INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • Boooooourns

    • 2016 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    Same old complaint…

    If I enter 2 lineups in a GPP and one cashes, I shouldn’t lose money.

    Change the min cash payouts!

  • FantasyDraftSupport

    • FantasyDraft Representative

    @jmo26 said...

    Despite the nonsense above, your complaint is totally valid. I would love to return to the min cash being 2x, with top 20% cashing. Far better for the entire ecosystem.

    After feedback like this months ago, we changed our GPPs to 2X min cash and top 20-22% cashing, with around 10-12% to first place.

  • lloydjv1

    This is why I usually only play QA’s on DK. Sometimes I get lucky, other times I am just out a quarter. I only play for the rush anyway. I don’t have the capital to be a high roller. I also have a daytime job so doing the research and crosschecking for DVP and other stats is limited.

  • Benf15harp

    Make better lineups.

  • britdevine

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    The FD Squueze is perfect tonight

    2x min cash
    20% paid
    10% to 1st and flat payouts

  • quake211

    • Ranked #35

      RG Tiered Ranking

    this is probably a dumb question but has the rake on DK been 18%+ for a while now? I usually don’t ever check this, but decided to tonight and was shocked to see all the low stakes PGA contests were upwards of 18% rake.

  • bigez952

    @quake211 said...

    this is probably a dumb question but has the rake on DK been 18%+ for a while now? I usually don’t ever check this, but decided to tonight and was shocked to see all the low stakes PGA contests were upwards of 18% rake.

    Your calculating rake wrong to get to the 18% number. Rake has increased to just below 16% in the low dollar GPP’s. The correct way to calculate rake is (total money taken in – guaranteed payout) / total money taken in. So for example the $12 single entry Albatross this week has 3921 entreis with a $40,000 payout so when it fill DK earns $7052 in rake / $47,052 taken in for a 14.9% rake.

    Your most likely incorrectly calculated rake by taking the $7052 number taken in divided by the payouts ($40,000) only which gets you a % closer to 18%.

    The $500,000 $5 Drive the Green PGA contest this week has $94,500 worth of rake and $594,500 taken in for a 15.9% rake which is the higher amount. I have yet to see any contest break the 16% barrier yet but I am sure it is coming.

  • Njsum1

    @quake211 said...

    this is probably a dumb question but has the rake on DK been 18%+ for a while now? I usually don’t ever check this, but decided to tonight and was shocked to see all the low stakes PGA contests were upwards of 18% rake.

    You’ve miscalculated the rake.

    Rake=Total entry fees-Guaranteed Payout/Total entry Fees…it’s usually just under 16% for smaller contests…around 15.5 to 15.8%

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Min cash payout is not the problem. Once you play enough GPPs, your min-cash winnings will have very little to do with your overall ROI. It is far more frustrating, IMO, to finish, say 200/50000 and only end up with 7x your buy-in (as in today’s MLB Tape Measure). In other words, the tweaking that needs to be done is at the top, not at the bottom. You get your ROI from your top 0.1% finishes, not your top 20% finishes. I would gladly give up all my top 10-20% winnings in order to make the 0.1% winnings flatter.

    For example, compare to the Masters purse. First place won 6.6x as much as tenth place and 20.5x as much as twenty-fifth place. Compare to the Tape Measure, where first place gets 33.3x as much as tenth and 100x as much as twenty-fifth. The difference between finishing 1st vs 25th out of 50K is so small in terms of fantasy points, but in the long run, those tiny differences on a tiny fraction of your lineups is what determines your ROI and variance. Min cashes may as well be irrelevant.

    If you’re a new player or low-volume and feel like you need those min cashes in order to play the next day, then quite simply you are playing out of your bankroll and should drop down to a lower buyin level where you can keep chasing a big win regardless of whether min cash is 1.5x or 2x.

  • Njsum1

    @hendog said...

    If you’re a new player or low-volume and feel like you need those min cashes in order to play the next day, then quite simply you are playing out of your bankroll and should drop down to a lower buyin level where you can keep chasing a big win regardless of whether min cash is 1.5x or 2x

    I agree that structures need to be flattened at the top, yet you’re overlooking why min cash being above 1.5x is so important. It allows you to stay in the game long enough to eventually possibly hit the big payout, which is your argument in the first place right? Go for the big payout. Min cash at 2x allows someone to stay in the game 33% longer than min cash at 1.5x assuming the same percentage of the field min cashes in either structure. That is significant. And IMO dropping down in buy in does not solve that problem as eventually, if/when someone hits a bigger payout in a lower buy in tourney, they may want to move up in stakes. And the longer they can sustain themselves before a nice big finish, the better chance they have of obtaining the high payout. Rinse and repeat all the way up the buy in ladder.

    IMO both flatter structures up top and 2x min cashes are important. Also, not everyone goes Ricky Bobby (if you’re not first your last) in GPPs. Some people choose to enter a few cash type lineups and a few risky type lineups, so they need better payouts down low.

  • jmo26

    @Njsum1 said...

    I agree that structures need to be flattened at the top, yet you’re overlooking why min cash being above 1.5x is so important. It allows you to stay in the game long enough to eventually possibly hit the big payout, which is your argument in the first place right? Go for the big payout. Min cash at 2x allows someone to stay in the game 33% longer than min cash at 1.5x assuming the same percentage of the field min cashes in either structure.

    Bingo.

    Regardless, the primary issue is that these contests are too top heavy; if you redistribute some of that money, you can both flatten the payout and raise min cash to around 2x.

  • bigez952

    @hendog said...

    Min cash payout is not the problem. Once you play enough GPPs, your min-cash winnings will have very little to do with your overall ROI. It is far more frustrating, IMO, to finish, say 200/50000 and only end up with 7x your buy-in (as in today’s MLB Tape Measure). In other words, the tweaking that needs to be done is at the top, not at the bottom. You get your ROI from your top 0.1% finishes, not your top 20% finishes. I would gladly give up all my top 10-20% winnings in order to make the 0.1% winnings flatter.

    For example, compare to the Masters purse. First place won 6.6x as much as tenth place and 20.5x as much as twenty-fifth place. Compare to the Tape Measure, where first place gets 33.3x as much as tenth and 100x as much as twenty-fifth. The difference between finishing 1st vs 25th out of 50K is so small in terms of fantasy points, but in the long run, those tiny differences on a tiny fraction of your lineups is what determines your ROI and variance. Min cashes may as well be irrelevant.

    If you’re a new player or low-volume and feel like you need those min cashes in order to play the next day, then quite simply you are playing out of your bankroll and should drop down to a lower buyin level where you can keep chasing a big win regardless of whether min cash is 1.5x or 2x.

    I 100% agree with the need to flatten the payout structure but there is an entire group of players that take the exact opposite stance and only care what 1st place is and if it is not a massive number they say it is not worth playing. However the ironic part usually is all of the guys that says this usually have never won first place so the just like the dream of winning life changing money in a single day and don’t really care about the season long grind. No payout structure would make everyone happy but it would be nice to see a better variety like the super top heavy insane millionaire makers for those that want it but then it would also be nice to see a contest with a flatter more reasonable pay scale for those that want that.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Njsum1 said...

    Min cash at 2x allows someone to stay in the game 33% longer than min cash at 1.5x assuming the same percentage of the field min cashes in either structure.

    I would argue that people are not staying in the game via their min cashes. Cashing 1.5x on 20% of lineups gives you a floor that is -70% below breaking even. Cashing 2x on that same 20% gets you to -60% below break even. That 10% higher floor is not going to make a dent, and it comes at the expense of making the big wins harder to come by. If you want sustainability, play a higher percentage of cash (or drop stakes and play more volume).

    That’s my bottom line. You can customize your risk profile by the amount of cash you play. There’s no need to make GPPs more like cash games (easier to break even, harder to win big) when you could get the same effect from playing more cash games.

    This is an unpopular opinion in two ways (smaller grand prize, fewer min cashes) but that would be my ideal GPP structure. All that said, I have no problem with having different options where the player volume supports it.

  • awilson45

    GPPs really suck these days. Cut back on the number of “winning” entries to at least guarantee 2x and extrapolate that up the prize pool ladder. Say 20% of LUs cash, I’d be totally fine with 10% cashing if 2x was min cash. If they offered contests that were structured in that way I’d play that exclusively— unless that already exists and I’m just not looking hard enough.

  • SkateFiend

    @hendog said...

    I would argue that people are not staying in the game via their min cashes. Cashing 1.5x on 20% of lineups gives you a floor that is -70% below breaking even. Cashing 2x on that same 20% gets you to -60% below break even. That 10% higher floor is not going to make a dent, and it comes at the expense of making the big wins harder to come by. If you want sustainability, play a higher percentage of cash (or drop stakes and play more volume).

    That’s my bottom line. You can customize your risk profile by the amount of cash you play. There’s no need to make GPPs more like cash games (easier to break even, harder to win big) when you could get the same effect from playing more cash games.

    This is an unpopular opinion in two ways (smaller grand prize, fewer min cashes) but that would be my ideal GPP structure. All that said, I have no problem with having different options where the player volume supports it.

    Reaching min cash is probably more important for small time players, especially since some sites only allow you to withdraw winnings and or have withdrawal minimums.

    If min cash is 1.5x I would have to min cash at least 5 times a week to make a make a profit. If it was 2x then I only have to win 4 times a week. If you want to grind out a small profit over time that kind of margin matters. If you play only 2 GPP contests a day and the min cas was 2X, you can break even if only one of them min cashes. You have a better chance of recouping the entry fee and possibly add on more if min cash was 2X.

    In a contest with thousands of people, the odds of anyone reaching the top 20 is minuscule. I’ve had top 5 finishes at Yahoo. At DK or FD, a similar lineup probably would earned me like 10 bucks.

  • cmbarbee226

    All I hear when someone makes this complaint is they have never considered game selection. If you don’t consider game selection, it doesn’t matter if the industry changes back to 2x min cash rate, you will fall into the category of people that lose in the long run either way.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    I haven’t been around the entire time but have been around since pretty early (this was my seventh year doing NBA). When I started getting into GPP’s, min cash was always 3x buy-in…. but only the top 12% cashed (basically, 20 or 100-man cashouts, which haven’t changed). If you like that kind of payouts, look that way.

    From a business standpoint, it totally makes sense to have more people cash, even if it’s hardly anything. At the end of the day, most people (admittedly, me included) feel like they “win” if they win anything, even if they lost money. So for a lot of people who are just doing this for fun, they’ll min cash every other night or so, slowly drip their money away, and then redeposit. Chances are, those also aren’t the type of people who are going to be cashing highly very often. But, when that top spot (or the top ten in tourneys) pays out substantially more, it’s appealing. We all have dreams of hitting the big one (actually, when I read the message boards, I’m 99% sure I’m the only one who hasn’t actually achieved that dream), and the more times we can feel like we “win” means we live to chase another day, which in turn keeps things going. Small minimum cashes are gross and annoying, obviously, but they do serve a purpose. And, when you couple in the fact that, statistically, so few people are actually profitable in DFS, winning your money back could (and maybe even should) actually be considered a win!

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @SkateFiend said...

    I’ve had top 5 finishes at Yahoo. At DK or FD, a similar lineup probably would earned me like 10 bucks.

    Exactly. All I’ve been trying to say is that this is more frustrating than the min cashes.Make those excellent-but-not-extraordinary lineups more profitable, even at the expense of min cashes. IMO.

  • mambaland

    from the guy who creates tons of 4 person top 3 paid contest wanting larger payout

  • DraftKings_CM

    • DraftKings Representative

    @Boooooourns said...

    Same old complaint…

    If I enter 2 lineups in a GPP and one cashes, I shouldn’t lose money.

    Change the min cash payouts!

    Thank you for your feedback Boooooourns. There are many varying opinions on how we should balance our payout structures. Some players prefer very flat payouts, this allows for more winners in the field but a mincash will only earn your buying back without profit. Others prefer 1.5x min cash, this allows for a small profit when mincashing but the tradeoff is fewer winners get paid. We also see very good arguments for 2x mincashing, but where does that money come from? Should we cut the number of mincashing players in half? Should we create less flat payout structures?

    There is a fine balance we keep while crafting our payout structures, and we admit that there is no perfect solution for all perspectives. Every option is a compromise. But we can assure you that our operations team does review alternative structures, and we are not necessarily committed long term to the current payout structure which features a 1.5x mincash. Rest assured that we will continue to look at the data and learn from our users so we can continue to evolve the game experience in a way that is positive for a wide range of player needs.

    If you want to further share your thoughts on how to balance payout structures in this thread, we would be happy to continue to relay them to the appropriate decision makers internally. If you would rather have a 1 on 1 conversation, then we can be reached at community@draftkings.com. We would be happy to listen to your ideas and share our thoughts.

  • DraftKings_CM

    • DraftKings Representative

    @quake211 said...

    this is probably a dumb question but has the rake on DK been 18%+ for a while now? I usually don’t ever check this, but decided to tonight and was shocked to see all the low stakes PGA contests were upwards of 18% rake.

    In an effort to be as transparent to our users as possible, we have posted DraftKings’ full maximum contest commission structure for review. This page is kept current, so you can review the maximum commissions taken from a contest. The commission structure changes by the price of the entry fee, and has separate structures for guaranteed, guaranteed multipliers, and non-guaranteed contests. We also offer a reduced commission for double-up contests.

    https://www.draftkings.com/lp/commission-structure

    PS: If we offer a contest whose commission does not comply with this page, then we promise to refund the difference between actual commission and maximum commission to every user in the contest.

    - Steven & Christie, DraftKings Community Team

  • KindGuy

    @DraftKings_CM said...

    In an effort to be as transparent to our users as possible, we have posted DraftKings’ full maximum contest commission structure for review. This page is kept current, so you can review the maximum commissions taken from a contest. The commission structure changes by the price of the entry fee, and has separate structures for guaranteed, guaranteed multipliers, and non-guaranteed contests. We also offer a reduced commission for double-up contests.

    https://www.draftkings.com/lp/commission-structure

    PS: If we offer a contest whose commission does not comply with this page, then we promise to refund the difference between actual commission and maximum commission to every user in the contest.

    - Steven & Christie, DraftKings Community Team

    Thank you for providing that very helpful link. I have signed up for notifications.

    When was that page first posted? This is my first time ever seeing that and I wanted to know how long I’ve been missing out. Seems like a very helpful resource!

  • jmo26

    @DraftKings_CM said...

    We also see very good arguments for 2x mincashing, but where does that money come from? Should we cut the number of mincashing players in half? Should we create less flat payout structures?

    Nobody’s suggesting you create less flat payout structures, or drastically cut the number of those cashing (perhaps the number who min-cash might significantly decrease, but you’re not cutting the overall number of those who cash in half if you go from the current ~25% to ~20%). Neither of those things need to happen, the norm used to be that roughly 20% cashed and min-cash was in fact 2x.

    Personally, I don’t think you should ever be getting less than 2x — it’s absolute insanity that I can cash in more than half of my GPP lineups and still be losing money.

  • Whosiere41

    • Blogger of the Month

    If it makes the OP feel any better I have played in poker tourney’s that have payouts like that. Its almost like they are saying you get half your buy-in back as a consolation. You aren’t really “cashing” per say, but you aren’t totally losing either. Getting back half of the buy-in sort of takes the sting out of possibly not even doing well enough to bubble. The issue here is perspective… if you consider it a win and you are still losing money you are pissed, but if you consider it as a consolation prize for finishing in the last cash position and not one spot lower that gets nothing then you can consider it a partial win.

  • Whosiere41

    • Blogger of the Month

    Hey I have an idea… How about the rake gets cut back by 2% or 3%? That would offer more money to up the min cashes to at least 2x and still payout top 20%. Oh wait, what am I thinking. Thats right….. that will NEVER happen.

  • SkateFiend

    @jmo26 said...

    Nobody’s suggesting you create less flat payout structures, or drastically cut the number of those cashing (perhaps the number who min-cash might significantly decrease, but you’re not cutting the overall number of those who cash in half if you go from the current ~25% to ~20%). Neither of those things need to happen, the norm used to be that roughly 20% cashed and min-cash was in fact 2x.

    Personally, I don’t think you should ever be getting less than 2x — it’s absolute insanity that I can cash in more than half of my GPP lineups and still be losing money.

    That’s the payout structure for GPP contests at Yahoo, and that’s why most of my action is there.

    From what I can see, the min cash for every DK GPP contest is 1.5x. It’s 2x for their small 1 dollar contest (the one with 237 people) but you have to finish in the top 16% to min cash.

    If around 20% of the field won and min cash was 2x, you would win more money as you move up in the standings. Another way to look at that is you would lose less money as lineups behind yours begin to overtake you.

    I tried DK for the first time last year and aside from a few stacks that went right, it was a losing game. It’s not possible to win money at DK playing only a couple lineups a day. A legion enter their contests nightly and even a top 30 finish won’t give you that much.

    As others have noted, the feeling that you “won” is psychologically important and will help you keep playing. If some played 50 bucks on two lineups and broke even by min cashing one, that’s a tremendous relief for the player. I only play cash games at DK and FD and that won’t change until payout structure is more casual friendly.

  • 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.