Runningman
Footballguy
I'm going to start a dart league. That way I can play a game with skill, and then use my darts to pick my fantasy team!
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!
Fantasy football takes no skill (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter xander756
- Start date
- Status
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I think you hit the bullseye with that idea.'Runningman said:
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
It takes about as much skill as reading a newspaper does.
I play in 8 leagues and consistently make the playoffs in an average of 6 leagues each year. I think it is a knowledge is power thing. People that invest the time creating good tiers, make notes on high upside sleeper types, and most importantly don't reach for players during draft have a far greater advantage over the average drafter that shows up with his cheat sheet or blindly drafts with the DD. So many good articles to read here at FBGs and around the interwebs pre draft to give you an advantage as well. Far more skill than luck involved for sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
You just clarified that the reason you win is you are better prepared and better informed.... then you credit skill?
Thunderlips
Footballguy
It takes a lot of skill to read articles.
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
http://rotogrinders.com/profiles/condia
If it is 100% luck... then explain this guy to me... I have been playing draftstreet for 2 years now and this guy dominates absolutely everyone. He plays thousands of tournaments a year and I always see him at the top of the leaderboards. clearly I don't know how much profit he makes, but I would imagine if hes investing over 500,000 into something... hes making money.
I've been playing all the freerolls I can get my hands on so far this year and I have placed in two(5th and 25th) of them... I have seen Condia top 3 or better in 3 of them... thats out of hundreds of people, sometimes a couple thousand
The dude is a stud, I can't explain it. I sit there every week and look at some of the games he plays and am in amazement how he nails the best players almost every week.
Their are people that make a lot of money off this stuff, not just football either, baseball and basketball also, he was just the main one that sticks out in football .
I guess this gets into sports betting as a whole... is sports betting luck or skill?
If it is 100% luck... then explain this guy to me... I have been playing draftstreet for 2 years now and this guy dominates absolutely everyone. He plays thousands of tournaments a year and I always see him at the top of the leaderboards. clearly I don't know how much profit he makes, but I would imagine if hes investing over 500,000 into something... hes making money.
I've been playing all the freerolls I can get my hands on so far this year and I have placed in two(5th and 25th) of them... I have seen Condia top 3 or better in 3 of them... thats out of hundreds of people, sometimes a couple thousand
The dude is a stud, I can't explain it. I sit there every week and look at some of the games he plays and am in amazement how he nails the best players almost every week.
Their are people that make a lot of money off this stuff, not just football either, baseball and basketball also, he was just the main one that sticks out in football .
I guess this gets into sports betting as a whole... is sports betting luck or skill?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hoss Style
Footballguy
According to many here - research and knowing how to apply it effectively is not a "skill".How do you even argue with these people? I think they actually believe what they are saying so we can't be mad at them. They honestly just don't know, I think.
Knowing how to use the research you do is more important than the actual information itself.
Someone made a good point earlier that it doesn't matter as much in shallow leagues. I'm talking from a 16 team IDP Keeper league and other similar leagues. Maybe that's the difference with the people arguing that there's no skill at all involved.
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
I'm not really saying anyone is wrong anymore really, everyone can believe what they want.All im saying is I have just as many resources ... and he smokes me week after week lol
The problem with finding a resolution to this issue is that the skill involved is mostly intangible. The poker argument isn't being argued properly. Forget the cards, they don't matter that much, the real skill lies in knowing what the other people at the table will do based on what you do, others do, and/or what the cards show. There is also skill in betting properly and correctly calculating odds, but I'm looking beyond that. In ff the skill lies in knowing what will happen in the future based off evidence that is or sometimes isn't there. For example, if I told you the bears would win last night and marshal would have a huge game would you say I got lucky or that I am skilled? If you think I got lucky then you would be wrong in this instance. I can't really explain to you why that is, but most people I know only look at what they think should happen based on the surface evidence and stop there and call any result outside of that luck. There is a lot of skill that goes beyond the surface evidence to predict future events based on fringe evidence and or the lack of evidence and be right more often than not. It's just a hard position to defend because I can't "show my work". If this is untrue then I'm claiming myself to be the luckiest man alive lol.
def agree with this. most ppl thus far have been way underestimating the long run in fantasy football.Quantitatively, in terms of how much of the results are explained by skill versus chance, I'd say that a season of fantasy football is analogous to about a 4-hour session of live poker.Otherwise,
and now we need to decide how much luck is involved in building the best team.
Research in of itself could be considered a skill but the entire point is that you don't need that skill to win in fantasy football. Anybody can win, regardless of how much research you did or didn't do. There is also the point that you might not actually be doing the research yourself. Reading articles and seeing what fantasy experts are saying about who to play and who to sit is not actually research. You're just listening to someone else telling you what to do. That is not skill, in research or otherwise.
jackdubl
Footballguy
Losing definitely takes skill, because it's largely the same teams not making the playoffs every year in my league, with minor variance. Additionally, we have recorded the winners of the league for the last eight years in our twelve team league. One player has won four times, I have won twice, and two others have won once each. Over a four year span I finished 1-3-3-1. Luck is involved, no doubt, but it seems like there is more than luck going on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hoss Style
Footballguy
I understand what you're saying and I agree with you to a point. I think you're missing my point, though.The deeper you get in regards to the research (whether it's your own or someone else's) the more you have to know how to apply it. Take, for example, the league I mentioned above: 16 teams, keeper league, IDP. Every starting RB in the league is rostered. Every backup RB in the league is rostered. Most 3rd string RBs in the league are rostered. Even worse - it's the same on Defense - you are digging to try to find any information on some of the players on the WW. ESPN ain't gonna help you in a league like this. Very few are.
I'm sure many people on these forums are in the same boat. We don't play in a cookie-cutter league. The deeper you get (larger rosters, IDP, more teams, etc) the more important research is - and it's waaaay more important how you use what you find.
So, again, I agree with you that those who are in a league where you can pull up ESPN, Yahoo, etc and use a list requires less skill. Even then we are not taking into account the skill of WW pickups or the art of the trade and selling what you're offering in exchange. But besides that - I see what you're saying.
But in deeper leagues (and the league I mentioned is tame compared to some others out there) there is a skill involved. Hell, sometimes we are looking at a rookie LB with no info at all even on FBG so we are scouring YouTube highlights to see what the kid has.
Luck plays a large part - but in a lot of leagues you can influence that luck with research and your skill in using what you find.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statcruncher
Footballguy
Is that a redraft or keeper/dynasty league? If it's a redraft and you truly have the same 8 people throwing money away every year it might be time to move on to a bigger pond.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Surprised no one's quoted Philo yet.
ToySoldier13
Footballguy
Ok, I've been watching this thread for days now and after going into Monday night's game with a 43.6 point lead vs Marshall and Chicago's defense I have to chime in.
We need to specify things and not make blanket statements in regards to this discussion. First of all there is no such thing as Fantasy Football Skill - the only skill(s) we are discussing here is reading/research and comprehension. While that skillset is exceedingly rare in this country, anyone claiming that there is more to it is kidding themselves. Secondly, there are hundreds of possible formats in fantasy football and they vary quite a bit in how much research is necessary and in how big of a factor luck is. For clarity's sake I propose narrowing it down to 3 options - total points leagues, standard 10 team, and deep+IDP 16 team.
IMO, points only (no HtH) requires the least amount of luck. Unfortunetely, virtually no one plays this format anymore. It eliminates flucuations on a week to week basis. A 40 point week from Julio or Charles one week followed or preceeded by a 0 point week still averages out to 20/week - what you expect of them without the massive consequences or benefits from those extremes. The guys with the best drafts (and waiver moves) will more often than not finish in the top.
I believe that both head to head formats I mentioned above are 99% luck. I leave the 1% open for the possibility of using your speech or bribery skill to convince your opponent to bench their team or your marksmanship skill to take out his players (not advocating that approach until the fantasy playoffs). Luck in it's most basic definition is a result you have no control over, in this case the opposing team. As I watched my perfect team (no one on my bench or waivers scored more than my starting lineup) get beat by career and fluky games from Marshall and the Bears I realized that there was nothing I could have done about it. Week after week you see the second or third highest scoring team lose. You have no control over the schedule, you have no control over your opponent's team, and as has already been mentioned here - you have no control over injury, no control over goalline TD hawks, refs, weather, weird turnovers, rest in late quarters of blowouts, etc., etc. Deeper leagues claim to mitigate in theory, but in reality it is just more chances for a 2 pick 6 or 0 tackle game.
It is worth mentioning that a significant chunk of the luck factor could be eliminated by not scoring TDs - although that will never fly. Something seems off that a Bush, Battle, or Hillis back can have 3 carries for 3 yards and outscore their 180 yard contemporary. Or after a 59 yard Cruz missile strike gets stopped, a Bradshaw can end up with more points than the WR and triple the QB's points.
We need to specify things and not make blanket statements in regards to this discussion. First of all there is no such thing as Fantasy Football Skill - the only skill(s) we are discussing here is reading/research and comprehension. While that skillset is exceedingly rare in this country, anyone claiming that there is more to it is kidding themselves. Secondly, there are hundreds of possible formats in fantasy football and they vary quite a bit in how much research is necessary and in how big of a factor luck is. For clarity's sake I propose narrowing it down to 3 options - total points leagues, standard 10 team, and deep+IDP 16 team.
IMO, points only (no HtH) requires the least amount of luck. Unfortunetely, virtually no one plays this format anymore. It eliminates flucuations on a week to week basis. A 40 point week from Julio or Charles one week followed or preceeded by a 0 point week still averages out to 20/week - what you expect of them without the massive consequences or benefits from those extremes. The guys with the best drafts (and waiver moves) will more often than not finish in the top.
I believe that both head to head formats I mentioned above are 99% luck. I leave the 1% open for the possibility of using your speech or bribery skill to convince your opponent to bench their team or your marksmanship skill to take out his players (not advocating that approach until the fantasy playoffs). Luck in it's most basic definition is a result you have no control over, in this case the opposing team. As I watched my perfect team (no one on my bench or waivers scored more than my starting lineup) get beat by career and fluky games from Marshall and the Bears I realized that there was nothing I could have done about it. Week after week you see the second or third highest scoring team lose. You have no control over the schedule, you have no control over your opponent's team, and as has already been mentioned here - you have no control over injury, no control over goalline TD hawks, refs, weather, weird turnovers, rest in late quarters of blowouts, etc., etc. Deeper leagues claim to mitigate in theory, but in reality it is just more chances for a 2 pick 6 or 0 tackle game.
It is worth mentioning that a significant chunk of the luck factor could be eliminated by not scoring TDs - although that will never fly. Something seems off that a Bush, Battle, or Hillis back can have 3 carries for 3 yards and outscore their 180 yard contemporary. Or after a 59 yard Cruz missile strike gets stopped, a Bradshaw can end up with more points than the WR and triple the QB's points.
Statcruncher
Footballguy
Nice first post.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Respectfully disagree. Watch these guys play in college, follow them, remember coaching and GM tendencies - notably offseason quotes because that's when they're most transparent, and above all else watch team moves - tells are there. Everyone is privvy to the same info, it's what you do with that info that creates good owners. i.e. avoiding the James Jones landmine week 2, buying Andrew Hawkins instead of Kevin Ogletree after week 1, avoiding all things Jets preseason, etc.Sure, in any given week anyone can beat anyone, but like in poker the good players consistently win more than others over the long haul. I rarely miss the playoffs, when I do I'm usually one of the high scorers, and my teams this year have started off3-1 (high scorer)3-1 (high scorer)3-1 (2nd leading scorer)3-1 (4th leading scorer)2-2 (5th leading scorer)1-3 (6th leading scorer)15-9 and I'm netting as roughly the 3rd high scorer across all of my leagues. I mean, I make mistakes, a lot of them - we all do in this game, just have to make less mistakes than my competition.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
That's just variance. It's a known feature of the game and doesn't imply that the game is 100% luck. Point in case - week after week we don't actually see the second highest scoring team lose. Most of the time, the second-highest scoring team wins. It's notable when they don't, because you expect them to. If you consistently put together a team that scores more points than most of your competition, you're going to win pretty consistently. Some weeks you'll lose, and some seasons you'll lose way more than you're "supposed" to. But in the long run if you score a lot of points you're going to win more than you lose. If it was entirely luck that determined how many points you score in any given week, then I could draft a team for this week by pulling names out of a bag that would have an equal chance of outscoring the team you constructed via the draft and free agency. Do you think that's likely?
Like other games that are part-skill and part-luck, there are components of the game you don't control and there are components you do control. Pointing out just the parts you don't control and then concluding it's 100% luck is disingenuous.
ToySoldier13
Footballguy
I think we are having a semantics battle at this point. What else would you call that other than research and comprehension? Do scouts and Vegas/books say that they are skilled at Fantasy Football? Of course not. It wasn't meant as a slight on the skill portion of this discussion; simply putting it into perspective that any skill this game requires isn't the magical force some claim it to be - up there with telekinesis and bowling. Anyone with an IQ over 60 can utilize the same trends and information we use; it is a matter of time and effort put into it. I'd classify dedication and thoroughness as traits, not skills.@Ignoratio : Over the last 5 years in 2 serious money leagues I have finished 1st in points 8 times, plus once in second and once in third. I've yet to finish first. I have yet to win 1st place money. Is that bad luck or bad skill? There is no amount of knowledge that can overcome one or two of your opponents players having career games against you in week 14 or 15. We all pretty much agree on that, just trying to nail down the percentages now.'MAC_32 said:
MAC_32
Footballguy
Generally speaking, independent thinking and analysis. Sometimes groupthink is right, but it's important to be able to identify where groupthink analysis has holes then exploit it.ETA: In the end, like the real game all you can do is put yourself into the best situation to win, do that and you'll be more successful than your opponents over the long haul.
Last edited by a moderator:
as in poker, stamina is a skill. it's hard work to set the lineup correctly, follow the waivers etc. week after week, in multiple leagues. Most of the losses aren't because of luck but it's because of self-inflicted mistakes. The guy who makes the least mistakes is often the winner.
by some fluke dice roll i ended up in the FBG alpha league. if you don't think there is skill in fantasy football, try swimming with these sharks. Holy shnikes. It's friggin intense.
by some fluke dice roll i ended up in the FBG alpha league. if you don't think there is skill in fantasy football, try swimming with these sharks. Holy shnikes. It's friggin intense.
Last edited by a moderator:
netmau5
Footballguy
When I used to play FF on Stats (they used to run FF leagues!), they had a great stat called "Coaching Percentage". On a weekly basis, it basically told you how well your fielded team performed versus your optimal lineup. Regardless of team, every player who made 80%+ on Coaching Percentage made the playoffs each of the four years I was on Stats.
What skills does FF take? To name a few: statistics, combinatorics, probability, psychology, meteorology (believe it or not), risk analysis, and economics. The bottom line is that anything that can be done well requires skill. We know that you can do well at FF empirically by the vast numbers of people who have above average win-rates. This point cannot be disputed. In fact, I have a database full of FanDuel, DraftStreet, and Yahoo league play that clearly shows consistent winners.
When I first saw this thread, I figured it would just fade away quickly. But apparently it stirred a debate instead. Look, if you don't think this game, or any game for that matter, takes skill, then you aren't very good at it. Part of playing anything at a high level entails knowing what it means to be on a high level. Even stating "FF takes no skills" as a premise is ludicrous. Yes there is luck involved, but that doesn't negate skill.
What skills does FF take? To name a few: statistics, combinatorics, probability, psychology, meteorology (believe it or not), risk analysis, and economics. The bottom line is that anything that can be done well requires skill. We know that you can do well at FF empirically by the vast numbers of people who have above average win-rates. This point cannot be disputed. In fact, I have a database full of FanDuel, DraftStreet, and Yahoo league play that clearly shows consistent winners.
When I first saw this thread, I figured it would just fade away quickly. But apparently it stirred a debate instead. Look, if you don't think this game, or any game for that matter, takes skill, then you aren't very good at it. Part of playing anything at a high level entails knowing what it means to be on a high level. Even stating "FF takes no skills" as a premise is ludicrous. Yes there is luck involved, but that doesn't negate skill.
I feel that the alternative scoring system I put forth in the article would be more than sufficient in reducing the luck factor involved in fantasy football and revolutionize the fantasy game. It is the same method in which every other fantasy sport is scored, so why does football have to be different?'ToySoldier13 said:
Hoss Style
Footballguy
And this is a perfect representation of the opposite argument. Frikkin gold.Thanks Cliff.
squistion
Footballguy
Fantasy Football is not chess, but it is not roulette either.
To say there is no skill involved is disproved by some people in high rolling leagues over a period of years and by others in ongoing dynasty leagues of over a decade. There are people who win consistently, year in and year out. These people do well above what they should do statistically if no skill was involved (which is what is alleged here).
Now, it is true that this hobby involves reading and research, but that doesn't explain why some people do so much better than others over a period of time.
The way I see it, we all have the access to the same information, the same data. Where the skill comes in how one interprets the data, and some people just seem to be better at that.
To give a non FF example, in the world of political punditry, everyone has access to the same polls, yet some people do better consistently in picking the winners of elections than others and my take is that they are just better at interpreting the same set of data. For instance, Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight Blog has probably been the best prognosticator in picking election winners the last few years. However he is looking at the same poll data as everyone else, but somehow IMO he is more skilled in interpreting that data.
To say there is no skill involved is disproved by some people in high rolling leagues over a period of years and by others in ongoing dynasty leagues of over a decade. There are people who win consistently, year in and year out. These people do well above what they should do statistically if no skill was involved (which is what is alleged here).
Now, it is true that this hobby involves reading and research, but that doesn't explain why some people do so much better than others over a period of time.
The way I see it, we all have the access to the same information, the same data. Where the skill comes in how one interprets the data, and some people just seem to be better at that.
To give a non FF example, in the world of political punditry, everyone has access to the same polls, yet some people do better consistently in picking the winners of elections than others and my take is that they are just better at interpreting the same set of data. For instance, Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight Blog has probably been the best prognosticator in picking election winners the last few years. However he is looking at the same poll data as everyone else, but somehow IMO he is more skilled in interpreting that data.
Last edited by a moderator:
First off I would like to introduce myself. This is my third year playing fantasy football and it has quickly become my favorite past time. I discovered this forum sometime in the preseason this year and have been lurking ever since. I’ve wanted to register and post but I never felt like I could contribute in any sort of meaningful or unique way. This thread caught my eye because of the references to poker. I am currently a semi-professional poker player (full-time student) who wants to try and pursue poker as a full-time career. I often think about fantasy football in relation to poker and I have often looked for ways to use my poker skills as an advantage. Although it hasn’t really given me much of an advantage, I think it offers me a little different insight on the relation of skill vs luck.
I would secondly like to note that I have read all the posts in this thread and recognize that many of points have already been posted in some form or another. I will not actively say “as so and so has already pointed out,” but know that I give them credit here for saying those things and have incorporated their thoughts that I couldn’t express cleanly myself into this post.
Lastly, I’d like to note that I know I’m over simplifying a lot of difficult aspects about both fantasy football and poker in order to make this analogy work. I am not trying to make the two games seem like the same thing by any means.
For this post I will focus on what I believe are the two most basic skills in fantasy football and outline how I think of them in relation to poker (I would do more but I feel like this post will be too long as it is):
1. Drafting
I think of drafting to be analogous to the preflop hands that I will choose to play throughout, say, one given tournament. Obviously, I want my AA’s and KK’s (Foster, Rice, Megatron, Rodgers, etc) and I want as many of them as I can get. These hands will more often than not play huge roles in your success, giving you massive edges in your quest to victory. If these hands get cracked, however (injury or Chris Johnson-esque bust), your tournament (season) could easily be over, or at the very least you have a long climb out of a hole. Unfortunately I don’t get too many AA’s, so I also need to be able to play with the AJ’s and KQ’s of the world (RB2’s and WR2’s). These hands won’t completely make me or completely break me, but I need a good number of them to work out if I want to win it all. Last, I need to try and hit some home runs with some speculative hands such as 44 or 67s. Most of the time, these sleepers don’t usually work out, but when they do, you can score big.
I’m sure we can all agree that if people make simply egregious drafting errors, they can ruin their season before it even starts. I’m talking about things like drafting Alex Smith in the third round or Akers in the sixth. This is essentially equivalent to people choosing to play with hands like 73 or K5 in big preflop pots. Yes, occasionally they will hit their hand and reap nice benefits, but that certainly doesn’t justify the play. These people will either learn better preflop discipline or lose their money very quickly. It’s the same in fantasy. There are plenty of people (I’ve played with them, as I’m sure many of you have as well) who make just plain bad drafting decisions, but these people usually aren’t around very long, especially in a competitive league.
Just as the internet age has increased the overall level of preflop play in poker, it has turned the drafting skill, in competitive leagues, into a nonfactor. People now know why K8 is a trash hand and why 56s isn’t just like people now know who are the big name studs, who are the popular sleepers, etc. If we were to have a theoretical draft-only league with 12 players sticking close to the same cheatsheet, then the players with the better starting hands (higher picks) and better flops (better hit percentages with sleepers) will be more successful , aka luck.
Bottom line: this skill is highly recognizable but the skill-gaps between competitive players is essentially non-existent.
2. Picking which player to play
In poker, your goal as a player is to maximize your equity in each pot. Let me give a quick explanation on this. Say you are all-in heads-up with an opponent preflop in a $1000 pot and you have AK against his AQ. Your AK will win ~70% of the time against AQ. Therefore you have ~70% equity in the pot. If this situation played out a million times, you end up with ~$700 and your opponent would have ~$300. Assuming you invested $500 into the pot, a good poker player will understand that, even if the flop comes QQQ, you made a play with a positive expected value of about $200. If you can gain more than your share of equity in the majority of pots you play, then you will be a winning poker player in the long run.
Generally, better poker players maximize their equity by being aggressive and gaining fold equity (the % of the time that the opponent will fold his/her hand). However, in fantasy football there is no fold equity, and so instead I will focus only on the expressed equity in a given situation. Much of the time that we make a start/sit decision we really aren’t even considering that we’re making a decision and therefore aren’t even considering a player’s equity (from now on this will mean “potential for points”). Obvious examples of this are when we are trying to “decide” between starting Brees or starting Schaub. It is simply obvious to everyone that Brees has more equity than Schaub. This does not mean that Brees will 100% outscore Schaub. In fact, say the Saints and the Texans each played against a third team 100 times. It would likely be impossible for Brees to always outscore Schaub, even if the only reason would be a Brees injury. Let’s say out of those 100 games Schaub would outscore Brees 5 times. This would mean that you played Brees with 95% equity, or, in other words, you made clearly the correct decision, regardless of what happens on Sunday. These situations happen in poker all the time, too. Good players and bad players alike know to play Brees over Schaub, just as all bad poker players know to put it in with their flopped sets, straights, etc.
Because all players generally know to start their “studs,” nearly all start/sit decisions involve many speculative decisions and a lot of murky equity. Now the following “problem” is not for those of you who have good knowledge of poker, because you will already know the answer (but I at least hope you can appreciate the example for what it is). However, for those of you who do not automatically know the answer, please give it some thought before looking at the answer that follows.
The situation is this: One player has AhKh (Ace of hearts, King of hearts) and a second player has 8c9c. Both players are all-in on a flop of 9h7h2c. Which hand would you take with two cards to come and why? Both hands have justifications. The AK makes the nuts with any heart and an A or a K also gives the first player the best hand. The second player, though, is in the lead currently and doesn’t have to improve his/her hand to win.
I think most people are surprised to find that the correct answer is AhKh which has 51.11% equity in this hand. However, the point is not which one is the correct answer. The point is that, without actual knowledge of (or ability to calculate) the equity in the hand, a lot of people make the conclusion that they would rather have the already made hand, and their reasoning is not completely unjustified. These kinds of situations are all over the place in fantasy. For example say you’re trying to make a decision between playing McFadden @ SF or Benson v NO. Just as in the example above, both plays have justifications and reasons for worry. Maybe McFadden is the 51.11%? Or maybe Benson? In the long run, the player who can more consistently start the AhKh over 9c8c will score more points and therefore be the better player over the guy that likes his 9c8c.
However, the problem with this is that the equity of each player in this situation is unknown and incalculable. Even after the games are completed, there would be no way to say with certainty that one player was the better play over the other. We KNOW that the AhKh is favored over the 9c8c in the above situation because we can simulate an unlimited number of runs of the deck. We cannot, however, have McFadden @ SF and Benson v NO an unlimited number of times.
So how do we figure out who is better at picking between two players? We can’t. Imagine someone that always picks the higher scoring player in a situation like above. Is this person always picking the one with greater equity? How do you know that? Isn’t it possible for this person to have played player with 48.89% equity and still ended up picking the higher score? Wouldn’t it be possible to always pick the worse player and still get plenty in a row correct? Now imagine someone who by some miracle knows each player’s equity and always chooses the higher one. How many trials (aka weeks) would it take for their small edge to show? Pokerstove (the odds calculator I use for poker hands) runs the deck tens of thousands of times to determine true equity. It would take more years in lifetime to show a true edge here.
The bottom line here is this: The skill of picking the correct fantasy players to start/sit exists but is unrecognizable and incalculable. I believe this is what the OP was trying to say. The skill in fantasy, similar to poker, involves pressing tiny edges as much as you can. Because of the limited number of trials in a given fantasy season as well as the limited number of years in a lifetime, those tiny edges can never come to fruition.
Edit: I said "always makes the correct decision" when I meant "always picks the higher scoring player."
I would secondly like to note that I have read all the posts in this thread and recognize that many of points have already been posted in some form or another. I will not actively say “as so and so has already pointed out,” but know that I give them credit here for saying those things and have incorporated their thoughts that I couldn’t express cleanly myself into this post.
Lastly, I’d like to note that I know I’m over simplifying a lot of difficult aspects about both fantasy football and poker in order to make this analogy work. I am not trying to make the two games seem like the same thing by any means.
For this post I will focus on what I believe are the two most basic skills in fantasy football and outline how I think of them in relation to poker (I would do more but I feel like this post will be too long as it is):
1. Drafting
I think of drafting to be analogous to the preflop hands that I will choose to play throughout, say, one given tournament. Obviously, I want my AA’s and KK’s (Foster, Rice, Megatron, Rodgers, etc) and I want as many of them as I can get. These hands will more often than not play huge roles in your success, giving you massive edges in your quest to victory. If these hands get cracked, however (injury or Chris Johnson-esque bust), your tournament (season) could easily be over, or at the very least you have a long climb out of a hole. Unfortunately I don’t get too many AA’s, so I also need to be able to play with the AJ’s and KQ’s of the world (RB2’s and WR2’s). These hands won’t completely make me or completely break me, but I need a good number of them to work out if I want to win it all. Last, I need to try and hit some home runs with some speculative hands such as 44 or 67s. Most of the time, these sleepers don’t usually work out, but when they do, you can score big.
I’m sure we can all agree that if people make simply egregious drafting errors, they can ruin their season before it even starts. I’m talking about things like drafting Alex Smith in the third round or Akers in the sixth. This is essentially equivalent to people choosing to play with hands like 73 or K5 in big preflop pots. Yes, occasionally they will hit their hand and reap nice benefits, but that certainly doesn’t justify the play. These people will either learn better preflop discipline or lose their money very quickly. It’s the same in fantasy. There are plenty of people (I’ve played with them, as I’m sure many of you have as well) who make just plain bad drafting decisions, but these people usually aren’t around very long, especially in a competitive league.
Just as the internet age has increased the overall level of preflop play in poker, it has turned the drafting skill, in competitive leagues, into a nonfactor. People now know why K8 is a trash hand and why 56s isn’t just like people now know who are the big name studs, who are the popular sleepers, etc. If we were to have a theoretical draft-only league with 12 players sticking close to the same cheatsheet, then the players with the better starting hands (higher picks) and better flops (better hit percentages with sleepers) will be more successful , aka luck.
Bottom line: this skill is highly recognizable but the skill-gaps between competitive players is essentially non-existent.
2. Picking which player to play
In poker, your goal as a player is to maximize your equity in each pot. Let me give a quick explanation on this. Say you are all-in heads-up with an opponent preflop in a $1000 pot and you have AK against his AQ. Your AK will win ~70% of the time against AQ. Therefore you have ~70% equity in the pot. If this situation played out a million times, you end up with ~$700 and your opponent would have ~$300. Assuming you invested $500 into the pot, a good poker player will understand that, even if the flop comes QQQ, you made a play with a positive expected value of about $200. If you can gain more than your share of equity in the majority of pots you play, then you will be a winning poker player in the long run.
Generally, better poker players maximize their equity by being aggressive and gaining fold equity (the % of the time that the opponent will fold his/her hand). However, in fantasy football there is no fold equity, and so instead I will focus only on the expressed equity in a given situation. Much of the time that we make a start/sit decision we really aren’t even considering that we’re making a decision and therefore aren’t even considering a player’s equity (from now on this will mean “potential for points”). Obvious examples of this are when we are trying to “decide” between starting Brees or starting Schaub. It is simply obvious to everyone that Brees has more equity than Schaub. This does not mean that Brees will 100% outscore Schaub. In fact, say the Saints and the Texans each played against a third team 100 times. It would likely be impossible for Brees to always outscore Schaub, even if the only reason would be a Brees injury. Let’s say out of those 100 games Schaub would outscore Brees 5 times. This would mean that you played Brees with 95% equity, or, in other words, you made clearly the correct decision, regardless of what happens on Sunday. These situations happen in poker all the time, too. Good players and bad players alike know to play Brees over Schaub, just as all bad poker players know to put it in with their flopped sets, straights, etc.
Because all players generally know to start their “studs,” nearly all start/sit decisions involve many speculative decisions and a lot of murky equity. Now the following “problem” is not for those of you who have good knowledge of poker, because you will already know the answer (but I at least hope you can appreciate the example for what it is). However, for those of you who do not automatically know the answer, please give it some thought before looking at the answer that follows.
The situation is this: One player has AhKh (Ace of hearts, King of hearts) and a second player has 8c9c. Both players are all-in on a flop of 9h7h2c. Which hand would you take with two cards to come and why? Both hands have justifications. The AK makes the nuts with any heart and an A or a K also gives the first player the best hand. The second player, though, is in the lead currently and doesn’t have to improve his/her hand to win.
I think most people are surprised to find that the correct answer is AhKh which has 51.11% equity in this hand. However, the point is not which one is the correct answer. The point is that, without actual knowledge of (or ability to calculate) the equity in the hand, a lot of people make the conclusion that they would rather have the already made hand, and their reasoning is not completely unjustified. These kinds of situations are all over the place in fantasy. For example say you’re trying to make a decision between playing McFadden @ SF or Benson v NO. Just as in the example above, both plays have justifications and reasons for worry. Maybe McFadden is the 51.11%? Or maybe Benson? In the long run, the player who can more consistently start the AhKh over 9c8c will score more points and therefore be the better player over the guy that likes his 9c8c.
However, the problem with this is that the equity of each player in this situation is unknown and incalculable. Even after the games are completed, there would be no way to say with certainty that one player was the better play over the other. We KNOW that the AhKh is favored over the 9c8c in the above situation because we can simulate an unlimited number of runs of the deck. We cannot, however, have McFadden @ SF and Benson v NO an unlimited number of times.
So how do we figure out who is better at picking between two players? We can’t. Imagine someone that always picks the higher scoring player in a situation like above. Is this person always picking the one with greater equity? How do you know that? Isn’t it possible for this person to have played player with 48.89% equity and still ended up picking the higher score? Wouldn’t it be possible to always pick the worse player and still get plenty in a row correct? Now imagine someone who by some miracle knows each player’s equity and always chooses the higher one. How many trials (aka weeks) would it take for their small edge to show? Pokerstove (the odds calculator I use for poker hands) runs the deck tens of thousands of times to determine true equity. It would take more years in lifetime to show a true edge here.
The bottom line here is this: The skill of picking the correct fantasy players to start/sit exists but is unrecognizable and incalculable. I believe this is what the OP was trying to say. The skill in fantasy, similar to poker, involves pressing tiny edges as much as you can. Because of the limited number of trials in a given fantasy season as well as the limited number of years in a lifetime, those tiny edges can never come to fruition.
Edit: I said "always makes the correct decision" when I meant "always picks the higher scoring player."
Last edited by a moderator:
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
jackdubl
Footballguy
It was redraft for the first five seasons and keep-3 since then. It is a league with my law school classmates, so I consider it my main league(only league at the moment). But, yeah, some of us seem to be better than others on average. Which goes to my point: it can't be all luck or it wouldn't matter whether some of us were better than others. However, there is one of those bottom guys whose team name is "$25 Donation". Bet you can guess what our dues are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave Gerczak - FFPC
Footballguy
So the author has a 3-0 team in his sole 10 team league. He pens an article claiming "Fantasy Football Takes No Skill" while posting 4-5 times that he is a fantasy football "expert".
As has been asked before, how can you be an expert on something that takes no skill? If you are an expert, why do you play in a 10 team league? If you are an expert, why are you touting your record? Experts don't feel the need to do that. If your premise was true, why do top High Stakes players do well year in and year out? Why do Chad Schroeder, Mike Santos, David Hubbard, John Rozek, Josh/Drew Miceli, Glenn Schroter, Bill Wasosky, Shawn Coots, Kimra Schleicher, Wayne Ellis, and many, many others win money every year?
If you are an expert on fantasy football, why don't you recognize any of the names of the world's top fantasy players listed above?
Let me tell you why. You are not an expert. You are a writer that plays a single 10 team league. I would hazard to guess there is a high schooler in your league and entry fee is under $100, and it is possibly free.
An expert is Mike Santos, who manages 100 teams a year and texted me to bench Nicks for one of his teams the day after he had open-heart surgery, because he heard Nicks was out that week. An expert is Chad Schroeder, who just took 2nd in NFBC, won FFPC 2008, won WCOFB in 2009, took 2nd in FFOC in 2008, and wins fantasy leagues year-in and year-out.
What a ridiculous and insulting article to those of us that play in this business for real money. You are a hack.
Dave Gerczak
Co-Owner
The FFPC and Footballguys Players Championship
The FFPC and Footballguys Players Championship
2002 WCOFF 5th Overall
2003 WCOFF 7th Overall
2006 WCOFF 39th Overall
2010 AFFL, 1st Overall, co-owner
2008 NFFC Primetime 1st Overall, Grand Prize Winner of $100,000
2008 NFFC Classic 10th Overall
As has been asked before, how can you be an expert on something that takes no skill? If you are an expert, why do you play in a 10 team league? If you are an expert, why are you touting your record? Experts don't feel the need to do that. If your premise was true, why do top High Stakes players do well year in and year out? Why do Chad Schroeder, Mike Santos, David Hubbard, John Rozek, Josh/Drew Miceli, Glenn Schroter, Bill Wasosky, Shawn Coots, Kimra Schleicher, Wayne Ellis, and many, many others win money every year?
If you are an expert on fantasy football, why don't you recognize any of the names of the world's top fantasy players listed above?
Let me tell you why. You are not an expert. You are a writer that plays a single 10 team league. I would hazard to guess there is a high schooler in your league and entry fee is under $100, and it is possibly free.
An expert is Mike Santos, who manages 100 teams a year and texted me to bench Nicks for one of his teams the day after he had open-heart surgery, because he heard Nicks was out that week. An expert is Chad Schroeder, who just took 2nd in NFBC, won FFPC 2008, won WCOFB in 2009, took 2nd in FFOC in 2008, and wins fantasy leagues year-in and year-out.
What a ridiculous and insulting article to those of us that play in this business for real money. You are a hack.
Dave Gerczak
Co-Owner
The FFPC and Footballguys Players Championship
The FFPC and Footballguys Players Championship
2002 WCOFF 5th Overall
2003 WCOFF 7th Overall
2006 WCOFF 39th Overall
2010 AFFL, 1st Overall, co-owner
2008 NFFC Primetime 1st Overall, Grand Prize Winner of $100,000
2008 NFFC Classic 10th Overall
Last edited by a moderator:
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Oh yeah, well all that proves is that you have been lucky.
Just kidding. Seriously, have you ever noticed that the people who claim that FF takes no skill rarely brag about all the championships they have won or if they do, can never provide any documentation or links to their non-skill success?
Exactly, unless this is analogous to claiming to be an expert on roulette - which some people do, but by all accounts that is one of the few games of chance that really does involve no skill.
footballnerd
Footballguy
This is what i was getting at but he has the credentials
Xander, why dont you come with some actual research next time, for example "I followed the history of 50 long standing leagues and found ____ teams won multiple championships, ____ frequented the playoffs. Come with more to support you theory before publishing an article.It doesn't make sense to say you cannot be an expert at something simply because it is dependent on chance and not skill. There are many poker "experts" and it has already been established that's a game mostly of chance. Experts will try to show you ways to maximize your chances. This isn't skill, though, because at the end of the day it still all comes down to chance.
It has also been talked about in this thread that research is involved in fantasy sports and while it is not skill at fantasy or knowledge of the sport itself, research in of itself is a skill. So maybe you should call me a research expert?
Finally, the "research study" of looking at 50 "long standing" leagues is flawed for two reasons. First of all, 50 leagues would not be a large enough sample size. This is just basic statistics 101. You would need a sample size of at least 1,000 randomly selected leagues to study in order to draw any meaningful conclusions about a population as large as the fantasy football community as a whole.
Secondly, a research study is not necessary to make an argument like this. The conclusion is readily apparent based on current evidence, you do not need to go back through history to come to the conclusion that FF doesn't take skill. That's like saying even though you saw someone murder another person, and have the murder weapon with their prints on it, you cannot conclude they murdered that person unless the individual also has a history of murdering others in the past (in other words, they are a serial killer). This obviously makes no sense. Neither does your proposed research study. The conclusion in both is obvious based on current evidence.
Perhaps the reason I don't manage 100 fantasy football teams per year is because I would rather invest my time in something that takes skill (such as baseball, or hockey). Fantasy football does not, and therefore I am not going to bother playing 100 teams. The only reason I'm in ANY leagues is because other fantasy experts invited me to theirs. Can't really say no to them.
Third, don't you think that if fantasy football were a game of all luck, that someone who plays in 100 leagues per year is going to win some of them? And if they all have huge entry fees, then it wouldn't surprise anybody to see a guy who won a league with a prize of $10,000. Then you list off the win as if it is some huge accomplishment when it's not. You were in ONE HUNDRED LEAGUES. OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO WIN MONEY EVERY YEAR. C'MON MAN USE SOME SENSE.
I'd love to see those experts play just one single league each year, and then consistently win it over after year after year. It won't happen. Know why? Because then the odds wouldn't be in their favor, and fantasy football is all about luck.
If you still aren't convinced then go ahead and take a look at some of my weekly articles titled "fantasy football is all luck: week ---." Each week I take some of the biggest lucky breaks and rotten breaks from around the NFL to further build my case. By the end of the season, I'll have dozens and dozens of examples from just one year of football to support my argument. All you have to support yours is your anger at being told what you love doesn't take skill to be good at to.
It has also been talked about in this thread that research is involved in fantasy sports and while it is not skill at fantasy or knowledge of the sport itself, research in of itself is a skill. So maybe you should call me a research expert?
Finally, the "research study" of looking at 50 "long standing" leagues is flawed for two reasons. First of all, 50 leagues would not be a large enough sample size. This is just basic statistics 101. You would need a sample size of at least 1,000 randomly selected leagues to study in order to draw any meaningful conclusions about a population as large as the fantasy football community as a whole.
Secondly, a research study is not necessary to make an argument like this. The conclusion is readily apparent based on current evidence, you do not need to go back through history to come to the conclusion that FF doesn't take skill. That's like saying even though you saw someone murder another person, and have the murder weapon with their prints on it, you cannot conclude they murdered that person unless the individual also has a history of murdering others in the past (in other words, they are a serial killer). This obviously makes no sense. Neither does your proposed research study. The conclusion in both is obvious based on current evidence.
I was not "touting" it, I was correcting the false assertion that I must be 0-3 to have written that article and was just mad. Clearly, since I was 3-0, this was not the case so that argument can be put to rest.
First off, I don't remember answering and saying that I didn't recognize the names. Secondly, I make a living off fantasy sports. What's that make me, then? And not just playing them and winning money from them, either, but actually being hired full-time as a fantasy sports expert. That's my JOB TITLE. Saying I am not a fantasy sports expert is like saying someone who works as a cop is not a police officer. It's nonsensical.
Perhaps the reason I don't manage 100 fantasy football teams per year is because I would rather invest my time in something that takes skill (such as baseball, or hockey). Fantasy football does not, and therefore I am not going to bother playing 100 teams. The only reason I'm in ANY leagues is because other fantasy experts invited me to theirs. Can't really say no to them.
Third, don't you think that if fantasy football were a game of all luck, that someone who plays in 100 leagues per year is going to win some of them? And if they all have huge entry fees, then it wouldn't surprise anybody to see a guy who won a league with a prize of $10,000. Then you list off the win as if it is some huge accomplishment when it's not. You were in ONE HUNDRED LEAGUES. OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO WIN MONEY EVERY YEAR. C'MON MAN USE SOME SENSE.
I'd love to see those experts play just one single league each year, and then consistently win it over after year after year. It won't happen. Know why? Because then the odds wouldn't be in their favor, and fantasy football is all about luck.
If you still aren't convinced then go ahead and take a look at some of my weekly articles titled "fantasy football is all luck: week ---." Each week I take some of the biggest lucky breaks and rotten breaks from around the NFL to further build my case. By the end of the season, I'll have dozens and dozens of examples from just one year of football to support my argument. All you have to support yours is your anger at being told what you love doesn't take skill to be good at to.
Last edited by a moderator:
footballnerd
Footballguy
if you keep looking at things in a vacuum like this, you're not gonna make a very good journalist bro. how is following the results of long standings leagues not a better drawn conclusion than the one you just made with 1 ten team league?? fine, do research on 1000 leagues then and tell me if there are teams that frequent the playoffs, or finals? I was in 3 finals for 4 leagues last year, and 2 finals of 4 the year before, I didn't play in 100 leagues. I'm not even gonna address your murder analogy, holy sh%t man.
you site chance as the reason fantasy football has no skill, but then claim Fantasy Baseball and Hockey are a skillful hobby. All require chance to some degree. Its not black and white for football, and grey for other sports dude. In the end they all have chance. So you either say all fantasy sports require no skill or they do.
you site chance as the reason fantasy football has no skill, but then claim Fantasy Baseball and Hockey are a skillful hobby. All require chance to some degree. Its not black and white for football, and grey for other sports dude. In the end they all have chance. So you either say all fantasy sports require no skill or they do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave Gerczak - FFPC
Footballguy
So, do you recognize any of those players, Mr. Fantasy Football Expert?Just because you can use a random example each week of bad luck doesn't make the sport ALL luck now, does it? Do you think I could possibly give you some examples of using SKILL to succeed in fantasy sports? Your example: Fred Jackson getting hurt, that is bad luck. My example: Drafting CJ Spiller in the 8th round because he is a pedigreed talent of a RB, with a great o-line, a history of success in 2011, and playing next to a 31 year-old RB coming off an injury...is that luck? Or is that skill? I could easily go ###-for-tat with skill moves over your once a week articles finding a single nugget or two or randomness.
I don't have an issue with many of the posters stating that there a substantial degree of luck in FF, but the title of your series is misleading at best and complete falsehood at worst. I cannot think of another single person out of the 1000+ fantasy players I know that would agree with the title of your series "Fantasy football takes no skill".
Do you know how much high stakes players laugh at the so-called "experts" leagues that you get invited to? That is some of the worst drafting we see, and it is consistently awful, across almost every single one of the self-proclaimed "experts" leagues.
You are a fantasy sports writer, you are not even close to an expert. You make a living writing about fantasy sports, not playing them. So, it makes you an expert in writing about fantasy sports. Congrats. To be an actual expert in fantasy sports is to be a fantasy sports PLAYER. In real leagues, not the self-promoting joke known as "experts" leagues.
Wikepedia: An expert ( Audio (US) (help·info), also called cognoscente[1]) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.
You have not been accorded any authority or status by the posters on the most popular message board in fantasy sports, the FBG boards. No one in the high stakes community knows or cares about what you have to say. The general fantasy football public isn't aware of you as an expert. So by definition, you are not an expert. If you were a respected fantasy football expert, you would not have needed to post your story on these boards. Someone would have done it for you.
GregR
Footballguy
Yes, most players simply use the skill and knowledge of the person who created the projections. You've made a good point that their results were not just ruled by luck. If they were ruled by luck they could just randomly choose players from their roster and still win.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
So completely wrong. Please post a link to some of these "experts".
Dippa
Footballguy
How Much Are Examiner.com Writers Really Earning?
Stop acting like you're Matthew Berry here...its not hard to prove you're full of crap. You're a freelance writer, no more of an expert than anyone else here.You get paid for hits, and I imagine you've gotten plenty from this thread. Congrats on keeping your spam bumped for over a week.
squistion
Footballguy
Really? So the people who win consistenly at poker have no skill but just know how to maximize their chances? Interesting argument but it does nothing to add to the credibility of your claim that FF involves no skill (in fact I think most serious poker players would find that statement laughable).
I was going to screenshot my earnings from last month to disprove your attempt to slander me as a liar, but decided I shouldn't need to go that far. I can assure you, however, that I do make a living off this. I do not see how your link to a blog post that has OTHER writers complaining about not making money somehow reflects upon me. That would be like trying to tell an actor he doesn't make a living with his acting career by linking to a blog post about other failed actors complaining how they don't make any money and have to bus tables. So because not everybody can do it, it means nobody can? That doesn't make sense, does it?Also, I'd reply to your latest post Dave, but as you can see this thread has devolved from trying to argue against the points I made, to actual personal attacks insulting me and my character. I was going to tell you to e-mail me if you wanted to discuss it further but reading through your post again, I realize that it is actually you turning the argument personal. I feel that this is strong enough evidence to prove that you have been defeated. If you had a solid foundation of an argument, you would not need to attack me or my abilities personally. Look through this thread. I have never once insulted anybody. I don't need to. The fact you do, is telling enough. Here's a hint: when you are in a discussion or argument with someone if you have to make statements such as "you have not been accorded any authority or status by the posters on the most popular message board in fantasy sports, the FBG boards," you have lost.
I only replied here at all out of sheer interest in what other people had to say on this topic. I saw a lot of agreement posts which shows the idea isn't as crazy as the so-called "professional fantasy players" would have you believe. Perhaps they just don't like being told that they make a living by playing chance odds and their "knowledge" actually doesn't matter at all?
Anyway, I do not feel the need to defend my writing let alone myself personally, so this'll be my last post in this thread.
Leroy's Aces
Footballguy
I am on my laptop, so this is my other login (Dave - FFPC). I apologize for calling you a hack. I was gonna delete that part, but someone had already quoted it. You are the one that claimed to be the expert 4-5 times. I say you are not and told you why that is the case. I guess to a complete newbie to fantasy football you would be an expert. To an experienced player, you are certainly not. But to come on these boards and say you are an expert just because you write about fantasy football is insulting to the TONS of true expert players that frequent these boards and have posted 1000s of insightful posts over the years. The writers at Footballguys.com are experts. They write about this day and day out most of the year. Just because someone gave you a job title and you write a few articles doesn't make it so.
You are leaving the discussion because you know it is time to go. What happens on the field involves plenty of luck. But to actually play the game involves a myriad of decisions. Lineups, waivers, the draft, how much to bid, who to start, the NFL matchup, the over/under, the pointspread, matchups, playoff schedule, injury history, coaching philosophy, quality of competition within the league, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on about all of the skills moves involved in this hobby. Those are decisions that turn out well or they do not. That is the skill of the hobby. Those decisions are not luck, especially over time.
I showed you proof of the success of certain high stakes players over time and I barely touched on the tip of the iceberg of data out there. Another poster showed a guy on DraftStreet that consistently kills it. Is Phil Hellmuth lucky in the WSOP? Is Warren Buffett lucky at picking stocks/businesses?
Your story should have been that "plays on the football field are all random" or "fantasy football is mostly luck", but since you wanted the great headline, your title is misleading and completely false. Good luck with the rest of your series, I am sure it will be riveting to find a single random play each week and write 400 words on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Well, maybe because that you can't say for certain that you will win now and that $100 could last you all season (unless you got a really bad team). Seems a better bang for the buck.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
