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
  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @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?

    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.

    I would much rather take opinions from guys who actually DO have skin in the game. They at least take the time to look deeper into the plays. I dont want advice from some rando that wont even put his money out there

  • sethfein

    @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.

    I was a premium member for a long time and once I realized that the tout opinions were throwing off my own process, I cancelled. It pushed me to create my own spreadsheet and data while using more RG stats tools than tout opinions. Many who choose to pay for premium do so because they don’t have that ability.

    Doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to bridge the gap in a constructive manner for helping the many who do rely on their touts. I am not sure what your point is exactly.

  • theseige

    • 2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x2

      2016 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    Just wanted to clarify the tweet referenced in the OP wasn’t deleted, just temporarily moved off of the pinned tweet so I could get some bar recommendations in Chicago this weekend (if you got them send them my way)

    Was completely unrelated to last night and as you can see the pinned tweet is back at the top this morning

  • bigez952

    @Gathman78 said...

    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.

    Then tell those users to be adults and make their own picks or don’t be users on sites that upset them.

  • sethfein

    @TnRiddles said...

    I would much rather take opinions from guys who actually DO have skin in the game. They at least take the time to look deeper into the plays. I dont want advice from some rando that wont even put his money out there

    You’d rather take opinions from guys with a conflict of interest in helping YOU thereby hurting their own chances of winning.

    Yeah, solid gameplan there.

    You don’t think someone can take the time to look deeper into plays without having a material amount of income on the line for that slate?

    Come on that’s absolute nonsense.

  • MHDU2424

    • 999

      RG Overall Ranking

    If you have proof that certain RG guys are holding back on plays or touting others hard than fading please show us…you can use resultsdb or even download the .csv of each tourney to get player %

    Most of these guys just give some us a general view of the slate, a few hot takes/ off the board picks, and a few fades throughout the day….I honestly don’t see any evidence that people are holding out or pumping and dumping. Does it happen? Probably but certainly not 99% of the time

    I hate player touting in general anyway because it turns into something like this…there should be much more discussion and advice on Game/tourney theory related to each slate but that’s for a different day

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @sethfein said...

    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.

    How exactly was he to know a top player like KD would only be 9% in a large field tourney. WOuld you not expect him to be higher on that size slate? I sure would. And , once again his only exposure was in true game stacks. PPl making a huge deal of this are bafoons

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • Gathman78

    @bigez952 said...

    Then tell those users to be adults and make their own picks or don’t be users on sites that upset them.

    LOL, okay.

  • Socrdave

    2013 DFBC Finalist

    • 2013 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    Awesome job by STL last night and for making that post. As with anything, context is key, but hopefully more clarification will help others. Kudos on the thoughtful posts here, as Twitter sometimes is a place for bringing out the torches to try to light something on fire that isn’t really flammable.

    Also, while we’re on the subject, saw some posts about STL being “overweight” on KD relative to the field. It’s REALLY tough to say that 3 out of 20 lineups is “overweight.” If a player is 1% owned and I have him in 1 of 20 lineups, I’m then “5x owned more than the field.” I mean, if that’s overweight, then I’m… well…

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • sethfein

    @MHDU2424 said...

    If you have proof that certain RG guys are holding back on plays or touting others hard than fading please show us…you can use resultsdb or even download the .csv of each tourney to get player %

    Most of these guys just give some us a general view of the slate, a few hot takes/ off the board picks, and a few fades throughout the day….I honestly don’t see any evidence that people are holding out or pumping and dumping. Does it happen? Probably but certainly not 99% of the time

    I hate player touts in general anyway…there should be much more discussion and advice on Game/tourney theory related to each slate but that’s for a different day

    I agree 100% and have said I don’t think it’s bad intentions or wide spread issue (why do I keep having to repeat this?!?)

    I also agree that the format of the content is really dumb, misleading and should be scrapped. Everyone knows things change from 1pm to 6pm so why push out definitive plays from touts when they aren’t even sure of own plays. Just puts them in bad spot.

    Best content if needing at 1pm would be fades and then one sentence (or 2) on why. Coach shifting rotations for tanking team carrying risk? Price seems high relative to usage and gameflow (makes it easier to know outdated if someone is ruled out).

    Would actually make me jump back in for premium model and I am sure many others. But current system really puts touts in tough spot because it’s their name on the line and the posts are there for everyone to see.

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @sethfein said...

    You’d rather take opinions from guys with a conflict of interest in helping YOU thereby hurting their own chances of winning.

    Yeah, solid gameplan there.

    You don’t think someone can take the time to look deeper into plays without having a material amount of income on the line for that slate?

    Come on that’s absolute nonsense.

    if you dont want the advice of these guys , then why are you here? I dont think they try to mislead ppl or hold things back at all. If he played KD as a core play in his lineups it would have been a much different issue. He didnt. He played him in 3 lineups out of 20 and all of them were a true game stack with 6 or more players from those two teams

  • celtics2448

    @TnRiddles said...

    if you dont want the advice of these guys , then why are you here? I dont think they try to mislead ppl or hold things back at all. If he played KD as a core play in his lineups it would have been a much different issue. He didnt. He played him in 3 lineups out of 20 and all of them were a true game stack with 6 or more players from those two teams

    On an unrelated note, why can’t you spell out the word people? Is this the riddle?

