So McCown-Evans combined for 39.9. While Rodgers/Evans would have combined for 47.9. That's a net gain of 8 pts for Rodgers and Evans as opposed to McCown-Evans. In a cash game, that may not be that vital, but the difference of 8 pts in a GPP, that can be incredibly significant!

So sure, with a stack, you are getting "double" the points, but my point is...if I can have Arodg and Evans or...McCown and Evans, I would take Arodg and Evans anytime. Value IS incredibly important, but the name of the game is scoring the most points...I see the value in McCown this week, most definitely...but In my example above I don't see many scenarios at all(barring injury) where there is ANY chance(stack or not), McCown's day would be better than Arodg's day. And yes, having Arodg means a significant price increase which means finding value elsewhere, but I still want to build a team that I think can score me the most points, do I not??

 

[snellman]

As far as the stack goes...thinking about this more, how vital really is it for a GPP?? Wouldn't you still just be better off taking the best player you can at QB/WR regardless of if they are on the same team or not?? For example... Let's use the McCown/Evans stack this week as an example....lets say McCown goes for 225 and 2 TD's...both to Evans..That math tells us McCown's day was good for 17 pts on Fanduel. 4+4(two TD's) + 225 pass yds=17. Now lets say Evans catches 6/79 and the two TD's=The math tells us that's 22.9 pts. So combined they got 39.9 pts. That's pretty good. Now....for arguments sake, lets say we replace McCown with Aaron Rodgers but keep Evans as one of our WR's...Rodgers goes for 325 and 3 Td's(very easily attainable). That's 4+4+4+13=25. We know that Evans had 22.9. So McCown-Evans combined for 39.9. While Rodgers/Evans would have combined for 47.9. That's a net gain of 8 pts for Rodgers and Evans as opposed to McCown-Evans. In a cash game, that may not be that vital, but the difference of 8 pts in a GPP, that can be incredibly significant!

So sure, with a stack, you are getting "double" the points, but my point is...if I can have Arodg and Evans or...McCown and Evans, I would take Arodg and Evans anytime. Value IS incredibly important, but the name of the game is scoring the most points...I see the value in McCown this week, most definitely...but In my example above I don't see many scenarios at all(barring injury) where there is ANY chance(stack or not), McCown's day would be better than Arodg's day. And yes, having Arodg means a significant price increase which means finding value elsewhere, but I still want to build a team that I think can score me the most points, do I not??

Yes you want the most points, but you also want the most value. If you use your example, the Rogers Evans combo would cost you $344 per point where the McCown Evans combo would cost you $308 per point. You paying up for Rogers is actually costing you more per point while taking away from possibly higher players at other positions. If you can find good value at the other positions that you are confident in go for it.

 

[ffinmyblood]

As far as the stack goes...thinking about this more, how vital really is it for a GPP?? Wouldn't you still just be better off taking the best player you can at QB/WR regardless of if they are on the same team or not?? For example... Let's use the McCown/Evans stack this week as an example....lets say McCown goes for 225 and 2 TD's...both to Evans..That math tells us McCown's day was good for 17 pts on Fanduel. 4+4(two TD's) + 225 pass yds=17. Now lets say Evans catches 6/79 and the two TD's=The math tells us that's 22.9 pts. So combined they got 39.9 pts. That's pretty good. Now....for arguments sake, lets say we replace McCown with Aaron Rodgers but keep Evans as one of our WR's...Rodgers goes for 325 and 3 Td's(very easily attainable). That's 4+4+4+13=25. We know that Evans had 22.9. So McCown-Evans combined for 39.9. While Rodgers/Evans would have combined for 47.9. That's a net gain of 8 pts for Rodgers and Evans as opposed to McCown-Evans. In a cash game, that may not be that vital, but the difference of 8 pts in a GPP, that can be incredibly significant!

So sure, with a stack, you are getting "double" the points, but my point is...if I can have Arodg and Evans or...McCown and Evans, I would take Arodg and Evans anytime. Value IS incredibly important, but the name of the game is scoring the most points...I see the value in McCown this week, most definitely...but In my example above I don't see many scenarios at all(barring injury) where there is ANY chance(stack or not), McCown's day would be better than Arodg's day. And yes, having Arodg means a significant price increase which means finding value elsewhere, but I still want to build a team that I think can score me the most points, do I not??

Yes you want the most points, but you also want the most value. If you use your example, the Rogers Evans combo would cost you $344 per point where the McCown Evans combo would cost you $308 per point. You paying up for Rogers is actually costing you more per point while taking away from possibly higher players at other positions. If you can find good value at the other positions that you are confident in go for it.

Totally understood about the value...BUT, it's only value at a level commensurate with their salary. In a large GPP, my school of thought is you need 3x a players salary in points to get true value out of them. For McCown, that would mean 17.1.Can he get that?? Sure....he could, but if I had to make a projection, it's likely more realistic he's between 12-15. For someone like Rodgers, that would be about 29. Now expensive QB's will rarely get you 3X their value, but they are still almost always a lock for 20(at least Arodg is). Arodg's floor is probably about 20, maybe a bit higher, whereas McCown's floor is around 10 IMO. if I only get 10 out of my QB in a large GPP, My chances of winning it are over before it even starts. IMO, you MUST get at least 20 out of your QB to have any chance of winning the whole thing...afterall, the winning score is probably around 180 on average so you need to average about 20 pts per position to put yourself in a good position.

 

[jandyt]

As far as the stack goes...thinking about this more, how vital really is it for a GPP?? Wouldn't you still just be better off taking the best player you can at QB/WR regardless of if they are on the same team or not?? For example... Let's use the McCown/Evans stack this week as an example....lets say McCown goes for 225 and 2 TD's...both to Evans..That math tells us McCown's day was good for 17 pts on Fanduel. 4+4(two TD's) + 225 pass yds=17. Now lets say Evans catches 6/79 and the two TD's=The math tells us that's 22.9 pts. So combined they got 39.9 pts. That's pretty good. Now....for arguments sake, lets say we replace McCown with Aaron Rodgers but keep Evans as one of our WR's...Rodgers goes for 325 and 3 Td's(very easily attainable). That's 4+4+4+13=25. We know that Evans had 22.9. So McCown-Evans combined for 39.9. While Rodgers/Evans would have combined for 47.9. That's a net gain of 8 pts for Rodgers and Evans as opposed to McCown-Evans. In a cash game, that may not be that vital, but the difference of 8 pts in a GPP, that can be incredibly significant!

So sure, with a stack, you are getting "double" the points, but my point is...if I can have Arodg and Evans or...McCown and Evans, I would take Arodg and Evans anytime. Value IS incredibly important, but the name of the game is scoring the most points...I see the value in McCown this week, most definitely...but In my example above I don't see many scenarios at all(barring injury) where there is ANY chance(stack or not), McCown's day would be better than Arodg's day. And yes, having Arodg means a significant price increase which means finding value elsewhere, but I still want to build a team that I think can score me the most points, do I not??

My bigger issue in a large GPP with a stack like McCown/Evans is that to win/finish high in those contests you typically need strong games(high scoring) from all your players. While Evans has the desired high ceiling, I don't think McCown does. In GPP Id rather pay up some for a QB with higher upside and look to save at RB/WR were there are cheaper options with the desired high ceiling.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Top 20 QB-Receiver stacks this week based on total expected points (average of MT, DD, SB) per dollar, in order:

I've built these into the value charts for each site now. I haven't tested it in different browsers or on different-sized monitors, so let me know if the formatting/sizing of the popup is awkward.

(I also don't have different lists for different game-times. Just the overall top 20 for the week.)

This is fantastic Maurile! Was hoping you could somehow get it incorporated...one thing....anyway you can make it sortable by points?? Or at least list the stacks in order?? I see it's in order by value.

