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

    @Mangone said...

    Honestly if you think STLcards is sitting throughout his day saying, who should I talk people off of that will give me an edge?? You are out of your mind…DFS is a difficult game not everyone is profitable and when news breaks things affect a lineup. If he played KD as a one off multiple times I would understand some uproar. Josh Jackson news came 10 MINUTES BEFORE LOCK. So with that big news lineups change and sometimes its a scramble and sometimes you can get exposure to guys you don’t want in that scramble. Cards only had them in game stacks this is clearly going way too far. If Cards loved KD and told everyone to fade why didn’t he lock button him them for that massive edge you are talking about?? That’s just my opinion but I hope people understand how good of a guy Cards is and how he would never mislead anyone.

    Sigh, no late breaking news prior to lock affected whether or not you would fade or play Durant. The fade call was actually pretty easy, unless you wanted to be contrarian. Contrarian is what’s needed to take down a big GPP, no? STL said to fade Durant in tourneys. I don’t disagree one bit about his intentions and agree with every word you said, but can you at least admit where some of these people are coming from? Doubtful.

  • sethfein

    @Mangone said...

    Honestly if you think STLcards is sitting throughout his day saying, who should I talk people off of that will give me an edge?? You are out of your mind…DFS is a difficult game not everyone is profitable and when news breaks things affect a lineup. If he played KD as a one off multiple times I would understand some uproar. Josh Jackson news came 10 MINUTES BEFORE LOCK. So with that big news lineups change and sometimes its a scramble and sometimes you can get exposure to guys you don’t want in that scramble. Cards only had them in game stacks this is clearly going way too far. If Cards loved KD and told everyone to fade why didn’t he lock button him them for that massive edge you are talking about?? That’s just my opinion but I hope people understand how good of a guy Cards is and how he would never mislead anyone.

    “I hope people understand how good of a guy Cards is and how he would never mislead anyone” – this was never in doubt and the goal was to address a grey area that this stupid content idea put STL in a tough position to begin with.

    The compounding of that, plus Cal jumping in on Twitter with deceiving post, made it something that was in RG best interest to address.

    He owned up to it and I think people can now move on.

    But you can see how many people, not even me btw, who think touts push bad content to protect own lineups…I am the only one who defended against that just so you know.

    Ideal situation would be to scrap the content idea or modify to allow a sentence on why so people can see it’s not a stone cold fade (or change terminology to “slight exposure” or whatever you pros see fit)

  • sochoice

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2017 FanDuel WFFC Champion

    I just went back and read the entire thread. Sounds like someone spends too much time relying on other people’s survey answers, twitter feeds and then judges everything in pure black and white. That time would be better spent doing one’s own research, thinking about the slate and then putting out one’s own best attempt at a solid lineup (or lineups for those that multi-enter).

  • sethfein

    @sochoice said...

    I just went back and read the entire thread. Sounds like someone spends too much time relying on other people’s survey answers, twitter feeds and then judges everything in pure black and white. That time would be better spent doing one’s own research, thinking about the slate and then putting out one’s own best attempt at a solid lineup (or lineups for those that multi-enter).

    Thanks for the thoughtful and constructive feedback….probably only got here now because of the time it took to transmit from your high tower down to us common folk.

  • Cameron

    RG Co-Founder

    • 2014 FanDuel NFL Survivor Champion

    • 2016 RG Season Long Champion: NFL

    Thanks for the feedback everyone. We have been dealing with content structure issues since ~2012. The nature of DFS is that news and research shift opinions from the point a fixed content piece is released, up until a contest locks. We’ve come a long way to update our content accordingly since then. Our projections are now automated and update in real time, our editorial team has a CVR slack update channel as the day progresses, and much more under the hood that may go unnoticed. It’s unavoidable to have 100% of content perfectly represent a full time, multi entry DFS players’ actual entries (but you can now track results via resultsDB, as many have pointed out here).

