MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • rsrunningrebels

    • 876

      RG Overall Ranking

    Dear RotoGrinders Community Members,

    I have one simple question: Do you feel that 20 and/or 50 Entry Max on all main GPPs would help level the DFS playing field or not?

    I’m not interested whether or not you think FD or DK would or would not eventually implement this proposal, rather; I’m solely interested in your opinion regarding whether or not limiting entries levels the playing field in GPPs.

    Specifically pertaining to $8 and $33/$40/$55 GPPs.

    Whether you are a legendary fisherman casting 150 times in a Pro Bass tourney or a kid fishing off the pier with just one line(up) at a time; your input is greatly appreciated.

  • superstars92

    • 121

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #79

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Again, as I said in the first few pages, people are confusing “winning a tournament” and “ROI.”

    For example, you guys see Saahil’s ranking right? He probably has won plenty of tournaments in the last few years, including this year. From rough estimates, I don’t think his ROI is positive this year. So it’s actually hurting him that he max enters.

    You should only care about ROI or how much you won as an absolute number. For these 150 max entry guys, I bet there are plenty of them who win tournaments like every month, but don’t make positive money or positive ROI.

    I think that’ll bridge all the arguments on here.

  • wisertime

    “You should only care about ROI or how much you won as an absolute number. For these 150 max entry guys, I bet there are plenty of them who win tournaments like every month, but don’t make positive money or positive ROI.”

    Maybe that’s true, but I would guess the majority of people that play GPPs without having near the 150 max entries have a negative ROI too, and most likely a higher percentage. People who don’t think maxing out entries is a distinct advantage are kidding themselves. Small and medium bankrolled players are getting priced out in the bigger GPP’s because the entry limits for the lowest priced GPPs have atleast doubled in the last 3 years. a 75 entries at $2 would cost $150 and give a person a legit shot. now the same 75 entries cost atleast $300. For most people, the extra cost is too much for a person to withstand a cold streak. hence people will just quit altogether, because people who play max entries, have a distinct advantage over one who doesn’t.

  • superstars92

    • 121

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #79

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @wisertime said...

    Maybe that’s true, but I would guess the majority of people that play GPPs without having near the 150 max entries have a negative ROI too, and most likely a higher percentage. People who don’t think maxing out entries is a distinct advantage are kidding themselves. Small and medium bankrolled players are getting priced out in the bigger GPP’s because the entry limits for the lowest priced GPPs have atleast doubled in the last 3 years. a 75 entries at $2 would cost $150 and give a person a legit shot. now the same 75 entries cost atleast $300. For most people, the extra cost is too much for a person to withstand a cold streak. hence people will just quit altogether, because people who play max entries, have a distinct advantage over one who doesn’t.

    Yea I agree with what you are saying. Like I said earlier, I am totally in support of lowering the max entries of GPPs. The only concern would be the reduction in the prize pool or the winning prize (since these max entries guys with the -EV or -ROI that I alluded too help pump up the prize pool). I just wanted to point out the -EV max entry guys because people don’t realize a lot of these guys you guys want to keep since they keep the prize pool big.

    If it wasn’t for the reduction of the prize pool, I have absolutely no issue with it. I can’t even physically make 150 lineups because I do everything manually, so I totally don’t mind like a 40 max entry. When I get to like the 40th entry, my DK lineups page takes like 1 min to load the entire page after creating a lineup with all the lineups, so it’s frustrating I can’t really go beyond it unless I have tons of patience.

  • EadesScience

    @superstars92 said...

    Again, as I said in the first few pages, people are confusing “winning a tournament” and “ROI.”

    For example, you guys see Saahil’s ranking right? He probably has won plenty of tournaments in the last few years, including this year. From rough estimates, I don’t think his ROI is positive this year. So it’s actually hurting him that he max enters.

    You should only care about ROI or how much you won as an absolute number. For these 150 max entry guys, I bet there are plenty of them who win tournaments like every month, but don’t make positive money or positive ROI.

    I think that’ll bridge all the arguments on here.

    SuperStars92…You hit the nail directly on the head here. I only play the quarter GPPs for the most part now until I get my bankroll built back up to where I want it. However, I have a positive 17.08 ROI over my career winnings. When I noticed this percentage slipping from my 21% 8 months ago I downsized my money amounts directed toward tournaments. My losses came mainly from the NBA, but also MLB has not been much help either this year. I always max enter the GPPs (5 bucks) and have yet to knock one down. I usually break even or make a couple of dollars. Still positive though.

    Ricky

  • rannas23

    Hi superstars92…just had a question in regards to the estimate of some of the top dogs that max enter and don’t produce a positive ROI. When I look at these tournaments on DK and do an excel export of who entered and how many times…I see so many of them still doing max entries or close to it. If they are losing money or if its a negative ROI strategy, why does these players continue to do it? I do agree with you that ROI should be the main topic or focus and not winning a tournament. There are times if multi entering and getting multiple finishes in the top 10 can be profitable.

    I do like to multi enter but never have did the 150 max type. I also like to do mine manually so 150 is probably out of the question for me. I do think that tournament size should correlate with max entries. I’ll see a 40k tournament size with a 150 max entry and then a higher buy in costs contests such as $55/$44/$33 with a 6k-8k tournament size will also have a 150 max entry before. If you have the bankroll to risk in those smaller tournament sizes then you have better chance for ROI…not guaranteed of course…just my opinion. The catch is though if you max enter in the high dollar games you gotta be willing to lose some major bank if your research did not pan out. No strategy is 100% guaranteed in DFS.

  • superstars92

    • 121

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #79

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @rannas23 said...

    I see so many of them still doing max entries or close to it. If they are losing money or if its a negative ROI strategy, why does these players continue to do it?

    That’s a good question. I can’t answer it because I am not in their position, but I can speculate.

    First of all, on average, a player who max enters will be profitable (positive ROI). Of course, not all max entry players (or close to max entry players) have positive ROI. Why do these players continue to play? Keep in mind this isn’t like a large portion of max entry players, but it is still significant enough.

    Probably for a few reasons.

    One, they were probably profitable in the past. See Condia for example. He was a beast for a few years, then he started to lose money. He didn’t quit immediately because he probably was very profitable in the past and thought he could turn it around. He of course has now all but quit, realizing it’s harder now.

    Second, they might think their process is still good, but their results just don’t line up with the process. In that way, they still think they are making +EV decisions and will continue to do so thinking it will eventually lead to a +ROI. Their -ROI might just be due being unlucky, and they think they can turn it around. It’s easier said then done because you can’t really measure the EV of a “process” like a unfair coin (where you know the EV going into it).

    Finally, perhaps they are just irrational. I mean if you take a look at humans, we aren’t always rational. I know I am not always rational, and I would say 99.999% of humans are not perfectly rational on everything. So as a result, they just might keep putting in entries thinking they will hit it big one day. I see this in hedge funds all the time in finance. People keep putting in money in hedge funds when they clearly produce a smaller ROI than just putting it in SPY, and hedge funds don’t even offer as good of a risk reducing method as investing in SPY + VXX + options. Yet, I see tons of money being put in the hedge fund industry which only benefits asset managers who really don’t have an advantage over the stock market but collect insane fees to make money for themselves. If that can happen, clearly I can see this happening in fantasy sports. There are plenty of examples of this irrationality with money.

  • rannas23

    Thanks so much for your answer and opinion superstars92. I didn’t even think of that and it does make sense, especially when you have real life business and finance examples and experiences to back that up. So many times I turn on the news and see something stupid that someone else does and wonder why in the world would that person do that. We live in a world of irrational people and decisions and need to take that in account when trying to understand what someone else is doing…even here in the DFS realm. I think what you stated is something we should all keep in the back of our minds when we start to try and duplicate what some of the top dogs are doing in DFS and put more merit in our experiences and research.

    Thanks again for taking the time to answer my question and giving your opinion on that. Good luck and keep grinding.

  • superstars92

    • 121

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #79

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Btw, just curious for anyone, do you guys have good data to find the names of players who generally enter at least 100 times in say a sport like MLB (or NBA if you still have it)? I sometimes download the CSV, so that’s how I estimate ROI (I’m assuming my random sample is representative), but I don’t have like a CSV for every day.

    How many players would you say actually enter 100+ times? What about 150 times?

    Off the top of my head, I’ve got

    Papagates
    Awesomo
    pianoclub
    SaahilSud
    youdacao
    ChipotleAddict
    ehafner
    BrandonAdams
    rexgrossman
    FeistofWinterviel
    bcalicore
    rangingphillip
    mazwa
    RayOfHope
    underjones

    then some guys like

    jetblack, SamENole, aejones, CSURAM88, madoublet88, shawnzhan, cjkalt (thesiege), anilprao88 (who posts on here), etc. who might enter that amount? Not positive though.

    feel free to add to this list. I’m not entirely sure. I also don’t really play FD, so it might be different there. Just curious on the names, if anyone had one.

  • steveospeak

    While I would like to see more single, 3, 5, 20 entry tournaments, I have no problem with the max entry being 150. I don’t think the edge for 150 line-ups vs 20 or 50 (or any other number) is that great. Sure we all remember the times some guy had 5 of the top 10 line-ups and 20 of the top 100 in a big tournament and it was worth it, but in a lot of these with the top heavy payouts, if they don’t finish in the top 5 or 10 with one of their line-ups, it will be tough to break-even or make anything more than a small profit. On those days where the max entry guys miss the mark and lose money, then they are helping you.

    Also, how many tournaments are even close to the 150 max? For baseball today on DK only the $8 and $55 are at the 150 max, and the $444 is the only other one over 20 entry (it’s at 30). And for the big Open PGA week only the $8 and $33 are at the 150 max, with the $333 as the only other one over 20 entries (70).

    I know with the NFL there will be more tournaments that are over 20 entries, and I’m sure there will be a few more tournaments each week that hit the 150 max, but there will be plenty of chances for players who want smaller entry limits. I know FD might be a bit different (haven’t played them as much since NBA), but I’m sure they have plenty of options for non-max entry limit tournaments.

  • BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX

    • 30

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #1

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x4

      2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    What would people’s opinion be on a tournament with a fixed number of entries, like, you HAVE to enter 50 lineups. Of course this would segregate players with a higher bankroll from those without, but I think it would be an interesting format nonetheless.

  • Heterodox

    @BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX said...

    What would people’s opinion be on a tournament with a fixed number of entries, like, you HAVE to enter 50 lineups. Of course this would segregate players with a higher bankroll from those without, but I think it would be an interesting format nonetheless.

    I don’t know who this would really appeal to, who it would be for, but I would prefer a format where one buy-in gets you 10 lineups, with the top scoring lineup being the one that counts, or possibly an average. You could even still have multi-entry, where 5 buy-ins gets you 50 lineups, or however you want to slice it up, 5 lineups per buy-in, 20, whatever. I’ve suggested this many times, but the fact that it never seems to catch on tells me that I am alone on this.

    If it were a $1 entry fee, but you have to enter 50 times, so it’s really a $50 contest, but that $50 gets you 50 lineups, I guess it would be no different than what I suggest, except that 50 lineups is pretty prohibitive for the typical $1 player who is likely making all their lineups by hand. I’d like to see that on a smaller scale. I doubt many of the higher stakes regs would want any part of it, just because it eliminates the numerical advantage they have over limited-entry casuals.

  • Heterodox

    @superstars92 said...

    I can’t even physically make 150 lineups because I do everything manually, so I totally don’t mind like a 40 max entry. When I get to like the 40th entry, my DK lineups page takes like 1 min to load the entire page after creating a lineup with all the lineups, so it’s frustrating I can’t really go beyond it unless I have tons of patience.

    I know you’re a sharp guy, your posts always make a lot of sense, maybe you have a reason for making lineups the way you do, but in my experience it’s way easier and less time consuming to just open the contest page and duplicate the tab as many times as your computer can handle without crashing. My shitty laptop can have 10-15 open at a time, depending on what else I’m doing, maybe more. I’m comfortable doing them in sets of 10, I can get through 50 lineups pretty quickly that way. And every lineup you submit is immediately importable to the next tab, which is convenient when doing permutations. Even if I use a dummy lineup to reserve the spots, I can still just right click on the edit entry link from the My Contests page to open in a new tab. Only problem there is making sure I keep my place as I work down the list of entries.

    I mean, it’s going to take a long time to do a lot of lineups manually, regardless, but that’s the best way I’ve found. Trying to do it from the My Lineups page is just madness.

  • rsrunningrebels

    • 876

      RG Overall Ranking

    @jjwd said...

    Well said. This point has caused many people much confusion and consternation. If you have the bankroll to max out the 55 dollar (I don’t whatsoever, by the way), you can gain a LOT of leverage there. So lowering the max entry on such contests would arguably “level the playing field”.

    JJWD,

    You keep insisting that I haven’t stated how lowering the max entries on contests would “level the playing field.” The words quoted above are your words sir, NOT mine. As a guy who frequently plays 150 LUs, to hear this admission, your own direct words, this probably does more to prove my arguement then anything else. And quit referring to other people’s arguments in this thread as “frankly laughable” and “dumb.” Keep it professional man. These people have a right to their opinion and you don’t have to infer that they are ignorant or liars just because their opinion(s) differ from your own. I remember this kid in Ramadi who was so focused on his own “self preservation.” He was too scared to go out on combat patrols with the rest of us so he would fake an illness or an injury just to remain on the Combat Outpost, hiding in the shadows. If he could, he’d shut the whole war down just so he could live.

    Embrace professional debate JJWD. You don’t have to link your profile to the rest of the DFS world. However, if you choose to participate in this thread from time to time; I encourage you to do so respectfully.

  • rsrunningrebels

    • 876

      RG Overall Ranking

    @BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX said...

    What would people’s opinion be on a tournament with a fixed number of entries, like, you HAVE to enter 50 lineups. Of course this would segregate players with a higher bankroll from those without, but I think it would be an interesting format nonetheless.

    I absolutely love this idea. However, I would only support this if the 50 LUs you HAVE to enter equates to that being the MAX entries allowed for this contest. This would absolutely allow more players who do not want to put up the bankroll for 150 entries to engage in play and, thus, not have to worry about being at a disadvantage in the playing field. Well, a player might get his/her arse kicked, but; at least this player knows it’s based on skill where equal conditions exist.

    Now, I know some people will say that this same principle could be applied to the 150 max entry. Let me just say this. Most people can’t afford to max enter 150 LUs. However a lot of people can afford max entering 50-75 IMO.

    I would also advocate that there be a similar tourney implemented that would afford lower stakes players the same opportunity. I hope DK is listening and would consider trying out this suggestion for at least a trial basis. At the very least, they could add this type of tourney to the ones that exist already. Maybe we should focus on the diversity of GPPs that can be available more than just advocating for changes to the existing ones. This way, one can chose what tourney they feel they are most comfortable in playing. The problem lies in the industry’s ability to grow their customer base and fill the tourneys on a consistent basis. If the DFS industry wants to decide how to best ensure their survivalbility and make a profit at the same, then this industry needs to embrace thinking outside the box.

    Great suggestion Broranno. We won’t know how this type of tourney will fair though until DK gives it consideration and tries it out. I hope they are listening.

  • jjwd

    @rsrunningrebels said...

    Embrace professional debate JJWD. You don’t have to link your profile to the rest of the DFS world. However, if you choose to participate in this thread from time to time; I encourage you to do so respectfully.

    You are waaaay off here man. YOU called all max entry players liars in an earlier post- implying that all of their arguments were all about self-preservation. That’s EXTREMELY naive, cynical and divisive. You lump max players at all buy in levels into one camp. You still haven’t said what you mean by “leveling the playing field” (which is why I keep writing it in quotes). It’s such a general statement that it means nothing unless you are specific. The earlier poster who I labeled “laughable” was asserting that sharks do not win 20 max contests and rarely min cash. That’s disinformation, sloppily presented, and it’s bad for DFS. If you want to solve a problem, you have to figure out what you’re actually trying to solve, and use evidence to make your point. That hasn’t happened in this thread.

  • jjwd

    @rsrunningrebels said...

    I remember this kid in Ramadi who was so focused on his own “self preservation.” He was too scared to go out on combat patrols with the rest of us so he would fake an illness or an injury just to remain on the Combat Outpost, hiding in the shadows. If he could, he’d shut the whole war down just so he could live.

    You don’t know me whatsoever. And you clearly haven’t understood my points in this thread. For you to make this comparison is incredibly ignorant and disrespectful.

  • BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX

    • 30

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #1

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x4

      2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @rsrunningrebels said...

    I would only support this if the 50 LUs you HAVE to enter equates to that being the MAX entries allowed for this contest

    Yes, that was the intent. If we’re trying to “level the playing field,” some might say this would be a way to accomplish that.

    This is not necessarily my opinion on what should happen, just a suggestion on what I think people in this thread might be looking for.

  • wisertime

    “Now, I know some people will say that this same principle could be applied to the 150 max entry. Let me just say this. Most people can’t afford to max enter 150 LUs. However a lot of people can afford max entering 50-75 IMO.”

    that used to be true. but the entry fees for the large lowest priced GPPs have doubled and tripled in the last few years. plus the trend is, the entry fees will increase. any cold streak is a lot more damaging now, than a few years ago. one other thing, the payouts a few years ago were more generous. even if one didn’t get top 10 in a GPP, one could still almost break even on a bad night if one had a lot of entries. now it’s alot more difficult. I do know that there are a larger amount of better players that makes it more difficult. but, the pricing structure of contests are going up and it makes it a lot easier to lose a lot of money fast.

  • makeitra1n

    @BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX said...

    Yes, that was the intent. If we’re trying to “level the playing field,” some might say this would be a way to accomplish that.

    This is not necessarily my opinion on what should happen, just a suggestion on what I think people in this thread might be looking for.

    Yo bflex what are your swings like man?is it like lose 3k in 10 slates then hit for 5k and then be 2 grand in the positive?or are you breaking even most nights and then having a bazillion roi when you finish real high?

    I’m just curious cause I know you go 150.why no more short slates, you destroyed those last year?I just saw czyx take one down with his 150

  • tommyboy42609

    its not smart if you’re playing anything other than 20 max entry or less in MLB..the pros will stack every team and stack the best stacks multiple times repeatedly with different pitchers, your best bet is to play 3 max entry or single entry – especially in MLB. a lot of the max entry pros don’t know what they are doing in NFL which is where the money is

  • rsrunningrebels

    • 876

      RG Overall Ranking

    @jjwd said...

    You are waaaay off here man. YOU called all max entry players liars in an earlier post- implying that all of their arguments were all about self-preservation.

    TinTin,

    I never called all max entry players liars in any post I have ever written. And you know I never said this nor implied this. I only indicated that the perception exists in the DFS community that a small handful of players do indeed collude and let me be clear, I do NOT think you are one of them. I just think you’re an idiot.

    Let me try to break down my argument to you Prince Albert style because you are truly starting to anger me. People who max enter do so because they think it will be profitable. Some people who max enter do well; others do not. Some members in the community believe they are at a disadvantage because they can’t afford to max enter while others do not. I am one of those who believes there is a slight advantage to having more entries in a tournament as compared to the player of equal skill that has less. It comes down to sheer mathematics and POW probabilities when player skill sets are the same, hypothetically speaking. You max enter a lot by your own admission. Why would you do this if you didn’t think it was to your advantage? Why in the world would you invest so many max entries in low stakes GPPs on a consistent basis, if you didn’t THINK it would increase your ability to take down more 1st place prizes? If max entering doesn’t help you to win then why the frock are you max entering a majority of the time? And why are you so disrespectful and antagonistic when anyone, past or present, advocates for community input about this topic? You even admitted in your own words, on numerous occasions, that max entering can be advantageous in GPPs. Your own words mind you. These are rhetorical questions. I don’t want you to answer them. They are only being used to emphasize a point.

    Some of your archived posts here on RG are blatantly arrogant, dishonest, rude, and truly misleading. Jesus man. I’m surprised you haven’t had your arse kicked yet.
    I have no problem with the majority of the 150ers nor am I insinuating that they are focusing on “self preservation.” That analogy was meant SOLELY for you. I’ve mentioned it on more than one occasion in this post that I respect some of the players’ candid feedback and points of view. Theirs is greatly appreciated. Your disrespectful feedback is not. You are banned from this post.

  • depalma13

    When the top prize was lowered it ruined GPP’s. Now that the 20 team max has been established it has salvaged the game.

    Going up against 150 lineups for $15,000 first prize in a $3 GPP was worth the risk. Doing it for $5,000 or lower was not. Knowing that no one can gut you by playing every shortstop on the slate simply because the have the means to do it, has brought a greater skill back into it and made risking the money for the smaller top prize again worth the risk.

    I can see it in my results. Where I was scoring top 250’s, I now see top 50’s and higher on a more regular basis. Either I have gotten really really good, or the cap is affecting the results. I don’t think I’ve gotten really really good.

  • BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX

    • 30

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #1

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x4

      2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @makeitra1n said...

    Yo bflex what are your swings like man?is it like lose 3k in 10 slates then hit for 5k and then be 2 grand in the positive?or are you breaking even most nights and then having a bazillion roi when you finish real high?

    I’m just curious cause I know you go 150.why no more short slates, you destroyed those last year?I just saw czyx take one down with his 150

    I don’t have the time and energy to invest in anything outside of the main slate. You’re pretty accurate as far as the swings. I haven’t won a big tournament so far this MLB season (I think my biggest cash was around 5k?) but I still have a positive ROI with basically just multi entering the biggest slate’s on both sites every night. Most of the time, I’m not even entering 150 lineups. I do have 10-15 finishes inside the top 10.

  • superstars92

    • 121

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #79

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Good personal example here, since I didn’t enter a ton in the past for a single tournament, I have some perspective now.

    I wish 20-entry max existed in the MM. Would save me so much money because all multi-entering a ton of lineups does is cost you money because you throw in dead lineup after dead lineup. I always never enter a ton but did for the MM since it’s the million dollar first prize, and I get this result.

    So don’t get fooled with this you have more entries the better. It’s going to hurt my ROI because I multi-entered unless I manage to have one of my original teams win big. However, I would have won that anyways if that does happen since it would be one of my original core teams, and I did not need to enter like 100 additional teams because all that did was create 100 dead lineups.

  • Nelson01

    i sorta think it will help someone like me who only does about 10-15 lineups anyway and focuses on a core group

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

Sites mentioned in this thread

Use our links to sign up and deposit on sites listed in this thread to get these bonuses:

  • FanDuel

    Get 1-month of RotoGrinders Premium for FREE (a ~$40value) by signing up through one of our links!

    Learn More
  • DraftKings

    Sign up for DraftKings using a RotoGrinders link & receive our DraftKings Premium content FREE for 1 month. That’s a ~$40 value! No DraftKings promo code necessary!

    Learn More
  • FantasyDraft

    FantasyDraft strives to put players first, with a mission to “provide a fun and fair experience for all.” To this end, the site has a well-built, easy-to-use interface and a the first of its kind in offering “Rake-Free” fantasy contests.

    Learn More

Subforum Index

New RotoGrinders Sports Betting Section!

Are you a DFS player who wants to get into sports betting?

If you have access to New Jersey sports betting, then use our DraftKings Sportsbook promo code and our FanDuel Sportsbook promo code to get the best bonuses in the NJ industry.

Those who can take advantage of PA online sports betting should use our SugarHouse PA promo code to get the best sports betting bonus in Pennsylvania.

If you don't yet have access to an online sportsbook, check out Monkey Knife Fight, a prop betting platform available in 31 states. Use our Monkey Knife Fight promo code to get a fantastic bonus.

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. Our goal is to help all of our members make more money playing daily fantasy sports!

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler