INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • querb

    Saw this on twitter:

    does this mean i dont have to play against chipotle addict and csu ram in $2 50/50s and 5 man cash games?

  • bigez952

    @coachspitz said...

    so I guess the new multi entry limit means no more massive $3 Milly Maker to start off the NFL season?

    These entry limits won’t prevent that type of contest being posted but considering how there was massive overlay in that contest last year and it was a huge loss for DK I would personally be surprised if they ever did another $3 one. My guess is they will still have Milly Makers but they will be posted for the $33 price point like they have been doing for the PGA majors.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @bigez952 said...

    These entry limits won’t prevent that type of contest being posted but considering how there was massive overlay in that contest last year and it was a huge loss for DK I would personally be surprised if they ever did another $3 one. My guess is they will still have Milly Makers but they will be posted for the $33 price point like they have been doing for the PGA majors.

    Last year, most Milly Makers for NFL were at a $20 price point. Hopefully they continue that. I much prefer that over the $33.

  • DSofM

    • 289

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #53

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2020 NASCAR Live Finalist

    • Blogger of the Month

    I’m happy to see this but I don’t understand why they still need to keep the lower stakes stuff at 20 entries.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    By the way, I think this is a great step by DK. I’m trying to figure out if I’m one of the people who’s restricted by this (if not, I’ll be there sometime this NFL season), but I never join those types of contests anyway. It mainly restricts that select group of pros who enter basically every contest.

    So, while only a small amount of actual players will be restricted from these contests, everybody else who plays them instantly increases their EV. If you’re a small stakes player, this essentially takes the top 1% of DFS players out of the competition (in $5 and under $25k prize pools), which should make a lot more people profitable at the lower stakes. This benefits the more disciplined low-stakes players the most, because many will still join the higher prize pool contests despite the softer competition and better profit potential in the smaller contests.

  • EasyRawlins

    @texasrangersfan said...

    No, but now you get to play against their wives and girlfriends.

    Yes……the Gretzky/Manning Principle.

  • Unico10

    • 650

      RG Overall Ranking

    Guess we will look tomorrow because sure enough the $5 DU multientry is not playing under the new guidelines ($12K prize pool)

  • coachspitz

    @Lathum said...

    Why not?

    It’s $5 and under 25k prize oool.

    Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but this new rule seems to squash it

    · Multi-Entry Limit — Multi-Entry Limit has been lowered from 150 to 20 for any contest with an entry fee less than $5. We are also looking to add more limited entry games at a wide range of price points.

  • FFguru71

    LOL This is a joke DK…Gee, anything $5 and under and $25000 prize pools or less. What a major effect that will have…NOT. It doesn’t stop them from entering anything above $5 contests…like $9, $10 etc or even the $5 contests with higher then 25K prize pools. It’s a facade to make it seem like they are really cracking down. Until the sites decide to lower the max entries(to a reasonable number) for the big GPP’s…or limit them at a certain price range REGARDLESS of the prize pool, the BS will continue to go on. 25K prize pools are nothing. Most people want a reasonable shot at winning the big $$, this does nothing to help with that. Absolute joke.

  • qutgnt25

    Give these guys a break. Arguing about the line in the sand as to where this occurs is ridiculous. This is a fair compromise that still allows you to have massive prize pools at the $6 and $9 leve and above. Without the big ME players there are no ridiculous prize pools. Those that are new and casual are usually playing in these smaller buy in games. Now hopefully they win more and play more and then hopefully taking shots at the bigger buy in levels in the future. Again with out 150 entries in the big gpp’s there are NO millionaire maker contests. Can’t have it both ways. Great job in this aspect by DK. Now if they just fix some other things…..

  • hendry

    @escot4 said...

    If you’re a small stakes player, this essentially takes the top 1% of DFS players out of the competition (in $5 and under $25k prize pools), which should make a lot more people profitable at the lower stakes.

    it is possible that theres players that are very healthy for the low stakes games that will be excluded though too.

  • FFguru71

    @qutgnt25 said...

    Give these guys a break. Arguing about the line in the sand as to where this occurs is ridiculous. This is a fair compromise that still allows you to have massive prize pools at the $6 and $9 leve and above. Without the big ME players there are no ridiculous prize pools. Those that are new and casual are usually playing in these smaller buy in games. Now hopefully they win more and play more and then hopefully taking shots at the bigger buy in levels in the future. Again with out 150 entries in the big gpp’s there are NO millionaire maker contests. Can’t have it both ways. Great job in this aspect by DK. Now if they just fix some other things…..

    I think part of what makes the new/casual players play the smaller contests is because with the ridiculous # of entries allowed in the large GPP’s, a lot of them figure why should I even bother..I’m never going to win anyway going against that many multi entry people. I think limiting entries even further would bring in a lot of newer, casual players and thus making up for some of the loss in dropping the max entries..I mean, if you make the Milly maker $20 every week and say you have 500,000 entries and limit the # of entries to say 5 each…I’m guessing a majority of people that that would enter that contest would be willing to max enter 5 times at $20/piece..Not too hard to imagine really.

    It should be noted, I am specifically talking about football here, which is a completely different animal then NBA or MLB which is every day and FB is once a week. Everyone plays football. It’s all I play since they got rid of college sports.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @FFguru71 said...

    LOL This is a joke DK…Gee, anything $5 and under and $25000 prize pools or less. What a major effect that will have…NOT. It doesn’t stop them from entering anything above $5 contests…like $9, $10 etc or even the $5 contests with higher then 25K prize pools. It’s a facade to make it seem like they are really cracking down. Until the sites decide to lower the max entries(to a reasonable number) for the big GPP’s…or limit them at a certain price range REGARDLESS of the prize pool, the BS will continue to go on. 25K prize pools are nothing. Most people want a reasonable shot at winning the big $$, this does nothing to help with that. Absolute joke.

    So let’s get this straight… you want: a)Top players to be restricted from all contests $10 and under, b)lower max entries in the largest tournaments, and c)large prize pools.

    Here are my issues with that: a)Being good at DFS shouldn’t exclude you from contests with the highest prize pools, b and c)the largest tournaments would get a lot smaller with lower max entries, which can only result in smaller prize pools.

    This is a competition…for money. If you want to win the biggest money, you SHOULD have to beat the top players. Sometimes the highest top prize of a day is from a $3 contest with a large prize pool. Pros shouldn’t be excluded from those contests when they are a large reason why the sites can even offer contests with such large prize pools.

    If you want to have a fun experience and still have a shot at winning over $1,000 in a night without facing the top pros at low buy-ins… that’s now possible too. That was a legitimate concern for a lot of small stakes players, and now there’s an alternative. But I’ll never understand the feeling of being entitled to winning the biggest contests without having to beat the top players.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @FFguru71 said...

    I think part of what makes the new/casual players play the smaller contests is because with the ridiculous # of entries allowed in the large GPP’s, a lot of them figure why should I even bother..I’m never going to win anyway going against that many multi entry people. I think limiting entries even further would bring in a lot of newer, casual players and thus making up for some of the loss in dropping the max entries..I mean, if you make the Milly maker $20 every week and say you have 500,000 entries and limit the # of entries to say 5 each…I’m guessing a majority of people that that would enter that contest would be willing to max enter 5 times at $20/piece..Not too hard to imagine really.

    There could be no Milly Maker with a 5 entry max. It wouldn’t come close to filling.

  • FFguru71

    @escot4 said...

    So let’s get this straight… you want: a)Top players to be restricted from all contests $10 and under, b)lower max entries in the largest tournaments, and c)large prize pools.

    Here are my issues with that: a)Being good at DFS shouldn’t exclude you from contests with the highest prize pools, b and c)the largest tournaments would get a lot smaller with lower max entries, which can only result in smaller prize pools.

    This is a competition…for money. If you want to win the biggest money, you SHOULD have to beat the top players. Sometimes the highest top prize of a day is from a $3 contest with a large prize pool. Pros shouldn’t be excluded from those contests when they are a large reason why the sites can even offer contests with such large prize pools.

    If you want to have a fun experience and still have a shot at winning over $1,000 in a night without facing the top pros at low buy-ins… that’s now possible too. That was a legitimate concern for a lot of small stakes players, and now there’s an alternative. But I’ll never understand the feeling of being entitled to winning the biggest contests without having to beat the top players.

