INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • DraftKings_CM

    • DraftKings Representative

    On behalf of DraftKings, we are proud to announce our newly created Community team. Our group was formed to listen, engage, and advocate for the player community at large while championing our industry leading commitment to a world class game experience. We are here to represent your feedback inside the walls of DraftKings, because your ideas can help us deliver an increasingly better experience for all players. You can read our introductory post here: https://rotogrinders.com/threads/draftkings-cm-is-now-on-rotogrinders-2496208

    Now it’s your chance – what would you like to know? Do you have a suggestion you would like to share? We will do our best to answer all honest and respectful questions you post in this thread, in turn we hope to help players like you have a better understanding of how the world’s largest fantasy sports ecosystem works. Please allow us some time before responding to your questions and comments, you deserve well thought out answers – and that takes time.

    - DraftKings Community Team

  • webbm1

    Do you have any plans to bring back pitchers in Pick’Em mode? Also I play a mixture of all MLB modes but generally Showdown and Pick’Em if I am working till 12 (7ET). Is there any possibility of making the Solo Shot a bigger contest? I know it does vary but it seems like the top prize is always around the $150-$250 zone. Tonights is $150 and is almost a third full before most of the US is even awake. I’m sure the Pick’Em always fills so I don’t see the harm in making it a $5-10k Solo Shot with double the Top Prize.

    The alternative would be to make the Flare bigger, don’t get me wrong I’d love $75 in my bank account but If I was to Max Enter the Flare tonight it would cost me $26 but the Top Prize is only $75. It just seems abit underwhelming and I think bigger prize pools would attract more casual players to DraftKings and regular users who don’t have time to research for the Classic slate but have 20-30 minutes to play Pick’Em.

  • caleibold

    General question that I’m sure you all have research to support: Why does there need to be a $2 Tablesetter AND a $1 Mini Max?

    If top 400 players aren’t allowed in either, would the casual player not prefer one contest with 150 max entries in exchange for the larger payout that would come from essentially combining the two?

    I’ve seen it stated in here by DK that both:

    1) the 20-max entry policy is for casual players
    2) the big contests with steep payouts are also to attract casual players

    If both are equally important, it seems to me then that casual players would remain indifferent to there being one massive $1/$2 contest for each slate with 150 entries allowed.

    This brings me now to the “low stakes grinders” who would prefer 20-max to 150-max. Is there anyone out there who truly believes their single bullet has such a better chance to place high in a 20-max tournament, that they would prefer it over a much larger 150-max contest that pays out twice as much or more to the top ten finishers?

    We currently see a $1 Mini Max and a $2 Tablesetter with about the same number of entries on most slates, with the top scores for each not far off from each other at all. Maybe some people just like the idea of not going against people entering 150 entries (even if they’re not a top 400 player), but I can’t begin to imagine who tangibly benefits from this arrangement.

  • mike291md

    @caleibold said...

    . Is there anyone out there who truly believes their single bullet has such a better chance to place high in a 20-max tournament, that they would prefer it over a much larger 150-max contest that pays out twice as much or more to the top ten finishers?

    Me. 150 entries means 130 more player combinations which means even more necessity for you to need the perfect lineup to get a top 5 finish. I prefer the 20 max contests, it’s a nice window to me. The question then becomes, why can’t players have both? Why can’t we have 20 max for those who want less risk and 150 for those who want more. Of course, offer the higher guarantee for the 150 entry because you are taking on more risk.

  • britdevine

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    Please up the $1 150 to at least a 17.5k or a 20k while keeping the exact same structure as now with 10% to first and 20% of field paid

  • caleibold

    But if you’ve noticed, the difference in the top 10 of the $2 Tablesetter and $1 150-max each night is minimal, even with them having about the same number of total entries.

    I think that the impact of a 150-entry limit is much less than many think, especially in a contest like this with no top 400 players allowed, and that the increased upside of a bigger prize pool would vastly outweigh any impact there may be, regardless of how many entries you play.

  • caleibold

    @mike291md said...

