STRATEGY FORUM

Comments

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    I wanted to share a quick look at some ownership data for top 10 GPP finishing teams. My original question was, “what does ownership look like for GPP winning teams and how does that vary by buy-in level?” I was wondering this because many lineup builders are good a spitting out as many lineups as you want based on points, or ratings, or ceilings, but they aren’t very good at designing specific rosters based on specific ownership levels. This requires a bit more manual work, which is fine, but if I’m building rosters based on ownership, I definitely wanted to spend some time looking at what ownership looks like for GPP winning lineups. The common wisdom for GPP is that you need a contrarian lineup – and this is definitely true – but what does this look like on a team by team basis and how do you construct a roster based on that info?

    A quick note on the data: I used the contest dashboard on fantasylabs to gather this data. I’ve been a pro subscriber since 2015, and I love the product. One annoying thing is that you can’t export or copy/paste data from anywhere on the site. While this is understandable from a proprietary data point of view, it’s makes larger analysis by “outside” people like me difficult. Because of this I only looked at NBA data on slates where they ran large tournaments from 11/1/17 to today (18 slates with at least 5 games, 55 separate contests). For each slate, I looked at the top 10 winning GPP lineups for the low stakes tourney (mostly $8), Mid stakes (mostly $33) and high stakes (mostly $555) and manually recorded the average ownership, player with the highest ownership and player with the lowest ownership for each of these top 10 teams in each of the contests (about 1,650 different data points). Also, I rounded ownership (someone 16.15% owned became 16%)…sorry. Average ownership looks at the 8 guys on the roster and just takes an average of their ownership level for that contest, high ownership is the chalkiest guy on the roster, and low ownership is the least owned person.

    Here are a few highlights of the results:

    -You don’t really need to fade chalk in GPPs. The average “high ownership” guy is 47.3% owned across all contests – that’s huge. I would feel comfortable playing chalk, I’m not really going to worry about it.

    -More important is the low owed guy. Across all contests, the average low owned guy was 4.0% owned. This was an extremely consistent data point. You basically need at least one very low owned guy if you want a top 10 GPP winning lineup. The mode and median here was 2% and 3% – If you look at your lineup and you don’t have a sub 5-7% owned guy, it going to be tough to win.

    -Average ownership is 20.4% – this value by itself is not very important. Targeting 20% ownership across your 8 guys is a recipe for failure, instead you need to think about roster construction from the point of view of hitting each end of the spectrum and balancing your chalky plays with a few more off the board plays.

    Ok, so how does this break out by buy in level and tournament field size? It’s generally how you would expect. The averages at low stakes large field tourneys are depressed (15.3% average, 35.6% high, 3.3% low), similar to the overall at the mid stakes (21.0% avg, 48.6% high, 4.1% low) and higher at the high stakes (24.6% avg, 57.1% high and 4.6% low). Smaller stakes means you need to be a bit more adventurous with your low owned players.

    I fully realize that this isn’t any groundbreaking stuff. So how can we make this actionable from a roster construction standpoint? I think in two ways. First is with multi-lineup generators. Setting exposure vs. the field is great, but you need to take it one step further. I would love to see a toggle built into my lineup generators that would force one (or two or three guys) into each roster who are projected to be low owned. With fantasylabs, I can create a model that includes ownership as a factor, and this is great, but I can’t construct specific lineups the way I would like to. Right now, I have to go through and manually adjust my rosters. As a guy with a family and a job, this is tough to do with 150 lineups on a Monday night slate. To me, tools like the lineup generator and ownership projections at labs and rotogrinders are essential, but they probably have room for improvement.

    Secondly, if I put together a single GPP lineup and my low owned guy is projected to be 10 or 12% owned (or even 6-9%), I’m going to go back a rework that lineup to make sure that I have a guy or two at a very low ownership level based on the field size of the tournament that I am entering.

    Hopefully that’s a little helpful to people – it was to me. At least I now when I look at my lineups pre-lock, I’ll have a better idea at determining if I even have a chance to win before all the snowflakes start showing up.

  • superstars92

    • 115

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #78

      RG Tiered Ranking

    First, it’s cool you did this analysis, so thanks for taking the time to look.

    I haven’t really read all that you wrote in super detail, but I think there’s a huge confounding variable you are missing here in ownership analysis. You are looking at single ownership of players, but not the correlation of ownerships.

    For example, if I choose a 3k chalk play, I am way more likely to also then choose a stud (10k+) player then if my lowest priced player was only 4.5k. So you are missing a lot of cross-correlations in ownership percentages.

    So when I read the comment that you said “it’s a bad idea to go with like 8 20% owned player or so,” I believe it’s almost impossible you can even do that because often times the 8 20% owned players or so have a total salary that is no where close to 50k, so that would not be a feasible roster.

    Just some thoughts. I’ll read more into detail later.

  • superstars92

    • 115

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #78

      RG Tiered Ranking

    Ahh yes, there’s also another huge bias in your analysis when you say “it’s ok to choose chalk.”

    I’ll give you a hypothetical and you can understand why.

    Say Player A was 100% owned by every single team in a GPP.

    Will Player A be in the winning GPP lineup, even if he gets a 0. Yes. Will he be in all top 10 GPP lineups, even if he gets a 0. Yes.

    That’s because he was 100% owned!

    Get my point? So when you say you found that like 45% owned guys were in the top 10 GPP winning teams, well that’s not surprising. Even if they completely busted, the fact they were owned in so many lineups naturally gives them a better shot to be in a top GPP lineup. The extreme case is the 100% case above.

    Basically, if Player A was 50% owned, assuming everything else is completely random, he still has a 50% shot at being in the top GPP lineup! So it’s actually irrelevant to look at this 50% owned number in the way you are looking. You must see how many times a 50% owned player was in a winning GPP (or top 10) lineup. Is it OVER or UNDER 50%. You must look at it that way.

    I bet there were top 10 GPP lineups yesterday (in the 180 and 555 definitely, possibly 8 and 33) that had Michael Beasley. But fading Michael Beasley was the right move. This would be the same case the night Greg Monroe was like 70% owned. He was in winning lineups or top 10 GPP lineups, even though he wasn’t the right play. It’s what happens when so many teams have him.

    Hope that helps.

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Sounds good – On the first post, yeah, I am definitely looking at individual ownership here without any thought to how those things are correlated. On DK, most good lineups seem to be stars and scrubs, so I guess there is a natural tendency to get this extreme approach to ownership with chalky $3k guys and studs. I wasn’t really trying to imply that 8 20% owned guys is feasible, I just wanted some guideline to view ownership in my lineups and answer the question – is my lineup contrarian enough to win this gpp? I think I have some guideposts to say 8-10% owned is probably not low enough to get the job done. (I also have it broken down by slate size – obviously a 5 game slate will have higher ownership than a 12 game slate).

    For the second post, yeah, I completely agree. Obviously higher owned players will appear more often and of course, they will pop up in the top lineups. It’s funny you mentioned Beasley because this is what started my entire analysis. I was really torn on Beasley – Meansy was so high on him last night that I couldn’t pull the fade trigger. Then I saw two conflicting strategies by top players and I wanted to dig deeper. ChipotleAddict and Papgates nearly completely faded Beasley (~5% ownership), but Awesemo had 100% (!) Beasley. 8 of the top 10 in the 555 had Beas, 4 of the top 10 in the 33 had him, and 1 of the 10 had him in the 8. Just for fun – Chipotle and Awesemo both had top 10 GPP lineups last night despite completely opposite Beasley strategies.

    I didn’t really give much thought on the chalk side of the equation – I was more interested in digging into the “how low do I need to go to be contrarian aspect.” But you raise an awesome question on the over/under for the chalk. I have this data, we can take a look at expected appearances in the top 10 vs actual appearances. I’ll take a look and let you know…(just a note, the guys who have access to the complete data can run a much more complete/thorough analysis of these questions, I’m working from a small sample size here, but I’m hoping it would be directionally correct).

    I’m going to look at the “chalk guy” (highest owned for that contest) and compare him to the percentage of times he appears in the top 10 lineups. While I do that – what are you expecting the results to look like?

  • superstars92

    • 115

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #78

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @andyv718 said...

    I didn’t really give much thought on the chalk side of the equation – I was more interested in digging into the “how low do I need to go to be contrarian aspect.” But you raise an awesome question on the over/under for the chalk. I have this data, we can take a look at expected appearances in the top 10 vs actual appearances. I’ll take a look and let you know…(just a note, the guys who have access to the complete data can run a much more complete/thorough analysis of these questions, I’m working from a small sample size here, but I’m hoping it would be directionally correct).

    I’m going to look at the “chalk guy” (highest owned for that contest) and compare him to the percentage of times he appears in the top 10 lineups. While I do that – what are you expecting the results to look like?

    My guess would still be over, but maybe not that significantly over.

    I think you need to look at just more than the top chalk. Maybe it needs to be anyone over 30% owned on a night, not just the top chalk. Also maybe top 100 in GPPs (or 50), rather than just top 10, since 10 is a smaller sample.

    I think one of the best nights to look was the night that Lance Stephenson, Kyle O’Quinn, Tim Frazier, TJ McConnell were all chalk (near Thanksgiving, but forgot which day exactly you should have it in your data). In that case, I would say ALMOST EVERY single team had at least 1 of the 4 (many more than 1 of the 4). I think if you had Frazier, you were gonna get shut out of a top GPP cash, but almost all top 10 or even top 100 teams probably had McConnell and most likely either or both of Lance and O’Quinn.

    There were 4 chalk plays that day (along with Steph the high price chalk) if my memory serves correct, so maybe don’t just look at the top one but anyone over 30%.

    And good point about accounting for slate size. The smaller the slate, the more likely you get 30%+ ownership plays.

    Also, I’m totally not surprised on the results of ChipotleAddict, papagates, and Awesomo that you mentioned. Never did any analysis myself, but from just remembering stuff, I think it makes sense those ownership %s.

    Also check your PM. I also have some specific questions I wanna ask. Thanks!

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    So I just don’t have the data to look at all chalk across 100 lineups – the guys at labs have this and can probably put together much more thorough ownership analyses.

    However, I do have the top chalk guy in my database and I was able to compare his actual ownership in the top 10 GPPs vs. expected ownership. His expected ownership is just what his percentage is throughout the entire contest. If nothing special is going on, then his expected ownership in the top 10 would match his overall ownership.

    The results aren’t very telling though. I basically looked at ownership on the top chalk guy and compared that to how ownership on that guy shook out through the top 10 GPP finishers each each contest. For each contest, I assigned one of three values: “As Expected” “Under Expectations” or “Over Expectations.” We are only looking at 55 contests here, so the sample size is tiny, but overall about 40% of the time the chalk ends up at the expected level, and then it’s relatively evenly split at over and under.

    This grows as stakes increase. For example, at low stakes, ownership on the top guy is as expected only 20% of the time (with over and under evenly split), at mid stakes ownership is as expected 35% of the time and higher stakes ownership is as expected 60% of the time…I’d be hesitant to base anything meaningful off of this…

    I think the much more important takeaway here is on the other side of the original analysis. You need these low owned guys to produce, and low is typically

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    sorry, low is typically less than 3-6% depending on the field size

  • madmanjayWV

    that’s well worth READING ALL OF IT ^^
    U guys keep trucking and posting and I’ll see if I can fire up a front page GPP LU!

  • Ccsammy21

    It’s refreshing to read through a thought-provoking, well-articulated discussion like this. Out of curiosity, where do you find the data on player ownership % for other contestants (such as ChipotleAddict and Awesomo)? Is that simple to find using FantasyLabs?

  • thehazyone

    RG Contributor

    • Blogger of the Month

    @Ccsammy21 said...

    It’s refreshing to read through a thought-provoking, well-articulated discussion like this. Out of curiosity, where do you find the data on player ownership % for other contestants (such as ChipotleAddict and Awesomo)? Is that simple to find using FantasyLabs?

    You can do it on our ResultsDB rather easily (linked on the sub menu under the main menu above).

    https://rotogrinders.com/contests

    Select the Date, the Sport, and the contest. Type the user name in the search box and it’ll pull up all their entries in that contest as well as their ownership. For example:

    https://rotogrinders.com/contest-results/49999402

    Type in ChipotleAddict in the search box on the right and you’ll get a full summary of his finishes and ownership in the NFL Wildcat that he won on Sunday.

  • Ccsammy21

    Awesome, thank you!

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Results DB is great, and it’s definitely the first site I check after lineups lock. Labs breaks out the ownership for the top 100 entrants for Average, High and Low, so for what I was doing specifically here, it made the data collection a bit easier, but both are great tools.

    Aaron – how is the data that feeds results DB collected? Does DK provide RG direct access to it’s data through some contractual relationship, or is it just collected through the lineup CSV export and you guys have a program that sorts through it and feeds it to results DB?

    I think looking at ownership for specific lineups generated by specific players is extremely helpful. Right now, it’s easy to look at exposure for the field vs. exposure for a specific dfs player, but then sorting through how that dfs player constructs specific lineups is currently very hard. Of course you can go through one lineup at a time, but that’s not very efficient.

    There is a ton of great data on ownership out there right now, but it’s still tough to get answers related to ownership on specifics lineups across large samples:

    -How often do winning lineups include a sub 5% (or whatever) owned player and how does this vary by slate size, contest entry, etc?

    -How often does chipotleaddict (or whoever) include multiple extremely low owned guys, and how does that impact the rest of his roster construction (i.e. are these off-the-board plays often paired with chalk, or are they paired with more off-the-board plays?).

    -What does average ownership per lineup tend to look and how is this distributed across players?

    This info would go a long way to helping me (and others) compose specific lineups based on contest field. I’m building a database to help answer these questions, but if that raw data already exists somewhere, it would be helpful to get access to it. I think everyone has the understanding that you can’t just play chalk and win a large field tournament, but what does that mean in terms of putting together rosters based on expected ownership levels and how can that understanding inform some of these 150 multi lineup tools out there?

  • thehazyone

    RG Contributor

    • Blogger of the Month

    We manually download the .csv files and have various programming processes behind the scenes that manipulate the csv files to get what displays on ResultsDB.

  • superstars92

    • 115

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #78

      RG Tiered Ranking

    @Andy: Question here.

    In a 10+ game slate, what percentage of lineups overall DO NOT HAVE a single player owned under 5%? I imagine the majority of lineups have at least one player under 5%, so it make sense why you see a lot of top 10 teams have that one player under 5%, since I think most teams in general might have that. It’s kind of the same situation (although backwards I guess) with the chalk example from above.

    The reason I don’t think many teams have say all players 10%+ owned is simply there are not that many chalk plays and even when there is, the salaries don’t fit for all the chalk plays.

    I wonder how easy it is for you to calculate this 5% and 10% thresholds. My guess is that ALMOST EVERY single team has AT LEAST ONE player under 10% owned and the MAJORITY of teams have AT LEAST ONE player under 5%. So it make sense that almost all top 10 GPP teams or GPP winning lineups have this “X-factor” guy since most teams have him to begin with.

    Could be helpful for your study.

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    This is a great question and was, for me, the main takeaway from going through my exercise. Here’s a quote from the original post:

    “Secondly, if I put together a single GPP lineup and my low owned guy is projected to be 10 or 12% owned (or even 6-9%), I’m going to go back a rework that lineup to make sure that I have a guy or two at a very low ownership level based on the field size of the tournament that I am entering.”

    Overall, someone under 10% shows up in these top 10 GPP winning lineups 94% of the time. An under 5% player shows up 67% of the time.

    Large Field (typically low stakes): Under 10% – 98%. Under 5% – 74%
    Medium Field (typically medium stakes): Under 10% – 93%. Under 5% – 67%
    Small Field (typically high stakes): Under 10% – 89%. Under 5% – 59%

    If I use a tool to generate 150 lineups (or 20 or whatever), of course, I’ll manually go through and adjust my player exposures. I’ll also go through and eliminate those lineups with bad correlations or those that focus on bad games or whatever. But I now also go through and eliminate those that don’t have at least one of these very off the wall plays based on the field size of the GPP that I’m entering.

    My next exercise is how to adjust Gimino’s ownership or the ownership projections at labs to the stakes that I’m playing. If these guys are projecting for the mid stakes tourneys, how do I adjust that for the high and low tourneys? It’s not something that I have a good feel for yet, but I’m confident that it’s something that will be very profitable when I figure it out.

  • stellagirl

    I wonder how the findings change when looking at a sport other than NBA?

    More than any other sport, NBA players have pretty stable point expectations that one can usually take to the bank. It’s not uncommon to see a LOT of chalk in winning NBA lineups, and ownership on winning teams tends to aggregate around the same core of players.

    Compare that with baseball…. a minimum priced catcher can make 5x value with one swing of the bat. Or, the lowly White Sox that were +300 on the ML can pound the Yankees 10-1 and if you stacked them, not a SINGLE player would be over 5%, but you may bink a GPP with that LU.

    Said another way, LeBron will almost NEVER score under 20 points. But Aaron Judge may put up a ZERO multiple times a year. That makes ownership impacts different between sports, in my experience. .

  • andyv718

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    yeah, I’m sure it will be different in MLB, although I haven’t looked. It’s also different in the NFL as its very event driven there as well. I haven’t done a full analysis yet, but in the milly maker at least, there is almost never a team in the top 100 (let alone the top 10) that has their low owned guy over 10%. Given the giant entry field, this make sense. I’ll get around to baseball eventually and let you know.

  • Paymelate

    Fading the chalk? Sometimes I just want my players to simply perform! Just like lamb last night! It doesn’t matter much about ownership if your players are simply not performing.

  • timc9842

    Just letting you know on 1/14/20 that I read this…very useful information! Thanks so much!!!

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

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

  • FanDuel

    Get 1-month of RotoGrinders Premium for FREE (a ~$40value) by signing up through one of our links!

    Learn More
  • DraftKings

    Sign up for DraftKings using a RotoGrinders link & receive our DraftKings Premium content FREE for 1 month. That’s a ~$40 value! No DraftKings promo code necessary!

    Learn More
  • FantasyDraft

    FantasyDraft strives to put players first, with a mission to “provide a fun and fair experience for all.” To this end, the site has a well-built, easy-to-use interface and a the first of its kind in offering “Rake-Free” fantasy contests.

    Learn More

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

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler