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 Week 9 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NixonMask
- Start date
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Almost had something tonight.
Curious if any of the Holton lineups did anything today...
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
138.98 in my cash with him. At 0 points for $0, he was only slightly worse than Landry in that lineup. Rodgers' 4th quarter saved that one.
DukeBroadway
Footballguy
I need to quit taking what I read as gospel. It will be a loss this week, but still up overall. Gonna do my best to avoid some of the dfs content i typically read/listen to and formulate my own opinions and see how it goes next week. Congrats to you weekly profitable ones, I hope to join your ranks soon.
AquaBliss
Footballguy
There's just some plays some weeks you almost have to be 100% in and go down with the ship if something happens. I had 100% exposure to Elliot, matchup + top 3 RB in the NFL, and had 98% exposure on M. Thomas. At his price and usage it was a no brainer. Dodds touted West as an all-in and I had 60% exposure and deviated from him on many GPPs. The thing was with Evans and Julio playing on Thurs you didn't really need the $ savings by going to West on the main slate. The only high-price WR I went to in cash was A. Brown and then went to ODB on GPPs. I pivoted from rudolph in half my lineups to Gates with Henry being out (and narrative street). I was sitting at 4th place in the $2 snap (9k cashout) midway in the 3rd quarter of the 4PMs till Gordon/Rodgers/Mariota all went ham. Ended up taking $60.
Still, had the biggest week of my DFS career so far and have some SEA and Graham to go.And regarding your Hilton choice, I thought it was a no brainer to choose Moncrief instead considering Hilton's injury and Luck's desire to target 'crief in the redzone (and price saving). I didn't pick any GB WRs and played Rodgers naked since you weren't sure who'd get the TDs.
I had a few GPP entries with him for ####s and giggles and nearly spit out my beer when he got targeted in the end zone.
Drafthorse
Footballguy
AquaBliss
Footballguy
So Megla what's the best strategy for this?
If you play (say for example) qty:50 $2 50/50's, are you doing so with 1 team or are you making 5/10/15 teams? Seems like the more teams you make, the more likely you are to come out even since some will be stars and others will be flops. On the other hand, if you're going to make just 1 team, why not play a $100 50/50 instead. Is it because you think more amateurs will play the $1 and $2 games?
If you play (say for example) qty:50 $2 50/50's, are you doing so with 1 team or are you making 5/10/15 teams? Seems like the more teams you make, the more likely you are to come out even since some will be stars and others will be flops. On the other hand, if you're going to make just 1 team, why not play a $100 50/50 instead. Is it because you think more amateurs will play the $1 and $2 games?
here is a sample of cutlines from some of my $5 100-man 50/50s. chosen completely at random.
123.18, 123.98, 129.3, 119.18, 123.18, 120.58, 127,48, 120.18, 122.68, 119.86
so doesnt really appear to be much higher on first glance.
Raging weasel
Footballguy
I used him in a thurs-mon oakheart. probably not going to cash as I sit at 123.16 ( with graham,haushka,seatD to play) and current cash line is 139.26. he was .6% owned on 29411 entries
Raging weasel
Footballguy
Took 1st in mini squib week1 for $100 but besides that no more than $15 and usually $2-$3 if I cash at all.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I won a $1 gpp 2 yrs ago on the last NFL week- nfc/afc championships. Tied with 14 others (65000 people) and won $660. Play a little baseball and nba to have some action break even. Switched my focus to cash this season, grinding out a small return so far. Played mostly gpps last year and lost about $100. I seem to do better with less teams to choose from, like mon-Thursday or sun night/mon, 1pm only.
After deciding not to play take time and craft a nice lineup for the Sunday million I played a smaller $25 tournament at 12:45 while in the john. It's not surprising that lineup was so sh**ty. Only 10 pts out of cashing but played Marvin jones and Corey Coleman. I was right on the low % on them.....
Last edited by a moderator:
podunker
Footballguy
Well good luck with that plan, it is very difficult to do.
I have had a subpar week myself this week, but it was not the "chalk plays" that the writers/experts were touting that caused it.
