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
  • celtics2448

    This is the least surprising thing I’ve read all day, and it’s not to really rag on RG specifically but you really shouldn’t be buying what any tout is selling, especially at the friggen obnoxious prices they are charging. My first GPP win came literally 2 days after a premium subscription expired, and i never really thought that was a coincidence due to stories like this. Do your own research.

  • emnj69

    there is an extreme conflict of interest-guys giving advice or even worse getting paid for advice should not be playing contests at the same time. It is like brokers putting out buy ratings when behind the scenes they are selling like crazy.

    It is NOT in their best interests to help other players it is as simple as that. They are competing against you. I like to read info here and I listen/watch from time to time as well but most times I never go by their picks actually almost never-I do like to hear some trends about certain teams or players that I use at a future date.

  • Gathman78

    @celtics2448 said...

    This is the least surprising thing I’ve read all day, and it’s not to really rag on RG specifically but you really shouldn’t be buying what any tout is selling, especially at the friggen obnoxious prices they are charging. My first GPP win came literally 2 days after a premium subscription expired, and i never really thought that was a coincidence due to stories like this. Do your own research.

    This X 1000

  • sethfein

    @celtics2448 said...

    This is the least surprising thing I’ve read all day, and it’s not to really rag on RG specifically but you really shouldn’t be buying what any tout is selling, especially at the friggen obnoxious prices they are charging. My first GPP win came literally 2 days after a premium subscription expired, and i never really thought that was a coincidence due to stories like this. Do your own research.

    Then let RG advertise as such but I would imagine they don’t agree with you that their premium content, at $30 per month, is meant to just confuse the crap out of you from lineup building.

    I agree that only way to really succeed in DFS is own research process but if you are going to have this premium content, and call it a “professional opinion” to help you navigate the slate, then a standard protocol needs to be established.

  • sethfein

    @emnj69 said...

    there is an extreme conflict of interest-guys giving advice or even worse getting paid for advice should not be playing contests at the same time. It is like brokers putting out buy ratings when behind the scenes they are selling like crazy.

    It is NOT in their best interests to help other players it is as simple as that. They are competing against you. I like to read info here and I listen/watch from time to time as well but most times I never go by their picks actually almost never-I do like to hear some trends about certain teams or players that I use at a future date.

    This is well-known but the “obvious” dirty, little secret.

    There are many people who would gladly be paid to write content that don’t either feel the need to play high volume so don’t care who knows their player pool or simply are devoted to research and can post content that is 100% “useable” by the consumer.

    Other sites have this concept and never have to explain to their customer that because they play, their content is purely entertainment. I simply don’t believe Rotogrinders is built on the concept that their touts can balance being paid contributors and playing personally at same time.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • masonb101

    You guys do understand that all of us are playing against each other right? The only way to have a non-biased approach would be for the people giving the premium advice, to not play on the same platforms that the consumers of premium play on. Instead we are paying for an insight or an approach maybe we did not see when doing our own “research”.

  • Scumpunch

    • 558

      RG Overall Ranking

    The expert survey goes beyond simply giving advice on good or bad plays. It literally asks “who are YOU fading in YOUR lineups.” If you are unable to give an honest answer to a question like this, then you shouldn’t be selling your answers to such a question. Pretty simple.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • MHDU2424

    • 999

      RG Overall Ranking

    @sethfein said...

    This is well-known but the “obvious” dirty, little secret.

    There are many people who would gladly be paid to write content that don’t either feel the need to play high volume so don’t care who knows their player pool or simply are devoted to research and can post content that is 100% “useable” by the consumer.

    Other sites have this concept and never have to explain to their customer that because they play, their content is purely entertainment. I simply don’t believe Rotogrinders is built on the concept that their touts can balance being paid contributors and playing personally at same time.

    I get what you’re saying but honestly people just need to take responsibility for their own play

    I pay for RG premium mostly because it saves me time and that $30 a month is worth it to me as far as time saved…there’s a lot of good info and a lot of good “take it or leave it” advice. Some of the RG guys are better than others.

    At the end of the day it should be you alone who decides what to play and how to construct your lineups. RG just provides tools for you to help make those decisions. If you’re just copying everything 100% you don’t deserve to win vs others who put in more thought and effort

    Just because one guy lists an NBA player as a fade in the morning, you shouldn’t strictly follow that.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • Gathman78

    @MHDU2424 said...

    I get what you’re saying but honestly people just need to take responsibility for their own play

    I pay for RG premium mostly because it saves me time and that $30 a month is worth it to me as far as time saved…there’s a lot of good info and a lot of good “take it or leave it” advice. Some of the RG guys are better than others.

    At the end of the day it should be you alone who decides what to play and how to construct your lineups. RG just provides tools for you to help make those decisions. If you’re just copying everything 100% you don’t deserve to win vs others who put in more thought and effort

    Just because one guy lists an NBA player as a fade in the morning, you shouldn’t strictly follow that.

    More than fair and I agree to a point. Thing is there are plenty of subs who don’t follow that way of thinking. Is that on them? Maybe. Everyone who pays has different reasons for it. I think there is the bigger picture at stake moving forward that is what I am arguing.

  • sethfein

    @MHDU2424 said...

    I get what you’re saying but honestly people just need to take responsibility for their own play

    I pay for RG premium mostly because it saves me time and that $30 a month is worth it to me as far as time saved…there’s a lot of good info and a lot of good “take it or leave it” advice. Some of the RG guys are better than others.

    At the end of the day it should be you alone who decides what to play and how to construct your lineups. RG just provides tools for you to help make those decisions. If you’re just copying everything 100% you don’t deserve to win vs others who put in more thought and effort

    Just because one guy lists an NBA player as a fade in the morning, you shouldn’t strictly follow that.

    This was agreed upon though I don’t know if RG sells their product with this motto. They seem to believe that if you are average consumer without time to do full research, pay for our touts advice to help speed up your process.

    Also, we discussed that we shouldn’t strictly follow someone who says “fade”. The issue was that he himself didn’t actually fade so why did he say he was? We ruled out late news because there was none. If it’s due to game stack, he had other studs that he completely faded which would have been good advice (Kyrie and KAT) so why not just say them.

    You also have to understand that this site is very impressionable and the ability to manipulate the market is immense. Just by putting our projections, having touts push a play/fade, and then having lineup builder for those players in, you can literally make thousands off of manipulating people’s process.

    And again, I agree and don’t use any of this tout content to form a play. But I am also extremely handy in excel and have my own spreadsheet for ultimately building cash lineups. I know many who play DFS and pay for premium because they don’t have nearly same abilities.

    The goal was to bridge the disconnect between RG and Customer regarding what a fade is, what touts real role is on this site, and whether people know exactly what you just said. It’s really not common knowledge to community as a whole as it is to some of us.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • emnj69

    u are competing against the experts many times at very long odds-they dont want you to win
    it would be like two teams playing against each other and the one coach saying hey this is the defense we are going to use and you should focus on -reality is they will do something entirely different

  • MHDU2424

    • 999

      RG Overall Ranking

    It’s a tough issue but it’s pretty dumb for people to think that they can visit a website for a small fee like everyone else and magically start printing money

    These RG guys aren’t 100% or even close to it too…they get things wrong every slate with the variance that exists

    With resultsDB we can see if these guys are completely misleading the public, but with the nature of NBA late breaking news, it should be normal to expect that news earlier in the day sometimes won’t apply up to lock

    RG and other sites can help people if you use them the correct way…there is no magic formula for DFS. If people can’t realize that, it’s on them

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • wildcatfan9698

    much ado about not much

  • Gathman78

    @wildcatfan9698 said...

    much ado about not much

    How so? Please elaborate on that hot take?

  • stlcardinals84

    Leading RG Analyst

    • 278

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    I apologize for the issues last night.

    Truthfully, when I filled out the survey, I was prepared to have 0% Durant and Curry. As we got closer to lock, I saw the value in some full game stacks.