    Me. 150 entries means 130 more player combinations which means even more necessity for you to need the perfect lineup to get a top 5 finish. I prefer the 20 max contests, it’s a nice window to me. The question then becomes, why can’t players have both? Why can’t we have 20 max for those who want less risk and 150 for those who want more. Of course, offer the higher guarantee for the 150 entry because you are taking on more risk.

    But if there are very many people that agree with you, good on DK for listening. I’ve just never understood it.

  • Njsum1

    Nice job DK offering a respectable QA tonight. I know it didn’t fill, yet it didn’t overlay either. Would like to see more QA’s this size or bigger if you bump the max entry to 150. Anyway, well done.

  • bigez952

    @mike291md said...

    Me. 150 entries means 130 more player combinations which means even more necessity for you to need the perfect lineup to get a top 5 finish. I prefer the 20 max contests, it’s a nice window to me. The question then becomes, why can’t players have both? Why can’t we have 20 max for those who want less risk and 150 for those who want more. Of course, offer the higher guarantee for the 150 entry because you are taking on more risk.

    This makes 0 sense so if 2 contests both have 50,000 lineups but only only allows 20 max while the other 150 why would the 20 entry max be less risk. Either one is going to have almost every wan pretty week covered where you need to be pretty close to win. I actually think it is easier to cash in the 150 max as you have way more dead lineups with people stacking bad teams with a % if their lineups as a just in case.

    If you want a good shot at a top 5 finish the entry limit is pretty much meaningless and what matters is the total number of entries so you should only play the small ones with 1000-5000 people. All the massive tournaments whether they allow 1-500 entries a person are going to take big scores to win.

  • mike291md

    @bigez952 said...

    This makes 0 sense so if 2 contests both have 50,000 lineups but only only allows 20 max while the other 150 why would the 20 entry max be less risk. Either one is going to have almost every wan pretty week covered where you need to be pretty close to win. I actually think it is easier to cash in the 150 max as you have way more dead lineups with people stacking bad teams with a % if their lineups as a just in case.

    If you want a good shot at a top 5 finish the entry limit is pretty much meaningless and what matters is the total number of entries so you should only play the small ones with 1000-5000 people. All the massive tournaments whether they allow 1-500 entries a person are going to take big scores to win.

    Because if each person is allowed to put in 130 more lineups there is greater variety now of lineup combinations for each particular person. I played that quarter buy-in 150 entry mini-max they ran in the beginning of the MLB season and the scores needed to cash were so insanely high it was ridiculous. Never again. I like the 20 max, it keeps it from getting too ridiculous.

    Like I said, they should offer a 20 AND a 150 entry for people. Don’t screw one faction of people to please another. If you want to up the prize pool for the 150 max then that makes sense because you are max entering for more money. But don’t just ask for the 20 entry to be thrown out the window just because YOU don’t see the sense in it. That’s incredibly close-minded.

    This isn’t 5 years ago. People now have a wealth of free advice and optimizers at their fingertips. You give someone 130 more bullets to put into a tournament and you are going to see WAY more lineup combinations being used.

    The 150’s are not for me. If you want that kind of tournament then DK should offer both and see if both fill sufficiently.

  • mike291md

    @bigez952 said...

    Either one is going to have almost every wan pretty week covered where you need to be pretty close to win.

    Also, just to clarify on this particular statement. This is untrue. 15-game slate, 20 max entry there is only so much you can do. But 15-game slate, 150 max entry and one person can do A LOT MORE. Just one person, now multiply that by how many people who usually max enter a contest. It’s not the same risk.

    Again, if you are going to do a 150 max entry, you can’t have payouts the same as a 20 max. You are going against way more lineup combinations in the 150.

  • DSofM

    • 69

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #3

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • Blogger of the Month

    @bigez952 said...

    This makes 0 sense so if 2 contests both have 50,000 lineups but only only allows 20 max while the other 150 why would the 20 entry max be less risk. Either one is going to have almost every wan pretty week covered where you need to be pretty close to win. I actually think it is easier to cash in the 150 max as you have way more dead lineups with people stacking bad teams with a % if their lineups as a just in case.

