INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • Swish65

    First, just a bit of background. Been playing DFS for just over a year—low dollar—mostly .25 to an occasional $3. My accounts seldom amount to more than $25 in them, but I love DFS and play daily. Hope someday to win a nice GPP, but have never cashed for more than $40. Retired, so not overflowing with money to burn, but not destitute either, so cashing is always nice and that’s basically what my hope is every day. With prizes top heavy in Gpp’s, no matter how much research I seem to do, I can still not get over the hump!
    My frustration in writing this thread was brought about by a contest I was in last night—a ten player league with a $2 entry! Low dollar with a top prize of $9. At the time I entered there were, I believe, maybe four or five other entrants, some with “badges” and a couple not. While following the NBA games and my contest later I realized to my horror (well, not horror, but disappointment) that there were not one, but four top 50 TPOY grinders, and 3 regular Rotogrinders “podcasters” in my lil bitty $2 league! Now, it’s not that I mind losing $2, but rather why are guys like this(not necessarily these particular guys), most of which have thousands of dollars in site accounts, playing in a $2 contest!? I know one of them recently won a HUGE amount of money in a GPP, more than I’ve ever made in my life in one years work! And I don’t begrudge any of them doing that, but do you have to come down to the low dollar levels and clean us “fish” out too!? Winning $9 is a big night for me, most nights! Anyway, enough of the rant. Here is a possible solution.
    With all the technology available, wouldn’t it simply be possible to link player account $$$ levels to contests available to enter?? Just as very elementary examples:

    up to $100, any contest
    $101-$500, no multi entry contest under $3
    $501-$1000 no contest under $5
    $1000 or more no contest under $10

    This would eliminate high dollar players praying on the “fish” who are just trying to survive in their shallow end of the pond, yet doesn’t hinder anyone from playing high dollar contests, or keep “sharks” from continuing winning their huge prizes. Of course the above example is not an actual suggestion of values to be used, only a general format. Badges and shields obviously don’t work. I know others will argue that it will keep prize pools down, but in my above example the top prize was only $9, yet players with thousands of dollars in their accounts were still trying to take that home!
    In almost all sports you have separation of talent levels competing. Divisions in high school and college football, minor league baseball(A,AA,AAA,majors)——why not DFS. Make it fair for everyone, and as your skill level increases, and your bank roll grows, so does the level of competition you’re going against. Or do the “sharks” not want that, and want to get richer any way possible? I hope as somebody who really loves DFS, and truly believe it is skill based, that this isn’t the case, or am I just being naive?

    Love to hear everyones thoughts—-especially the “podcast” grinders out there, who I listen to, and enjoy everyday!

  • TommyWantWingy33

    My question to “the sites need all the money they can get” statement. What do the CEO’S take home each year? If a business truly cares about their customer/product and gets into legal trouble why should the customer get shafted because the sites did something wrong? You can’t tell me the big wigs at FD and DK take home a normal persons salary. I make 30k a year and can pay my bills/ ect. Same thing with politics if every politician gave up their salary for a year and put it towards the debt that’s what makes sense. YOU make the mistake YOU pay for it not your customers ect. Same with pro athletes oh no I’m “broke” can’t feed the family but I’ve got thousands/hundreds of thousands in the bank/assets. Give me a break Live off 30k a year and get back to me. Sorry for the rant but rich people falling on financial “tough times” really fires me up.

    As for the topic at hand I don’t think it’s as bad as it seems. You can easily avoid pro’s. My best advice to the OP the $5 giant double ups that are SINGLE ENTRY should be your best friend.

  • AlexSonty

    • 654

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Blogger of the Month

    @squirrelpatrol said...

    Doesn’t FanDuel already restrict this? All accounts are restricted from entering more than 250 lineups (cumulative) on contests $10 and below in any slate . From my experience and observation, most high-volume players use their 250 ($10 and below) lineups on the larger size GPPs and double-ups/multipliers rather than entering smaller-size leagues.

    250 is hardly a restriction.

  • jhorst52

    • 25

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #22

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x2

      2016 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    @AlexSontySBN said...

    250 is hardly a restriction.

    It’s a major restriction. They run numerous tournaments under $10. With max entry of 150. If you want to play the tournaments, you can’t play in much else.

  • NarrowJ

    I consider myself to be a slightly-above-casual player since I am playing about $100 a week on NFL and usually play about $15-25 per night on NBA (not a big MLB guy) and have profited over $5000 since October 2015 (about a year, exactly). So unfortunately, I’m going to side with the people telling you to suck it up and make better lineups. I don’t spend tons of time researching or deep-diving statistical trends and data, et cetera, and certainly am not getting anywhere close to maxing entries in contests, either.

    It is what it is, and everybody can’t be profitable. With a 15% rake, some people (a lot of people, actually) are going to have to lose money. There’s just no way around that.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    I hate these restrictions to low buy-in tournaments. There is such a thing as a small-time mass-entry player. I want to grind my way up to higher buy-ins by mass entering lower buy-ins. Last NFL seasons I was max entering the 25-cent GPPs on DraftKings but when they lowered the limit to 50 it threw a wrench in my strategy. Now I have to go all the way to a $3 buy-in to enter more than 50 lineups in a big GPP. But what if $450 is not smart to play with my bankroll? Why does it have to jump up from $12.50 to max enter a quarter arcade, to $50 to max enter a $1 GPP, to $100 to max enter a $2 GPP, to $450 to max enter a $3 GPP. That leaves a huge gap. Now it’s not possible to grind my way up to those levels without making poor bankroll management decisions.

    I’m not a shark. At least I don’t think so—I’m down overall. But by any definition that includes total entries, or total winnings, I would be counted as a shark. By many of your all proposals, I would just stop playing rather than be forced to move up to stakes I can’t afford to play. DraftKings would lose my business and the field would lose out on all the money they’ve won from me.

    I have no problem with beginner contests. But if you want to make all low buy-in contests effectively beginner contests, that’s a huge problem. It means you’re cutting out the “middle class” players. You’re left with only beginners and sharks. Because once you’re no longer a beginner, you have to face the sharks. And if all the low buy-in contests are now off-limits to you, you’re forced to face the sharks in higher buy-ins. Which means either you realize you can’t afford the variance and you stop playing, or the sharks quickly take your money. Or I guess for a small %, you become a shark. If it means I have to play against better players than me, that’s fine. Because the alternative is worse.

    I realize my opinion is a minority. But I think the community is underestimating how hard it is to be a shark. They do not automatically win. What are they supposed to do if they have a losing streak? If they lose confidence in their strategy? If they have a medical emergency and have to spend down their bankroll? There are valid reasons to play lower buy-ins besides being a beginner. You all want to force people to make bad bankroll decisions so you face less competition. I think that is a bad look for DFS if it wants to avoid the gambling-related criticisms.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @TommyWantWingy33 said...

    My question to “the sites need all the money they can get” statement. What do the CEO’S take home each year? If a business truly cares about their customer/product and gets into legal trouble why should the customer get shafted because the sites did something wrong? You can’t tell me the big wigs at FD and DK take home a normal persons salary. I make 30k a year and can pay my bills/ ect. Same thing with politics if every politician gave up their salary for a year and put it towards the debt that’s what makes sense. YOU make the mistake YOU pay for it not your customers ect. Same with pro athletes oh no I’m “broke” can’t feed the family but I’ve got thousands/hundreds of thousands in the bank/assets. Give me a break Live off 30k a year and get back to me. Sorry for the rant but rich people falling on financial “tough times” really fires me up.

    As for the topic at hand I don’t think it’s as bad as it seems. You can easily avoid pro’s. My best advice to the OP the $5 giant double ups that are SINGLE ENTRY should be your best friend.

    Except that if the sites don’t do well it’s not an issue of the CEO taking home less pay, it’s an issue of the company being unable to pay its creditors, going bankrupt, and shutting down. It’s not about financial tough times, it’s about the industry’s continued existence. Unless DFS becomes part of the state lottery system or is otherwise nationalized, the DFS sites need to make a profit in order to justify their existence. That’s just how capitalism works.

  • Swish65

    I guess the ultimate solution would be to have all contests with 1,3,5, and 10 max entries regardless of entry fee. Of course that limits prize pools drastically, but I don’t see people stop playing because of it. I think regulation may make that very thing a possibility, unless sites start doing it more drastically themselves. Limits of 250,150, and 50 hardly deter “sharks” from entering low dollar contests. Would they be so interested playing a $1 contest, or a $2 double up if they could only put in a max of 10 entries? Probably not worth it for them. In that way you wouldn’t be saying they couldn’t play those contests, just making it not profitable enough.
    Personally I enjoy the excitement of the chance at winning a $3 GPP for a few thousand dollars, but I do so knowing full well the odds are incredibly stacked against me. I just don’t like seeing those odds in low dollar contests.
    I’ll just keep trying to get better at DFS, and hopefully the system will change to a reasonable compromise for all.

  • TommyWantWingy33

    @hendog said...

    Except that if the sites don’t do well it’s not an issue of the CEO taking home less pay, it’s an issue of the company being unable to pay its creditors, going bankrupt, and shutting down. It’s not about financial tough times, it’s about the industry’s continued existence. Unless DFS becomes part of the state lottery system or is otherwise nationalized, the DFS sites need to make a profit in order to justify their existence. That’s just how capitalism works.

    So your saying that a CEO taking home less money has no chance to keep a company from going bankrupt?

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @TommyWantWingy33 said...

    So your saying that a CEO taking home less money has no chance to keep a company from going bankrupt?

    Sure, the CEO of a company in danger of going bankrupt should take less money to slightly increase the company’s chance of survival. But you can’t act like the only thing at stake when it comes to the profitability of DFS is how comfortably the CEO lives. If the sites are going down, the CEOs could forego their salary and the sites would be able to stay operational for like 2 hours longer.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Swish65 said...

    I guess the ultimate solution would be to have all contests with 1,3,5, and 10 max entries regardless of entry fee. Of course that limits prize pools drastically, but I don’t see people stop playing because of it. I think regulation may make that very thing a possibility, unless sites start doing it more drastically themselves. Limits of 250,150, and 50 hardly deter “sharks” from entering low dollar contests. Would they be so interested playing a $1 contest, or a $2 double up if they could only put in a max of 10 entries? Probably not worth it for them. In that way you wouldn’t be saying they couldn’t play those contests, just making it not profitable enough.
    Personally I enjoy the excitement of the chance at winning a $3 GPP for a few thousand dollars, but I do so knowing full well the odds are incredibly stacked against me. I just don’t like seeing those odds in low dollar contests.
    I’ll just keep trying to get better at DFS, and hopefully the system will change to a reasonable compromise for all.

    Except they already have contests with 1 and 3 max entries. Not sure about 5 or 10. But what’s wrong with the continued existence of larger contests? You don’t have to play them, you know. If you only want to play 1 and 3 max contests that is already possible.

    Maybe I misunderstood your point?

  • TommyWantWingy33

    @hendog said...

    Sure, the CEO of a company in danger of going bankrupt should take less money to slightly increase the company’s chance of survival. But you can’t act like the only thing at stake when it comes to the profitability of DFS is how comfortably the CEO lives. If the sites are going down, the CEOs could forego their salary and the sites would be able to stay operational for like 2 hours longer.

    Yeah your probably right. just so much money that it seems absurd to me that DK needs to scratch and claw for every last dollar.

  • rainbowtroutman

    @britdevine said...

    The sites are at a point where they have massive legal bills and are facing pressure to be profitable

    Over time I think you will start to see some limits on the amount of 25 cent -$2 games a person can play a night, the sites need every dollar they can get right now

    With all due respect,I find it laughable that we should care about the sites financial problems. They,especially DK,did it to themselves thru what I see as pure greed. However,when I withdrew my money from DK after the Chipolteaddict “incident” ,I did leave in around 85 cents so they can have that to help with their “legal troubles”.

  • Swish65

    @hendog said...

    Except they already have contests with 1 and 3 max entries. Not sure about 5 or 10. But what’s wrong with the continued existence of larger contests? You don’t have to play them, you know. If you only want to play 1 and 3 max contests that is already possible.

    Maybe I misunderstood your point?

    I was just trying to address some peoples concerns where I suggested that players with large $ accounts be unable to play in low dollar contests. Limiting entries on ALL contests would not single out “sharks” from being prohibited playing low dollar contests. It would just make it much less desirable because profit, for them, would be very negligible.

  • Rycol19

    Why hasn’t the cash strapped DFS companies used the legal system to get out from under their so called insurmountable debt? It’s done everyday with the Trumps of the world ( just an example, not a political statement ) they get the creditors off their back and reorganize their company. Then the DFS site can institute new guidelines on playing their games when it comes to pros and casual players. The government isn’t shutting down the DFS sites anytime soon because they also get their fair share. I’m by know means a pro or a shark but I did pay more to the IRS in DFS winnings than I paid from my 8-4 job, and that’s why the Feds will not let the states shut them down. They are just waiting for the right time to pounce on the situation.

  • DFSpawn

    That’s hot!

  • Heterodox

    @hendog said...

    I hate these restrictions to low buy-in tournaments. There is such a thing as a small-time mass-entry player. I want to grind my way up to higher buy-ins by mass entering lower buy-ins. Last NFL seasons I was max entering the 25-cent GPPs on DraftKings but when they lowered the limit to 50 it threw a wrench in my strategy. Now I have to go all the way to a $3 buy-in to enter more than 50 lineups in a big GPP. But what if $450 is not smart to play with my bankroll? Why does it have to jump up from $12.50 to max enter a quarter arcade, to $50 to max enter a $1 GPP, to $100 to max enter a $2 GPP, to $450 to max enter a $3 GPP. That leaves a huge gap. Now it’s not possible to grind my way up to those levels without making poor bankroll management decisions.

    I’m not a shark. At least I don’t think so—I’m down overall. But by any definition that includes total entries, or total winnings, I would be counted as a shark. By many of your all proposals, I would just stop playing rather than be forced to move up to stakes I can’t afford to play. DraftKings would lose my business and the field would lose out on all the money they’ve won from me.

    I have no problem with beginner contests. But if you want to make all low buy-in contests effectively beginner contests, that’s a huge problem. It means you’re cutting out the “middle class” players. You’re left with only beginners and sharks. Because once you’re no longer a beginner, you have to face the sharks. And if all the low buy-in contests are now off-limits to you, you’re forced to face the sharks in higher buy-ins. Which means either you realize you can’t afford the variance and you stop playing, or the sharks quickly take your money. Or I guess for a small %, you become a shark. If it means I have to play against better players than me, that’s fine. Because the alternative is worse.

    I 100% agree with this, and it’s taken me a long time to come around to this view. I’ve been critical of mass entry in the past, but my perspective has evolved, as I think I’ve pretty much gotten what I can out of the “enter 10 lineups in a $3 gpp” approach. While that’s fine for people who play casually, it’s not fun for me anymore. It’s actually torture, and it’s a dead-end. I didn’t get in to DFS for it to be a mindless, casual thing. I have an xbox for that. I wanted something I could grow with and get better at and advance in. I’ve spent all this time developing skills and perspectives that I never had before, which even if DFS went away right now I would be glad for, because I think they make me a smarter and more well-rounded person overall. But it would be a shame if short-sighted overreactions wound up resulting in people like me not being able to apply those skills to the thing we developed them for. I accept that I didn’t get in early enough to reap the windfalls that some did, just like I missed the boat on the poker boom too. But I would hate for what pathways that still exist to be taken away prematurely, in response to misdirected outrage.

    I remember the thread about Ganondorf max-entering the Quarter Arcade. I might even have posted in it. I’m all for finding ways to keep people like him from exploiting those who either can’t compete with them or don’t even have any real idea of what they’re up against. But I also think we need to keep what Hendog says in mind or risk turning this into a game no “serious casual”, which I think you could call me, and can probably call a lot of people on this site, has any reason to play, because we can’t realize an edge in the smaller buy-in games and we can’t afford to play the higher ones.

  • Cpjttogether

    Its My turn to win

  • Cpjttogether

    .

  • Cpjttogether

    All things are possible.

  • depalma13

    @Cpjttogether said...

    its harder than horse racing.

    The sites have set up their gpps for churn, they don’t care about win percentages. They want players to deposit, play through all that money and redeposit. They figured out that players who win large gpps are going to take most of that money out. So they lowered the big payoffs and allowed more people to cash. No one is withdrawing the $4 they won in a $2 gpp, it will just be played again.

    Baseball use to be extremely profitable for me, but once they lowered the top prizes that all changed. I’m still winning at the same percentage, but the payoff is well below what the actually risk is. I’ve switched most of my play back to horse racing because the payoffs are just so much better for the actually risk that is taken.

  • shaunovery

    personally, as a single or just a couple of lineups guy, i enjoy having the big players in the contests, it gives me the chance to compare my skills with theres.

    to my amazment i even beat a couple of the grinders hosts the other night

  • usagambler

    Agree 100% with OP. I have been thinking of this for a while for some possible solutions to the flawed DFS business model. I get discouraged seeing these guys who play for thousands in little $5 and less double ups. Not only do they enter them but often you see several lineups with the exact same lineup as theirs. These are in single entry double ups so they are taking several spots. I’ve seen as many as 10-12 lineups the same in a double up that pays the top 100. This is a problem. One solution is for single entry contests every lineup should be different. If someone already has that lineup you need to enter another contest or change a player.

    Another possible solution would be similar to what you have suggested. I would suggest you can only enter contests based on a , say 1, of what you are betting on a slate. So if you are betting over $100 on a slate you can’t play in any $1 contests, over $200 than no $2 contests, etc.

  • freeannyong

    @hendry said...

    DK already limits $1 and $2 games to 50 a slate. OP – Try entering closer to gametime. I think you’ll find that many high volume players have already maxed out their 50.

    This is only specific to the non-guaranteed contents. They can (and plenty do) enter every guaranteed contest at the $1 & $2 level on every slate.

  • Brosejr917

    How about a similar “skill” rating in certain contests like madden does for head to head online contest where you are playing players of your “skill”. Surely they can develop this. I know this will be a cost to the sites but believe it will sustain the ecosystem a lot longer

  • TheRyanFlaherty

    There’s another part of the equation that nobody seems to be factoring in…
    These sites are selling an addictive product.
    Now that doesn’t apply to every user, and I’m not going to get into the whole is it/isn’t it gambling semantics, because I think most people do realize that for a portion of the player base DFS is a form of legal sports betting and has some addictive quality (It doesn’t have to be self-destructive, it can be as little as feeling the need to play each night or missing it if there’s a day with no games, etc.)
    There’s a larger safety net for these companies if for every user that plays, doesn’t have much fun, and decides to stop, there is another user, if not 2 or 3 that are hooked. Plus it’s not like sports fans who turn 18 with disposable income and questionable decision making, is a customer base that will magically disappear.
    Now it’s not a wise move to ignore casual/smaller players for long term growth and I think some of their policies/changes show they are trying…but again, when that’s not the case, remember the service they are selling.

  • 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.

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler