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 3 years ago
  • wahoolady

    In reference to hosts recommending fading a player, I think Cards and other hosts from RG clearly explain that they may fade a certain player fade due to projected high ownership and not because the player has a bad matchup or is recovering from an injury, etc. The hosts often say that they might recommend using a player in cash games and single entry tournaments but not in large multi-entry GPPs. In my opinion, all bases are covered in terms of giving sound advice. In fact, Cards has said many times that he might “throw the player in a lineup or 2”, or might say that a complete fade might be a mistake. Experts don’t always agree with each other either, so we hear differing opinions. Cards and others have even mentioned that they have been hurt at times by “tinkering” with lineups later in the evening. I do not see any evidence of withholding information or intent to deceive.

  • tomac

    @Gathman78 said...

    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.

    Don’t let him get to you. His only intent is to provoke. We actually have a pool with how long it will take for him to troll anytime someone posts something which questions something about the industry.

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 517

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Thanks for this post Seth. I haven’t read all the way through this thread but I’ve seen a lot of constructive feedback. We’ll use it to improve. I regret getting frustrated and hastily jumping into Twitter comments the night STL won without fully vetting the situation and doing my diligence on ResultsDB. I wanted to celebrate STL’s big night but reacted when I saw people accusing him of intentionally misleading readers. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Many of you don’t think he was being disingenuous but do feel like the question was poor and could mislead people. Many people interpret Fade to mean “play 0%.” These are all good points and the content guys are reworking the Survey. We’ll never be perfect in this, especially in NBA where late breaking news can change the entire slate instantly, but we do have room to improve.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • elving188

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Cal said...

    Many people interpret Fade to mean “play 0%.”

    Makes sense since that’s what it means

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 517

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @elving188 said...

    Makes sense since that’s what it means

    I understand that it means that to you but I’m guessing you’ve heard the term “full fade,” especially among multi entry players. Full fade means 0% to someone using that phrase..

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • lendahand21

    @Cal said...

    I understand that it means that to you but I’m guessing you’ve heard the term “full fade,” especially among multi entry players. Full fade means 0% to someone using that phrase..

    fade means you don’t play someone

    Bad look for rger’s to just debate with its users about what a term means to protect a tout.

    I don’t know why anyone would be a premium member here

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 517

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @lendahand21 said...

    Owner of the site playing semantics, fade means you don’t play someone.

    Stop playing games with your user base

    Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my initial post – that survey question about fading needed to be changed and we did change it. The fade talk is not semantics, though, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see something like this come up again involving a mass multi entry player. At any rate, the criticism there is constructive and I am mainly concerned with addressing accusations that STL was trying to mislead people.

  • SmokinRam

    @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.

    If i knew for a fact this occurred with any of the RG touts, I would no longer be a subscriber. I have not yet found any bad intentions in any advice (though there have many instances of bad advice). You can tell when someone is deliberating trying to trick you. I do not believe that any RG stafff are trying to trick any one. One thing they all do and do very well is teach us how to play dfs and that is worth the price of admission.
    One thing i have noticed after listening to hours and hours of dfs podcasts from here and other places is that the touts give there honest opinion at the time of the podcast and sometimes they will hit the nail on the head with a little tid bit and it wins someone a tourney. (Cal Spears with picking that TE last year) but you never know when that info is going to be given (and neither do they) so you have to use your OWN studies to be able to detect those good bits of info.
    I apprectiate what RG and all their touts do. I would be lost without them. NOT on choices players but on FIGURING out which players to chose using my own info gathering process.
    No one is ever going to win a tourney going around a chosing players based on what touts say. shit.. I have done that enough. Gotta figure it out on your own.
    The info on RG is very valuable when it comes to learning dfs and I appreciate all the touts. thank you guys.

  • crimsonp

    X

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • SmokinRam

    @crimsonp said...

    Agree. Don’t know why anyone would pay the outrageous prices they charge for research and content that I can either do myself or find for free all over the internet. Changing the subject a little, but I believe all that separates “pro” dfs players on RG, that write this overpriced content, and the “causal” player is simply bankroll. I can do research hours on end but if I can only afford to play say 3-4 entries into certain contest then the player that has more money to play the max will always have an advantage over me. You are a sucker if you find it necessary to pay for this overpriced “pro” content.

    if you can’t afford to multi enter you should only play the single entry tourneys. that way the playing field is level in terms of # of lineups in and they only advantage anyone has is the ability to do research and put together a winning line up.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • crimsonp

    @lendahand21 said...

    fade means you don’t play someone

    Bad look for rger’s to just debate with its users about what a term means to protect a tout.

    I don’t know why anyone would be a premium member here

    Agree. Don’t know why anyone would pay the outrageous prices they charge for research and content that I can either do myself or find for free all over the internet. Changing the subject a little, but I believe all that separates “pro” dfs players on RG, that write this overpriced content, and the “causal” player is simply bankroll. I can do research hours on end but if I can only afford to play say 3-4 entries into certain contest than the player that has more money to play the max will always have an advantage over me. You are a sucker if you find it necessary to pay for this overpriced “pro” content.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • crimsonp

    @SmokinRam said...

    if you can’t afford to multi enter you should only play the single entry tourneys. that way the playing field is level in terms of # of lineups in and they only advantage anyone has is the ability to do research and put together a winning line up.

    I also agree with this but there is very few single entry contest that are affordable to me and many other casual players. At the same time I do like to take my chances at slopping into 1st in a $1-4 gpp even thought I know the odds are stacked against me not because I don’t do hours of research or pay for premium content, but because I do not have a high enough bankroll and can’t take the risk that many with money to blow do. This isn’t anyone’s fault but mine so I am realistic and for this is why I play mainly for fun and simply love the game.

  • fluffynuggets

    Damn. While I tend to view situations from a more player-centric vantage point; Justin, Siege, a site manager AND two of the owners have come here apologized, promised to do better – AND have made reasonable changes to avoid future incidents.

    The original poster was mollified. The horse is dead. You can quit beating it.

  • emnj69

    @fluffynuggets said...

    Damn. While I tend to view situations from a more player-centric vantage point; Justin, Siege, a site manager AND two of the owners have come here apologized, promised to do better – AND have made reasonable changes to avoid future incidents.

    The original poster was mollified. The horse is dead. You can quit beating it.

    the defense is worse than the “Crime” people trying to change the meaning of the word fade is beyond laughable -it is like slick willy clinton defense that he used about monica

    as I have posted before-content is great for research as it can cut down amt of work needed if you are a a numbers/stats guy but there is no way you will ever convince me a guy who is competing against you has your best interests at heart. I also would never us anybody’s picks and expect to win. I do my own picks

    the optics would be better if guys giving the advice were not competing against the players they are giving the advice to.

  • sethfein

    Guys,
    While I tend to agree with some of these responses, please try to take an approach to inspire change versus blatantly accusing people of the worst intentions and taking an overall negative approach.

    We have the attention of those who can actually change the content and environment here on RG for the better so whatever you may feel emotionally, try to keep it aside just so we can have this constructive feedback.

    Thanks

  • Babelito84

    • 963

      RG Overall Ranking

    I would love to see a day when the writers at RG we’re not competing in the exact same contests as me. For that reason, and knowing that they want to win as badly as me, there’s always going to be a hint of diversion or not sharing full thought process on lineups, as they want to win. I don’t fault that approach but when you think about it, it’s pretty messed up and legitimately a conflict of interest for RG writers.

  • Taterchipdip

    @Benf15harp said...

    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.

    Well Benf15harp, after looking at your profile I can see you are a slow learner. The Siege and Cards84 are some of the best in the business.

  • emnj69

    @Babelito84 said...

    I would love to see a day when the writers at RG we’re not competing in the exact same contests as me. For that reason, and knowing that they want to win as badly as me, there’s always going to be a hint of diversion or not sharing full thought process on lineups, as they want to win. I don’t fault that approach but when you think about it, it’s pretty messed up and legitimately a conflict of interest for RG writers.

    it is a huge conflict of interest-the site has some great content and provides amazing research and is a nice place to talk shop. I just would never use anybodys picks-when they are risking lots of their own money in those same contests -imagine doing a head to head with a guy and you knew who is was playing/fading….

  • BirdWings

    • x4

      2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    • MLB 2014 Rankings Leader

    This entire thread is ridiculous. If you pay for a tout service (which I have) make sure it’s people who are actually smarter than you. Common sense folks. 99% of DFS touts are a total scam anyone with any ration skills can see that. STLCards actually offers reasonable advise and is one of the few good touts. Dudes like Notorious and the DailyRoto folks have a good service as well. Let’s not lump the reasonable folks w the jokesters. 99% of touts are a fraud who can’t make a dime on their own and whore out their services. It’s not difficult to see. Use common sense.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • gvn2fly1421

    So BirdWings, who shares lineups with other pros (allegedly), now chimes in and this thread has almost gone full circle! All we need now is the brothers coming in defending the actions of their fellow pro and we are there!

  • stlcardinals84

    Leading RG Analyst

    • 2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @emnj69 said...

    the optics would be better if guys giving the advice were not competing against the players they are giving the advice to.

    This is always going to be a sticking point for many. However, this is the double-edged sword. Would you rather get advice from someone who DOESN’T play the game?

    For example, I see the announcers for the Washington Wizards pick DraftKings lineups on air as part of a promo all the time. The lineups are generally terrible. If you have someone who doesn’t play DFS regularly, you rid yourself of the fear that the person is attempting to mislead you, but that is more than offset by the fact that the advice you are getting probably isn’t any good.

    Personally, I’d rather find someone that I trust to give solid, worthwhile advice and roll with it.

    Between Consensus Value Rankings / Survey / Articles, etc… that are all written about six hours before roster lock in the most volatile sport for mid-day news, things just aren’t going to jive 100% of the time. I try my hardest, but these things are going to unintentionally happen from time to time. That doesn’t change the fact that I am not trying to mislead anyone… ever.

    To the point that I have skin in the game, it’s a fair point, but I’m not an unethical person. RotoGrinders also compensates me well enough to where I wouldn’t even think about doing that.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • tmarohl

    @Cal said...

    I understand that it means that to you but I’m guessing you’ve heard the term “full fade,” especially among multi entry players. Full fade means 0% to someone using that phrase..

    Maybe we should have a definitions tab – might help newbies as well. There can be a lot of lingo that can be confusing.
    To me fade means you are not playing a guy. Zero percent exposure.
    Underweight means you will own less than the projected ownership of the field.
    Overweight means you will have more than the projected ownership of the field.
    While we are at it, might as well have a nickname tab as well so we don’t have to answer “Who is ABC” everyday.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • tmarohl

    @stlcardinals84 said...

    This is always going to be a sticking point for many. However, this is the double-edged sword. Would you rather get advice from someone who DOESN’T play the game?

    For example, I see the announcers for the Washington Wizards pick DraftKings lineups on air as part of a promo all the time. The lineups are generally terrible. If you have someone who doesn’t play DFS regularly, you rid yourself of the fear that the person is attempting to mislead you, but that is more than offset by the fact that the advice you are getting probably isn’t any good.

    Personally, I’d rather find someone that I trust to give solid, worthwhile advice and roll with it.

    Between Consensus Value Rankings / Survey / Articles, etc… that are all written about six hours before roster lock in the most volatile sport for mid-day news, things just aren’t going to jive 100% of the time. I try my hardest, but these things are going to unintentionally happen from time to time. That doesn’t change the fact that I am not trying to mislead anyone… ever.

    To the point that I have skin in the game, it’s a fair point, but I’m not an unethical person. RotoGrinders also compensates me well enough to where I wouldn’t even think about doing that.

    Personally I would rather get advice from a guy who wins such as yourself, than from someone who doesn’t play. I agree that you are one of the most ethical guys out there. I have noticed lately in the Grind Down that Noto will say something along the lines of “I will only be playing (insert player name) as part of a game stack, there are better values at the position”.

  • BirdWings

    • x4

      2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    • MLB 2014 Rankings Leader

    .

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • sethfein

    @stlcardinals84 said...

    This is always going to be a sticking point for many. However, this is the double-edged sword. Would you rather get advice from someone who DOESN’T play the game?

    For example, I see the announcers for the Washington Wizards pick DraftKings lineups on air as part of a promo all the time. The lineups are generally terrible. If you have someone who doesn’t play DFS regularly, you rid yourself of the fear that the person is attempting to mislead you, but that is more than offset by the fact that the advice you are getting probably isn’t any good.

    Personally, I’d rather find someone that I trust to give solid, worthwhile advice and roll with it.

    Between Consensus Value Rankings / Survey / Articles, etc… that are all written about six hours before roster lock in the most volatile sport for mid-day news, things just aren’t going to jive 100% of the time. I try my hardest, but these things are going to unintentionally happen from time to time. That doesn’t change the fact that I am not trying to mislead anyone… ever.

    To the point that I have skin in the game, it’s a fair point, but I’m not an unethical person. RotoGrinders also compensates me well enough to where I wouldn’t even think about doing that.

