MLB FORUM

Comments

  • EadesScience

    Hello All and Happy 4th of July…God Bless America (hum the tune if you would like as you read)

    First, I would like to reinforce an ideal in which many of you may agree with and also one that many of you will take retaliation to. Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) is not a Skill based game,but rather a “luck” saturated environment. I would like to start out my discussion by asking for you to honestly answer if luck is dominate or is it saber-metrics?

    Let us look at today (Sunday, July 3rd, 2016) for example. How many of you chose Mr. Lester as your top pitcher. There was no reason not to right? His stats were awesome. He had a season ERA of 2.11…Win% of 50…wOBA at .251…throws around a 100 pitches a game…and had an average fantasy point average of 30 points per game. What happened? The Cubs were playing the Mets which had, with the exception of Cespedes, wOBA’s all in the red.

    Also and within the same theme, The BlueJays went on a mass HR tirade and were only predicted to score 4 points against Kluber. The wOBA in that game was also dismal for the most part.

    I am a follower of Data, but at some point in our DFS interests we have to sit back and go…I do not think that will happen or I have a hunch. But, it is hard not to follow the data based decisions isn’t it? Or at least it is for me. I would be willing to place a $1000 dollar wager that all the prediction sites had picked Lester and Kluber as their top level pitchers along with a few others.

    So I guess what I am trying to find out is what information was out there to not play these top guys? Show it to me and I will eat dog shit for a month. There is not any and that is why our beloved game involves luck. The leader boards on the DK Moonshot did not contain the normal names at the top. Argue this with me because I am trying to figure out a method for predicting this type of Variance and become better. Is it that on any given night you can say screw the research and just go pick players? If you did this would your win % stay the same, increase, or decline? I have a fairly good win , but it takes hours of daily Grinding. I am in the top 20 and better in Rotogrinder Rankings. You can check my profile and see if I am blowing smoke up your ass on that. I would really like your input and try to discover what part of the puzzle I am missing. Or, is it Luck will prevail on a few days so get over it..

    Ricky

  • tonytone1908

    @johnnyj580 said...

    Probably the guy who thinks his degree in science is the end all be all, no matter what the subject matter.

    That or the guy who capitalizes “trump”, assuming they’re not one in the same.

    Pretty sure Trump got capitalized by auto correct from a phone. Just like it did for me right here.

  • tonytone1908

    I’ve realized the “sure” things are usually far from it. I’ve grown tired of spending up for pitchers. Best case scenario they get you 6x FD pts. I’d rather go cheap and find bats that can get me 10x. Show me a SP putting up 10x and I’ll change my mind.

  • tonytone1908

    I find the plays I love usually do the worst. So for shits and giggles I made a lineup for late night using as much salary as possible and using players I liked the least at each position. It’ll probably be my highest scoring of the week.

  • divusjulius

    • Blogger of the Month

    besides the game theory element of fading lester and playing a mets stack (mixed with a another stack from a vegas high total game), or of fading thor and playing a cubie stack there were several reasons for not playing Lester and taking the Met’s stack.

    1) did you question the narrative that “the mets are a dead offense” and wonder, well, if that’s true, how did the mets manage to beat the cubs, and arrieta and hendricks and lackey, the three previous nights.
    2) did you examine the ISO of the mets batters, or maybe notice that they had multiple HR innings (and players) in other games of that series, and combine that with Lester’s clear noted HR problem, including giving up 10 HRs to R-handed batters, along with a high FB% to right handed batters?
    3) did you examine the current form of the met’s batters? there was very clear, out in the open, stats which indicated how well, how hard, how far, with what launch angle and at what exit velocity the mets batters were hitting the ball, just 12 hours before that game.
    4)did we examine the ump, and what effect he has had historically, on hitter (or pitcher) performance? what about the temp,,humidity, air density, and air pressure?

    So, besides the strategic reasons for fading Lester and stacking the mets, there were very clear statistical reasons for doing so, and for picking the players who hit him very hard, far and fast. except for Nim, who i played simply based on how easy it is to hit upside at that salary point.

    I will say this, of course there is luck in this, as there is in all aspects of life, especially in areas of life dealing with probability, but fortune favors the bold (fade the chalk) and the well prepared (the data on Lester and the Mets and the environment, that you, no offense, missed). some people (cough cough) have even written blog posts on these type of stats…

  • liwvu13

    “The leader boards on the DK Moonshot did not contain the normal names at the top”

    This line in the OP contradicts his entire argument..

  • msr427

    If everything happened as it was supposed to and stats never lied, we’d all be rich. And if woody had gone to the police, none of this would have ever happened.

  • cullyp81

    • 803

      RG Overall Ranking

    Of course there is “luck” involved with DFS. There is “luck” involved with every single thing we do, day in and day out. You don’t take an umbrella or rain jacket out with you when you leave for work in the morning, you’re “lucky” it doesn’t rain. You speed on the way to work, you’re “lucky” a police doesn’t see you. You give someone an estimate for work, and it’s “good luck” if you get the job. You go try a new restaurant for lunch, it’s “luck” if you get a good meal. You drive home from work and don’t get caught in a traffic jam, that’s “luck”. You light up your grill to cook dinner and don’t burn the house down, that’s “luck”. You try to get some from the wife when the kids go to bed, that takes a little “luck”.

    HOWEVER, with the proper research and effort, all of these things can go in your favor MANY more times than not. Did you check the weather channel before you left the house for the day? Sure a thunderstorm can pop up out of no where, but I guarantee you that if I watch the weather channel every morning and Joe Blow doesn’t, I’ll be more prepared 9 of 10 times. When leaving work, did you look at google maps to see how traffic was on your normal route home? If it was slow, did you choose another route or continue on the same one? EVERYTHING we do in life has calculated risks. Sure Arrieta can throw up a dud, just like a storm can pop up that wasn’t reported on the weather. Or the RedSox, whose team total is 6+, can put up 1 run over 9 innings. But just like in life itself, the people that put in research, make educated plays, and manage bankroll, will ALWAYS come out on top in the long run.

    To me, the argument of DFS being nothing but a game of chance/luck, is rooted in the attitude of today’s lazy people. “There’s no work available for me”, “I need help paying for this and that”, “That’s not right, but I’m just going to sit and bitch about it instead of doing something”, etc. etc. etc…. The argument of DFS being nothing but a game of luck comes from people that don’t want to put in any work, yet want something for free. “I’ve played the GPPs every day for a year and never won…It’s all luck”, yet you’re still choosing your players without even 10 minutes of research. When people don’t get their way, they’ve got to blame it on something else, because, of course it’s not at all their own fault. And it’s real easy to say something that you aren’t very good at is just a silly game of chance…..

  • cAUmberlandtiger8

    Im curious as to what Ryazaan thinks of this argument…

  • jayzee666

    FWIW, this may be beating a dead horse, but….
    I believe it is a combination of both luck and skill. You tend have more “luck” the more prepared you are.
    Skill is to digest the tons of information available to everyone on websites like this. Everyone has access to the free information so the skill factor is probably diluted, especially with the GPPs and multi entry contests.
    On any given day, at least 4 to 5 players from each position will have a good/great game and there is a good chance you can pick them based on this information.There isn’t a Silver Bullet that accomplishes this. You just have to look at the existing data and matchups, pick your players, and hope they perform like you expect to. I have seen many experts be wrong as much as they are right.
    Luck is much more prevalent with the contests that have many entries as you have more ppl that have the same knowledge and player selections. You have to be lucky that your well thought group of players can play better than another selection on well thought out players.
    The contests with multi entries, like 20 to 200, that really isn’t skill, that is using software to generate as many lineups as possible to better your odds. Creating the software is the skill, not picking 100 entries. I have more respect for the players that create one or two lineups for limited entry contests or H2H or single entry contests and win consistenly. THAT is more skill than entering 100s of lineups.
    I think skill is more prevalent with contests with lower amount of ppl in them and lower number of entries allowed.

    Unfortunately I have very little luck to go along along with any “skill” I may possess. I do GPPs, some 50/50s and some leagues, mainly single entry. Not a high volume player. The success I do have is with single entry, lower entry touneys.

  • garybmw

    I hang up names on a wall and throw darts. The “skill” is, I am a professional darts player. The “luck” is the rest

  • Chuky

    @cullyp81 said...

