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
  • sethfein

    @Cal said...

    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.

    The accusations were never about whether he was misleading…it was that there is a conflict of interest.

    It appears many people from RG are now coming to defend STL on personal level versus the actual issue at hand that clearly exists. Many here disagree with each other about the use of content to build lineups (common sense of do it yourself vs. using pro advice) but ultimately there is an underlying agreement….

    Someone with skin in the game is not only likely to withhold the “goods” but is also motivated to give vague advice at best.

    In almost any similar company concept, the goal of the COMPANY is to have the CONSUMER be successful. I am really torn now as to whether RG as a whole wants to truly see the community succeed…or if they want them to get their 50/50 or double ups but stay out of the way of RG staff who play for the big bucks. After reading everyone’s responses here, and through PM, it seems even more clear that unfortunately, there is no way RG is happy if someone gets first place for $100k in a GPP using some pro advice where that Pro comes in second place for $50k instead.

    Sure you love the screenshots when people credit RG for their hit (I addressed this above with example of lottery numbers) because it’s a good promo. However, you have paid staff who have skin in the game and are giving advice on how to build your lineup to compete against them. THIS IS CLEAR CUT, 100%, CONFLICT OF INTEREST! This isn’t an accusation of malicious, ill intent, attempt to mislead or anything else. It’s an observation of something that exists. Whether intended or not, RG presents a conflict of interest in this regard.

    Changing wording is great start but I think many would agree the stuff above is most concerning. The responses here unfortunately did nothing to alleviate those concerns and I say that as someone who started this thread fully defending RG on that level.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • crimsonp

    @sethfein said...

    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.

  • mike291md

    How is paying for a list of who to play vs not to play much different than buying a lineup? Is that not in the same ballpark?

  • theIrrigator

    • 908

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #29

      RG Tiered Ranking

  • sochoice

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2017 FanDuel WFFC Champion

    I can only say one thing for sure today. I am fading Sethfein 100%. Not an underweight, but a full and complete fade. On every slate. I won’t have any shares of him ever.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • mike291md

    LOL I’m obviously just trolling. But let’s just get to the real burning question here….when does the SUPER PREMIUM PACKAGE come out where you can just buy a completed lineup from a pro?

    Don’t mind me carry on with the pitchforking of your Daily Fantasy Advisers.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • sethfein

    @sochoice said...

    I can only say 100% for sure today. I am fading Sethfein 100%. Not an underweight, but a full and complete fade. On every slate. I won’t have any shares of him ever.

    Doesn’t that now mean you are going to have 100% of me?

  • theIrrigator

    • 908

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #29

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @sochoice said...

    I can only say 100% for sure today. I am fading Sethfein 100%. Not an underweight, but a full and complete fade. On every slate. I won’t have any shares of him ever.

  • sethfein

    Sochoice, we get your stance. You essentially call anyone who listens to a tout a sucker (I agree) and maintain that only individual research leads to success.

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

    This again…I agree. But you are basically calling out RG content providers as useless and they are deceiving to those, not nearly as smart and wise as you clearly are, to determine that. In this particular case that caused issues was the fact that STL had 25% stack exposure to a game where he said he’s fading the star player. Again, who cares? nobody should listen anyways! I know! He probably changed his mind at 6pm from when he first filled out this dumb survey.

    But a lot of people do listen to his thoughts otherwise these content pieces wouldn’t get clicks and just be rendered useless. So defend it all you want but the basic concept of a conflict of interest for someone playing personally while giving “pro” advice is very apparent.

    Side point, you’re not even remotely close to as witty as you clearly believe so just bring it down a notch tiger.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • quimoestealth

    Seige, Culosi, Cheese, and to a leeser extent, BIGT are the only ones that actually play who they say they are playing. Problem is, especially on the LIVE, they name everyone… I do believe their is plenty of misleading though.

    IE… Crain’s last year milly maker, he stated, “I am going to lock in Cam Newton. He played Derek Carr
    I have some trust for StL…. but, when it comes to anything, RG, that trust is a little tainted.

    RG employees have a comparative advantage over the non-premium members. They have access to everything… they pay no premium… needless to say the ridulous amount of “brainstorming” that occurs between them, regularly… I just watch G-Live for the entertainment, and really, just to see how full of shit they really are.

  • drewcrawford03

    • 2019 FanDuel FantaSea Finalist

    • 206

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    @BirdWings said...

    I opened myself up because I do my research just like all of you. I just do it in a more efficient way and come to my lineups w data anyone else has. Everyone has the same info I have. It’s called a common sense approach and paying/depending on losing touts is a good way to go broke quick.

    “More efficient way” as in….

    Sharing lineups between 3-4 people?

  • bigez952

    If you don’t like Rotogrinders product or business model then no one is forcing you to pay anything for it or be on this site at all. Rotogrinders offers a product that every individual subscriber has the choice to pay for or not. They don’t hold guns to anyone’s head forcing their premium product on anyone so really if they offer a garbage project designed as a pure conflict of interest to make sure subscribers lose then the company will fail on its own as subscribers find out nothing they are paying for has any value. However if some users feel like what they are paying for has value to help with research or just for purely entertainment value it is their choice to continue paying for it. What they offer is more a conflict of interest than the 50 other tout sites out there or all the shows on the fantasy channel on SiriusXM. Ultimately at the end of the day it is up to the user to decide which content if any they want to listen to to help build lineups. The sites that offer no entertainment value and pure garbage info will eventually fail as how it should be in a free market.

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • TheRyanFlaherty

    @mike291md said...

    How is paying for a list of who to play vs not to play much different than buying a lineup? Is that not in the same ballpark?

    I’ve only had access to premium content as part of the free promos, so this may not still be applicable or apply to everyone, but from what I’ve seen the plays or suggestions are tiered, or presented in a manner where you are still having to make decisions or find a way to fit things into the cap.

    Is it the same ballpark? I guess so, But in a DFS world where people are increasingly turning to paid lineup providers or having optomizers spit out lineups, you can at least argue that the people using the RG pros are still building their own lineups (albeit with more help).

    Personally I wished none of it exsisted and it was everyone was on their own interpreting the data, but that’s not going to be the case, so it becomes a lesser of two evils type of situation

  • mike291md

    @TheRyanFlaherty said...

    Personally I wished none of it exsisted and it was everyone was on their own interpreting the data, but that’s not going to be the case, so it becomes a lesser of two evils type of situation

    I wish for this, too. Poker got the same way before the online banking thing crippled its popularity online. Pros were on television giving the average Joe really good poker advice. Telling you how to play hands, situations, etc. Next thing you know, people were getting insanely better at poker and the table games were getting tougher because the average player was becoming way more well-informed. Just the nature of the beast, I guess.

    I was just trolling on the lineup buying thing, I get that some people will want to pay for professional fantasy advice and tips. If you feel it helps your game then ultimately it must be a good investment. But like you, I’d much prefer a world where we had to get better by ourselves with no outside assistance. Even the websites offering free advice can go, in my opinion.

  • sethfein

    @mike291md said...

    I wish for this, too. Poker got the same way before the online banking thing crippled its popularity online. Pros were on television giving the average Joe really good poker advice. Telling you how to play hands, situations, etc. Next thing you know, people were getting insanely better at poker and the table games were getting tougher because the average player was becoming way more well-informed. Just the nature of the beast, I guess.

    I was just trolling on the lineup buying thing, I get that some people will want to pay for professional fantasy advice and tips. If you feel it helps your game then ultimately it must be a good investment. But like you, I’d much prefer a world where we had to get better by ourselves with no outside assistance. Even the websites offering free advice can go, in my opinion.

    I agree and it made cash games hell with chalk.

    Honestly, I totally regret this thread and time I spent trying to invoke change for better. People took things the wrong way and now it is what it is.

    People can pay and listen or do their own thing. Who cares anymore? Clearly alot listen to tou advice and clearly a lot think its dumb and unreliable.

    To each their own…done here so goodnight.

  • Orangeflow

    @sethfein said...

    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 unethical and this whole thing was 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”.

    My comments which summed up most of what you just said…keep getting deleted.

    Could care less. You win the day sir!

    Do your own research folks…..its not that hard to be a “pro” in this industry!

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • RikkiDee

    • Ranked #5

      RG Tiered Ranking

    All you need to know about touting in 2 graphs:

    Get over it

    • Link
    • Last Updated 3 years ago
  • Joe1Coal

    Wow. Guy tries to have a discussion about potential conflict of interest and is attacked by mostly everyone. Bravo egg shell egos and kudos to the mob mentality.

  • noheartanthony

    This entire thread needs to be strapped to the next North Korean missile launch. Even that would be a kinder death than it deserves.

  • Taterchipdip

    Yeah this thread needs a lock thingy put on it. Sethfein is old news now, time to go back in your hole.

  • Indycrocodile

    • Blogger of the Month

    Um, what’s Twitter?

  • CUTiger81

    There’s several facets of this debate that are blowing my mind.

    1) I just can’t understand how in 2018 some here haven’t learned to understand the difference between a game stack and a normal build. Almost every time I build a game stack in NBA or MLB it includes a player who isn’t in my “player pool” for the day. You see STL recommend a fade of a player but then bitch about it when that player is used in a game stack and not his non-stack builds? I don’t get it….

    2) As a DFS player you are 100% in control of the content you are exposed to. If you don’t like RG because either you think it’s bad information or dishonest information then simply don’t read it. Ironic that many of the negative comments ITT are from non-premium users….gotta love people who take in a product for free then complain about the product they’re not willing to shell out the money for.

    3) You have to understand that any written information you are consuming for DFS has to be taken with a grain of salt. ESPECIALLY in NBA. There is no possible way that any tout can provide information to you in the early afternoon and not have at least altered their opinion on a number of different facets of the slate 4-6 hours later. I truly believe most of the touts on this site are doing their best to provide me with good information at the time they write their articles but I fully understand and accept that as the landscape of an NBA slate changes so will their opinions.

  • sethfein

    @CUTiger81 said...

    There’s several facets of this debate that are blowing my mind.

    1) I just can’t understand how in 2018 some here haven’t learned to understand the difference between a game stack and a normal build. Almost every time I build a game stack in NBA or MLB it includes a player who isn’t in my “player pool” for the day. You see STL recommend a fade of a player but then bitch about it when that player is used in a game stack and not his non-stack builds? I don’t get it….

    2) As a DFS player you are 100% in control of the content you are exposed to. If you don’t like RG because either you think it’s bad information or dishonest information then simply don’t read it. Ironic that many of the negative comments ITT are from non-premium users….gotta love people who take in a product for free then complain about the product they’re not willing to shell out the money for.

    3) You have to understand that any written information you are consuming for DFS has to be taken with a grain of salt. ESPECIALLY in NBA. There is no possible way that any tout can provide information to you in the early afternoon and not have at least altered their opinion on a number of different facets of the slate 4-6 hours later. I truly believe most of the touts on this site are doing their best to provide me with good information at the time they write their articles but I fully understand and accept that as the landscape of an NBA slate changes so will their opinions.

    Yeah pretty much everything about all 3 points that could possible be discussed has been discussed and beaten to death.

    #3 was actually my own explanation to defend STLCardinals in the OP.

    Appreciate you pointing these things out though since now we can go right back to square 1!

  • CUTiger81

    @sethfein said...

    Yeah pretty much everything about all 3 points that could possible be discussed has been discussed and beaten to death.

    #3 was actually my own explanation to defend STLCardinals in the OP.

    Appreciate you pointing these things out though since now we can go right back to square 1!

    Just sharing my thoughts on the subject. As I skimmed through it looks like you’ve written about 30,000 words ITT….forgive me for not reading them all.

  • sethfein

    @CUTiger81 said...

    Just sharing my thoughts on the subject. As I skimmed through it looks like you’ve written about 30,000 words ITT….forgive me for not reading them all.

    1) “but then bitch about it when that player is used in a game stack and not his non-stack builds? I don’t get it….”

    2) “gotta love people who take in a product for free then complain about the product they’re not willing to shell out the money for.”

    3) “there is no possible way that any tout can provide information to you in the early afternoon and not have at least altered their opinion on a number of different facets of the slate 4-6 hours later”

    Just pointing out that these were all discussed which would maybe help you understand how there is a split in consensus between the 2 sides. Posting at the end of a dead thread, especially in a negative manner, won’t help you better understand.

  • 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).