Yes, they're the top 20 in terms of points per dollar, not in terms of points.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As far as the stack goes...thinking about this more, how vital really is it for a GPP?? Wouldn't you still just be better off taking the best player you can at QB/WR regardless of if they are on the same team or not?? For example... Let's use the McCown/Evans stack this week as an example....lets say McCown goes for 225 and 2 TD's...both to Evans..That math tells us McCown's day was good for 17 pts on Fanduel. 4+4(two TD's) + 225 pass yds=17. Now lets say Evans catches 6/79 and the two TD's=The math tells us that's 22.9 pts. So combined they got 39.9 pts. That's pretty good. Now....for arguments sake, lets say we replace McCown with Aaron Rodgers but keep Evans as one of our WR's...Rodgers goes for 325 and 3 Td's(very easily attainable). That's 4+4+4+13=25. We know that Evans had 22.9. So McCown-Evans combined for 39.9. While Rodgers/Evans would have combined for 47.9. That's a net gain of 8 pts for Rodgers and Evans as opposed to McCown-Evans. In a cash game, that may not be that vital, but the difference of 8 pts in a GPP, that can be incredibly significant!

So sure, with a stack, you are getting "double" the points, but my point is...if I can have Arodg and Evans or...McCown and Evans, I would take Arodg and Evans anytime. Value IS incredibly important, but the name of the game is scoring the most points...I see the value in McCown this week, most definitely...but In my example above I don't see many scenarios at all(barring injury) where there is ANY chance(stack or not), McCown's day would be better than Arodg's day. And yes, having Arodg means a significant price increase which means finding value elsewhere, but I still want to build a team that I think can score me the most points, do I not??

Yes you want the most points, but you also want the most value. If you use your example, the Rogers Evans combo would cost you $344 per point where the McCown Evans combo would cost you $308 per point. You paying up for Rogers is actually costing you more per point while taking away from possibly higher players at other positions. If you can find good value at the other positions that you are confident in go for it.

Totally understood about the value...BUT, it's only value at a level commensurate with their salary. In a large GPP, my school of thought is you need 3x a players salary in points to get true value out of them. For McCown, that would mean 17.1.Can he get that?? Sure....he could, but if I had to make a projection, it's likely more realistic he's between 12-15. For someone like Rodgers, that would be about 29. Now expensive QB's will rarely get you 3X their value, but they are still almost always a lock for 20(at least Arodg is). Arodg's floor is probably about 20, maybe a bit higher, whereas McCown's floor is around 10 IMO. if I only get 10 out of my QB in a large GPP, My chances of winning it are over before it even starts. IMO, you MUST get at least 20 out of your QB to have any chance of winning the whole thing...afterall, the winning score is probably around 180 on average so you need to average about 20 pts per position to put yourself in a good position.

Points per dollar makes a lot more sense than points per position as a metric, IMO. [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Looking for 20 points per position would make sense if you're spending an equal number of dollars at each position. But if you have Aaron Rodgers at QB, you're not spending an equal number of dollars at each position.[/SIZE]


In any case, the topic of stacking really has nothing to do with points per dollar or points per position. It's about correlated performances. If a QB has a great game, that makes it more likely that a given receiver from the same NFL team will have a great game, and vice versa. When you're going for all-or-nothing, that sort of correlation is helpful.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say you're in a 1,000-person winner-take-all contest. Each person's starting lineup will consist of nine quarterbacks. Everyone else is taking different combinations of Manning, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Newton, and so on. There's no salary cap -- people can just take the nine guys they like best. You and you alone are allowed to start the same quarterback in all nine slots -- but only if it's Josh McCown.

Wouldn't you do it?

McCown would be a lousy choice to fill one of nine slots because he's not on anybody's top-nine list this week. But his performance is perfectly correlated with his own performance, and that makes filling all nine slots with him a great bet. You're essentially getting 999-1 odds that he'll go nuts and be a top three QB this week. The chances of that happening may be slim, but they're much better than 999-1.

The lesson is that, in tournaments with a top-heavy payout structure, positively correlated performances can trump expected points.

