• jv21

    Multiplier value is an important aspect of dfs. It’s help us asses players and gives us direction when making a lineup.
    For NBA, its usually suggested you want a 5-6X value. This will give a project score of around 300. While I think this idea is good, I am leaning toward moving to a new approach as I play NBA dfs more. I feel like the following will help create better lineups, help win GPPS and not make mistakes that could of been avoidable.

    Idea: Assign a target score for a salary range rather than a multiplier. (Fanduel)

    30 points : salary less than $5000
    40 points : salary between $5000-$9000
    50 points : salary $9000+

    This is a simplistic approach but to win a GPP you have to score high and have all your players hit.

  • Notorious

    Lead RG Analyst

    • 98

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #67

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    • 2013 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    Great subject and a lot of good posts in this thread. Personally, I like to use more of a sliding scale where you expect more out of your cheaper players (6-7x salary) and less from your superstars (4-5x) value. Getting 15 fantasy points from a $3,000 player is not the same as 50 fantasy points from a $10,000 player.

  • stlcardinals81

    this is descent but i think its more for lazy pickers, people who are not lazy and like the hard work in dfs will do the hard math anyway. but with that said here is another easy way, when picking your team every 2 players you pic, make sure the are as close to 70 points as possible, example if you pick a pg with a avg of 38 fp then try and pick your next pg with a average of 25-32 fp the 2 should come as close to 70 as possible. my reasoning is, 2players=70 2players=70 2players=70 2players=70 that equals 280 with one player to play with, i dont think its possible to get every 2 players to equal 70, but if you try and come as close as possible i think the results would be think?

  • eom

    I’m more of an NFL guy, and even at that I’m probably the fishiest donkey on this board — just played my first 3 NBA slates this past week, so you can stop reading right here, but I think there’s a mix of good points and maybe overstatements on this.

    I used to play draftstreet a few yrs ago, and when I got back into dfs for nfl last year the first thing I was asking was goal X, just like that was the first thing I asked in rotochat last week when I decided to try nba because I want some kind of guideline to at least have a starting point on the player hunt, and that’s all 6x, etc is — it’s just a guideline, or rule of thumb.

    Throughout the nfl season I’d listen to all these pods where the occasional #apexpredator would tout some garbage min player claiming he only needed 12 points, or whatever, to ‘return value’, and I would always disagree on that, although maybe those were more cash plays, so it was cool to see ed fear make this point a couple times this past week on grinderslive.
    He just emphasized what a few in here have said about it being more of a sliding scale, where lower priced guys should have higher X expectations, while we should be more lenient on the top end, which I think is probably sensible.

    I don’t think anyone should be using any single X factor as a hard rule —- it’s really more of an average, and general guideline for newer players. Averages are perfectly legit figures, but sometimes I think people get confused as to what an average actually is, and the value it has by reading too much into it.

    But the point I actually wanted to make is that none of this really means anything in a vacuum, as the value of various guys can change from slate to slate, and is partly dependent on the particular slate as well as the surrounding players on that slate. So, if I peg 6X as my gpp goal on dk, this is based entirely on the premise that ~300 is our winning score, and this can not only change due to simple scoring variance, maybe more so in nfl, but is probably sensitive to the size of the slate. I’m sure smaller slates probably have lower average winning scores simply because of a smaller pool of potential scorers, and all this will impact your goal figures in just the same way as I’d have lower targets in cash compared to gpp.

    Also, the ‘value’ of everything in the real world is pretty heavily influenced by simple supply + demand, and this is just as true of players in dfs. If, for example, I have some big slate with 8 guys putting up 50 points at 8k, any particular one of those will have greatly reduced value because they’ve become so fungible on that slate, however, on a small slate maybe I only have a single 8k guy hit 50,and in that case it might be that guy or gtfo out that week, in which case he holds supreme value despite the fact that all these cases have the same X return. Or even to build on that, let’s say in the case of the 8 guys the top 4k player hits 20 while the rest of the 4k guys are 15 points and below — in that case the 20 point guy becomes a scarce resource and probably holds more value than you’d ordinarily expect of a 4k guy at only 5X because he’s become maybe your best alternative to squeeze in more of the 50 point guys.

    So, I think that’s what you really want on any slate in any sport —- find a general guideline to get in the ballpark, then just find the best relative values from the player pool on that particular slate.

  • theylive

    @sixnine0312 said...

    What do you mean a salary divided by two ?

    Just asking

    Westbrook $11,000 / 2 = 5,500. drop the zeros = 55 pts. to make 5x

  • tlcsle4life

    What do you guys mean by sliding scale?

  • RockyMtHigh

    I think it means for cheap players you need 6-7x. For pricey players you need 5x

  • Skipper2016

    Thanks for this great topic. I found it by wondering what the average DK FPTS score is broken down by salary range. In turn, I’ve come to realize the following:
    1. The winning or top 5% on DraftKings NBA is no longer in the 300-350 range but more like the 350-400 range. So 5x-6x value is too low.
    2. Depending on the time of the season, simply finding a high-value, low-salary player may not help. For example, a $3300 player even in a great spot might get only 20 points and may keep a lineup from being in the top 5% – indeed, it may keep the lineup from even cashing. On certain days, the better choice might be finding two players in the $4000-6000 range instead of a $3000-range player and a $7000-range player. That kind of thing. I just am no good at finding those different kinds of players lol.

  • davidutlib

    I am fairly new to this but what I am finding is that if I play more than one $9k+ player, I can’t afford a decent lineup and have to rely on lucky punts. I have 5 LUs today and 3 only have 1 player between 8-9k, with almost all of the rest in the 5-7200 range. Am I thinking about this the right way?

  • 866

    The 3000 guy making 15FP IS THE SAME as the 9000 guy getting 45PT…………… how is it not? Simple math.. both hit “5x” value… if your whole squad goes 5X you are at 250…… and losing.

  • Irisheric777

    You got harden because of the 3500 min price player 20 is fine from them

  • 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. Our goal is to help all of our members make more money playing daily fantasy sports!

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler