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.

  • cvalenti

    exactly. it has to do with the lineups they make and those lineups involve cheating. end of story.

  • Zieg30

    • 615

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FGWC Finalist

    @Brian_msbc said...

    What if a player plays 150 in one GPP, 50 in three other GPPs, all on the same slate? With no overlap between lineups? Is that cheating?

    Feels like the same thing, and statistically, it would be the same result. If you split a big GPP into two GPPs, the payouts would be split also, whether it’s one big GPP or two smaller GPPs is irrelevant to the user.

    Why would this be cheating?

    One player playing the max entries in one GPP, and 50 in three other GPPs? DK/FD establish their max entries, which could include max entries by slate, and one player can enter to his/her heart’s content within those rules. I can’t fathom how that could be considered cheating.

  • Brian_msbc

    @Zieg30 said...

    Why would this be cheating?

    One player playing the max entries in one GPP, and 50 in three other GPPs? DK/FD establish their max entries, which could include max entries by slate, and one player can enter to his/her heart’s content within those rules. I can’t fathom how that could be considered cheating.

    I don’t believe it is, but if I were to take all 4 of those GPPs and smash them together into one giant GPP, then I’m accomplishing the same thing that the OP is accusing two people of doing. The only difference is you don’t require a teammate to do it this way. It’s just something to think about.

  • tonytone1908

    @Brian_msbc said...

    I think the real issue, is there is a finite number of winnable lineups (after excluding players that aren’t playing, and lineups that have too many hitters facing their own pitcher, for a baseball example) and some lineups have a better chance than others. When DK opens up a GPP that is so large that you can mathematically always win, then there is a problem. They are trying to get around that problem by limiting entries, but come on, now you are relying on the honor system to a certain degree.

    They’re not “trying” to get around any problem by doing anything. They’re required to limit the entries by law.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Brian_msbc said...

    I think the real issue, is there is a finite number of winnable lineups (after excluding players that aren’t playing, and lineups that have too many hitters facing their own pitcher, for a baseball example) and some lineups have a better chance than others. When DK opens up a GPP that is so large that you can mathematically always win, then there is a problem. They are trying to get around that problem by limiting entries, but come on, now you are relying on the honor system to a certain degree.

    What do you mean by this, ‘When DK opens up a GPP that is so large that you can mathematically always win, then there is a problem’?

    I might not be understanding that correctly, but there are far too many combos for someone to mathematically always win, with how big GPP’s can ever reasonably expect to get. Week 1 has a 2 million person contest. You could give one guy 10% of the entries (100,000 entries), and they would not come close to mathematically always winning. I mean, rarely does anybody in the entire DFS population come up with the highest possible scoring line-up most weeks of NFL/MLB. That finite number of winnable lineups is incredibly huge.

    This is not the problem DK is trying to get around. They did not implement entry limits because 1 person will automatically win if they get over a certain number.

  • Mphst18

    It’s rare now but there were occasions like nba playoffs (when 4 teams left) and dk was having $4 large gpps ( this was before the 150 limit) where you could have all reasonable permutations (excluding players listed who don’t play) covered.

  • RangerC

    @DoubleTime said...

    I might not be understanding that correctly, but there are far too many combos for someone to mathematically always win, with how big GPP’s can ever reasonably expect to get. Week 1 has a 2 million person contest. You could give one guy 10% of the entries (100,000 entries), and they would not come close to mathematically always winning. I mean, rarely does anybody in the entire DFS population come up with the highest possible scoring line-up most weeks of NFL/MLB. That finite number of winnable lineups is incredibly huge.

    The worst situation in DFS IMO is short slate NBA where there is some late breaking value that virtually must be played. Pros running a script would put 150 optimized LUs in with that player in (covering the vast majority +EV combos, unless that player goes out injured, of course). The problem is that you can’t even play $.25c contests on nights like this, and the $3 sharpshooter is completely covered by pros.

    I remember early last season Kyle Anderson was starting for Leonard and the news came out after 4PM 1st lock but with 30+ minutes before the turbo slate locked. I put a couple LUs with Anderson at the minimum on DK and FD. I won the FD $5 Turbo Layup and got top 5 in the $2 Turbo Shot. Went to check how I did on DK with a similar LU and I was only in the top 100 or so, behind 70+ maxdalury lineups (he of course ran an optimizer and uploaded 150 LUS after the Anderson news broke). Now, I have no problem with this in huge contests with a million dollar prize (or heck, even $50,000), but this was a $3 NBA tourney with $1000 for first. DFS is not sustainable if you have to beat the best player in the game with 150 LUs optimized for late news (and specifically generated FOR the $3 tourney as it was the only one with 150 LU maximum), just to win a $3 tourney with a small first prize (not to mention the fact that putting $450 in to try to win $1000 for first has such a low EV over the long run for the big player, but they still do it because the sites encourage it!). And you can’t even go down to the $.25c level to escape as while Max stays +$3 or higher (for those slates at least) there are guys who do the same thing down to .25c.

    That’s DK’s vision for the game (you can see it in their rake structure, entry limits, payouts, rewards, everything) – a few pros max enter (even in very low EV spots) everything and grind out a profit through sheer volume where everyone else is ground to dust.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    Oops, guess 10% of 2 mil isn’t 100K.

    Ranger, you quoted my thing about guys not being able to mathematically always win, but then your reply wasn’t about that at all, so I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say… at least I hope you are not trying to say that Max was going to mathematically always win in that situation?

    Highly-owned must-plays don’t separate you from the field, that was not the reason Max was ahead of you. It is strange that you guys both had the same player (Kyle Anderson), yet you are saying that Max playing Kyle Anderson is the reason he beat you.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @RangerC said...

    (not to mention the fact that putting $450 in to try to win $1000 for first has such a low EV over the long run for the big player, but they still do it because the sites encourage it!).

    And this… if it has such a low EV over the long run for the big player, how is it that the sites encourage it?

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @RangerC said...

    That’s DK’s vision for the game (you can see it in their rake structure, entry limits, payouts, rewards, everything) – a few pros max enter (even in very low EV spots) everything and grind out a profit through sheer volume where everyone else is ground to dust.

    and this… I would interpret them massively lowering the max-entry limits, and making the payouts much flatter… basically everything I would interpret to mean the exact opposite than you.

  • RangerC

    @DoubleTime said...

    And this… if it has such a low EV over the long run for the big player, how is it that the sites encourage it?

    Its low EV but still positive (obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t do it). The expected value of putting $450 in to top out at a couple thousand (1st + several other high places; hard to totally sweep because of the amount of ties) could never be that high, but guys will keep doing it because if they do it for a whole season in every contest it is profitable in the long run. Sites encourage it through the lack of logical entry limits and the various perks they give to high volume players – in reality they should be discouraging it because it ruins the games for their low and mid tier players and restricting high-volume max entry players in $3 and lower games barely hurts those player’s bottom line profits as well.

  • RangerC

    @DoubleTime said...

    and this… I would interpret them massively lowering the max-entry limits, and making the payouts much flatter… basically everything I would interpret to mean the exact opposite than you.

    They massively lowered the entry limits for contests because they HAD to (it is in the NY DFS regulations, 150 LUS or 3% max of any contest). We still don’t have any limit for slates (FD does one, 500 for some slates, 1K for others) so guys can multienter EVERY game at EVERY buyin level (again, guys wouldn’t bother putting in $450 of entries in a contest with $1K for 1st if it affected their ability to enter other contests).

    As far as payout structures, DK posts crap like this

    Draftkings back at it today with the $4 “Superslurve”

    $4 entry $300k prizepool 88,200 entries top 22,080 get paid

    1st $50,000.00

    2nd $10,000.00

    3rd $5,000.00

    4th $3,000.00

    5th $2,000.00

    6th $1,500.00

    7th – 8th $1,000.00

    9th – 10th $750.00

    4881st – 7380th $8.00

    7381st – 11380th $7.00

    11381st – 22080th $6.00

    They have a ton of tourneys like this – high 1st place % AND very wide payouts. This tourney is optimized for guys who max enter it all season, NOT for the mid tier player.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Mphst18 said...

    It’s rare now but there were occasions like nba playoffs (when 4 teams left) and dk was having $4 large gpps ( this was before the 150 limit) where you could have all reasonable permutations (excluding players listed who don’t play) covered.

    I can understand the thinking that with only 4 teams playing, you could cover all permutations. But that is not reality. That is not what actually happens, nor has it every happened. With a $50K cap, you would need to cover all combos reasonably from about $45K up to $50K to mathematically always win (probably even lower than that), and just a basic understanding of numbers will tell you that it isn’t possible without an unrealistic number of entries.

    I went back and tried to find contests from the conference finals of the playoffs this year where there were only 4 teams playing. I could only find this one from May 21st and this one from May 23rd. Notice how with over 70,000 entrants in one contest and over 50,000 entrants in the other, each contest had a unique winner? If one person was even close to being able to cover all permutations you would see at least 1 duplication. People underestimate just how many combos there are. If you could get close to covering all mathematical combinations, you would see a lot more ties for first. Its just so far away from even being close to being able to mathematically cover all combos that it is silly. I cannot believe you guys are actually trying to say that they lowered limits because guys were able to mathematically always win.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @RangerC said...

    They massively lowered the entry limits for contests because they HAD to (it is in the NY DFS regulations, 150 LUS or 3% max of any contest). We still don’t have any limit for slates (FD does one, 500 for some slates, 1K for others) so guys can multienter EVERY game at EVERY buyin level (again, guys wouldn’t bother putting in $450 of entries in a contest with $1K for 1st if it affected their ability to enter other contests).

    As far as payout structures, DK posts crap like this

    Draftkings back at it today with the $4 “Superslurve”

    $4 entry $300k prizepool 88,200 entries top 22,080 get paid

    1st $50,000.00

    2nd $10,000.00

    3rd $5,000.00

    4th $3,000.00

    5th $2,000.00

    6th $1,500.00

    7th – 8th $1,000.00

    9th – 10th $750.00

    4881st – 7380th $8.00

    7381st – 11380th $7.00

    11381st – 22080th $6.00

    They have a ton of tourneys like this – high 1st place % AND very wide payouts. This tourney is optimized for guys who max enter it all season, NOT for the mid tier player.

    I agree that the payout structure you posted is not good. But still, that top prize is how it has always been.That is not a change they are making to benefit the high volume player. The only change made to the structure of that tournament you posted is one to benefit low volume players: They are paying out 25% when they used to only payout 20%. So while you posted a single tournament’s pay structure to try and show that DK is only trying to benefit high volume players, it is clear that the only change they made to that pay structure is to help low volume players cash. We can both agree that in an effort to help low-volume players, all DK has done to the pay structure is make it worse.

    Also, you posted one tournament with a high payout to first to illustrate your point. I can pull out other tournaments that pay 5% or less to first, and we can go back and forth. Truth is, the only changes that have been made are ones to benefit low volume players.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    And back to my original post that you quoted RangerC, I still couldn’t tell what you were saying:

    Do you think that 1 person could ever have enough line-ups to mathematically always win? Yes or No (I mean you can obviously write whatever else you want, just that I was just hoping to see like a definitive yes or no, I couldn’t tell from your 1st response what you thought), just curious what you think?

  • Mphst18

    @DoubleTime said...

    I cannot believe you guys are actually trying to say that they lowered limits because guys were able to mathematically always win.

    I certainly didn’t say that, NY made them lower their entry limts.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Mphst18 said...

    I certainly didn’t say that, NY made them lower their entry limts.

    Thank you Mphst18, I completely agree with you and that was all I was trying to get at with my original post.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    Hey Mphst18, know you think it is not why they changed the entry limits, but do you think that somebody has ever had enough entries to cover every possible reasonable* permutation in a DFS contest?

  • RangerC

    @DoubleTime said...

    Do you think that 1 person could ever have enough line-ups to mathematically always win? Yes or No (I mean you can obviously write whatever else you want, just that I was just hoping to see like a definitive yes or no, I couldn’t tell from your 1st response what you thought), just curious what you think?

    Obviously not (sorry I thought I had posted that) except in UFC (assuming you only play 1 guy from each fight) – if the pricing is tight and there are 10-11 fights available (like on some early cards) there actually aren’t too many combos if two fighters are above 11.5K (one of the early Rousey cards was like this).

    The problem is not that it is possible to cover all combos (you can’t even get close!), but that it is possible to cover virtually all +EV combos in some scenarios. Obviously in the Kyle Anderson scenario not all realistic winners are covered (if Anderson goes down with an ankle sprain all LUs are dead) but the minute he scored 20 points (there was almost no other value on the slate and he was 3K) the reverse is true and at that point the chance of beating 150 optimized LUs with Anderson on a small slate with your 1-3 LUs is close to zero.

  • MrSnuffleupagus

    If you chose 12 guys and played every combo thats around 450 lineups, and with each time you add to that 12 player pool that number jumps incredibly higher.

    its impossible to cover every combo

  • TommyWantWingy33

    It may be impossible to cover every line up, but it’s not out of the question to think that all “good” line ups can’t be covered sometimes. Just because the player pools are vast doesn’t mean all these players are “playable”. Like most mlb slates there are soo many players that are virtually un playable. Same with the NFL slates. 75% ( just a guess) of the players in the pool won’t even see the field. And another huge chunk are over priced….then you have a much much smaller player pool in which its alot easier to cover most of the “reasonable” line ups. Especially if you have a partner who is making sure not to dupe your line ups as he also max enters. It’s not illegal it’s just frowned upon like masterbating on an air plane. Or a mlb player who you know is juicing but is never caught.

  • TommyWantWingy33

    If you don’t think this is unethical then you have or are doing something similar. Why else would DK release these new guidelines if it wasn’t something that shouldn’t happen.

  • Zieg30

    • 615

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FGWC Finalist

    @Brian_msbc said...

    I don’t believe it is, but if I were to take all 4 of those GPPs and smash them together into one giant GPP, then I’m accomplishing the same thing that the OP is accusing two people of doing. The only difference is you don’t require a teammate to do it this way. It’s just something to think about.

    But it would be cheating (or at least against site policy) if two people did it collaboratively, and not cheating if one person does it, because it’s not cheating, or against any policy, if one person does it. That’s the whole point.

    The distinction is between one person working alone and two people working together, not how many tournaments or entries exist and how a person may enter them.

  • TommyWantWingy33

    Here’s one for you guys….. what if….. now stay with me here….. sahil, condia, Chipotle addict, youdacao, ect… all decide to take this approach and work together? Then would all winning line ups be covered? Then would it be cheating? You have to draw a line at some point, why not make a stand like DK is doing and say don’t wreck dfs for the average joe. In the end I’m guessing pros will be pros and Joe’s will be Joe’s.

  • tonytone1908

    @MrSnuffleupagus said...

    If you chose 12 guys and played every combo thats around 450 lineups, and with each time you add to that 12 player pool that number jumps incredibly higher.

    its impossible to cover every combo

    Not if you eliminate the obviously horrible plays.

  • 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).