PGA FORUM

Comments

  • Mphst18

    DAUT44 and MIR84 already once caught colluding and disqualified from the kings cup by DK but still allowed to play on the site are back at it again colluding to circumvent the max entries for the millionaire maker so they have 300 entries.

    Each entered the max 150 lineups (MIR used 20 players) (DAUT used 22 players).

    The core 20 players used are identical with Reed (12% of DAUT lineups) and Finau (3.3% of DAUT lineups) as the 2 players DAUT used the MIR didnt.

    Both have 47%+ usage in lineups of main core of Kuchar, McIlroy, Molinari, Johnson, and Garcia.

    The Fact they these two who are known to work together, have been caught colluding before, have the same 20 players with near identical ownership %s yet have no lineups that overlap shows clearly they are doing this to have 300 entries (not the 150 limit).

    I understand these two are VIP players and dk generates a lot of revenue from them but how long will they allow their consumers to be unprotected and the integrity of their contests to be doubted.

  • BennyRamirez

    @theseige said...

    Ethan and other insiders… come on man this is where I gotta draw the line, I understand this whole thread but this is where Assani is right, let’s stop throwing mud on complete conspiracy theories that have no proof to them at all and link them to this (which has way more than 0 proof)

    Let’s focus on the problem and stop throwing shade at everything else along the way. Any company of any form would have closer relationships with their bigger clients, that doesn’t make the DFS companies evil or conspiring, it’s called good business

    The conspiracies of “DK protecting pros” is where ethos goes to die.

  • Mphst18

    @poppaspicks said...

    About the only issue I see would be the people that run the same lineup every single d

    Except Ryan and David do play the same lineups in cash every day and openly admit it.

    Then the collude on the kings cup and get a slap On the wrist.

    The they observe a team of mazwa/Ragingphilip win the million by circumventing the 150 entry limit so they say hey we can do this and since dk isn’t doing anything about it and last time we got caught colliding we got our money back so let’s give it a try.

    But David had no entries in the last milly while Ryan had 150 and David had no entries on any of the past 5 phase gpps since he is known as a highest if the High stakes cash game player.

    So it just much have been dumb luck that this week he entered the max entries in the milly using the same players as his collider daut with the same projections since they admit to working together but somehow someway not one lineup overlapped.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @Shipmymoney said...

    The point is you made a statement that tournaments would be flatter if sites didn’t cater to high volume players, but in reality flatter tournaments are better for high volume players so your statement doesn’t make sense.

    Again you are wrong a flatter payout structure is not only better for high volume players, but its also better for low volume players. As opposed to a top heavy structure which is more beneficial to a high volume player because they can sustain the ups and downs. Draftstreet was the king of having a really good balance and really good entry limit on gpps and that site was growing a lot and for good reason. You just proved my point that flatter structure would be better for the entire ecosystem.

  • bolu

    @Shipmymoney said...

    I’m suggesting that if every tournament were structured this way we would all go broke. People do not play it because they expect to profit over time from it. They play it because the reward of getting incredibly lucky and winning it outweighs the expected loss from playing it since there are other game types and structures that are profitable. The point was that the top heavy structure does not benefit anyone so it is not an example of sites catering to MME guys.

    People could manage their risk and avoid going broke in your example

  • Shipmymoney

    • 58

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @sjs1890 said...

    Again you are wrong a flatter payout structure is not only better for high volume players, but its also better for low volume players. As opposed to a top heavy structure which is more beneficial to a high volume player because they can sustain the ups and downs. Draftstreet was a the king of having a really good balance and really good entry limit on gpps and that site was growing a lot and for good reason. You just proved my point that flatter structure would be better for the entire ecosystem.

    I have been saying a flatter structure would be better for the ecosystem the entire time. I was arguing that top heavy does not benefit anyone including high volume players (benefit meaning increase their EV). I think you just agreed with me and then concluded with “you proved my point” lol

  • Shipmymoney

    • 58

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @bolu said...

    People could manage their risk and avoid going broke in your example

    Please elaborate. It doesn’t matter how you manage your risk. If you put 150 entries into a tournament with a negative EV they are all negative EV entries. If you play nothing but that tournament you will eventually go broke unless you get lucky and win it, and the odds are not in your favor to win it before you die.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @Shipmymoney said...

    I have been saying a flatter structure would be better for the ecosystem the entire time. I was arguing that top heavy does not benefit anyone including high volume players (benefit meaning increase their EV). I think you just agreed with me and then concluded with “you proved my point” lol

    You are missing the point that high volume players can sustain a volatile contest like the milly maker a lot better and thats not debatable than a small stakes player. That in its self is catering to high volume players, the common people are the majority filling these games and should not be penalized because DK made the payouts soooo top heavy. Having a healthy ecosystem has to be priority number 1 for DK. Theres literally NO reason to have a ridiculous tourney like the milly maker.

  • RangerC

    @Unico10 said...

    DFS players can be categorized in many segments, but we can roughly divide us in two large categories:
    1 – Those one that come from poker and other gambling endeavors, not even necessarily sports fans
    2 – Sports fans

    For most of the ones that are sport fans, rules are kind of important.
    For others… not so much.

    I actually completely disagree.

    In poker, when people were caught multi-accounting, they were banned, sites seized all their earnings and everyone who played in the tournament moved up a spot. Was there a ton of ghosting, multi-accounting, chip-dumping, botting, and other collusive/cheating behaviors? Yes. Was it hard to police and did a ton of players get away with it? Yes. HOWEVER, when they actually were caught 98% of the community condemmed their actions and a consequence usually followed.

    Look at the JJprodigy/Ablackcar scandal:

    (quick cliffs here for people who weren’t playing online poker in 2007)

    http://boards.fool.com/jjprodigy-scandal-23725581.aspx

    (Quicker cliffs: Guy who was already playing underage signed his grandma up, played simultaneously on his account and hers, accidently got outed by his genius multi-accounting buddy, got banned and everyone was paid out later with him removed)

    Here’s apparently how a non-insignificant portion of this community would respond to that scandal:

    “How can you PROVE his grandma wasn’t playing the account?”
    “He went from 1 entry to 2, that’s still less than 1% of total entries. I’m not concerned.”
    “Multi-accounting is too hard to police in general, so when we catch someone definitively doing it, there should be no consequence”
    “Party Poker needs the rake to stay open. Don’t you care about online poker?”
    “He still had to win the tournament, that’s SKILL
    “People in the tournament just should have played better cards and beaten him” (build better LU’s)
    “Can’t guarantee sites will run large MTTs without letting people multiaccount”
    “Just play somewhere else if you don’t like playing against multiaccounters”
    “He and his grandma are two different people. As long as all the money goes to Grandma it’s OK. You can’t PROVE that he and Grandma aren’t sharing the money”

    And remember Party Poker / Pokerstars (who also banned multiaccounters) were offshore companies who weren’t trying to get regulated in US states.

  • mjordantmac

    • 2016 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    The solution? Easy… A single entry tournament with flat payouts, no “pros”, $1M to first, and if you lose you get your entry fee back. Oh, this tournament will also run every day and no one pays taxes. How does that sound?

    All who complain make no sense.

  • Mphst18

    @theseige said...

    This limit is 4 thing is a TOTAL MYTH… and you shouldn’t be punished for having 3 tickets instead of 2 in trying to get your 4th…

    Again I linked to DK T&C for the CFB contest as well as their advertisement for it.

    You have linked to nothing from DK but rather just stated some rule that you think makes sense except it’s not Thesiege.com running the contest.

    Your friend Adam then posted a link to their mlb championship I think where they gave a re-written T&C for that contest.

    Obviousalky if nothing was misleading or wrong About how they wrote and advertised the CFB contests they wouldn’t have rewritten.

    Again at an time you want to link this Rule you are stating from dk I’d be glad to read it.

  • bolu

    @Shipmymoney said...

    Please elaborate. It doesn’t matter how you manage your risk. If you put 150 entries into a tournament with a negative EV they are all negative EV entries. If you play nothing but that tournament you will eventually go broke unless you get lucky and win it, and the odds are not in your favor to win it before you die.

    I think the high stake pros are +EV. Are you saying they are -EV, but they are doing it for fun?

  • RangerC

    @mjordantmac said...

    All who complain make no sense.

    Need to add that one to my list of DFS reactions. Never remember anyone saying that when people were caught cheating in poker.

  • Shipmymoney

    • 58

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @sjs1890 said...

    You are missing the point that high volume players can sustain a volatile contest like the milly maker a lot better and thats not debatable than a small stakes player. That in its self is catering to high volume players, the common people are the majority filling these games and should not be penalized because DK made the payouts soooo top heavy. Having a healthy ecosystem has to be priority number 1 for DK. Theres literally NO reason to have a ridiculous tourney like the milly maker.

    People play for a living. It doesn’t matter that they will lose money more slowly than a casual player. It is not catering to high volume players to say “These structures are bad for your bottomline, but don’t worry it is worse for other people.”

  • jjwd

    @Mphst18 said...

    It should be single entry the only reason it isn’t is greed.

    Easy solution: you and others who think small entry limits would make the game better can go play on Yahoo with their 10 entry max. If your view is the majority, Yahoo should get really big! Spread the word about Yahoo! That’s the great thing about America, you have choices. If 10 entries are too many, you could start your own DFS site, 1 entry max, and see what happens.

  • Mphst18

    Got 1k tonight for baseball heads up 2night my friend. You can even use your boy the sieges lineup or his bankroll

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShipMyMoneyDFS/status/759072686748250112

  • RangerC

    @tonytone1908 said...

    Anything within reach of first or do we have 300 donation entries?

    Are you for real? The 300 LU team doing this 2 weeks ago nearly swept the MM, and won quite a bit at the Canadian Open.

    I never heard anyone in poker say, when multiaccounters were caught:

    “Who cares about the time that a guy multiaccounting won a tournament? What about all the times they didn’t win?”

  • Shipmymoney

    • 58

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @bolu said...

    I think the high stake pros are +EV. Are you saying they are -EV, but they are doing it for fun?

    Of course they are +EV overall. I’m talking about one specific tournament structure that is -EV for everyone. Even if the best of the best are +EV in it, they would be much more +EV if the structure were flatter.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @Shipmymoney said...

    People play for a living. It doesn’t matter that they will lose money more slowly than a casual player. It is not catering to high volume players to say “These structures are bad for your bottomline, but don’t worry it is worse for other people.”

    DFS was never designed for people to make a living lol, it was created for entertainment. So because the pay structures are absolutely terrible and hurt the ecosystem in almost every way I shouldn’t be allowed to complain about it even tho the common people are the majority of entries filling the contest?

  • Shipmymoney

    • 58

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @Mphst18 said...

    Got 1k tonight for baseball heads up 2night my friend. You can even use your boy the sieges lineup or his bankroll

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShipMyMoneyDFS/status/759072686748250112

    PM’d you

  • BmoreClutch

    It’s sad how some people are willing to look past clear violations. All because they’re afraid that it will hurt their precious DFS.

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @Mphst18 said...

    Except Ryan and David do play the same lineups in cash every day and openly admit it.

    Then the collude on the kings cup and get a slap On the wrist.

    The they observe a team of mazwa/Ragingphilip win the million by circumventing the 150 entry limit so they say hey we can do this and since dk isn’t doing anything about it and last time we got caught colliding we got our money back so let’s give it a try.

    But David had no entries in the last milly while Ryan had 150 and David had no entries on any of the past 5 phase gpps since he is known as a highest if the High stakes cash game player.

    So it just much have been dumb luck that this week he entered the max entries in the milly using the same players as his collider daut with the same projections since they admit to working together but somehow someway not one lineup overlapped.

    Well, IMO, that’s much more of a case for collusion than having different entries in multi entry tournaments. Having the same lineup, day after day, is about as good of an argument for collusion as possible.

  • Mphst18

    @BmoreClutch said...

    It’s sad how some people are willing to look past clear violations. All because they’re afraid that it will hurt their precious DFS.

    Addiction is a strong disease

  • RangerC

    @poppaspicks said...

    If it’s two different people, with two different user names, two different tax id numbers and most importantly, TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF LINEUPS, what’s the problem?

    So when people were multiaccounting Poker tournaments its apparently OK as long as each account belonged to two different people, with 2 user names, two tax id numbers, and each account was dealt 2 different sets of cards?

    BTW the whole point is that they are NOT two sets of LU’s – its 1 coordinated set of 300 LUs (and in the case of the Mazwa/ragingphilip Dogleg) it was over 3% of entries. What if they have a team of 10 and cover 15% of entries with unique, non-overlapping lineups? Is it a problem then?

  • jdtrey

    @theseige said...

    This limit is 4 thing is a TOTAL MYTH… and you shouldn’t be punished for having 3 tickets instead of 2 in trying to get your 4th…

    I’m curious where you’re getting this from… I used the number 4 since that was the number mentioned for the CFB tournament. Are you telling me you actually believe that there is no limit to how many times a person can qualify for say, the FBWC? Even though it expressly says on DK that you can qualify up to 6 times? (I’m aware of the already entered rule they should’ve never added and that’s not what I’m asking about)

  • RangerC

    @BmoreClutch said...

    It’s sad how some people are willing to look past clear violations. All because they’re afraid that it will hurt their precious DFS.

    Ironically, not doing anything about this is what will kill DFS.

    If Cuomo signed the bill earlier and the guy in 3rd in the MM was from NY they would have a case to bring before the regulatory board (given the 150 LU limit, and the statement that sites will make “reasonable steps to prevent” more than 150 per person). Maybe they don’t win, but at least its a case. Then if DK is found to be doing nothing with collusion (ignoring an issue is not ‘reasonable steps’) they could lose their license and perhaps licensing in general becomes a problem.

  • 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).