    Order of response will be by most concerning/significant –

    “To the point that I have skin in the game, it’s a fair point, but I’m not an unethical person. RotoGrinders also compensates me well enough to where I wouldn’t even think about doing that.” – I believe you are NOT unethical and this whole thing was simply due to a bad content concept that set you up for backlash no matter what but this is a terrible argument honestly. You recognize that you have skin in the game which accepts the conflict of interest but to alleviate that you simply say “but I am not an unethical person and RG pays be well enough to stop me from trying”….only protocol and actions can actually remove conflict of interest concerns. Not saying “I am ethical” and that RG pays you to give honest opinion…meanwhile, full-timers here say it’s obvious and common sense that you wouldn’t because you play.

    Would you rather get advice from someone who DOESN’T play the game? – Honestly, you can make a strong case that your method is more harmful then someone who plays light but puts in time for research for purpose of premium content. Taking an example of idiot announcers on a telecast promoting DK with ZERO research is an extreme. There is a middle ground.

    You however use your past success to gain credibility and then use that to sell premium content. This brings down the guard of many people who would be cautious about lineups provided by say the Wizards announcer like you mentioned who is paid by DK for promotion. If it turns out you said you were fading a player from a game that you took 25% stack with, while having faded studs playing in games you had zero stacks in, then obviously it will have a negative reaction. It will get compounded when you explain “well, it was a game stack so I had him but none of my individually built lineups had him”. Aside from the fact majority of your builds were some form of a stack, so makes sense to not have KD. it’s still not a fade.

    So here is the first Q: What is the goal of your content when you put in plays? Is it to hoping people can rely on it as a good source to supplement their research and help people win? Or is it simply content so you can get a nice paycheck from RG as you alluded to and say who you would fade from a very typical standpoint?

    Also, saying you are “unethical” doesn’t change anything…neither is having people like Birdwings (beyond ironic that this guy has nerve to comment here about ethics when I saw he had a spreadsheet showing splitting profits with 1Lucror and 18Birdies from a few years ago on a screenshot from a Youtube video).

    Now I have said many times here, and will keep expressing, that you didn’t seem to mislead anyone with your post. I am well aware, as most people are, that one hour before slate locks, lots of instincts kick in that makes you adjust from earlier gameplan. This particular case was weird because no real news came out but wtvr. The point is, the optics is clearly bad and enough people feel this way to make it an important topic of discussion.

    I was actually sold on RG being having good intentions and simply made a mistake in wording and defining “fade” but now I am more confused than ever. Only because I know many of the guys that contribute from following, I would lean toward benefit of the doubt.

    However, THE OPTICS OF THIS SITES CONTENT IS AWFUL!!” And some of the responses here are actually quite alarming.

    The common one being is the “common sense” not to use a tout’s advice, 99% are scam artists, and ONLY Noto/Meansy/STL/Seige are the good ones. I would be certain that’s what all of the other touts say about each other and the fact that someone says 99% of touts are dirty kinda validates the concern even moreso.

    Additionally, the fact RG thinks there is just no way in hell to offer a premium model that actually attempts to directly help people with DFS without having those giving advice playing with a material amount is a joke. Here is what the “common sense” says to me:

    Pros make a decent income from playing DFS personally

    They establish credibility based on success to leverage into a paid position with RG to provide content.

    Market the content to the “average” person the same way FD/DK had those promos where Joe Smith from Nebraska won $500k!

    Throw enough names out there so that some hit, some miss but ultimately, those that hit are motivated to share “screenshots” while losers just redeposit thinking they just missed by playing wrong players from pool.

    Kinda like a lottery: If I give advice on 30 numbers that I think can hit from a 6 number selection of 50 total numbers, if enough people take my advice, a few will have right combination while most will miss. Those that hit will say “OMG THANKS SO MUCH SETH!!!” while the losers will be thinking “If I just took some of those other numbers like THAT guy, I would’ve won” so they try again.

    It’s quite simple really…just change the content so you can share pro insight, worthy of premium model, without giving away secret sauce to personal lineups. I really don’t see why it’s such an issue.

    But combining this, with the fact a clear cut conflict of interest exists but seems to be brushed off here, makes this whole place just one, grey environment.

    I agree btw…tout advice is pretty much worthless if they play it themselves. All the guys who commented here who actually have had success like BirdWings, Sochoice etc.) all agree on this. STOP TAKING TOUT ADVICE! IT’S COMMON SENSE!!

    Well then here is the golden question…..Why are they being paid to produce this content in the first place?

    I don’t hate on anyone personally…I am just really confused by wtf Rotogrinders is a site and what they are trying to accomplish. It seems they would be better off scrapping all this crap and just providing data for the advanced players to go nuts with. But if they are going to put this type of content out there, then there is ZERO excuse for saying “well, it’s common sense to do it all on your own”.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 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/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).