INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • rausch180

    A bit different to the usual ones, but yesterday at NBA (18th Nov) they both managed to botch their GPP entries. Cash they had 2 common builds around the 5 core plays of Doncic, Sabonis, House, TT and Dinwiddie. Nothing to see there.

    Yet in the $55 NBA $200K FINGER WAG there were 4132 entries in the GPP, of which 111 had Kyrie Irving who had long been ruled out. ChipotleAddict had 104 with Irving, papagates 7 with him, no one else had any unsurprisingly. Same deal with Jeremy Lamb long ruled out, 29 lineups had him in the GPP, 27 were ChipotleAddict and 2 were papagates. Also in the $8 NBA $400K EXCELLENT 8’S the pattern was similar.

    Once ResultsDB is updated, you’ll be able to see for yourself.

    It is very uncommon for this to happen to a max entry reg. They both had a cash lineup that appears well reacted to all the news. The question is what is the chance of both players independently making a very rare mistake and the same mistake and only in GPP? Any one have a reasonable explanation?

  • blenderhd

    • 638

      RG Overall Ranking

    @stv1313 said...

    These statements aren’t completely true. In this case, everyone who used FantasyCrunch (post-lock) were given the same projections for Kyrie and Jeremy Lamb. If the facts – as presented by papagates – are true, it appears that every other user (other than the brothers) who used FantasyCrunch were given “bad” projections for Kyrie and Lamb post lock.

    So, the whole “what are the chances that only these two” seems to hold merit. These two brothers – and only these two brothers – didn’t change the projections for Kyrie and Lamb.

    Am I missing something?

    Yeah, that you don’t have to use FC projections. You can upload your own. Same way you don’t have to use RG projections with LineupHQ and upload your own.

  • stv1313

    • 932

      RG Overall Ranking

    Yeah . . . but the whole point of Papagates’ argument was that he and his brother did use the FC projections for Kyrie and Lamb and that’s why things got all screwed up.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #63

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @Southie777 said...

    Don’t really know which side I come down on here, I definitely don’t trust those two, but I’m also pretty sure that you’re never going to catch them red-handed. But just a quick question, I think I pretty much understand most of the difference between collusion and just bouncing ideas off each other. I have no problem with me and a buddy talking over the course of the week about who we like in NFL that Sunday, who’s a good play, etc. I think that it’s not considered collusion, even if we develop a core together, correct? I think that’s a gray area, where you’re approaching it, but whatever. I think it does, however, rise to the level of collusion, if we agree to both play the same core and then work out who’s going to play who, so that there’s no overlap with the rest of our player pool, so that we can then maximize the number of unique lineups and, therefore, our chances of taking down a GPP. Just out of curiosity. I have very few friends who actually play DFS and even those who do, it’s very minimal, because they recognize it for the sucker’s bet that it is for the vast majority of us. I’d love if we could get rid of all the optimizers, etc. everyone built their own lineups by hand, based on actually knowing a sport, all GPP’s were capped at 10-20 max entry, etc. But I realize this is all a pipe-dream and we’d probably all be playing for $500 top prizes, so just ignore me, haha!

    No clearly you are not in violation. There are clear examples of pros who literally use the same model to make all their player choices where they have either built together (or one built it and probably sells it off to his friend), and none of them have ever been found guilty of collusion.

    Yes, I personally hate that this is happening, but as I acknolwedge in my above posts, it’s almost impossible to 1) define collusion and 2) even if you can define it, prove it’s happening (because even in your example of no overlap, they can just explain it as statistical chance)

    That’s why if you can prove 3) accessing another person’s account to create lineups (whether it be 100% of the time or 1% of the time), that’s how you really “prove” collusion. That’s the most extreme form of collusion, it goes beyond it.

  • gvn2fly1421

    @blenderhd said...

    Yeah, that you don’t have to use FC projections. You can upload your own. Same way you don’t have to use RG projections with LineupHQ and upload your own.

    Random question here, but do the owners of these sites not have a huge advantage here by knowing who uses the sites and uploads projections? I mean, if I knew blender uploaded his own projections and I had access to that data, I would absolutely use it. Same with FC and the brothers, if I knew they used my site to upload their own projections, I would absolutely use it to my advantage.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #63

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @gvn2fly1421 said...

    Random question here, but do the owners of these sites not have a huge advantage here by knowing who uses the sites and uploads projections? I mean, if I knew blender uploaded his own projections and I had access to that data, I would absolutely use it. Same with FC and the brothers, if I knew they used my site to upload their own projections, I would absolutely use it to my advantage.

    I mean that’s like asking does Twitter or Facebook have your info? Of course they do, and of course it’s being used for ad targeting (which is how they make money). In this case, it can be used in terms of making money in DFS.

    That’s literally the price you have to pay to upload data. It’s the 21st century.

  • blenderhd

    • 638

      RG Overall Ranking

    @stv1313 said...

    Yeah . . . but the whole point of Papagates’ argument was that he and his brother did use the FC projections for Kyrie and Lamb and that’s why things got all screwed up.

    No, he said that FC still had Irving and Lamb in the player pool so the projection value would be live upon builds. If FC had them both marked/excluded out of the pool, the projection value wouldn’t matter if it was 0 or 1000 since they’d be Xed out of any potential build anyways.

  • carney259

    • 356

      RG Overall Ranking

    Question – Although I know it’s not being offered as the explanation here, is it a violation of the sites’ terms for any individual other than the person whose name the account is under to edit lineups?

    For example, let’s say I’m a pro and I have a paid assistant to help with data stuff. And after I enter all of my lineups, I give the assistant my credentials and tell him that I’m not going to have internet access at some point after lock and if player x isn’t starting, to replace him with player y. Would that be improper under the sites rules? And would it matter whether or not the assistant had his or her own account?

  • stv1313

    • 932

      RG Overall Ranking

    @blenderhd said...

    No, he said that FC still had Irving and Lamb in the player pool so the projection value would be live upon builds. If FC had them both marked/excluded out of the pool, the projection value wouldn’t matter if it was 0 or 1000 since they’d be Xed out of any potential build anyways.

    I find it hard to believe that these highly successful brothers would use a projection database that would maintain a healthy projected value for two players (Kyrie and Lamb) that were ruled out hours earlier in the day. Although I don’t play the volume of these two brothers, I maintain my own projection system and both of these players would have automatically been assigned zeros when they were announced as out in my own database. There is no way that my own database is more intuitive and reactive than these guys.

    Jake Layman was just ruled out for tonight. Are you suggesting that the brothers still have a projected score for him in their database tonight and are relying on FC to omit him?

    If so, I want some of what you’re smoking.

  • jgabby

    • 885

      RG Overall Ranking

    @stv1313 said...

    I find it hard to believe that these highly successful brothers would use a projection database that would maintain a healthy projected value for two players (Kyrie and Lamb) that were ruled out hours earlier in the day

    I already listed how this could happen. They could have uploaded projections for every non-zero player but forgot to delete out previous projections. Everyone ignoring my posts to read Blender’s that are actually just longer recycled versions of mine? I actually use FC and Late Swaptimizer so I know this is possible.

  • WhiteyJones8

    @blenderhd said...

    No, he said that FC still had Irving and Lamb in the player pool so the projection value would be live upon builds. If FC had them both marked/excluded out of the pool, the projection value wouldn’t matter if it was 0 or 1000 since they’d be Xed out of any potential build anyways.

    Lots of people talking past each other here makes this difficult. Am I understanding correctly that the defense here is:

    1. PG/CA use the same projection source (we know this)
    2. FC had Lamb and Irving in the pool but projected at 0
    3. PG/CA forget to update their projection for Lamb/Irving
    4. When they upload their projections it overrides FC zero projection putting these players into builds.

    This would easily explain why no other FC user had Lamb or Irving (because of the 0) while CA/PG did (because their projection changed the value).

    What it doesn’t explain is why one of them went heavy on Irving while the other didn’t going with only around 9%. Why did the one that went low not realize Irving was out?

    In conclusion we are supposed to believe two people share a projection system. Neither of them bothered to update Irving but someone did increase Dinwiddie. They both used these updated projections (that one of them edited?) and both of them used Irving (one with significantly less exposure).

  • NoLimits0

    @jgabby said...

    I already listed how this could happen. They could have uploaded projections for every non-zero player but forgot to delete out previous projections. Everyone ignoring my posts to read Blender’s that are actually just longer recycled versions of mine? I actually use FC and Late Swaptimizer so I know this is possible.

    So this is also for blender. Let’s just give the brothers 100% the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say EVERYTHING they said was true. But even in that case, which is the best possible case for them, you agree they used the same projection model right? That’s how they could have both overridden to two out players. You agree?

    So even in the very best case for them they used the same projection model. Well then that would be a direct contradiction to their old post:

    https://rotogrinders.com/threads/papagates-chipotle-addict-more-entry-limits-being-circumvented-1440337?page=4#reply-1441468

    So either way they are liars even in the best case for them (which I don’t believe). Papagates clearly stated every day they make 100% of the choices themselves and only have “similar models” to the extent like other pros. No they have the same model even in the very best case, not similar.

  • stv1313

    • 932

      RG Overall Ranking

    OK . . . I get where you are coming from, jgabby.

    With that being said, I think that your position would hold more merit if Lamb and Kyrie were included in lineups that locked at 6pm EST. They weren’t – which implies that non-zero players were properly deleted from projections at 6pm. Why that would change after 6pm confuses me.

    It sure seems like a 1-off error that one person could easily make if they were handling all the NBA entries that night.

  • mciama2000

    This is probably the most interesting thread, since the Seth Yates one. To me it seems like they uploaded their projections with Kyrie set to be in, they never zeroed out his projection after the fact. Then one of them ran the optimizer for the 300 entries, divided them up, posted their entries, and emailed the other brother the remaining 150. The other brother never bothered to look at the file and just blindly uploaded into DK. Seems simple enough, one screwed up, the other didn’t review as he was focused on dividing up the football entries, and they lose.

  • NoLimits0

    @WhiteyJones8 said...

    Lots of people talking past each other here makes this difficult. Am I understanding correctly that the defense here is:

    1. PG/CA use the same projection source (we know this)
    2. FC had Lamb and Irving in the pool but projected at 0
    3. PG/CA forget to update their projection for Lamb/Irving
    4. When they upload their projections it overrides FC zero projection putting these players into builds.

    This would easily explain why no other FC user had Lamb or Irving (because of the 0) while CA/PG did (because their projection changed the value).

    What it doesn’t explain is why one of them went heavy on Irving while the other didn’t going with only around 9%. Why did the one that went low not realize Irving was out?

    In conclusion we are supposed to believe two people share a projection system. Neither of them bothered to update Irving but someone did increase Dinwiddie. They both used these updated projections (that one of them edited?) and both of them used Irving (one with significantly less exposure).

    Actually according to the link I referenced above, papagates openly states they don’t have the same projection source only “similar” and he makes a reference the similarity is to the level of other pros. In fact he states they make 100% decision on their own, which means according to him, they don’t both upload from the same projection source (since that would not be 100%).

    So even in the best case for them, they are liars.

  • osuryanf

    @mciama2000 said...

    This is probably the most interesting thread, since the Seth Yates one. To me it seems like they uploaded their projections with Kyrie set to be in, they never zeroed out his projection after the fact. Then one of them ran the optimizer for the 300 entries, divided them up, posted their entries, and emailed the other brother the remaining 150. The other brother never bothered to look at the file and just blindly uploaded into DK. Seems simple enough, one screwed up, the other didn’t review as he was focused on dividing up the football entries, and they lose.

    If I was a betting man I’d put more money on this than any other reasoning listed yet. Maybe not the e-mail part, but undoubtedly the error made by one player that effected both accounts. The odds of both making that same mistake seem incredibly INCREDIBLY low.

  • NoLimits0

    @mciama2000 said...

    This is probably the most interesting thread, since the Seth Yates one. To me it seems like they uploaded their projections with Kyrie set to be in, they never zeroed out his projection after the fact. Then one of them ran the optimizer for the 300 entries, divided them up, posted their entries, and emailed the other brother the remaining 150. The other brother never bothered to look at the file and just blindly uploaded into DK. Seems simple enough, one screwed up, the other didn’t review as he was focused on dividing up the football entries, and they lose.

    Yep for sure this is most likely. You even bring up the NFL example which I think is important. Email/slack/VPN gets around the geolocation tracking so it would be like two different users submitting even if it all came from just 1 person originally.

    It’s actually quite smart what they are doing. By having one work on NBA, the other work on NFL, emailing/slack/VPN whatever it maximizes your time efficiency to maximize total profit.

    On days when there’s only 1 sport one can even go out and have a nice walk just wait for the other guy to email/slack him the picks.

    Such an easy explanation as you point out. Occam’s Razor. It’s usually the right one and all the facts, statistics point to this.

    We’ve (including the other pros who compete on a larger level with them) all been played. Yet we can’t do anything.

  • stv1313

    • 932

      RG Overall Ranking

    I can only imagine the conversation that took place after one of them first noticed all of the Kyrie Irving and Jeremy Lamb names littered throughout their DK lineups. I have a hunch that one of the brothers received an earful that evening.

    Conversely, maybe one of them called the other and they laughed all night about the odd fact that they both independently made the same crazy mistake that night.

  • jgabby

    • 885

      RG Overall Ranking

    @stv1313 said...

    With that being said, I think that your position would hold more merit if Lamb and Kyrie were included in lineups that locked at 6pm EST.

    They weren’t included in their DK ones either prior to late swap according to PG. They didn’t use FC pre-lock as he stated (either have their own optimizer or used a different one) so everything was normal in their FD lineups. The only time they used FC was for dummy lineups early and late swap which absolutely makes sense as to how Kyrie and Lamb could have still been in their FC pool.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #63

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @stv1313 said...