    Escot, I have nothing against you at all…but i ask this question honestly and as respectfully as I can..as high roller, and someone who has won big several times..You say pros shouldn’t be excluded from the top contests. and I’d say, why do you need to enter a large GPP pool with a $3 entry fee?? ..My question is(and I’d ask any high roller this), how much money can you possibly need?? If you win a milly maker and can’t live the rest of your life on that(and your family can’t), then their is something wrong in my opinion. You have to admit, for a lot of the high rollers like chipotle, sahiil etc, doesn’t it at some point become about greed?? I can 100% say if i ever won a milly maker, I’d be done with DFS forever at that point. I would have reached the “holy grail”, and I’d know I’d have plenty enough money to survive the rest of my life on…so the thrill and excitement would be gone, and if I kept playing after that, I’d know i was only doing it to be greedy, and frankly, I couldn’t morally accept that.

  • Zieg30

    @FFguru71 said...

    I’d know I’d have plenty enough money to survive the rest of my life on…so the thrill and excitement would be gone, and if I kept playing after that, I’d know i was only doing it to be greedy, and frankly, I couldn’t morally accept that.

    This is a tangential point, but ~$550,000 (after taxes) may be enough to survive the rest of ones’ life on in certain very rural areas of the U.S., but it is hardly actual wealth (e.g. think about how much a nice house alone would eat into that)

    It’s also not that much if you intend to have a family anywhere in the U.S. And, part of having a family is wanting to be able to support one’s children and frankly leave a bunch of money to them.

    In sum, yes, $550,000 is good money if you live alone in a very rural area of the U.S., but under no other circumstances does it set anyone up for life.

  • FFguru71

    @Zieg30 said...

    This is a tangential point, but ~$550,000 (after taxes) may be enough to survive the rest of ones’ life on in certain very rural areas of the U.S., but it is hardly actual wealth (e.g. think about how much a nice house alone would eat into that)

    It’s also not that much if you intend to have a family anywhere in the U.S. And, part of having a family is wanting to be able to support one’s children and frankly leave a bunch of money to them.

    In sum, yes, $550,000 is good money if you live alone in a very rural area of the U.S., but under no other circumstances does it set anyone up for life.

    Understood, however, most of the top pros…have won several million dollars, at least. That was my point..for the top guys, at some point, after you have already won that much money, isn’t it purely about greed at that point?? Hell, even with $550,000 if you invest that properly, you could go a long ways on just the interest alone.

  • Zieg30

    @FFguru71 said...

    Understood, however, most of the top pros…have won several million dollars, at least. That was my point..for the top guys, at some point, after you have already won that much money, isn’t it purely about greed at that point?? Hell, even with $550,000 if you invest that properly, you could go a long ways on just the interest alone.

    In this low-interest environment, it requires a ton more money than it used to to live on interest from previously-accumulated wealth alone.

    As for greed, I just don’t see it that way. This is their job. It doesn’t require greed to keep at it. I don’t consider a major league baseball player greedy for signing another contract at age 28 even though they’ve made millions already. Or, more mundanely, for a lawyer to stay at his/her law firm at age 50 even after he’s/she’s saved $1,000,000 in the bank. People have lives, families, etc. Retiring early is a luxury.

  • qsczserrrr010

    @Zieg30 said...

    In this low-interest environment, it requires a ton more money than it used to to live on interest from previously-accumulated wealth alone.

    As for greed, I just don’t see it that way. This is their job. It doesn’t require greed to keep at it. I don’t consider a major league baseball player greedy for signing another contract at age 28 even though they’ve made millions already. Or, more mundanely, for a lawyer to stay at his/her law firm at age 50 even after he’s/she’s saved $1,000,000 in the bank. People have lives, families, etc. Retiring early is a luxury.

    And believe it or not, pros may actually enjoy playing just like casual players do.

  • Lathum

    @FFguru71 said...

    Escot, I have nothing against you at all…but i ask this question honestly and as respectfully as I can..as high roller, and someone who has won big several times..You say pros shouldn’t be excluded from the top contests. and I’d say, why do you need to enter a large GPP pool with a $3 entry fee?? ..My question is(and I’d ask any high roller this), how much money can you possibly need?? If you win a milly maker and can’t live the rest of your life on that(and your family can’t), then their is something wrong in my opinion. You have to admit, for a lot of the high rollers like chipotle, sahiil etc, doesn’t it at some point become about greed?? I can 100% say if i ever won a milly maker, I’d be done with DFS forever at that point. I would have reached the “holy grail”, and I’d know I’d have plenty enough money to survive the rest of my life on…so the thrill and excitement would be gone, and if I kept playing after that, I’d know i was only doing it to be greedy, and frankly, I couldn’t morally accept that.

    You are either very young, very naive, or both, if you think 1 million dollars, after taxes, is really that much money.

  • FFguru71

    @Lathum said...

    You are either very young, very naive, or both, if you think 1 million dollars, after taxes, is really that much money.

    Not young at all, certainly not naive. I don’t need flashy things, or live a life of luxury. I live a very simple life…I could easily live the rest of my life(given my age) on 1 million dollars. It’s all in how you want to live your life I suppose.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @FFguru71 said...

    Understood, however, most of the top pros…have won several million dollars, at least. That was my point..for the top guys, at some point, after you have already won that much money, isn’t it purely about greed at that point?? Hell, even with $550,000 if you invest that properly, you could go a long ways on just the interest alone.

    I would disagree that most top pros have won (by that I mean profited) several million dollars. That said, I can answer for myself at least since I have… so here’s my answer:

    I play DFS full-time. It has turned out to be the best way for me to make a living efficiently, I love what I do, and I love that it has provided a ton of security for the future of my family. However, there’s no guarantee that DFS will even exist 5 years from now, there’s no health care benefits, no retirement plan, and no guarantee that I’ll stay profitable the whole time I play. Also, it’s a game that I’m playing against other people who also have the disposable income to play with. It’s not like I’m taking food off the table of anyone. Entering the low buy-in, high prize pool contests makes too much sense. If, after 60+ hours of work each week, you could click your mouse a few extra times to give yourself a $1,000 per week raise, are you telling me you wouldn’t do it?

    Why keep going at anything if you have a lot of early success and money? Should NBA players who make $4 million as a rookie retire and let other players get a piece of the pie after? Why shouldn’t somebody try to reach the top in DFS? I play because I want to be the best, and I want to live in a way that allows me to do the things I love. There is a lot of strong competition out there, and they aren’t just going to give their money away. You have to outwork/outsmart (or occasionally out-luck) thousands of players to win big tournaments. I love the strategy, love the process, and love the results. Why would I want to give that up? I’ve never had this much success in anything else.

  • FFguru71

    @escot4 said...

    I would disagree that most top pros have won (by that I mean profited) several million dollars. That said, I can answer for myself at least since I have… so here’s my answer:

    I play DFS full-time. It has turned out to be the best way for me to make a living efficiently, I love what I do, and I love that it has provided a ton of security for the future of my family. However, there’s no guarantee that DFS will even exist 5 years from now, there’s no health care benefits, no retirement plan, and no guarantee that I’ll stay profitable the whole time I play. Also, it’s a game that I’m playing against other people who also have the disposable income to play with. It’s not like I’m taking food off the table of anyone. Entering the low buy-in, high prize pool contests makes too much sense. If, after 60+ hours of work each week, you could click your mouse a few extra times to give yourself a $1,000 per week raise, are you telling me you wouldn’t do it?

    Why keep going at anything if you have a lot of early success and money? Should NBA players who make $4 million as a rookie retire and let other players get a piece of the pie after? Why shouldn’t somebody try to reach the top in DFS? I play because I want to be the best, and I want to live in a way that allows me to do the things I love. There is a lot of strong competition out there, and they aren’t just going to give their money away. You have to outwork/outsmart (or occasionally out-luck) thousands of players to win big tournaments. I love the strategy, love the process, and love the results. Why would I want to give that up? I’ve never had this much success in anything else.

    Thanks for the response…so basically, you do you?? That’s fair. Two more questions..and again this would apply to ALL the top pros, and I know the answer to this, but I think most of the top pros would flat out lie about it. 1st question…you say you want to be the best at DFS. I can applaud that..but to me, wouldn’t being the best be winning the amount of $$ you have, only doing it with one entry every single time?? Now THAT would tell me someone is the best at DFS. There is ZERO chance you can tell me honestly, that you(and the other pros), would win nearly as much as you do if you fired one single bullet every single time.. basically, if it was mano y mano vs whoever you fire one bullet, they fire one bullet every time, you would not have nearly the success that you do.

    Also, and I also know if pros are honest they know the answer to this to..If you had to play DFS with no ability to research anything, no fancy computer programs to use, no nothing…and just had to use the knowledge you have of the players/sport that you play..you’d fail, and probably miserably. My point is, DFS is a game of numbers and really has nothing to do with the knowledge someone has of that particualr sport. In fact, I’d wager a lot of the top guys aren’t even particularly big sports fans, but they are good with numbers, and that’s why they win so often .Agreed??

  • qutgnt25

    I’m no pro but I love the argument that most make saying this is a game of entertainment, that it should be your best one entry vs my best entry. It’s a joke. Honestly DK gives two shits about players. In DKs perfect world they want EVERY cent you deposit. Of course they want you to “have fun “ while doing it but they want your churn and rake. That is why a lot of these new rules have come about. Typically your money goes to escot or chipotle addict. DK since they have tens of millions to pay to VC are making these changes to take the money out of the pros pockets and into their pockets. These pros aren’t obligated to make sure the casuals win. I love the argument that fish make that they only play for fun. F no. EVERYONE plays to try to win. DK realizes they stand a way better chance of getting the fishes deposits by creating these rules opposed to their deposits going to the. 01 percent of pros. That is why we have these new rules. No one who plays dfs is entitled to anything accept a fair and transparent game.

  • qutgnt25

    This is not about who is best at dfs but who can win the most money.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @FFguru71 said...

    Thanks for the response…so basically, you do you?? That’s fair. Two more questions..and again this would apply to ALL the top pros, and I know the answer to this, but I think most of the top pros would flat out lie about it. 1st question…you say you want to be the best at DFS. I can applaud that..but to me, wouldn’t being the best be winning the amount of $$ you have, only doing it with one entry every single time?? Now THAT would tell me someone is the best at DFS. There is ZERO chance you can tell me honestly, that you(and the other pros), would win nearly as much as you do if you fired one single bullet every single time.. basically, if it was mano y mano vs whoever you fire one bullet, they fire one bullet every time, you would not have nearly the success that you do.

    Also, and I also know if pros are honest they know the answer to this to..If you had to play DFS with no ability to research anything, no fancy computer programs to use, no nothing…and just had to use the knowledge you have of the players/sport that you play..you’d fail, and probably miserably. My point is, DFS is a game of numbers and really has nothing to do with the knowledge someone has of that particualr sport. In fact, I’d wager a lot of the top guys aren’t even particularly big sports fans, but they are good with numbers, and that’s why they win so often .Agreed??

    1) No, I don’t agree that being the best means winning with a single entry every time. I believe being the best is more about winning the most you can while staying within the rules. Knowing that most of the top pros put in 150 lineups, being the best often means having the top ROI with 150 lineups. I realize that having 150 lineups gives me a leverage advantage over anybody with fewer lineups. However, I’ve won at least 2 tournaments that I can think of off the top of my head with a single entry that had over 20,000 entrants in them (one was 57,000), plus lots of smaller field tournaments with single entries, so it’s not like having tons of entries is the only reason for being successful.

    Here’s why single entries every time actually show less skill than multi: sample size. If I can only do 17 total lineups during an NFL season, I may or may not hit a big tournament once, but it’s highly unlikely to happen more than once with such little leverage compared to the rest of the field. Also, I’d be subject to far more variance because each week one injury or major bust would crush any chance I had. Building a “portfolio” of 150 lineups with the exact percentage exposure to each player that I want reflects more skill when it goes well, especially since other pros are doing the same. However, I would argue I’d still be one of the top players comparatively if everyone was single entry, as I’ve had a lot of success in those types of tournaments, it’s just that nobody would stand out because tournaments would be tiny as would prize pools.

    Obviously I wouldn’t have made as much if I could only play one entry every week, but I was never arguing that I could. That’s like telling somebody who makes $100k in the stock market, “yeah, but I bet you couldn’t do that if you could only make one trade per week.” Uhh, yeah, that’s obvious. I don’t understand the whole “one lineup is the only pure reflection of DFS skill” argument. If every contest was single entry, DFS sites wouldn’t be able to stay in business… they’d have already gone under.

    2) In what world does this question make any sense? If we couldn’t research anything, we wouldn’t know anything about the players in the first place outside of games we watched. I guess then it would be about whoever could watch the most games… then again that might be considered research, so I don’t know what you’re trying to prove there. The only “fancy computer program” I use is excel, if that could be considered fancy. But I made all my spreadsheets myself, my system isn’t really automated or anything, and I watch a ton of NFL and NBA. I would argue that my knowledge of both games is very good. I’ve been a huge fan of both since I was a kid, and I’m not just a pure math guy. So no, not agreed.

  • 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), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.