Fanduel week 12 (1 Viewer)

[TSquaredUA]

The pay up WRs certainly aren't doing anything.

I'm afraid that will be my downfall this week. Lots of Hopkins, Odell-Beckam, Jones, and Brown. First 3 to go look pretty bad.

Meh. Everyone has them, especially Hopkins. In cash action they aren't going to be that fatal thanks to ownership percentages.

I hate when people make statements like this. Unless a player you own that bombs is 100% owned it's going to hurt you. 35% of the field that didn't roster Hopkins now has a huge edge on me. Same with the 74% that didn't roster Julio. The 35% that didn't roster Hopkins are the ones in the top 45% needed to cash. So now myself and everyone else that rostered Hopkins are fighting for that last 10% that cash. Add Julio to the mix and you're done. Didn't matter that most of my other players hit or exceeded their projection.

If Hopkins and Julio hit their combined projection of ~40 points I cash in all of my 50/50s and DUs. Because they combined for 14, I'm not going to cash. So yes, it was fatal despite the high ownership.

 

[WhoDat]

How does a QB throw for 456 and only 1 TD? I would have thought that impossible. I don't have him in cash, but that's amazing.

I built 80% of my GPP line-ups around this game. Felt Vegas was way off and it was going to be a track meet. But this ... 456 and only a single TD? Grrrrrrrr .....

That and Miller have 7 FD points heading into Q2 and leaving with an injury. Just a big thank you to the bad man getting his feet wet and D Baldwin/Kearse. These stacks along with the Jets stack all paired with AD saved my blank this weekend.

Don't blame Yeldon for yesterday. He was very quickly off to 4-5 FD points in Q1. Turf monster tackled him on a screen that would have been a LONG play. Jags were inside the RZ early and often and, well, the worse play calling imaginable and, then, dumped the run WAY too soon. They may want to run the tape of last year's NFC Championship Game. That loss on their coaching staff's inability to be anything but predictable and playing not to lose, which is worse than not playing at all.

And on the point by D Knotts ... supporting the note ...

The "pros" were all heavy on Yeldon; Rawls; Hopkins; Jones; OBJ; Reed; AZ K and Chiefs D. Some had Jets D. If I were to build last week's line-ups over and over, while someone telling me how bad the outcome would be, 100/100 times I would have used the same players and said there is NO WAY the line-up does not work.and that "someone" is full of blank

As long as the randoms that treated cash games like GPP because they know no better didn't stack the Browns offense, should remain above the cash line and end up with small profit this weekend.

Someone made a point on this earlier ...

The cash lines and more specifically the actual line-ups in the cash games between $1 - $5 have become RANDOM. People stacked the Bills passing attack yesterday, for example, or worse yet the Chiefs passing game. Think about the total on that game and the weather. Just leave it in that space minus anything else. ZERO reason to use anyone in that game not named S Ware in cash yesterday. influence of new players with zero clue or, maybe, the cities of KC and BUF just all went deep on Fan Duel yesterday.

I am finding it becomes much safer, while having a smaller margin for error due to the skill level, above the $10 mark. Closer to $100 the better the player but all the line-ups are the same minus 1-2 roster spots. And the maxim of ... if he does bad, we all suffer; does well, we all win ... still holds true. That, opinion, is no longer the case with the lower entry point cash games.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

The pay up WRs certainly aren't doing anything.

I'm afraid that will be my downfall this week. Lots of Hopkins, Odell-Beckam, Jones, and Brown. First 3 to go look pretty bad.

Meh. Everyone has them, especially Hopkins. In cash action they aren't going to be that fatal thanks to ownership percentages.

I hate when people make statements like this. Unless a player you own that bombs is 100% owned it's going to hurt you. 35% of the field that didn't roster Hopkins now has a huge edge on me. Same with the 74% that didn't roster Julio. The 35% that didn't roster Hopkins are the ones in the top 45% needed to cash. So now myself and everyone else that rostered Hopkins are fighting for that last 10% that cash. Add Julio to the mix and you're done. Didn't matter that most of my other players hit or exceeded their projection.

