MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • sethfein

    *FINAL UPDATE: Many from RG have stepped up and acknowledged the issue and have shown willingness to take proper steps going forward to avoid the conflict of interest. The term “fade” seems to be the biggest miscommunication among this and it will likely be resolved as well. That was main goal of this thread and initially, I was definitely emotional due to Cal response on twitter that seemed to disregard genuine complaints. It really seems everything is on track now for positive change but the thread is getting out of hand with just focusing on the wrong concepts (whether touts should be trusted in first place and whether I want RG to fire everyone because I lost). The common theme seems to be a big split on whether it is good practice to trust the content for own lineup builds. I do believe RG wants to be able to help common players that don’t have luxury of time to build models and still want a viable lineup for the slate.

    Either way, the goal of seeing update to the content and acknowledgement from the RG contributors of the issue was attained. They won’t turn off the commenting but please understand that a lot of the conversation below evolved from initial discussions in an effort to gain facts and information.*

    UPDATE: Many elements of rant below has been answered or my viewpoint changed since hearing other side. I was torn whether to fully edit post but did not want to create confusion within this thread. Would be ironic to delete a stance after pressure when calling out someone for doing same. So original post is posted but please consider the following:

    1) STL did NOT intend to mislead and is guilty of doing something everyone in DFS does…make decisions close to lock with either gut or intel that changes viewpoint. He was put in tough place and I fully recognize that. I apologize to him if anyone took my post as a personal attack as it was striictly about content that I personally feel is dumb anyways (and still do). Asking for something like a stone cold fade at 1pm EST is as dumb as relying on Anthony Davis injury report during morning shootaround. Change the content to something actually relevant throughout day so touts dont have to defend their reasonable actions with bad optics.

    2) Many RG staff have reached out since this post either thru thread or PM and have taken steps to try to resolve the conflict of interest that many feel exist. It is a positive step forward and so any negativity about past occurences, including KD fade play, should be done with

    3) This is representing those who want to play DFS and simply dont have time to do full research for hours before a slate. I agree only way to win consistently is thru own research but clearly many people feel RG is geared towars those who want a competitive shot with these tout content pieces…they arent catered to guys who have own data process or spreadsheet.

    4) Some asked why not check all touts and why only winning entries. This is really a flawed logic since if guys are paying for content because they dont have time to do research…they definitely dont have time to download every tout lineup builds and compare to any advice given to prove a point that may get ignored. I am sure this has happened many times with different touts and none were with malicious intent at all.

    5) This is my most important point and felt it got lost in hoopla: TOUTS SIGN UP FOR THIS! Lets get this straight. This isnt a non for profit site with pros trying to help common man with DFS. I am sure people are paid for their input based on their qualifications and credibility. Nobody is putting a gun to anyones head and saying “tell me what you know!”. If they make so much playing DFS personally that giving a few players they personally like will shift the market against them, then being paid for tout advice seems like the wrong line of work.

    Saying “well they play so OBVIOUSLY they wont give away their actualy fades and shame on any idiot who takes tout advice” is simply horrible (as many posted below) and if it is true, RG needs a disclaimer on every content that the tout is refusing to disclose actual views and any skill they have for reaearch is not applicable to this post.

    But again, I simply dont believe RG shares this view. If so, and only if this is true, I think RG would be better off having staff that are using actual expertise and helping people with DFS at premium level. Not using reputation to get readers only to mislead them to protect personal research.

    AGAIN, I DONT PERSONALLY BELIEVE THIS BUT READ MANY POSTERS HERE AND THEY SHARE THIS VIEW. I AM SIMPLY ADDRESSING.

    ————————————

    Last night, STLCARDINALS84 created some controversy when he scored a big hit on DK with a lineup that included Kevin Durant. The reason why many were rightfully upset was because Durant was someone that not only he, but all other touts in same question, answered as “stud they are fading in GPP”.

    A similar issue came up when Seige said “If you fade Wiggins and KAT tonight, you are doing DFS wrong” (Wiggins ultimately busted and Seige then had to redefine the term “fade” to his followers). Seige posted a definition of “fade” as the following:

    FADE = Less than a 1/4 of field ownership
    DON’T FADE = Have greater than 0%

    Now, he has since deleted his tweets altogether which is 100% WRONG for any Tout and RG should probably look into standard protocol for going forward considering how much people rely on building lineups, with real money on the line, and then an “established” tout can just delete his recommendation which affects ability to monitor for future reference.

    But there’s more! When pressed why he deleted the tweet, Seige said this:

    PORTION RELATING TO SEIGE ISSUE WITH WIGGINS WAS DELETED DUE TO RESPONSE

    EDIT: Seige responded that this was a miscommunication so I deleted the portion related to alchohol

    So fast forward to last night with STLCARDINALS84 Kevin Durant play. So in the end, Curry gets hurt and KD smashes the slate and lo and behold, STLCARDINALS84 has KD in 3 of 20 lineups when he told the premium RG members he would fade him in a GPP. Cal came to his defense saying that he played him in 1 of 20 lineups (as a lineup stack of the game) and that it’s still a fade. This is actually a very fair argument…if it were accurate. I will give benefit of the doubt to Cal that he doesn’t know how to use his own site ResultsDB to discover exactly how many lineups have a player. He shared a screenshot of just SMALL FORWARDS and shows KD in 1. However, DK has flex so you have to go to ALL to see actual exposures. The real amount is 3 and this is why it’s significant. I checked all 20 lineups and found 5 GS-SAS stacks and here is my opinion on this.

    1) You can not say you are “fading” a stud in a game that you are taking 20% stacking exposure to. He clearly saw value in this game and KD was up there with 3 out 5 stacks (more than Steph). Additionally, I would add that most of his lineups were some form of a stack (Lots of OKC-PHX, some BKN-CHA) so it would make sense to have less KD if you are taking a stacking approach

    2) If Cal is going to step in to validate this issue, then he should take the time to get facts straight. This isn’t some small DFS lineups provider on Twitter..this is likely the largest community of DFS players and the ethics is already a grey area when it comes to touts who offer their evaluations while playing themselves. Very similar to Fanduel employees playing slates they can see the ownership % on to gain an advantage. I would imagine between the influence RG has on DFS players, along with ability to track which players they are giving high projections to (which lineup builders spits out lineups from), they can get a really good idea of low ownership plays.

    3) Please for the love of everything holy define FADE. Almost every casual player sees it as avoid completely either due to brutal matchup or bad pricing. The constant flip flopping, deleting tweets, and inconsistencies is terrible from optics standpoint. It really isn’t that difficult to just take a stand and say who you are completely fading.

    If you really want to know the answer for STLCARDINALS84, here are his own % of players that are “stars” and the 2nd % is the field:

    Russ – 40% | 34%
    Booker – 25% | 31%
    Kemba – 20% | 12%
    Aldridge – 20% | 17%
    Durant – 15% | 9%
    Curry – 15% | 9%
    Howard – 10% | 21%
    Paul George – 10% | 10%
    Kyrie Irving – 5% | 20% SEIGE DEFINITION OF FADE
    KAT – 0% | 28% ANY DEFINITON OF FADE
    Embiid – 0% | 5%
    Simmons – 0% | 15% ANY DEFINITON OF FADE

    The answer to “who are you fading in GPP?” is either Kyrie Irving if you hold a higher standard for “star” from the bottom 3 shown or any of the 3 that he ACTUALLY 100% FADED. This isn’t a very difficult concept. There were no notable late news that affected BOS-MIN game. He had 6 stars with less exposure and yet said he was fading KD.

    The kicker is that he actually was 6% over the field with his Kevin Durant play. This is simply not a fade by even Seige’s definition.

    There is no other way to address this from RG standpoint other than apologize and acknowledge the mistake by both STLCARDINALS84 and TheSeige.

    I made sure to keep this post strictly business and no personal attacks against anyone involved. If replying, please keep same level of ethics if possible because I don’t want to believe that touts have bad intentions on getting people to lean one way and then capitalize on low ownership.

    My goal is to shed light on this issue and hold RG accountable to make proper standards for going forward.

    SIDE POINT: Notorious, STLCardinals84 and Stevietpfl all agreed on a GPP fade of what ended up being the best player on the slate who happened to also be at really low ownership. So the other question may be whether this content even serves a purpose without context behind it.

    EDITED TO MAKE SURE NO IMPLICATION OF PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST BOTH TOUTS. I don’t want to see heads roll and understand it’s a grey area of guys being paid to give professional opinion but also having to be discreet due to personal lineups. Goal is to find common ground between consumer and touts.

    Thanks,
    Seth

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • Gathman78

    Props for this post. The laughable attempts at justification on Twitter were something to behold. Best of luck with this one!

