Why FanDuel is more of a skill game than DraftKings (1 Viewer)

[TSquaredUA]

A lineup on DraftKings that only used 71.8% of the salary cap would have a 44 point lead in the Millionaire Maker this week

Kirk Cousins 31.96 $5,200
Jeremy Langford 40.20 $4,800
Charcandrick West 31.10 $4,800
Michael Floyd 33.30 $3,800
Martavis Bryant 31.80 $5,500
Doug Baldwin 29.40 $3,400
Zach Miller 30.70 $2,500
Matt Jones 30.70 $3,300
Chiefs 19.00 $2,600
278.16 $35,900

A similar lineup on FanDuel that would have a 40 point lead in the Sunday Million uses 83.7% of the salary cap

Kirk Cousins 29.0 $6,500
Jeremy Langford 33.7 $6,200
Charcandrick West 29.6 $6,400
Michael Floyd 26.8 $5,900
Martavis Bryant 24.8 $6,500
Doug Baldwin 22.9 $5,400
Zach Miller 25.2 $4,500
Cairo Santos 21.0 $4,500
Chiefs 19.0 $4,300
231.96 $50,200

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes. DraftKings pricing is too loose and until they tighten it, you’re going to need more luck to win on DraftKingsthan FanDuel.

 

[GilbertGrape]

I've never won anything on DK. I have won on FD more than once. I took all my money out of DK last week.

 

[BassNBrew]

Playing another site that is even softer on pricing and getting crushed despite overlays on 50/50s. Seems like the skill players are a push since there so heavily owned and I'm losing at the D and K position.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes.

That's not strictly true. If the pricing is perfectly efficient, a monkey would be able to do as well as as any of us would.

Good players get their edge over bad players by being better at identifying and exploiting pricing inefficiencies. If there are no inefficiencies, there's nothing to exploit, and good players will have no edge.

It's also the case, though, that pricing can be too loose. If it's really obvious which NFL players have value and which don't, even bad DFS players will make correct decisions.

The ideal environment for good players involves a lot of prices that are off by a small amount. If not enough prices are off, or if prices are off by so much that it's obvious to everyone, a good player's edge will be reduced.

 

[wyattroa]

I've never won anything on DK. I have won on FD more than once. I took all my money out of DK last week.

Same, this is the first week I didnt play DK.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think the Kicker thing just ups the luck factor, good luck with that

 

[TSquaredUA]

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes.

That's not strictly true. If the pricing is perfectly efficient, a monkey would be able to do as well as as any of us would.

Good players get their edge over bad players by being better at identifying and exploiting pricing inefficiencies. If there are no inefficiencies, there's nothing to exploit, and good players will have no edge.

It's also the case, though, that pricing can be too loose. If it's really obvious which NFL players have value and which don't, even bad DFS players will make correct decisions.

The ideal environment for good players involves a lot of prices that are off by a small amount. If not enough prices are off, or if prices are off by so much that it's obvious to everyone, a good player's edge will be reduced.

I'm saying to tighten the pricing, not make it more efficient. So if DraftKings increased every player's current salary by 20% it would become more of a skill game.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I think the Kicker thing just ups the luck factor, good luck with that

I'm in the clear minority, but I don't buy the argument that PK are much more random than other positions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes.

That's not strictly true. If the pricing is perfectly efficient, a monkey would be able to do as well as as any of us would.

Good players get their edge over bad players by being better at identifying and exploiting pricing inefficiencies. If there are no inefficiencies, there's nothing to exploit, and good players will have no edge.

It's also the case, though, that pricing can be too loose. If it's really obvious which NFL players have value and which don't, even bad DFS players will make correct decisions.

The ideal environment for good players involves a lot of prices that are off by a small amount. If not enough prices are off, or if prices are off by so much that it's obvious to everyone, a good player's edge will be reduced.

I'm saying to tighten the pricing, not make it more efficient. So if DraftKings increased every player's current salary by 20% it would become more of a skill game.

Ah, well, in DFS lingo, tight means efficient while loose means inefficient.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I have won every week but one on DK, cant win #### on FD.

 

[knickstorm]

then Yahoo is the #1 skills game. No way to build the same rosters on yahoo.

 

[Bri]

there are humans setting the salaries/prices

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes.

That's not strictly true. If the pricing is perfectly efficient, a monkey would be able to do as well as as any of us would.

Good players get their edge over bad players by being better at identifying and exploiting pricing inefficiencies. If there are no inefficiencies, there's nothing to exploit, and good players will have no edge.

It's also the case, though, that pricing can be too loose. If it's really obvious which NFL players have value and which don't, even bad DFS players will make correct decisions.

The ideal environment for good players involves a lot of prices that are off by a small amount. If not enough prices are off, or if prices are off by so much that it's obvious to everyone, a good player's edge will be reduced.

I'm saying to tighten the pricing, not make it more efficient. So if DraftKings increased every player's current salary by 20% it would become more of a skill game.

Actually, that's not accurate. The inefficiencies would still exist even if salaries were increased across the board. If Player X is underpriced by 5%, he's still underpriced by 5% if everyone's salaries are increased by 10%.

 

[Bobcat10]

I think he's essentially saying it's too easy to build a strong LU on DK, so if everyone gets bumped 20% and the cap remains static, then it becomes more difficult.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I think he's essentially saying it's too easy to build a strong LU on DK, so if everyone gets bumped 20% and the cap remains static, then it becomes more difficult.

"Strong" is a relative term tho. If salaries are increased across the board, then "strong" teams will just be defined at a lower threshold.

If you mean that it will be tougher to build teams with "name" players and harder on the casual player, that may be true. Personally, with the proliferation of online touts, I'm not sure there are any "sneaky" plays that make sense in a cash setting.

And if you price too high then teams will be filled out w/ back-up RBs, 3rd or 4th WRs, and TEs getting 3-4 targets a game. And that's when you really start getting into luck. Ain't a bit of skill involved in picking the minimum salary FB who happens to get a TD on one of his 2 dives on the day.

 

[TSquaredUA]

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes.

That's not strictly true. If the pricing is perfectly efficient, a monkey would be able to do as well as as any of us would.

Good players get their edge over bad players by being better at identifying and exploiting pricing inefficiencies. If there are no inefficiencies, there's nothing to exploit, and good players will have no edge.

It's also the case, though, that pricing can be too loose. If it's really obvious which NFL players have value and which don't, even bad DFS players will make correct decisions.

The ideal environment for good players involves a lot of prices that are off by a small amount. If not enough prices are off, or if prices are off by so much that it's obvious to everyone, a good player's edge will be reduced.

I'm saying to tighten the pricing, not make it more efficient. So if DraftKings increased every player's current salary by 20% it would become more of a skill game.

Actually, that's not accurate. The inefficiencies would still exist even if salaries were increased across the board. If Player X is underpriced by 5%, he's still underpriced by 5% if everyone's salaries are increased by 10%.

That's what I said. If you increase player pricing, there will still be inefficiencies for skilled players to exploit.

 

[TSquaredUA]

I think he's essentially saying it's too easy to build a strong LU on DK, so if everyone gets bumped 20% and the cap remains static, then it becomes more difficult.

"Strong" is a relative term tho. If salaries are increased across the board, then "strong" teams will just be defined at a lower threshold.

If you mean that it will be tougher to build teams with "name" players and harder on the casual player, that may be true. Personally, with the proliferation of online touts, I'm not sure there are any "sneaky" plays that make sense in a cash setting.

And if you price too high then teams will be filled out w/ back-up RBs, 3rd or 4th WRs, and TEs getting 3-4 targets a game. And that's when you really start getting into luck. Ain't a bit of skill involved in picking the minimum salary FB who happens to get a TD on one of his 2 dives on the day.

Increasing player salaries by 20% would not result in what you claim. This week it would have resulted in me rostering Evans instead of Julio and McFadden instead of Freeman on DK. I could have built a 40K lineup this week with a starting RB and WR1 at every position.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I think he's essentially saying it's too easy to build a strong LU on DK, so if everyone gets bumped 20% and the cap remains static, then it becomes more difficult.

"Strong" is a relative term tho. If salaries are increased across the board, then "strong" teams will just be defined at a lower threshold.

If you mean that it will be tougher to build teams with "name" players and harder on the casual player, that may be true. Personally, with the proliferation of online touts, I'm not sure there are any "sneaky" plays that make sense in a cash setting.

And if you price too high then teams will be filled out w/ back-up RBs, 3rd or 4th WRs, and TEs getting 3-4 targets a game. And that's when you really start getting into luck. Ain't a bit of skill involved in picking the minimum salary FB who happens to get a TD on one of his 2 dives on the day.

Increasing player salaries by 20% would not result in what you claim. This week it would have resulted in me rostering Evans instead of Julio and McFadden instead of Freeman on DK. I could have built a 40K lineup this week with a starting RB and WR1 at every position.

I didn't say that a 20% across-the-board increase in salaries would result in back-ups and nobodies being rostered. I said that pushing it too far would result in that. I said that a 20% across-the-board increase in salaries would not increase the level of skill needed to win, since the inefficiencies in pricing would be the same:

The tighter the pricing, the more of a skill game it becomes.

That's not strictly true. If the pricing is perfectly efficient, a monkey would be able to do as well as as any of us would.

Good players get their edge over bad players by being better at identifying and exploiting pricing inefficiencies. If there are no inefficiencies, there's nothing to exploit, and good players will have no edge.

It's also the case, though, that pricing can be too loose. If it's really obvious which NFL players have value and which don't, even bad DFS players will make correct decisions.

The ideal environment for good players involves a lot of prices that are off by a small amount. If not enough prices are off, or if prices are off by so much that it's obvious to everyone, a good player's edge will be reduced.

I'm saying to tighten the pricing, not make it more efficient. So if DraftKings increased every player's current salary by 20% it would become more of a skill game.

Actually, that's not accurate. The inefficiencies would still exist even if salaries were increased across the board. If Player X is underpriced by 5%, he's still underpriced by 5% if everyone's salaries are increased by 10%.