PGA FORUM

Comments

  • whodat2

    When: July 28-31 Golf starts on Wednesday 6:30pm EST.

    Where: Kasumigaseki Country Club | Japan

    Course: East Course | A par 71 playing at approximately 7400 yards

    Last Olympic Winner: Justin Rose

    Last Year’s Cut: No Cut

    Coverage: Golf Channel

    RG Golf Forum League

    Happy Meal Standings

    Admin Note: The mod team is working to keep these daily threads more on topic – Golf strategy talk for this week’s contest. Post referring to last week’s contest will be moved to the correct thread. Any off topic posts or posts containing full lineups will be deleted..

  • JimKronlund

    @BrianVT said...

    To be fair, wouldn’t ownership strategies be quite different between high dollar single entry (or any single entry, or also cash) and a 150-max GPP contest, no matter who the DFS player is?

    When you look at the total points it takes to win a contest that has 500 entries vs a 60k+ contest.
    The total points are so close that ownership was not a factor. The players with the most points won.

  • timusbr

    @Kbarnhill

    not sorry you commented, thats what the forum is all bout. I dont think you got dragged into anything and love JimK’s drawing of perception.

    I agree with you that almost all of the talk has been on narratives and perception. Using the “Bias’s” that people have stored up. 60 golfers to whittle down to 6. The 6 that will earn the most DK points. Picking the gold medal winner is key. getting the other medals would be optimal.

    IMHO, picking 1-2 or even 3 scrubs that outperform the others is the difference from top 1 % to 1st place DFS. The good news is they all play 4 rounds. Not only do we need to pick at least 1 sub 7K golfer, Its not so much a death sentence to your DFS LU. They will get 4 rounds in whatever score they get.

    In other words, The winner is much much more important than the scrub you choose to add to your roster.

  • BIF

    @BrianVT said...

    To be fair, wouldn’t ownership strategies be quite different between high dollar single entry (or any single entry, or also cash) and a 150-max GPP contest, no matter who the DFS player is?

    Totally

    SE you build your highest expected outcome lineup regardless of ownership because the likelihood of a dupe or even 5-golfer overlap is pretty rare

    MME you build around a core and how much you own of that core should correlate to ownership as you want to be overweight so you have leverage vs the field. You want to win 1st but in reality in MME in large GPPs you are trying get as many bullets as possible above the cash line and as many sweats as possible so this is best done through a core with cascading overlap where if you hit your core, you have multiple bullets in the hunt. Two weeks ago a guy finishes 1st-4th in the Milly and multiple others in the top 100 – sure that was the nuts he hit but he was also overweight the field ownership on all his core plays.

  • lfn1992

    Single entry is 100% ownership or 0% ownership. You are always by definition over or under field ownership in SE.

    When you have 150 MME its a different animal. You’re making 150 LUs and hoping to nail the winner, which means beating the field . You can go less than 100 a golfer and hedge your bets by merely beating the field. The goal, as JimK will agree, is nailing it and winning, but it’s a different approach. To me, it’s picking a field of X golfers and hoping that one of those six-golfer combinations is the nuts. More golfers = more opportunities to get the nuts. At least that’s the theory.

  • BrianVT

    Thanks, guys!

  • BIF

    @JimKronlund said...

    When you look at the total points it takes to win a contest that has 500 entries vs a 60k+ contest.
    The total points are so close that ownership was not a factor. The players with the most points won.

    While I get the point you are trying to make, it’s a bit of rear view mirror thinking – in hindsight ownership never matters if you hit the nuts and win 1st but the approach to one single entry in a 500 entry contest versus 150 entries in 60K+ entry GPP should be different otherwise you might as well enter the same lineup 150 times if it so good and your best chance of winning.

    Everyone wants to win 1st and I think we are on same page with SE where you ignore ownership and pick what you believe is the optimal 6 but there is definitely better and worse approaches to building 150 lineups and ownership has to be factored in to do it best/better. I know you don’t agree with that but it’s true as besides trying to win 1st in MME with your best lineup, you have 149 other LUs that you want to finish in the money and optimally 2nd thru 150th (assuming your core is as good as you hope) so you want to own more of those guys than the field does and to do that knowing/factoring in ownership is critical.

    We all play to win 1st so playing your optimal lineup regardless of ownership is the first step but those who play 150 LUs know they all can’t win 1st and likely won’t so they want to cash as many as possible when they get a couple of their core plays correct and when the whole core does well they want multiple bullets with a chance at good cash

  • mitchsnyderdfw

    @BrianVT said...

    Lebioda explains WD (dad in hospital)….

    https://twitter.com/hank_lebioda/status/1420049162062663680?s=20

    I hope all those MF’ers calling him out on Twitter on Saturday see this. Much more important things than golf.

  • monarch

    I play ownership in wanting to shrink the field size. If it is a 100k entry MME and 40 percent are on a certain player and they are suboptimal then the field size automatically shrinks to 60k and so on and so on. The problem is that just kinda has to happen organically…I cannot influence what happens once the contest starts. Game theory, hoping you are in position to capitalize on what the masses are not expecting. Works better in NFL, Nascar and MLB where there is greater variance.

  • BIF

    @mitchsnyderdfw said...

    I hope all those MF’ers calling him out on Twitter on Saturday see this. Much more important things than golf.

    Agreed 100% but I still don’t feel any better about his WD costing me a 6/6 that finished only 47 points out of 1st and likely would have won $2K-5K 🙄

  • JimKronlund

    @BIF said...

    W

    Rarely does someone hit the nuts. It is usually the 6th that are within the top 10 point getters. So it is not hindsight at all. Ownership is purely hindsight because it has no ability to earn a single point.
    When you looked at the points that won contests over 500. It did not matter is it was SE or max 20. In the end there was 500 or 50,0000 different line ups. (or close to that). Ownership did not make a player get an extra birdie or break a tie.

  • klf_is_gonna_rock_ya

    I feel like every lineup I make will be duped a thousand times.

  • Sleazygreazy

    • 292

      RG Overall Ranking

    @klf_is_gonna_rock_ya said...

    I feel like every lineup I make will be duped a thousand times.

    Same. anyone have a link to the last Olympics DK lottery?

  • BrianVT

    @mitchsnyderdfw said...

    I hope all those MF’ers calling him out on Twitter on Saturday see this. Much more important things than golf.

    For sure. I’ve become more and more at peace with whatever happens to my golfers. He killed what would have been some good money, but it’s just life of playing golf DFS. Helps that I don’t ever have enough money on the line for it to cause much pain. I’m in this for the long haul, so weekly annoyances will have to just remain that. The big ones will come eventually (unless they kill DK in my state or something; then I’ll be pissed).

  • klf_is_gonna_rock_ya

    The touts are talking up pieters. No thanks.

  • lfn1992

    @klf_is_gonna_rock_ya said...

    The touts are talking up pieters. No thanks.

    Great! I will have 0%

  • JimKronlund

    @mitchsnyderdfw said...

    I hope all those MF’ers calling him out on Twitter on Saturday see this. Much more important things than golf.

    Yeah I saw that. I had him 100% but I never get upset about a WD no matter the reason. I have no control over it so I do not let it bother me in the slightest. I had the nuts line up when Rahm WD and I probably will never again be in a nuts position. It was out of my control. I never lose sight that this is astronomical gamble and only entertainment. I go on about ownership only because I want other people in the forum to give themselves a better chance at winning, not make it worse by picking less probability players thinking that the lower ownership makes their team more likely to win first, and worse even yet thinking duplication makes you less money.

  • Felixxberg

    • 2019 DraftKings FGWC Finalist

    • 2019 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    @monarch said...

    I play ownership in wanting to shrink the field size. If it is a 100k entry MME and 40 percent are on a certain player and they are suboptimal then the field size automatically shrinks to 60k and so on and so on. The problem is that just kinda has to happen organically…I cannot influence what happens once the contest starts. Game theory, hoping you are in position to capitalize on what the masses are not expecting. Works better in NFL, Nascar and MLB where there is greater variance.

    It’s exactly that. To put an example of it in a small field, in NHL, in the TB-CAR series, CAR were massive underdogs every game. I played a satellite and went with Mrazek captain because I knew even if I took Vasi captain and he won, I would still be competing with everyone else and I’d need to nail the goal scorers. If I took Mrazek captain, I only needed CAR to beat TB. I was in fact the only person who had Mrazek captain and also the only one who didn’t have Vasi (one had both goalies, otherwise no one else had Mrazek even in flex). Mrazek won and I easily won the ticket.

    In the first WPG-MTL game, I didn’t have the balls to play Price captain, but I would have won my satellite by a mile too. Hellebuyck captain was 100% owned.

    It’s game theory at its finest.

  • Felixxberg

    • 2019 DraftKings FGWC Finalist

    • 2019 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    @JimKronlund said...

    I go on about ownership only because I want other people in the forum to give themselves a better chance at winning, not make it worse by picking less probability players thinking that the lower ownership makes their team more likely to win first, and worse even yet thinking duplication makes you less money.

    I feel like it’s a little different in golf, because a guy like Udayan Mane has literally 0% odds to win, so I wouldn’t play him even if I knew I’d be the only one with him in a 100K man contest.

  • Getty33

    @BrianVT said...

    For sure. I’ve become more and more at peace with whatever happens to my golfers. He killed what would have been some good money, but it’s just life of playing golf DFS. Helps that I don’t ever have enough money on the line for it to cause much pain. I’m in this for the long haul, so weekly annoyances will have to just remain that. The big ones will come eventually (unless they kill DK in my state or something; then I’ll be pissed).

    Nicely said. Most of us are in the same boat. Not trying to do this professionally but just as a hobby. I feel bad for people who think this is a long term investment. Many will try, most will fail.

  • Getty33

    @Sleazygreazy said...

    Probably not Rory M – maybe that plays in his favor with less pressure.

    Between touts, experts, and the forum this might be the first time I’ve heard anyone mention his name. Casey and Fleets on the UK side getting plenty of attention, but Rory might be the highest priced sleeper I can ever remember. Then again, maybe he just sucks right now.

  • depalma13

    Ownership doesn’t help you win, it just helps you to be the only winner.

  • BrianVT

    @JimKronlund said...

    I want other people in the forum to give themselves a better chance at winning, not make it worse by picking less probability players thinking that the lower ownership makes their team more likely to win first

    I think the problem with your assumption is thinking people take a low owned, LOW PROBABILITY player. I run models and I only consider playing guys who I think are looking really good that week. I rank them. I then start looking at salaries and what will work and who is a good value. I then look at ownership. If I see two $7500 guys sitting right next to each other in my rankings, and one is projected at 8%, and one is projected at 20%, I might decide it’s in my best interest to take go heavier on the 8% guy because I’m playing against other people (not always, but sometimes). I’m not only trying to pick the best golfers; I’m trying to beat other people. More importantly, I’m not picking a low-owned player who I think has no chance at competing in the tournament. A low-owned player who stands out in my model is attractive.

  • JimKronlund

    @Felixxberg said...

    I feel like it’s a little different in golf, because a guy like Udayan Mane has literally 0% odds to win, so I wouldn’t play him even if I knew I’d be the only one with him in a 100K man contest.

    It makes much more sense in NHL. Not in golf.

  • depalma13

    @Felixxberg said...

    I feel like it’s a little different in golf, because a guy like Udayan Mane has literally 0% odds to win, so I wouldn’t play him even if I knew I’d be the only one with him in a 100K man contest.

    He can get an ace or shoot a round of 63. He doesn’t have to have win equity in a no cut event to pay off his price.

  • kdsdawg

    @Felixxberg said...

    I feel like it’s a little different in golf, because a guy like Udayan Mane has literally 0% odds to win, so I wouldn’t play him even if I knew I’d be the only one with him in a 100K man contest.

    you aren’t playing Mane in a no cut event to win though, you are playing him because you can then play five other high price guys, gotta just hope he doesn’t go out in a blaze of glory

  • 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).