STRATEGY FORUM

Comments

  • Maynardj4193

    I’m confused about why this is such a big deal for nfl games. The highest owned every week is 30% or so. I see ppl talking about fading this, and even 20% owned guys.

    As far as math(I know there is more to it, thats why I’m asking for clarification), even if every player you chose was 25% owned (impossible), the odds that someone has your exact lineup is about 1 in 250,000. If you have 8 players at 25% and just one at 5%, the odds are over 1 to a million. If you actually go through all your lineups and check the percentages, they are waaaaaay, higher than that.

    It seems to me, that disregarding what everyone else is doing, and creating your lineups based on how you feel the players will do based on your knowledge and research, you will perform much better.

    Fading McKinnon this week in all lineups can either out you ahead on everyone that played him, or completely take you out of the game if he goes off.

    Even if you fade just one guy, and it works out, you still have 70% of the field to go through. If you fade that one guy, and he goes off, 30% of the field has an edge on you that you will have to pray to overcome.

    This is just the way I have been looking at things, so please explain why this is the wrong way of looking at things. Thanks for any help.

  • blaze1

    @Maynardj4193 said...

    It seems to me, that disregarding what everyone else is doing, and creating your lineups based on how you feel the players will do based on your knowledge and research, you will perform much better.

    Great point.

  • Maynardj4193

    This insane week aside, most FD tourney winners seem to get about 180 points. If you get 180 points, you can win…why fade to try and get 180 points from different players. Right before I posted this, I read the huge fading post somebody posted about who was highly owned this week. Bet money he faded gronk….forget he’s a great play this week, good job.

  • Maynardj4193

    Bump for looking for a reason why fading trumps my logic. I am still very new to this, and would like to know if I am wrong in my assumptions before I continue to ignore owned % if I should instead fade certain players. Thanks

  • slugga27

    @Maynardj4193 said...

    Bump for looking for a reason why fading trumps my logic. I am still very new to this, and would like to know if I am wrong in my assumptions before I continue to ignore owned % if I should instead fade certain players. Thanks

    Fading is talked about as a way to differentiate yourself…say, for example, Matt Forte is seemingly a top play for the week against a terrible defense. Yes, the expectation is that he will go off and have a big game. Expected ownership is high, let’s say 40%. He goes out and puts up only 10 points. Now, let’s say, on DK, he cost $8600. That’s 17% of the cap for a player that got you 10 points. If you faded him, you’d be looking like a genius and you’d be way out in front of the 40% who went Forte. And, let’s say you’re in a 50/50, assuming your lineup is solid, you’re looking at a good day.

  • tianyihe

    @Maynardj4193 said...

    Bump for looking for a reason why fading trumps my logic. I am still very new to this, and would like to know if I am wrong in my assumptions before I continue to ignore owned % if I should instead fade certain players. Thanks

    Here is the logic for fading. Suppose you go for someone that is heavily owned, say at 80%,and the player goes off for 100 points (take the extremes here), you are only ahead of 20% of the field. Obviously, this logic is a little less compelling when the player you are fading is at 20-25%, such as Gronk and Maclin were this Sunday.

    A better reason to fade, imo, is if you have two players that have similar ceilings, and one will be heavily owned and the other one less so, you should take the player with less ownership and fade the more popular one. Case in point is this past week between Jordy Nelson and Randcall Cobb, Both players have similar ceilings of 100+ yards, 2 scores, but Nelson was priced only $300 above Cobb and have a bigger name. As a result, Nelson had a much higher ownership (37%) vs Cobb’s 16%.

    Results aside, in a deep GPP, you should theoretically take Cobb on more of your lineups than Nelson.

    A favorite play of mine this week was to insert Mohammad Sanu and/or Sammy Watkins into a ton of lineups, while not having Jeremy Maclin in the same lineup. I know this didn’t work out that well because Maclin went off for 45 points (but Sanu/Watkins did return 4x value), but my logic in these lineups were I know Maclin will see heavy usage, while Sanu/Watkins won’t while holding the same upside. On any given Sunday, the chance of a player like Maclin/Sanu/Watkins going off for 100 yards + 2 TDs is a small , so if you hit on that small %, you would rather be racing against 10 of the field as opposed to 30% of the field.

    Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and I should have played all 3 in the same lineup, but when going into any week, it’s the process that matters. Probability of all 3 hitting close to their ceiling is something like 10-15% raised to the 3rd power, so it’s not good and I have no regrets not having the optimal WR setup.

  • 8MileAllstars

    I think there is an implied part of the “fade” theory that doesn’t always come across that basically says “i don’t think that guy will do as well as everyone else and I think there’s a similar player that will put up a better number”

    For example: I didn’t have DeMarco Murray in any lineups this week, because while I think he’ll have a good game, I don’t think it will be as huge as a lot of people think. I went with Foster/Bell/Charles for the most part.

    I don’t think most people “fade” a guy simply because of the ownership, but more a combo of the ownership/expected result.

  • tipandpick

    • 2016 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    • 2014 FAFC Champion

    As simple as I can put it…

    If a guy is 30% owned at $5000 on DK, you have to ask youself if you think he could get 20 points (4x value for GPP) at least 30% of the time…if the answer is ‘yes,’ then you roster him and forget about the % owned.

    The value in rostering lesser-owned guys occurs when a guy like Roethlisberger this week was rostered a 1% at $5800, meaning that he needed ~ 23 points to reach value. In that case, Roethlisberger is a GREAT play because, over the course of 100 games, he would assuredly score 23 points more than once (1%).

    It’s kind of like poker in that way…you keep making calls/bets based on the pot/implied odds. If you push chips in the middle and end up on the wrong side of variance this time, it doesn’t matter because you’ll win over the long haul, as long as your calculations are correct.

    With football, you’re looking to find those low-owned gems with upside because they will separate you from the pack at a rate higher than their ownership.

  • rysportguy

    Your logic makes perfect sense and this is why not everyone agrees to fade players based on percentage owned. I myself only use percentage owned as a tie breaker between two players that I like equally. You will notice most of the people who play the fade are players who play multiple lineups. The fade strategy works much better with multiple lineups because its riskier and if you do play some fades right you get a significant bump compared to the competition.

  • tianyihe

    @tipandpick said...

    The value in rostering lesser-owned guys occurs when a guy like Roethlisberger this week was rostered a 1% at $5800, meaning that he needed ~ 23 points to reach value. In that case, Roethlisberger is a GREAT play because, over the course of 100 games, he would assuredly score 23 points more than once (1%).

    Great point here!

  • Maynardj4193

    @tipandpick said...

    As simple as I can put it…

    If a guy is 30% owned at $5000 on DK, you have to ask youself if you think he could get 20 points (4x value for GPP) at least 30% of the time…if the answer is ‘yes,’ then you roster him and forget about the % owned.

    The value in rostering lesser-owned guys occurs when a guy like Roethlisberger this week was rostered a 1% at $5800, meaning that he needed ~ 23 points to reach value. In that case, Roethlisberger is a GREAT play because, over the course of 100 games, he would assuredly score 23 points more than once (1%).

    It’s kind of like poker in that way…you keep making calls/bets based on the pot/implied odds. If you push chips in the middle and end up on the wrong side of variance this time, it doesn’t matter because you’ll win over the long haul, as long as your calculations are correct.

    With football, you’re looking to find those low-owned gems with upside because they will separate you from the pack at a rate higher than their ownership.

    Sorry, but I don’t see how you support this. Just saying owned % is the same as the % of time a player needs to put up those numbers to be a fade or not. Here is an example of why this doesn’t seem to equate.

    This week, Payton Manning is playing the Raiders, at Denver. His price on FD is $6,000. Of course, he is 99% owned. Whelp, better fade because he has to put up 24 points 99% of the time. We can assume Payton Manning will have at least 2 games under 24 points every 6 years or so….

    Seriously…you fade that? Based on your reasoning, you fade him. There is no way he puts up 24 points 99% of the time. (I might be way off…maybe he does 100%)

    Michael Floyd now costs $1,000 on fanduel against the leagues worst pass Defense…he is 99%…gotta fade him. Clearly he has a 1% chance to score zero…he just proved it.

    I seriously do not understand. Regardless of owned , you will have the score that your players produce. If you pick the best player at every single position, even if they are all 25 owned…you win. end of story. No amount of fading is going to change the fact that a high owned player can be the best value.

  • tipandpick

    • 2016 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    • 2014 FAFC Champion

    @Maynardj4193 said...

    Sorry, but I don’t see how you support this. Just saying owned % is the same as the % of time a player needs to put up those numbers to be a fade or not. Here is an example of why this doesn’t seem to equate.

    This week, Payton Manning is playing the Raiders, at Denver. His price on FD is $6,000. Of course, he is 99% owned. Whelp, better fade because he has to put up 24 points 99% of the time. We can assume Payton Manning will have at least 2 games under 24 points every 6 years or so….

    Seriously…you fade that? Based on your reasoning, you fade him. There is no way he puts up 24 points 99% of the time. (I might be way off…maybe he does 100%)

    Michael Floyd now costs $1,000 on fanduel against the leagues worst pass Defense…he is 99%…gotta fade him. Clearly he has a 1% chance to score zero…he just proved it.

    I seriously do not understand. Regardless of owned , you will have the score that your players produce. If you pick the best player at every single position, even if they are all 25 owned…you win. end of story. No amount of fading is going to change the fact that a high owned player can be the best value.

    Why ask the question if you’re already convinced of the answer?

    I could get any number of highly-successful DFS players to come in here and confirm that what I’ve outlined is the correct response to your original question, yet you propose two ridiculous scenarios to argue against it—I have NEVER seen a player 99% owned in any sport on any site, so your counter-argument is nonsensical.

    I never said picking the best player at every single position wouldn’t win a GPP for you, but the odds of doing so are minuscule; the odds of finding value, based on the formula I outlined above, are far better. …but you do it your way and I’ll rely on math—I trust it more.

  • Maynardj4193

    So where is the breakpoint? Of course 99% is unrealistic, but it is still based on your formula. I don’t understand which is why I’m asking. I completely understand how owning a low owned player that goes off gives an edge. But the big Ben thing, how do you land on him, when there are at least 5 other QBs that are 1% owned. Any 1% owned QB can put up 4X value at least 1 out of 100 times.

    I would gamble to say that any player at any position, that is 1% owned can put up 4X salary 1 out of 100 times.

    I’m not sure if you ever read my original post. My main question is even if you have 3-4 guys that are 25% owned, the odds of an identical lineup are still outrageous.

    I do see the point of having an option between 2 guys, with same price, same ceiling, different owner %. That part makes sense. Even then, your final score still depends on the guy you picked and his score right?

    Why I’m not understanding these arguments, is the winner of these tournaments, most weeks, still have a couple players at 20% owner levels.

    It’s just frustrating that I can’t wrap my head around it. Oh well, maybe I’ll get it in the futurethane after I see enough tournaments or something.

  • gibby84

    Nonsensical and erroneous seem to be the Maynard way. For a guy new to dfs, he certainly seems to have things all figured out. Completely incorrectly, but figured nonetheless. My favorite was the assertion that top dfs players make no more than 20k annually. Perhaps add in some common sense and context to your arguments Maynard.

  • nbkblaze1

    Maynard I get what you are saying, but in my experience you only have to worry about duplucate lineups in a short slate of games, like say for example nhl tonight there are 2 games. If you want to really make your lineups stand out from everyone else’s in a large field tournament, leave some salary on the table. Logically this would decrease your chances of cashing, but that’s what your 50/50 and head to head lineups are for. If you want to win a large field gpp you have to be unique and take chances.

  • Maynardj4193

    @gibby84 said...

    Nonsensical and erroneous seem to be the Maynard way. For a guy new to dfs, he certainly seems to have things all figured out. Completely incorrectly, but figured nonetheless. My favorite was the assertion that top dfs players make no more than 20k annually. Perhaps add in some common sense and context to your arguments Maynard.

    Ouch. I would like to say, when I posted the $20k/year thing, I’m pretty sure I mentioned the word “think”, not “know”, and the fact I read that on an article pasted here.