    If you want a good shot at a top 5 finish the entry limit is pretty much meaningless and what matters is the total number of entries so you should only play the small ones with 1000-5000 people. All the massive tournaments whether they allow 1-500 entries a person are going to take big scores to win.

    -

  • bigez952

    @mike291md said...

    Also, just to clarify on this particular statement. This is untrue. 15-game slate, 20 max entry there is only so much you can do. But 15-game slate, 150 max entry and one person can do A LOT MORE. Just one person, now multiply that by how many people who usually max enter a contest. It’s not the same risk.

    Again, if you are going to do a 150 max entry, you can’t have payouts the same as a 20 max. You are going against way more lineup combinations in the 150.

    This still makes 0 sense to me if both contests have 50,000 entries it is hard to believe that the 20 entry max world have significantly less lineup combinations to beat unless you can prove duplicate lineups are significantly higher in 1-20 max contests.

    150 max tournaments usually have higher winning scores since they are able to make those contests so much bigger so it makes sense as the contest grows the chnaces of a high winning score does as well regardless of where the entries are coming from. I have seen single entry tournaments have winning scores over the 150 max on a 1 slate sample size so it would be interesting to see the data how 150 max significantly increases what it takes to win over a meaningful sample size on similar sized contests and price points.

    I still believe that 150 max tournaments are easier to hit the top 20% to get 2-3X payouts due to so much more dead lineups from people willing to stack teams in bad spots just to try and be different. Of course that is just my opinion and I don’t have any data of a meaningful sample size to back that up.

  • caleibold

    @mike291md said...

    DK should offer both and see if both fill sufficiently.

    My original question was simply asking if there are very many people that feel as strongly as you do about preferring the 20-max. It seems to me that the majority speak their preference loudly and clearly every day when this 150-max tourney fills before 2pm.

  • jjwd

    @caleibold said...

    It seems to me that the majority speak their preference loudly and clearly every day when this 150-max tourney fills before 2pm.

    Hey, filling things 4 hours early is all part of the plan! We’re told that the casual players are the ones planning ahead and entering 5 hours early (while they’re still at work or whatever). Then, the most loyal customers (the regular players who enter later in the day) are punished! All part of the plan!!!

  • Olhausen

    @brianhanson72 said...

    no i dont

    you shouldn’t be able to win over 50% of the prize pool with one lineup because you entered it multiple times, thats where it becomes luck and not skill based.

  • mike291md

    @caleibold said...

    My original question was simply asking if there are very many people that feel as strongly as you do about preferring the 20-max. It seems to me that the majority speak their preference loudly and clearly every day when this 150-max tourney fills before 2pm.

    Yep. But that’s what I’m saying just offer both. Wouldn’t a 20 person and a 150 person GPP filling be good for them from a rake perspective? Why force people who prefer one to have to play another by getting rid of it?

    On a 15 game slate, with 20 max entry you can only stack so much. In a 150 entry, you can do 10 different stacks for each game. I know that even in a 20 entry you need to have a near-perfect lineup to win, but now increase the lineup combinations available to each person and the need for absolute perfection goes up even higher. Now the money line becomes ridiculously high. And hey, if that tournament style is for you, then by all means enjoy. But, it’s not for me, I enjoy a 20 entry window and I’m not someone who plans to deploy 150 lineups anyway so it fits my style perfectly.

    I guess the question is am I the minority in my preferences? According to this forum, it seems like I am.

  • bigez952

    @mike291md said...

    I guess the question is am I the minority in my preferences? According to this forum, it seems like I am.

    I don’t think your in the minority I just personally think your logic is flawed on why you like a 20 entry max vs. a 150 entry max. If two equal contests were made both ways with 100,000 entries each all 15 games are going to be stacked up and down multiple ways so there would be an equal or very close to the same number of lineup combinations in the entire contest. There really is no different if 150 lineups get put in by 1 person or 20 lineups get put in by 8 people unless your assuming there is going to be way more lineup trains and overlap with less entries per person which I have not seen any data to support.

    To me is sounds like with your agreement of less risk and not wanting to be against too many lineup combinations your actual in favor of smaller contests which you happen to get with smaller entry limits as there is not the user base to support massive contests in both.

  • caleibold

    @bigez952 said...

    I don’t think your in the minority I just personally think your logic is flawed

    Agreed. I think everyone’s expected value is arguably about the same if not better off if the two contests are one much bigger contest. I think the 20-max entry move overall by DK was for better perception from casual players who may think big GPP’s are a losing proposition for them, and I think that concern was much more directly addressed by restricting top 400 players from playing at that price point.

  • mike291md

    Fair enough. I think math can be used in different ways. I get where are you coming from, you are saying it’s the same essential risk, that every out and possibility will be covered in 20 entry tourneys just as they would be in 150 tourneys. I personally don’t see where the math works here. A 150 tournament is giving 130 more bullets to each person’s holster. That means guys who max enter no matter are going to max enter more lineup combinations.

    See, in a 20 entry window with a 15 game slate, you can cover most the games but can you stack every single team in that slate? No, because you are stopped at 20 entries, so you have to pick and choose your 20. Now at 150, we’re talking about being able to cover every single team if you want, cover the teams you like 10 more different ways. The possibilities go up and up of lineup combos. To me, that is going to drive the scoring up higher because you will be against thousands of lineups that pretty much NAILED the slate.

    Just my theory and preference, though. I do see where you are coming from. I wouldn’t have any issue with DK running both a 150 and a 20 and let the people go where they want to.

    My favorite kind of tournament is the 10k guaranteed tourney that DK just ran yesterday. 11,000 make the money, a nice number. 20 entry max. The tournament feels big and 1st thru 10th feel like worthwhile payouts. They’ve only run it once though so far this year, hoping we get more of it going forward.

  • bigez952

    @mike291md said...

    Fair enough. I think math can be used in different ways. I get where are you coming from, you are saying it’s the same essential risk, that every out and possibility will be covered in 20 entry tourneys just as they would be in 150 tourneys. I personally don’t see where the math works here. A 150 tournament is giving 130 more bullets to each person’s holster. That means guys who max enter no matter are going to max enter more lineup combinations.

    My math is pretty simple in that if you have a 100,000 entries a contest your going to have 90,000-95,000 unique lineup combinations regardless if John Doe put in 20 or 150 lineups himself. If what your saying that all the teams only get stacked if your allowed to put in 150 lineups then there would be 0% ownership on 5-10 teams every night in the 20 entry max tournaments which I can guarantee isn’t the case.

  • TheRyanFlaherty

    It would be nice if you included tee times for PGA players.
    On weeks like this where weather may play an impact it can be a part of the decision making process and while it’s not a necessity it would enhance the user experience as it’s annoying to have to consistently go to other sites to check tee times. If competitors with nowhere near the resources of DK can include it, it doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

  • mike291md

    @bigez952 said...

    My math is pretty simple in that if you have a 100,000 entries a contest your going to have 90,000-95,000 unique lineup combinations regardless if John Doe put in 20 or 150 lineups himself. If what your saying that all the teams only get stacked if your allowed to put in 150 lineups then there would be 0% ownership on 5-10 teams every night in the 20 entry max tournaments which I can guarantee isn’t the case.

    Please link where you are pulling these numbers from. I have never seen anyone come up with data covering how many lineups are unique vs the exact same in a given night. This is what I’m talking about with people just throwing numbers out to fit a narrative.

    Secondly, if John Doe has 20 entries vs 150 entries it is really simple that John Doe can’t stack every single game and every single team. Unless, John Doe is illegally multi-accounting. That doesn’t mean that Jane Doe doesn’t decide to stack the Marlins and be contrarian for the night. What it means is that both John and Jane just have 20 bullets to choose from and that keeps it from getting ridiculous in terms of lineup combinations.

    At a 150 bullets, John can stack EVERY SINGLE TEAM on a 15 game slate if he chooses to. With 20 bullets, you are going to have to pick and choose your stack strategy. it’s a different ball game but you keep arguing it’s the same playing field.

  • blenderhd

    • 433

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #59

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @mike291md said...

    At a 150 bullets, John can stack EVERY SINGLE TEAM on a 15 game slate if he chooses to. With 20 bullets, you are going to have to pick and choose your stack strategy. it’s a different ball game but you keep arguing it’s the same playing field.

    Any time I see this argument repeated over the years that max-entry guys can indeed “cover all bases”, I always assume it’s from someone who has never actually mass multi-entered before because it couldn’t be further from the case. Just looking at it mathematically for more than a few seconds you could see that.

    For the sake of simplicity, let’s say you’re going to take the same 4 batters per team and make 4×2 stacks on a 15-game slate. That’s 120 combinations right there. With 30 pitchers and having to roster two, there are 465 combinations of pairs. If you disregard salary implications, that alone adds up to 55,800 lineups. Now once you want to add a 5th or 6th player to be included as part of the usage of 4 in each team stack, that multiplies lineup combinations by a factor of 4 at minimum, bringing it to a total of 223,200 to 892,800 lineups. And this is just 4×2 stacks, remember. Want to include 5+3 or 4+3+1 or other viable stack combos on top of this? You’ll need a calculator that supports a absolute ton of digits in display.

    …but feel free to continue thinking that someone can stack every single team with 150 bullets.

  • bigez952

    @mike291md said...

    Please link where you are pulling these numbers from. I have never seen anyone come up with data covering how many lineups are unique vs the exact same in a given night. This is what I’m talking about with people just throwing numbers out to fit a narrative.

    These are estimates so if you have data to prove that 20 entry max has a significant lower % of unique lineups meaning the contest is full of lineup trains of all of the same lineups please share it. This is all my opinion but I think your wrong in saying that contest with only 20 entry max have any sort of significant difference in the % of unique lineups within a given contest.

  • mike291md

    @blenderhd said...

    …but feel free to continue thinking that someone can stack every single team with 150 bullets.

    My point is the window is way smaller at 20 entry and you have to be way more selective of your stacks in that window. At 150 you can still easily run a stack for every single team in a 15 game slate. That’s what I like about the 20 window. You aren’t going to stack say the Marlins just because you can anymore because that bullet may be better used to stack someone you want more.

    At 150 the window opens way more. I can stack every team on that slate with no second thoughts. I can do way more contrarian plays, the options for EVERYTHING goes up more.

    The entry limits were started because people weren’t happy with the MaxDelury style play and low and behold, just a few years later, people are arguing for those tournaments again. And I guarantee you those tournaments turned a lot of casuals away from DFS. Go ahead and keep throwing crazy numbers out because at the end of the day 150 vs 20 ain’t the same ballpark.

    I hope for your sake they do make a consistent 150 entry for you to enter in, but if it means killing off 20 entry then you are opening the door to people arguing for 500 entry limits down the road. The game is already insanely cutthroat, so let’s make it harder for the casual player. Brilliant business plan.

    You guys feel restricted at 20 entry limit, so I get why you want 150. We should be able to have both. Some people prefer the 20, some want 150, heck I’ve heard some people say do unlimited entries. DK should offer a variety and see how they all fill.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Sites mentioned in this thread

Use our links to sign up and deposit on sites listed in this thread to get these bonuses:

Subforum Index

New RotoGrinders Sports Betting Section!

Are you a DFS player who wants to get into sports betting? Head over to our sports betting resources area and get the full rundown on legal online sports betting in the US.

If you're lucky enough to reside in (or close to) states with legal online sports betting, like New Jersey, then check out our NJ online sportsbook bonuses page to see what free bets are available to you right now.

Also of interest to DFSers are our sportsbook reviews, so remember to check out our DraftKings Sportsbook review and our FanDuel Sportsbook review to see what the DFS giants are up to in the sports betting realm.

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. Our goal is to help all of our members make more money playing daily fantasy sports!

Disclosures: All RotoGrinders content contributors are active DFS players. Contributor screen names can be found on their respective RotoGrinders profile pages. Contributors reserve the right to use players or strategies not discussed in their content on RotoGrinders.