    Of course there is “luck” involved with DFS. There is “luck” involved with every single thing we do, day in and day out. You don’t take an umbrella or rain jacket out with you when you leave for work in the morning, you’re “lucky” it doesn’t rain. You speed on the way to work, you’re “lucky” a police doesn’t see you. You give someone an estimate for work, and it’s “good luck” if you get the job. You go try a new restaurant for lunch, it’s “luck” if you get a good meal. You drive home from work and don’t get caught in a traffic jam, that’s “luck”. You light up your grill to cook dinner and don’t burn the house down, that’s “luck”. You try to get some from the wife when the kids go to bed, that takes a little “luck”.

    HOWEVER, with the proper research and effort, all of these things can go in your favor MANY more times than not. Did you check the weather channel before you left the house for the day? Sure a thunderstorm can pop up out of no where, but I guarantee you that if I watch the weather channel every morning and Joe Blow doesn’t, I’ll be more prepared 9 of 10 times. When leaving work, did you look at google maps to see how traffic was on your normal route home? If it was slow, did you choose another route or continue on the same one? EVERYTHING we do in life has calculated risks. Sure Arrieta can throw up a dud, just like a storm can pop up that wasn’t reported on the weather. Or the RedSox, whose team total is 6+, can put up 1 run over 9 innings. But just like in life itself, the people that put in research, make educated plays, and manage bankroll, will ALWAYS come out on top in the long run.

    To me, the argument of DFS being nothing but a game of chance/luck, is rooted in the attitude of today’s lazy people. “There’s no work available for me”, “I need help paying for this and that”, “That’s not right, but I’m just going to sit and bitch about it instead of doing something”, etc. etc. etc…. The argument of DFS being nothing but a game of luck comes from people that don’t want to put in any work, yet want something for free. “I’ve played the GPPs every day for a year and never won…It’s all luck”, yet you’re still choosing your players without even 10 minutes of research. When people don’t get their way, they’ve got to blame it on something else, because, of course it’s not at all their own fault. And it’s real easy to say something that you aren’t very good at is just a silly game of chance…..

    Well said. Do any of u wonder why the profs like mcjester and the rest or so good? Don’t come with the many lineups argument because I’ve seen mcjester put up very skillful lineups in basketball live finals with one lineup. Anything in life requires hard work to succeed. You have to put in the hours to see the results. Losing is no fun and just because you are not good at something means it doesn’t require predominantly skills.

  • Priptonite

    • Blogger of the Month

    I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread, so forgive me if I’m off base, but most of the responses that I read slightly missed the mark. OP’s post is masked in MLB DFS jargon, but in reality it has nothing to do with wOBA, ISO, xFIP, etc. This thread is about understanding basic statistics and probability.

    Every time a pitcher takes the mound there is a range of outcomes that can occur. That range includes everything from throwing a perfect game to not escaping the first inning. Every item in that range has some probability of occurring, the value of which we can’t truly know. That being said, reaching reasonable estimates for general buckets of outcomes isn’t too difficult. Even notional assignments with no numbers are helpful for DFS. When Kershaw hits the mound you know that it is VERY UNLIKELY he will get blown up, UNLIKELY that he throws a mediocre game, LIKELY he throws a good-great game, and has a SMALL CHANCE of throwing an amazing game.

    More important (initially) then whether or not you can make good estimates of the probabilities of outcomes is simply understanding that the outcomes all exist. When Kershaw does get blown up, it does not mean that he was a bad play, or that there was something you missed in the stats. It just happened. It was unlikely, but it happened. Good pitchers will always get blown up once in a while, bad pitchers will always throw gems occasionally.

    Being successful in DFS (especially GPPs) requires this understanding at the very least.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    I think MLB can be a very frustrating sport just because there are no “safe” picks to hit value on any given day. All the players that seem safe get that safety priced out of them. The reality is that even the best pitchers are only as safe as a volatile NBA role player. Think about it, in the NBA, star players are basically going to get their numbers and going to play heavy minutes. However, role players having bad games could get benched and never see the court again. Likewise, even the top tier starting pitchers seem to get benched less than half way through a game for around 10% of their starts. That’s a pretty significant chunk. Then in NBA, news often comes up that makes a min-priced player a 90+% lock to exceed value… and sometimes that news comes very late, giving those paying attention a significant edge.

    There’s definitely tons of data to base your picks off of in baseball, but even the guys in the best spots are nowhere near as likely to hit value as NBA or NFL players in a great matchup or boosted workload situation. Personally, I’m not even playing MLB this year (it’s not my best sport), but I definitely learned playing last year that you have very little shot of winning GPPs if you make lineups based on what “should” happen, because you’ll be up against so many lineups that are similar to yours, but also have a low-owned player who went nuts. Sure, you should should have players that are in good spots, but if you’re playing tournaments you should always be looking for at least a couple of players who are both low-owned and have a high ceiling (even if they don’t often hit that ceiling).

    A large percentage of GPP lineups are basically drawing dead from the start because they are too “safe.” They may cash, but won’t win a large tournament. To me, it’s risky to play too many heavily-owned players in GPPs because you sacrifice tournament-winning upside. I consider it safe to choose at least a couple low-owned players per lineup who don’t hit value often, but occasionally destroy value… because doing this consistently throughout the season is more likely to lead to a few big scores (and probably some big droughts), but the big scores more than make up for the droughts in ways that playing “conservative” lineups never will.

    Being a tournament-only player, I have more losing days than winning days, and you’ll often find some of my lineups near the very bottom of the standings even though I don’t mass multi-enter… but I’d still be profitable even without my two largest wins because my lineups occasionally hit big.

  • jimmyquinella

    • Blogger of the Month

    @escot4 said...

    I think MLB can be a very frustrating sport just because there are no “safe” picks to hit value on any given day. All the players that seem safe get that safety priced out of them. The reality is that even the best pitchers are only as safe as a volatile NBA role player. Think about it, in the NBA, star players are basically going to get their numbers and going to play heavy minutes. However, role players having bad games could get benched and never see the court again. Likewise, even the top tier starting pitchers seem to get benched less than half way through a game for around 10% of their starts. That’s a pretty significant chunk. Then in NBA, news often comes up that makes a min-priced player a 90+% lock to exceed value… and sometimes that news comes very late, giving those paying attention a significant edge.

    There’s definitely tons of data to base your picks off of in baseball, but even the guys in the best spots are nowhere near as likely to hit value as NBA or NFL players in a great matchup or boosted workload situation. Personally, I’m not even playing MLB this year (it’s not my best sport), but I definitely learned playing last year that you have very little shot of winning GPPs if you make lineups based on what “should” happen, because you’ll be up against so many lineups that are similar to yours, but also have a low-owned player who went nuts. Sure, you should should have players that are in good spots, but if you’re playing tournaments you should always be looking for at least a couple of players who are both low-owned and have a high ceiling (even if they don’t often hit that ceiling).

    A large percentage of GPP lineups are basically drawing dead from the start because they are too “safe.” They may cash, but won’t win a large tournament. To me, it’s risky to play too many heavily-owned players in GPPs because you sacrifice tournament-winning upside. I consider it safe to choose at least a couple low-owned players per lineup who don’t hit value often, but occasionally destroy value… because doing this consistently throughout the season is more likely to lead to a few big scores (and probably some big droughts), but the big scores more than make up for the droughts in ways that playing “conservative” lineups never will.

    Being a tournament-only player, I have more losing days than winning days, and you’ll often find some of my lineups near the very bottom of the standings even though I don’t mass multi-enter… but I’d still be profitable even without my two largest wins because my lineups occasionally hit big.

    Amazing insight and spot on (IMO), burn this advice into your brain.

  • quackinup

    there is variance built into any decision in dfs. A good play is a good play for alot of different reasons but no play is 100%. Good plays are good at the time you make them, you cant look back and say things didnt end well and complain its all luck. Good decisions can end badly, you should accept this or dont and move on. So the idea is to keep making good decisions, THATS the skill. Some will end bad but over time good decisions will win money. Pointing out a specific bad outcome from hindsight, not the way to look at it. Its about the decision when you make it and thats it.

    Aside from this Regarding your specific examples, Toronto is a great high hr offense. Perfect for fantasy. Seeing a run total of 4 doesnt make me run out and take pitchers against them. there was risk built into that kluber play simply bc its toronto. the other one you mentioned was lester. I played lester alot that day and got beat up right with ya. Mets had looked terrible, really terrible, matchup was great against a bad looking lineup. It was a decent play that ended badly. Id say decent play, not amazing play. Lester isnt kershaw, alot of people think hes been playing over his head. The lester play was still a good play that day. Matchup was too good and mets had looked horrible. The outcome doesnt change that it was a good play. You should feel comfortable with that risk if dfs is for you.