    With that said, there is a ton of great feedback here on improving terminology, consistency of that usage, and improving the format of Expert Survey. So thank you. Scott Krones, our Managing Editor has been working tirelessly gathering feedback from a large base of experienced players all day, and is currently in the process of updating expert survey, at a minimum. We’re listening. Thanks again.

    Also, I debated addressing the comments around integrity. To be clear, we won’t tolerate any content providers intentionally deceiving readers. If there were evidence of that to be intentionally happening, we’d immediately remove the writer/host from our staff. — Knowing Justin personally and very well, I want to reiterate that there is zero chance STL had any bad intentions here. His response should clear that up. He’s one of the most consistently forthcoming, high integrity people I’ve ever met (I’ve even got 2nd in an MLB GPP using just his RG premium content, only to have him finish first ahead of me).

    If you have any further ideas to improve the formats of any of our premium content moving forward, please feel free to shoot myself Scott or @chrisgimino a DM on RG with ideas. Thanks for your feedback and the discussion.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • rysportguy

    @Mangone said...

    Honestly if you think STLcards is sitting throughout his day saying, who should I talk people off of that will give me an edge?? You are out of your mind…DFS is a difficult game not everyone is profitable and when news breaks things affect a lineup. If he played KD as a one off multiple times I would understand some uproar. Josh Jackson news came 10 MINUTES BEFORE LOCK. So with that big news lineups change and sometimes its a scramble and sometimes you can get exposure to guys you don’t want in that scramble. Cards only had them in game stacks this is clearly going way too far. If Cards loved KD and told everyone to fade why didn’t he lock button him them for that massive edge you are talking about?? That’s just my opinion but I hope people understand how good of a guy Cards is and how he would never mislead anyone.

    I don’t think you understood my initial post. I never said anything about misleading people. All I said is that if his big call for the night was going to be to fade Towns he isn’t going to give that away in the survey. He needs to keep his best calls to himself in order to keep the best edge he can. It would be really cool and beneficial if he broke down plays like that and explained his reasoning. I would love to know what made him go 0% Towns because I care way more about the reasoning for the plays rather than the plays themselves.

  • Dunzor

    Just to be clear I don’t play NBA and don’t pay for premium so I have no dog in this fight, but I think the biggest thing needs to be an agreed upon use of the word Fade, and it really shouldn’t be that confusing. Straightfoward easy definitions would be as follows:

    Fade = 0% ownership of a player
    Underweight = Some ownership but less than you anticipate the field having
    Overweight = More ownership than you anticipate the field having
    All In / 100% = You put them on all of your teams (if you state outright that you mean either GPP or Cash that is fine but just be clear in your statements)

    There really doesn’t need to be a gray area for any of these terms as the english language is extremely versatile, so if you want to describe your expected ownership you can come up with non-ambiguous ways of stating it.

    I think if all the RG content creators at least would agree to clearly use the terms as laid out here it would avoid some problems in the future.

  • Gathman78

    @Dunzor said...

    Just to be clear I don’t play NBA and don’t pay for premium so I have no dog in this fight, but I think the biggest thing needs to be an agreed upon use of the word Fade, and it really shouldn’t be that confusing. Straightfoward easy definitions would be as follows:

    Fade = 0% ownership of a player
    Underweight = Some ownership but less than you anticipate the field having
    Overweight = More ownership than you anticipate the field having
    All In / 100% = You put them on all of your teams (if you state outright that you mean either GPP or Cash that is fine but just be clear in your statements)

    There really doesn’t need to be a gray area for any of these terms as the english language is extremely versatile, so if you want to describe your expected ownership you can come up with non-ambiguous ways of stating it.

    I think if all the RG content creators at least would agree to clearly use the terms as laid out here it would avoid some problems in the future.

  • toddbunner

    @theseige said...

    I’ll only speak for myself, but I call it like I see it, you might think I’m insane for how I see it, but I’ll just gonna say where my head is at the moment I do the content.

    If I’m asked to do it differently, I gladly will. I’m here to help, and if people think I’m not then obviously gotta look at the approach to better help you all

    @theseige, I genuinely enjoy the morning grind, and find your and stevie’s takes helpful. I’ve never been under any illusion you guys were going to be 100% right, this is why it’s DFS. It’s tough enough to get anything right, and ultimately is up to the user to decide which plays to use or not.

    Just please don’t change, because I for one enjoy everything you guys are doing.. You can only throw out opinions, its all anyone can really ask for.

  • Njsum1

    @rysportguy said...

    I will say there is a 99% chance StlCardinals84 purposely kept Towns off the fade list because he felt strongly about that fade and felt it would give him an edge (also the fact that 2 people already said KD likely made this an easy decision to also put KD). I don’t have a problem with this but it is important for premium subscribers to know that they are going to hold back their very best plays/fades in order to make sure they can keep a strong edge in their personal play. One of the downsides of getting advice from someone who is also playing.

    There are 2 ways to look at this @rysportguy, both equally likely, and I have no idea which one it is.

    1) it is what you said…this was a big fade on a small slate, one if correct, would certainly provide STLCardinals84 a big edge, and he didn’t want to reveal that edge for pennies on the potential dollar

    2) it was a dangerous fade to recommend to paying customers. No Jimmy Butler, KAT at home, in a matchup he smashed once. Bigs have had huge games versus Boston, yet they’ve also dudded from time to time. There are certain risks advice givers could take with their own money, yet it would not be responsible for them to recommend paying customers take with their money. This might be one of them. Although the fade worked out, imagine if it didn’t, and KAT went off, and STLCardinals84 just told a whole bunch of paying customers to fade one of the best plays on the slate. Maybe he simply didn’t want to recommend what he thought was a risky fade to people who trust and pay for his advice.

  • bigez952

    @Dunzor said...

    Just to be clear I don’t play NBA and don’t pay for premium so I have no dog in this fight, but I think the biggest thing needs to be an agreed upon use of the word Fade, and it really shouldn’t be that confusing. Straightfoward easy definitions would be as follows:

    Fade = 0% ownership of a player
    Underweight = Some ownership but less than you anticipate the field having
    Overweight = More ownership than you anticipate the field having
    All In / 100% = You put them on all of your teams (if you state outright that you mean either GPP or Cash that is fine but just be clear in your statements)

    There really doesn’t need to be a gray area for any of these terms as the english language is extremely versatile, so if you want to describe your expected ownership you can come up with non-ambiguous ways of stating it.

    I think if all the RG content creators at least would agree to clearly use the terms as laid out here it would avoid some problems in the future.

    I am not sure if it would avoid this situation since I am guessing there will be times when someone plans to fully fade a player (0%) ownership at noon on a given day but then as they start building lineups find they fit in a couple of builds so end up with 5-10% exposure to that player. However that being said I do agree with your terms. I think the wording will change in the expert survey to be more vague in the future since guys like STLCards who MME GPP’s might have nights where they don’t fully fade any stud so the question “which stud are you fading in tournaments” might not even be a valid question since if you get enough lineups in it is possible to get at least some exposure to all the studs.

    Having the expectation that these answers need to be black and white 6-7 hours before lock and once they are written down can’t change is absurd in my opinion for these guys making 50 lineups a night. It would be different if he said he plans to fade KD and then went 100% KD but to say you plan to fade KD and then end up with him on 3 lineups and getting grilled for it is absurd in my opinion.

  • sethfein

    @Njsum1 said...

    There are 2 ways to look at this @rysportguy, both equally likely, and I have no idea which one it is.

    1) it is what you said…this was a big fade on a small slate, one if correct, would certainly provide STLCardinals84 a big edge, and he didn’t want to reveal that edge for pennies on the potential dollar

    2) it was a dangerous fade to recommend to paying customers. No Jimmy Butler, KAT at home, in a matchup he smashed once. Bigs have had huge games versus Boston, yet they’ve also dudded from time to time. There are certain risks advice givers could take with their own money, yet it would not be responsible for them to recommend paying customers take with their money. This might be one of them. Although the fade worked out, imagine if it didn’t, and KAT went off, and STLCardinals84 just told a whole bunch of paying customers to fade one of the best plays on the slate. Maybe he simply didn’t want to recommend what he thought was a risky fade to people who trust and pay for his advice.

    ha you mean like what literally just happened with KD going off for 60+?

