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

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @mambaland said...

    possible but what high rollers are in this thread AKA the top 10 RG standings

    I mean, I’m not top 10 in RG standings, but I’ve had some success and probably play a higher amount than most in NFL. I’ve had wins in extremely top-heavy contests, which I’m very thankful for, but some of those were also live finals that only come along a couple times per year. When everything day-in and day-out is so top-heavy, you can lose money on what should be a profitable day simply due to payout structures that systematically ensure that only a tiny percentage of players can be profitable. Also, one play in a game can cost you $50k or more very easily, even though the differences in payout of the top 10 don’t need to be so drastic and exaggerated.

  • tmarohl

    Tomorrows Big Jam has a 450K prize pool.
    1st $100,000.00
    2nd $40,000.00
    3rd $20,000.00
    4th $10,000.00
    5th $4,000.00
    6th $3,000.00
    7th – 8th $2,000.00
    9th – 10th $1,500.00
    11th – 12th $1,000.00
    13th – 15th $700.00
    16th – 20th $600.00
    21st – 25th $500.00
    26th – 35th $400.00
    36th – 60th $300.00
    61st – 90th $200.00
    91st – 120th $150.00
    121st – 160th $100.00
    161st – 210th $70.00
    211th – 280th $60.00
    281st – 380th $50.00
    381st – 530th $40.00
    531st – 780th $35.00
    781st – 1280th $30.00
    1281st – 2440th $25.00
    2441st – 5100th $20.00
    5101st – 12150th $15.00

    This is way to top heavy.

    How about something like the following:
    45K to 1
    30K to 2
    20K to 3
    10K to 4
    5K to 5
    And then increase the payouts down the line?
    I think most gpp players would appreciate a much flatter payout structure rather than the huge top prizes. It sucks to be in the top 1% and only win $5 on your $10 investment. It is like playing megabucks the way you have these gpp payouts set up.

  • tmarohl

    @elementasrat said...

    Am I the only one who doesn’t give a shit about payout structure?

    All I care about is rake, plain and simple. There could be a GPP with 100% to first- a winner take all on steroids-and I’d still play it if the rake is reasonable.

    I would pay slightly more rake on GPP’s, if the payout structure was flatter, so yes, maybe you are the only one. What sucks is paying the rake, finishing in the top 1% and basically just doubling your entry fee.

  • shockermandan

    • Moderator

    @elementasrat said...

    Am I the only one who doesn’t give a shit about payout structure?

    All I care about is rake, plain and simple. There could be a GPP with 100% to first- a winner take all on steroids-and I’d still play it if the rake is reasonable.

    You might be alone on the 100% to first, but if I had to choose between lower rake and flatter payouts, I’d take lower rake all day.

  • ElSlappo

    My wish list much like everyone else would be:

    1. Lower rake
    2. Flatter payout structure
    3. More, and larger, SE GPPs.

  • ElSlappo

    I see there is a $20, 3 max entry MLB GPP today with 10% to 1st, and 2x min cash. Let’s sell it out ASAP :)

  • XxHeisenbergxX

    @Unico10 said...

    I would love to see usernames disappear.

    I can’t understand why players shouldn’t be playing with their own damn given name.

    I would never use my real name on anything that is open for the public to see. That is why I do not do things like Facebook or any other social media the minute someone posts my full name that would be a major law suit.

  • kps3205s

    My one suggestion would be to allow people when they receive their monthly Status Free Contest ticket have multiple options in regards to what sport they want to play or to step down to a lower level if they want.

    Last month it was during Masters week and Bronze, which is what I received, got a ticket to play in a Masters tournament but at least one of the other levels above this didn’t and were forced to play something else based on what I read on RG in the golf forum.

    I am assuming since DK knows ahead of time how many people qualify for each level they can possibly spread the guaranteed prize pool among 2 or 3 sports while capping the # of entries in each so the the recipient may choose the sport they have the most interest in or chance to do well.

    The other possibility and I am sure some will disagree but I personally don’t care since it’s a free roll/single entry, is to allow the player to move down to another level to play in the sport they like.

    Example:So a gold or silver status recipient, not sure if there are any others above these but you’ll understand the example, has to play a baseball contest but the bronze has a golf contest the higher ranked recipient likes. They should have that option to step down. They won’t receive any reimbursement or extra tickets to make up the difference. It’s a take or leave situation. To me they earned the right to opt down since they A- already exceeded my level and B- It’s only 1 entry.

  • Tstern615

    When are you going to add IRL and F1?

    Also how about a slate where you select Nascar and Xfinity drivers before qualifying….points for qualifying….as well.

  • jgootz421

    +1 for flatter payout structures, personally as the structures keep getting worse I am putting in fewer entries.

    Also would like to see something done about NBA late scratches. There is no reason a dfs player should get completely burned on a given night for something that is out of their control, especially when there are feasible solutions.

  • nfog

    Last year I was playing $450 a week in golf with 150 max entry $4 tournaments. Now I play $80 week with 20 max entry. It’s less about winning percentages and payout structures for me and more about the fact that building lineups is fun. Sweating sundays is fun. I’m just trying to have a good time building lineups and 20 lineups is less fun than 150. Thanks.

  • btwice80

    @shockermandan said...

    You might be alone on the 100% to first, but if I had to choose between lower rake and flatter payouts, I’d take lower rake all day.

    It’s easier to be profitable in contests structured every day like escot laid out, even at current rake, compared to insanely top-heavy ones even if the rake was several pct. points lower.

    Sign me up for way better payout structures over rake reduction.

  • btwice80

    Today’s 63,000 entry GPP with 30% going to first is just dumb. I’ll be multi-entering the $33 contest, and normally throw them all in the lower buy-in as well, but not today.

  • Yacht67

    Rugby would be cool

  • btwice80

    @ElSlappo said...

    3. More, and larger, SE GPPs

    I guess I’m the only one who looks for the smaller field GPPs to throw my single entry lineup in. Less than 200 entries preferably.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Today’s big MLB GPP pays out 30.7% to first. My biggest GPP win paid out 6.7% to first. The difference would have been $360,500 in my pocket. As nice as that would have been, letting the other top finishers get their reasonable share kept them coming back. Meanwhile, you’re losing money as I keep passing on the biggest GPPs you’re offering. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Fix this please.

  • Tstern615

    How about adding the Truck series as well….might as well

  • DraftKings_CM

    • DraftKings Representative

    @britdevine said...

    A once a week day for 150 lineups in .25/$1/$3 GPPs

    Flatter payouts overall

    10% to first
    10th place is 10% of 1st place
    18-20% paid
    Minimum cash is 2x buy in

    We hear you loud and clear!

    Yesterday we added the MLB $25K HOME PLATE [3 ENTRY MAX, 2X MIN CASH thanks to the feedback of the community, and, and we intend to keep running this contest format all week as an experiment to determine the vitality of a 2x mincash + flatter payout structure vs our standard structures. Great job RotoGrinders, we loved the suggestion! And congrats to muttcutts who came in 1st place for $2,500!

    https://www.draftkings.com/lobby#/MLB/0/All

  • NESBears120

    @DraftKings_CM said...

    We hear you loud and clear!

    Yesterday we added the MLB $25K HOME PLATE [3 ENTRY MAX, 2X MIN CASH thanks to the feedback of the community, and, and we intend to keep running this contest format all week as an experiment to determine the vitality of a 2x mincash + flatter payout structure vs our standard structures. Great job RotoGrinders, we loved the suggestion! And congrats to muttcutts who came in 1st place for $2,500!

    https://www.draftkings.com/lobby#/MLB/0/All

    This is a very solid start DK, but the entry fee is too high, we need this at a $3 or $5 would be ideal

  • Njsum1

    @NESBears120 said...

    This is a very solid start DK, but the entry fee is too high, we need this at a $3 or $5 would be ideal

    Good start DK! Yet I don’t think that is exactly what people are lobbying for. Here IMO are some reasons why….

    1) buy in is too high for some…many casual players don’t want to spend $20 on a single lineup.

    2) contest is too small…less than 1500 participants. People will use this logic…”why would I spend $20 for a chance to win $2500…when I can spend $2 on a chance for $5000?