In real life, a McCown-Evans combo is not nearly as correlated as a McCown-McCown combo. So you shouldn't be as willing to sacrifice expected points for a McCown-Evans combo. But they are correlated to some extent, which is a plus-factor in GPPs.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Is it just me, or is that Millionaire Maker at $40 filling very slowly?

It's a 71k limit and they only have 21k entered so far.

 

[GreenNGold]

Is it just me, or is that Millionaire Maker at $40 filling very slowly?

It's a 71k limit and they only have 21k entered so far.

It's slow, as a comparison the fanduel tournament is over half way filled already

 

[ctrlaltdefeat]

Fanduel pays out about 20% more entrants than draftkings and is $13 less per buy-in. Way better format. At $40 I'm not joining DK.

 

[Wadsworth]

Is it just me, or is that Millionaire Maker at $40 filling very slowly?

It's a 71k limit and they only have 21k entered so far.

This is worth keeping an eye on. It sounds like there is some potential for large overlay.

 

[snellman]

Am I crazy for considering this lineup for the Sunday Million on Fanduel?

QB Josh McCown 5700
RB Justin Forsett 6500
RB Ronnie Hillman 7400
WR Antonio Brown 9100
WR Julio Jones 8000
WR Calvin Johnson 8800
TE Owen Daniels 5400
K Shayne Graham 4600
D Atlanta Falcons 4500

 

[TwinTurbo]

Anybody have the ownership stats for Packers D this week?

 

[Keerock]

Anybody have the ownership stats for Packers D this week?

No... but I'm all-in. Cutler is a turnover machine.

 

[jeaton6]

I can't find anything I like other than rolling with McCown in cash games. He sucked earlier this year and still hit 16+ in his two full starts. Glennon was between 11-19 points (all but one was 16+). With Evans coming on and Sims back it seems like his worst case is 2x salary and most likely scenario, in particular at home against Atlanta, is more like 3x salary. What am I missing here ?

 

[Mo_Sloth]

Jeaton6.

I see what your talking about, but why not roll with Dirty Sanchez? On FD he's only 1100 more plus I threw in Maclin. Feast or famine I know but I think the rewards could be huge.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Good luck this week.

 

[Mo_Sloth]

NEvermind. I just noticed I had a free roll so I rolled with McCown and stacked with Jackson and Evans. Probably change it 10 times before kickoff but like the value.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Is it just me, or is that Millionaire Maker at $40 filling very slowly?

It's a 71k limit and they only have 21k entered so far.

This is worth keeping an eye on. It sounds like there is some potential for large overlay.

Absolutely. $40 would almost always be way too rich for me for just 1 shot in a tourney, but if it is still way underfilled tomorrow I might consider it.

 

[jeaton6]

Jeaton6.

I see what your talking about, but why not roll with Dirty Sanchez? On FD he's only 1100 more plus I threw in Maclin. Feast or famine I know but I think the rewards could be huge.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Good luck this week.

I think both could be good in GPP but I can put that $1,100 to good use elsewhere in my cash games.

 

[jeaton6]

Anyone else concerned about Hillman's floor and upside given the potential return of Ball this week?

 

[bp_]

I really hate that you can't find a FD 1 PM only tournament at $2 on Sunday AM any longer.

 

[bp_]

Am I crazy for considering this lineup for the Sunday Million on Fanduel?

QB Josh McCown 5700
RB Justin Forsett 6500
RB Ronnie Hillman 7400
WR Antonio Brown 9100
WR Julio Jones 8000
WR Calvin Johnson 8800
TE Owen Daniels 5400
K Shayne Graham 4600
D Atlanta Falcons 4500

I'm rolling with the Jones and down portion of your lineup in a lot of my entries today. I've passed on Brown to use that $ for other RBs.

 

[nastynate]

Anyone else concerned about Hillman's floor and upside given the potential return of Ball this week?

I see Hillman getting 15+ touches vs the raiders, no matter who else plays. I'm gonna roll with him.

 

[dmac37]

Any Draftkings guys have an opinion on moving on from the beginner games to the regular contests. Just wondering if the competition is a lot harder compared to the beginner level.

I have had decent success playing single entry 50/50, head to head and triple up in the $5-$20 range and was hoping that the odds won't be drastically tougher.

 

[jandyt]

Any Draftkings guys have an opinion on moving on from the beginner games to the regular contests. Just wondering if the competition is a lot harder compared to the beginner level.

I have had decent success playing single entry 50/50, head to head and triple up in the $5-$20 range and was hoping that the odds won't be drastically tougher.

I didn't find the average score changed much, if at all, when switching from beginner to regular on DK. The contests I tracked the difference was less than 1% or basically meaningless. That was mainly smaller dollar 1-5 contests.

 

[andrewd173]

A few random observations:

Dallas's already suspect defense has 2 key members dealing with injuries: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/injuries?team=dal - who just happen to be their DT and MLB. I'm really liking Denard Robinson playing at (his future) home in London at his price point in all formats.

I'm pretty heavy on Dirty Sanchez, mostly due to Chip Kelly's scheme which is pretty darn QB friendly. A slightly step down from Foles with a great matchup playing at home on Monday night at an amazing price point is too good to pass up. Factor in a pro-bowl LG coming back into the lineup, and I think we'll see a more balanced an efficient offense - finally. Perhaps the TE's may be released for more route running as well. However, before automatically stacking Sanchez with Maclin, I want a full game to see what the tendencies might be with the new QB.

On FantasyUp with a more flat QB cost chart, I'm paying a bit more for Ryan and Roethlisberger and see a double Julio and Antonio stack as very exciting, given the matchup and target %.

Kelvin Benjamin playing against Philly's zone heavy defense in a high scoring game looks like a nice play, as well as Justin Hunter playing against Baltimore's depleted secondary. Both players are cheap everywhere, highly targeted with good matchups and will be playing from behind.

As far as TE's, I'm sold on Rivera. Many have pointed out Denver's one Achilles's heel may be covering the TE (see Gronk last week.) Also considering Graham at home vs the 49'ers.

As far as defenses, looking at the Saints, Lions and Cards with good matchups.

 

[SpruceGoose]

A few random observations:

Dallas's already suspect defense has 2 key members dealing with injuries: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/injuries?team=dal - who just happen to be their DT and MLB. I'm really liking Denard Robinson playing at (his future) home in London at his price point in all formats.

I'm pretty heavy on Dirty Sanchez, mostly due to Chip Kelly's scheme which is pretty darn QB friendly. A slightly step down from Foles with a great matchup playing at home on Monday night at an amazing price point is too good to pass up. Factor in a pro-bowl LG coming back into the lineup, and I think we'll see a more balanced an efficient offense - finally. Perhaps the TE's may be released for more route running as well. However, before automatically stacking Sanchez with Maclin, I want a full game to see what the tendencies might be with the new QB.

On FantasyUp with a more flat QB cost chart, I'm paying a bit more for Ryan and Roethlisberger and see a double Julio and Antonio stack as very exciting, given the matchup and target %.

Kelvin Benjamin playing against Philly's zone heavy defense in a high scoring game looks like a nice play, as well as Justin Hunter playing against Baltimore's depleted secondary. Both players are cheap everywhere, highly targeted with good matchups and will be playing from behind.

As far as TE's, I'm sold on Rivera. Many have pointed out Denver's one Achilles's heel may be covering the TE (see Gronk last week.) Also considering Graham at home vs the 49'ers.

As far as defenses, looking at the Saints, Lions and Cards with good matchups.

This is my first week playing daily...and my observations were pretty much the same as yours.

Makes me feel a little bit better...but not sure if thats good for you

 

[dschuler]

Draft kings million has 39K/71K entries with 1:45 left before kickoff. The entry number before the house makes money is about 63K. Something to keep an eye on. Might throw together a few entries right before kickoff.