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.

  • xdan3220

    @sjs1890 said...

    The TOS clearly defines that as collusion maybe there should be a screen shot of current TOS in both threads. DK TOS states Colluding with any other individual(s) or engaging in any type of syndicate play; is deemed as improper conduct. Nowhere does that say there has to be any type of profit sharing for there to be colluding or syndicate play.

    You are completely missing my point, I know what the TOS says, you are exactly right it says Colluding with any other individual(s) or engaging in any type of syndicate play is deemed improper conduct. BUT it doesn’t say what DK considers to be colluding or syndicate play. While you may think what they are doing meets that definition they may not, we don’t know what their standard is and frankly they need to define it. I’m not saying this isn’t an issue but we are jumping a couple steps in the process here, DK’s TOS need to better define what they mean.

  • gavlam

    nice to see getting asses kicked right now…finau, dj, rory, kuchar really sucking

  • xdan3220

    @RangerC said...

    If two separate players have 50% Rory, 50% DJ, 50% Kuchar, and each generates 150 LU’s, they have no guarantee that they will not overlap (possibly very heavily). Using the same LU generator ensures that every one of their LUs is guaranteed to be unique within that set of 300 LUs. That’s collusive behavior.

    Also, it beggers belief to assume that two accounts who are arbitrarily splitting 300 LUs from the same LU generator are then NOT sharing profit. Come on. So whoever owns the mazwa account gets the million because they randomly got the winning LU from the pool while ragingphilip gets 50K? Again, look at the actual LU’s and do a merge. Each person mysteriously is missing an obvious LU using their core golfers that magically always appears in the other set.

    Once again, is this as big a deal as all the other abusive team behavior? Nope. However, it could be very easily (having 300 vs 150 in the MM isn’t that big of a deal, but mazwa/ragingphilip had over 3% of the Dogleg, and if unchecked we are back to ganondorf with 10% of quarter leagues again). We can argue over how big of a deal this is but there is no way that this isn’t a TOS violation and a possible violation of NYS DFS regulations.

    I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, but if they aren’t sharing profits in the hypothetical you gave than that isn’t collusion to me. I personally think that if they are going through that process than chances are they are sharing profits, if so then they should be banned and forced to forfeit their winnings. But if they have decided that they are going to share all research and then spit out 300 random lineups from a lineup generator and not have any overlap that in and of itself I don’t think constitutes collusion because neither is gaining exposure to any lineups over the 150 max they are entitled. Once they get access to one lineup over that by sharing profits it becomes a violation in my opinion but we can’t skip that step.

  • RangerC

    @xdan3220 said...

    If they banned every single person that “worked together” well than they could ban everyone in the daily thread on here, everyone that read the Grind Down, or any articles etc…

    Nope, because they aren’t colluding or working as a syndicate. The analogous situation would be if everyone in the daily thread posted their GPP LU to ensure none of them overlapped, and then split the GPP proceeds at the end of the night.

  • Mphst18

    @xdan3220 said...

    I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, but if they aren’t sharing profits in the hypothetical you gave than that isn’t collusion to me. I personally think that if they are going through that process than chances are they are sharing profits, if so then they should be banned and forced to forfeit their winnings. But if they have decided that they are going to share all research and then spit out 300 random lineups from a lineup generator and not have any overlap that in and of itself I don’t think constitutes collusion because neither is gaining exposure to any lineups over the 150 max they are entitled. Once they get access to one lineup over that by sharing profits it becomes a violation in my opinion but we can’t skip that step.

    So if I enter 150 Lineups and them my friend enters the other 150 ( he/she has no money so I give them the 4500+ to enter) cause there is another 150 I want to enter but at the end we are not splitting anything the friend is returning all money to me, no split. Problem or all good since we aren’t splitting money ( ignore the aspect that it is technically multi accounting even though said friend is an actual person).

    You can play devils advocate but if you think they are just going to say hey you keep the million it fell into the lineups we chose together but in your entry list I think your view is in the minority.

  • xdan3220

    @Mphst18 said...

    So if I enter 150 Lineups and them my friend enters the other 150 ( he/she has no money so I give them the 4500+ to enter) cause there is another 150 I want to enter but at the end we are not splitting anything the friend is returning all money to me, no split. Problem or all good since we aren’t splitting money ( ignore the aspect that it is technically multi accounting even though said friend is an actual person).

    Well I can’t ignore that because your hypothetical assumes a violation of another term of service because you are becoming a multi-account user. You again are getting a stake in entries over the 150 you are entitled to because in your hypo you have your own 150 and the 150 you gave your friend since he is giving all winnings to you. The profit sharing and the circumventing the 150 cap go hand in hand in the collusion/syndicate discussion, any time you are sharing profits on entries over the max you are allowed that would be a violation as I’ve stated.

  • shamrock77s

    @AssaniFisher said...

    My experience in poker has taught me that its completely unrealistic to expect the sites to “clean up their own mess.” You can be upset at this and refuse to play as a result, but I assure you that you will never find a site capable of policing things by themselves- it has never happened in ~15 years of online poker, it hasn’t happened in ~5 years of DFS, and it won’t happen with either in the future.

    So first things first, we need to set aside the unrealistic expectation that there will ever be a site capable of doing this. Then we need to organize a community that can police itself.

    I don’t believe that this has merit. Players that use a site like DK have a reasonable expectation that the reason for things like 15% rake and a rake on qualifiers and satellites which get raked again when the actual contest occurs is to pay not only for the site to generate profit and pay all the legal bills that these sites brought on with lax regulations to begin with, but also to have a system of checks in place to maintain the integrity of the contests. Ranger C was able to uncover these issues and he isn’t getting paid by DK for his services (though perhaps he should be!) DK has shown the ability to hit the ban hammer when it comes to a member getting multiple referrals and tickets from new users that deposit, take their best shot, and never deposit again. DK did so because they were looking at their own pockets and programs that negatively impacted their profitability. To me, that type of action shows that it is not an unrealistic expectation that a site like DK could do the work necessary to guarantee to the best of their ability the integrity of their site and contests. The idea that: max entry guys create rake and make profit for the company, so if they are involved in collusion, who cares? is a terrible omen for the future of DFS, and awful justification for a site to continue to let a clear policy go unenforced.

  • xdan3220

    @RangerC said...

    Nope, because they aren’t colluding or working as a syndicate. The analogous situation would be if everyone in the daily thread posted their GPP LU to ensure none of them overlapped, and then split the GPP proceeds at the end of the night.

    OK the key is the last part, splitting the proceeds at the end of the night. And I’m not sure that alone would be enough I think you’d also have to circumvent the entry limit, if you and I are each low rollers who can only afford 5 entries a night and we agree that we will share our info and split profits if we are only entering 5 lineups each in contests with max entries of 150 I’m not sure that is collusion or syndicate play, it might be but I can’t say for sure.

    The key to me is gaining an advantage over the field, if these two are sharing profits they have gained an advantage because now each has exposure to 300 lineups instead of 150. If they aren’t then I don’t think it is collusion.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Mphst18 said...

    So if I enter 150 Lineups and them my friend enters the other 150 ( he/she has no money so I give them the 4500+ to enter) cause there is another 150 I want to enter but at the end we are not splitting anything the friend is returning all money to me, no split. Problem or all good since we aren’t splitting money ( ignore the aspect that it is technically multi accounting even though said friend is an actual person).

    I assume by ‘problem or all good’ you are asking if it is against the TOS or not… and I think nobody knows that for certain, not even DK, the answer could change depending on the day of the week, that is why the TOS need clarifying. Common sense would say it is not fair and shouldn’t be allowed… but is it clear-cut breaking the TOS enough to warrant any kind of action against the users? That is for DK to decide, and unless the answer is yes without a shadow of a doubt DK will be understandably hesitant to do anything against guys max-entering (or more than max-entering). As long as there is a technicality for them to lean on (like technically they are not splitting the money), then there is a chance it wouldn’t be considered a problem.

    Edit: Oh and I missed the part about returning all money to you, that seems against TOS since you’re profiting from both. But a person cheating would never admit to any of that which I think is more of the real life scenario and why they get away with it

  • Adeepthret

    I’m playing a $20 50/50 and Daut44, Kunu88, and EmileHeskey all have the exact same LU. Does this mean anything? I get the feeling the teamwork amongst pros is more widespread than we even give them credit for.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    Oops, think I missed something earlier

  • Mphst18

    @xdan3220 said...