To start, I am just a small time player, started out this season playing $75 in Cash Games and $25 in GPP's each week. Usually $1-$2 games at most. I will say this up front, I am not one of those DFS players that is a numbers genius with Excel spreadsheets etc. I work full time and have a life outside of DFS. This is just entertainment or a hobby for me, I have been a lifelong fantasy football player, and it just seemed natural to move to DFS. I get all my information from FBG and Rotogrinders for the most part.They do all the heavy lifting, and its my job to decipher the information, and I enjoy trying to do that. It cost me a little cash for each site, and I think you get what you pay for in both cases. I am sure there are a lot of other great sites also.
FBG- Like I said, I have been a life long fantasy football player, and a longtime member of FBG. They have helped me win a lot of season long championships over the years and IMO the premier site for season long play. I think the writers/experts here are Pro Football lovers just like me for the most part. FBG is largely responsible for me getting into DFS by peaking my interest when they started writing about it. In a lot of ways, I feel like the main writers/experts here also were discovering/opening there eye too DFS in the last few years, just like me. They have been expanding their DFS content each year, and it is getting better and better. They have been bringing in new writers/experts each year who specialize in DFS. I won't mention them all, but John Lee being the most significant as far as I'm concerned. I feel like he was the guy that really helped FBG turn the needle in the right direction as far as DFS goes. Another reason I like FBG is these forums right here. I feel like it is a smaller group of mostly the same guys and lurkers. I have been mostly a lurker in the past, but have been more active this year and really enjoyed it. Price wise, you can't beat it for what other sites are charging. I just accept the fact that many of the writers/experts here are very new to DFS just like me, only much smarter and spending much more doing it than me. i also feel like I have an actual relationship with the writers here, which I enjoy. I will always be a member here because I love Pro Football, and that is what FootballGuys is about.
Rotogrinders on the other hand is a hardcore DFS site. It cost me as much monthly as is does yearly here. I have been a lurker over there for the last few years, but this is my first year as a paying member. They don't just concentrate on one sport, their "sport" is DFS. It can be a very intimidating site because there is so much information. I am still learning where to go and what to look for. Many of the writer/experts over there have been doing DFS pretty much from the get go, and many have won huge prizes doing it. So, when these guys speak/write something, they have the those DFS successes backing up what they say. They have the articles, coverage, content, down pat over there because they have been doing it so long. Week to week, day to day, you know what you are going to get. They have forums, but I am just a lurker on it. I go to the site for the written/video DFS content, period.
Long story short, they are different in a lot of ways and both fill a need for me. The fact that i have been much more successful this year overall using both sites in conjunction is my only proof. The funny thing is, most of the time, both sites are very consistent with each other on certain takes, especially chalk plays each week.
Wow, I really went off the rails with this...............lol
Chalk plays, oh yea, that is where I was going with this, it sucks getting old.
A lot of people are griping about the "Chalk" this week like last. In particular the C. West call. It is alway easy for people to say they knew that "chalk" play was a bust after the fact. I used to be the same way, it is alway fun when you make a call nobody has and it happens. But it is much like winning a GPP when doing that in cash games, a shot in the dark for the most part. It's also a great way to lose over the long haul in cash games. Which in turn means losing everything in the end, since cash games are what keeps you going.
C. West didn't hurt anyone in cash game this week, and for that matter no "chalk" plays did. Just doing a quick review from my games yesterday, if you played the so called "chalk" guys, you would have won all double ups and triple ups for the most part. For example:
QB- ARod - 60% owned, talked about all week as chalk scored 27 points
RB- West - 70% owned on avg. the most chalk talk of week, 9 points
RB- Zeke - 70% owned, second most chalk talk of week, 22 points
Def - KC - 60% plus owned, chalk def of week, 11 points
TE - Rudolph - 60% owned, chalk TE of week for most part, 6 points ( I thought Gates was really chalk myself and he had 18 points)
All the above plays should have been played in cash period IMO, I even think there were several articles stating that the WR's were going to be the difference in winning of losing in cash games this week.
WR- M. Thomas - 40% owned, scored 21 points. Surprised so low owned, as much as he was talked about. I feel like he was pretty chalk and needed if you wanted to get a top QB and RB like Zeke and ARod.
So, if you played those guys you had 96 points and you had 2/3 spots left to fill. Kicker could have been anyone, most talked Cosby/Lambo/Santos. I just figure 8-10 points on whoever I pick each week. Although, Lambo(13) and Santos(15) got you nice scores, so lets say between 10-12 points, leaning on higher side.
Ok, your at 106 to 108 total with really only 2 WR spots.
Moncrief and AB were probably the most highly owned on the Sunday only slates. They got you 13 and 18 points respectively. Nothing to write home about. If you didn't go that way, you could have been better or worse. For the most part you might have had Adams(12), TY(11), Diggs(15) etc. GB, NO, SD, IND, passing attacks were popular, a lot of mid tier guys. Most people had space to pay up for AB and get M. Thomas and another mid tier guy.
That is were you won or lost this week, period. If you had Diggs and AB you scored 33 points. Lets say avg 13-15 points each , 26-28 for two guys.
So, if you had this "Chalk" LU, that all the group think, experts, etc. people talked about you scored about 132 to 136 points.
The fact is, you could have slightly less than 20 points out of the last 2 WR spots, and still been alright.
That would have got you in the money on all my double and triple ups this week. Just saying!
I know all the guys that played Gordon, Forte, will say they made a better decision this week by not following the crowd. But if those guys don't score well, you are toast. If C. West doesn't score well, like this week, we still win most of the time. If he does score well, we always win!
By the way, if you had Gates, Diggs, AB, and a 10 point kicker you scored over 150 this week and were very "chalk"!
So, once again, C. West did not lose you your contest this week!
Last edited by a moderator:
Raging weasel
Footballguy
Nice write-up podunker
Bobcat10
Footballguy
I need to start playing more $$$ on my "#1" lineups at the 1pm only and main slates. I pretty much equally run out 2-4 cash LU's per week. I think that's what most people do?
This year has been different where what I call my "#1" LU (it's in a $5 league with friends) has generally been my best, whereas last year it was a crapshoot.
Of course I know as soon as I start doing this my luck will change.
Main #1, 154pts - Rodgers, Gordon, West, Nelson, Hilton, MThomas, Gates, Bailey, KC
1pm #1 - 126pts - Prescott, Elliot, West, Brown, Diggs, Landry, Rudolph, Santos, KC
I didn't cash a single contest besides these two, even a random GPP where I'll throw something together and win a few bucks, but because they finished 1st and 2nd in the $5 contests and cashed in 100-man and GPPs, I had a positive weekend.
This year has been different where what I call my "#1" LU (it's in a $5 league with friends) has generally been my best, whereas last year it was a crapshoot.
Of course I know as soon as I start doing this my luck will change.
Main #1, 154pts - Rodgers, Gordon, West, Nelson, Hilton, MThomas, Gates, Bailey, KC
1pm #1 - 126pts - Prescott, Elliot, West, Brown, Diggs, Landry, Rudolph, Santos, KC
I didn't cash a single contest besides these two, even a random GPP where I'll throw something together and win a few bucks, but because they finished 1st and 2nd in the $5 contests and cashed in 100-man and GPPs, I had a positive weekend.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Great stuff, Podunker!
Agreed, and that is the long and short of "going with the groupthink" and sticking to chalk if they are good plays (and usually they are chalk because they are good plays). The cash lines rise and fall with these huge owned players, so like you stated, you aren't really hurt starting them over the long haul. A 70% owned West has a bad week? Makes you mad, but that just means the cash line is that much lower. It sucks, but like you said, a lot of $ was decided on the WRs and Ks this week.
Also, we all have to remember that we have different styles and bankrolls in here. If you are just doing one LU a week and just doing 50/50s you might approach this differently and maybe make sure you are throwing in a guy like West. If you are doing multiple cash LUs and putting those in 5xs and gpps along with the 50/50s, you will have a different take. Sure, I know guys like Dodds said West in 100% of the LUs, but I get not wanting to be all in on a guy, especially for a week like this where I didn't LOVE the top end WR and TE matchups. A little different a couple weeks ago when you could get Julio, AJ, and Evans in there with some savings with a cheap chalk Rb.
Agreed, and that is the long and short of "going with the groupthink" and sticking to chalk if they are good plays (and usually they are chalk because they are good plays). The cash lines rise and fall with these huge owned players, so like you stated, you aren't really hurt starting them over the long haul. A 70% owned West has a bad week? Makes you mad, but that just means the cash line is that much lower. It sucks, but like you said, a lot of $ was decided on the WRs and Ks this week.
Also, we all have to remember that we have different styles and bankrolls in here. If you are just doing one LU a week and just doing 50/50s you might approach this differently and maybe make sure you are throwing in a guy like West. If you are doing multiple cash LUs and putting those in 5xs and gpps along with the 50/50s, you will have a different take. Sure, I know guys like Dodds said West in 100% of the LUs, but I get not wanting to be all in on a guy, especially for a week like this where I didn't LOVE the top end WR and TE matchups. A little different a couple weeks ago when you could get Julio, AJ, and Evans in there with some savings with a cheap chalk Rb.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I have been doing something similar, but I get the impression a lot of people stick to 1-2 LUs for cash. I just don't seem to have the conviction or have too much fun doing lineups to run with 1 cash LU each week (especially when it seems like the one I feel is one of the weakest seems to do well - ie my Geno Smith LU a couple weeks ago).
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
So for my mon-thurs lineups- who will Haden cover Thursday? Wallace shadow or play one side? Any insight?
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
Too long to quote, podunker, but you're making an assumption that isn't accurate. You could play someone other than West and still play chalk other places. You make the assumption that every chalk play is the same as every other chalk play on the board. They are all individual calls. If you choose to simply play cash games by going chalk at every position -- have at it. By definition, however, the masses lose over the long haul. That's how the DFS model is built. If you want to win over the long haul you have to differentiate yourself from the masses somehow. You can't do it by reverse-engineering an argument Monday morning 1 week.
Many chalk plays make a ton of sense independent of the fact that they have become chalk. Thomas, Zeke, KC, even Rodgers (though I'm not sure he a reliable QB in cash anymore). Others take some degree of a leap of faith -- West, Moncrief, Rudolph this week. Those guys just aren't all that good. Looking at outcomes to justify a lineup after the fact doesn't change any of that.
We have lots of good data about players now. We know players who are good and who aren't good. Matchups matter to a point, but they won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
A good player should be able to start making money now by make intelligent decisions about when to deviate from the masses ahead of time. Several smart guys in this group openly questioned West and Rudolph, for example. For me it was enough to knock me off of both a fair amount since I wasn't sold on either to begin with. I avoid the Colts passing game as a matter of course unless someone can really convince me otherwise, so Moncrief was a non-starter for me, but that's just my personal approach.
Fundamentally I think you HAVE to build lineups without much input, then add others' opinions. I think you should be able to justify each player you put in your initial lineups. That doesn't mean they are set in stone, only that there is some basis you can defend for each. Then compare notes, use the IVC, etc. Maybe the counterpoints convince you to reduce exposure, maybe increase exposure, maybe nothing at all. But to discount other viewpoints before you've even heard them is folly, IMO.
Finally, I'll make you a friendly wager. Let's play a H2H every week. You play nothing but chalk, but you must play chalk up and down your lineup. I'll play whatever lineup I want. $2 a week. Let's see if one of us can stay ahead of the rake.
Many chalk plays make a ton of sense independent of the fact that they have become chalk. Thomas, Zeke, KC, even Rodgers (though I'm not sure he a reliable QB in cash anymore). Others take some degree of a leap of faith -- West, Moncrief, Rudolph this week. Those guys just aren't all that good. Looking at outcomes to justify a lineup after the fact doesn't change any of that.
We have lots of good data about players now. We know players who are good and who aren't good. Matchups matter to a point, but they won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
A good player should be able to start making money now by make intelligent decisions about when to deviate from the masses ahead of time. Several smart guys in this group openly questioned West and Rudolph, for example. For me it was enough to knock me off of both a fair amount since I wasn't sold on either to begin with. I avoid the Colts passing game as a matter of course unless someone can really convince me otherwise, so Moncrief was a non-starter for me, but that's just my personal approach.
Fundamentally I think you HAVE to build lineups without much input, then add others' opinions. I think you should be able to justify each player you put in your initial lineups. That doesn't mean they are set in stone, only that there is some basis you can defend for each. Then compare notes, use the IVC, etc. Maybe the counterpoints convince you to reduce exposure, maybe increase exposure, maybe nothing at all. But to discount other viewpoints before you've even heard them is folly, IMO.
Finally, I'll make you a friendly wager. Let's play a H2H every week. You play nothing but chalk, but you must play chalk up and down your lineup. I'll play whatever lineup I want. $2 a week. Let's see if one of us can stay ahead of the rake.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
I hear you. You lose if that one LU stinks. If you play 2 while being heavier on one, you still likely lose if the main LU loses.
