INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • depalma13

    “Draftkings players with $1 Million in lifetime entry fees will not be able to play in contests that have an entry fee less than $5 AND a total prize pool less than $25,000.”

    Draftkings was so proud of their High Volume Player Restrictions designed to protect casual players that they made sure the Quarter Jukebox didn’t qualify for those restrictions and casual players can still be chum for the sharks.

    Way to go Draftkings! Great policy! Really love that you emphasized the “AND”. If it wasn’t for the bold letters, casual players might actually think they are playing with other casual players. Good thing you took the time to emphasize that word, so you can make a prize pool of a $.25 tournament large enough to invalidate the protections and feel good about the decision.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Paymelate said...

    I mean granted if I had another +150 lineups it would of been the same results.

    No, you would have come in 1st if you just had another 150 lineups… BELIEVE!

  • pikapp0453

    Has anybody looked at the top winners in the $8 buy in for last week? Chipotle placed 1 thru 4, papagates 5, chipotle 6, papagates 8&9, chipotle 10, 11, 17 & 18, papagates 19, 20 and 23, chipotle, 24, 25, 27, 34, 45, 49, 52 (papagates 51& 58, 67,96,111, 154, 176, 201, 205, 216, 233, 286, 295, 334, 341, 357, 371, 461 , 462), 54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 70 79,85,93,103, 105, 108,122, 178, 208, 226, 246, 276, 362, 380, 395, 399, 434, 445, 463, 476, 497

    And I’m sure I missed some…. what gives? I would love to hear this justified

  • Gathman78

    We are now on page 7 and the answer to the OP’s original post is simple. Should Chipotle be playing the QA? No, it’s ridiculous that someone who has won the Milly, has to max enter that. And yes, new players always lend to the vitality of DFS. Just like the MME guys. We wouldn’t have some of the big contests we all like to join without them. It’s really on the sites and hopefully they listen, but who knows. As far as the collusion allegations, we don’t know that him and his brother do it. Same token, who’s to say they don’t?

  • sethfein

    @superstars92 said...

    Actually (this is just honest truth – I am not criticizing you what so ever), you woulda probably lost more, if you lost on those first 150. The next 150 are more -EV than the first 150 so if you lost on the first 150, the next 150 will be worse.

    I’ve been reading into the old threads and links, but I still don’t see the hard evidence of how PG/CA are colluding (just being objective here please don’t hate me). I mean it could be they don’t have the “same lineup” and are mixing in “similar cores” which is circumstantial evidence of collusion. However, if they weren’t brothers (and you didn’t know they were brothers), would anyone have brought this up? It’s the fact they are brothers and they have this circumstantial evidence that shows collusion right? If you just took two random players (who are really PG/CA) and laid out the stats for those 2 players without telling the names (like what NCAA Basketball Selection Committee shows do), would you feel the same way? This isn’t to say they don’t collude, but just being objective here.

    They have a ton of 2v2 lineups which is pretty much evident of collusion.

    If you are running 150 lineups on same optimizer or model, and then someone comes in and without knowing what you ran, run an additional 150 lineups on same optimizer/model, duplicates are likely.

    Not rocket science to see they create 300 and split it up while sharing profits. They aren’t the only ones. I have proof from a video that was posted on youtube that showed 3 pros who have a spreadsheet with P&L calculations and splits. Doubt it will change anything.

  • monaco712

    This is what I would like to know. Why Doesn’t ca/pg voluntarily lay off these contest?
    They know they are ticking people off and hurting the industry and I can not believe
    the extra pennies they get make any of it worth their time or trouble.

    Being mainly a Hockey DFS player my nemesis is testosterown who smothers
    every cash contest available inducing the .25 and $1 contest on fantasydraft.

    He is a great pro and on top of everything so it is a shame he needs to go bottom
    fishing to take peoples change.

  • JimmyTango

    @bigez952 said...

    These guys get into every contest on the site so they must have some sort of program to auto enter everything they are eligible for.. I can’t imagine they would actively search for the quarter arcade to make sure they get their 20 entries in if they were manually picking and choosing which contests they enter.

    That’s a pretty easy script to write.

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 515

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @sethfein said...

    They have a ton of 2v2 lineups which is pretty much evident of collusion.

    If you are running 150 lineups on same optimizer or model, and then someone comes in and without knowing what you ran, run an additional 150 lineups on same optimizer/model, duplicates are likely.

    Not rocket science to see they create 300 and split it up while sharing profits. They aren’t the only ones. I have proof from a video that was posted on youtube that showed 3 pros who have a spreadsheet with P&L calculations and splits. Doubt it will change anything.

    Seth, you’re not the only person to post something like this so this isn’t directed just at you, but this is a harmful, untrue narrative that you’re posting as fact.

    The last time this issue blew up there were many users saying CA/PG never having duplicate lineups is clear evidence of collusion. Luke Louison looked at a sampling of their tournaments over two weeks and found that they did sometimes overlap.

    You can find that article here.

    While that article is not clear evidence they are not colluding, it is clear evidence that they do sometimes duplicate. After posting this in the forums some users responded “they just do that to throw the sites off their scent.” That could also be true, but we’re going pretty far down the rabbit hole at that point.

    If you read all of my posts, know that they sometimes duplicate, and know that they work off the same source data and still lean towards them colluding I see where you’re coming from. If you’re posting as fact that they are cheating you are not seeing the full picture and you’re detracting from what I think is the more important issue – what further steps should be taken with the Guidelines to limit the negative impact of CA/PG on the player ecosystem.

  • JimmyTango

    @sethfein said...

    Looking for someone with R + Python knowledge and an extensive background in scripting/building out statistical models.

    Do you know anyone? DM me if you have any referrals.

  • Jvanspro

    @Cal said...

    Seth, you’re not the only person to post something like this so this isn’t directed just at you, but this is a harmful, untrue narrative that you’re posting as fact.

    The last time this issue blew up there were many users saying CA/PG never having duplicate lineups is clear evidence of collusion. Luke Louison looked at a sampling of their tournaments over two weeks and found that they did sometimes overlap.

    You can find that article here.

    While that article is not clear evidence they are not colluding, it is clear evidence that they do sometimes duplicate. After posting that some users responded “they just do that to throw the sites off their scent.” That could also be true, but we’re going pretty far down the rabbit hole at that point.

    If you read all of my posts, know that they sometimes duplicate, and know that they work off the same source data and still lean towards them colluding I see where you’re coming from. If you’re posting as fact that they are cheating you are not seeing the full picture and you’re detracting from what I think is the more important issue – what further steps should be taken with the Guidelines to limit the negative impact of CA/PG on the player ecosystem.

    I actually think this supports collusion. Think about it, I think it’s fairly safe to assume they each build 150 lineups, so in the 13 slates mentioned above, we’re looking at 3900 lineups. You’re telling me they are not colluding if 22 out of 3900 lineups are a duplicate. I don’t buy it, if they weren’t colluding they would have more overlap.

  • demp9

    what do you mean by this?

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 515

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Jvanspro said...

    I actually think this supports collusion. Think about it, I think it’s fairly safe to assume they each build 150 lineups, so in the 13 slates mentioned above, we’re looking at 3900 lineups. You’re telling me they are not colluding if 22 out of 3900 lineups are a duplicate. I don’t buy it, if they weren’t colluding they would have more overlap.

    If they used the same projection model, uploaded it to an optimizer, and hit optimize they would get the exact same 150 lineups. They wouldnt get lineups close to each other, it would be 150 exact same. Once they start individually setting exposure percentages, stacks, and other lineup building requirements within their optimizer tool the lineups start varying. How much overlap should there be I have no idea, but I do want to post this for people I’ve seen post “they never have duplicates.”

  • JimmyTango

    @Cal said...

    The last time this issue blew up there were many users saying CA/PG never having duplicate lineups is clear evidence of collusion. Luke Louison looked at a sampling of their tournaments over two weeks and found that they did sometimes overlap

    Last year I analyzed their entries in the fd MLB $3 gpp over a two week period and didn’t find a single instance of a duplicate lineup. Am happy to pass along the data if you’d like.

    Interestingly, I also found that they typically lose money or just break even. Periodically they pop for a big score, which presumably pays for everything else.

  • superstars92

    You guys think ChipotleAddict plays the QA this week or no? Is it big enough for him to play?

    Also let me summarize the flaw in your collusion arguments. So while I cannot say whether they collude or not (perhaps they do), the flaw is this:

    Argument 1: They create 300 lineups between them and none are duplicates. Must be collusion! After all, what are the chances they create 300 lineups and NONE overlap.

    Argument 2: Well actually, we found some are duplicates. Ahh, but still must be collusion! After all, what are the chances they ONLY create 300 lineups and some overlap. I would expect 0 overlap if there was no collusion.

    Get my point? Read the above posts and you’ll see why they can never win in the court of public opinion. Maybe they do collude still, but the arguments 1 and 2 support the fact they’ll never win in the court of public opinion.

  • Unico10

    • 738

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Cal said...

    If they used the same projection model, uploaded it to an optimizer, and hit optimize they would get the exact same 150 lineups. They wouldnt get lineups close to each other, it would be 150 exact same. Once they start individually setting exposure percentages, stacks, and other lineup building requirements within their optimizer tool the lineups start varying. How much overlap should there be I have no idea, but I do want to post this for people I’ve seen post “they never have duplicates.”

    They don’t get duplicates because they use the same projections/build system TOGETHER.

    They select a core and than one goes 100% Boogie and the other one goes 0% Boogie… is THAT simple. (example)

    Focusing on the 150 contests creates a smoke and mirror environment where one can make pro or con arguments.

    Look at 3-max or mid/high entry fee satties.

    They each enter the max entry limit AND they select lineups/exposures meant to work with each other, maximize returns and minimize risks.
    Is not just running the 150 lineups optimizer…. is ranking and selecting their lineups to work within all the various entry limits (including single entry)
    They are BRILLIANT.
    I don’t blame them or hate them for doing it as they are good at it and can afford it.

    I do blame DK for allowing this to go on.

  • phillygamecox

    @Cal said...

    If they used the same projection model, uploaded it to an optimizer, and hit optimize they would get the exact same 150 lineups. They wouldnt get lineups close to each other, it would be 150 exact same

    Cal – this is wrong if you look at something like Fantasy Labs. I just ran 150 lineups 3X within a minute using Bales’ projections for Sunday and got 449 different lineups. There was only 1 duplicate out of the 450 total which they automatically discard.

    Now, it’s null and void in CA/PG case since I believe their optimizer is not FL. I think the owner of whatever optimizer they use even vouched for them randomly on the other threads, and it wasn’t Bales.

    But at least on FL utilizing the Multi Lineup tool, clicking optimize will provide completely different lineups pretty much every time and I’d imagine some other sites are that way as well.

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 515

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Unico10 I don’t think it is simple at all.

    1. They do get duplicates sometimes

    2. Here are their ownership distributions from the first 3 entry max tournament I found when I clicked on ResultsDB. You could say they carefully constructed these teams to interlay, but it also looks like they do what they say the do – work off the same source models, then independently set their stacks, exposure level, etc and then max enter every tourney.

    One has McCown, Cam, Ryan, one has McCown, Cam, Stafford

    One has exposure to 5 RBs one has exposure to 3.

    I don’t know how you would clearly separate if this is a brilliant collusion scheme or if they just each selected three of their best lineups (which are influenced heavily by the same source data).

    3. Agree they are brilliant. They’re both making a ton of money whether or not they chop it up in the end. I think they go right up to whatever the line is but don’t cross it. If DK gives them a new line they’d go right up to that line. As soon as they cross it they risk ending their cash cow.

    4. If they are intentionally breaking the rules I think we should all blame them and DraftKings. The scrutiny has been on them for over a year, though.

    5. I think something needs to change to dampen their impact. Even if everyone on this forum looks at all the evidence and debate it we’re only a small group. The casual player that finds out from the Wall Street Journal that these two are brothers is at a high risk of assuming this is collusion in a shady industry. Preventing them and some degree of other top players from playing in the Quarter Arcade seems like a good place to start.

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 515

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @phillygamecox said...

    Cal – this is wrong if you look at something like Fantasy Labs. I just ran 150 lineups 3X within a minute using Bales’ projections for Sunday and got 449 different lineups. There was only 1 duplicate out of the 450 total which they automatically discard.

    Now, it’s null and void in CA/PG case since I believe their optimizer is not FL. I think the owner of whatever optimizer they use even vouched for them randomly on the other threads, and it wasn’t Bales.

    But at least on FL utilizing the Multi Lineup tool, clicking optimize will provide completely different lineups pretty much every time and I’d imagine some other sites are that way as well.

    Then you’re not on an “Optimize” setting. I’m not sure how Labs handles optimization, but our LHQ has three levels of optimization – Optimal, Balanced, and Random.

    The optimal lineup, second most optimal, etc are always the same in a given group of inputs, in the true sense of the word Optimal.

    They use Cruncher, at least as of the last time this issue blew up. The owner of Cruncher did say something in their defense about his system showing they work independently, but I don’t recall exactly what it was.

    I think you’re making a good point that maybe they use a setting below truly optimal. The farther they get from truly optimal the more variance we would see across their lineups. I think it is the exposure settings and stacks that would make the biggest difference, though.

  • Lipscore22

    @superstars92 said...

    You guys think ChipotleAddict plays the QA this week or no? Is it big enough for him to play?

    Also let me summarize the flaw in your collusion arguments. So while I cannot say whether they collude or not (perhaps they do), the flaw is this:

    Argument 1: They create 300 lineups between them and none are duplicates. Must be collusion! After all, what are the chances they create 300 lineups and NONE overlap.

    Argument 2: Well actually, we found some are duplicates. Ahh, but still must be collusion! After all, what are the chances they ONLY create 300 lineups and some overlap. I would expect 0 overlap if there was no collusion.

    Get my point? Read the above posts and you’ll see why they can never win in the court of public opinion. Maybe they do collude still, but the arguments 1 and 2 support the fact they’ll never win in the court of public opinion.

    If I was ChipotleAddict and read this thread then I’d play for sure.

  • Unico10

    • 738

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Cal
    I admit to oversimplify in my example… I also admit that I haven’t been stalking their lineups and/or gather samples. I sometimes enter small field higher $ satties and those are the contests where I often look at their lineups
    Looking at that 3-max… own% tells only part of the story. I pulled the Power Sweep, pretty sure that’s what you pulled too.
    When I look at the actual lineups, I see a coordination to take advantage of additional entries over the limit… maybe I am jaded… what can I tell you.

    The first lineups listed for both finished respectively 38th and 55th… they had 6 players in common and one went Landry, Gurley, TEN and the other Julio, Collins, JAX
    The second shares 5 players, one goes Hyde, Funchess, McCaffrey, MIA and the other Howard, Fitz, Collins, CHI
    The third lineups played look not overly coordinated except one pays up at WR and the other pays up at RB, TE

    Papagates
    QB Josh McCown 34.14
    RB Theo Riddick 17.20
    RB Carlos Hyde 9.60
    WR Jarvis Landry 11.20
    WR Robby Anderson 22.40
    WR Jermaine Kearse 27.70
    TE Travis Kelce 25.40
    RB Todd Gurley 21.80
    DST Tennessee Titans 10.00

    QB Cam Newton 20.42
    RB Theo Riddick 17.20
    RB Carlos Hyde 9.60
    WR Michael Thomas 18.00
    WR Devin Funchess 16.00
    WR Jermaine Kearse 27.70
    TE Delanie Walker 17.30
    RB Christian McCaffrey 15.90
    DST Miami Dolphins 26.00

    QB Matthew Stafford 13.88
    RB LeSean McCoy 12.20
    RB Carlos Hyde 9.60
    WR Golden Tate 14.90
    WR Jeremy Maclin 8.10
    WR Jarvis Landry 11.20
    TE Travis Kelce 25.40
    RB Theo Riddick 17.20
    DST Los Angeles Rams 18.00

    Chipotle

    QB Josh McCown 34.14
    RB Theo Riddick 17.20
    RB Carlos Hyde 9.60
    WR Julio Jones 4.40
    WR Robby Anderson 22.40
    WR Jermaine Kearse 27.70
    TE Travis Kelce 25.40
    RB Alex Collins 23.80
    DST Jacksonville Jaguars 12.00

    QB Cam Newton 20.42
    RB Theo Riddick 17.20
    FLEX Jordan Howard 4.30
    WR Michael Thomas 18.00
    WR Devin Funchess 16.00
    FLEX Larry Fitzgerald 25.80
    TE Delanie Walker 17.30
    RB Alex Collins 23.80
    DST Chicago Bears 12.00

    QB Matt Ryan 7.02
    RB Theo Riddick 17.20
    RB Carlos Hyde 9.60
    WR Julio Jones 4.40
    WR Adam Thielen 9.10
    WR Michael Thomas 18.00
    TE Austin Hooper 5.10
    RB Alex Collins 23.80
    DST Tennessee Titans 10.00

  • gaelicgirl

    DK is shadier than FD by a country mile, IMO…quit playing there years ago.

  • phillygamecox

    @Cal said...

    Then you’re not on an “Optimize” setting. I’m not sure how Labs handles optimization, but our LHQ has three levels of optimization – Optimal, Balanced, and Random.

    The optimal lineup, second most optimal, etc are always the same in a given group of inputs, in the true sense of the word Optimal.

    They use Cruncher, at least as of the last time this issue blew up. The owner of Cruncher did say something in their defense about his system showing they work independently, but I don’t recall exactly what it was.

    I think you’re making a good point that maybe they use a setting below truly optimal. The farther they get from truly optimal the more variance we would see across their lineups. I think it is the exposure settings and stacks that would make the biggest difference, though.

    In Labs, again utilizing the “multi-lineup” function – they let you generate by projected points, rating, ceiling and 5 other ways. But, every time you click “generate lineups” it spits out new lineups each and every time. And, based on my quick test with Bales’ projections – it spit out 449 different lineups out of 450(only 1 overlap) in about a minute.

    Now, in their traditional lineup builder for only 1 lineup – that DOES spit out the same lineup each and every time. But, since we are talking about multi, it’s pretty easy to run optimizers and get different results based on FL.

    In the grand scheme of this discussion, I understand it’s not the most important thing. The most important thing is what you and pretty much every person with common sense and a brain has said – optics matter.

  • NoLimits0

    It’s quite obvious Chipotle and Papa collude but no one can prove it. It would be a disservice if they didn’t be collude given they are brothers. I’m sure Brook and Robin talk to each other a lot.

    But it honestly doesn’t matter. No ones gonna do anything about it. Everyone knows youdacao and madoublet98 collude and they make it super obvious with the same cash lineup but never the same GPP lineup but no one has done anything.

    Heck all of you guys collude to by using RGs optimizer.

  • zpruitt3

    chipotle/papa goat

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 515

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @NoLimits0 said...

    It’s quite obvious Chipotle and Papa collude but no one can prove it. It would be a disservice if they didn’t be collude given they are brothers. I’m sure Brook and Robin talk to each other a lot.

    But it honestly doesn’t matter. No ones gonna do anything about it. Everyone knows youdacao and madoublet98 collude and they make it super obvious with the same cash lineup but never the same GPP lineup but no one has done anything.

    Heck all of you guys collude to by using RGs optimizer.

    To clarify, this is the definition of collusion I’m working off of:

    “come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.”

    The secret understanding would be interlaying lineups, the harmful purpose would be circumventing DK’s entry limits.

    Collusion implies something against the rules. Youda and madoublet building cash game lineups together is within the rules.

  • jdtrey

    @superstars92 said...

    Still in that case, what if you submitted like 370 into GPPs and you wanted to max out 150 in the MM, and the cap that was set was 500. Still would cause WDs from other GPPs and it gets messy.

    I think the point of the limits would be to make sure you allocated your lineups in to the most important tournaments (to you) first, thus leaving out the less important (lower dollar) entries. EG: Your first 150 should go to the MM if that’s highest on your priority list and then you max out the $8 and the other high dollar tournaments (of your choice) and use the scraps you have to enter the $3 etc

  • 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).