    Well I can’t ignore that because your hypothetical assumes a violation of another term of service because you are becoming a multi-account user. You again are getting a stake in entries over the 150 you are entitled to because in your hypo you have your own 150 and the 150 you gave your friend since he is giving all winnings to you. The profit sharing and the circumventing the 150 cap go hand in hand in the collusion/syndicate discussion, any time you are sharing profits on entries over the max you are allowed that would be a violation as I’ve stated.

    Is profit or entries or profit and entries, trying to understand your view. In the hypothetical I am not sharing any profit all monies Go to me friend gets 0, entries are derived from a lineup model.

  • Mphst18

    @Adeepthret said...

    I’m playing a $20 50/50 and Daut44, Kunu88, and EmileHeskey all have the exact same LU. Does this mean anything? I get the feeling the teamwork amongst pros is more widespread than we even give them credit for.

    Yes your last sentence is correct and it only is getting worse as the sites refuse to enforce their TOS.

    The good point about threads, people voicing their concerns and emails to the sites is they will lose the ability to use plausible deniability or being unaware of how deep and big a problem this is this is when lawmakers, jury’s, judges start to ask.

  • xdan3220

    @Mphst18 said...

    Is profit or entries or profit and entries, trying to understand your view. In the hypothetical I am not sharing any profit all monies Gonto me friend gets 0, entries are derived from a lineup model.

    In your hypothetical you are circumventing the entry limit by basically using a dummy account so that you would be getting exposure to 300 lineups instead of 150 and even though your “friend” isn’t keeping any of the profits that I think could still constitute profit sharing because any money that DK is depositing into his account after the end of the contest he is “sharing” with you even though he isn’t keeping any of it. You can’t have one without the other, it is profit and entries, the two we are talking about if they want to share research and have 150 unique lineups each I don’t think that is a violation of any TOS, it is once they decide to share profits on an amount of entries that goes over the entry limit that I think they are colluding.

  • RangerC

    @xdan3220 said...

    Once they get access to one lineup over that by sharing profits it becomes a violation in my opinion but we can’t skip that step.

    Again, how are they not sharing profit??? (DK might not be able to look deeper, but state gaming boards could).

    Daut has this LU:
    Rory McIlroy (11400, 24.9%), Sergio Garcia (9400, 28.3%), Branden Grace (8000, 18.4%), J.B. Holmes (7700, 17.5%), Charl Schwartzel (7300, 27.9%), Andy Sullivan (6100, 12.3%)

    MiR has this LU:
    Rory McIlroy (11400, 24.9%), Sergio Garcia (9400, 28.3%), Branden Grace (8000, 18.4%), J.B. Holmes (7700, 17.5%), Charl Schwartzel (7300, 27.9%), Chris Kirk (6000, 1.4%)

    (again, quite amazing how missing variations using core golfers ALWAYS appear in the other LU set)

    Let’s say Rory/Sergio/Grace/Holmes/Charl/Sullivan are 1-6 (entirely hypothetical at this point as most of them suck today) and Kirk misses the cut. LU 1 wins the mill, LU 2 gets a mid-level cash (which is worthless in the Milli Maker). Does Daut get a mil because he arbitrarily got the Sullivan LU while the other guy gets nothing? Two guys are not going to coordinate their play, put 10K in, and divide the proceeds by coinflip.

  • cinthree

    @xdan3220 said...

    I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, but if they aren’t sharing profits in the hypothetical you gave than that isn’t collusion to me. I personally think that if they are going through that process than chances are they are sharing profits, if so then they should be banned and forced to forfeit their winnings. But if they have decided that they are going to share all research and then spit out 300 random lineups from a lineup generator and not have any overlap that in and of itself I don’t think constitutes collusion because neither is gaining exposure to any lineups over the 150 max they are entitled. Once they get access to one lineup over that by sharing profits it becomes a violation in my opinion but we can’t skip that step.

    Not true. Let’s say it can be shown that they 100% do not share profits at all. So what one player wins, the other one does not. They run an optimizer and it spits out 300 and they randomly divide the 300 lineups so that each of them has 150 unique lineups, and neither of them have a lineup the other one has.

    Suppose Lineup 17 ultimately wins, and Person A ran it. He now gets the full prize instead of sharing it with Person B.

    Just the fact that each of them now has an edge because they’re running a lineup that the other one does not. Having a unique lineup matters in large field GPPs, and this system ensures two max-entry guys won’t have any lineups that are the same. Granted, the “victim” in this case would be the other player, Person B would have ran Lineup 17 but did not, but still, the system ensured that they each had 150 unique lineups. So Person A wins the top prize, Person B gets 0% of 1st place money.

    Also, since they are friends and have worked together in the past, the above example shows how hard it is to conclude that they weren’t going to share profits as well. It’s certainly plausible, but it’s a highly dubious claim. Two friends, who have worked together in the past randomly split up 300 lineups given their parameters (the core players they agreed on, etc) in a GPP that is heavily, heavily weighted to the top few finishers, and they’re not going to share profits?

  • Mphst18

    Also while I normally go and spend 1 dollar on h2h vs the teams to have proof of the identical lineups day after day, week after week, different sport after different sport I didn’t for golf.

    But if anyone did I am pretty sure their h2h lineup will be identical but only one of them will have entered it in the milly. Shaking my head I didn’t grab their h2h.

  • bolu

    The issue here isn’t sharing profits. It’s about avoiding duplication. There wouldn’t be the same outcry if they only did 75 lineups each, but people have a bias against max multientry players.

    Two players, who would be competing against each other and possibly have a duplicate lineup, can produce all unique lineups through this arrangement

  • jah2323

    @Mphst18 said...

    Also while I normally go and spend 1 dollar on h2h vs the teams to have proof of the identical lineups day after day, week after week, different sport after different sport I didn’t for golf.

    But if anyone did I am pretty sure their h2h lineup will be identical but only one of them will have entered it in the milly. Shaking my head I didn’t grab their h2h.

    same in double ups

    https://www.draftkings.com/contest/gamecenter/26306375

    https://www.draftkings.com/contest/gamecenter/26289397

  • xdan3220

    @RangerC said...

    Again, how are they not sharing profit??? (DK might not be able to look deeper, but state gaming boards could).

    Daut has this LU:
    Rory McIlroy (11400, 24.9%), Sergio Garcia (9400, 28.3%), Branden Grace (8000, 18.4%), J.B. Holmes (7700, 17.5%), Charl Schwartzel (7300, 27.9%), Andy Sullivan (6100, 12.3%)

    MiR has this LU:
    Rory McIlroy (11400, 24.9%), Sergio Garcia (9400, 28.3%), Branden Grace (8000, 18.4%), J.B. Holmes (7700, 17.5%), Charl Schwartzel (7300, 27.9%), Chris Kirk (6000, 1.4%)

    (again, quite amazing how missing variations using core golfers ALWAYS appear in the other LU set)

    Let’s say Rory/Sergio/Grace/Holmes/Charl/Sullivan are 1-6 (entirely hypothetical at this point as most of them suck today) and Kirk misses the cut. LU 1 wins the mill, LU 2 gets a mid-level cash (which is worthless in the Milli Maker). Does Daut get a mil because he arbitrarily got the Sullivan LU while the other guy gets nothing? Two guys are not going to coordinate their play, put 10K in, and divide the proceeds by coinflip.

    I’m not saying they aren’t, I think it is very likely that they are. But that is what to me determines if they are violating the terms of service. I’m not sure DK is going to ban on the thought that they are. Would you be happy if 6 months from now after they file their taxes DK launched an investigation to see how they filed, to see if after filing their were any bank transfers between the two , or actually filed suit against them to recover their winnings and gave them back to everyone that entered the contest? Sadly we can’t always get immediate results, it does suck but lets say they did what I just outlined above and showed their was collusion, I’d have no problem with that outcome.

  • bolu

    @cinthree said...

    Not true. Let’s say it can be shown that they 100% do not share profits at all. So what one player wins, the other one does not. They run an optimizer and it spits out 300 and they randomly divide the 300 lineups so that each of them has 150 unique lineups, and neither of them have a lineup the other one has.

    Suppose Lineup 17 ultimately wins, and Person A ran it. He now gets the full prize instead of sharing it with Person B.

    Just the fact that each of them now has an edge because they’re running a lineup that the other one does not. Having a unique lineup matters in large field GPPs, and this system ensures two max-entry guys won’t have any lineups that are the same. Granted, the “victim” in this case would be the other player, Person B would have ran Lineup 17 but did not, but still, the system ensured that they each had 150 unique lineups. So Person A wins the top prize, Person B gets 0% of 1st place money.

    Also, since they are friends and have worked together in the past, the above example shows how hard it is to conclude that they weren’t going to share profits as well. It’s certainly plausible, but it’s a highly dubious claim. Two friends, who have worked together in the past randomly split up 300 lineups given their parameters (the core players they agreed on, etc) in a GPP that is heavily, heavily weighted to the top few finishers, and they’re not going to share profits?

    You beat me to it, but I wouldn’t really call Person B the victim in your example because that player may not have come up with the lineup on his own.

  • jah2323

    @xdan3220 said...

    I’m not saying they aren’t, I think it is very likely that they are. But that is what to me determines if they are violating the terms of service. I’m not sure DK is going to ban on the thought that they are. Would you be happy if 6 months from now after they file their taxes DK launched an investigation to see how they filed, to see if after filing their were any bank transfers between the two , or actually filed suit against them to recover their winnings and gave them back to everyone that entered the contest? Sadly we can’t always get immediate results, it does suck but lets say they did what I just outlined above and showed their was collusion, I’d have no problem with that outcome.

    I would have no problem with it either, but I have zero confidence DK is even gonna address the issue much less do what you outlined above

  • xdan3220

    @cinthree said...

    Not true. Let’s say it can be shown that they 100% do not share profits at all. So what one player wins, the other one does not. They run an optimizer and it spits out 300 and they randomly divide the 300 lineups so that each of them has 150 unique lineups, and neither of them have a lineup the other one has.

    Suppose Lineup 17 ultimately wins, and Person A ran it. He now gets the full prize instead of sharing it with Person B.

    Just the fact that each of them now has an edge because they’re running a lineup that the other one does not. Having a unique lineup matters in large field GPPs, and this system ensures two max-entry guys won’t have any lineups that are the same. Granted, the “victim” in this case would be the other player, Person B would have ran Lineup 17 but did not, but still, the system ensured that they each had 150 unique lineups. So Person A wins the top prize, Person B gets 0% of 1st place money.

    Also, since they are friends and have worked together in the past, the above example shows how hard it is to conclude that they weren’t going to share profits as well. It’s certainly plausible, but it’s a highly dubious claim. Two friends, who have worked together in the past randomly split up 300 lineups given their parameters (the core players they agreed on, etc) in a GPP that is heavily, heavily weighted to the top few finishers, and they’re not going to share profits?

    As you said in that situation the only advantage they are getting is over the other player there. Neither player in that situation has exposure to any lineups over the entry limit so I don’t think that would be a violation of the TOS, to actually constitute collusion. I think they probably are sharing profits but see my post above, just because there isn’t an immediate resolution to the issue doesn’t mean there won’t be one. Sometimes you have to take a more measured approach instead of an immediate reaction especially if they aren’t operating in a way that DK would define collusion.

  • bolu

    @xdan3220 said...

    As you said in that situation the only advantage they are getting is over the other player there. Neither player in that situation has exposure to any lineups over the entry limit so I don’t think that would be a violation of the TOS, to actually constitute collusion. I think they probably are sharing profits but see my post above, just because there isn’t an immediate resolution to the issue doesn’t mean there won’t be one. Sometimes you have to take a more measured approach instead of an immediate reaction especially if they aren’t operating in a way that DK would define collusion.

    Each person gains a very small advantage by knowing 150 of the other lineups in the tourney don’t match any of their lineups

  • xdan3220

    @bolu said...

    They gain a very small advantage by knowing 150 of the other lineups in the tourney don’t match

    But only against one other person, and that doesn’t mean that they don’t match with anyone else. Again it’s all opinion at that point, I don’t think the simple sharing of research/lineups alone constitutes collusion, it may but DK doesn’t define it, without profit sharing on lineups going over the entry limit I don’t consider it collusion at this point.

  • 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).