  • sethfein

    @Cameron said...

    Thanks for the feedback everyone. We have been dealing with content structure issues since ~2012. The nature of DFS is that news and research shift opinions from the point a fixed content piece is released, up until a contest locks. We’ve come a long way to update our content accordingly since then. Our projections are now automated and update in real time, our editorial team has a CVR slack update channel as the day progresses, and much more under the hood that may go unnoticed. It’s unavoidable to have 100% of content perfectly represent a full time, multi entry DFS players’ actual entries (but you can now track results via resultsDB, as many have pointed out here).

    With that said, there is a ton of great feedback here on improving terminology, consistency of that usage, and improving the format of Expert Survey. So thank you. Scott Krones, our Managing Editor has been working tirelessly gathering feedback from a large base of experienced players all day, and is currently in the process of updating expert survey, at a minimum. We’re listening. Thanks again.

    Also, I debated addressing the comments around integrity. To be clear, we won’t tolerate any content providers intentionally deceiving readers. If there were evidence of that to be intentionally happening, we’d immediately remove the writer/host from our staff. — Knowing Justin personally and very well, I want to reiterate that there is zero chance STL had any bad intentions here. His response should clear that up. He’s one of the most consistently forthcoming, high integrity people I’ve ever met (I’ve even got 2nd in an MLB GPP using just his RG premium content, only to have him finish first ahead of me).

    If you have any further ideas to improve the formats of any of our premium content moving forward, please feel free to shoot myself Scott or @chrisgimino a DM on RG with ideas. Thanks for your feedback and the discussion.

    Thanks Cameron for the great post. That was purely my intention and if you read back, I have constantly taken the approach that Touts are trying to help despite their own personal investment.

    From what it sounds like, STL is really an awesome dude! This should by no means reflect on his personal life or attitude.

    Its clearly just a gray area and glad proper steps are being taken moving forward. I dont know why people think touts are going to give bad advice to protect their “plays”. Probably better to be right than constantly be wrong publicly yet be considered a “pro tout”.

    Anyways I have a bunch of recommendations if you are interested but would prefer private message to avoid those jumping in here to confuse the message.

  • qutgnt25

    Touting in sports betting where you are playing against a house at least can serve a purpose even though 99% of them are frauds. (no tout moves the lines)
    Touting in DFS when the tout is playing against YOU and it is less than a zero sum game shows the flaw of ever paying a tout.
    The TOUT is only going to make money if YOU lose. You meaning the pool of players he is up against. With rake at now 16%
    the conspiracy theorists have a plausible problem with DFS touts misleading the public as the only way the pros who can move the needle
    profit is by having you get your money in wrong.

    That being said I highly doubt STL is a bad dude trying to do that but it is truly a flawed model to pay someone for picks who you are up against as they want to beat you not have you beat them!

  • Njsum1

    @sethfein said...

    ha you mean like what literally just happened with KD going off for 60+?

    Completely different. KD wasn’t a concensus strong play or highly owned. KAT was a highly projected player and highly owned. Completely different. Also KD wasn’t going off for 60 if Curry didn’t get injured. You need to understand the context before firing off replies.

  • bigez952

    @qutgnt25 said...

