STRATEGY FORUM

Comments

  • Yahoo302

    I’ve been thinking about what will lead to a higher ROI in the long run…
    For example: $2 558 man single entry quintuple…. Say rake is %12.99, being that’s its only a $2 buy in, there are some fish in that contest…
    Or…..
    $25 21 man quintuple….. Say rake is %11.97, being that it’s a $25 buy in, that contest is usually all sharps.

    What do you guys think is easier/will lead to a higher ROI in the long run.

  • BDholla89

    • 73

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #16

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x2

      2017 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    Is this some sort of trick to get ppl to say “higher rake is better”?

  • KindGuy

    Short term, long term, doesn’t matter.

    The most important factor when it comes to profitability is rake. That’s literally how the sites make their money.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @BDholla89 said...

    Is this some sort of trick to get ppl to say “higher rake is better”?

    Was thinking the same thing. Too many factors in play to give a definite answer. Would depend on individual win percentages over a large enough sample size at various buy-ins. I understand why you want to give a rake discount at the higher buy-ins to higher volume players. But I feel like this industry has just shifted in the form of increasing rake across the board. Higher buy-in contests may still be lower rake than lower buy-in contests, but the rake in those contests is still higher than it was 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 1 month ago. This is not good for the long term sustainability of the ecosystem.

    FWIW, I have shifted my NFL play on DraftKings from playing multiple $5-25 Double Ups and multiple $20-33 GPP’s to playing 1-3 entries in the $100 double up and $150 buy-in GPP. All because I feel the rake on the lower buy-in contests is waaay too high and not sustainable.

  • Yahoo302

    @BDholla89 said...

    Is this some sort of trick to get ppl to say “higher rake is better”?

    Not sure why you think it’s a trick question.
    The question is: Is easier competition with higher rake more profitable than harder competition with slightly lower rake..

  • bigez952

    @Yahoo said...

    Not sure why you think it’s a trick question.
    The question is: Is easier competition with higher rake more profitable than harder competition with slightly lower rake..

    From playing MLB all season in the $3-$25 range I don’t think just because the buy in lower it automatically means weaker competition. It obviously varies from slate to slate but many times the higher buy in tournaments have a lower cash line.

  • Yahoo302

    Just wanna bump this thread because Im still looking for answer…

  • theIrrigator

    • Ranked #41

      RG Tiered Ranking

    It’s more about how sharp you are as a player, if you suck obviously your best chance to be profitable is against weaker competition than sharper competition. If you dont suck obviously you should smash weaker competition and be able to compete against sharper competition.

  • bigez952

    It will all depend on your own skills but I did log data for 200+ MLB slates in the single entry $5 and single entry $25 double ups. Through this full season 200 data point sample size I got the average cash line in the $5 single entry double up to be 107.51 and the $25 single entry double up average cash line was 108.98. So as you go higher the cash lines do get a little tougher but the much harder part to quantify is what are the odd and frequency that you land in that perfect 1-3 point zone where you cash in low level games but not high ones.

    For me out of 200 slates played I cashed in the $5 single entry double but not the $25 single entry double up 6 times.

    The bottom line really is that your going to face tough completion at all price levels so your probably better off to go with the lower rake as long as that level of buy in is still in your comfortable range to play. In my opinion you have a better shot to succeed with less entries and higher buy ins but that is obviously not the case for some who specialize in mass multi entry which isn’t my game.

  • thedude404

    • 2015 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    Yes it all depends what you think your edge is per the above response. Plus, in your first example you said there are “some” fish and in your second example you said “usually” all sharps. What does that even mean? You need to find out the fish to sharp ratio in each contest. Also, you need to define what a fish and a sharp is by win % in those specific contests, and what your win rate is in those contests. That is a lot of leg work to figure out if you have an edge in a contest that charges 1.02% more rake…..

    But I’ll make it easier on you….are you a winning player over a sample size of thousands of contests? If not, you’re probably just trying to figure out which contest you’ll lose your money at a slower rate so ultimately it doesnt matter because in the end you’ll end up with nothing.

  • Yahoo302

    @bigez952 said...

    It will all depend on your own skills but I did log data for 200+ MLB slates in the single entry $5 and single entry $25 double ups. Through this full season 200 data point sample size I got the average cash line in the $5 single entry double up to be 107.51 and the $25 single entry double up average cash line was 108.98. So as you go higher the cash lines do get a little tougher but the much harder part to quantify is what are the odd and frequency that you land in that perfect 1-3 point zone where you cash in low level games but not high ones.

    For me out of 200 slates played I cashed in the $5 single entry double but not the $25 single entry double up 6 times.

    The bottom line really is that your going to face tough completion at all price levels so your probably better off to go with the lower rake as long as that level of buy in is still in your comfortable range to play. In my opinion you have a better shot to succeed with less entries and higher buy ins but that is obviously not the case for some who specialize in mass multi entry which isn’t my game.

    The problem with this analysis is that the rake in the $25 double up is pretty much the same as in the $5 double up.
    I’m referring to real differences in rake for ex. $100 double up (%9.09 rake) vs a $2 double up (%12.00 rake)

  • Yahoo302

    @thedude404 said...

    But I’ll make it easier on you….are you a winning player over a sample size of thousands of contests? If not, you’re probably just trying to figure out which contest you’ll lose your money at a slower rate so ultimately it doesnt matter because in the end you’ll end up with nothing.

    Yes, obviously. My concern is what will ultimately lead to a higher ROI.

  • bigez952

    @Yahoo302 said...

    The problem with this analysis is that the rake in the $25 double up is pretty much the same as in the $5 double up.
    I’m referring to real differences in rake for ex. $100 double up (%9.09 rake) vs a $2 double up (%12.00 rake)

    Then you should do your own analysis and play both the $2 and $100 games every day for a full season and track your ROI. If you want a very specific answering between two exact type of contests you’re wasting your time with this forum as no one will have that exact data and you should put in the work to figure it out for yourself.

    The data I provided does show an increased cash line from the $5 to $25 double up and it would be a safe assumption that as you go to $100 it will be even higher.

    I would say with 95% confidence that an average winning player would see their ROI go down in double ups as they move to higher buy ins. However I would much rather has a 5% ROI playing 200 $100 double ups than a 10% ROI in the $2 game over the same 200 slates.

  • mtdurham

    In poker when you moved up in stakes from 5/10 to 10/20 they went from taking a $4/rake per pot “drop” rake to charging “time” which was $5/half hour….

    So the pots were unraked and whenever they switched dealers you just all threw $5 chip out nad the dealer dropped it down the slot all at once.

    Perhaps the higher entry fee players should be paying “time” like they just pay $100/month for access to the high buyins….. Some website could come in and offer that and get ALL the action immediately.

    It’s pretty absurd that even a small player like me is paying several thousand dollars a month in rake…

  • Yahoo302

    @mtdurham said...

    It’s pretty absurd that even a small player like me is paying several thousand dollars a month in rake…

    There should be an incentive for high stakes players to keep playing high stakes games, but ya, %15. 00 rake on any contest for any buy in, is absolutely insane.

  • MrFantasy

    @mtdurham said...

    In poker when you moved up in stakes from 5/10 to 10/20 they went from taking a $4/rake per pot “drop” rake to charging “time” which was $5/half hour….

    So the pots were unraked and whenever they switched dealers you just all threw $5 chip out nad the dealer dropped it down the slot all at once.

    Perhaps the higher entry fee players should be paying “time” like they just pay $100/month for access to the high buyins….. Some website could come in and offer that and get ALL the action immediately.

    It’s pretty absurd that even a small player like me is paying several thousand dollars a month in rake…

    You would think so but you are wrong.

    Fish/recs/bad players/fun players/idiots whatever you want to call them they play where they feel comfortable.

    There have been poker sites over the years that offered poker games with 0% rake. FantasyUp offered rake free games for a while and FantasyDraft has rake free H2H games.

    In theory you would imagine many players that are high stakes regs and pay thousands/tens of thousands in rake/fees per month would love to have something similar to your example but in the end you have to play where the games are. Fish never played on those sites so the games never ran.

  • Rasmus

    @mtdurham said...

    In poker when you moved up in stakes from 5/10 to 10/20 they went from taking a $4/rake per pot “drop” rake to charging “time” which was $5/half hour….

    So the pots were unraked and whenever they switched dealers you just all threw $5 chip out nad the dealer dropped it down the slot all at once.

    Perhaps the higher entry fee players should be paying “time” like they just pay $100/month for access to the high buyins….. Some website could come in and offer that and get ALL the action immediately.

    It’s pretty absurd that even a small player like me is paying several thousand dollars a month in rake…

    The problem is that those players who pay the largest share of rake don’t even care about rake. Those are also the players DFS providers earn money from. It’s the same situation in online poker. Pokerstars dropped their rakeback by >90% just because they can. Of course other pokersites tried to get all the action with much better rake(back) offering, but they all failed because the fish stayed at Pokerstars.

    sorry just read what MrFantasy who basically wrote the same.

  • castaway1

    All the stuff about rake is obvious and logical, but this is a country where lotteries take in billions of dollars with a 40% or more rake. So, as long as sites get those people involved, that’s all that matters to them.

  • jimmyquinella

    • Blogger of the Month

  • TheRyanFlaherty

    This thread is insanity.
    The OP is dismissing theoreticals and educated guesses, but that’s all that anyone can give.

    I know others have tried to pour down this path too…but there is a definitive answer, an absolute way to calculate this but it can only be done by the OP. The only actual answer is calculating profitability based on your score each night. No one else can answer that for you…and from there it’s up to you to determine what constitutes an appropriate sample size to reach a conclusion.
    If you don’t feel like investing the money to find this answer…you could try to find someone that will provide you the cash line in each of those contest types you identified, each night and compare it to your score, chart the results and you’ll have your answer.

    Personally I take the weaker field by far, especially in the ex. You gave where it’s like a 1% rake difference. I don’t like paying higher rake, but I take that every time if it means a cash line that is a few points lower.

  • kingofthecastle

    @thedude404 said...

    Yes it all depends what you think your edge is per the above response. Plus, in your first example you said there are “some” fish and in your second example you said “usually” all sharps. What does that even mean? You need to find out the fish to sharp ratio in each contest. Also, you need to define what a fish and a sharp is by win % in those specific contests, and what your win rate is in those contests. That is a lot of leg work to figure out if you have an edge in a contest that charges 1.02% more rake…..

    But I’ll make it easier on you….are you a winning player over a sample size of thousands of contests? If not, you’re probably just trying to figure out which contest you’ll lose your money at a slower rate so ultimately it doesnt matter because in the end you’ll end up with nothing.

    Im a highly profitable GPP player but i only have won on small contests (under 5k) with higher entry fees. In my opinion playing in contests with large fields is completely foolish there is way too much variance in lineups and getting in the top .05 % becomes nearly impossble and many times you would need to get lucky its not based off skill.

    High rake low rake is obvious dont worry about “sharper” players do your research and you can easily take down GPPs like I have done

  • 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