  • depalma13

    “Percentages hold up for the course of a season, but for one game, one at bat, throw the percentages out the window.” – Moneyball

  • EadesScience

    @escot4 said...

    A large percentage of GPP lineups are basically drawing dead from the start because they are too “safe.” They may cash, but won’t win a large tournament. To me, it’s risky to play too many heavily-owned players in GPPs because you sacrifice tournament-winning upside.

    I like that right there. I have been making this error over and over. I am going to try and implement this more.

  • garybmw

    Yup, had the 4k Phillies pitcher last night in most of my lineups, ended up being the best pitcher of the night by faaaaaar. Huge debate in the DFS community about taking garbage pitchers. Most say don’t ever do it, I do it almost 75% of the time. To each his own I suppose.

  • njsum

    Alright, this age-old discussion is soooo played out, I figured I’d throw my hat in the ring and give anyone bored enough to read this a fresh take (at least a take I havent read or heard elsewhere, im sure someone somewhere has had this thought, I just havent seen it yet). Here we go….DFS isnt skill, yet it isnt luck either. Nor is it a combination of both. When you think about it, is doing more research than someone else or having an algo that youve crammed all this predictive data into that spits out an optimal lineup really a skill? Yet is it luck that people who do more research win more often? IMO the answer is NO to both questions, so how is DFS luck or a skill?

    Somewhere between random happenstance and exact science you will find ART..and IMO that is what DFS is at its core. Its a game learned over time, where a player with talent, the right tools and a great feel for a sport will be long run profitable. And as with all ART or even endeavors that can be artful, sometimes you create a masterpiece and sometimes you create a master POS.

  • jregger

    @Priptonite said...

    Every time a pitcher takes the mound there is a range of outcomes that can occur. That range includes everything from throwing a perfect game to not escaping the first inning. Every item in that range has some probability of occurring, the value of which we can’t truly know. That being said, reaching reasonable estimates for general buckets of outcomes isn’t too difficult. Even notional assignments with no numbers are helpful for DFS. When Kershaw hits the mound you know that it is VERY UNLIKELY he will get blown up, UNLIKELY that he throws a mediocre game, LIKELY he throws a good-great game, and has a SMALL CHANCE of throwing an amazing game.

    More important (initially) then whether or not you can make good estimates of the probabilities of outcomes is simply understanding that the outcomes all exist. When Kershaw does get blown up, it does not mean that he was a bad play, or that there was something you missed in the stats. It just happened. It was unlikely, but it happened. Good pitchers will always get blown up once in a while, bad pitchers will always throw gems occasionally.

    Being successful in DFS (especially GPPs) requires this understanding at the very least.

    This.

  • dictator_teddy

    • 2017 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    OP is obviously a losing player.

  • jessanders

    By this logic, everything is luck and no skill; right?

    Mike Trout facing the worst lefty in baseball and he goes 0-4. Boom! Proof that baseball isn’t skill at all, it’s all luck. Right?

    As someone who gambles quite a bit and is relatively new to DFS (I’ve been more of a poker player in my life) I can tell you that this kind of thinking is very prominent with people who don’t understand the math behind it.

    Simply put, the law of large numbers wins out. If you roster Jon Lester as one of your pitchers every time he pitches, you’ll score more points on average than if you roster say Jered Weaver. Sure, on a given day Weaver might put up more points than Lester, but over a full season (or, perhaps more accurately, over enough trials… a full season for starting pitchers is still an extremely small sample size) Lester will greatly out perform Weaver.

    If you really think those who make their living doing DFS are just luckier than you are, you are wrong. Sure, the ability to roster 100+ lineups on a given day vs the average scrub rostering 1-5 gives a big edge in and of itself, but if you put someone who makes their living at it against a random person who dabbles and had them build one lineup a day each day over a season, I think you’d see a significant difference in overall point totals.

  • escot4

    • x2

      $2M Prize Winner

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Champion

    @jessanders said...

    By this logic, everything is luck and no skill; right?

    Mike Trout facing the worst lefty in baseball and he goes 0-4. Boom! Proof that baseball isn’t skill at all, it’s all luck. Right?

    As someone who gambles quite a bit and is relatively new to DFS (I’ve been more of a poker player in my life) I can tell you that this kind of thinking is very prominent with people who don’t understand the math behind it.

    Simply put, the law of large numbers wins out. If you roster Jon Lester as one of your pitchers every time he pitches, you’ll score more points on average than if you roster say Jered Weaver. Sure, on a given day Weaver might put up more points than Lester, but over a full season (or, perhaps more accurately, over enough trials… a full season for starting pitchers is still an extremely small sample size) Lester will greatly out perform Weaver.

    If you really think those who make their living doing DFS are just luckier than you are, you are wrong. Sure, the ability to roster 100+ lineups on a given day vs the average scrub rostering 1-5 gives a big edge in and of itself, but if you put someone who makes their living at it against a random person who dabbles and had them build one lineup a day each day over a season, I think you’d see a significant difference in overall point totals.

    Totally agree about the math. Most people analyze statistics in a very irrational way. I often see something along the lines of “when I roster him he doesn’t play well.” That’s because they’re comparing a small sample size (when they roster the player) to a large sample size (the whole season) and acting as if the smaller sample size is the more reliable one. Obviously that’s not the case.

  • dakimbell

    @escot4 said...

    I think MLB can be a very frustrating sport just because there are no “safe” picks to hit value on any given day. All the players that seem safe get that safety priced out of them. The reality is that even the best pitchers are only as safe as a volatile NBA role player. Think about it, in the NBA, star players are basically going to get their numbers and going to play heavy minutes. However, role players having bad games could get benched and never see the court again. Likewise, even the top tier starting pitchers seem to get benched less than half way through a game for around 10% of their starts. That’s a pretty significant chunk. Then in NBA, news often comes up that makes a min-priced player a 90+% lock to exceed value… and sometimes that news comes very late, giving those paying attention a significant edge.

    There’s definitely tons of data to base your picks off of in baseball, but even the guys in the best spots are nowhere near as likely to hit value as NBA or NFL players in a great matchup or boosted workload situation. Personally, I’m not even playing MLB this year (it’s not my best sport), but I definitely learned playing last year that you have very little shot of winning GPPs if you make lineups based on what “should” happen, because you’ll be up against so many lineups that are similar to yours, but also have a low-owned player who went nuts. Sure, you should should have players that are in good spots, but if you’re playing tournaments you should always be looking for at least a couple of players who are both low-owned and have a high ceiling (even if they don’t often hit that ceiling).

    A large percentage of GPP lineups are basically drawing dead from the start because they are too “safe.” They may cash, but won’t win a large tournament. To me, it’s risky to play too many heavily-owned players in GPPs because you sacrifice tournament-winning upside. I consider it safe to choose at least a couple low-owned players per lineup who don’t hit value often, but occasionally destroy value… because doing this consistently throughout the season is more likely to lead to a few big scores (and probably some big droughts), but the big scores more than make up for the droughts in ways that playing “conservative” lineups never will.

    Being a tournament-only player, I have more losing days than winning days, and you’ll often find some of my lineups near the very bottom of the standings even though I don’t mass multi-enter… but I’d still be profitable even without my two largest wins because my lineups occasionally hit big.

    Great post! Couldn’t agree more, I have won far more money stacking the Phillies and the Marlins than I ever will with the Rockies or Blue Jays. It can be very maddening because it leads to a lot of very poor lineups, but it is totally worth it those few times a season everything works out.

    Having said that, I probably have far too many Reds and Cubs in my lineup this morning!

  • noddy

    There’s more than one way to win a GPP

  • 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?

If you have access to New Jersey sports betting, then use our DraftKings Sportsbook promo code and our FanDuel Sportsbook promo code to get the best bonuses in the NJ industry.

Those who can take advantage of PA online sports betting should use our SugarHouse PA promo code to get the best sports betting bonus in Pennsylvania.

If you don't yet have access to an online sportsbook, check out Monkey Knife Fight, a prop betting platform available in 31 states. Use our Monkey Knife Fight promo code to get a fantastic bonus.

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!

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler