Multiple Cash Game Lineups - FanDuel - NFL Week 3

Last week, I detailed my experiment with multiple cash game lineups.

This was a bit of a crazy week. Given how my lineups looked midway through the 4:00 games, I was happy to end up with just a small loss. Totals include wins/losses based on $20 in 50/50s and $1 GPP per entry.

Lineup 1 109.88 – $13.80 Loss
Lineup 2 125.58 – $17 Profit
Lineup 3 95.0 – $21.00 Loss
Lineup 4 111.2 – $8.40 Loss (Zeke and Bailey in this lineup just missed payline in many of the entries)
Lineup 5 102.96 – $21.00 Loss
Lineup 6 114.58 – $3.30 Loss (Finished 51/100 in 3 contests and 55/100 in another – Thanks Dan Bailey)
Lineup 7 107.2 – $15.60 Loss
Lineup 8 138.1 – $18 Profit
Lineup 9 112.08 – $1.20 Loss (Again victimized by Zeke getting vultured – also had Roethlisberger in this lineup. Replaced Luck with Roethlisberger in 2 lineups over concern with his shoulder)
Lineup 10 122.96 – $16.50 Profit
Lineup 11 108 – $21.00 Loss

Total Week 3 $53.80 Loss

I was just a Zeke touchdown or another Bailey field goal away from this being a profitable week.

I was straddling the payline in 5 contests. It could have gone either way. I was fortunate to not take a bigger hit. I only had 3 lineups that profited in all my 50/50s and 3 that were complete losers. 5 lineups were near the payline and each of these had net losses.

I would have lost on my single optimal cash lineup (Rivers was my favored QB).

Here is the exposure I had to each player (11 lineups)

QB (5)
Rivers (3)
Hoyer (2)
Tannehill (2)
Roethlisberger (2)
Rodgers (2)

RB (8)
David Johnson (5)
DeAngelo Williams (3)
Sims (2)
Gordon (5)
Elliott (4)
Forte (1)
Gore (1)
Riddick (1)

WR (9)
Robinson (2)
Cooper (3)
Matthews (3)
Brown (6)
Landry (5)
Sharpe (2)
Beckham Jr (3)
Diggs (7)
Benjamin (2)

TE (3)
Pitta (5)
Burton (3)
Kelce (3)

Defense (5)
Dolphins (4)
Niners (2)
Packers (3)
Panthers (1)
Bengals (1)

K (4)
Vinatieri (1)
Bailey (5)
Lambo(4)
Crosby (1)

The worst plays were DeAngelo Williams, Rivers and Roethlisberger.

DeAngelo was the worst performer in 2 of the 3 lineups that did not cash at all. I did manage to straddle the payline in 2 of 3 Rivers lineups. I survived having Ben in 2 lineups – Scoring 125 pts and 112 points.

More About Multiple Cash Game Lineup Theory – and Where it (Maybe) Went Wrong)

This entire process/experiment is based on expected results assuming a binomial distribution.

Assume, for example, you are a winning cash game player, and can win 50/50 contest at a 60% clip. If you also assume that you can create multiple cash game lineups per week with this same 60% advantage – you will greatly limit your variability by entering multiple lineups. Entering 11 cash game lineups with equal $ per each lineup, the odds would be 75% that you would do no worse than break even.

I have been a winning cash game player over the last 2 NFL seasons (Just over 70% in 50/50s). But with such a small sample size, it is really hard to gauge what my advantage is (if there is even an advantage). If I am a mid-pack player and have a 50% chance of winning any contest, then I will slowly lose my bankroll – as is the case with any other method. I will win half the time and contribute to rake until my bankroll is spent. If I truly have an expected win rate of 60% or higher, then this method will reduce my variance and I should finish the season with a profit..

Also, the assumption that I can create 11 lineups and not impact my win rate is probably not entirely accurate. I definitely forced some plays that cost me this week. Going forward I may limit my exposure to a smaller pool of players and will avoid forcing players in for the sole reason of diversification. This could result in less lineups. Without overreacting to an off week, I will strive to only make smart Cash Game plays, I really slipped into a GPP strategy with a few plays that I knew weren’t good value plays at the time.

About the Author

Comments

  • kdjac0434

    Thanks for the update on this. I kind of thought it would happen like this for you. 11 lineups is a lot to not have significant overlap and I thought you might end up forcing some plays. I tried this myself last year with NBA, and while I only did 2 lineups I found that my 2nd lineup was usually not as good and it was because I forced a guy in there to be different that changed everything. Maybe in the future use two different QBs and/or just split similar plays at those price points. For example this week on FD I liked Cooper and Fitzgerald at the same price. And I also liked Jones, Matthews, Landry, and T Benjamin. I could have made a number of combos out of those two sets choosing 1 from group 1 and 2 from group 2. That may be a better way to diversify without having such a large player pool.

  • Dmurphy104

    • Blogger of the Month

    Thanks for the feedback.

    I’ll see how it comes together this week. There are a # of RB plays I really like. Not as many WR combos..so I may have higher exposure to a much smaller group of WR, with more diversified RBs. I probably will cut down my QBs..although that didn’t really hurt me..I do think we tend to overvalue the QB spot. There usually isn’t a huge difference between range of playable QBs. I don’t want to be stuck with one rigid plan, but at the same time I need to be consistent in my approach to really determine what works. I won’t be afraid to have over 50% exposure in spots where there is clear value.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

New to DFS?

Be sure to click through our links and use our exclusive promo codes to receive the industry's best sign-up bonuses, including free access to our premium content.

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler (NJ/WV/PA), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.