    Conversely, maybe one of them called the other and they laughed all night about the odd fact that they both independently made the same crazy mistake that night.

    Well they should also laugh at the strange coicidence that both also didn’t have Kyrie or Lamb in the FD lock with no late swap and both didn’t have them in their original DK builds before Kawhi was out and both had Dinwiddie in cash builds but both and only them had Kyrie and Lamb once Kawhi was ruled and the optimzer was re-ran. Such a strange coicidence all around I think we should all watch Knives Out and see who done it and have a good laugh.

    Like I said, FC hates the Nets, Pacers, and brothers. This is why they also had no Aaron or Justin Holiday exposure. Jrue might be fine, he’s on the Pelicans. It seems to like Clippers so I think it likes Pelicans too since they can both be on the sea. FC is a weird website for sure.

  • Fozzy45645

    I have a question, wouldn’t their lineups be pretty similar if they are using the same projection data set more often than not? I have not looked at any lineup overlap so this may be irrelevant. I mean wouldn’t we all get the same exact lineup if we plugged in the same core and optimized using RG projections? We would have to work extremely hard to make unique lineups using the same data set and optimizer right? They are pros so they would come to a similar assumption taking into account injury news, matchup, spread, ceilings/floors etc… So shouldn’t we see correlation across lineups in tournaments more often than not? I mean creating 300 unique lineups using the same dataset and information day in and day out has to have some sort of collusion?

  • gordylamb

    • 245

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #49

      RG Tiered Ranking

    This exactly mirrors multi accounting in online poker.

    Explicitly against sites TOS.
    Nearly impossible to prove.
    Sites are disincentivized from acting upon it as it generally is only perpetrated by their top clients.

    They’ll keep doing it, sites will pretend they looked into it but won’t care enough to actually look into it or do anything about it, see you all again in the next thread in a few months.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #63

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @jgabby said...

    They weren’t included in their DK ones either prior to late swap according to PG. They didn’t use FC pre-lock as he stated (either have their own optimizer or used a different one) so everything was normal in their FD lineups. The only time they used FC was for dummy lineups early and late swap which absolutely makes sense as to how Kyrie and Lamb could have still been in their FC pool.

    Would you say that’s because there aren’t many websites that have the late swapoptimizer ability vs the normal optimize ability? RG does right?

    Like why would someone use FC just for the late swaptimizer and not the normal optimizer when I’m sure it has the same ability as all optimizers (if not better capabilities given it has a late swap optimizer others clear don’t have)

  • fightingjohn

    @superstars92 said...

    Well they should also laugh at the strange coicidence that both also didn’t have Kyrie or Lamb in the FD lock with no late swap and both didn’t have them in their original DK builds before Kawhi was out and both had Dinwiddie in cash builds but both and only them had Kyrie and Lamb once Kawhi was ruled and the optimzer was re-ran. Such a strange coicidence all around I think we should all watch Knives Out and see who done it and have a good laugh.

    Like I said, FC hates the Nets, Pacers, and brothers. This is why they also had no Aaron or Justin Holiday exposure. Jrue might be fine, he’s on the Pelicans. It seems to like Clippers so I think it likes Pelicans too since they can both be on the sea. FC is a weird website for sure.

    Sounds like FC is el crappo then to use. Having No exposure to both Holiday brothers is just crazy, even for a high level pro. Something is really screwy here

  • stv1313

    • 932

      RG Overall Ranking

    After all is said and done, these two brothers use the EXACT same projection system. They tweak some ownership percentages between them and, for all intents and purposes, get to submit 275 (or so) unique lineups each night (assuming a dozen lineups overlap) – and they thereby circumvent the 150-max entry rule. Whether one brother creates all the lineups himself and shares it or they create the lineups separately (which I tend to lean towards), the fact of the matter is that one respectable projection system gets to churn out more than the standard 150-max lineups each night.

    Technically, I guess that this doesn’t violate the TOS, although I haven’t taken the time to comb thru it.

    What a bunch of crap.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #63

      RG Tiered Ranking

    One more thing I want to note (yea I know I said I would go away but these posts are more interesting than the other forum) is that this small detail no one is talking about: they also had 0% exposure to Malcolm Brogdon.

    Why is this important. Because he was out, and he was only 6.5k. Any dummy lineup that includes Out players actually should have clearly prioritized him over any other player because him being 6.5k would have clearly been a way better value than say Jeremy Lamb. And I’m sure their dummy lineup isn’t a “random” dummy lineup, it must have some generic choice selection, so the fact they both avoided Malcolm Brogdon at 0% despite being 6.5k that day is also just interesting to note.

  • 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.

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