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

  • Unico10

    • 636

      RG Overall Ranking

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    This is one of the biggest things that bothers me at times. For example, tonight’s $250k guaranteed, $55 buy-in Full Count. That’s a good price point where I like to play 1-2 lineups per night in baseball. The contest has 5165 entries. That is a field that actually seems possible to finish in the top 3-5 (as compared to GPP’s with 50k+ entries). BUT it is somehow still 150 max entries. Why? At this point no one should be able to have almost 3% of the entries in a contest. Then with possible teams, brothers or groups of players playing it, they can have 6% or more of the entries in the contest. It’s a big turn-off for someone looking to play 1-2 lineups per night in the biggest mid-priced buy-in contest. This is the type of contest that would be great if it was 20 max entries.

    Also agree with less top heavy lotteries. That was fine when DraftKings was doing it’s all out marketing blitz to attract new customers. But at this point, you also need to worry about keeping players around. Milly Makers are not necessary outside football that can support it. Those top heavy GPP’s are not good for the sustainability of the ecosystem. Flatter payout structures, especially in those top 10-15 spots. 1st prize can take 10% of a prize pool and still walk away with a nice chunk of change. It does not need to be 20-25% (or more) in most of the featured GPP’s.

    Totally agree on your take on tonight Full Count.

    The MM should be the only tournament with that kind of structure. It’s once a week and only for a quarter of the year… you get a shot at a million and it’s fine to go in knowing that only placing will lose you money.

  • BobbyTheBrain

    ^^this 100 percent. Totally agree

  • mike291md

    @rachelkyle said...

    I’ll throw in my comment on the flatter payouts for GPPs. 10% to 1st, 10% of that to 10th. Pay out 18% or so and min cash is 2.5x entry fee.

    I like this idea. I definitely think the payout structures need to be reworked so that you do feel rewarded for placing and also feel rewarded for placing well. It shouldn’t all be jam-packed into the top 10 only. Long-term I think that wears on GPP players who want to maintain a bankroll.

    Additionally, I would also like to see the rake lowered. We’re hitting higher and higher levels and reducing rake plus fixing the payout structures would go a tremendously long way to bringing people back and keeping them in the fold.

  • britdevine

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    This is one of the biggest things that bothers me at times. For example, tonight’s $250k guaranteed, $55 buy-in Full Count. That’s a good price point where I like to play 1-2 lineups per night in baseball. The contest has 5165 entries. That is a field that actually seems possible to finish in the top 3-5 (as compared to GPP’s with 50k+ entries). BUT it is somehow still 150 max entries. Why? At this point no one should be able to have almost 3% of the entries in a contest. Then with possible teams, brothers or groups of players playing it, they can have 6% or more of the entries in the contest. It’s a big turn-off for someone looking to play 1-2 lineups per night in the biggest mid-priced buy-in contest. This is the type of contest that would be great if it was 20 max entries.

    Also agree with less top heavy lotteries. That was fine when DraftKings was doing it’s all out marketing blitz to attract new customers. But at this point, you also need to worry about keeping players around. Milly Makers are not necessary outside football that can support it. Those top heavy GPP’s are not good for the sustainability of the ecosystem. Flatter payout structures, especially in those top 10-15 spots. 1st prize can take 10% of a prize pool and still walk away with a nice chunk of change. It does not need to be 20-25% (or more) in most of the featured GPP’s.

    I also agree strongly here

    I know the big ballers love to 150 but with 10 players taking up 20% of the field there is no chance I would ever play 2-3 entries in this.

    Just because the law says 150 max doesn’t mean you can’t think outside the box to make the product better in certain cases.

    One of the key factors I look at is the number of people max entering and if just a few users can take up 20+% of the pool easily that contest is always a no go for me personally.

  • rannas23

    I agree, the top 10 winners should all have decent payouts spread out. I do like the fact that a higher percentage of minimum winners 20-25% in some contests for DK rather than fanduel…its the reason I switched from fanduel to DK. I would hope DK doesn’t do away with that pay structure but the real heavy top winner wrecks it for the guys who made great lineups and finished in the top 10.

  • Malorum

    @anilprao88 said...

    Top Heavy Payouts. Can we please curtail these? I understand if every now and then you want to put a huge figure up top, but regularly having contests with several thousand or more entries that payout 20% or more to first creates a lot of unnecessary risk. Either players will not adjust accordingly and you will cause lots of very good players to lose a lot of money and force them to move down, or players will realize that when payouts are top-heavy their risk of ruin is higher for every dollar they bet and players will have to bet a smaller % of their bankroll in these contests. It seems like either is suboptimal longterm.

    100 times this.

  • fighton2016

    You need to fix the way you treat Basketball games that get postponed due to leaky roofs/protests/rain or any other extraordinary event.

    It is not baseball where we can accurately predict whether a game will be postponed or not. Games lock and we hear of water dripping on AN INDOOR COURT and it is the most frustrating thing about DFS. The TOS have to be adjusted to allow for nights like these to end in full refunds of fees to everyone. I am sure there is not one person out there who would be against this.

    If you are worried about the cost to DK, you can easily go out and secure insurance from any bank for this type of event at fractions of pennies on the dollar of your VAR

  • Njsum1

    @TnRiddles said...

    This is the ONLY viable late swap procedure….you should not be able to adjust other spots , just that one that got scratched

    As someone who is against late swap for NBA…this solution certainly sounds reasonable. You can only swap the scratched player. I have no problem with that. Allowing people to reoptimize all their lineups based on a scratch or backload lineups and wait on news, clearly benefits the pros or those who can or are willing to redo multiple lineups every night throughout the night.

  • headChopper

    RG Contributor (OG Status)

    • 507

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #87

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    Very nice guys. My question would be do you think the prizepool for the biggest MLB Pick’em will eventually increase? Thanks for your time.

  • leib0039

    I would echo what Nicole said about late swap. Even if you keep the biggest GPP’s non late swap I get it, but to say you offer late swap is a joke. 100 person $3 entry isn’t an offering. I can almost guarantee you would fill a $4 5k person tourney each night with late swap NBA.

  • PigskinaBlanket

    • 337

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #57

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2019 DraftKings FGWC Finalist

    • x2

      2016 DraftKings FGWC Finalist

    hopping on the bandwagon – can we please kill the top heavy GPPS. The occasional “event” is ok, but the standard nightly tourney with 50k entrants in baseball….it is absurd to have 20% go to first and frankly unsustainable for the player.

  • wazzu24

    RG LoL Writer

    Are the Big League Achievements possible? Are they even intended to be? There are a few which I believe level is doable at large volumes of lineups. There are also a few that I believe are virtually impossible, potentially even so for the highest volume players on the site.

    Also, the 5000 player leaderboard for the Chase for the Crown is just silly. What makes this a good promo? It’s fine if DK wants promos to reward the top volume guys. But the 5000 player leaderboard is a waste. I’m actually in 25th right now, but have literally no hope whatsoever of reaching the top. 3 players each week get a reward on a 5000 player leaderboard. Just remove all of us little people, or add in some small tiered rewards for the top 500 or something at least.

    Basically I’m saying your promos suck and it’s clear that the VIP reward offered for the Achievements was designed to have zero people actually get it.

  • lpdev

    @wazzu24 said...

    Are the Big League Achievements possible? Are they even intended to be?

    I don’t think the 5000x PickEm lineups scoring over 75 and the 5000x Arcade lineups scoring over 200 will be reached by anyone unless something changes. Showdown and Classic versions are doable because there are more slates/contests available.

  • YoungFischer

    For smaller MLB slates (5 games of less, especially if no games contain a pitcher costing $10,000 or more), either inflate player salaries or reduce the salary cap. Lately this season there are too many smaller slates with thousands of unused salary cap space. Salary cap games should not be pick’em games.

  • britdevine

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @YoungFischer said...

    For smaller MLB slates (5 games of less, especially if no games contain a pitcher costing $10,000 or more), either inflate player salaries or reduce the salary cap. Lately this season there are too many smaller slates with thousands of unused salary cap space. Salary cap games should not be pick’em games.

    Very much agree with this

  • wazzu24

    RG LoL Writer

    @lpdev said...

    I don’t think the 5000x PickEm lineups scoring over 75 and the 5000x Arcade lineups scoring over 200 will be reached by anyone unless something changes. Showdown and Classic versions are doable because there are more slates/contests available.

    Even classic is going to be extremely tough. Especially as there will likely be less contests as the season moves along. Maybe players maxing everything on the board for every slate, but definitely not anyone who isn’t.

    Pickem is 100% impossible. 75 points is crazy. It probably couldn’t even be done at 50. I think these achievements should be difficult and promote play throughout the season, but completing 10/11 of them is looking like it may not be done by even one player. If a DK rep wants to look at my lineup volume and can tell me that simply isn’t what you were looking for to get 10/11, I’ll just give up now. 500+ lineups every single day.

  • bigez952

    @lpdev said...

    I don’t think the 5000x PickEm lineups scoring over 75 and the 5000x Arcade lineups scoring over 200 will be reached by anyone unless something changes. Showdown and Classic versions are doable because there are more slates/contests available.

    Awesomo won everything in pick em last night and had tons of 75+ lineups. Only guys who play absolutely everything will clear all 88 achievements which is what it was designed for I guess with most promos like chase for the crown.

    Edit : looking back on last night’s results it might just be impossible to hit 5000+ since you need to average 28 lineups per day over the 183 baseball season and even thought Awesomo dominated the big $5 GPP for pick em last night he only had 17 / 71 lineups crack 75+. The only way it is going to be possible is if there are a lot of really high scoring nights where these guys that max enter everything can get 50+ lineups to hit that number.

  • zline34

    Flatter Payouts. Lower rake. If I can’t double my money on a cashing entry in a gpp what’s the point of even playing? I’ve decreased my volume vastly because of that structure.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    I literally just haven’t even been playing because the payout structures are no longer +EV for tournament players. Honestly I want to play DFS, but right now the payout structures are making it 10 times harder to profit. Here’s the thing that I keep seeing… sites post different contests with different structures to see which ones fill the most efficiently. Invariably, the top-heavy contests fill better. However, you can’t just take that at face value, because over time those contests erode the player pool in a way that doesn’t show up when simply comparing contest structures against each other. If your top players stop profiting, you’ll lose them and their large, consistent bankrolls will no longer be involved in any of your contests. That’s what is happening now. So few players profit off of these tournament structures, and there’s very little incentive to continue throwing your money in when a top 1% finish sometimes gives you less than a 4x return on your entry fee (case in point tomorrow’s Big Jam in NBA… you can finish in the top 1% and get $30 off a $10 entry).

    I was looking for a good NBA contest to join tomorrow, but I’m not finding anything that looks good to me in the lobby. This was not the case at this time last season.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    Here’s an example of what I would consider a solid structure for a $10 tournament with a $375k prize pool:

    1st: $40,000
    2nd: $20,000
    3rd: $15,000
    4th: $10,000
    5-7: $7,000
    8-10: $4,000
    11-15: $2,000
    16-20: $1,000
    21-30: $500
    31-50: $300
    51-100: $200
    101-150: $150
    151-200: $100
    201-300: $80
    301-500: $60
    501-1000: $40
    1001-2000: $30
    2001-4000: $25
    4001-8425: $20

    I believe the math works out, but feel free to correct me if I got it wrong. This would be 10.67% to 1st, 31.47% to the top 10, at least 6x guaranteed if you make the top 1%, at least 4x if you make the top 2%, and best of all, at least 2x for cashing, which most would agree is very important. Pays out about 19.1% of the field.

    In my opinion, this type of structure gives a much more appropriate payout based on where you finish, and would pull a whole lot more players into long-term profitability. What do you guys think?

  • jhpog

    I would add my voice to payout structures.

    Flatter at the top and 2x the buyin for a min cash. Playing a $12 event, doing well, cashing, and getting back $15-$18 sucks. If you play that contest 6 nights a week and cash 3 nights, you should at least break even, not be down.

  • Unico10

    • 636

      RG Overall Ranking

    Tonight Big Jam
    50k entries $10 entry

    Played 5 lineups
    Placed one at 3120 and one at 7300…. well within the top 10% (nearly top 5%) and well within top 15% the other

    Payout?? $35
    Lost $15

    Current payout structure is not sustainable

  • Zieg30

    @escot4 said...

    In my opinion, this type of structure gives a much more appropriate payout based on where you finish, and would pull a whole lot more players into long-term profitability. What do you guys think?

    Love this structure.

  • SkateFiend

    I would like smaller 1 dollar contests with no more than 10 entries per person. Basically, the kind of contests that are bread and butter at yahoo. And of course, the min cash should be 2x.

    I would encourage DK personnel to play Yahoo’s 1 dollar single entry contest and their 1 dollar single entry contest everyday to compare the success rate. They’ll min cash or move up in the standings way more consistently at Yahoo. The smaller field and entry limit definitely makes a difference. You just can’t play contests with more than 5 thousand people everyday and expect to be competitive.

    Will DK cater to the more casual crowd who would like to play more conservatively? Even Fanduel has a couple single entry contests with less than 300 people (top 23% wins, min cash 2x). I play that site sparingly because the competition and the one pitcher format is too much for me, but I play contests like a lot at DK.

  • skeeter1114

    • Blogger of the Month

    In golf (other sports maybe as well), I would like to see another level of 3-entry max. Currently, the cheapest ones are $3, $5, and $20. I know I have seen $1 and $9 in other sports: why not golf? I would think something like a $3, $10, and $20 would work great. It hits all levels in the lower tier if DraftKings wants to only have three 3-entry max games for Golf per week.

    I’ll echo everyone else with flatter payout structures, especially in Milly Maker. I think there is a need for it, but if it means increasing buyin for entry into it, so be it. Make it $33 or $50.

    Finally, more single entry tournaments that aren’t buried in the lobby. Maybe even add a filter selection that includes single-entry.

  • 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.