Prince Myshkin
Footballguy
I really suck this year...Increased my initial deposit 10x last year, but getting killed so far through 5 weeks.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FanDuel/Draftkings Week 5 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jandyt
- Start date
Ever Present Lurker
Footballguy
I generally play in several 1 and 3 dollar games, and a couple of fives - this week I added a $10. Road that Austin Davis - Brian Quick stack to what appears to be an undefeated week. While I don't expect every week to go this well, this week made feel smart.*
*So smart I have a whole $80 now lol
*So smart I have a whole $80 now lol
Unless the Seattle defense puts up 17 points tomorrow night against Cousins and the Redskins (the Giants only managed 15 when they drubbed Washington last week), your million-dollar winning DraftKings lineup looks like...
QB Peyton Manning (DEN) - $9,200 - 35.96 Points
RB Arian Foster (HOU) - $7,400 - 34.2 Points
RB Ben Tate (CLE) - $5,000 - 16.1 Points
WR Demaryius Thomas (DEN) - $7,400 - 45.6 Points (biggest PPR fantasy day for any player this year, I believe)
WR Emmanuel Sanders (DEN) - $5,100 - 20.9 Points
WR Golden Tate (DET) - $4,900 - 29.4 Points
That's a perfect bonus sweep, btw. All 18 bonus points for big yardage scored from that above cluster. No such luck on Tight End, though... not that it mattered.
TE Antonio Gates (SD) - $3,500 - 22 Points
FLEX Terrance Williams (DAL) - $4,400 - 15.1 Points
DST San Diego Chargers - $3,100 - 16 Points
TOTAL = 235.26 Points
Best value play would have been Branden Oliver at $3,000... who did what Donald Brown was supposed to do last week.
37.2 points isn't too shabby for that price, I'd say.
QB Peyton Manning (DEN) - $9,200 - 35.96 Points
RB Arian Foster (HOU) - $7,400 - 34.2 Points
RB Ben Tate (CLE) - $5,000 - 16.1 Points
WR Demaryius Thomas (DEN) - $7,400 - 45.6 Points (biggest PPR fantasy day for any player this year, I believe)
WR Emmanuel Sanders (DEN) - $5,100 - 20.9 Points
WR Golden Tate (DET) - $4,900 - 29.4 Points
That's a perfect bonus sweep, btw. All 18 bonus points for big yardage scored from that above cluster. No such luck on Tight End, though... not that it mattered.
TE Antonio Gates (SD) - $3,500 - 22 Points
FLEX Terrance Williams (DAL) - $4,400 - 15.1 Points
DST San Diego Chargers - $3,100 - 16 Points
TOTAL = 235.26 Points
Best value play would have been Branden Oliver at $3,000... who did what Donald Brown was supposed to do last week.
37.2 points isn't too shabby for that price, I'd say.
Last edited by a moderator:
JimmyJabroni
Footballguy
I'm really bummed out after this weekend. This down up down up down every week is frustrating. One week I feel like I have it all figured out and the next I feel like a magic 8 ball could do a better job making picks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wadsworth
Footballguy
Weird week. Lost almost 90% of my entries due to the common issues(Jennings hurt, J. Graham hurt, A. Brown weak, etc), but actually ended up making money because I threw in a P. Manning/Thomas/Thomas stack in a couple of cheap GPPs last minute. The late FG and Lynch TD cost me $300 but came out $90 positive for the week. Not bad for losing almost everything. Maybe I need to budget more for GPPs.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
The Manning/DT/Olsen lineups saved my week. I only play GPP and in most of my lineups, I was all-in with a core of Bush, Jennings, Hilton, K.Benjamin, Lions D. This hobby can be so frustrating sometimes, but hedging with Manning/DT/Olsen on a few teams paid off. Had two of these lineups finish in the top 36 in the $5 PFC qualifier. If I would have picked another kicker besides Suisham, I would have won a seat.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Same here. After all was said and done I ended up with a 5% profit this week. I'll gladly take it considering I was heavily invested in guys like Rashad Jennings, Reggie Bush, Jimmy Graham, etc.
Code:
Wk Entered Won ROI1 $224 $335.00 49.6%2 $208 $315.00 51.4%3 $377 $311.60 -17.3%4 $419 $633.80 51.3%5 $392 $413.80 5.6%
Skoo
Footballguy
Saved by the Monday-Sunday games again! Won $80 in the primetime game to cover my losses for the weekend.
Anyone else do really well with the Sun-Mon or Mon-Thurs games?
I've had a lot of luck so far and noticed the 2 weeks I did really well my primetime lineups scored more than my regular contest lineups.
I guess it's just easier to choose which "studs" you want to play when there's only 4 teams.
Either way, I'm doing these from now on. Makes watching SNF and MNF more fun too as you likely have players from all 4 teams.
Anyone else do really well with the Sun-Mon or Mon-Thurs games?
I've had a lot of luck so far and noticed the 2 weeks I did really well my primetime lineups scored more than my regular contest lineups.
I guess it's just easier to choose which "studs" you want to play when there's only 4 teams.
Either way, I'm doing these from now on. Makes watching SNF and MNF more fun too as you likely have players from all 4 teams.
Ive done well in mon/thu contests lately but on very small sample size as Ive only played 1 or 2 of those a week. May play more but honestly don't tend to feel as good about those lineups even though Ive done well.
IgglesFan
Footballguy
Could have been a disastrous week, but got off to a great start Thursday with the GB defense, and Quick and Jones saved me on Sunday. Orton was a good call for the $4800 needed to buy him and flow money into the WR position.
Won both H-to-H's, but lost a 16-entry contest by finishing 6th....basically broke even
Skoo
Footballguy
Like I said from what I can gather, it's a lot easier to pick the "stud" players that will do well with only 4 teams to choose from. Like for this week's SNF and MNF, I knew I had to try and get Giovani, Lynch, Gronk, AJ, and Wilson on my team. I did exactly that, and then figured out how to fill the rest of the roster under the cap.
In other words, instead of a normal game where I have to pick which 3 WRs out of the top 20 or so will blow up that week, I only have to choose from the maybe 4-5 decent WRs from the two games involved in the conest.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
But that's true for all the people you're playing against, too. I always figured things like "it's easier to pick studs" would just make it harder to win, not easier, since it's easier for weaker opponents to field competitive rosters.Skoo said:
I never play in the "primetime", "4pm only", etc. type games for precisely that reason. I want my opponents to have as many players to choose from as possible, because then they're more likely to make mistakes. If you restrict their choice to players from just 4 teams, it's much easier for them to pick the right players, even if only by accident.
That has been my thoughts too but in the last 3 weeks I'm 5 for 5 in Mo/TH and 3 out of 4 in Prime Time. Figuring its more fluky that a real trend but still tempts me to play more in those slots.But that's true for all the people you're playing against, too. I always figured things like "it's easier to pick studs" would just make it harder to win, not easier, since it's easier for weaker opponents to field competitive rosters.Skoo said:
I never play in the "primetime", "4pm only", etc. type games for precisely that reason. I want my opponents to have as many players to choose from as possible, because then they're more likely to make mistakes. If you restrict their choice to players from just 4 teams, it's much easier for them to pick the right players, even if only by accident.
Cashed in with some Austin Davis/Brian Quick stacks. Could have been more if the Steelers showed up more than they did.
So I know there are many different ways to play this. I see some people do like 1 or 2 lineups and then play them in a lot of entries. Kind of an all or nothing approach. I tend to go with a mix of lineups with some repeats mixed in for variance. I suppose that could limit my chances of winning all/most of my entries, but I like that all my teams won't be losses (hopefully). I'm only doing this as a passing hobby, so I play around 8-10 entries a week. Mix of 50/50 or double/triple ups then some GPPs. I've basically been breaking even every week, which isn't bad. Get some shots at big GPP payouts and let the cash games make up the difference. But I can see the appeal of playing a lot of 50-50 types and just winning with those.
So I know there are many different ways to play this. I see some people do like 1 or 2 lineups and then play them in a lot of entries. Kind of an all or nothing approach. I tend to go with a mix of lineups with some repeats mixed in for variance. I suppose that could limit my chances of winning all/most of my entries, but I like that all my teams won't be losses (hopefully). I'm only doing this as a passing hobby, so I play around 8-10 entries a week. Mix of 50/50 or double/triple ups then some GPPs. I've basically been breaking even every week, which isn't bad. Get some shots at big GPP payouts and let the cash games make up the difference. But I can see the appeal of playing a lot of 50-50 types and just winning with those.
Crusaderfan
Footballguy
While it wasn't the TOP lineup, the Denver stack won ALOT of people money this past week.
I still like going with a QB and WR or TE stack in my GPP's.
Last edited by a moderator:
On the flip side, I have run with 1-2 main lineups since the start of the season and have thus far quadrupled my initial buy in to begin the season via head to heads (no tournament scores to spike the results).
I'm a believer in finding 1 or 2 lineups you feel strongly about and then riding them in all matchups. I don't believe in submitting a lineup I feel may be inferior simply to try and tame variance . If I am that worried about variance, then I have too much money in play.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree with 1-2 lineups. How much commonality do you allow between the two lineups...you usually rolling with 3-4 of the same guys across lineups? In Fanduel, I also play a 3rd GPP specific lineup. Typically makes the weeks high or low, with little in between, but over an entire season, I'm confident that I can pick more winning weeks than losing weeks, and come out on top.
Herm, if you're struggling bad with 1-2 lineups is has to do with the quality of teams (obvious), or the type of games and bankroll management you're employing. Are you playing the majority of your $ in H2H's or are you going more GPPs and 50/50s? Maybe rethink the strategy for picking players...you going big time TEs and bargain QBs, or the opposite? Try switching some things up. It's a marathon, not a sprint, so being down know doesn't mean you can't win big by the end of the season.
snellman
Footballguy
I have good results running 2 lineups in the head to head, 50/50s, and Double ups. I have ground out a small profit on the season so far in these contests (will post results when I get home). Where I have struggled is in the other GPPs.
I usually only throw out a few small entry lineups, mainly $1 or $2 nothing above $5, but I can't seem to hit on anything, maybe it is just a luck thing.
ETA: I have won $122 playing head to head, 50/50s and Double ups. However I have lost $76 on GPPs. I have a net of $30 profit for this season according to the RG bankroll tracker but I definitely need to tone back the GPPs because I am not having any luck there at all.
I usually only throw out a few small entry lineups, mainly $1 or $2 nothing above $5, but I can't seem to hit on anything, maybe it is just a luck thing.
ETA: I have won $122 playing head to head, 50/50s and Double ups. However I have lost $76 on GPPs. I have a net of $30 profit for this season according to the RG bankroll tracker but I definitely need to tone back the GPPs because I am not having any luck there at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do 2 lineups every week for all my H2H and 50/50's. I then have fun entering a bunch of different LU's in GPP's.
My personal breakdown of each week is 50% spent on H2H's, 35% spent on 50/50's and 15% spent on GPP's. Those percentages are the total I spend of my given bankroll each week, which is normally 10% of my bankroll.
Yes, it's not as much fun if your only able to spend $50 and can only do 1-2 GPP's, but once you build your bankroll higher and higher through H2H's & 50/50's, it gets much more enjoyable (and nerve racking).
My initial deposit at Fanduel of $25 is now at $1120.88, and that's through grinding not hitting a big payday in a GPP.
My personal breakdown of each week is 50% spent on H2H's, 35% spent on 50/50's and 15% spent on GPP's. Those percentages are the total I spend of my given bankroll each week, which is normally 10% of my bankroll.
Yes, it's not as much fun if your only able to spend $50 and can only do 1-2 GPP's, but once you build your bankroll higher and higher through H2H's & 50/50's, it gets much more enjoyable (and nerve racking).
My initial deposit at Fanduel of $25 is now at $1120.88, and that's through grinding not hitting a big payday in a GPP.
I think you misunderstood. I have experienced remakable success so far this season running just 1 or 2 lineups and going all on with those lineups rather than spreading out the wealth across multiple lineups.
My general strategy is to identify 2-3 bargain basement players that I feel have the potential to vastly outproduce their price per lineup and then load up on top level stars that I feel confident will excel based on matchups, health, weather, and other factors for the remaining positions. I tend to have lineups that have 3-4 players priced in the top 5-10 at their position and 2-3 players priced in the bottom 20-30% of their position. I will generally vary the bargain basement players across 2 lineups and load up on the same stars with both lineups. I don't have set positions in mind that I plan to choose the bargain basement players in, but rather choose based on matchups, trends, etc... I have typically found myself downgrading at QB on a consistant basis, however, as I feel there are more solid options at cheap prices at this position than any others (there are cheap options at other positions for sure, but I am tending to find the cheap QB's hit at a more consistant rate and are generally easier to predict. This may be false and just small sample size, but it is my observation thus far).
shoecrew22
Footballguy
Thinking of going with:
Peyton
Oliver
Andre Williams
DT
Jarius Wright
Allen Robinson
Julius Thomas
Suisham
Lions
Peyton
Oliver
Andre Williams
DT
Jarius Wright
Allen Robinson
Julius Thomas
Suisham
Lions
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
This is expected. When you go all in on only 1 or 2 lineups, you're usually either going to have remarkable success or remarkable failure. It's a higher-variance strategy. On the weeks you guess right, you're going to win most or all of your contests; on the weeks you guess wrong, you're going to lose most of them (of course, there will sometimes be weeks where you guess right in the middle, and if your 1-2 lineups are spread across several contests you may have a more moderate result). That's not to say it's a better or worse strategy than using more lineups, it's just higher-variance. As long as your bankroll can withstand a higher-variance strategy, it's fine (it sounds like you're aware of this so I may be preaching to the choir).
Just don't get lulled into a false sense of security because you've had a few successful weeks in a row. Even if you're generally good at identifying the best values, you can't predict when a player's going to break his leg on the first play from scrimmage or something. Sometimes guys just underperform. Those weeks are going to happen, they happen to all of us, and you're going to lose a lot if you're all in on a handful of players that underperform their price. As long as "a lot" is still only a manageable portion of your budget, it's ok.
I don't disagree. My original post was to indicate that I'm a believer in rolling out 1-2 lineups and handle variance by only investing the percentage of my bankroll that I am comfortable losing on a given week. I have been playing dailies since last year and have had my share of down weeks due to unforseeable injuries, but have consistantly grown my bankroll at a very good clip by only ever investing the amount I am willing to lose on a particular week. I personally feel this is a better way of managing variance than watering down my lineups by submitting multiple variations on a given week. If you feel confident in identifying values and strong plays in a particular week, it makes sense to me to go all in with those plays and not worry about uncontrollable factors that may impact the outcome. I don't want to be submitting lineups I feel are inferior to my best one on any given week simply to acount for the possibility of an injury, snowstorm, etc...
That said, different strokes for different folks and there are a lot of ways to go about it. I'm sure others have had just as much if not more success doing it a different way.
I don't know why this popped into my head today, but a clarifying thought came to me at random.
You can think of a DFS match as a contest to see who can best identify and exploit pricing mistakes by the host site.
In order to have an advantage in such a contest, (a) there must be pricing mistakes by the host site, and (b) those mistakes must be at least somewhat subtle rather than completely obvious.
If there are no pricing mistakes by the host site, there's nothing to exploit. It's just a contest to see who can get luckiest.
If the pricing mistakes are too obvious, nearly everyone will spot them, so there's no separation between good players and bad players. A highschool dropout can compete on equal footing with the world's most brilliant mathematician at the game of counting to five. The level of difficulty must be increased before skilled players have an appreciable advantage over unskilled players.
I think I was focusing too much on (a) before, and not enough on (b).
Last edited by a moderator:
