MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    NBA prices tonight on DS

    Is anybody else having a tough time putting together a competitive team on DS tonight? I’m thinking I may not even play on there tonight, which is crazy because it’s a Wednesday!

  • dinkpiece

    • 89

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #61

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    I think the argument against more flexibility is more valued with a softer cap. The “you can play anyone you want” over at DK or sometimes DD is true not just because of position flexibility but because of the softer cap.

    With a really tight cap AND limited flexibility you end up being handcuffed, especially on small slate nights.

    I think the optimal game is a combination of both flexibility AND a tight cap, which is what DS has had for years with both baseball and basketball and continues to maintain with football. This structure values identifying the best plays and roster construction.

    The current structure values roster construction way more than finding the best plays because you have limited flexibility so it values a position scarcity model more so than it does identifying the correct values

  • dinkpiece

    • 89

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #61

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @bripc23 said…

    Personally I don’t think I like super sharp pricing and prefer a bit softer cap but I know I am the minority for that.

    I’ve seen really good arguments for this preference and frankly I cant disagree with it.

  • Markness

    DraftKings Team

    I think the first step is finding the best values regardless of position requirements. That is the toughest part. But after you’ve done that, I think it’s even tougher if roster restrictions are forcing you to consider deeper, less valuable picks, in order to open up the correct cap space for the best value picks at other positions. It’s a harder puzzle to piece together. With more flexibility the puzzle is easier. I think in this case harder = more room for edge over your opponents.

    Dink, try to step back and view this without bias for a sec (no offense intended at all. I’m just imagining being in your shoes)… is it possible that you could agree with what I’ve said above? Maybe you prefer more flexibility for whatever reason(possibly because it is what you are used to from last year, or possibly it’s just what you’re best at for some reason)?

  • dinkpiece

    • 89

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #61

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • 2014 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    I’m open to the possibility, not trying to be close-minded to the argument. I just have a strong preference.

    I agree that the puzzle becomes harder but I think it becomes harder in a way that rewards variance as opposed to skill.

    In many ways I think the same can be said for really soft caps with tons of positional flexibility. When there are 70 good plays and infinite combinations to fit them in you’re upping the level that variance plays a role.

    In the past I think DS had the best combination because the tight cap limited the number of good plays on a given night and the U positions allowed players to fit in as many of that limited number of good plays as they could.

    Now because of roster restrictions the game (at least in my instances) appears to have more overlap and comes down to which 1 average player outperforms another average player

    I guess what i’m trying to say is I feel before DS had a great combination in the weight placed on identifying the values and the weight placed on roster construction, but I think the current roster requirements have swung the pendulum too far towards the importance of roster construction and less on identifying the thin number of values there are on a given night

  • kaetorade

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBBC Finalist

    I don’t have an issue with roster requirements, but an example of dink’s point is tomorrow’s Trey Burke pricing. At 11.6k(5.5k on weds night), he’s simply not a reasonable option to consider and that’s a shame.

  • jlowery73

    2012 DDC Main Event Champion

    • 2014 FAFC Finalist

    • x3

      2015 FACFC Finalist

    Burke pulled an Udrih on his salary. Udrih went up to 11K after a terrible first start where he was priced at 6.7 and didn’t come close to value.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    ….so that probably means that burke will go off tomorrow night like beno did after everybody said, “well, that was horrible, you fat slob.”

  • slcseas

    Markness,

    I’ve been thinking about the basic theory of salary cap games, and I think your perception of increased edge is on track, but potentially flawed.

    An edge is generated by exploiting imbalance. A more optimal cap would have less opportunity for exploitation, therefore less edge. When edges become razor thin, only a very small portion of your customer base possess the skills to generate a profit in the long term. So in the case of dink or stl, you may be right that there is more edge for them. The rest of us will be eaten alive by the rake as we trade money back and forth.

    This is why most forms of limit poker are all but dead today. Once the majority of the player base possess the basic foundation of skills, there is very little money to be made without grinding yourself to death hoping to eek out 1 BB an hour. By contrast, the dynamics of big bet structures introduce opportunities for a multitude of strategies that can generate a profit, which is why so many people can play profitable poker now as opposed to 15 years ago.

    To put a point on it, I’d like to see structures that create more of an opportunity for flexibility, not less.

  • bripc23

    2013 PFBC Finalist

    That is the basis of my argument against tight caps. That a site can price in so many effects that players are pushing small edges. If a DFS player makes a mistake by selecting a suboptimal player, it can never really be that big of a mistake. Conversely, a soft cap allows the potential for big mistakes to be made.

    The counter-argument to this is that if these mispricings are so glaring that everyone notices them then there is huge roster overlap and no one wins. So a middle ground needs to be struck.

  • stlcardinals84

    Leading RG Analyst

    • 296

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @bripc23 said…

    That is the basis of my argument against tight caps. That a site can price in so many effects that players are pushing small edges. If a DFS player makes a mistake by selecting a suboptimal player, it can never really be that big of a mistake. Conversely, a soft cap allows the potential for big mistakes to be made.

    The counter-argument to this is that if these mispricings are so glaring that everyone notices them then there is huge roster overlap and no one wins. So a middle ground needs to be struck.

    Reason #534,921 for everyone to start playing college hoops and college football.

    More players, hard for everyone to catch all the pricing errors, more advantage.

    The two college sports are where I have my largest ROI, and the differences between those and the professional sports are ridiculous, even long-term.

  • matt686575

    stlcardinals84, any advice on researching college sports? Rotogrinders has nothing. Just lots of TV?

  • matt686575

    @Markness said…

    I think the first step is finding the best values regardless of position requirements. That is the toughest part. But after you’ve done that, I think it’s even tougher if roster restrictions are forcing you to consider deeper, less valuable picks, in order to open up the correct cap space for the best value picks at other positions. It’s a harder puzzle to piece together. With more flexibility the puzzle is easier. I think in this case harder = more room for edge over your opponents.

    Dink, try to step back and view this without bias for a sec (no offense intended at all. I’m just imagining being in your shoes)… is it possible that you could agree with what I’ve said above? Maybe you prefer more flexibility for whatever reason(possibly because it is what you are used to from last year, or possibly it’s just what you’re best at for some reason)?

    Part of the issue is also that you guys have players at the wrong positions. I wanted to play Martell Webster the other night but I could only fit him in at forward, you have him listed as a guard. Whose idea was that? Probably, the stat provider blah blah blah. He’s been a SF his whole career and the Wizards list him at SF and he’s SF size (6’7, 230).

    Can you guys use common sense more often when assigning positions? And don’t try to tell me Martell Webster is a guard. Other players aren’t listed right either.

  • matt686575

    Today Iman Shumpert is listed as a F, even though he is a SG – http://espn.go.com/nba/team/roster/_/name/ny/new-york-knicks

    And he has SG size, 6’5 220. Can you guys just list players at the position their team lists them at? It’s annoying when you’re trying to build a roster and you want to put Martell Webster at (F, his actual position) and you can’t because for some reason he is listed as a guard. He is a SF!!!!! – http://espn.go.com/nba/team/roster/_/name/wsh/washington-wizards

  • 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.