    Second, I’m not saying I’m right and yall are wrong. I’m saying I’m frustrated that I can’t understand WHY yall are right, or why I’m wrong.

    Now then, I definitely get how important it is in large field 2 game tourneys. I imagine there are only so many lineups possible while using entire salary cap, so owned , and leaving money on the table makes sense. But these tourneys have multiple 50+ owned players in them.

    I would like people to tell me why I’m wrong in my thinking, so I can learn it. I have repeatedly asked why 25% times 9 players gives a 250,000 to 1 shot at a duplicate lineup isn’t correct. Why fade a 25% guy, when even if you play all 9 25% guys, you will still rarely have a duplicate lineup. I can’t understand why this is the wrong way of thinking. Thank you, once again, to anyone that can explain to me why I’m wrong, so I can learn. Sorry I’m stupid, but please tell me why this is stupid, and not just tell me I’m stupid. Thanks again.

  • blackcloud420

    Tip and Pick laid it out. He is right.

  • Maynardj4193

    I understand they are right, I want to know why I’m wrong. Please.

  • tianyihe

    @tipandpick said...

    The value in rostering lesser-owned guys occurs when a guy like Roethlisberger this week was rostered a 1% at $5800, meaning that he needed ~ 23 points to reach value. In that case, Roethlisberger is a GREAT play because, over the course of 100 games, he would assuredly score 23 points more than once (1%).

    Still the best post of this entire thread, and something I have never thought about. Comparing the probability of 4x value against ownership %.

  • Maynardj4193

    @tianyihe said...

    Still the best post of this entire thread, and something I have never thought about. Comparing the probability of 4x value against ownership %.

    I had yet to see this train of thought before in all the fading threads, and it’s interesting. I would still have the problem of there being so many 1% guys that can put up 4X 1 out of 100 times. I would then have to decide which of those would do it the most out of 100 times? Or then compare matchups and decide if this is one of those times.

    I will definitely be doing this on any 2 game tourney I play in from now on, I would still have to predict ownership % with no way to see ahead of time I guess.

  • tianyihe

    @Maynardj4193 said...

    I had yet to see this train of thought before in all the fading threads, and it’s interesting. I would still have the problem of there being so many 1% guys that can put up 4X 1 out of 100 times. I would then have to decide which of those would do it the most out of 100 times? Or then compare matchups and decide if this is one of those times.

    I will definitely be doing this on any 2 game tourney I play in from now on, I would still have to predict ownership % with no way to see ahead of time I guess.

    You seem to have not grasped what he meant. He meant that Big Ben had a much higher chance of putting up 4x value than the other QB’s if you account for ownership. Say Big Ben’s chance of putting up 22 points is ~15%, while his ownership is 1%, then you should be having a ton of Big Ben in your lineups.

    It’s not just picking any 5k QB or 3k WR and hope he goes for 20 points and 12 points, respectively. It’s about probability. If you have 4% chance to get ahead of 99% of the field in a GPP, which is owning a player with a 4% chance of returning 4x value that is owned by 1% of the pool, then you should take him in your lineup.

    And going into Sunday, many people were aware that Big Ben and Antonio Brown would have low usage, given that they were facing the #1 pass defense in the NFL with PFF’s top corner tailing Antonio Brown, and Jordy Nelson/Cobb/Dez priced cheaper and facing softer defenses.

    Same goes for any Saints receiver. No one knows who Brees would throw to so Stills, Colston, and Brandin Cooks were all underowned and went off. If you had 100 lineups and had 33 lineups with each of them in there, you were ahead of the field.

  • ldmariodl28

    • Blogger of the Month

    Best score wins 100% of the time

  • iconfantasyJoe

    im just upset that I went to use Peyton Manning, and I found out he isn’t actually $6,000.

    Way to make enemies new guy.

    Way.to.make.enemies. :)

  • Maynardj4193

    @tianyihe said...

    You seem to have not grasped what he meant. He meant that Big Ben had a much higher chance of putting up 4x value than the other QB’s if you account for ownership. Say Big Ben’s chance of putting up 22 points is ~15%, while his ownership is 1%, then you should be having a ton of Big Ben in your lineups.

    It’s not just picking any 5k QB or 3k WR and hope he goes for 20 points and 12 points, respectively. It’s about probability. If you have 4% chance to get ahead of 99% of the field in a GPP, which is owning a player with a 4% chance of returning 4x value that is owned by 1% of the pool, then you should take him in your lineup.

    And going into Sunday, many people were aware that Big Ben and Antonio Brown would have low usage, given that they were facing the #1 pass defense in the NFL with PFF’s top corner tailing Antonio Brown, and Jordy Nelson/Cobb/Dez priced cheaper and facing softer defenses.

    Same goes for any Saints receiver. No one knows who Brees would throw to so Stills, Colston, and Brandin Cooks were all underowned and went off. If you had 100 lineups and had 33 lineups with each of them in there, you were ahead of the field.

    Yea I understand what he is saying, but aren’t their a bunch of low owned QBs that have a price that would apply this reasoning? Not too mention, how do you land on 15%? Especially against the Colts defense.

    Still, my issue is more with you still only win if the guy you pick scores a certain amount of points. If you land on big Ben as a good points per money spent guy, you should have him in some lineups. These NFL tourneys have so many options, that you will almost never have to worry about having a duplicate lineup. So if your lineup is unique, wouldn’t the only thing matter is how many points you score?

    Based on the salary cap, you are almost always going to have at least one contrarian play. Considering you need all players to produce, when your one contrarian play produces, that gives you all the edge you need as long as the rest of your lineup produces as well.

    Math says you don’t even need one player to be under 25% to be contrarian enough as a whole. I don’t think you can even have all 9 players be 25% owned. Even if you could, unless there are over 250,000 people, you will have a unique lineup.

    This is the part I would like somebody to explain to me. Why is this wrong. Thank you.

  • gibby84

    TnP broke it down in the most simplistic and easy to digest form. If you can’t understand it, especially coming from a poker background as you say, there really isn’t much else to be said.

    As you said, you did well at poker, so TnP’s explanation should be strikingly apt. It’s spot on.
  • benny11

    • Blogger of the Month

    @tipandpick said...

    As simple as I can put it…

    If a guy is 30% owned at $5000 on DK, you have to ask youself if you think he could get 20 points (4x value for GPP) at least 30% of the time…if the answer is ‘yes,’ then you roster him and forget about the % owned.

    The value in rostering lesser-owned guys occurs when a guy like Roethlisberger this week was rostered a 1% at $5800, meaning that he needed ~ 23 points to reach value. In that case, Roethlisberger is a GREAT play because, over the course of 100 games, he would assuredly score 23 points more than once (1%).

    It’s kind of like poker in that way…you keep making calls/bets based on the pot/implied odds. If you push chips in the middle and end up on the wrong side of variance this time, it doesn’t matter because you’ll win over the long haul, as long as your calculations are correct.

    With football, you’re looking to find those low-owned gems with upside because they will separate you from the pack at a rate higher than their ownership.

    I could not have said this better myself. Great post

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Sites mentioned in this thread

Use our links to sign up and deposit on sites listed in this thread to get these bonuses:

Subforum Index

New RotoGrinders Sports Betting Section!

Are you a DFS player who wants to get into sports betting?

If you have access to New Jersey sports betting, then use our DraftKings Sportsbook promo code and our FanDuel Sportsbook promo code to get the best bonuses in the NJ industry.

Those who can take advantage of PA online sports betting should use our SugarHouse PA promo code to get the best sports betting bonus in Pennsylvania.

If you don't yet have access to an online sportsbook, check out Monkey Knife Fight, a prop betting platform available in 31 states. Use our Monkey Knife Fight promo code to get a fantastic bonus.

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. Our goal is to help all of our members make more money playing daily fantasy sports!

Disclosures: All RotoGrinders content contributors are active DFS players. Contributor screen names can be found on their respective RotoGrinders profile pages. Contributors reserve the right to use players or strategies not discussed in their content on RotoGrinders.