If Hopkins and Julio hit their combined projection of ~40 points I cash in all of my 50/50s and DUs. Because they combined for 14, I'm not going to cash. So yes, it was fatal despite the high ownership.

You may hate it, but it's accurate. Of course it hurts when any player you roster bombs (and I didn't say otherwise), but when highly-owned players bomb, the impact on the cutline downward is pronounced. If Hopkins scored 30, then 74% of the field increases their scores by 24, and you can bet that the distribution of that 74% isn't even. Add 24 points to 74% of the field and the cutline will likely jump 15 or more. That's an actual net difference of ~9 points vs. the cutline, not insignificant but hardly fatal if the rest of your roster is OK. You can pull the rosters of one of your double-ups and actually run the math on that particular contest to see the net difference. I might actually be overestimating it actually.

And the above assumes that the 26% without Hopkins did well with the alternative. You have the added analysis of (1) who did that ~26% roster instead of Hopkins and (2) where did they spend the "savings" (if any). Just because Hopkins bombed doesn't mean that all of the other 26% did any better. I mean, did they "upgrade" from Ware to Gurley or Blount or Miller with that extra money? Did they roster Antonio Brown instead? It's not like that 26% automatically got more points with that $9400 than Hopkins produced.

At the end of the day it appears to my eye that cutlines for double-ups won't get close to 120 (obviously anything can happen tonight with some decent ownership percentages of McCown and Barnidge [15-18%], but it doesn't appear to me that a 20 point increase is particularly likely). My 118 that is done (which had Hopkins and KC and Novak) feels safe to me and I'm actually optimistic that it holds on to its triples. You wouldn't need that much of an increase in performance to make the money even if you rostered both. I don't know who projected those 2 players to combine for 40 points (the IVC projected 37.6), but assume that you needed that 40 to reach 120, then you have to "make-up" 25.8 points out of 7 other players to get to 120 (a figure I think exceeds the double-up cashline by a comfortable margin). If the majority of your other players exceeded projections as you say, then you should at least be reasonably close to that, something that would be highly unlikely if you had 2 low-owned players who bombed.

So yeah, when you score fewer points than you planned it hurts. But when a highly owned player bombs, it simply isn't fatal unless you already had a borderline roster. It's just math.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

How does a QB throw for 456 and only 1 TD? I would have thought that impossible. I don't have him in cash, but that's amazing.

I built 80% of my GPP line-ups around this game. Felt Vegas was way off and it was going to be a track meet. But this ... 456 and only a single TD? Grrrrrrrr .....

That and Miller have 7 FD points heading into Q2 and leaving with an injury. Just a big thank you to the bad man getting his feet wet and D Baldwin/Kearse. These stacks along with the Jets stack all paired with AD saved my blank this weekend.

Don't blame Yeldon for yesterday. He was very quickly off to 4-5 FD points in Q1. Turf monster tackled him on a screen that would have been a LONG play. Jags were inside the RZ early and often and, well, the worse play calling imaginable and, then, dumped the run WAY too soon. They may want to run the tape of last year's NFC Championship Game. That loss on their coaching staff's inability to be anything but predictable and playing not to lose, which is worse than not playing at all.

And on the point by D Knotts ... supporting the note ...

The "pros" were all heavy on Yeldon; Rawls; Hopkins; Jones; OBJ; Reed; AZ K and Chiefs D. Some had Jets D. If I were to build last week's line-ups over and over, while someone telling me how bad the outcome would be, 100/100 times I would have used the same players and said there is NO WAY the line-up does not work.and that "someone" is full of blank

As long as the randoms that treated cash games like GPP because they know no better didn't stack the Browns offense, should remain above the cash line and end up with small profit this weekend.

Someone made a point on this earlier ...

The cash lines and more specifically the actual line-ups in the cash games between $1 - $5 have become RANDOM. People stacked the Bills passing attack yesterday, for example, or worse yet the Chiefs passing game. Think about the total on that game and the weather. Just leave it in that space minus anything else. ZERO reason to use anyone in that game not named S Ware in cash yesterday. influence of new players with zero clue or, maybe, the cities of KC and BUF just all went deep on Fan Duel yesterday.

I am finding it becomes much safer, while having a smaller margin for error due to the skill level, above the $10 mark. Closer to $100 the better the player but all the line-ups are the same minus 1-2 roster spots. And the maxim of ... if he does bad, we all suffer; does well, we all win ... still holds true. That, opinion, is no longer the case with the lower entry point cash games.

And how does Ben throw for 456 but Brown (who played all game) get well under 100 yards of it? Again, something I would have thought impossible. I was completely off of Julio in my cash lineups (Ryan looks lost right now), but I had a fair dose of Brown instead so it was hardly like I parlayed being right on Julio into anything special. I was like you, I thought the game would be a score-fest. My #1 cash lineup was built around Wilson (very good) and Brown (not so good).

 

[WhoDat]

TN ATO ... I figured the Steelers would attack the weaker CB (2 and slot) and leverage Miller. I had some Brown but was heavy on M Bryant and Miller. Oh, M Wheaton ... what could have been? Never even crossed my mind.

Very good in-game adjustment by the Steelers post Miller injury. Whatever they had planned via Miller look like it rolled over to Wheaton. He absolutely abused Seattle. And poor Bryant ... under thrown 4x for long ones .... 3x by Ben and 1x by Jones. That guy is just a freakish physical specimen and a few better throws they've got 2 WR at the 200 mark.

I overestimated the H Smith injury in the ATL game. Zimmer is pretty decent on that side of the ball and gave too much credence to the Falcons missing everyone but Julio. Should have known better but split ownership of Jones with OBJ and Rawls/Ware. I usually play a single cash line-up and this little move sees me ending up winning just a little versus much more.

Hope anyone chasing greatness wins tonight

 

[Joe T]

I entered a $10 multi-entry GPP over the weekend because I saw Assani was in it and wanted to take a look at his lineups just out of curiosity. I entered one lineup which did not cash. But thought you guys might be interested in looking at the 6 lineups Assani entered to compare his thought process to yours.

Lineup 1 - Currently winning $30

Carr

Blue

McCoy

Amari Cooper

Antonio Brown

Marshall

Eifert

Cantazaro

NE

Total: 130.1

Lineup 2 - Currently winning $30

Manning

Bernard

Woodhead

Beckham Jr

Robinson

Decker

Delanie Walker

Santos

Cinci

Total: 128.84

Lineup 3 - Currently at $25 with 2 players remaining

Brady

Peterson

(Hidden Monday RB - Allen?)

(Hidden Monday WR - ??)

M. Bryant

Stevie Johnson

Gronk

Vinateri

Chiefs

Total: 127.9

Lineup 4 - Winning $0

Wilson

Ingram

L. Miller

Diggs

Cooks

AJ Green

Graham

Nugent

AZ

Total: 109.4

Lineup 5 - Currently winning $0 - 1 player remaining

Palmer

Rawls

Martin

Fitzgerald

Julio Jones

Crabtree

Reed

Novack

(Hidden Monday Night Defense - Cle or Balt)

Total: 91.24

Lineup 6 - Currently winning $0

Hoyer

Gurley

Draughn

Hopkins

Demaryius

Desean Jackson

Kelce

Haushka

Jags

Total: 74.20

Comments? It is an interesting strategy, but I will save my comments until others have had a shot.

$60 entry fees - Currently returning $85 (net +$25) with chance for upside tonight.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I struggled w/ RB. I had no feel other than AP, but he was so expensive it was tough to roster him and get the highly-owned WRs too. So I just had him in a couple. Otherwise I was only slightly better than a random mix and match. Some hit and some didn't.