    None of my non-stack lineups had Durant in them.

    If anyone thinks I was intenionally trying to lower ownership, I wouldn’t do that with one of the best players in the NBA.

    We have adjusted the wording of the survey question going forward, as well.

    My apologies for all the hoopla.

  • sethfein

    @emnj69 said...

    u are competing against the experts many times at very long odds-they dont want you to win
    it would be like two teams playing against each other and the one coach saying hey this is the defense we are going to use and you should focus on -reality is they will do something entirely different

    Yeah we know….THATS THE PROBLEM!

    If we took your example and applied what RG would be doing (if you were correct which I pray you aren’t), it would be this:

    Jets playing against Patriots
    Coach of Jets pays for advertised expert take on playbook of Patriots to see how he thinks Patriots will perform.
    Turns out the paid adviser is Coach of the Patriots.
    Coach of Patriots gives dummy advice and says Patriots will go very pass heavy knowing the complete opposite will happen. Bets in Vegas on Patriots to cover the over/under seeing Jets are leaning heavily on passed information.
    Jets develop gameplan from this and spend all week on just blitz packages.
    Patriots run the entire game and demolish the unprepared Jets.

    Now, you tell me, would the adviser have any shot in living hell to work with the Jets again after this game? Would you defend his actions and say “well, you should’ve known sorry”.

    So you are basically calling RG touts a sham that are more invested in personal DFS play than customer base who pays for their product.

    To that I will reiterate: I hope you are wrong and if not, there are many good content people (I’ll do it) who can provide research content without giving 2 $#it$ about personal DFS play.

  • sethfein

    @stlcardinals84 said...

    I apologize for the issues last night.

    Truthfully, when I filled out the survey, I was prepared to have 0% Durant and Curry. As we got closer to lock, I saw the value in some full game stacks.

    None of my non-stack lineups had Durant in them.

    If anyone thinks I was intenionally trying to lower ownership, I wouldn’t do that with one of the best players in the NBA.

    We have adjusted the wording of the survey question going forward, as well.

    My apologies for all the hoopla.

    Thank you for not only acknowledging the grey area but taking the time to apologize and explain the process.

    I have tried many times here to express that I know you don’t have bad intentions and it’s simply an optics standpoint. I also didn’t think Cal made things better with his deceiving screenshot on twitter of just 1 lineup when it was more.

    Either way, I hope RG sees the opportunity to fix this for going forward (either updates to content, asking RG members to follow on twitter for latest from touts etc.) and to do its best overall to remove the conflict of interest that clearly exists on inherent basis.

    While you are here, please also try to push the RG touts into one recognized definition of “fade” as I think it is a really positive constructive criticism that shouldn’t be too difficult to fix.

    If you are representing the RG brand, whether on here or social media, use fade as someone who in your mind is either overpriced or in a really bad DvP/Vegas matchup so won’t play. Your KAT fade turned out excellent and I don’t see how that would have affected your lineups performance in money scale other than to show you had a great call.

  • Gathman78

    @stlcardinals84 said...

    I apologize for the issues last night.

    Truthfully, when I filled out the survey, I was prepared to have 0% Durant and Curry. As we got closer to lock, I saw the value in some full game stacks.

    None of my non-stack lineups had Durant in them.

    If anyone thinks I was intenionally trying to lower ownership, I wouldn’t do that with one of the best players in the NBA.

    We have adjusted the wording of the survey question going forward, as well.

    My apologies for all the hoopla.

    Classy, genuine response. A similar situation should be avoidable moving forward.

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    This has become about the dumbest thing ever and only proves how unintelligent ppl are…….the fact that his ONLY KD exposure was in the 3 game stacks he made , indicates to me that he had no intentions of having KD as one of his top plays of the day and thus faded him. I fade stars all the time , yet will throw them into a stack of game that COULD go off. That does not mean that I would recommend it to someone for their non stack lineups. Its called MME

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • bigez952

    The funny thing about this thread is that most of the people complaining don’t even pay for the premium content they are bashing. We are all audits here and can make our own decisions of who to play or what content to pay for. If you think the content or touts are garbage simply don’t listen to them and obviously don’t pay for their content.