  • yanksfan1

    If the lineup(s) in question were game stacks then I don’t think there should be any issue with it. I interpret “fade” as in not using as a one off, but anything goes in a game stack

  • sethfein

    @Gathman78 said...

    Props for this post. The laughable attempts at justification on Twitter were something to behold. Best of luck with this one!

    I am hoping to have a meaningful discussion representing the consumer side without the anonymous twitter trolls interfering.

    While I agree that the twitter responses were awful, I would imagine maybe with time and now seeing how we see it, we can get a real solution to the problem at hand.

  • Gathman78

    @yanksfan1 said...

    If the lineup(s) in question were game stacks then I don’t think there should be any issue with it. I interpret “fade” as in not using as a one off, but anything goes in a game stack

    See, that is where I disagree. Everyone interprets FADE differently. This seems to be lost among some. It didn’t say “FADE DURANT in the survey unless its game stacks” The premium paid user who does 1-2 lineups a night might look at that advice and think full fade. It comes off as shady when it is more than likely not.

  • medlund

    If you would like to shed light on something I feel it necessary to use data that is more significant than a 1 night sample. Please show me all the times this has occurred and that it is something that is much more than what you seem to be making it out to be… if he had not won would you be making the same argument? From what I see he was 40% on Russ and only 15% on KD. That seems low in my opinion and unless STL has said that a FADE to him is 0% then I think the hate directed towards him is unfounded. Also, bringing Seige into this was exactly what you said you weren’t going to do and make personal attacks against someone. This is titled STL so talk about him only.

  • sethfein

    @yanksfan1 said...

    If the lineup(s) in question were game stacks then I don’t think there should be any issue with it. I interpret “fade” as in not using as a one off, but anything goes in a game stack

    Multiple responses to this excuse.

    1) Why would he not list ACTUAL FADES? Meaning, studs that he won’t even stack their games. I listed many options that he had, including Kyrie and KAT who were both REALLY high owned on the field.

    2) STLCardinals84 didn’t really take any other approach other than game stacks. If that’s the case, he is not qualified to give GPP “fade” opinion because most consumers here don’t have 20 lineups stacking almost every game.

  • sethfein

    @medlund said...

    If you would like to shed light on something I feel it necessary to use data that is more significant than a 1 night sample. Please show me all the times this has occurred and that it is something that is much more than what you seem to be making it out to be… if he had not won would you be making the same argument? From what I see he was 40% on Russ and only 15% on KD. That seems low in my opinion and unless STL has said that a FADE to him is 0% then I think the hate directed towards him is unfounded. Also, bringing Seige into this was exactly what you said you weren’t going to do and make personal attacks against someone. This is titled STL so talk about him only.

    You mention that a comparison of Russ to KD as 40-15 split as “low”. I made sure to include the own% relative to field which even Seige says is a way to define a fade.

    I made sure to explicitly list this out so please re-read and compare to field. KD was higher exposure than the field by almost double.

  • sethfein

    @medlund said...

    If you would like to shed light on something I feel it necessary to use data that is more significant than a 1 night sample. Please show me all the times this has occurred and that it is something that is much more than what you seem to be making it out to be… if he had not won would you be making the same argument? From what I see he was 40% on Russ and only 15% on KD. That seems low in my opinion and unless STL has said that a FADE to him is 0% then I think the hate directed towards him is unfounded. Also, bringing Seige into this was exactly what you said you weren’t going to do and make personal attacks against someone. This is titled STL so talk about him only.

    As for Seige, that was not a personal attack at all. He gave his professional opinion on a play through twitter, deleted the tweet, and then blamed alchohol for his initial take.

    In my view, it is rightful to call this type of behavior out on business level and I don’t have any issues with Seige on personal. He just has to maybe take a more professional approach to his job considering his influence on the industry.

  • medlund

    I do not care about Seige… we are discussing STL am I correct? Tell me STL’s definition of a fade then I can make an educated decision on what has happened. Looking at 1 night of data is also not making an educated decision either. I am not on one side or the other, and I can read just fine. You have added many things not necessary to looking at STL and his plays last night into this post. You cannot argue with me on that point about bringing the Seige into this either. Whether you want to say this is not a personal attack on either of them that is how it comes off. IF facts are brought forth to prove this is something that occurs often then there is an issue. If this is something that happened last night and there is no history to show what you are implying is occurring then you are just hurting his reputation for the casual reader who follows anything they read. If you would like each person you follow or pay for to explain ever last detail about how they make their lineups and what each word is defined as by them then you aren’t doing this right. That is what it seems like people want these days. Again, I am not on any side, but hate to see people “attack” someone without true facts.

  • medlund

    @sethfein said...

    As for Seige, that was not a personal attack at all. He gave his professional opinion on a play through twitter, deleted the tweet, and then blamed alchohol for his initial take.

    In my view, it is rightful to call this type of behavior out on business level and I don’t have any issues with Seige on personal. He just has to maybe take a more professional approach to his job considering his influence on the industry.

    Then title your post correctly please. Facts are facts. Your post clearly says STL issue not Seige am I correct? You bring in what he did to then give off the illusion that one RG tout did something wrong so another one must be as well. If that’s what you meant or not that is how it appears to someone reading your post that is titled STL, goes in depth on something Seige did wrong, yes I said he did wrong, then you talk about STL last night. This is misleading.

  • Gathman78

    @medlund said...

    I do not care about Seige… we are discussing STL am I correct? Tell me STL’s definition of a fade then I can make an educated decision on what has happened. Looking at 1 night of data is also not making an educated decision either. I am not on one side or the other, and I can read just fine. You have added many things not necessary to looking at STL and his plays last night into this post. You cannot argue with me on that point about bringing the Seige into this either. Whether you want to say this is not a personal attack on either of them that is how it comes off. IF facts are brought forth to prove this is something that occurs often then there is an issue. If this is something that happened last night and there is no history to show what you are implying is occurring then you are just hurting his reputation for the casual reader who follows anything they read. If you would like each person you follow or pay for to explain ever last detail about how they make their lineups and what each word is defined as by them then you aren’t doing this right. That is what it seems like people want these days. Again, I am not on any side, but hate to see people “attack” someone without true facts.

    Do you know what STL’s idea of a fade is? Is this common knowledge? Just because someone saw HIS screenshot and deduced that he advised Durant as fade and subsequently won a lot of money or not is irrelevant. It comes off as being misled when I don’t think that was ever the intention. It’s definitely something that should be addressed going forward IMO for everyone’s sake, Cards included.

  • bigez952

    As with any tout advice you have to be critical about the advice they give. The start of every show has the disclaimer that plays talked about may or may not reflect the actual lineups they play. Many times they write up the expert survey of who they want to fade for the night at 1 or 2pm and so much can change in the 6-7 hours before lock. Unless you want all touts to post their exposure % of all players and essential give out their lineups it is hard to grill someone for changing their mind on a player as most DFS players do that all the time as lock approaches.

  • sethfein

    @medlund said...

    I do not care about Seige… we are discussing STL am I correct? Tell me STL’s definition of a fade then I can make an educated decision on what has happened. Looking at 1 night of data is also not making an educated decision either. I am not on one side or the other, and I can read just fine. You have added many things not necessary to looking at STL and his plays last night into this post. You cannot argue with me on that point about bringing the Seige into this either. Whether you want to say this is not a personal attack on either of them that is how it comes off. IF facts are brought forth to prove this is something that occurs often then there is an issue. If this is something that happened last night and there is no history to show what you are implying is occurring then you are just hurting his reputation for the casual reader who follows anything they read. If you would like each person you follow or pay for to explain ever last detail about how they make their lineups and what each word is defined as by them then you aren’t doing this right. That is what it seems like people want these days. Again, I am not on any side, but hate to see people “attack” someone without true facts.

    Seige story is extremely relevant on 2 folds:

    1) It demonstrates the absolute need to define “fade”. Having an automatic alibi that each tout has their own version makes is very difficult for any consumer to know what each tout means without an index of everyone’s information.

    2) The optics of the RG touts giving a take and then either not heeding own advice or backtracking. I am not calling Seige any names, never accused him of any ill intentions (and don’t believe he has any) and kept it directly in line with the “fade” and “tout opinion” discussion. You wouldn’t want your financial adviser to tell you to trade a stock and then when it tanks, tell you “sorry, I was drunk”. It’s just an attempt at standards for both parties.

    You seem to have a very aggressive approach to your responses that don’t exactly show an open mind to understanding what I am saying as a consumer. Here are some quotes you have so I can easily pinpoint for you:

    “If this is something that happened last night and there is no history to show what you are implying is occurring then you are just hurting his reputation for the casual reader who follows anything they read” – history doesn’t matter…this happened so needs to be addressed. I also don’t see how this hurts his reputation and he could simply apologize and RG can put protocols in place to fix the optics issue.

