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….

  • valterlaw

    @cutter2225 said...

    No doubt DK could careless if us players get defrauded. In my experience customer care or loyalty has never been a priority of DK’s. However this particular situation is picking up steam here on RotoGrinders and no doubt will reach main stream media (if it hasn’t already). Once certain entities or authority’s start asking questions on the matter, DK won’t be able to simply brush it aside because it didn’t affect their company.

    People such as yourself keep saying that it will reach mainstream media. Really? To me, syndicate play doesn’t seem like a very juicy topic, and is the kind of thing the general public already assumes is occurring, and, quite frankly, won’t care about —-especially a two-man syndicate. In fact, I think the general public would almost view it as “excellent teamwork, lads.” (that said, a 20 man syndicate might be a different story)

    I don’t see this as an issue that gains any traction outside of the insulated DFS community, but I could be wrong.

  • cutter2225

    @Cal said...

    We need more clarity on exactly what is allowed and what isn’t allowed in all game formats.

    As others have pointed out and you touched on it appears DK with their own vagueness the way the rule is written, has an out if this situation does explode. That said in my opinion it’s ridiculous that if someone lets their wife, husband, or friend access their account to enter or edit a lineup because they couldn’t do it themselves is treated significantly harsher by DK then people that team up in an attempt to control contest outcomes.

  • jjwd

    @cutter2225 said...

    No doubt DK could careless if us players get defrauded. In my experience customer care or loyalty has never been a priority of DK’s. However this particular situation is picking up steam here on RotoGrinders and no doubt will reach main stream media (if it hasn’t already). Once certain entities or authority’s start asking questions on the matter, DK won’t be able to simply brush it aside because it didn’t affect their company.

    This is silly, and counter-productive. Personally, I do think DK cares about “us players”. What specific customer service issue relates to this situation? Do you have any logical reasoning or examples to share, or are you just blowing off steam? You better hope that the mainstream media doesn’t pick this up, because the mainstream media doesn’t understand DFS, and doesn’t really care about logic or facts (much like many of the posters in this thread). In fact numerous outlets have gone out of their way to basically slander the industry. Are these the “authority’s” you’re talking about? The New York Times? How’d that go last time? But let me guess, the 2 guys with 150 entries each are ruining DFS for you. C’mon man.

  • cutter2225

    @valterlaw said...

    People such as yourself keep saying that it will reach mainstream media. Really? To me, syndicate play doesn’t seem like a very juicy topic, and is the kind of thing the general public already assumes is occurring, and, quite frankly, won’t care about. I don’t see this as an issue that gains any traction outside of the insulated DFS community, but I could be wrong.

    Unfortunately you may be right, however by continually keeping issues like these insulated in the cozy confines of the DFS community we’re getting no closer to anything resembling fair play. In my opinion and I’m likely in the minority on this but I’d rather see the shit hit the fan, the site(s) held accountable and forced to instill clearer rules and regulations and forced to handle violators properly.

  • Mphst18

    It’s if AGs or lawmakers in states got wind of it that would cause dk concern or to be proactive instead of reactive. Not a good look to be telling states we have TOS for syndicate play, collusion, entry limits, etc all great things to protect your people but we won’t police or enforce them they are more there for show or only to be utilized where the fraud hurts the site not your people.

  • cutter2225

    @jjwd said...

    This is silly, and counter-productive.

    In your opinion it’s counter productive to expect a company to be held to a certain level of accountability. Are you kidding me? I can count the number of changes DK has made that aren’t customer friendly yet I’m supposed to believe they care about the players. To answer your question yes I have personal examples of why I know DK worries only about themselves but unlike others I choose to handle things privately. You may be right the mainstream media doesn’t completely understand the DFS world but you can bet your ass I want this as public as possible. The 2 birds in question aren’t ruining DFS for me but if it’s proven these and other syndicates are controlling contests in anyway don’t you think that’ll eventually cause a huge problem to the ecosystem.

  • jimmyrad

    @cutter2225 said...

    I’d rather see the shit hit the fan

    The entire industry is still reeling and permanently damaged from the 1 time the shit did hit the fan. So while I think these guys were wrong to spread the action over 2 accounts like this, and I wish the sites were A LOT more proactive about this stuff, esp lineup selling, I’m in no hurry to run to my local newsman with this hot scoop.

    Extra, extra, read all about it, DFS players can now only play scratch offs.

  • 00oreo00

    • x3

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x5

      2014 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @cutter2225 said...

    No doubt DK could careless if us players get defrauded. In my experience customer care or loyalty has never been a priority of DK’s. However this particular situation is picking up steam here on RotoGrinders and no doubt will reach main stream media (if it hasn’t already). Once certain entities or authority’s start asking questions on the matter, DK won’t be able to simply brush it aside because it didn’t affect their company.

    They definitely care a lot. I know this type of thing is something they are very aware of, its just very difficult to enforce. It doesn’t help that there are really no clear rules regarding this type of play. It happens in all levels of the game, including live finals. It’s a very tough problem to solve.

  • cutter2225

    @jimmyrad said...

    The entire industry is still reeling and permanently damaged from the 1 time the shit did hit the fan. So while I think these guys were wrong to spread the action over 2 accounts like this, and I wish the sites were A LOT more proactive about this stuff, esp lineup selling, I’m in no hurry to run to my local newsman with this hot scoop.

    Extra, extra, read all about it, DFS players can now only play scratch offs.

    Link Quote Reply * To quote a specific section, highlight the desired text with the cursor before using the Quote link *

    Don’t get me wrong it would be a sad day for me if DFS went away and I highly doubt that happens but continually burying these kind of things is not healthy for long term DFS viability.

  • jjwd

    @cutter2225 said...

    In your opinion it’s counter productive to expect a company to be held to a certain level of accountability.

    Nope, that’s not my opinion. You seem so wound up here that I guess it’s not worth arguing with you anymore. This is not a black and white issue, and being bombastic about it is not helpful to anybody IMO.

  • jimmyrad

    @cutter2225 said...

    Don’t get me wrong it would be a sad day for me if DFS went away and I highly doubt that happens but continually burying these kind of things is not healthy for long term DFS viability.

    I didn’t suggest burying anything. There’s a way to handle things though and not blowing things way out of proportion is a good start.

  • cutter2225

    @jjwd said...

    Nope, that’s not my opinion. You seem so wound up here that I guess it’s not worth arguing with you anymore. This is not a black and white issue, and being bombastic about it is not helpful to anybody IMO.

    I’m commenting with my opinions on the matter like many others have and are. I’m not arguing with you or anyone else. Clearly we have differing views and thats what discussion forums are all about.

  • Mphst18

    Silence, lying and denying as we have seen in the past doesn’t appear to be the right way to go about solutions either but it seems to be the MO.

  • phillygamecox

    I agree with most people on here than none of us want to see DFS go away.

    But, I also don’t think we can say completely opposite statements in one sentence – “i think it sucks that people are doing this and likely breaking the TOS…but let’s just move on and not make a big deal out of it.”

  • MRCOOKONUTS

    Not knowing all the facts on both sides,this might be a state Attorney General situation to complain to.These are walking on eggshells times for DFS sites.Important for contests to be fair and square as possible.Big issue with AG’s is their awareness that sharks make 80% of all profits and they want that corrected..

  • BIF

    @phillygamecox said...

    I agree with most people on here than none of us want to see DFS go away.

    But, I also don’t think we can say completely opposite statements in one sentence – “i think it sucks that people are doing this and likely breaking the TOS…but let’s just move on and not make a big deal out of it.”

    Exactly – someone (it could have been any of us) just lost out on life changing money with a 5th place finish that may have been a 1st place Million if the collusion didn’t happen as nobody can say for sure which 150/300 lineups would have got entered if they bided by the TOS – maybe all 4 of the top winners would have been in the 150 or maybe NONE – we can only speculate but the guy that finished 5th (behind 4 mazwa/ragingphillip lineups) got fuck’d to some extent.

  • NCRick

    @DoubleTime said...

    This is all I could find on syndicate play in the TOS

    Conduct that would be deemed improper also includes, but is not limited to:
    -Colluding with any other individual(s) or engaging in any type of syndicate play

    This is vague, it is one of those things that could be interpreted many different ways. “Syndicate play” needs to be defined further. I don’t think anybody could get anything to stick in the court of law (or whatever) with such loose terminology. It could be looked at in a very strict manner, or a much looser manner, but how loose? The OP’s example clearly seems wrong in my opinion, but is it against the TOS?

    What if you asked these 2 guys and they said. Yes we worked together in detail. Yes we came up with the same core and optimal ownership % for each golfer. and most importantly Yes we made sure to not have any identical line-ups… but NO we did not split the prize money. Is that syndicate play? I think if yes they split the prize money, then yes it is 100% syndicate play. But if they did not split the prize money, then what? They aren’t really circumventing the entry limit in that case, because they are each only entering 150 times and profiting off of those 150 entries. They just worked together. They may have worked very closely and in detail together, but still all they did was work together. And that is the problem, good luck proving that they split the money. Odds that they split the money? Pretty damn high. Odds that they admit to splitting the money? Low. There needs to be some expansion on what ‘syndicate play’ means. This definitely seems like it should be considered syndicate play. But there is a nature of information sharing in DFS. Through sites like RG, plus twitter, and guys openly teaming up… by what DK already allows with guys working together to come up with identical H2H line-ups, you can’t allow that but then turn around and not allow guys to work together to come up with the same cores + %s in GPPs (if they don’t split prize money). There needs to be an outline on what is considered ‘syndicate play’. Does it have to involve profiting together out of one or shared accounts, or can just working together be considered syndicate play. What these guys did feels so wrong, but I think some rules need clarifying before anything gets done about it.

    None of that matters because this is clear collusion, not syndicate play. On the other hand, what if you and a buddy help each other with a single entry lineup and naturally both end up having some players in common in each of your lineups…. Its really the same thing basically. Now consider the same scenario with a 3 max entry GPP. At what point is it “collusion”? What does the entry limit of the GPP need to be for this practice to be a bannable offense? It seems more acceptable if its a single entry or 3-max entry, but how is it any different? Kind of a tricky one to contemplate. The best solution is 3 entry max across the board. It has been obvious to me from the beginning that this should be implemented. Even single entry would be fine as well. There would be like 12 identical games of each GPP running nightly. Whats the drawback? I know the benefits are nearly endless.

  • smutpeddlers

    I remember their names from a thread from March…… https://rotogrinders.com/threads/syndicates-and-teams-that-play-together-1208357?page=5

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @NCRick said...

    None of that matters because this is clear collusion, not syndicate play. On the other hand, what if you and a buddy help each other with a single entry lineup and naturally both end up having some players in common in each of your lineups…. Its really the same thing basically. Now consider the same scenario with a 3 max entry GPP. At what point is it “collusion”? What does the entry limit of the GPP need to be for this practice to be a bannable offense? It seems more acceptable if its a single entry or 3-max entry, but how is it any different? Kind of a tricky one to contemplate. The best solution is 3 entry max across the board. It has been obvious to me from the beginning that this should be implemented. Even single entry would be fine as well. There would be like 12 identical games of each GPP running nightly. Whats the drawback? I know the benefits are nearly endless.

    If you just replace the words ‘syndicate play’ with ‘collusion’ in the post you quoted it is the same point. What exactly is collusion? I think it has something to do with people working together in an attempt to unlevel the playing field and profit thru deceit. If these guys do not share their profits, then none of the work they did together was in any way an attempt to deceive anybody to gain an unfair advantage, or in an effort to profit more money than they could under normal rules. They each entered 150 line-ups, they each won the money from those 150 line-ups. I do not think that in itself is collusion (granted, we all know they shared the money, but for the sake of argument, prove it). Sorry to play devils advocate, but I am pretty certain collusion does not simply mean ‘to work together’. It has something to do with circumventing rules and gaining an unfair advantage. Then again, I am probably incorrect because who really knows what exactly the word ‘collusion’ means in the TOS. That is the problem, you can google the word ‘collusion’ and come up with a bunch of different definitions, none of which are officially meant to be applied to DFS. It needs clarity. Some might think exchanging any information is colluding, while others will have a much looser definition. The true meaning is up to DK, they should just make it clear what is allowed and what isn’t.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @DoubleTime said...

    If you just replace the words ‘syndicate play’ with ‘collusion’ in the post you quoted it is the same point. What exactly is collusion? I think it has something to do with people working together in an attempt to unlevel the playing field and profit thru deceit. If these guys do not share their profits, then none of the work they did together was in any way an attempt to deceive anybody to gain an unfair advantage, or in an effort to profit more money than they could under normal rules. They each entered 150 line-ups, they each won the money from those 150 line-ups. I do not think that in itself is collusion (granted, we all know they shared the money, but for the sake of argument, prove it). Sorry to play devils advocate, but I am pretty certain collusion does not simply mean ‘to work together’. It has something to do with circumventing rules and gaining an unfair advantage. Then again, I am probably incorrect because who really knows what exactly the word ‘collusion’ means in the TOS. That is the problem, you can google the word ‘collusion’ and come up with a bunch of different definitions, none of which are officially meant to be applied to DFS. It needs clarity. Some might think exchanging any information is colluding, while others will have a much looser definition. The true meaning is up to DK, they should just make it clear what is allowed and what isn’t.

    Please…… In order to have the exact same core exposure over 300 lineups and to have ZERO dupes shows collaboration between 2 different players in order to gain an unfair advantage. If it is in fact true they collaborated which is more than likely, than under any definition this would be deemed as collusion.

    Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.

  • PuddinCheeks

    • Blogger of the Month

    This is what it is!

    Collusion

  • madmanjayWV

    @NCRick said...

    I just googled the two names and the first thing I came across non-RG was this, lol

    https://www.stacknfade.com/contest-report/draftkings-nba-gpp-top-winners-march-16-2016

    Looks like they were doing it in NBA as well. You can see in the pictures Mazwa has 1st,4th and 5th while ragingphillip has 10th. You can also see this is a top-heavy tournament, with 50K of 300K going to first. This is notable since these top heavy GPPs are where they can really take advantage with their collusion technique. Are all the GPPs listed with them doing the same thing(previously in this thread) top heavy as well?

    This one top heavy as well, they tied for 3rd, but you cant tell if they have same lineup or not. I suspect the lineup is different(just a hunch).
    https://www.stacknfade.com/contest-report/draftkings-nba-gpp-top-winners-march-28-2016

    PERHAPS you should look into the $5 RALLY (TUESDAY) MLB —-

    Specifically, at the scores of sub 170 —- there are other examples, but these are OBVIOUS — and this is ILLEGAL? Someone else can post the evidence if they care, but same stuff goes on day after day…

    THE KEY #s are 169.60 for dollarbillw and EHAFNER and again with EHAFNER and then the clone at 169.70 —- #SYNDICATE….don’t we all want this?”

  • madmanjayWV

    @RangerC said...

    Draftkings TOS:
    Improper conduct includes, but is not limited to:

    Colluding with any other individual(s) or engaging in any type of syndicate play;

    NY Regulations (sorry about the all-caps – that’s how the NY Senate formats it on their site):

    REGISTRANTS SHALL PROHIBIT THE USE OF THIRD-PARTY SCRIPTS OR
    SCRIPTING PROGRAMS FOR ANY CONTEST AND ENSURE THAT MEASURES ARE IN PLACE
    TO DETER, DETECT AND, TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY POSSIBLE, PREVENT CHEAT-
    ING, INCLUDING COLLUSION, AND THE USE OF CHEATING DEVICES, INCLUDING USE
    OF SOFTWARE PROGRAMS THAT SUBMIT ENTRY FEES OR ADJUST THE ATHLETES
    SELECTED BY AN AUTHORIZED PLAYER.

    EACH REGISTRANT SHALL RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF ENTRIES SUBMITTED BY A
    SINGLE AUTHORIZED PLAYER FOR ANY CONTEST TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED
    FIFTY ENTRIES PER PLAYER PER CONTEST, OR A MAXIMUM OF THREE PERCENT OF
    THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ENTRIES BY ALL PLAYERS FOR ANY CONTEST, WHICHEVER IS
    LESS, OR AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION. REGISTRANTS SHALL TAKE REASON-
    ABLE STEPS TO PREVENT AUTHORIZED PLAYERS FROM SUBMITTING MORE THAN THE
    ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF ENTRIES PER CONTEST. THE COMMISSION SHALL PROMUL-
    GATE REGULATIONS TO FURTHER EFFECTUATE THIS SUBDIVISION TO ENSURE THAT
    THE NUMBER OF ENTRIES SUBMITTED BY A SINGLE AUTHORIZED PLAYER FOR ANY
    CONTEST WILL LEAD TO A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF
    ENTRIES.

    Here’s a hypothetical scenario: Let’s say Cuomo signed the bill before the Open Championship and someone from NY got 4th behind the 300 LU multiaccount. They would have every right to go to the NY regulators based on the text of the bill.

    BTW two players (if it is two distinct players and not 1 person’s multiaccount) entering 150 LU’s on the exact same core, coordinated to have zero overlap, and then sharing the proceeds, seems to fit the definition of collusion perfectly.

    BYE BYE A HUGE MLB SCORE OF BIG 1%ERS then b/c THE MLB RALLY (Tuesday) was collusion……..to the tee…..

  • NCRick

    @madmanjayWV said...

    PERHAPS you should look into the $5 RALLY (TUESDAY) MLB —-

    I havent played on FD in about a year. They still wont even let you see the player lineups, except for the ten at a time you can scroll through. To me this is just absurd. It reminds me of Las Vegas Vacation with Clark Griswold in the low class casino. “Pick a hand” “nope wrong one”. i did check the $5 Rally on FD from yesterday though and I didnt see any matching scores at 169.60 or near there. Matching scores isnt really a bad thing anyway though imo. The more the better as far as Im concerned.

  • badlands92

    I’m just happy to read this thread. These two tortured me in NBA LATE contests this past season. One, or often both, was in the Top 1-5 every single contest. They/It/Her/Him/Them are obviously rolling in the dough.

  • 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.