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @celtics2448 said...

    On an unrelated note, why can’t you spell out the word people? Is this the riddle?

    prob , because its just easy and Im trying to type it quickly.Sorry to offend you

  • theseige

    • 2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x2

      2016 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    Also the OP completely misconstrued the KAT/Wiggins tweet, I was tired of rehashing the same argument over and over the entire all-star break about what a fade meant… the idea that this had something to do with the past drunk tweeting on Super Bowl Sunday and to make that leap is absolutely absurd and libelous (Side Note: I had no idea people considered the account as a professional account instead of a personal account that tweets about DFS and in the future will have it reflect that)

    (Should note RG has no control over what I tweet and everything there is my own personal opinion)

    I posted the definitions in the Pinned tweet specifically to avoid any future controversy, I apologize if people took the KAT/Wiggins tweet out of context… it was a 2 game slate and Flip Saunders retirement night, I was just trying to alert people of a narrative, failed spectacularly in that goal but to Go farther and say it was some sort of conspiracy to get people to play bad plays? Did anyone go look using ResultsDB of my plays? I had 0 Jokic and a ton of towns and got mashed…

  • Gathman78

    @TnRiddles said...

    if you dont want the advice of these guys , then why are you here? I dont think they try to mislead ppl or hold things back at all. If he played KD as a core play in his lineups it would have been a much different issue. He didnt. He played him in 3 lineups out of 20 and all of them were a true game stack with 6 or more players from those two teams

    Whether anyone is a paying sub or not, we are still members. I personally enjoy the blogs which are very well written by our member peers. Instead of getting all chest puffy because you think the OP or anyone agrees with him is hating on Cards, realize that some simple clarity would go a long way moving forward to avoid a similar situation. There are countless people who have left this site altogether over thoughts of shady shenanigans. While I certainly disagree, why not evolve and continue to put everyone’s best interests at heart. Sounds pretty simple to me.

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Gathman78 said...

    Whether anyone is a paying sub or not, we are still members. I personally enjoy the blogs which are very well written by our member peers. Instead of getting all chest puffy because you think the OP or anyone agrees with him is hating on Cards, realize that some simple clarity would go a long way moving forward to avoid a similar situation. There are countless people who have left this site altogether over thoughts of shady shenanigans. While I certainly disagree, why not evolve and continue to put everyone’s best interests at heart. Sounds pretty simple to me.

    I guess I just disagree with this whole argument because I dont see one single problem with anything that happened last night. I think Cards has made it extremely clear as to why he had KD and what his overall thoughts were. I dont believe he mislead anyone in any way , shape or form. Also , people who dont even have premium are acting like they got shafted in some way

  • celtics2448

    @TnRiddles said...

    prob , because its just easy and Im trying to type it quickly.Sorry to offend you

    Makes sense. I think i’ll strt abbreviating one word every post to save a millisecond. Thanks.

  • Gathman78

    @TnRiddles said...

    I guess I just disagree with this whole argument because I dont see one single problem with anything that happened last night. I think Cards has made it extremely clear as to why he had KD and what his overall thoughts were. I dont believe he mislead anyone in any way , shape or form. Also , people who dont even have premium are acting like they got shafted in some way

    Hey, that’s fine. Some had issues with it. I don’t feel shafted in any way shape or form, but I do also see how one may feel that way. There are paid subs who do feel shafted. Sure, maybe they haven’t said as much, or are just one of the 10 plus likes on the OP’s post, I don’t know. STL came on here, addressed it and as far as I am concerned, it’s a dead issue now. Have a good one.

  • theseige

    • 2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x2

      2016 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    Also a serious question for people and a corralary to this discussion, we have 2 options when doing written content or shows or podcasts or whatever we can either be:

    1) super vague because it’s early in the day and we don’t know exactly all the news and do I might play him, I might fade him, I might lock him in

    Or

    2) give you our thoughts as we have them at the moment, I’m rostering Player X, I’m fading player Y etc with the understanding that things can change wildly based on news, discussions with other players or simply changing your mind

    As RG subs and readers where do you want me to be?

  • sochoice

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2017 FanDuel WFFC Champion

    The problem with the touts is that the majority of them are multi-entering tournaments. As such, in a vacuum, you can’t listen/rely on any of their “play him/don’t play him/fade him” comments. I imagine on almost any slate you will find these guys playing so many different players and each of them likely has a different definition for fade/overweight/equal weight for player exposures. Just listen to any Grinders live show and count how many players they “recommend” as good plays. It is almost too many to count and thus you really have to do your own work and ignore the tout recommendations unless it also includes some piece of analysis that influences your own thinking.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • sethfein

    @theseige said...

    Also the OP completely misconstrued the KAT/Wiggins tweet, I was tired of rehashing the same argument over and over the entire all-star break about what a fade meant… the idea that this had something to do with the past drunk tweeting on Super Bowl Sunday and to make that leap is absolutely absurd and libelous (Side Note: I had no idea people considered the account as a professional account instead of a personal account that tweets about DFS and in the future will have it reflect that)

    (Should note RG has no control over what I tweet and everything there is my own personal opinion)

    I posted the definitions in the Pinned tweet specifically to avoid any future controversy, I apologize if people took the KAT/Wiggins tweet out of context… it was a 2 game slate and Flip Saunders retirement night, I was just trying to alert people of a narrative, failed spectacularly in that goal but to Go farther and say it was some sort of conspiracy to get people to play bad plays? Did anyone go look using ResultsDB of my plays? I had 0 Jokic and a ton of towns and got mashed…

    Actually, I really made an effort to express that I do believe you had ZERO ill intentions. I think most would agree.

    The initial tweet wasn’t the issue…you took a stance and it failed. Big deal!

    The follow-up was probably more troublesome in the fact that apparently alchohol was to blame and then the goalposts were moved on “fade” definition (PLEASE RG ADDRESS THIS AND JUST MAKE A DEFINITION POST THAT IS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED ON THIS SITE). Your post of definition had flaws in logic because if fade if less than 1/4 of field, but not fade is anthing over 0%….well that’s a large loophole.

    I also am sure you don’t believe you have 19k followers because of personal level but I guess you now realize that so hopefully will incorporate going forward.

    The same with STLCARDINALS84. If he simply said “the site makes me submit at 1pm and my research changed close to lock”, then that’s fine. Site should probably either scrap the content idea, tweak it or offer updates.

    But instead, Cal jumps in and says it was 1 lineup (it was 3) and back to moving goalposts on the FADE terminology….seems to be the underlying factor here. He also had way better fade calls which were impressive (KAT was high owned and he completely faded).

    You can also see here, and last point, that many people believe touts don’t want to give pro opinion here because they play themselves? Do you accept this?
    (personally, I don’t)

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    @theseige said...

    Also a serious question for people and a corralary to this discussion, we have 2 options when doing written content or shows or podcasts or whatever we can either be:

    1) super vague because it’s early in the day and we don’t know exactly all the news and do I might play him, I might fade him, I might lock him in

    Or

    2) give you our thoughts as we have them at the moment, I’m rostering Player X, I’m fading player Y etc with the understanding that things can change wildly based on news, discussions with other players or simply changing your mind

    As RG subs and readers where do you want me to be?

    Obviously we all want option 2. But , Even if a tout says they are fading someone , I dont take that to mean that they wont use them at all in a MME situation. I take it to mean that it isnt a core type play for them and they wont be putting a significant amount of their action on that player.

  • TheRyanFlaherty

    I try not to listen to anyone when making lineups; so I really have no horse in this…

    But to pretend. “Fade” doesn’t mean not play, or at the very least, to not realize that’s how it’s being interpreted by many (if not the majority) reading, is straight bullshit.

    If “fade” meant what is insinuated here then you wouldn’t hear the phrase “underweight” commonly used…that obviously being the correct term for having less than the field.

    Edit* – that said, I also don’t have a lot of sympathy if people are just blindly following others plays.
    At best they should be seen as suggestions and a tool to aid your process. With that in mind, the ultimate responsibility should always come down to yourself and it being your choice.
    I also can’t fathom how someone would not already take them with some skepticism when they are coming from people you are competing with and who are trying to win your money. I’m not saying everyone (or many) are up to shady or nefarious things, but human nature makes it just about impossible to be fully transparent and completely free of bias, or the thought of personal gain. The best way to make money now-a-days seems to be taking it on the front end, that’s really the only certainty.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • joonyari22

    • Blogger of the Month

    there should be more clarity in the premium content distinguishing between single entry advice and multi entry advice IMO

    congrats on the hit Cards

  • MHDU2424

    • 999

      RG Overall Ranking

    @theseige said...

    Also a serious question for people and a corralary to this discussion, we have 2 options when doing written content or shows or podcasts or whatever we can either be:

    1) super vague because it’s early in the day and we don’t know exactly all the news and do I might play him, I might fade him, I might lock him in

    Or

    2) give you our thoughts as we have them at the moment, I’m rostering Player X, I’m fading player Y etc with the understanding that things can change wildly based on news, discussions with other players or simply changing your mind

    As RG subs and readers where do you want me to be?

    I like how in your podcast you address different scenarios….if player A who is questionable is out this opens up usage for etc etc

    I just wish more attention was paid to the overview of each slate and where you can jump the field…stacking ideas….etc etc (Tourneys and cash)…Meansey does it really well for cash in crunch time

    The majority of shows and articles are just giving us player picks which is helpful but it’s repetetive

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • 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.