  • emnj69

    @sethfein said...

    Yeah we know….THATS THE PROBLEM!

    If we took your example and applied what RG would be doing (if you were correct which I pray you aren’t), it would be this:

    Jets playing against Patriots
    Coach of Jets pays for advertised expert take on playbook of Patriots to see how he thinks Patriots will perform.
    Turns out the paid adviser is Coach of the Patriots.
    Coach of Patriots gives dummy advice and says Patriots will go very pass heavy knowing the complete opposite will happen. Bets in Vegas on Patriots to cover the over/under seeing Jets are leaning heavily on passed information.
    Jets develop gameplan from this and spend all week on just blitz packages.
    Patriots run the entire game and demolish the unprepared Jets.

    Now, you tell me, would the adviser have any shot in living hell to work with the Jets again after this game? Would you defend his actions and say “well, you should’ve known sorry”.

    So you are basically calling RG touts a sham that are more invested in personal DFS play than customer base who pays for their product.

    To that I will reiterate: I hope you are wrong and if not, there are many good content people (I’ll do it) who can provide research content without giving 2 $#it$ about personal DFS play.

    I am saying anybody with a skin in the game will protect their interests first -it is a pessimistic attitude but one I believe. Some of the experts clearly know their stuff and seem like good dudes but end of the day money trumps all

  • sethfein

    @stlcardinals84 said...

    I apologize for the issues last night.

    Truthfully, when I filled out the survey, I was prepared to have 0% Durant and Curry. As we got closer to lock, I saw the value in some full game stacks.

    None of my non-stack lineups had Durant in them.

    If anyone thinks I was intenionally trying to lower ownership, I wouldn’t do that with one of the best players in the NBA.

    We have adjusted the wording of the survey question going forward, as well.

    My apologies for all the hoopla.

    Sorry and one addition to note, can you please have someone from RG confirm whether the premium content is designed to help amateur DFS player speed up process or is it just “entertainment” value with no actual professional opinion behind it?

    As you can see in this forum, many people seem to think that it’s “obvious” that since you play personally, you won’t be inclined to help people succeed in DFS. That clearly isn’t accurate, right?

    Normally I’d brush it off as a troll but too many people here think it so I have to consider the need to raise the issue on behalf of them.

  • sethfein

    @TnRiddles said...

    This has become about the dumbest thing ever and only proves how unintelligent ppl are…….the fact that his ONLY KD exposure was in the 3 game stacks he made , indicates to me that he had no intentions of having KD as one of his top plays of the day and thus faded him. I fade stars all the time , yet will throw them into a stack of game that COULD go off,

    This was addressed already. I know it’s lengthy at this point but please read follow-ups to initial post.

    You just went from “not top play” (I agree) to “fade”…there is a middle ground. He saw value in stacking 25% of his total lineups on this game so clearly he wasn’t fading KD. That is it.

    He explained that when doing the survey, he had intentions on 0% KD and Curry so you are wrong. He didn’t say fade knowing he was stacking 5 times.

  • Gathman78

    @bigez952 said...

    The funny thing about this thread is that most of the people complaining don’t even pay for the premium content they are bashing. We are all audits here and can make our own decisions of who to play or what content to pay for. If you think the content or touts are garbage simply don’t listen to them and obviously don’t pay for their content.

    False, I know quite a few users who pay that weren’t happy with those results. You’re okay with and see nothing wrong. Cool.

  • bigez952

    @sethfein said...

    Sorry and one addition to note, can you please have someone from RG confirm whether the premium content is designed to help amateur DFS player speed up process or is it just “entertainment” value with no actual professional opinion behind it?

    Why do you care do you think all DFS players are idiots who can’t make informed decisions on what they should spend their money on? They offer free trials to everyone who wants to try it out which is what I did before deciding to keep it based on the entertainment value.

  • 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.