NBA FORUM

Comments

  • lineupofpeace

    Just got an e-mail about this. Also giving players multiple position eligibility.

  • lloydjv1

    @billholler said...

    No, Jimmy Butler

    LOL. Yeah i had him across the board last night too and this is unacceptable.

  • JZ

    I was one of the few unfortunate people to have Butler last night. I scored 269.5 and missed cashing in the majority of my double ups with out Butler on DK.

    Here is a fair solution that I think should be added to the rules that would make this game way better and give us protection to something like this:

    If player X is not listed on the injury report, and is ruled out after the time your lineup lock, at the discretion of Draftkings, your player will receive the implied points based on his salary.

    This essentially would be giving you the points of an average to below average game if your players doesn’t play and isn’t listed on the injury report, which will allow your night not to be ruined for factors completely unrelated to skill and not known. It would allow people protection who play for thousands of dollars a night.

    Even giving players half their implied total for situations like this, would be better than 0. And it can be completely at draftkings discretion. If there is no knowable information and the player is not on the injury report, then it is fair.

    I know for a fact that this cost draftkings a ton of money last night. They have every reason to do this. Add it to the rules and make it fair going forward. I was able to get them to give me my losses in bonus money being that I am a high volume player.

  • TeamTwerk

    @JZ said...

    I was one of the few unfortunate people to have Butler last night. I scored 269.5 and missed cashing in the majority of my double ups with out Butler on DK.

    Here is a fair solution that I think should be added to the rules that would make this game way better and give us protection to something like this:

    If player X is not listed on the injury report, and is ruled out after the time your lineup lock, at the discretion of Draftkings, your player will receive the implied points based on his salary.

    This essentially would be giving you the points of an average to below average game if your players doesn’t play and isn’t listed on the injury report, which will allow your night not to be ruined for factors completely unrelated to skill and not known. It would allow people protection who play for thousands of dollars a night.

    Even giving players half their implied total for situations like this, would be better than 0. And it can be completely at draftkings discretion. If there is no knowable information and the player is not on the injury report, then it is fair.

    I know for a fact that this cost draftkings a ton of money last night. They have every reason to do this. Add it to the rules and make it fair going forward. I was able to get them to give me my losses in bonus money being that I am a high volume player.

    It shouldn’t matter if somebody plays for thousands a night or $10 a night. Any refunds given or bonuses should be given to all affected customers without even having to ask for it.

  • Njsum1

    @JZ said...

    I was one of the few unfortunate people to have Butler last night. I scored 269.5 and missed cashing in the majority of my double ups with out Butler on DK.

    Here is a fair solution that I think should be added to the rules that would make this game way better and give us protection to something like this:

    If player X is not listed on the injury report, and is ruled out after the time your lineup lock, at the discretion of Draftkings, your player will receive the implied points based on his salary.

    This essentially would be giving you the points of an average to below average game if your players doesn’t play and isn’t listed on the injury report, which will allow your night not to be ruined for factors completely unrelated to skill and not known. It would allow people protection who play for thousands of dollars a night.

    Even giving players half their implied total for situations like this, would be better than 0. And it can be completely at draftkings discretion. If there is no knowable information and the player is not on the injury report, then it is fair.

    I know for a fact that this cost draftkings a ton of money last night. They have every reason to do this. Add it to the rules and make it fair going forward. I was able to get them to give me my losses in bonus money being that I am a high volume player.

    First off, you weren’t one of the few people affected by butlers late scratch, you were one of the many people affected (myself included) by Butlers late scratch as he was widely owned in cash and tournaments.

    However I still prefer no late swap. I also proposed a very reasonable solution to the problem if you read my post on the previous page. Such a solution can’t be that hard to implement, as other sites have done it successfully. It also addresses the uproar, that would happen under your solution when player A gets late scratched and all those who rostered him get his supposed points, and then player B gets Injured in the first 2 minutes of the game, and all those that rostered player B get a 0.

  • cleanslate

    You can’t give players their projected/average fantasy points, that is literally one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard. If we are just going to get a players implied points any time he is scratched what is the point of even playing DFS? The entire “edge” is figuring out which guys you think will go OVER their implied total. And guys like Butler, even when they play, also often have terrible games where they come up way short of their implied total or season average. Should people then get the benefit of the doubt any time a player is scratched that he is just a LOCK to get his season average of fantasy points? That is a ridiculous assumption.

    It also poses a ton of other problems. Take last night for instance with two players that were at very similar price points. If you went with a guy like Lowry over Butler in the flex or guard spot on DK, and DK awarded Bulter owners his implied/average fantasy points, he would have then outscored Lowry, thereby penalizing people that went with Lowry over Butler. How is that fair? A guy who DOESN’T play gets to outscore a guy that DOES, simply because his season average is higher than what the other guy ended up scoring that night? Lowry was in a good spot with DDR out, and yet he didn’t even HIT his season average. Yet we will just assume that Butler would have hit his season average without actually having played the game?

    Also, imagine a scenario where you have 2-3 guys ruled out after lock. They all should get their implied/season average points? This is a game of skill that involves some CHANCE. If we just start awarding guys points that didn’t actually play the game, DFS is no longer a game itself, it’s just a boring, everyone ties for first, plug in and play the lineup that projects for the highest amount of points each night.

    The only solution that would help alleviate these problems would be for a site to adopt a +1 roster format. Allow everyone to draft 9 players instead of 8 (or 10 instead of 9 on FD), and then drop the worst players score from EVERYONE’s roster at the end of the night, regardless of position, salary, circumstances. If you have a late scratch, you’re still in the game assuming all of your other players play that night. But you still lose a slight edge to a player that has a well constructed 10 player roster where every guy plays and he simply is assured that his WORST performer does not count towards his final score.

    If you adjust the overall salary cap so that the average amount of money you can spend per player is the same, I don’t see why this wouldn’t work. However, this idea has been proposed by myself and many others over the years and neither site has ever shown any inclination to try it. So, bottom line, late scratches are just part of the game, and as much as we all hate them, myself included, we have to just live with the rules accordingly.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #66

      RG Tiered Ranking

    I’m almost 100% positive I’ve lost more than almost every single one of you guys here due to not having the late swap. Earlier this season, I lost like 2k because Marc Gasol was ruled out after lock, I lost like 1k on New Year’s Eve because Porzingis was ruled out like 5 mins before lock, and I don’t have an auto script that can replace my players (if there was a late switch, I could have done it after lock manually), and I have a team of nearly 300 FP tonight with Kyrie Irving that would have had a good chance to win 50k in a GPP if he wasn’t hurt and just had a normal game.

    Yet I’m 100% ok with this no late switch. The only thing where I don’t like it is that if someone is ruled out like less than 10 mins before lock, people with scripts/bulk CSV downloads can easily change their players faster than people like me that manually enter players. However, if it is after lineup lock that a player is ruled out, that is totally fine. I think it’s 0 EV for everyone so some days you’ll get lucky on the variance and some days, you won’t.

    I’ve easily made back everything plus more I’ve lost from no late switching because in the long run it’s how good you are and you don’t care about this luck since it is 0 EV in the long run, so I have no issues. It’s an even playing field in my opinion (except for the bulk CSV edits to like 6:50 PM announcements – I have more complains about this).

    Also, I doubt people are going to stop playing simply because one of their players got ruled out after their lineup locks. I would get it if they did and there was a competitor site that had late switches, but both Fan Duel and Draft Kings don’t. Also, I think most super high stakes players that lose thousands on these types of things understand it’s more process oriented than results oriented in the short run and they can distinguish between luck/skill (something like this is 100% luck).

  • fsupete01

    @superstars92 said...

    Yet I’m 100% ok with this no late switch

    You shouldn’t be. Think of the dead money recreational player that doesn’t play every day. Those are the guys you want and if you alienate them because of this bad experience, they might not come back.

  • superstars92

    • 365

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #66

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @fsupete01 said...

    You shouldn’t be. Think of the dead money recreational player that doesn’t play every day. Those are the guys you want and if you alienate them because of this bad experience, they might not come back.

    Technically, I am a “recreational” player, if you want to define it that way. I don’t play full-time (I have another job), and I don’t play every day. I am not “dead money”, but I have lost money due to this non-late swap feature, and it hasn’t stopped me from playing more.

    If you are talking about like the people who play for 5-10 dollars a night and lose on average, I don’t think this would necessarily discourage them from playing. They probably just play for fun and know that on average they lose, so this wouldn’t really discourage them. In addition, like I mentioned above, there are no competitor websites to DK that offer a late swap feature that they would be able to transfer their money to except Yahoo. However, Yahoo is not really a true competitor and is a step below. Fan Duel also doesn’t offer this feature. Finally, there are also these recreational players who did not have Jimmy Butler (or player x whenever player x was late scratched) the other night that won because they did not have him, so with this argument, you could technically say they would then put in more money in the future because they won by not having a player who was late scratched.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    This is a dangerous post on a thread like this as I’m sure it will be received and countered with vitriol, but s anybody ever going to step forward and talk about making money on nights where there is a highly-owned scratch? I get that people hate it, but the only real solution is to play on yahoo (or other sites if they offer late swap). DK isn’t going to do anything about it, and FD isn’t going to do anything about it. We can hope they offer the option again after they officially merge, but basically this thread just adds another page of ideas and proposed solutions (a lot of which are honestly decent ideas, mind you) that the sites frankly don’t care about. Rake=rake to them, and that’s how they make their money. Every night, the same amount of people win and the same amount of people lose, even if 90% of the available players DNP. We can sit here and argue about how much it sucks/doesn’t suck until we’re blue in the face (which,46 pages into this thread, clearly we are) but the reality is, it just doesn’t matter. A few years back when FD and DK were active on these boards and weren’t monopolies, and actually seemed interested in our opinions? Sure. Now, though, we’re just farting in a closet and not understanding why it stinks and the people in the other room don’t smell it.

  • KindGuy

    @jimfred82 said...

    This is a dangerous post on a thread like this as I’m sure it will be received and countered with vitriol, but s anybody ever going to step forward and talk about making money on nights where there is a highly-owned scratch? I get that people hate it, but the only real solution is to play on yahoo (or other sites if they offer late swap). DK isn’t going to do anything about it, and FD isn’t going to do anything about it. We can hope they offer the option again after they officially merge, but basically this thread just adds another page of ideas and proposed solutions (a lot of which are honestly decent ideas, mind you) that the sites frankly don’t care about. Rake=rake to them, and that’s how they make their money. Every night, the same amount of people win and the same amount of people lose, even if 90% of the available players DNP. We can sit here and argue about how much it sucks/doesn’t suck until we’re blue in the face (which,46 pages into this thread, clearly we are) but the reality is, it just doesn’t matter. A few years back when FD and DK were active on these boards and weren’t monopolies, and actually seemed interested in our opinions? Sure. Now, though, we’re just farting in a closet and not understanding why it stinks and the people in the other room don’t smell it.

    Might want to sleep with on eye open tonight

  • Zieg30

    @cleanslate said...

    The only solution that would help alleviate these problems would be for a site to adopt a +1 roster format. Allow everyone to draft 9 players instead of 8 (or 10 instead of 9 on FD), and then drop the worst players score from EVERYONE’s roster at the end of the night, regardless of position, salary, circumstances. If you have a late scratch, you’re still in the game assuming all of your other players play that night. But you still lose a slight edge to a player that has a well constructed 10 player roster where every guy plays and he simply is assured that his WORST performer does not count towards his final score.

    I’ve never liked this solution, and never played on Victiv as a result (I believe that’s the site that utilized it).

    The only answer that doesn’t change the nature of the competition itself is for DK to offer some NBA GPP tournaments each night that contain late swap. The problem with this, of course, is that it’d divide the pool of players and make each individual GPP smaller, but if they keep them around the size of, say the 3-entry max tournaments, then that shouldn’t too bad, and should keep them big enough for those who favour late swap to be interested.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @elementasrat said...

    Might want to sleep with on eye open tonight

    haha. I pretty much do anyway these days; my two year old keeps waking up and saying “I scared… boy…” and pointing to the corner of his bedroom. I hate it.

  • Garrincha67

    @jimfred82 said...

    This is a dangerous post on a thread like this as I’m sure it will be received and countered with vitriol, but s anybody ever going to step forward and talk about making money on nights where there is a highly-owned scratch? I get that people hate it, but the only real solution is to play on yahoo (or other sites if they offer late swap). DK isn’t going to do anything about it, and FD isn’t going to do anything about it. We can hope they offer the option again after they officially merge, but basically this thread just adds another page of ideas and proposed solutions (a lot of which are honestly decent ideas, mind you) that the sites frankly don’t care about. Rake=rake to them, and that’s how they make their money. Every night, the same amount of people win and the same amount of people lose, even if 90% of the available players DNP. We can sit here and argue about how much it sucks/doesn’t suck until we’re blue in the face (which,46 pages into this thread, clearly we are) but the reality is, it just doesn’t matter. A few years back when FD and DK were active on these boards and weren’t monopolies, and actually seemed interested in our opinions? Sure. Now, though, we’re just farting in a closet and not understanding why it stinks and the people in the other room don’t smell it.

    Very true, take your money and play elsewhere that listens. Yahoo has late swap across all sports and rather be there. Of course no lottery size pools and payouts. But who cares about that ? Rather have all the tools available to react to late team news.

  • billholler

    @cleanslate said...

    The only solution that would help alleviate these problems would be for a site to adopt a +1 roster format. Allow everyone to draft 9 players instead of 8 (or 10 instead of 9 on FD), and then drop the worst players score from EVERYONE’s roster at the end of the night, regardless of position, salary, circumstances. If you have a late scratch, you’re still in the game assuming all of your other players play that night. But you still lose a slight edge to a player that has a well constructed 10 player roster where every guy plays and he simply is assured that his WORST performer does not count towards his final score.

    This has already been discussed in this thread and I think it’s a terrible idea. People will just throw in a min priced scrub that won’t even see the floor just so they can roster an extra star and still stay within salary.

  • brando8740

    Something needs to change. This is the 3rd time in a week I’ve had to deal with this. Butler, Irving and now Leonard. None of them on the IR. High priced guys. 15% roughly of salary used and drawing dead is a beyond awful feeling. I was under the impression DFS is about strategy and not as much about gambling. I’m not going go into details of different ideas. JUST HAVE LATE SWAPS. There’s only one way to change it. It has to be a group effort to not play on DK or FD until it’s changed. At minimum you should be able to swap to somebody else on that team if your player is a late scratch.

  • Njsum1

    @billholler said...

    This has already been discussed in this thread and I think it’s a terrible idea. People will just throw in a min priced scrub that won’t even see the floor just so they can roster an extra star and still stay within salary.

    Not true….as I stated earlier….on Victiv you could have a 2k scrub and spend 5k for the sub so what you suggested was often the optimal strategy. Yet if DK moved the sub price down to 3500 or even lower, giving only a 500 difference (or less) between min priced player and sub player, there would be much less incentive to roster a scrub to free up salary.

  • wideopen23

    I understand the frustration some of you have but until you understand the frustration of the casual fan that doesn’t have time to constantly check for injury updates at 6:59, 7:29, 7:59, 8:29, 8:59, 9:29, 9:59 and 10:29 you won’t see this thing the way FD and DK see it. FD and DK want to appeal to the general public and not just grinders that have all the time in the world to check injury updates and thereby giving them advantage over the casual fans.

    The way FD and DK handles it now, everyone is on an even playing field. Sure you lost with Butler a few nights ago, but there will be just as many nights where you cash because someone else lost a player late. It evens out over the long run.

    However, if you allow late swaps, it doesn’t even out. Those that can’t/don’t want to constantly check for injury news will never “even themselves out” with those that constantly check and make last second changes to their lineup at 9:59.

    Simply put, DK/FD wants to appeal to EVERYONE, not just grinders.

  • JZ

    My original idea is with the RARE exception that there is a late scratch of a player that was unknown and was not listed on the injury report. Thus, there was no skill involved in not playing Butler a few nights ago. It was impossible to know he would of been ruled out. I do not think it should be apply to guys that are probable or questionable who end up being ruled out after lock.

    There has to be a solution to protect players against this without letting people being able to circumvent the rules and the only thing I can think of is giving people a minimum baseline points for players that are ruled out that were not listed on the injury report. Even half their implied total would be better.

  • krazyju84

    @jimfred82 said...

    haha. I pretty much do anyway these days; my two year old keeps waking up and saying “I scared… boy…” and pointing to the corner of his bedroom. I hate it.

    how did everyone just cruise past this comment. gives me the chills

  • Njsum1

    @JZ said...

    My original idea is with the RARE exception that there is a late scratch of a player that was unknown and was not listed on the injury report. Thus, there was no skill involved in not playing Butler a few nights ago. It was impossible to know he would of been ruled out. I do not think it should be apply to guys that are probable or questionable who end up being ruled out after lock.

    There has to be a solution to protect players against this without letting people being able to circumvent the rules and the only thing I can think of is giving people a minimum baseline points for players that are ruled out that were not listed on the injury report. Even half their implied total would be better.

    Your initial post was replied to by two people, myself being one, both suggesting a similar solution which is FAR better than yours. You reposted what you wrote without even acknowledging the responses, either agreeing or disagreeing. At this point I’ll just assume you may just be trolling. In case, you honestly missed it…here’s the solution….in addition to the 8 positions, everyone gets to draft a near min priced sub player as well with a cap of 3500. So you get a 50k cap, and draft 8 players with the cap (same as now), then you get an additional 3500 for a sub (outside of the cap), for a total of 9 players. At the end of the night your top 8 scores count. Not only does this protect against a late scratch, but an in game injury, or a benching, or foul trouble, or just an absolutely terrible performance.

    As stated earlier, here is why your solution won’t work…you play player A, he gets late scratched…now you get 23 points (half his implied total)

    I roster player B, who gets injured one minute into the game. Why should you get 23 points and I get 0? We were both victims of bad luck. The only solution, other than bringing late swap back, is the substitute player option. The sub option allows for an early lock (which I and many others like) while protecting against late scratches, without giving anyone an unfair advantage.

  • KindGuy

    This thread is going nowhere.

    Majority of people prefer NO late swap. Deal with it. Speak with your wallet if you don’t like it.

  • jimmyd1507

    @JZ said...

    I was one of the few unfortunate people to have Butler last night. I scored 269.5 and missed cashing in the majority of my double ups with out Butler on DK.

    Here is a fair solution that I think should be added to the rules that would make this game way better and give us protection to something like this:

    If player X is not listed on the injury report, and is ruled out after the time your lineup lock, at the discretion of Draftkings, your player will receive the implied points based on his salary.

    This essentially would be giving you the points of an average to below average game if your players doesn’t play and isn’t listed on the injury report, which will allow your night not to be ruined for factors completely unrelated to skill and not known. It would allow people protection who play for thousands of dollars a night.

    Even giving players half their implied total for situations like this, would be better than 0. And it can be completely at draftkings discretion. If there is no knowable information and the player is not on the injury report, then it is fair.

    I know for a fact that this cost draftkings a ton of money last night. They have every reason to do this. Add it to the rules and make it fair going forward. I was able to get them to give me my losses in bonus money being that I am a high volume player.

    Or…

    Just bring back late swap.

    It’s that simple.

  • billholler

    @elementasrat said...

    This thread is going nowhere.

    Majority of people prefer NO late swap. Deal with it. Speak with your wallet if you don’t like it.

    You must not have read any of it. About 10% seem to like it, 30% are indifferent and the rest of us hate it. The 10% that like it tend to be the people that play almost every night but only play 1 or 2 lineups.

  • jimmyd1507

    @hishboo said...

    Yes, you could use those ownership percentages to your advantage in the later slates, and that’s exactly the reason I’ve seen them give for not including the full lineups and ownership percentages at lock.

    As for the second part, it would be criminal for them to do that, and it would be plain stupid for them to take a chance with something like that leaking.

    The ownership %‘s would be based off entirely different rosters with entirely different players and combinations.

    That doesn’t help you.

  • jimmyd1507

    @billholler said...

    You must not have read any of it. About 10% seem to like it, 30% are indifferent and the rest of us hate it. The 10% that like it tend to be the people that play almost every night but only play 1 or 2 lineups.

    Yeah I still don’t know any reason why you wouldn’t want it…

    Unless you just felt like being lazy.

  • 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.