MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • Cityworkout

    There is no real edge anymore in cash games. You don’t know much more than any other good player. It is sad to see this happen but the rake is too high for anybody besides the elite players to be profitable.

    For anyone who thought it was feasible to win consistently long term, no it is not for almost every player.

  • chronoxiong

    This is the sad reality that I might have to take in. I have been struggling so bad for the past month that I have thought about quitting. Cash games have gotten so hard to win. Some nights I barely win. Other nights, I land in the 70s out of 100 player range. Then there are nights I was way off and it just makes me depressed. Because there’s no edge and the sites have all the information right in front of you, that just makes it harder to come up with a winning lineup. Makes you feel like picking one guy can even send you into that 70s out of 100 player range. I stopped playing cash games from Monday and I will see how far I do it by playing GPPs. If I still struggle, retirement is always an option. Although that’s never the goal.

  • Cityworkout

    @chronoxiong said...

    This is the sad reality that I might have to take in. I have been struggling so bad for the past month that I have thought about quitting. Cash games have gotten so hard to win. Some nights I barely win. Other nights, I land in the 70s out of 100 player range. Then there are nights I was way off and it just makes me depressed. Because there’s no edge and the sites have all the information right in front of you, that just makes it harder to come up with a winning lineup. Makes you feel like picking one guy can even send you into that 70s out of 100 player range. I stopped playing cash games from Monday and I will see how far I do it by playing GPPs. If I still struggle, retirement is always an option. Although that’s never the goal.

    I think you have to take in. The well is dry so to speak. If I were to play I would probably just play GPP and hope I can stay afloat and win a GPP. Also for cash games it takes a long time to build up your BR because you are only making a small percentage even if you happen to be good enough. I mean if you get lucky you can make 10k off a $3 entry and move up in stakes fairly quickly.

  • tvsfrink

    Generally I play $10-$15 a day. Let’s say I’m playing $10, I enter $8 of that into the biggest single-entry double ups I can find, $1 into a single entry GPP, and $1 into the biggest GPP. I am doing fine, but specific to one of the points I keep seeing, there are plenty of nights where I cash in the double ups and miss out on the GPPs. So no, I don’t think the cash lines are irrelevant between the two different games and that I’m wasting my money on cash games. On those nights I still profit $6 instead of losing $10 if I played it all in GPP. It happens enough that it’s a (mildly) profitable strategy for me.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @chronoxiong said...

    This is the sad reality that I might have to take in. I have been struggling so bad for the past month that I have thought about quitting. Cash games have gotten so hard to win. Some nights I barely win. Other nights, I land in the 70s out of 100 player range. Then there are nights I was way off and it just makes me depressed. Because there’s no edge and the sites have all the information right in front of you, that just makes it harder to come up with a winning lineup. Makes you feel like picking one guy can even send you into that 70s out of 100 player range. I stopped playing cash games from Monday and I will see how far I do it by playing GPPs. If I still struggle, retirement is always an option. Although that’s never the goal.

    chrono you’ve been around for a while. You’ll get it going again. Just think of GPP’s as cash games (cutoff line similar anyway) with a lot more crappy opponents and you won’t have to do the “oh man, if only I’d entered this in a GPP” line ever again! :)

  • lineupofpeace

    Do you guys feel this way about low stakes H2H as well? Or is this mainly just the big 50/50 and double ups.

    I’ve exclusively played 1 lineup trains in the low stakes GPPs and have been doing ok, was going to put those same lineups in H2Hs to get more volume and reduce variance.

    I guess not a good idea?

  • txdave41

    Every time I try a 50/50, I lose for some reason. I find my most success in the 10 man league games. 100 man are so hard, but 10 seems to be that right balance. Unfortunately, there are some sharks who just load up in every league game which is frustrating and makes for a bad experience for the newcomers and people with low bankrolls. Surely, Fanduel can do something about that crap.

    My frustration is I can spend all day researching and figure out the best players in the best spots, but there is always that one guy who just has an off night and destroys the lineup. Last night it was Lillard. Wed night, it was Biyombo and Paul. NBA DFS has become less about skill and more about you can get luckly and avoid the night’s dudder. I gave Rondo three freaking chances to give me a good score and he blew it. Gave up on him last night ,and he goes off. SO infuriating when that happens.

  • billholler

    @txdave41 said...

    My frustration is I can spend all day researching and figure out the best players in the best spots, but there is always that one guy who just has an off night and destroys the lineup. Last night it was Lillard.

    If you spent all day doing research and came up with Lillard as your best PG, there is your problem. Memphis, despite injuries, are still top 3 in fewest fantasy points allowed to PGs.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @txdave41 said...

    Every time I try a 50/50, I lose for some reason. I find my most success in the 10 man league games. 100 man are so hard, but 10 seems to be that right balance. Unfortunately, there are some sharks who just load up in every league game which is frustrating and makes for a bad experience for the newcomers and people with low bankrolls. Surely, Fanduel can do something about that crap.

    My frustration is I can spend all day researching and figure out the best players in the best spots, but there is always that one guy who just has an off night and destroys the lineup. Last night it was Lillard. Wed night, it was Biyombo and Paul. NBA DFS has become less about skill and more about you can get luckly and avoid the night’s dudder. I gave Rondo three freaking chances to give me a good score and he blew it. Gave up on him last night ,and he goes off. SO infuriating when that happens.

    Also, DK may be better for you… you only have to hit 8/8 instead of 9/9. (plus, the position flexibility really makes a difference)

  • txdave41

    @billholler said...

    If you spent all day doing research and came up with Lillard as your best PG, there is your problem. Memphis, despite injuries, are still top 3 in fewest fantasy points allowed to PGs.

    Rondo had awful dvp and he went off. Lillard had a decent average score against that opponent and had been averaging 43 pts in his last 10 games so he seemed like a good contrarian play to me.

  • dre87

    NBA cash games are definitely still beatable. The problem is that they now require almost a contrarian strategy to be successful over time. Ownership percentages on the most optimal lineups continue to push upwards. A lot of nights you’ll see greater than 80% ownership on multiple guys in cash games, even on relatively big slates. A few years ago it was easier to just enter the most “optimal” lineup in cash, night after night after night. Now it takes some testicular fortitude and some outside-of-the-box thinking. A guy that’s optimal at 60% ownership might not be at 90%, even in cash. If the chances that he flops are greater than 10% in that scenario, you’re better off going elsewhere. It’s a tough balance because until this NBA season I’ve been a fan of being chalky as possible in every single sport, but we’ve finally reached a point where there’s so much good info that I finally feel like I have to be more different, even in cash. Unless DFS becomes perfectly efficient, there’s always going to be an edge – either the optimal plays won’t be rostered highly enough (a couple years ago), or they’ll be too highly owned relative to their chances of success (something we’re seeing more of now). As others have mentioned, if anyone is a newer player I’d definitely recommend tournaments for NBA – you’re getting similar cash lines with a lot more upside (and a lot more dead money from dart-throw plays).

  • billholler

    @txdave41 said...

    Rondo had awful dvp and he went off. Lillard had a decent average score against that opponent and had been averaging 43 pts in his last 10 games so he seemed like a good contrarian play to me.

    Simple fantasy stats….Memphis is the 3rd best against PGs. Baby Dame was an easy fade for me. Spurs only defensive “weak spot” is against PGs so Rondo was an easy play for me last night. The other side of that coin, Klay was in a good spot last night and I was 100% on him so naturally he was terrible.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    DK needs to do a lot better job of pricing players. If there’s not going be any late swap anymore then they have to be more strict with pricing on all players, because with the current model it leads to so much overlap daily. Players being over 60% on a daily basis shows obvious miscalculations on how they price players. How is westy 12.8 k??? If Draftstreet was still around westbrook would be like 14k-15k the dude is averaging a triple double and scoring 65 fantasy points a game easily. Just a shame DK took a great model at Draftstreet and ruined it for no good reason.

  • tmarohl

    @dre87 said...

    NBA cash games are definitely still beatable. The problem is that they now require almost a contrarian strategy to be successful over time. Ownership percentages on the most optimal lineups continue to push upwards. A lot of nights you’ll see greater than 80% ownership on multiple guys in cash games, even on relatively big slates. A few years ago it was easier to just enter the most “optimal” lineup in cash, night after night after night. Now it takes some testicular fortitude and some outside-of-the-box thinking. A guy that’s optimal at 60% ownership might not be at 90%, even in cash. If the chances that he flops are greater than 10% in that scenario, you’re better off going elsewhere. It’s a tough balance because until this NBA season I’ve been a fan of being chalky as possible in every single sport, but we’ve finally reached a point where there’s so much good info that I finally feel like I have to be more different, even in cash. Unless DFS becomes perfectly efficient, there’s always going to be an edge – either the optimal plays won’t be rostered highly enough (a couple years ago), or they’ll be too highly owned relative to their chances of success (something we’re seeing more of now). As others have mentioned, if anyone is a newer player I’d definitely recommend tournaments for NBA – you’re getting similar cash lines with a lot more upside (and a lot more dead money from dart-throw plays).

    I agree with your sentiment. I have quit playing cash games for the most part. Used to be you wanted guys with solid floors in your cash games. I find that no longer works. You need guys with solid floors as well as high upside. In other words, the scores are similar to what you see in GPP’s.

  • Thanasi

    Well it looks like I’m off to the qtr. arcade then.

  • killab2482

    • 521

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    • x2

      2013 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    @rainbowtroutman said...

    Agree—I only play on Aces and they list the winning percentage of every player. Rarely do I see a player
    with a winning percentage of over 50%. There are some recongnizable players over there,including some from RG,
    and not to many are over 50%

    Most people shouldn’t have a winning % over 50% unless they exclusively play 50/50’s and heads up games. There are plenty of triple ups, leagues, tourneys and satellites where you only have to “win” 35% of the time to be profitable.

  • Dmurphy104

    • Blogger of the Month

    I learned last year (and had to re-learn) this season that NBA 50/50 are tough to profit at. Switched to the $3 GPP exclusively. Been toying with the optimal # of lineups. Went from running 50 lineups to 25 to 10. My best night was last night. Finished 52nd in the shot running 10 lineups. So I will stick with 10 lineups for now. But in the last week, I’ve had multiple top 1000 lineups and have made a decent ROI since dumping cash completely in NBA. (small sample size, I know).

  • jtwfantasy

    The fact that a player like Eric Bledsoe was under 15% owned in cash vs the Lakers shows that cash games are still indeed very beatable. You just have to be more willing to take risk predicting up and down players. Yes it nice when you can take the player who scores 35 every time but you are paying for that safety. Predicting the highs is what makes DFS a skill game.

  • badlands92

    This thread made me go and analyze my cash game results for the 2016 season. I was shocked to see I’m up $8.20! I have a winning percentage of 51% (77 for 152). I’ve taken my licks (take a bow for last night, Giannis) and caught a very unlucky break losing by about 4 fpts across all contests the night Rodney Hood left at Q1.

    I’ve committed to play in larger $1 & $2 50/50s (love the 100 & 200 entries contests) and single-entry DUs. I will not play in the huge multi-entry DUs anymore. Too many trains. I also spend most of my money in $1, $2 and $3 H2Hs. My LU structure is more often than not stars and scrubs. I’ve been burnt by too many mid-range guys (and did again last night with Rudy Gay and somewhat Dwight Powell) to go the balanced approach. I look for consistency, playing time, Vegas line, injuries, etc.

    In the DUs and 50/50s it often comes down to ownership. I survived this week’s McRoberts dud because he was about 40% owned. On the flip side, I had Casspi & Beverly that night who were COMBINED about .5-1% usage across all my contests. If the stars can consistently land in their 4-5X range and the scrubs can hit for their 5X+, I feel pretty good about covering on the other 2-3 spots in my LU.

    Longwinded reply I know, but yes, I am one of the few, the proud, the right now ever-so-slightly PROFITABLE cash player (DK only).

  • jjwd

    @dre87 said...

    Unless DFS becomes perfectly efficient, there’s always going to be an edge – either the optimal plays won’t be rostered highly enough (a couple years ago), or they’ll be too highly owned relative to their chances of success (something we’re seeing more of now). As others have mentioned, if anyone is a newer player I’d definitely recommend tournaments for NBA – you’re getting similar cash lines with a lot more upside (and a lot more dead money from dart-throw plays).

    Very well said, very important point.

  • Ravenfan

    Guys like Jeff Mans and Ted Shuster still hype the 50/50 games because they play the huge volume to make it profitable for them and want others to contribute to their winnings. Until shows like that are responsible broadcasters instead of on the air to line their own accounts between subscriptions they hock every 2 minutes on their show (which of course increases their bankroll to play) and then saying “Oh, I win thousands of dollars a week playing 50/50’s, why aren’t you?” the answer is because they are playing hundreds of games a week to offset the variance.

    Too many suckers out there believe guys like them, their show has become more like a carnival barker trying to sell his wares than a discussion of DFS , strategy and players.

  • Njsum1

    @jtwfantasy said...

    The fact that a player like Eric Bledsoe was under 15% owned in cash vs the Lakers shows that cash games are still indeed very beatable. You just have to be more willing to take risk predicting up and down players. Yes it nice when you can take the player who scores 35 every time but you are paying for that safety. Predicting the highs is what makes DFS a skill game.

    The fact that Bledsoe had a good game proves absolutely nothing. I’m also not arguing that cash games are beatable or not.

    Bledsoe was a good play, yet hadn’t seen over 29 minutes in 4 straight which made him a dicey cash play and a strong GPP play. You may have doubled up in cash, or got 80 cents on the dollar in a 50/50 by using bledsoe, yet if the rest of your lineup was any good you could have 10x’ed that money in GPPs. And at roughly 11 percent ownership, bledsoe was the perfect GPP play. By using bledsoe in cash, you took on the minutes risk and didn’t reap the proper reward.

  • hotpants

    DFS in general is a losing proposition for the vast majority of players

  • brandnewthrice2

    I never really play quintuple ups but how hard do you think it would be to win? cashing 3 out of 7 a week is profit

  • jtwfantasy

    @Njsum1 said...

    The fact that Bledsoe had a good game proves absolutely nothing. I’m also not arguing that cash games are beatable or not.

    Bledsoe was a good play, yet hadn’t seen over 29 minutes in 4 straight which made him a dicey cash play and a strong GPP play. You may have doubled up in cash, or got 80 cents on the dollar in a 50/50 by using bledsoe, yet if the rest of your lineup was any good you could have 10x’ed that money in GPPs. And at roughly 11 percent ownership, bledsoe was the perfect GPP play. By using bledsoe in cash, you took on the minutes risk and didn’t reap the proper reward.

    Bledsoe only get limited minutes in blow-outs or if he struggles. I asked myself do I see myself do I see bledsoe struggling in the match-up or the lakers blowing out phx in the answer was clearly no. This was an easy buy low situation. NBA DFS is more then just looking at boxscores and dvp’s.

  • Njsum1

    @jtwfantasy said...

    Bledsoe only get limited minutes in blow-outs or if he struggles. I asked myself do I see myself do I see bledsoe struggling in the match-up or the lakers blowing out phx in the answer was clearly no. This was an easy buy low situation. NBA DFS is more then just looking at boxscores and dvp’s.

    Correct dfs is more than looking at box scores. Yet bledsoe’s minutes were limited in 2 of those 4 games where the game was close and he wasn’t in foul trouble. My point wasn’t that bledsoe wasn’t a good play, it was that him doing well doesn’t prove cash games are beatable. And that you would have made more money with him in GPPs for reasons previously stated.

  • 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.