INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • Mphst18

    I am using the analysis of data to draw a conclusion and ask questions in the alleged scenario (the data is not alleged it is actual data). My views are not to be interpreted as fact but to allow individuals to determine if they feel they are playing a game with integrity or one that is monitoring for violations of entry limits and rules.

    Is this a form of circumventing Entry limits and or an alternate form of multi accounting (regardless of if they are actually two individuals)

    If two brothers or individuals take 50% of each others winnings and agree to risk the same amount every night (enter the same contests with the same number of entries) is this a violation guidelines/rule. Of note they may not technically be “pooling entry fees” as brother A does not send brother B any money for entry fees they just sum up or net profit at the end of the night and reconcile.

    They max enter every gpp mlb contest (for the max entries below 150 they don’t overlap entries (they may also not overlap for 150 but I am not digging through all that data as DK supposedly has a game integrity department that is supposed to be monitoring this stuff).

    Let’s look at 9/13 2016 data, the data for 9/6 shows the same as well and we can look at 9/20 data when that’s available: (my guess here it’s the same every day but just taking the Tue slates as that’s the big prize for DK)

    MLB $600K Power Hitter ($444, 45 max) – Chipolteaddict 45 entries, papagates 45 entries no lineup overlap

    MLB $30K Warning Track ($150, 3 max) – Chipolteaddict 3 entries, papagates 3 entries no lineup overlap

    MLB $5K Deep Mini Moonshot ($3, 50 max) – Chipolteaddict 50 entries, papagates 50 entries no lineup overlap

    MLB $10K Slider ($3, 3max) – Chipolteaddict 3 entries, papagates 3 entries no lineup overlap

    MLB $150K Payoff Pitch ($27, 150 max) – Chipolteaddict 150 entries, papagates 150 entries (I am not digging through 150 to determine overlap or not, other people are supposedly paid to do this)

  • Mphst18

    @timusbr said...

    please explain to me the process of 3 man game.

    player a and player b sign up if player C joins….. The contest is filled the game is closed and on DK you cannot withdraw.

    I understand that you can view the players names in the lobby and therefore make a change in lineup but how does someone withdraw from a closed game?

    FAN DUEL you can unreg

  • Jazzraz

    The issue of possible collusion in 3 mans is definitely a real issue , but there is no way any two people would intentionally use the same lineup in the same 3 man. That would be a huge disadvantage and it would be impossible to turn any profit at all.

  • dude_abides7

    @Jazzraz said...

    The issue of possible collusion in 3 mans is definitely a real issue , but there is no way any two people would intentionally use the same lineup in the same 3 man. That would be a huge disadvantage and it would be impossible to turn any profit at all.

    What if they had used up their daily limits on all tiers for H2H? Same line-ups turn that contest into a an H2H, allowing them to get more action (albeit double raked) that would not have been possible otherwise.

  • dude_abides7

    @Cal said...

    The key is enter the same lineup. This contest didn’t run and is an example of what I said was the complaint.

    I believe the OP @Mphst18 has evidence of him in 3-mans with these 2 using identical LU’s.

    I am not here to state it is wise EV action to play. I am just saying it has happened. There’s a reason for it. My speculation as it’s a way to get more “cash game” action once your limits for the slate have been reached.

  • timusbr

    @emitnulB said...

    I’ve clearly explained why I think that what you guys are doing is dangerous. I’ve never even talked to any of the guys you mention here, and the fact that you probably want me to prove that in stead of you proving that I have is exactly why what you’re doing is a witch hunt. Guilty until proven innocent right? Get out of here with that nonsense.

    Like i said before time and again, The very original post references a baseball contest. Ive downloaded the lineups myself I compared them. It was an obvious collusion of knowledge/skill that listed 300 lineups between the 2 individuals. therfore circumventing the “spirit” of the rules on a maximum 150 LU’s.

    You even said in previous post that you didnt say this wasnt a coordinated effort.
    All you want is legal proof that this happened. and you bash others with things that cant be defined.

    I give to you the word preponderance of evidence. Jury by peers.

    If your sole goal is to make distinguishing guidelines and change rules then your words to most everyone about there affirmative opinion on the matter is just smoke and mirrors.

    also, I never asked you to prove anything just a simple question to show if you have allegiance to any particular party.

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 575

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    It’s winner take all, so you would still only want to enter one lineup once. It makes no sense to enter the same lineup twice. You would be giving yourself one chance to win instead of two. This is derailing the thread.

  • bolu

    Recent history of entering 3mans with the same lineup would make punishment less likely.

  • yogaflame

    Yes all of this duplicate 3-man lineup talk is inane. The only useful purpose for 3-man contests in this thread is that it is easier to demonstrate the advantage of collusion by differentiation.

  • dude_abides7

    @Cal said...

    It’s winner take all, so you would still only want to enter one lineup once. It makes no sense to enter the same lineup twice. You would be giving yourself one chance to win instead of two. This is derailing the thread.

    Cal – Let me know if I’m missing something. I’ll use arbitrary numbers since I don’t have limits off hand.