    The TOUT is only going to make money if YOU lose. You meaning the pool of players he is up against. With rake at now 16%

    This is not true at all. Touts can make way more money developing a solid consumer base of paying customers who are happy with the content they receive so they continue to pay for it at potentially increasing rates. If they are feeding them pure garbage in the hopes to win DFS it wouldn’t take long for smart consumers to stop paying for that garbage advice. Then they would eventually have no credibility and have 0 shot to feed people garbage advice to make money.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • joonyari22

    • Blogger of the Month

    today’s expert survey now reads:

    “Which stud will you have little to no exposure to in tournaments?”

    props to RG for reacting swiftly, this is better wording…now everyone calm the F down and go have a beer…it’s Friday for chrissakes

  • emnj69

    Many of these experts seem like nice guys and clearly have some solid knowledge but I dont see how anybody can get around the fact that they are competing against you-it is this fact that causes all of the problems when an expert makes a move that might be an innocent move on their end but when they win and you dont……

    I would never pay for content from anybody but if I did you can be damn sure they would not have any skin in the game trying to be beat me

    p.s I should add paying for experts picks

    you can get some great content and research that allows you to make your own choices…

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • sethfein

    @joonyari22 said...

    today’s expert survey now reads:

    “Which stud will you have little to no exposure to in tournaments?”

    props to RG for reacting swiftly, this is better wording…now everyone calm the F down and go have a beer…it’s Friday for chrissakes

    Hey, I inspired change for the better!!!

    This doesnt just feed customer base desire…it removes a gray area and is a great step forward.

    I know some here who make thousands on DFS with all day to research think these things are meaningless but its not laziness that stops the grind…its a full time job and life responsibilities. Thats why this site exists and why people come here.

  • rysportguy

    @Njsum1 said...

    There are 2 ways to look at this @rysportguy, both equally likely, and I have no idea which one it is.

    1) it is what you said…this was a big fade on a small slate, one if correct, would certainly provide STLCardinals84 a big edge, and he didn’t want to reveal that edge for pennies on the potential dollar

    2) it was a dangerous fade to recommend to paying customers. No Jimmy Butler, KAT at home, in a matchup he smashed once. Bigs have had huge games versus Boston, yet they’ve also dudded from time to time. There are certain risks advice givers could take with their own money, yet it would not be responsible for them to recommend paying customers take with their money. This might be one of them. Although the fade worked out, imagine if it didn’t, and KAT went off, and STLCardinals84 just told a whole bunch of paying customers to fade one of the best plays on the slate. Maybe he simply didn’t want to recommend what he thought was a risky fade to people who trust and pay for his advice.

    You make some really good points. However, I think the reason people pay for these services is to get the risky plays that these pros take in order to be successful. The only way to do well in tournaments is to make these risky calls. If the pros are just going to give you the safe advice then there really isn’t much of a need for them. I do agree that if he was going to put Towns as a fade it would help to have a write up somewhere explaining his reasoning and a caveat that it is strictly a GPP fade.

    But those are the types of calls I would want if I was a subscriber. Even with the full knowledge that a lot of times it won’t work out but when it does work out it can pay off huge. If the fade was just a total guess then I can see leaving it off but if he had some sort of reasoning for it (which considering he is a very successful DFS player and completely faded him I would think he had some reason to believe it was a +ev play) then those are the type of big time calls I would LOVE as a subscriber to this content.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • celeste

    I would never even considering subscribing to this site unless there was complete transparency on how the RG contributors are compensated by the fantasy sites. Are they paid an overall salary? Are they paid per show? Are they paid in free game entries? This would be great info in understanding the contributors mindset on their daily recommendations.

  • rysportguy

    Also just for the record I am not a subscriber. I had the lifetime access that they gave away back in the day for signing up to DFS sites through their links but I guess it must have meant the lifespan of a hamster because “lifetime access” was shorter than I expected.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 2 years ago
  • osuryanf

    I admit, it looks bad if you’re on the outside looking in.

    Do I think there’s touts/max entry guys that purposely mislead readers? Some, but definitely not the majority or even close to the majority?

    Do I think STL purposely mislead his readers? Absolutely not. Been on this forum a few years and STL seems about as down to earth as any high roller out there.

    Good news is, it’ll bring some awareness which will provide more clarity going forward.

  • TnRiddles

    • Blogger of the Month

    You mean the ones that go against your flawed point of view?

  • JustDFSin

    Is this the first time a tout has suggested fading players and actually played them or is it noticeable because he won. I’m sure it happens are lineups routinely checked against the touts advice given?

  • 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.