• 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.



    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:


    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
    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.


    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • bigez952

    @JustDFSin said...

    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?

    It happens all the time since many of these guys are playing 50+ lineups a night so when they say they are going to fade a guy I am sure it is not that uncommon to find that guy on 1-3 lineups like what started this thread.

  • texasrangersfan

    I think the question we need to all ask is, Who is Cards fading tonight?

    Look, I am sure Cards is a good dude, and he probably forgot what he answered on that stupid survey that he did 5 hrs before lock.

  • drewcrawford03

    • 2019 FanDuel FantaSea Finalist

    • 171

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    @theseige said...

    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


    Vintage Seige

  • drewcrawford03

    • 2019 FanDuel FantaSea Finalist

    • 171

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    @DFSToddler said...

    You can’t be serious? You have a link to on it, a banner image promoting your RG product, a profile pic of you with the RG logo and you wouldn’t think people would take this as your professional RG twitter account (which is also linked to your RG profile).

    No, wait…THAT is vintage Seige

  • divusjulius

    • 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


    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?

    be as specific as possible in your analysis, its the buyer’s responsibility to watch how the slate or game day news develops and impacts pics

  • chronoxiong

    This is why y’all need to stop listening to the experts every single time and start trusting yourself and your own research. Especially during this point in the season when you have a lot of data to go with. And to start paying attention to teams who are fighting for their Playoff positioning and who is tanking. I’m a little impartial to what happened but this is the dangers of listening to everything an expert says.

  • gvn2fly1421

    Didn’t the same thing happen when he had a big weekend in golf last year (or the year before)?

  • Benf15harp

    I find this hilarious 😂

  • deactivated66527

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • elving188

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Benf15harp said...

    I find this hilarious 😂

    I agree! lol.

    Fade means 0% ownership. It’s actually not that difficult to comprehend and there is no way around it. It’s not 5%, it’s not below 15%, whatever is being argued here. It’s simply 0%.

    Otherwise you would just say, “I have limited exposure to player X” not “I’m fading player X”

    On a side note, I find it easier to not find anyone but myself to blame when a player does bad, if you just put in your own research and work rather than relying on RG. Yeah you can use some of the stuff to help, etc. But in the end, you rostered the player and gotta suck it up good or bad, especially if the only reason you played him is because a tout said he was going to have a triple double 60 burger but instead he gives you a 3 week old tuna sandwich with a side of ass.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • Toddhotdogs

    You guys are all ridiculous…..he got super lucky that curry got hurt instantly and now because he had a few game stacks with a guy he said to fade everyone is up in arms. Lol……that is pathetic, there is no way he was trying to lower his ownership and take advantage of something. No one woulda said a word if curry didn’t get hurt, talk about being results oriented.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • Nader64

    Funny, I stumbled upon this thread while in a really excited state; Having seen STLCA….84’s screenshot -my noobie jaw on the ground at the sheer dominance reflected therein – I excitedly began searching for any courses offered by STL…84 so I too could learn how to reach the promised land of DFS prominence. And then I saw the DRAMA link and had to click…talk about a sobering discovery!!! hahaha

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • elving188

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Nader64 said...

    Funny, I stumbled upon this thread while in a really excited state; Having seen STLCA….84’s screenshot -my noobie jaw on the ground at the sheer dominance reflected therein – I excitedly began searching for any courses offered by STL…84 so I too could learn how to reach the promised land of DFS prominence. And then I saw the DRAMA link and had to click…talk about a sobering discovery!!! hahaha

    SO what I am wondering is whether anyone on this thread has taken any courses through RotoAcademy from STL,, Seige, or any other contributors and if so, I wonder if there is any relevant insight which could be gleaned from that experience and shared here. I’m honestly completely without even a hunch as to whether there would be (content in the courses that could be construed as “conflicted”) but since the thought popped up, I am curious and wonder if it could either further shine a light into the purportedly dark underbelly of this situation, or serve to exonerate our defendants (joking…kinda; it does feel a bit CourtTV tho ;‘P )

    Lol i don’t think that matters considering he got lucky. He and countless others also got lucky that LeVert, Crabbe, RHJ all had ridiculous games

    it’s DFS, people get lucky for one situation or another every single day or else there wouldn’t be winners. I can’t remember the last time i looked at a winning LU didn’t think “wow” there’s always that 1 or two players that have career or extreme outlier games on whatever night and people ARE going to have them and they are going to win ALL the money if they have them. Literally happens everyday.

    Like the other dude said, extremely lucky that Curry got injured on like the first play. If I say I’m fading someone and then when it comes time to make my LUs, I want to throw him as a contrarian play or because of salary restrictions..whatever. That’s my prerogative. It’s my money and my LU, get off his nuts. I bet he’s laughing at this whole thing all the way to the bank, i know i sure would be.

    Literally getting pissed over PURE LUCK. There are days where at the beginning of the day, I think “yeah im definitely not playing him, you couldn’t pay me to roster him” and then I’m on the forum and people make really good arguments or what have you. Then I’m like ok..that makes sense..i better get a little bit of exposure just in case that does happen. Why can’t they do the same? Change their minds or just change from fade to 10%..just so happens this time it hit!

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • dan4288

    Meh… I personally don’t care. I am not naive enough to think this doesn’t happen.

    I don’t know the guy at all so I have no idea what his intentions were. I don’t think anyone else does but STLCARDINALS84.
    What I also know is there is a lot of money at stake and if I came into this site thinking everyone that works for it commits no sin and is the next coming of Jesus then it is on me.

    I pay for certain content on here that saves me a lot of time and I also use other sources to compare notes as well as my own research.

    I actually go to chat to watch what people are asking and picking for their lineups. Gives me a feel for what not to do or do.

    While I do my own research and make my own choices I may ask their opinion about a guy or 2 and then formulate my own choice.

    Anyone that just blindly follows anyone’s advice will never be successful in DFS.

    I use a different optimizer now but still find Noto’s grind down helpful along with other content.

    Also I found a glossary of terms that was on this site and it has all definitions if it helps.

  • jimmyquinella

    • Blogger of the Month

    This was one of the more interesting topics posted on these forums in a long while.
    Thank you Seth for a spirited discussion which should help with issues in the future.

  • JustDFSin

    The definition of fade in regards to DFS is pretty cut and dry. When you plan on not using a player you say I’m fading. If you plan on using him in a few Lu’s then you say I’m going to have a little exposure. That’s it. With that being said he may have decided to get exposure to kd at the last minute.This is something that all DFS players. So now if he says he plans to have a little exposure and he doesn’t have any will that be a problem? It’s funny these things only are a problem when people win.

  • Rockman4791

    People should think for themselves and make their own LU decisions, I read a lot of the articles too. Ultimately, there is priceless info all these people put out for all of us (free or premium members) still it comes down to making your OWN decisions!! Count your money all the way to the bank…………… $TLCARDINAL$84

  • sochoice

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2017 FanDuel WFFC Champion

    So, where is the analysis for every tout’s lineup Thursday night and Friday night that differed from his early day projections and didn’t win anything/do well? That is one of the problems here. The OP and other people aren’t truly bothered by a perceived ethical or moral issue here, rather they are bothered by the fact that someone else won and they didn’t.

  • ChrisGimino

    • 2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • 2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    Hey Seth — it’s good to bring this topic up, despite it being uncomfortable for a guy like STL and others industry-wide who are in the position of being asked to share their takes on a daily basis. Some RGers did their best to stand up for STL for good reason —- perhaps nobody at RG works harder than this guy, and this story omits the countless times his advice has been successful at helping someone build a better lineup. So let’s just try to be fair to him across the body of his work, while recognizing this is an opportunity to improve transparency.

    Obviously – RG needs to do better if this kind of discussion is even remotely on the table. It’s just not the reality of who these guys are and what they stand for, and in that sense, anything we publish shouldn’t even breathe on this subject matter. Consider the antenna raised even higher as we strive for continuous improvement.

    Expert Survey has a section for closed questions —- and it looks like the crew got it wrong that day. The L is taken – and we earned it. We made a small change to the question to clarify it more -“Which stud will you have little to no exposure to in tournaments?” It wouldn’t change the fact that Cards and co would have been dead wrong with their advice that day, and I think the points you make about what is/isn’t a fade have merit. I do think it will help the guys answer with clarity in the future, and we will – as a group – keep layering on content that is updated closer and closer to roster lock to try to steer people towards good decisions with transparency. If I can leave you with anything, it’s that we are moving in the direction of delivering as much info across the board as possible in as close to real-time as possible to help users make decisions. We are building out capability for that in LineupHQ, we are broadcasting up to and beyond roster lock with as much interactivity as possible, and in the not too distant future we’ll be doing even more than that.

    Message me directly if you have any additional thoughts on what you think analysts could/should be required to do to ensure their integrity is not questioned.

  • Gathman78

    @sochoice said...

    So, where is the analysis for every tout’s lineup Thursday night and Friday night that differed from his early day projections and didn’t win anything/do well? That is one of the problems here. The OP and other people aren’t truly bothered by a perceived ethical or moral issue here, rather they are bothered by the fact that someone else won and they didn’t.

    Not sure if this is directed at me since I agreed with most of what the OP said, but I did just fine for myself that night. I played Durant since I saw it as a contrarian play and I do my own research. Whether he won big or not is irrelevant. If he hadn’t won big, but still went against his initial thoughts was what was brought into the discussion. If I pay a broker for stock tips and he advises me against a certain stock, yet he goes all in for whatever reason and makes money, there should be some sort of full disclosure. Even if he doesn’t make money, he should explain why he went against his own paid for advice. If anything,this sort of thing was a good discussion for more transparency moving forward at the best interests of everyone. Feel free to continue to assume whatever you like though.

  • lendahand21

    Don’t listen to any of them and make your own choices

  • Greenmonstah

  • Taterchipdip

    STLcards84 and The Seige are two of the brightest minds in DFS. I have been here at RG since 2013 and have learned a TON from these two(especially Cards) Yes they are both human and yes they can make mistakes. So What?

    As for Sethfein, To the pit of misery!!! Dilly Dilly!!!!

  • Benf15harp

    @Taterchipdip said...

    STLcards84 and The Seige are two of the brightest minds in DFS. I have been here at RG since 2013 and have learned a TON from these two(especially Cards) Yes they are both human and yes they can make mistakes. So What?

    As for Sethfein, To the pit of misery!!! Dilly Dilly!!!!

    I don’t know anything about stlcards but I have listened to the siege on the morning grind podcast and to put him and brightest mind in the same sentence is quite the paradox.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    The people working at rg can say “so and so is such a great and swell guy” but they still can’t get around the issue of conflict of interest which is why I think it’s laughable using any info from a “tout”.

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

Subforum Index 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/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).