INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • RangerC

    So DK has this thing called a lineup limit. It’s part of the new regulations (specifically New York), with 150 being the cap, regardless of size of contest. Problem is, DK doesn’t enforce this limit. If you look in the Golf Thread from this week, a few posters noticed that mazwa/ragingphillip max-enters Golf contests, both players have the exact same core (with nearly identical ownership percentages), but somehow have zero overlapping lineups. Whether this is one player with two accounts or a team this is obviously WHY lineup limits are in place – if you want to go all out on a core whether it’s a QB/WR combo, a stack in baseball, or 5 golfers on one side of the weather draw in golf, you have a limit – that way we are all playing the same game.

    Go back one week. Mazwa/ragingphillip ran their lineup generator, created one set of 300 lineups, and each account entered 150 of them.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I8OfWj8oQ9GpI6GCW_t3hkzYs1GvIeJW-WYcwCXpsaE/edit?usp=sharing

    Original Data:

    http://www.thefantasyfanatics.com/dfs/pga/ownership.cfm?viewContest=129
    (you can look at all the other max entry guys too, no else is pulling this crap, at least not this obviously)

    If you don’t want to look through all the data:

    mazwa
    Player Usage Breakdown

    Bubba Watson 85.3%
    Dustin Johnson 78.0%
    J.B. Holmes 73.3%
    Steve Stricker 57.3%
    Sergio Garcia 43.3%
    Justin Rose 42.0%
    Brendan Steele 30.7%
    Jim Furyk 26.7%
    Bill Haas 26.0%
    Gary Woodland 20.7%
    Henrik Stenson 20.0%
    Phil Mickelson 18.7%

    ragingphilip

    Bubba Watson 88.0%
    Dustin Johnson 78.7%
    J.B. Holmes 69.3%
    Steve Stricker 64.0%
    Sergio Garcia 45.3%
    Jim Furyk 32.7%
    Bill Haas 28.0%
    Justin Rose 27.3%
    Brendan Steele 24.7%
    Henrik Stenson 21.3%
    Gary Woodland 21.3%
    Phil Mickelson 20%

    ZERO lineup overlap. Much easier to win a million dollars when you get to enter 300 lineups and everyone else gets to enter 150. BTW, DK has been informed of this and apparently has no problem with it….

  • Chuky

    @noddy said...

    Some of you guys better watch what you wish for. Or do you want dfs to go away?

    Oh so nobody should not try to correct the problems just go along with it right? With need problems corrected so the playing field is level as possible. It’s better for us to point these things out before the auditors see these things else it might not be pretty. I guess some of you don’t understand regulation, it is a very serious thing.

  • SouthernShield

    @KillaChap said...

    You guys want to fix this or at least limit it? Don’t play multi entry GPP’s. I gave that up a long time ago once I realized I was never going to win a million bucks (or several thousand.) I cash more and am actually enjoying myself a lot more too.

    Preach

    Edit: Or 3 max entries…. I’d much rather have many more smaller contests with FLATTER payouts. There is ZERO need for players to want Milly Makers. They are the DFS equivalent of slot machines.

  • Chuky

    @Cal said...

    DK does need to look into this. I forwarded this thread to the appropriate people there.

    Thx Cal. I still don’t get why the need for such multi-entries l. 150? Cmon. To me anything over 50 is ridiculous. I’m studying some things while on the sidelines in NY and the highly skilled players understand how to play multi-entries. It’s not complaining guys but limits have to be reduced even more to prevent outright dominance. I love competition because it makes me a better player but circumventing the rules pisses me off

  • Chuky

    @SouthernShield said...

    Preach

    Edit: Or 3 max entries…. I’d much rather have many more smaller contests with FLATTER payouts. There is ZERO need for players to want Milly Makers. They are the DFS equivalent of slot machines.

    I don’t play either. NFL gpp is the worst of them all with that half mill – 1mill entries last season. Since I’ve got much better in mlb and nba I will test my skills against the great one who i respect and want to meet one day Mcjester this upcoming basketball season.

  • Chuky

    @britdevine said...

    If they “teamed up” but didnt use the exact same players as the core, what then

    This is something that happens in nearly every contest every night, players swap shares, each put in X number of entries and split, and more.

    Just seems like they got “caught” for something that happenes in nearly every contest you play in in everyday. There is no way to police/enforce, they just used the same “core” and both max entered and are clearly working as a “team”, all of which happens everyday in every contest.

    It’s just the name of the game

    So the solution is to cut down the ridiculous 150. Don’t u think this solves anything? I agree players are always gonna do this but the reduced limits will reduce domination

  • RangerC

    @donkshow said...

    0.149% vs. 0.299% of the entries.

    Yeah, I’m really concerned about this…

    Except they did the same thing in the Dogleg for the Canadian Open, and had 300 entries in a 9633 entry tournament (over 3%, so they double violated the NY regulations. What if they have a team of 3 or 4 or 5 or 10? When does this end?

  • Mphst18

    So not until after Mazwa won the millionaire had either played in a $300 golf tournament for the past 5 PGA events and then at the RBC low and behold both MAZWA and Raging Phillip have 10 Entries in the $300 contest.

    It appears they always enter the same amount of entries and the same tournaments as each other regardless of if it is the number of max entries or not (if one plays 26 entries the other plays 26 entries, if one plays 200 entries the other plays 200 entries).

    Not sure what happened at the quicken loan $33 but dont want to hide data as Ragingphillip did not have entries and Mazwa did

    2016 RBC Canadian Open $300 3 Wood (max 25) – Mazwa 10 Entries, Raging Phillip 10 Entries
    2016 RBC Canadian Open $33 Dogleg (max 150) – Mazwa 150 Entries, Raging Phillip 150 Entries
    2016 RBC Canadian Open $3 Birdie (max 150) – Mazwa 150 Entries, Raging Phillip 150 Entries

    2016 PGA Millionare $33 (max 150) – Mazwa 150 Entries, Raging Phillip 150 Entries
    2016 PGA $3 (max 150) – Mazwa 150 Entries, Raging Phillip 150 Entries

    2016 Quicken Loans $33 (max 150) – Mazwa 97 Entries, Raging Phillip 0 Entries
    2016 quicken Loans $3 (max 200) – Mazwa 200 Entries, Raging Phillip 200 Entries

    2016 US Open Millionare (max 200) – Mazwa 26 Entries, Raging Phillip 26 Entries

  • jjwd

    @Chuky said...

    So the solution is to cut down the ridiculous 150. Don’t u think this solves anything? I agree players are always gonna do this but the reduced limits will reduce domination

    150 (or 3%, whichever is smaller) is already a reduced number…. it’s a pretty good compromise, and it’s a good hedge against teams playing together. As numerous people have said, small entry limits would spell the end of big tournaments. And big tournaments are the most popular. Guys in this thread asking for 50 max entries are delusional… the big sites would shrink significantly, and might not survive at all. Here’s an idea, don’t play big tournaments if you don’t like 150. But 150 (or even 300) entries in the milly maker is nothing.

  • cutter2225

    @jjwd said...

    But 150 (or even 300) entries in the milly maker is nothing.

    It was worth over 1 million to Mazwa and ragingphillip. I don’t know about you but a million+ is something to me. Can you say for certain without the 300 entries they’d have won the milli maker?

  • RangerC

    @britdevine said...

    There is no way to police/enforce, they just used the same “core” and both max entered and are clearly working as a “team”, all of which happens everyday in every contest.

    Except that it doesn’t happen every day.

    I looked through a few of the 150 entry guys (including players who are known to play as a team) and no one else appeared to be doing this (probably because they realize that most team play is difficult to police/prove, but 2 accounts using 300 LUs from the same generator is obvious). BTW we keep saying 2 players, but given the weird LU split this looks like 2 accounts from the same person (or husband/wife) – looks like 1 person running 2 accounts.

  • Jazzraz

    Having double the amount of entries in a milly maker isn’t going to help much if at all just due to the amount of total entries , but that isn’t the point. This issue still poses a problem as if this isn’t enforced there is nothing to stop this from happening in any tournament where you could potentially have a much larger % of the total entries. I’m assuming people wouldn’t feel like it is at all fair to have two people collude in a 3 man or 3 people collude in a 5 man to ensure they don’t have duplicate lineups / construct their lineups to maximize the potential of one of them winning. Its a slippery slope if there isn’t concrete guidelines layed out , but there is a also a gray area which makes it difficult to enforce and detect this.

  • Chuky

    @jjwd said...

    150 (or 3%, whichever is smaller) is already a reduced number…. it’s a pretty good compromise, and it’s a good hedge against teams playing together. As numerous people have said, small entry limits would spell the end of big tournaments. And big tournaments are the most popular. Guys in this thread asking for 50 max entries are delusional… the big sites would shrink significantly, and might not survive at all. Here’s an idea, don’t play big tournaments if you don’t like 150. But 150 (or even 300) entries in the milly maker is nothing.

    Absolute nonsense. So if the limits has been drastically reduce how is still surviving? Proving your theory false because the same thing was said about it before. If the limit was 300 and then cut down to 150 and yet the tourney still filling, why is that? I guarantee u if it reduce to less than 100 this NFL season it will still fill.

  • jjwd

    @Jazzraz said...

    This issue still poses a problem as if this isn’t enforced there is nothing to stop this from happening in any tournament where you could potentially have a much larger % of the total entries.

    That’s a fair point, be we should cross that bridge when we get to it. People jump right to the entry limits argument, often out of anger. Sites need whales and they need fish… it’s an ecosystem, and a market where you can aspire to greatness. Like Brit said, you can’t really outlaw friends working together. People underestimate the skill involved in creating a core lineup. I personally think the market will police itself, but if we get to the point where 10-man teams are destroying GPP’s, the sites will fix that issue. It’s silly to think we know the solution to that very theoretical problem right now.

  • Chuky

    @cutter2225 said...

    It was worth over 1 million to Mazwa and ragingphillip. I don’t know about you but a million+ is something to me. Can you say for certain without the 300 entries they’d have won the milli maker?

    Exactly. Just goes to show some just don’t get the laws of probability. It may seem small to the eye but highly skilled players with 300 lineups will win most of the time. I’ve seen this numerous times in the past. Yes a one entry will win here and there but the majority of the time it’s players with numerous entries winning these tourneys.

  • RangerC

    @Chuky said...

    Absolute nonsense. So if the limits has been drastically reduce how is still surviving? Proving your theory false because the same thing was said about it before. If the limit was 300 and then cut down to 150 and yet the tourney still filling, why is that? I guarantee u if it reduce to less than 100 this NFL season it will still fill.

    The original Golf Millionaire Makers (that filled hours and hours before first tee) would have easily filled at 100 or possibly even 50 entries. I looked at the last Milli Maker and only 54(!) guys submitted 150 entries (and very few submitted between 100-150) so capping the MM at 100 entries would only require around 3000 more entries to fill the contest at the same level. Yeah, we couldn’t have massive contests with 3 or 10 max, but 50-100 max is enough for huge prize pools.

  • Chuky

    @RangerC said...

    The original Golf Millionaire Makers (that filled hours and hours before first tee) would have easily filled at 100 or possibly even 50 entries. I looked at the last Milli Maker and only 54(!) guys submitted 150 entries (and very few submitted between 100-150) so capping the MM at 100 entries would only require around 3000 more entries to fill the contest at the same level. Yeah, we couldn’t have massive contests with 3 or 10 max, but 50-100 max is enough for huge prize pools.

    Exactly. Dfs has grown exponentially over the last 2 years. I’ve seen it myself. Capping it a 50 is not a problem. Tourneys filling hrs way before lock proves the growth of DFS. With NY coming back it’s even gonna be worst with Tournies filling very quickly.

  • Heterodox

    @jjwd said...

    I personally think the market will police itself

    Do you want to define the market you’re referring to, and describe a plausible scenario by which it “polices” itself? Is “the market” the one that the sites operate in, the one the players operate in, something all encompassing, or is it maybe just a buzz-word abstraction that has no real-world manifestation in this context?

    This isn’t about the merits of entry limits, any more than it is about “friends working together.” It’s about a specific instance where someone has compiled evidence to suggest that a particular rule has been violated. To all the people saying things to the effect of “nothing can be done,” not only do I disagree, but you must realize your position is indefensible from a regulatory stand-point, right?

  • jjwd

    @Chuky said...

    Absolute nonsense. So if the limits has been drastically reduce how is still surviving? Proving your theory false because the same thing was said about it before. If the limit was 300 and then cut down to 150 and yet the tourney still filling, why is that? I guarantee u if it reduce to less than 100 this NFL season it will still fill.

    150 is the lowest the sites were willing to go, a compromise carefully hammered out in the NY bill. There’s a reason for that. Your guarantee doesn’t mean a whole lot! And your 100 number is still an arbitrary number. I’d be willing to bet that 150 wasn’t an arbitrary number. It’s probably what the sites feel they need to survive. Most importantly, a tournament “filling” isn’t the whole picture. The milly makers have gotten progressively more top-heavy due to fewer overall entries.

  • jjwd

    @Chuky said...

    Exactly. Just goes to show some just don’t get the laws of probability. It may seem small to the eye but highly skilled players with 300 lineups will win most of the time. I’ve seen this numerous times in the past. Yes a one entry will win here and there but the majority of the time it’s players with numerous entries winning these tourneys.

    This doesn’t make a lot of sense without specifics, and facts.

  • britdevine

    • 2014 StarStreet MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    Also, You can bet that million is already out of the account

  • jjwd

    @Heterodox said...

    This isn’t about the merits of entry limits

    I agree! Furthermore, what I’m saying is that it’s unclear whether the HYPOTHETICAL, worst-case scenario large teams of people working together on GPPs would be good strategy. It’s unclear how much financial advantage this provides for the team. It could even provide an advantage for the lone wolf contrarian player if he were to study, predict, and fade the core lineups of the Evil Syndicate. Would you join one of these teams? If you were a whale on a small team, how large would you want your team to be? These are questions that the DFS market would consider. But most of all, the TOS on this point are unclear, and the alleged actions of these 2 guys are unclear. Yet there’s a lot of people who immediately grab their pitchforks.

  • tgowen

    • Blogger of the Month

    I still find humor in the fact that this happens every night, but when people bring it up they get destroyed on here for it. However, when someone wins a million doing it, now it’s worth looking into.

    Regardless of that though, I feel like some have this idea that just because it is hard to prove means there is nothing that can be done about it. DK can do plenty about it, and finding the potential evidence to suspend someone for it isn’t hard to do. A coincidence isn’t a coincidence when it routinely involves the same players, but DK and others want to act like it is. It’s a matter of DK caring enough to do something about it instead of saying “nothing to see here folks, move along.”

  • Chuky

    @jjwd said...

    This doesn’t make a lot of sense without specifics, and facts.

    Man listen I’m not here to prove to you with stats. That’s your job. I’ve been playing for over 3 years and I’ve seen it myself and know what I’m talking about. If u don’t believe it, it’s up to u my brother.

  • Schreiad

    I have statistical information that this happens with other accounts too…Same concept, I have a spreadsheet that reverse engineers the ownership levels for max entry players. Its really obvious just like OP posted here, I have no doubts that is legit what OP is posting.

    There are more than 1 occurrences of this type of thing in every single big tournament among the max entry guys (pros). Clearly either sharing information or just entering lineups under more than 1 account. And seems really obvious to me its the same lineup stacks under more than one username so they can get around the max entry number.

    Frankly, I dont have a problem with it because unlike online poker I dont think there is much if any edge “colluding” with other players or usernames in the tournament…But certainly this is happening like OP said.

  • Schreiad

    Further, is there even a rule against “colluding” in DFS?

    How would that even work? For instance, if I’m sure I have the sickest lineups and I send them to my buddy to look at and he enters them also, is that “colluding”?

    I’m just not sure how it applies (or is any advantage) in this circus that is DFS compared to online poker which I clearly understand colluding and multi accounting is a problem.

  • 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/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).