I remember a few years ago when I first started, I didn't run with 1/2/3/4 LUs. I simply would make a LU, then for the next LU I'd change one or two players, etc etc. I'd have around 40-50 unique double up/5050 LUs. Lots of mixing and matching so the lineups were somewhat correlated. It was fun, but was hard to know who to root for, and never was able to capitalize on a great cash LU in a GPP since I wasn't going to play 40-50 GPPs on top of the cash. I won some money that year somehow, but I think that process wouldn't work in today's game.
podunker
Footballguy
Thanks, and you are exactly right. Most people would ask me after I wrote that " Then why are you having a subpar week then?" If you believe what you say. I didn't do terrible, but when I say subpar, I mean not as well as I have been.
Put it this way. If you play 1 LU for cash each week. That, IMO, is when you need to follow what I have been preaching.
I play 3 LU's each week, I have explained/preached on that before, so I didn't have all the chalk in 1 LU, it was spread around through 3. Like you said, I understand not going all in on a guy, but doing so with a "chalk" guy doesn't hurt you for the most part. Going all in on a non chalk guy can kill you.
These are all just my opinions anyway. You know what they say about opinions...........lol
I am not very smart, so I have a hard time explaining things sometimes. One thing I do want to reiterate. When I say "chalk" I mean a player that is usually 60% owned or higher most weeks. The higher the percentage to more what I say applies.
For example. I play 3 cash LU's each week. If a guy is going to 60% owned, I will play him for sure in 1 and probably 2. If a guy is going to be 75% owned or higher, I would probably play him in all 3. And, yes, it's not about the ownership percentage only, he has to be a good play otherwise.
Many weeks we don't have a guy that we can predict will be 60% owned, much less higher. Those are the weeks you can't use my strategy very well. So its not a cut and dried way of making a cash LU. Lots of things factor in besides what I say.
Maybe it's just common sense to me. If a player is going to be 80% owned, obviously 80% of the people think he is a decent player, in a good matchup, at good value. If 80% percent are playing him, and you don't, you are hurting yourself.
I use the example above to show C. West didn't kill you this week. That is just one position. I used the other chalk plays to make the point. That being said, some weeks there may be only one guy or maybe 2 that fall into that category. Some weeks, none.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
I think # of lineups you play is a function of your risk tolerance. I'm risk-adverse, so I tend to play multiple lineups myself. But if you can stand the risk, pushing all-in on 1 lineup in a ton of $1 and $2 contests is the best way to have a big week. Conversely it's best way to have a terrible week. If you hedge with multiple lineups odds are high at least one will hit, and at least one won't. Personal preference.
That said, I will ocassionally be 100% exposed to some players. I was w/ Zeke this week. When I see a 3-down stud RB in a great game situation, I will almost always go all-in. Once in awhile I'll do it w/ a WR but that's rarer. I blindly rode ODB late a couple seasons ago and I've done it at times w/ AB. But WRs by their nature carry more risk IMO.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
As an aside, something I've harped on in the past is guys relying on specific projections like they are somehow meaningful. Projecting a player to produce X points is inherently flawed because there is almost no chance it will be "right" in the sense that the player will score exactly that number.
I wish FBG would produce 70% confidence ranges for players. I think that would be more useful information. Using a specific number creates a false sense of precision that doesn't exist. Plus it can create some issues for players if they aren't cognizant of what that can mean.
Take Zeke this week. He was projected to score 19.5, 18.4, and 17.2. I would argue that those are essentially the same projections -- there is no way we can split hairs thinly enough to say 19.5 is too high and 17.2 is just right. But those projections create H-values of 44, 39.8, and 35.4. Those values are significantly different based on projections that are, I would argue, essentially the same. Guys relying on H-values are going to think those are very different projections when they aren't.
I wish FBG would produce 70% confidence ranges for players. I think that would be more useful information. Using a specific number creates a false sense of precision that doesn't exist. Plus it can create some issues for players if they aren't cognizant of what that can mean.
Take Zeke this week. He was projected to score 19.5, 18.4, and 17.2. I would argue that those are essentially the same projections -- there is no way we can split hairs thinly enough to say 19.5 is too high and 17.2 is just right. But those projections create H-values of 44, 39.8, and 35.4. Those values are significantly different based on projections that are, I would argue, essentially the same. Guys relying on H-values are going to think those are very different projections when they aren't.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
Congrats to Sooted, Duke and whoever else made the FBG Survivor cut. Time to win some money! Still think the top 250 could have all cashed at least a buck or two, but top 62 will have to do. If the finals were last week I'd have pulled in $20, just missing out on the cash+subscription prizes.
podunker
Footballguy
Tennessee I agree with a lot of what you say. I am not advocating that you play a strictly chalk LU each week in cash. I am saying if you have a player that you know is going to be highly owned, you need to look very hard at him. If he is 70% owned, you increase your odds of winning by playing him.
Now I will say this, if there is a week that a QB, RB, WR, and TE that is going to be 70% owned, which never happens, you give yourself better odds of cashing if you play them.
Many times people see chalk as a value player like C. West this week or Booker last week, because of their price. Zeke was chalk this week, and he wasn't value.
Most weeks, nobody is going to be 70% owned. Most weeks, really all we can do is make an educated guess on how highly owned a guy will be.
Finally, in H2H games, there is no per say "Chalk", based on ownership percentages really. Not the case in 2x, 50/50, in my opinion. I may very well lose to you every week playing chalk at certain positions. Especially if you know in advance that is what I am doing. i won't lose to 100 people playing high owned chalk at certain positions. Wow, I am confusing myself now...............
It would be an interesting experiment for us to play H2H like you said, and then play in two other large field 2X's with this same LU's and see who does better. For example, I would have played C. West against you this week, and you may not have, and you might have beaten me. But, my chances of cashing in against 100 people or more in the other 2 contest would have still been good. Last week, I would have played Booker against you, and you may not have. I probably would have beaten you H2H, and won in the other 2 contest also. Most likely you would lose all three. So in that scenario, I would be 1 an 1 against you, and probably 4-0 against the field. So 5-1 total for me. You would have been 1 and 1 against me, and 2 and 2 against the field. So 3 -3 total for you.
But like I said, I wouldn't know how to play a whole team of chalk, because there is no such thing. NOT A WHOLE TEAM.
I would be willing to play you H2H and play the guys that we both know will be highly owned that week. Once again, I mean 70% owned. That might be 1 or 2 guys if I am lucky. However, to prove your point, you can't play them at all. The other 5 or 6 players are going to vary a lot most likely.
Last edited by a moderator:
podunker
Footballguy
Tennessee I got an idea.
For experimental purposes I will post a LU in here against you for each week. I will use anyone that I think will be very highly owned. You do the same and use someone else that you like better beside that player. Then we will see how it turns out. We can check the cutoffs on the $2 large double ups and a 100 player at least 50/50 to compare how we do against them.
Or we can just do it for real, it's only 6 bucks a week.
Like I said, I will play the players that I think will be very highly owned. The rest will just be picks from my weekly preparation. Probably still mostly what people would say is chalk.
Whatever you want to do is fine with me.
I am interested to see how it turns out.
For experimental purposes I will post a LU in here against you for each week. I will use anyone that I think will be very highly owned. You do the same and use someone else that you like better beside that player. Then we will see how it turns out. We can check the cutoffs on the $2 large double ups and a 100 player at least 50/50 to compare how we do against them.
Or we can just do it for real, it's only 6 bucks a week.
Like I said, I will play the players that I think will be very highly owned. The rest will just be picks from my weekly preparation. Probably still mostly what people would say is chalk.
Whatever you want to do is fine with me.
I am interested to see how it turns out.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
2 or 3 LUs and yes, the lower stakes 50/50s seem to have less Competition, lower cash lines
Didn't play any main slate high volume DBL UPS but I did play 2 LUs in the Thur-Mon $2 DBL UPS (top 5000 cash) and the cash line is at 132.88 with the MNF game still to be played
My $1 and #2 100 player 50/50s all had cash line between 119-125
lmack
Footballguy
While your point about $1 50/50s being the softest competition is well taken, I think the example you provided there is a bit of apples to oranges comparison because it's across slates.
All the $1 50/50s I am in on the Thu-Mon slate have cashlines at ~130 right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Yep, I think it's opposite this week vs. usual and the Thurs-Mon slates have higher cash lines because of Ryan/Winston/Evans/Julio
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I was in a $2 top 22,000 cash 2x for the main slate at that was 128.19
a $5 top 10,000 cash 2x was 128.18
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
One thing is for sure, across the board the competition is better, and having a goal of 120pts a week just isn't cutting it anymore. Seems like you have to be consistently hitting about 130-135 to be fairly safe most weeks.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
@podunker On my phone and posts are too long to quote. Quick points:
I'd have beaten you last week -- I went with Forte over Booker on my primary cash lineup.
Your point on H2H vs. cash is valid. I never play H2H, just thought the $2 weekly wager might be enough to make me focus on NFL. Candidly, I find it boring compared to NBA.
Playing 70% owned guys or not just comes down to the confidence you have in another guy being better. You have to have some confidence in your projections. If you think Player X is better than Player Y, but Player Y will be 70% owned, you have to consider a ton more than just ownership. How confident am I that Player X is better? How will it affect the rest of my roster? Etc. Typically the analysis is actually Player X + Player Y + Player Z vs Player A + Player B + Player C.
I'm up for whatever. I'm pretty open about my thought processes and players I like and don't like. I'll do whatever. I build my cash lineups with an eye towards triples too though. I have found that triples often aren't THAT much tougher to hit than doubles. So I play about 80% of a lineup's action in doubles, 15-17% in triples, and the rest in 20-man leagues. The latter can result in odd results. My chalky lineup this week missed its doubles, but pulled 1st and 2nd in 2 20-man leagues. I just got lucky in picking the right ones I guess.
I'd have beaten you last week -- I went with Forte over Booker on my primary cash lineup.
Your point on H2H vs. cash is valid. I never play H2H, just thought the $2 weekly wager might be enough to make me focus on NFL. Candidly, I find it boring compared to NBA.
Playing 70% owned guys or not just comes down to the confidence you have in another guy being better. You have to have some confidence in your projections. If you think Player X is better than Player Y, but Player Y will be 70% owned, you have to consider a ton more than just ownership. How confident am I that Player X is better? How will it affect the rest of my roster? Etc. Typically the analysis is actually Player X + Player Y + Player Z vs Player A + Player B + Player C.
I'm up for whatever. I'm pretty open about my thought processes and players I like and don't like. I'll do whatever. I build my cash lineups with an eye towards triples too though. I have found that triples often aren't THAT much tougher to hit than doubles. So I play about 80% of a lineup's action in doubles, 15-17% in triples, and the rest in 20-man leagues. The latter can result in odd results. My chalky lineup this week missed its doubles, but pulled 1st and 2nd in 2 20-man leagues. I just got lucky in picking the right ones I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Initially, I had Dez on about four teams.
But I started thinking about possible game scripts and instead used Ezekiel Elliott on about 8 teams.
podunker
Footballguy
reel_smooth
Footballguy
Completely agree - I just barely hit my two cash LU's this week at 128.28. When I really started getting into this more last season, was hitting cash line-ups at 110-115, albeit, not by more than 2-3 points.
Then again, I'da been in that 135+ range if Booker had had any kind of game instead the egg he laid.
podunker
Footballguy
I build my 3 LU's a lot like yours. I play 2x, 3x, 5x, and 3-100 man leagues with each. I changed to doing that this year, and have a lot of success. Its a great way too limit your risk. Most weeks, even if only 1 of my LU's hits, I still win a little. If two hit, really good. All 3 is sweet!
Podunker is my handle on FD, so sen me a $2 H2H and we will start this little experiment. It should be fun.
yeah i was on lunch and didnt get to read the posts from today. :/You certainly missed my post, 3 posts ago.
You two were the only names I noticed.
looks like some good stuff though so im gonna get to it now...
yeah it sucks when you play a 2nd lineup that doesnt cash and the one you loved cashes easily. mixing in multiple lineups for variance reduction has probably cost me 4 figures so far this year. im not sure what the answer is though. i used to be a one lineup and ride out the variance kinda guy. but last year i had 2 weeks in a row where i didnt cash a single contest and dropped like 5k over a 2 week period. started whining about it and people on the message boards were all like "dude you gotta play multiple cash lineups". but again im not sure what the answer is.
yes we need apples to apples comparisons here.
people please post the cash lines in your $1 and $2 100-man 50/50s so we can compare.
podunker
Footballguy
Just a suggestion, I was having a lot of the same problems as you until I switched my strategy. Look up some of my old post recently on FD or DK weeks and I explain my 3 LU method. It has worked wonders for me this year. Steve Buzzard actually got me on the 3 LU thing, I put my own twist on it with the game selection. Give it a try, see how you like it. If you can't find it, just PM me.
