NBA FORUM

Comments

  • tonytone1908

    I mean seriously. A “Punt” use to be just that, a PUNT! We were happy to get 10 or 15 points from a punt last year. Now we can’t even consider a “punt” unless it’s gonna give us 30 points. Last year people were taking down GPP’s with 1 and sometimes 2 people with single digit scores. Some nights the winning score was like 270, now you’re lucky to cash with a 300. There was even a viable NHL strategy last year of taking the lowest priced goalie, who didn’t even have a snowball’s chance in hell of playing, simply because at least you wouldn’t get negative points and you could spend up immensely elsewhere. Hell, in MLB many tourneys have been taken down by simply using the lowest priced SP and spending up everywhere else. Which will lead to me to my NBA LU theory, that it all comes down to your 2 low owned punts that absolutely no one else is on. The rest of your roster has 7 higher owned plays? That’s fine, as long as they are the right plays and you can separate yourself enough on your punts. I took a nice cash on an express slate with Bobby Portis on his 1st breakout night at 0.6% owned. Last 2 minutes of the game I went from a $20 cash to $1500, as a testament to ownership %.

    Some people are right a little bit when they say that ownership % doesn’t matter and to just play the right player. They are totally right. There is nothing wrong with having an immensely chalky player in your LU as long as you’re convinced that they will extremely over-perform. Such as tonight with Matt Barnes or Jamal Crawford. I mean, seriously, do you really think either of them are going to match, let alone out-do their last game? Of course not, which should make them easy fades. Because of their perceived ownership because of last game, they need to outperform even more now which obviously is even more highly unlikely to happen. Although for each chalk play you need to counter with a sure to be low owned play somewhere else on your roster. Lesson learned? Avoid the obvious chalk plays unless you’re convinced you’re getting a MINIMUM 7x, since 6x just don’t cut it these days, ESPECIALLY for chalk. See Jamal Crawford and Matt Barnes tonight.

    Last year I was building LU’s just by what I thought were the best possible options at each position. I rarely took ownership % into account at all. Sometimes my insight from watching previous games would lead me to play a sleeper that not many were on and it worked out in my favor and I at least cashed. All I needed was that one differentiating player.

    But at least, I would normally still cash more often than not. I would many times do 20-50 LU’s with Fantasycruncher and without ever thinking about ownership ‘s would more often than not at least recuperate 80 of my entry fees. Most nights I never got close to getting rich but I would at least have 1 or 2 LU’s get in the top 100 of a GPP and I would rarely get slaughtered for the night overall unless there was a 10k guy with a very random late scratch that I had way too much of for the night. I rarely would completely dud on all my LU’s for any particular night. This year, it’s not the same.

    I don’t blame it on algorithms or scripts. It’s not that at all. Trust me, I looked at many winning LU’s last year. I’m sure I’m not the only one that remembers people winning with absolute ZEROS in their LU’s! Maybe not in full slates, although I’m sure I seen them, but in turbos at least, it was happening all the time. Hell, I seen many tourney winners that were either less than a month old or had less than 5 wins in 4 years. I swore up and down FD had bot players because hell, if a bot takes down a 100k top prize that’s just more money for the bottom line right? I seen many LU’s at the bottom of tourneys with crap players and people said no it was just someone’s placeholder LU or they won a ticket and never changed it. No way, if you seen those LU’s you would never had played them ever. Contrarian is contrarian but this much? Uh uh. Which was even stranger because they obviously weren’t placeholder LU’s, they were just WHACK AZZ LU’s! But what wins it most times? Whack azz LU’s! Shoot, look at the last few LU’s from the shot tonight. Not totally out of line but I don’t care what optimizer I had, those LU’s would not get money out of me.

    I’ve just led myself to the opinion that I need to make myself play the opposite of what I think is the right play. Think about it, when is whatever you think the right play end up being the right play? NEVER! I watch a ton and a ton of basketball. I read, eat, sleep, research, eat, sleep BASKETBALL. I’ve realized that it just never, ever makes sense.

    I guess you just do your best to avoid the chalk, find the sleepers, cross your fingers, and hope for the best!

  • tjabchs6

    @tonytone1908 said...

    Such as tonight with Matt Barnes or Jamal Crawford. I mean, seriously, do you really think either of them are going to match, let alone out-do their last game? Of course not, which should make them easy fades. Because of their perceived ownership because of last game, they need to outperform even more now which obviously is even more highly unlikely to happen.

    1. If last night were repeated 100 times, I probably would have played Barnes 99/100 times in cash games on FD.

    2. Assuming you meant “because of their expected ownership”, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to outperform even more.

  • tjabchs6

    Quality advice and information continue to become more widely available. This is also the time of the season where competition starts to increase even more. It’ll take a decent hit at your ROI.

    I don’t think there’s anything else to it.

  • tonytone1908

    @tjabchs6 said...

    1. If last night were repeated 100 times, I probably would have played Barnes 99/100 times in cash games on FD.

    2. Assuming you meant “because of their expected ownership”, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to outperform even more.

    The more someone is owned the more they have to perform to make it worthwhile to roster them. I’m also talking GPP.

  • tonytone1908

    @tjabchs6 said...

    Quality advice and information continue to become more widely available. This is also the time of the season where competition starts to increase even more. It’ll take a decent hit at your ROI.

    I don’t think there’s anything else to it.

    It’s not just tonight or any certain slate, I’m talking in general. I actually found this time of year to be easier for me last season but the first half has not been too kind other than just before Christmas.

  • Shipmymoney

    • 56

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @tonytone1908 said...

    The more someone is owned the more they have to perform to make it worthwhile to roster them. I’m also talking GPP.

    No it doesn’t. It just means you have less of an advantage over the field when they do well. It doesn’t mean they need like 8x instead of 7x just because they are highly owned.

  • CUTiger81

    Well the pricing on FD is slow to react and the lack of roster flexibility makes it easier to build good lineups (I still prefer FD to DK by the way). I built 5 lineups tonight and all were between 332 and 352 but on a slate with some high totals that ms just not gonna be good enough for anything big.

  • BeltWieldindad

    • 360

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #81

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Playing an NHL goalie that was gonna get 0 was never a viable strategy except on like star studded 4 game slates and that was only cuz min goalie price was 5k not 6500 and fd had super soft pricing so the 3k in savings let you get guys like ovechkin instead of a random 4th liner.

  • chronoxiong

    I think I have lost a lot more money this season on NBA more than last season. I didn’t start sinking like the Titanic ship until the Trade Deadline and then the horrible late scratches happened and I never recovered. This year, I started losing money during mid-December and now it looks like I will NEVER recoup that money back. I continue to lose due to making some costly decisions or other nights I happen to pick a few busts who derail my chances of winning. It is very painful right now. I don’t even know what to do anymore besides playing less cash games. But when I do that, I feel like I missed out on a chance to beast on the nights I do end up winning comfortably. Anyways, I do agree that NBA has been more unpredictable this year. Value plays don’t always come through and there have been a lot of busts more than I can remember.

  • cedric19

    Guys the competition is too informed and tough in non NFL games anymore. You can be better than most but when they are still pretty good 10-15% rake is a killer.

    This has been discussed before, but there is a ceiling on how good you can make lineups. If there isn’t enough separation between that ceiling and floor then in the not too distant long run even the best player loses to the rake.

    For example right now if the rake was 25% no one would win in the long run even if they were a lineup building genius. No one. As the playing field skill floor raises the rake % at which no one wins decreases. Doesn’t matter if you are or aren’t building better lineups.

  • tonytone1908

    @Shipmymoney said...

    No it doesn’t. It just means you have less of an advantage over the field when they do well. It doesn’t mean they need like 8x instead of 7x just because they are highly owned.

    Sorry bro but it really does. When that guy underperforms, which is more likely than not, you’re screwed. Completely. You have to have humongous faith in a guy that’s perceived to have huge ownership if you’re going to play him.

    I guess I should say they have to vastly outperform the other plays at their position. A guy with 40% ownership with 4x will totally hurt you if everyone else at that position was getting 5x or more that night. I don’t care if it’s Westbrook with a 60 burger. Unless he gets 6x or more you actually hurt yourself by playing him.

  • tjabchs6

    @tonytone1908 said...

    Sorry bro but it really does. When that guy underperforms, which is more likely than not, you’re screwed. Completely. You have to have humongous faith in a guy that’s perceived to have huge ownership if you’re going to play him.

    I guess I should say they have to vastly outperform the other plays at their position. A guy with 40% ownership with 4x will totally hurt you if everyone else at that position was getting 5x or more that night. I don’t care if it’s Westbrook with a 60 burger. Unless he gets 6x or more you actually hurt yourself by playing him.

    I can promise you there is a very strong correlation between ownership % and overperforming. Not too sure what makes you think the higher ownership % a guy has, the more likely he will underperform.

  • bhdevault

    • Lead Moderator

    • Blogger of the Month

    2 years ago, on a night like last night with Davis being a late scratch, Ryan Anderson would have been 25% – 40% owned in cash games. Last night, he was 80% owned.

    DFS players in general are just MUCH more informed these days. It definitely is tougher. So much information out there now, it makes players like me who used to dominate cash games have a much tougher time.

    I believe it’s simply this. I do not have an edge over the average person anymore. Some still do and are still very successful. It’s my fault, nobody else’s.

  • Cityworkout

    @cedric19 said...

    Guys the competition is too informed and tough in non NFL games anymore. You can be better than most but when they are still pretty good 10-15% rake is a killer.

    This has been discussed before, but there is a ceiling on how good you can make lineups. If there isn’t enough separation between that ceiling and floor then in the not too distant long run even the best player loses to the rake.

    For example right now if the rake was 25% no one would win in the long run even if they were a lineup building genius. No one. As the playing field skill floor raises the rake % at which no one wins decreases. Doesn’t matter if you are or aren’t building better lineups.

    Good point. The rake is too high for a game where difficulty has increased. I agree BHDevault, the ownership rate on Anderson is higher than it should be imo. I pivoted to a little over half of my exposure to Anderson in cash and kind of knew I would break even roughly before the ABC game.

    There is a bigger edge in other sports like MMA. I follow MMA and if you take the time you can create a definite edge though the sport itself is volatile. One has to actually do research and it isn’t a given like a Cousins or CP3 are.

  • neogamer

    • x2

      2013 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    As has been the case in recent dfs years, the competition becomes super informed as we near the end of the regular season. There really is no benefit in entering cash games at this point. On a side note, Bill you may not be able to beat the average dfs player anymore , but you are still an above average guy in my book.

  • g0back2sch00l

    Anyone who has played a decent amount of NBA DFS should have been all over Eric Gordon last night as well. Your comment about Ryan Anderson was spot on, however, I do not believe everyone is “too informed” to be successful nowadays

  • dangerb407

    I agree with your point on contrarian low priced punts. Ellington (1.4%) and Tucker (1.6%) were two of the key pieces to the winning FD Layup lineup last night, for example

    This is my first year doing NBA. Was the pricing this soft last year on FD? If not, I would think that is contributing at least as much as player improvements to the increase in difficulty as it takes away a lot of the edge.

  • TheRyanFlaherty

    The amount of information out there has made DFS players sharper, but I still think this is more to do with the NBA players on the court.
    Last night for example – you have the obvious $5,000 play (Anderson) go for 10x value and the highest-owned game go into OT with the high priced players exceeding value. When you have a confluence of events like that you wind up with cash lines absurdly high.
    The crazy thing is just, of late, this has seemed to be the norm and not the exception.

    The big difference to me is that following the herd mentality used to be a negative (more often than not), but now if you take the chalk value and studs, most night those guys are exceeding value and putting you in position to cash.
    Virtually every night, I’m seeing the games play out and thinking back to my “tough” decisions, only to see I literally could have went with anyone on my radar and exceeded value.
    I wish I had the numbers, because while the DFS community certainly is more informed, it also seems players are hitting 5x+ at a rate far higher than last year, especially the higher owned players.

  • mistermoneybags

    Individual competition and information availability aside, another contributing factor is the rotations that coaches now employ. It used to be that you could be fairly confident that in rostering a certain player absent foul trouble or injury you could rely on him for a baseline level of minutes. With the advent of “small ball” and the obsession with lineup tinkering it is virtually impossible to have any degree of confidence that the seemingly solid mid-priced player or potentially high-value punt will be given the opportunity to replicate what they did just the night before. This makes nailing the right studs who go off for 65-70 pts. on a given slate all the more critical.

  • MickFucci

    I quit cash two years ago when I was down about 500(over a year) and play only gpps and after 3 first places over the last two I’m up over 3 grand total for all dfs sites. NBA does seem harder to me this year. Look at the lowest score to cash in cash and gpp the past week and I bet they are close most of the time. Play a few extra lu in gpp with your cash money and when you get that good lu it pays ya good.

  • Shipmymoney

    • 56

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #11

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2016 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @tonytone1908 said...

    Sorry bro but it really does. When that guy underperforms, which is more likely than not, you’re screwed. Completely. You have to have humongous faith in a guy that’s perceived to have huge ownership if you’re going to play him.

    I guess I should say they have to vastly outperform the other plays at their position. A guy with 40% ownership with 4x will totally hurt you if everyone else at that position was getting 5x or more that night. I don’t care if it’s Westbrook with a 60 burger. Unless he gets 6x or more you actually hurt yourself by playing him.

    This is completely wrong. First, super highly owned guys tend not to underperform. Second, if they do you aren’t screwed because they are highly owned. As an extreme example, if someone is 100% owned and they put up a 0, how exactly are you more screwed than if you played them and they were only 10% owned?

  • AidenTheEnemy

    Last season was my first season playing DFS in general. I began as a losing player but I was slightly ahead when I stopped around mid Feb, basically break even. This year I’m a steady winner at cash with a lot of room for improvement but I’m much better than last year. I don’t really play gpps but I do throw my cash LU in a couple of them.

    There is so much information available and I absorb as much as I can in reading, podcasts, etc. I’m also tracking breaking news better than I did last year. Anybody that doesn’t get burnt out by absorbing all this info and have the ability to interpret it is going to get better. It doesn’t help when rake increases too.

  • johnnyj580

    @tonytone1908 said...

    There was even a viable NHL strategy last year of taking the lowest priced goalie, who didn’t even have a snowball’s chance in hell of playing, simply because at least you wouldn’t get negative points and you could spend up immensely elsewhere.

    I’m not sure this was ever a viable strategy.

    I’ve always been an advocate of punting the goalie where possible in situations where his team is even flirting with the chance for a win. Also, FD didn’t change their NHL pricing scheme for long stretches last year, which also made the game softer in many respects.

  • johnnyj580

    @bhdevault said...

    2 years ago, on a night like last night with Davis being a late scratch, Ryan Anderson would have been 25% – 40% owned in cash games. Last night, he was 80% owned.

    DFS players in general are just MUCH more informed these days. It definitely is tougher. So much information out there now, it makes players like me who used to dominate cash games have a much tougher time.

    I believe it’s simply this. I do not have an edge over the average person anymore. Some still do and are still very successful. It’s my fault, nobody else’s.

    I think DFS is very much falling into the efficient market hypothesis, much the way online poker did. Towards the end, I can say for myself, that 85% of my profit was coming from rakeback & bonus.

    Not to say the sky is falling, but you factor in:

    1) Money naturally funnelling upwards (with the idea being that fish will only deposit a one -> a few times, before quitting)

    2) Wealth of information that is out there

    3) Rising attorney and/or lobbying costs of the big 2, which in turn equate to a raising rake

    4) Shutting down of advantageous bonus and or referrel programs

    The edge is getting smaller and smaller. My 306 on FD didnt even come within a sniff of cash in DUs.

  • Mindofigor

    I think it could be a combination. More information available so more people are getting quality picks, but maybe, just maybe, sites like bbm are starting to get things wrong. Phan is gone and maybe some of the good value plays end up bombing due to bad predictions.

    I know they’ve been high on Shelvin Mack and Pressey for quite some time but these players friggin SUCK.

  • jv21

    New player this year, so I can’t fully relate but the difficulty is probably a combination of the wealth of information available and tunnel vision.With the wealth of information, it is much easier to understand players, match ups and data. It’s not too difficult to identify the chalk. The issue here is tunnel vision , everyone is going to talk up the chalk and so discussion is lost about other players. A second point can be seen in how people complain about missing the cash line by a few points. I think this is representative of the tunnel vision. People are playing too many of the same guys. Lineups are becoming more of a 6v6 instead of a 9v9. And so, dfs maybe is becoming more difficult, or it could just be that the process is different and people aren’t adapting correctly.

  • 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.

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