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.

  • Maynardj4193

    @gibby84 said...

    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.

    As I have said, I understand his “formula”, but I never asked for this. I simply asked several times for why my explanation was wrong. I’m not saying I am right. I am just trying to understand why my train of thought is wrong. I have read a ton of people that fade for reason like tnp explained.

    I am not trying to argue, or say I am right. I simply said that I don’t see a reason in fading a guy, when if you add up all the %s, for all 9 guys, you have a unique lineup regardless.(almost every time in NFL GPP)

    I can see why people with Big Ben had a huge edge this week due to the 1% owned. However, even if he was 25% owned (could probably convince yourself he goes off 4× 1 out of 4 times, not completely unreasonable), you would have an edge on 75% of competition. Then of the remaining 25%, if you roster Arian Foster(who theoretically is 25% in this scenario) instead of fading, and he goes off like he did, you now have an edge on over 93% of the competition. If you continue this trend by taking highly owned 25% players, you will still have the same separation from the competition in the end, just at a different rate, correct?

    This is all I have been asking. If this is wrong, I would like to know why. If you feel like replying yet again, basically telling me I am dumb for not getting it, Thank you. However, I don’t see a single post that has actually responded to my original question that I have repeatedly asked. Thank you again for all the information.

  • CoachC

    @Maynardj4193 said...

    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.

    I think what you’re missing Maynard is that your theory is based on picking a perfect or nearly perfect lineup. Even the typical GPP winner’s lineup isn’t perfect… but if they hit 6 picks out of 9 perfectly and one of those picks is someone that is 1-4% owned, that may be more likely to happen than your scenario where you would likely have to hit 8 of your 9 picks perfectly at a 25% ownership each.

  • JHair

    the goal should be building a perfect lineup though

  • zxcvbnm4321

    • Blogger of the Month

    maynard, IMO you are correct in your thinking. i wrote a blog on this subject a few weeks ago.

    https://rotogrinders.com/blog-posts/To_Be_or_Not_To_Be_Contrarian-393243#reply-393243

  • danliebl

    @zxcvbnm4321 said...

    maynard, IMO you are correct in your thinking. i wrote a blog on this subject a few weeks ago.

    https://rotogrinders.com/blog-posts/To_Be_or_Not_To_Be_Contrarian-393243#reply-393243

    nice post, helps confirm my thoughts as well

  • hambazaza

    RG Blog Program Manager, 2014 RG Party Beer Pong Champion

    • Blogger of the Month

    • Beer Pong Champion

    maynard, you make an excellent point, the only problem with it is that the crowd generally isn’t right 100% of the time, so its rare that you’ll manage to get several guys who are all 25% owned who go off. there is almost ALWAYS somebody who underperforms. Alternatively, at that same price point, somebody who took a 1% player who came through with that elite performance absolutely wins even if he has everybody else at the 25% owned mark.

  • offtackleleft

    Maynard –

    Tipandpick’s explanation was excellent, but I am going to try to take a shot at explaining this. I’m relatively new to DFS, but I also come from a poker background. I think you need another angle –

    Let’s say you have two lineups for a GPP, L1 and L2. L1 is a lineup like the one you said, with the players you think will score the most points, but they are all high-owned, (say 15-25%). L2 is identical to L1, but it has a QB/WR stack (say Wilson/Baldwin from week 7) in which each of those players are owned under 5%. Let’s also say we believe that this QB/WR in L2 has as high a ceiling, but a lower floor than the QB/WR in L1. Why do I want L2 instead of L1 in a GPP? Well it has to do with the number of players you’re playing against for starters – in a tournament of 100,000+ people (say FD Sunday Million), there will be a lot of lineups that contain your QB/WR combination from L1. Now you are competing against those lineups on the 7 other positions. You still might win, but the pool of people you are competing against is enormous, maybe 5,000+ people. If your QB/WR stack in L2 goes off, you might only have other entries with that stack in the triple digits, and you will only need to beat those entries to win the tournament. Having a low owned players that score a lot cuts out a huge portion of the field right off the top, essentially making a 100,000 person tournament into a 500 person tournament, which is of course to your great advantage.

    This week (week 8), if you had gronk and foster who were both 10%+ owned, you were doing pretty well, but if you had big ben as well, then you had a real shot if the rest of your lineup was solid since he outscored the QB position by 10 points and was low owned. I don’t know what the numbers were, but I’d guess the number of FD Sunday Million entries with these three players was less than 20. If Brady had outscored the QB position by 10 points, I imagine there would have been something like 1000 entries with Gronk, Brady and Foster, and you would have needed to have some other unque value on your team to separate you from those 1000…

    I’m not sure if what I’m saying here is any more or less relatable to you, but I thought I’d take a stab. Cheers.

  • Wakefield49

    It’s easy to conflate the concept of fading a player with the concept of rostering a low-owned player, but I think the distinction is very important. Employing both strategies to an extreme on your rosters is sure to yield a negative ROI in the long run.

    As far as gaining an edge in a GPP format, in general I believe that fading a high-owned player that does not return value is more +EV than rostering a low-owned player that does return value. Of course having a very low-owned player that ends up the top 1 or 2 scorer at their position is optimal, but this occurs at a much lower frequency than executing a successful fade.

    You can also think about it this way: there are often weeks where in order to win a GPP you absolutely have to own a player that went off and had a 10-point edge on the next highest scoring player. If you faded that player then you have 0% chance of winning a GPP. At the same time, if you hit the lottery and rostered a less-than-1% owned player that scored 6x their $5000 salary, you were still no closer to winning that GPP.

  • Maynardj4193

    Thanks for all the info guys. I have a much better grasp on these concepts now.

  • dejohnc

    @offtackleleft said...

    Maynard –

    Tipandpick’s explanation was excellent, but I am going to try to take a shot at explaining this. I’m relatively new to DFS, but I also come from a poker background. I think you need another angle –

    Let’s say you have two lineups for a GPP, L1 and L2. L1 is a lineup like the one you said, with the players you think will score the most points, but they are all high-owned, (say 15-25%). L2 is identical to L1, but it has a QB/WR stack (say Wilson/Baldwin from week 7) in which each of those players are owned under 5%. Let’s also say we believe that this QB/WR in L2 has as high a ceiling, but a lower floor than the QB/WR in L1. Why do I want L2 instead of L1 in a GPP? Well it has to do with the number of players you’re playing against for starters – in a tournament of 100,000+ people (say FD Sunday Million), there will be a lot of lineups that contain your QB/WR combination from L1. Now you are competing against those lineups on the 7 other positions. You still might win, but the pool of people you are competing against is enormous, maybe 5,000+ people. If your QB/WR stack in L2 goes off, you might only have other entries with that stack in the triple digits, and you will only need to beat those entries to win the tournament. Having a low owned players that score a lot cuts out a huge portion of the field right off the top, essentially making a 100,000 person tournament into a 500 person tournament, which is of course to your great advantage.

    This week (week 8), if you had gronk and foster who were both 10%+ owned, you were doing pretty well, but if you had big ben as well, then you had a real shot if the rest of your lineup was solid since he outscored the QB position by 10 points and was low owned. I don’t know what the numbers were, but I’d guess the number of FD Sunday Million entries with these three players was less than 20. If Brady had outscored the QB position by 10 points, I imagine there would have been something like 1000 entries with Gronk, Brady and Foster, and you would have needed to have some other unque value on your team to separate you from those 1000…

    I’m not sure if what I’m saying here is any more or less relatable to you, but I thought I’d take a stab. Cheers.

    “Having a low owned players that score a lot cuts out a huge portion of the field right off the top, essentially making a 100,000 person tournament into a 500 person tournament, which is of course to your great advantage. “ That says it all right there.

  • 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).