    3) I’m just offering an opinion on what I’d like to see…and that’s large GPPs with 30,000 plus entries in the $1 to $6 range, 20 to 150 max entries, with the same structure as the $20 entry 1500 entrant GPP you’re currently offering.

    For example….a $3 buy in and say 59000 entries, where you are guaranteeing $150,000. First place would get $15,000…min cash gets $6. People can correct me if I’m wrong, yet I think that type of contest is what the RG community is looking for. You can change the buy in amount to $1 or move it up to $6, yet I think people want to see flatter structures for larger (in terms of entrants) GPPs.

  • mnstone14

    Any thoughts on adding back all day slates for mlb like there have been in years past? More and more teams it seems like are experimenting with earlier starts (like the reds this week).

  • mnstone14

    @Njsum1 said...

    Good start DK. Yet I don’t think that is exactly what people are lobbying for. Here IMO are some reasons why….

    1) buy in is too high for some…many casual players don’t want to spend $20 on a single lineup.

    2) contest is too small…less than 1500 participants. People will use this logic…”why would I spend $20 for a chance to win $2500…when I can spend $2 on a chance for $5000?

    3) I’m just offering an opinion on what I’d like to see…and that’s large GPPs with 30,000 plus entries in the $1 to $6 range, 20 to 150 max entries, with the same structure as the $20 entry 1500 entrant GPP you’re currently offering.

    For example….a $3 buy in and say 59000 entries, where you are guaranteeing $150,000. First place would get $15,000…min cash gets $6. People can correct me if I’m wrong, yet I think that type of contest is what the RG community is looking for. You can change the buy in amount to $1 or move it up to $6, yet I think people want to see flatter structures for larger (in terms of entrants) GPPs.

    lets be realistic, dk is running a business and something like you proposed is unlikely to fill tbh. if $20 is too much, why does it matter if you enter 150 times in a $6 contest? Doesnt have that higher end prize that people look for a lot of times so not all the high rollers would be max entering i would imagine and then like i mentioned it gets really tough to fill that big of a contest. Just my two cents.

  • NESBears120

    @Njsum1 said...

    Good start DK! Yet I don’t think that is exactly what people are lobbying for. Here IMO are some reasons why….

    1) buy in is too high for some…many casual players don’t want to spend $20 on a single lineup.

    2) contest is too small…less than 1500 participants. People will use this logic…”why would I spend $20 for a chance to win $2500…when I can spend $2 on a chance for $5000?

    3) I’m just offering an opinion on what I’d like to see…and that’s large GPPs with 30,000 plus entries in the $1 to $6 range, 20 to 150 max entries, with the same structure as the $20 entry 1500 entrant GPP you’re currently offering.

    For example….a $3 buy in and say 59000 entries, where you are guaranteeing $150,000. First place would get $15,000…min cash gets $6. People can correct me if I’m wrong, yet I think that type of contest is what the RG community is looking for. You can change the buy in amount to $1 or move it up to $6, yet I think people want to see flatter structures for larger (in terms of entrants) GPPs.

    I actually like the size and I think 3 entries is perfect, but for me 20 is just too much, I’m playing in it tonight to help it fill, but that is not an entry fee I can consistently pay. I think maybe do 5k entries at $3 with a $10k prize pool

  • Njsum1

    @NESBears120 said...

    I actually like the size and I think 3 entries is perfect, but for me 20 is just too much, I’m playing in it tonight to help it fill, but that is not an entry fee I can consistently pay. I think maybe do 5k entries at $3 with a $10k prize pool

    I personally wouldn’t mind playing that structure at a smaller buy in and smaller field. Yet I’d like to see DK try it with a 20 max 50k plus entry GPP in the $1 to $3 range and see if it fills. If it doesn’t then we’d know that what people really want is top heavy contests.

  • XxHeisenbergxX

    Speaking for myself only DK priced me out of the market last year as far as the big GPP’s go. For me this is entertainment. Do I like to win…well who doesn’t. But when they started to jack up the tourneys in the NFL and now NBA to 8.00 and now 10.00 I walked away. Now I either play a couple of cheap single entry tourneys or if I really like a game or slate I will play the 1.00 multi entry games with the max of 20 per person.

    I like having some action to keep me entertained on a nightly basis but I refuse to pay the jacked up entry fees.

  • 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.