    “IF facts are brought forth to prove this is something that occurs often then there is an issue.” – You are moving goalposts. I never once brought up the frequency only the fact that there were 2 relatively dramatic occurrrences in the last month.

    You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal regarding Russ/KD 40/15 split. If you want to make an argument, it would probably be better to counter what I said or acknowledge that you now agree after further explanation.

  • Gathman78

    @bigez952 said...

    As with any tout advice you have to be critical about the advice they give. The start of every show has the disclaimer that plays talked about may or may not reflect the actual lineups they play. Many times they write up the expert survey of who they want to fade for the night at 1 or 2pm and so much can change in the 6-7 hours before lock. Unless you want all touts to post their exposure % of all players and essential give out their lineups it is hard to grill someone for changing their mind on a player as most DFS players do that all the time as lock approaches.

    If I am paying a tout for his or her advice, I do want full disclosure. Pretty simple.

  • medlund

    @Gathman78 said...

    Do you know what STL’s idea of a fade is? Is this common knowledge? Just because someone saw HIS screenshot and deduced that he advised Durant as fade and subsequently won a lot of money or not is irrelevant. It comes off as being misled when I don’t think that was ever the intention. It’s definitely something that should be addressed going forward IMO for everyone’s sake, Cards included.

    I do not and that is exactly my point. We do not know and the poster uses Seige’s definition which is clearly misleading to his argument. So you want every tout to define what every word in DFS means to them individually? I think we are getting crazy with what we expect from these guys. They are humans just like each of us. Give them a break until facts show they don’t deserve one. STL has ALWAYS been a stand up guy in my opinion and I would listen to the things he has to say, but that does not mean I follow everything he puts out blindly as gospel. I get what you are saying about how it could be seen as misleading, but in my opinion that means people are looking for something to nitpick over because if you truly follow him you know that’s not who he is.

  • sethfein

    @bigez952 said...

    As with any tout advice you have to be critical about the advice they give. The start of every show has the disclaimer that plays talked about may or may not reflect the actual lineups they play. Many times they write up the expert survey of who they want to fade for the night at 1 or 2pm and so much can change in the 6-7 hours before lock. Unless you want all touts to post their exposure % of all players and essential give out their lineups it is hard to grill someone for changing their mind on a player as most DFS players do that all the time as lock approaches.

    First off, there was no significant news changes yesterday (a rarity I know). Secondly, there were actual fades as I mentioned that would have been helpful to readers. He faded KAT and Kyrie at over 20% ownership…this is significant.

    Now if you want to say that touts won’t give ACTUAL opinions on slate because they play themselves…well now you are opening a box nobody at RG wants to have exposed. I will maintain my stance that the RG touts don’t agree with you on this. Otherwise, the problem is even worse than I am posting. You are implying that they aren’t using expertise to post content but just throwing random crap out there. If that’s the case, why have content at all? Anyone can do that.

    I don’t need their actual exposure %‘s and understand why they can’t possibly do that. But if giving one stud that they are fading in GPP, like the question asked, I don’t think it’s too unreasonable to give an accurate response.

    Do you?

  • Gathman78

    @medlund said...

    I do not and that is exactly my point. We do not know and the poster uses Seige’s definition which is clearly misleading to his argument. So you want every tout to define what every word in DFS means to them individually? I think we are getting crazy with what we expect from these guys. They are humans just like each of us. Give them a break until facts show they don’t deserve one. STL has ALWAYS been a stand up guy in my opinion and I would listen to the things he has to say, but that does not mean I follow everything he puts out blindly as gospel. I get what you are saying about how it could be seen as misleading, but in my opinion that means people are looking for something to nitpick over because if you truly follow him you know that’s not who he is.

    See, this isn’t about YOU or ME here. It’s in regards to the DFS landscape as a whole. If I am a paying customer I don’t want to have to sit and interpret what tout A or tout B really means. It should be clearly defined to avoid any and all drama. I’ve never once said Cards isn’t a good guy or misled anyone. The premium content on this site isn’t just a couple bucks and I can understand why people might feel misled going off what’s presented in front of them. I thought the response from RG was misguided and kind of oh wellish. If I am paying a premium for premium content, then I would reserve the right to nitpick, no?

  • bigez952

    @Gathman78 said...

    Quote

    So if news breaks at 5:45 pm to move a fade to a good play all touts should be required to go back through and update all of their articles and start informing the public of the move vs. getting their own lineups updated. Why don’t you just pay for a tout that provides you a full lineup 10 minutes prior to lock so when it hits you can split it 50 ways.

    If your paying for RG premium which is looks like your not you should be looking to just picks but be taking the analysis to form your own opinions knowing that info wrote at 2pm may be completely worthless by 6pm due to the news that breaks in those 4 hours.

  • Gathman78

    @bigez952 said...

    So if news breaks at 5:45 pm to move a fade to a good play all touts should be required to go back through and update all of their articles and start informing the public of the move vs. getting their own lineups updated. Why don’t you just pay for a tout that provides you a full lineup 10 minutes prior to lock so when it hits you can split it 50 ways.

    If your paying for RG premium which is looks like your not you should be looking to just picks but be taking the analysis to form your own opinions knowing that info wrote at 2pm may be completely worthless by 6pm due to the news that breaks in those 4 hours.

    Nope, I don’t pay for any premium content. Then my picks are on me and me alone. I read blogs for fun and leave it at that. You seem to be missing my point. You state that if their picks are made in the late AM or early afternoon, then they should be disregarded come 4 or 5’ O clock? Notorious has an update video correct? Twitter is an easy way to let people know if you differ from your previous picks. Your argument is lazy.

  • sethfein

    @medlund said...

    I do not and that is exactly my point. We do not know and the poster uses Seige’s definition which is clearly misleading to his argument. So you want every tout to define what every word in DFS means to them individually? I think we are getting crazy with what we expect from these guys. They are humans just like each of us. Give them a break until facts show they don’t deserve one. STL has ALWAYS been a stand up guy in my opinion and I would listen to the things he has to say, but that does not mean I follow everything he puts out blindly as gospel. I get what you are saying about how it could be seen as misleading, but in my opinion that means people are looking for something to nitpick over because if you truly follow him you know that’s not who he is.

    I am sorry but you keep going back to STL at a personal level (“stand up guy”). I too believe he is a nice guy and had zero bad intentions. This was mentioned many times already.

    You are demonstrating not just a lack of an open mind, like you claim, but probably a really close minded opionion that is already made up. Your response to the “fade” issue is that nobody knows what fade is so give a break…wtf does that mean?

    And then with regards to content, you give a pass to “not follow everything he puts out blindly as gospel”. Nobody would give a crap if he was wrong, like 3 out of 4 were on KD last night, but the fact he was double the field in ownership %.

    Please show a better demonstration that you actually care to read responses or kindly just stop. We heard your opinion and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to change. I am sorry that you are taking it this way but I tried really hard to clarify but don’t seem to be making ground here.

  • medlund

    @sethfein said...

    Seige story is extremely relevant on 2 folds:

    1) It demonstrates the absolute need to define “fade”. Having an automatic alibi that each tout has their own version makes is very difficult for any consumer to know what each tout means without an index of everyone’s information.

    2) The optics of the RG touts giving a take and then either not heeding own advice or backtracking. I am not calling Seige any names, never accused him of any ill intentions (and don’t believe he has any) and kept it directly in line with the “fade” and “tout opinion” discussion. You wouldn’t want your financial adviser to tell you to trade a stock and then when it tanks, tell you “sorry, I was drunk”. It’s just an attempt at standards for both parties.

    You seem to have a very aggressive approach to your responses that don’t exactly show an open mind to understanding what I am saying as a consumer. Here are some quotes you have so I can easily pinpoint for you:

    “If this is something that happened last night and there is no history to show what you are implying is occurring then you are just hurting his reputation for the casual reader who follows anything they read” – history doesn’t matter…this happened so needs to be addressed. I also don’t see how this hurts his reputation and he could simply apologize and RG can put protocols in place to fix the optics issue.

    “IF facts are brought forth to prove this is something that occurs often then there is an issue.” – You are moving goalposts. I never once brought up the frequency only the fact that there were 2 relatively dramatic occurrrences in the last month.

    You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal regarding Russ/KD 40/15 split. If you want to make an argument, it would probably be better to counter what I said or acknowledge that you now agree after further explanation.

    1. There are tons of definitions of what a fade means to people. It is not an alibi. Wanting to know what each tout thinks of each question in say the expert survey seems a bit extreme. That to me is basically like asking for ownership %‘s if you want to know that a fade to STL is around 3/20 lineups it is easy to then presume who and how much he plays of that player.
    2. Again this post was about STL not the Seige. Also, I did say I agreed what he did was wrong.
    3. You want to use the history of these things occurring to drive your argument, but when I talk about history that shouldn’t matter. I see no reason he should have to apologize. IF RG takes this any puts protocols in place because some people have complained that is fine, but he should not have to apologize. I still tend to see this as not a dramatic occurrence of something amiss. Last night was a 5 game slate. I think ownerships ‘s are skewed a bit as well due to less players. a 40-15 split on a even an 8 game slate or above is much more misleading. On a 5 game slate I think 40-15% difference should be considered a bigger gap because ownership does not have as many places to go. So I do not agree with your 40/15 Russ/KD take.

  • sethfein

    @bigez952 said...

    So if news breaks at 5:45 pm to move a fade to a good play all touts should be required to go back through and update all of their articles and start informing the public of the move vs. getting their own lineups updated. Why don’t you just pay for a tout that provides you a full lineup 10 minutes prior to lock so when it hits you can split it 50 ways.

    If your paying for RG premium which is looks like your not you should be looking to just picks but be taking the analysis to form your own opinions knowing that info wrote at 2pm may be completely worthless by 6pm due to the news that breaks in those 4 hours.

    If news had in fact broke, then that would have been a decent explanation. Say Curry is announced out (like tonight). If anyone gave crap to STL on Twitter, the response would be:

    “Due to Curry news having an impact on KD usage, he was no longer a fade and the RG projection model reflected this in the change log. The content was posted prior to news.”

    BINGO! No issue and people like me would completely understand.

    But your issue is you are bringing up a hypothetical that doesn’t apply in this case. There was no late news that changed his opinion at all. He was going off same data and news that made him a “fade” in the morning to decide to have 15% ownership at lock.

  • Kmasonbx

    @yanksfan1 said...

    If the lineup(s) in question were game stacks then I don’t think there should be any issue with it. I interpret “fade” as in not using as a one off, but anything goes in a game stack

    But to OP’s point if 5/20 lineups (25%) are game stacks then you are by no means fading especially when you are well aware he will have low ownership. If you know you’re going to have ownership to an underowned game you should be telling people that you are fading someone from that game when you know you’re going to be overweight everybody you put into a lineup from that game.

  • medlund

    Clearly we are at an impasse with our ideas. I think we are both guilty of not fulling reading and interpreting the others thoughts. I will go on my way and let you continue your discussion with others who care to share their thoughts. Thanks

  • sethfein

    @medlund said...

    1. There are tons of definitions of what a fade means to people. It is not an alibi. Wanting to know what each tout thinks of each question in say the expert survey seems a bit extreme. That to me is basically like asking for ownership %‘s if you want to know that a fade to STL is around 3/20 lineups it is easy to then presume who and how much he plays of that player.
    2. Again this post was about STL not the Seige. Also, I did say I agreed what he did was wrong.
    3. You want to use the history of these things occurring to drive your argument, but when I talk about history that shouldn’t matter. I see no reason he should have to apologize. IF RG takes this any puts protocols in place because some people have complained that is fine, but he should not have to apologize. I still tend to see this as not a dramatic occurrence of something amiss. Last night was a 5 game slate. I think ownerships ‘s are skewed a bit as well due to less players. a 40-15 split on a even an 8 game slate or above is much more misleading. On a 5 game slate I think 40-15% difference should be considered a bigger gap because ownership does not have as many places to go. So I do not agree with your 40/15 Russ/KD take.

    1) This is the exact issue that I am raising…it shouldn’t be difficult for RG to define fade across the board.

    2) This post was not just about STL (title of post should say STL & SEIGE if you want 100% accuracy I guess)

    3) You are way off on the 40/15 explanation. The size of slate doesn’t matter. You are comparing the highest owned player to a very low owned player in different games at different positions. It’s apples and oranges.

    You really don’t understand what a fade is to be honest and I don’t know what else I can say to help you understand. Based on your logic, anyone not named Russell or Devin was a fade last night because of ownership %‘s. That literally doesn’t make sense (tthough apparently everyone can just redefine fade so maybe it does).

    Fade means relative to field ownership of THAT SPECIFIC PLAYER. KD was 9% owned and STL had 15%. That’s above field meaning he certainly did not fade him according to most people other than the minority who get to make up some other form of definition.

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

Subforum Index

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.