    FD says that a $5 I can only play 200 H2H games. I want to play more H2H. I team up with a partner entering 3-mans, turning them essentially into H2H games. Thus I am doing an end-around on their H2H limit.

    - I am fully aware that this means you make less profit than standard H2H. But if the goal is to get as much action as possible and play everything (which for these heavy players it is) then this would be an acceptable, albeit more risky EV way to play.

    - This assumes the players in question are maxing out on the H2H slates, otherwise yes, this makes zero sense.

    Please tell me what I am missing here. There may be something I am not seeing?

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    its not that you would be less profitable, it would be impossible to profit over the long run. you’d have to win H2Hs at a 74% clip to be profitable doing that, that is impossible. I think ppl have played 3mans together but w/ different lineups (to try and gain an edge), if they had the same lineup it was by accident

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 575

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @timusbr said...

    Like i said before time and again, The very original post references a baseball contest. Ive downloaded the lineups myself I compared them. It was an obvious collusion of knowledge/skill that listed 300 lineups between the 2 individuals. therfore circumventing the “spirit” of the rules on a maximum 150 LU’s.

    hendog’s point is that this is not obvious collusion. With millions of potential lineups two players should not have identical lineups. I think the RagingPhillip/Mazwa post was an infinitely stronger example of potential collusion. Those two built 150 lineups each around the same core of players – strong overlap but no exact duplication.

  • dude_abides7

    @Cal said...

    It makes no sense to enter the same lineup twice.

    In this case, I see what you are saying. If at the end of the day they are the same “team” they might as well play 2 lineups. I got it.

    But team play in 3-man would be an issue, regardless of the LU they were submitting. So that may be an exploit that needs to be considered. (and of course un-enforceable unless you can prove $ pooling.)

  • TwoSHAE

    @dude_abides7 said...

    Cal – Let me know if I’m missing something. I’ll use arbitrary numbers since I don’t have limits off hand.

    FD says that a $5 I can only play 200 H2H games. I want to play more H2H. I team up with a partner entering 3-mans, turning them essentially into H2H games. Thus I am doing an end-around on their H2H limit.

    - I am fully aware that this means you make less profit than standard H2H. But if the goal is to get as much action as possible and play everything (which for these heavy players it is) then this would be an acceptable, albeit more risky EV way to play.

    - This assumes the players in question are maxing out on the H2H slates, otherwise yes, this makes zero sense.

    Please tell me what I am missing here. There may be something I am not seeing?

    If they have played the same lineup in the same 3man, I can guarantee you that it was unintentional on their part. They’d essentially be laying their opponent 2:1 on a h2h (excluding rake). They’d each pay 1/3 of the prizepool, but would only get 1 chance to win. It would be the equivalent of multi-entering the same lineup in a winner take all satellite. If you win, you also get 2nd for $0.

    If on a given day they have entered the same 3man and played h2h’s, and used the same h2h lineup, but one of them uses the h2h lineup in the 3man and the other uses an uncorrelated lineup in the 3man, that would be pretty strong evidence for collusion. I’d also be hard-pressed to believe that guy as good at DFS as these two would be dumb enough to do something like that.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @timusbr said...

    Ive downloaded the lineups myself I compared them. It was an obvious collusion of knowledge/skill that listed 300 lineups between the 2 individuals.

    You keep saying this but you haven’t said what makes it so obvious. When you looked, what specifically were you looking for?

    If we were to try a blind test, so we replace all the DFS players’ names with “Player A”, “Player B”, etc., are you confident you could tell which 2 of them were the colluders?

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Cal said...

    hendog’s point is that this is not obvious collusion. With millions of potential lineups two players should not have identical lineups. I think the RagingPhillip/Mazwa post was an infinitely stronger example of potential collusion. Those two built 150 lineups each around the same core of players – strong overlap but no exact duplication.

    I thought the same thing looking at the RagingPhillip/Mazwa lineups, it was so obvious. IMO the problem is once teams are made aware people are looking for this, they will do their best to disguise it (which is obviously what people think happened here). Just like if a rule comes out that prevents all ‘teams’ from entering lineups in the same contests, or makes teams announce they are working together or join forces, future teams will try to disguise it. It might help stop the current big-name teams we have now since they are already known, but any up and coming teams may try to avoid detection. The rules need to rely more on data than on people interpreting what they see, as people can have different interpretations. Mphst has done a lot bringing a lot to light, but I think what jumpstarted his investigations was that these teams openly admitted to working together. Hopefully there is a way to detect this sort of teamwork, other than relying on teams admitting it and users like Mphst doing research to find it. I hope there is

  • Bay101

    Get rid of scripting and lower entries to 50 max. You will have a lot less questions of big players colluding. I can almost guarantee big pros have programs to multi entry 300 lineups and split them in half for two partners

  • Bay101

    DK will never do this though. Lol

  • emitnulB

    • 95

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #5

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2019 $1M Prize Winner

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @timusbr said...

    Like i said before time and again, The very original post references a baseball contest. Ive downloaded the lineups myself I compared them. It was an obvious collusion of knowledge/skill that listed 300 lineups between the 2 individuals. therfore circumventing the “spirit” of the rules on a maximum 150 LU’s.

    You even said in previous post that you didnt say this wasnt a coordinated effort.
    All you want is legal proof that this happened. and you bash others with things that cant be defined.

    No, my point was that IF this did happen, you have no proof that it’s a breach of the guidelines. That’s the issue. You can’t ban everyone who communicates from entering the same contest, and the line that you’re drawing is not clear. I’m not sure how you’re so confused by this. There’s actually no rule that says they can’t both enter the same game 150 times unless one of them is bankrolling the other one, which clearly isn’t happening. If this kind of behavior is against the spirit of the rules, then the rule NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, because it is clearly not against the rules as they are currently constructed. Since it’s not against the rules, the people who are calling them cheaters are WAY out of line. You need to define clearly what is and isn’t against the rules, because 2 people each entering 150 rosters into a gpp and splitting profits is not one of the things that are against the rules. The rules state that you get 150 entries per person, and these guys would have entered 150 lineups regardless of whether they communicated. By the metric you propose, the only way you would ever be able to enter 150 lineups in a game is if you worked in isolation from every other player in the game. That’s not reasonable, and since there is no line drawn as to where it becomes “collusion to circumvent the entry limit”, these guys aren’t cheating, just like you aren’t cheating when you listen to an RG podcast and enter a lineup into a game with 1000 other people who also listened to the same podcast. You all effectively worked together and you all entered more than 150 combined rosters, so you are cheating by the same definition of cheating you are trying to impose on these guys.

  • emitnulB

    • 95

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #5

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2019 $1M Prize Winner

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @Bay101 said...

    Get rid of scripting and lower entries to 50 max. You will have a lot less questions of big players colluding. I can almost guarantee big pros have programs to multi entry 300 lineups and split them in half for two partners

    Getting rid of scripting would solve everything as well. You’re right that DK will never do this because it will destroy their growth projections.

  • Bay101

    Did you look at their 300 lineups. Is is obvious that they used the same core of players. They probably used the same software program to generate 300 lineups. you can say that’s not against the rules. I can accept that But don’t say they didn’t circumvent the 150 max entry

  • emitnulB

    • 95

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #5

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2019 $1M Prize Winner

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @Bay101 said...

    Did you look at their 300 lineups. Is is obvious that they used the same core of players. They probably used the same software program to generate 300 lineups. you can say that’s not against the rules. I can accept that But don’t say they didn’t circumvent the 150 max entry

    The 150 entry limit is per person though. These are clearly 2 different people. How is that circumvention? They are following the rules clearly in their strictest interpretation. 150 entries per person.

    The point is that you have to redefine these 2 guys as 1 person for you to have a case that they circumvented the entry limit, and if you do that, tell me exactly what kind of conduct is necessary for 2 people to become one person. This is where I’m lost. Why are these guys 1 person but everyone who posts in the week 3 NFL thread all different people? What line did they cross? You say that making lineups together is fine right? Why does that make them one person? They’re obviously still 2 people.

    I don’t want to ever unknowingly cross this wide grey line that some of you seem to be drawing here, and for me to ensure that I don’t have to sweat DK stealing my money if I win, I need to know at what point 2 people become 1 person.

  • cutter2225

    @emitnulB said...

    The 150 entry limit is per person though. These are clearly 2 different people. How is that circumvention? They are following the rules clearly in their strictest interpretation. 150 entries per person.

    When per person turns into 2 brothers who APPEAR to be working together, 150 becomes 300. I can respect you have your own opinion but c’mon man open your eyes and see these two for what they are.

  • emitnulB

    • 95

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #5

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2019 $1M Prize Winner

    • 2018 DraftKings FBBWC Finalist

    @cutter2225 said...

    When per person turns into 2 brothers who APPEAR to be working together, 150 becomes 300. I can respect you have your own opinion but c’mon man open your eyes and see these two for what they are.

    I see them for what they are, but what you’re telling me they are doing (assuming I fully accept the allegations being made in this thread) is NOT AGAINST THE RULES, and for you to make it against the rules, you have to tell me specifically at what point it becomes against the rules. At what point are 2 people 1 person?

  • rayofhope

    • 2017 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    @Cal said...

    it’s OK to work with a friend to build a lineup. It is not OK to co-build lineups and split winnings with a friend in order to skirt the 150 entry limit, for example.

    Should point out that profit sharing isn’t necessary for collusion. If you help a friend build a lineup for, lets say the 15 man $5k Q, if you then build your own lineup for that contest, regardless of profit sharing then you’ve colluded.

  • cutter2225

    @rayofhope said...

    Should point out that profit sharing isn’t necessary for collusion. If you help a friend build a lineup for, lets say the 15 man $5k Q, if you then build your own lineup for that contest, regardless of profit sharing then you’ve colluded.

    Exactly! If I help billyjoejimbob build a lineup in a 10-15-20 man contest and enter the same contest, I already know one of my opponents lineups and that gives me an advantage.

  • 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).