 

[pbandy1]

well, got a surplus of about $700 this week. That is subject to change with tonight's game but hopefully, for my sake, that will be low scoring . Had Tannehill or Wilson in every one of my GPPs... it is funny because Tannehill had an awful game but garbage points really counted this time. Also had Jarvis Landry in every line-up. Stefon Diggs and Julio Jones killed me but I should have realized that potential low scoring of that game, even Bloom mentioned that in a podcast. Kendall Wright was also a miss, according to Rotoworld he played just 34-of-62 snaps... obviously a gamble putting him in a line-up after the injury.

My TEs were hit and miss: Walker, Gronk, Graham, Reed, a couple with Barnidge.

Best line-up was:

Wilson

Ingram

Yeldon

Julio Jones

Landry

Diggs

Walker

Myers

Bengals

which is hilarious because there are a lot of misses there

edit: I also need to pay attention to weather reports more, they matter. For example, the Cowboys/Dolphins game last week, and the Titans/Riaders game this week.

 

[Bobcat10]

re: Assani

By interesting strategy are you saying 6 lineups with 54 unique players? Other than that I don't see anything that sticks out.

Even the great Assani couldn't even cash that gpp with Jones or Hopkins in his lineup.

 

[frae]

Looking like it could be a good weekend. I have McCown in two lineups that could both cash in the 50/50's. One of those two lineups still has Barnidge so I could hit the triple and the quint with that.

My Russell Wilson lineup is in first in 100 person tourny and 3rd in a 250. The 100 has a real shot to win so that could cover a lot of mistakes. I also tossed out a Wilson in a $2 big GPP that is in 617th out of 115,000 so that $2 could return $25.

Anyone playing the Monday-Thursday games?

 

[Bobcat10]

The pay up WRs certainly aren't doing anything.

I'm afraid that will be my downfall this week. Lots of Hopkins, Odell-Beckam, Jones, and Brown. First 3 to go look pretty bad.

Meh. Everyone has them, especially Hopkins. In cash action they aren't going to be that fatal thanks to ownership percentages.

I hate when people make statements like this. Unless a player you own that bombs is 100% owned it's going to hurt you. 35% of the field that didn't roster Hopkins now has a huge edge on me. Same with the 74% that didn't roster Julio. The 35% that didn't roster Hopkins are the ones in the top 45% needed to cash. So now myself and everyone else that rostered Hopkins are fighting for that last 10% that cash. Add Julio to the mix and you're done. Didn't matter that most of my other players hit or exceeded their projection.

If Hopkins and Julio hit their combined projection of ~40 points I cash in all of my 50/50s and DUs. Because they combined for 14, I'm not going to cash. So yes, it was fatal despite the high ownership.

You may hate it, but it's accurate. Of course it hurts when any player you roster bombs (and I didn't say otherwise), but when highly-owned players bomb, the impact on the cutline downward is pronounced. If Hopkins scored 30, then 74% of the field increases their scores by 24, and you can bet that the distribution of that 74% isn't even. Add 24 points to 74% of the field and the cutline will likely jump 15 or more. That's an actual net difference of ~9 points vs. the cutline, not insignificant but hardly fatal if the rest of your roster is OK. You can pull the rosters of one of your double-ups and actually run the math on that particular contest to see the net difference. I might actually be overestimating it actually.

And the above assumes that the 26% without Hopkins did well with the alternative. You have the added analysis of (1) who did that ~26% roster instead of Hopkins and (2) where did they spend the "savings" (if any). Just because Hopkins bombed doesn't mean that all of the other 26% did any better. I mean, did they "upgrade" from Ware to Gurley or Blount or Miller with that extra money? Did they roster Antonio Brown instead? It's not like that 26% automatically got more points with that $9400 than Hopkins produced.

At the end of the day it appears to my eye that cutlines for double-ups won't get close to 120 (obviously anything can happen tonight with some decent ownership percentages of McCown and Barnidge [15-18%], but it doesn't appear to me that a 20 point increase is particularly likely). My 118 that is done (which had Hopkins and KC and Novak) feels safe to me and I'm actually optimistic that it holds on to its triples. You wouldn't need that much of an increase in performance to make the money even if you rostered both. I don't know who projected those 2 players to combine for 40 points (the IVC projected 37.6), but assume that you needed that 40 to reach 120, then you have to "make-up" 25.8 points out of 7 other players to get to 120 (a figure I think exceeds the double-up cashline by a comfortable margin). If the majority of your other players exceeded projections as you say, then you should at least be reasonably close to that, something that would be highly unlikely if you had 2 low-owned players who bombed.

So yeah, when you score fewer points than you planned it hurts. But when a highly owned player bombs, it simply isn't fatal unless you already had a borderline roster. It's just math.

I don't have much of an issue with your points, plus I think the word "fatal" is being interpreted differently by everyone.

But you completely lose me with the bolded. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure.

If you rostered two of those highly owned WRs that tanked, who by themselves sucked up almost 1/3 of your cap, you're segmented into a much smaller group of your cash contest making it that much harder to make up for. All the people that rostered only one of them have an advantage over you and anyone who rostered none of them have a significant advantage over you.

Thinking specifically about those WRs this week, they are high ceiling guys based on their skills and their matchups. Maybe in hindsight Jones should not have been, but either way his floor should get him right near cash game value, and he was playing from behind so it's not like the game script flipped on him. Those are the players on my roster that I expect to make up for a miss either in the value part of my roster or the mid-range part. I don't expect the rest of my roster to carry two major flops consisting of 1/3 of my cap. I'm sure some people managed to pull it out, but I'm guessing they were few and far between - I don't think there were that many realistic combinations to get you there.

 

[Bobcat10]

Go Browns D! And Balt D! I don't have them, but a bunch of you do!

 

[Bobcat10]

Never noticed this til now...

So the Balt return doesn't count against the Browns D? They are getting 4pts right now for holding their opponent to 7-13pts.

 

[Omniscient Deity]

Is it weird that I've lost a decent amount of money on FD this year and won a decent amount at DK?

Playing GPP's at both all year(and yes I'm aware of scoring system differences).

 

[TSquaredUA]

The pay up WRs certainly aren't doing anything.

I'm afraid that will be my downfall this week. Lots of Hopkins, Odell-Beckam, Jones, and Brown. First 3 to go look pretty bad.

Meh. Everyone has them, especially Hopkins. In cash action they aren't going to be that fatal thanks to ownership percentages.

I hate when people make statements like this. Unless a player you own that bombs is 100% owned it's going to hurt you. 35% of the field that didn't roster Hopkins now has a huge edge on me. Same with the 74% that didn't roster Julio. The 35% that didn't roster Hopkins are the ones in the top 45% needed to cash. So now myself and everyone else that rostered Hopkins are fighting for that last 10% that cash. Add Julio to the mix and you're done. Didn't matter that most of my other players hit or exceeded their projection.

If Hopkins and Julio hit their combined projection of ~40 points I cash in all of my 50/50s and DUs. Because they combined for 14, I'm not going to cash. So yes, it was fatal despite the high ownership.

You may hate it, but it's accurate.

So yeah, when you score fewer points than you planned it hurts. But when a highly owned player bombs, it simply isn't fatal unless you already had a borderline roster. It's just math.

That was my entire point, in my case (and I'm sure other people's) it WAS fatal because I'm only 5-10 points back from the moneyline.

Also Dodds had Hopkins + Julio projected at 38.5. I said ~40 which means roughly 40. 38.5 would fall into that category for the majority of the population FYI.

 

[DukeBroadway]

What a crazy end to the MNF game. That last play was a $100 swing, not in my favor. Still I wont complain, finished 36th in the 200k $1 gpp. I continue to lose far more games than I win. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

 

[AquaBliss]

So I'm confused on the scoring for Browns D tonight. Prior to that final blocked FG, Browns D had 10 pts.

After the blocked FG and return TD, Browns D had allowed 33 pts on defense and according to the rules:

https://www.fanduel.com/rules

They should be deducted a point for allowing between 28-34 pts. However, the Browns D total never went from 10 to 9.

I actually don't mind this as it would have cost me first place in a 10 player league, and reduced my take on the prime time slate - but is this an error? Seems clearly to be a mistake unless for some reason the defense isn't penalized for the last score since special teams were on the field?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

The pay up WRs certainly aren't doing anything.

I'm afraid that will be my downfall this week. Lots of Hopkins, Odell-Beckam, Jones, and Brown. First 3 to go look pretty bad.

Meh. Everyone has them, especially Hopkins. In cash action they aren't going to be that fatal thanks to ownership percentages.

I hate when people make statements like this. Unless a player you own that bombs is 100% owned it's going to hurt you. 35% of the field that didn't roster Hopkins now has a huge edge on me. Same with the 74% that didn't roster Julio. The 35% that didn't roster Hopkins are the ones in the top 45% needed to cash. So now myself and everyone else that rostered Hopkins are fighting for that last 10% that cash. Add Julio to the mix and you're done. Didn't matter that most of my other players hit or exceeded their projection.

If Hopkins and Julio hit their combined projection of ~40 points I cash in all of my 50/50s and DUs. Because they combined for 14, I'm not going to cash. So yes, it was fatal despite the high ownership.

You may hate it, but it's accurate. Of course it hurts when any player you roster bombs (and I didn't say otherwise), but when highly-owned players bomb, the impact on the cutline downward is pronounced. If Hopkins scored 30, then 74% of the field increases their scores by 24, and you can bet that the distribution of that 74% isn't even. Add 24 points to 74% of the field and the cutline will likely jump 15 or more. That's an actual net difference of ~9 points vs. the cutline, not insignificant but hardly fatal if the rest of your roster is OK. You can pull the rosters of one of your double-ups and actually run the math on that particular contest to see the net difference. I might actually be overestimating it actually.

And the above assumes that the 26% without Hopkins did well with the alternative. You have the added analysis of (1) who did that ~26% roster instead of Hopkins and (2) where did they spend the "savings" (if any). Just because Hopkins bombed doesn't mean that all of the other 26% did any better. I mean, did they "upgrade" from Ware to Gurley or Blount or Miller with that extra money? Did they roster Antonio Brown instead? It's not like that 26% automatically got more points with that $9400 than Hopkins produced.

At the end of the day it appears to my eye that cutlines for double-ups won't get close to 120 (obviously anything can happen tonight with some decent ownership percentages of McCown and Barnidge [15-18%], but it doesn't appear to me that a 20 point increase is particularly likely). My 118 that is done (which had Hopkins and KC and Novak) feels safe to me and I'm actually optimistic that it holds on to its triples. You wouldn't need that much of an increase in performance to make the money even if you rostered both. I don't know who projected those 2 players to combine for 40 points (the IVC projected 37.6), but assume that you needed that 40 to reach 120, then you have to "make-up" 25.8 points out of 7 other players to get to 120 (a figure I think exceeds the double-up cashline by a comfortable margin). If the majority of your other players exceeded projections as you say, then you should at least be reasonably close to that, something that would be highly unlikely if you had 2 low-owned players who bombed.

So yeah, when you score fewer points than you planned it hurts. But when a highly owned player bombs, it simply isn't fatal unless you already had a borderline roster. It's just math.

I don't have much of an issue with your points, plus I think the word "fatal" is being interpreted differently by everyone.

But you completely lose me with the bolded. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, I'm not sure.

If you rostered two of those highly owned WRs that tanked, who by themselves sucked up almost 1/3 of your cap, you're segmented into a much smaller group of your cash contest making it that much harder to make up for. All the people that rostered only one of them have an advantage over you and anyone who rostered none of them have a significant advantage over you.

Thinking specifically about those WRs this week, they are high ceiling guys based on their skills and their matchups. Maybe in hindsight Jones should not have been, but either way his floor should get him right near cash game value, and he was playing from behind so it's not like the game script flipped on him. Those are the players on my roster that I expect to make up for a miss either in the value part of my roster or the mid-range part. I don't expect the rest of my roster to carry two major flops consisting of 1/3 of my cap. I'm sure some people managed to pull it out, but I'm guessing they were few and far between - I don't think there were that many realistic combinations to get you there.

In terms of salary analysis, sure you have $41,300 left to make-up the difference in those 2 guys failing, but one of those needed positions is at QB. If you only get 2x your QB's salary, then you've missed at that position based on the numbers from this season (and this week).

You aren't necessarily "segmented into a much small group of your cash contest" because you don't know how that ~26% (in the Hopkins example) spent that $9400.00. A certain percentage of that ~26% will have spent that money poorly (most likely on Julio or Brown), which doesn't put them into any different "group" than you at all.

My point above was simply that if you projected your team to score exactly 120 (a low number for projections), and you needed 40 from Hopkins and Jones to get there (a really high number for your team to "just" project to 120), then you are 25.8 points behind your projection with 7 players to go. If "most" of your players meet or exceed projections (as TSquaredUA said about his team), then that 25.8 point gap should be narrowed pretty significantly.

But reaching projections doesn't matter. Reaching the cutline is what matters.

I think it's critically important to note that we aren't competing against any "group" in cash games, we are competing against the cutline, which this week was ~110 in the $2-$10 double-ups I competed in. It does't matter how teams are constructed. The only thing that matters is the cutline. Highly-owned guys missing reduces the our competition by reducing the cutline.

Now that we have actual numbers we can refine the math from above a bit. Since he's built his team (apparently) from the DD projections, and DD projected 38.5 not 40 from those 2 players, then he's actually behind his projected score by 24.3. And since he used the DD projections to build his team then his projected total was almost certainly 125-129 rather than 120. That means that if the rest of his team did nothing beyond hitting their projections, he would be sitting at 100.7-104.7. Or 6-10 points behind the cutline assuming not a single other player on his team exceeded projections with 2 high-salary guys crapping the bed.

In other words, all he needed from the other 7 players on his team was 6-10 points above projections to cash with 2 major whiffs. That's hardly "fatal".

 

[Scoresman]

This is what my profit over time looks like according to the RG Bankroll spreadsheet. Started out the season fairly lucky, but hit a bad spot in October, especially one week where I was so confident in one roster that it was the only one I used that week in cash. Ended up losing every game played that week.

Recently, "trusting the process" seems to be working. I've been focused so much on things like how sure bets like DeAndre Hopkins and TJ Yeldon did not do well last week that I lost sight of the fact that I was still placing in most 50/50s even with those guys.

 

[Bobcat10]

So I'm confused on the scoring for Browns D tonight. Prior to that final blocked FG, Browns D had 10 pts.

After the blocked FG and return TD, Browns D had allowed 33 pts on defense and according to the rules:

https://www.fanduel.com/rules

They should be deducted a point for allowing between 28-34 pts. However, the Browns D total never went from 10 to 9.

I actually don't mind this as it would have cost me first place in a 10 player league, and reduced my take on the prime time slate - but is this an error? Seems clearly to be a mistake unless for some reason the defense isn't penalized for the last score since special teams were on the field?

Nobody replied to my post just a few above yours. My thought is the special teams points don't count against Browns D. I never noticed it til last night when I was neck and neck with a person with Browns D. Balt had 24 points on the scoreboard, but the Browns were still getting Fanduel points based on the 13-19 range. So it was as if that punt return did not count against Browns D. I think that's what it was..

 

[Bobcat10]

And there it is in the "note" of the link you posted:

"Notes: For purposes of FanDuel defensive scoring, points allowed are calculated as:

6 * (Rushing TD + Receiving TD + Own fumbles recovered for TD ) + 2 * (Two point conversions) + Extra points + 3 * (Field Goals)"

Return TDs are not calculated into the formula.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Stupid MNF. Cost me some money. Needed a tad more from McCown and Barnidge to get 2 lineups into the black. Still won a bit -- a very tiny bit. I guess that's better than nothing. I stubbed my toe on QBs with Palmer and McCown. Coupled with my Brown exposure it was just enough to keep me from making some real money even with a ton of Hopkins and KC exposure.