PGA FORUM

  • 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.

  • Mphst18

    @jdtrey said...

    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)

    He’s either trying to apply a rule from a future contest the FBWC to an contest that happened last year in CFB or he’s trying to apply a rule from when maybe dk didn’t have advertisements and T&C documents.

    But regardless I think it’s clear to most it says UP to 4 and No More than 4 in the lie documents and not what he is trying to imply it used to be or is now corrected to for future contests.

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @RangerC said...

    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?

    Huh? I didn’t say anything about poker? Mainly, because this discussion isn’t about poker. And actually, those are two sets of lineups. For all I know, there’s hundreds of groups out there…they just have random ownership numbers.

    In this case its pretty simple…I’m sure they worked together, took two sets of lineups, split them, and then probably traded shares. In one way or another, this happens every day in all forms of life. Sharing ideas in order to reach a common goal has been happening for 10000+ years and is actually a very efficient way of accomplishing a task.

    The fact of the matter, is that no one was “cheated”. Math is math and numbers are numbers. No one playing this contest was at any less of an advantage.

  • jdtrey

    @poppaspicks said...

    In this case its pretty simple…I’m sure they worked together, took two sets of lineups, split them, and then probably traded shares.

    …which is colluding to circumvent the max entry limit of 150 (since they had shares of 300).

    It really boggles my mind how you could possibly succeed in DFS if you’re as naive as you’re trying to come off

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    One thing people don’t get is that the cards are definitely stacked against the avg player. Not because of entry limits, or supposed “catering” to high stakes player, but because DFS is a skill. Obviously the more skilled player is going to be much better than the avg player. It almost sounds like some people want there to be a contest where everyone has the same probability of being successful…If this was the case, then there would be no skill involved. This isn’t roulette but yet some seem to wish that it were.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @poppaspicks said...

    In this case its pretty simple…I’m sure they worked together, took two sets of lineups, split them, and then probably traded shares. In one way or another, this happens every day in all forms of life. Sharing ideas in order to reach a common goal has been happening for 10000+ years and is actually a very efficient way of accomplishing a task.

    The problem is DK TOS clearly states that as improper conduct. This is strictly about DK and their TOS not other forms of life.

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @jdtrey said...

    …which is colluding to circumvent the max entry limit of 150 (since they had shares of 300).

    It really boggles my mind how you could possibly succeed in DFS if you’re as naive as you’re trying to come off

    Collusion, working together, teaming up, sharing ideas…call it whatever you want. But LEGALLY speaking, this wouldn’t fall into collusion. Just like the Ethan thing wasn’t “insider trading”. It boggles my mind how often people just toss around words without either understanding their true meaning, or not understanding how they work in context.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @poppaspicks said...

    Collusion, working together, teaming up, sharing ideas…call it whatever you want. But LEGALLY speaking, this wouldn’t fall into collusion. Just like the Ethan thing wasn’t “insider trading”. It boggles my mind how often people just toss around words without either understanding their true meaning, or not understanding how they work in context.

    Please if this was taken to court there would be very good arguments to be made as collusion per DK TOS.

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @sjs1890 said...

    The problem is DK TOS clearly states that as improper conduct. This is strictly about DK and their TOS not other forms of life.

    To me, the only way I consider it collusion would be if they had the exact same lineups. OR, if one of those in question were acting as a shell and then directing their profits back to the other (multi-accounting in essence). Those are instances that I think violate the TOS collusion policy. Anything else is just an excuse.

    And yes, I understand that they do this on a daily basis in cash games and to me, that’s what collusion is and where this whole argument should be focused.

  • jdtrey

    @poppaspicks said...

    Collusion, working together, teaming up, sharing ideas…call it whatever you want. But LEGALLY speaking, this wouldn’t fall into collusion. Just like the Ethan thing wasn’t “insider trading”. It boggles my mind how often people just toss around words without either understanding their true meaning, or not understanding how they work in context.

    I’m going to make this as simple as possible for you.

    Simple definition of collusion: secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose
    Full version: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

    LEGALLY speaking, yes what they are doing is absolutely collusion. They are illegally cooperating to circumvent an established entry limit.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @poppaspicks said...

    To me, the only way I consider it collusion would be if they had the exact same lineups. OR, if one of those in question were acting as a shell and then directing their profits back to the other (multi-accounting in essence). Those are instances that I think violate the TOS collusion policy. Anything else is just an excuse.

    And yes, I understand that they do this on a daily basis in cash games and to me, that’s what collusion is and where this whole argument should be focused.

    Nowhere on the DK TOS does it state they have to have the exact same lineup for it to be deemed collusion stop it. Lets use real facts like DK TOS that we do know. There are many ways to collude and it looks like their breaking TOS in multiple ways.

  • Mphst18

    @poppaspicks said...

    One thing people don’t get is that the cards are definitely stacked against the avg player. Not because of entry limits, or supposed “catering” to high stakes player, but because DFS is a skill. Obviously the more skilled player is going to be much better than the avg player. It almost sounds like some people want there to be a contest where everyone has the same probability of being successful…If this was the case, then there would be no skill involved. This isn’t roulette but yet some seem to wish that it were.

    So wrong. The research you do before the contest starts is skill. The outcome of your skill is totally dependent on the luck of the performance of the players you chose using skill. Multi entry allows you to reduce the risk of bad luck by using different permutations of players around a core set. Regardless the outcome is derived from luck.

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @jdtrey said...

    I’m going to make this as simple as possible for you.

    Simple definition of collusion: secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose
    Full version: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

    LEGALLY speaking, yes what they are doing is absolutely collusion. They are illegally cooperating to circumvent an established entry limit.

    They aren’t circumventing any entry limit. Each has 150. True collusion, would be if they worked together to circumvent an established entry limit. As in…they conspired (by manipulating software, ect.) to have 151 entries each. Just because it fits your definition of collusion, doesn’t mean it fits the legal definition.

    I do appreciate you making things simple for me. I’m rather slow and have a hard time grasping difficult concepts, like understanding what certain words mean. Thanks for helping out.

  • Unico10

    • 740

      RG Overall Ranking

    @RangerC said...

    I actually completely disagree.

    My very generalized statement is simply based on anecdotal evidence that on this forum, the apologetic crowd seems to come prevalently from the gambling/poker world.

    I may definitely be dead wrong on this.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @poppaspicks said...

    They aren’t circumventing any entry limit. Each has 150. True collusion, would be if they worked together to circumvent an established entry limit. As in…they conspired (by manipulating software, ect.) to have 151 entries each.

    Incorrect they have 300 lineups which yes it is circumventing the 150 entry limit. Its not rocket science to understand, in order to have the exact same core over 300 lineups and ZERO dupes shows 100% clear collaboration and syndicate play by increasing their exposure even more to cover more possible outcomes passed the 150 limit.

  • jdtrey

    @poppaspicks said...

    They aren’t circumventing any entry limit. Each has 150. True collusion, would be if they worked together to circumvent an established entry limit. As in…they conspired (by manipulating software, ect.) to have 151 entries each.

    They absolutely circumvented the entry limit when they took shares of each other’s action..

    The entry limit is 150 .. if they split action, they each have a stake in 300 entries, which is double the limit. I’m really starting to question who sets limeups for you, I’m starting to lose faith that you know how to tie your shoes at this point.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @sjs1890 said...

    The problem is DK TOS clearly states that as improper conduct. This is strictly about DK and their TOS not other forms of life.

    I agree. They need to clarify or update the TOS and take an official stance on this. To me just using the word “collusion” opens up a lot of possibilities of what falls under their definition of “collusion.” That is where my issue lies. DK is absolutely terrible at getting ahead of any issues and putting out potential fires.

    My personal opinion of all of this is more in line with what poppaspicks said earlier: “The fact of the matter, is that no one was “cheated”. Math is math and numbers are numbers. No one playing this contest was at any less of an advantage.”

  • Mphst18

    @Unico10 said...

    My very generalized statement is simply based on anecdotal evidence that on this forum, the apologetic crowd seems to come prevalently from the gambling/poker world.

    I may definitely be dead wrong on this.

    I’d agree and/or add those who are willing to put their own motifs in front of morals or to reach an opinion.

    I.e it’s a 100 percent game of skill cause i need to say that for it to stay legal regardless if I know it’s not true when villarbgot yanked in the 1st inning last night for not running hard, my skill told me this would happen.

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @Mphst18 said...

    So wrong. The research you do before the contest starts is skill. The outcome of your skill is totally dependent on the luck of the performance of the players you chose using skill. Multi entry allows you to reduce the risk of bad luck by using different permutations of players around a core set. Regardless the outcome is derived from luck.

    Actually not really. The more lineups you enter the less EV each lineup is vs your optimal lineup. Numbers man. Numbers.

  • Mphst18

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    I agree. They need to clarify or update the TOS and take an official stance on this. To me just using the word “collusion” opens up a lot of possibilities of what falls under their definition of “collusion.” That is where my issue lies. DK is absolutely terrible at getting ahead of any issues and putting out potential fires.

    My personal opinion of all of this is more in line with what poppaspicks said earlier: “The fact of the matter, is that no one was “cheated”. Math is math and numbers are numbers. No one playing this contest was at any less of an advantage.”

    I would like to play you heds up (max entry 1 each) but I get 2 lineups and you get one.

  • Mphst18

    @poppaspicks said...

    Actually not really. The more lineups you enter the less EV each lineup is vs your optimal lineup. Numbers man. Numbers.

    Here we go you are starting to sound like Ryan and his affinity for saying things like EV, Optimal lineup, the nuts, Blah blah blah.

    There is no optimal lineup until the contest ends so you have no idea if the lineup up you entered is optimal or not.

  • tonytone1908

    @poppaspicks said...

    They aren’t circumventing any entry limit. Each has 150. True collusion, would be if they worked together to circumvent an established entry limit. As in…they conspired (by manipulating software, ect.) to have 151 entries each. Just because it fits your definition of collusion, doesn’t mean it fits the legal definition.

    I do appreciate you making things simple for me. I’m rather slow and have a hard time grasping difficult concepts, like understanding what certain words mean. Thanks for helping out.

    That’s your answer right there. They’re each allowed to enter 150 lineups, no more, and that’s exactly what they did.

    Now if you could then prove that they were both the same people then you might have a leg to stand on.

  • Mphst18

    @poppaspicks said...

    Actually not really. The more lineups you enter the less EV each lineup is vs your optimal lineup. Numbers man. Numbers.

    South cackalaka the luck vs skill part you went silent on.

  • tonytone1908

    @Mphst18 said...

    I would like to play you heds up (max entry 1 each) but I get 2 lineups and you get one.

    Sigh. How is max entry in a H2H 1 LU each but you want to play one that has 3 in it? Math is not your strong suit I guess?

  • poppaspicks

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    What many people are having a hard time understanding is that by their own “definition” of collusion, there is absolutely no way to tell who is and who is not colluding. This case is an extreme example but at the end of the day, the burden of proof is absent as it can still be dismissed as purely circumstantial. Unless the same players have a pattern of using the EXACT SAME lineups, there’s no way that this can legitimately be argued as true collusion. In the court of law, perception doesn’t equal reality.

    Again, the focus is on completely the wrong issue. Turn the focus on to players that repeatedly use the same lineups, and there actually might be progress.

  • tonytone1908

    I agree DK is very vague in their definition of collusion or syndicate but until they’ve clarified it it’s extremely hard to prove any wrong doing.

    What I don’t understand is syndicates can use the same lineups in 20 or 100 man leagues but it’s not an issue until people are dissatisfied with how a MM played out?

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

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).