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)

  • Bighouse55

    @depalma13 said...

    I can’t speak for recently, but from June 8th until a week after the All Star break, they had the same exact lineup in Double Ups every day.

    That is pretty incriminating. Guys are definitely operating jointly and DK better drop the hammer.

  • Mphst18

    The wed 9/14 Medium Chees ($150 MLB, 60 entry max is some pretty strong data). when comparing the MIL/COL stacks there are more examples just highlighted 2. (CA lineups left, PG RIGHT), PG did uses Scooter G in other lineups so could have replicated his brothers lineup in the first example accept don’t have to since he already covered it, so PG can cover DJ.

    CA PG

    SP Rick Porcello SP Rick Porcello
    SP Joe Musgrove SP Joe Musgrove
    C Tom Murphy C Tom Murphy
    1B Chris Carter 1B Chris Carter
    2B Scooter Gennett 2B DJ LeMahieu
    3B Nolan Arenado 3B Nolan Arenado
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar 3B/SS Jonathan Villar
    OF Carlos González OF Carlos González
    OF Ryan Braun OF Ryan Braun
    OF Keon Broxton OF Keon Broxton

    SP José Fernández SP Rick Porcello
    SP Steven Brault SP Steven Brault
    C Tom Murphy C Tom Murphy
    1B Chris Carter 1B Chris Carter
    2B DJ LeMahieu 2B DJ LeMahieu
    3B Nolan Arenado 3B Nolan Arenado
    1B/SS Daniel Descalso 3B/SS Jonathan Villar
    OF Ryan Braun OF Ryan Braun
    OF Charlie Blackmon OF Charlie Blackmon
    OF Domingo Santana OF Domingo Santana

  • Unico10

    • 606

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #96

      RG Tiered Ranking

    I think there is one giant premise that many are missing out anytime there is a discussion about DFS rules, level playing field, gray areas, etc…

    The giant premise is that for people to be successful at what they do they need to take other people’s money.

    The athlete juicing on PED cheats his own health, cheats his peers, but doesn’t directly take their money when he beats them in a race or contest.

    DK is not just an entertainment provider. It’s an entity in charge of millions of $ in deposits and in charge of distributing millions of $ in contests pools money in a fair manner.

    So. The cavalier attitude that some seem to have about skirting the rules or what some suggest is “high rollers appeasing policy” by DK has no place in this. If this continue, it will eventually end this game one way or another.

    Someone earlier suggested that the only way to limit some of the shenanigans would be to end scripting and auto-uploading of lineups…. I don’t know how much of a cure that would be, but I think that idea has some merit.

    It would give more of an advantage to people that has the actual time to manually enter 150 lineups, but time is a finite commodity so the time that one uses manually entering would be taken away from research time or from video/news watching.

    I remember just a bit more than a year ago people here speculating how in the world was maxdalury (his name at the time) able to enter manually all the lineups, and many concluded that he must have had a team entering them since scripts weren’t allowed (to our knowledge) but, what did we know… he had privileged access to upload lineups.

    This just to say that there is no doubt DK has been behind the curve on this on ethical and fair gaming grounds.

    I think is time for them to get ahead of the curve and fix it, since they rebounded nicely from Ethangate and most states have regulation in place…. they are on a sweet spot to define better internal rules/regulations

    Let’s be clear. I am not calling for any specific rule or regulation.
    What I want is to know exactly what the contest rules are, for the rules to be the same for all players and for any rule to be enforceable before/during contest, so that the contest is not tainted.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Zieg30 said...

    Are you now suggesting that the following is not a violation of the rules: Players A and B agree to share any profits/losses for a given tournament, they work together to build all 300 lineups such that the lineups, together, serve to meet exposure targets for various players and complement each other. Players A and B would have entered 150 lineups each regardless of this plan.

    No sorry maybe I wasn’t clear that’s not what I meant. There are two different prohibited behaviors in the community guidelines applicable here.

    1. “Team-building a lineup, or a set of complementary lineups which serve to work together, to execute a strategy that may create any unfair advantage over individual play.”

    2. “Entering the maximum number of entries in a contest, type of contest, or event, and having a 3rd party, regardless of their relationship, put in additional entries for you.”

    And thirdly the following is in the permitted column: “Agreeing with friends or other fantasy sports players to share winnings (provided that you are not pooling entry fees) in a contest you are both playing in.”

    I was suggesting that the situation in your post does not violate rule #2. In no way was I suggesting that it would not violate rule #1; it clearly does.

    As far as what Mphst is asking me “As long as either player has a bankroll large enough to max enter something then in no way could player A and player B ever be circumventing an entry limit?” No that’s not what I mean. It seems to me that #2 can be violated in two different ways. Either Player A sends Player B money for the entry fees or Player A sends Player B the lineups to enter. Having a large bankroll only rules out the first; it would still be against the guidelines for A to send B lineups to enter.

    I don’t know if I wasn’t clear enough or you guys have trouble comprehending my posts. I clearly wrote “The point of the no pooling entry fees rule is….” but you guys interpreted it as if I said “The point of all the rules is…”

    But since my original point got lost here, I was simply correcting people who are saying “if only we could check their financial records we could see if they are colluding.” And clearly if we did have their financial records and we saw that they are sending each other half their winnings, then some of you would be even more critical. But that would be unwarranted since it is perfectly fine for them to be splitting winnings.

    And to prevent that from being misinterpreted again, the phrase “perfectly fine” in the previous sentence is meant to apply only to the behavior of splitting winnings and is not meant to cast a judgment one way or another on any other behavior, real or imagined.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Bighouse55 said...

    That is pretty incriminating. Guys are definitely operating jointly and DK better drop the hammer.

    Except that operating jointly is not in itself against the rules.

  • Zieg30

    @hendog said...

    And clearly if we did have their financial records and we saw that they are sending each other half their winnings, then some of you would be even more critical. But that would be unwarranted since it is perfectly fine for them to be splitting winnings.

    And to prevent that from being misinterpreted again, the phrase “perfectly fine” in the previous sentence is meant to apply only to the behavior of splitting winnings and is not meant to cast a judgment one way or another on any other behavior, real or imagined.

    Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

    Of course, I would add that one sending the other half their winnings would be “perfectly fine” in a vacuum, but would itself still be one more data point to use as evidence when determining whether they colluded.

  • zshoom

    • 2016 Single Entry Series Finalist

    @hendog said...

    No sorry maybe I wasn’t clear that’s not what I meant. There are two different prohibited behaviors in the community guidelines applicable here.

    1. “Team-building a lineup, or a set of complementary lineups which serve to work together, to execute a strategy that may create any unfair advantage over individual play.”

    2. “Entering the maximum number of entries in a contest, type of contest, or event, and having a 3rd party, regardless of their relationship, put in additional entries for you.”

    And thirdly the following is in the permitted column: “Agreeing with friends or other fantasy sports players to share winnings (provided that you are not pooling entry fees) in a contest you are both playing in.”

    I was suggesting that the situation in your post does not violate rule #2. In no way was I suggesting that it would not violate rule #1; it clearly does.

    As far as what Mphst is asking me “As long as either player has a bankroll large enough to max enter something then in no way could player A and player B ever be circumventing an entry limit?” No that’s not what I mean. It seems to me that #2 can be violated in two different ways. Either Player A sends Player B money for the entry fees or Player A sends Player B the lineups to enter. Having a large bankroll only rules out the first; it would still be against the guidelines for A to send B lineups to enter.

    I don’t know if I wasn’t clear enough or you guys have trouble comprehending my posts. I clearly wrote “The point of the no pooling entry fees rule is….” but you guys interpreted it as if I said “The point of all the rules is…”

    But since my original point got lost here, I was simply correct people who are saying “if only we could check their financial records we could see if they are colluding.” And clearly if we did have their financial records and we saw that they are sending each other half their winnings, then some of you would be even more critical. But that would be unwarranted since it is perfectly fine for them to be splitting winnings.

    And to prevent that from being misinterpreted again, the phrase “perfectly fine” in the previous sentence is meant to apply only to the behavior of splitting winnings and is not meant to cast a judgment one way or another on any other behavior, real or imagined.

    “Agreeing with friends or other fantasy sports players to share winnings (provided that you are not pooling entry fees) in a contest you are both playing in.”

    Why the hell is this allowed in the first place? Seems like the first thing DK should do to tackle collusion is explicitly forbid this.

    Unless I’m missing something, this (ridiculous) rule makes the type of collusion these guys are accused of legal.

    Hypothetically – they team up to work on projections (legal), generate 300 lineups (legal), split the lineups in half (legal), submit the lineups using their own money (legal), share winnings (legal…for some reason).

    I think this thread needs to shift away from tarring and feathering these players, and focus on forcing DK to explicitly forbid this type of play. Until they do that, this type of play will continue.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    Too bad theres no more Draftstreet, imo the best site there ever was for dfs. I highly doubt draftstreet would have let it get to this point also as they actually listened to their customer base. RIP Draftsreet we still misss youuuuuu.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @zshoom said...

    Hypothetically – they team up to work on projections (legal), generate 300 lineups (legal), split the lineups in half (legal), submit the lineups using their own money (legal), share winnings (legal…for some reason).

    True but why do you think these things should not be legal? They are not giving anyone an unfair advantage (again, unless they do some weird exposure trick with the 300 lineups).

    In my opinion allowing profit sharing is fine because it occurs after the results are in, so it’s not taking money from anyone. If you’re in first place in the milly maker with one game left you can contact the second place guy and say “I can’t handle the sweat, let’s split the combined winnings 60-40 (or whatever)”. Poker players do this all the time in big tournaments.

    And I mean if you win a million dollars shouldn’t you be allowed to give some to your brother? It would suck if you could give a gift to one of your brothers but not the other because he played in the same tournament.

    I think there is an instinct here in general to go too quickly to restrictions. The more restrictions there are the more policing is necessary and the more people are incentivized to find workarounds that stretch the rules. For example, if there weren’t entry limits in the first place there wouldn’t be an issue of circumventing them. Personally I think there should be “anything goes” contests where you know what you’re going up against when you enter, in addition to single-entry, 3-entry-max, etc.

    People just have to accept that it is not an even playing field. Some people have more time to dedicate to DFS. Some people have statistics or programming knowledge. Some people know more about sports. I don’t think “even playing field” should be a goal. Transparency, on the other hand, is important. And since I know my perspective is not shared, some kind of split where some games have extra rules designed to make the playing field more even (e.g. single-entry) and others are (transparently) anything goes, would satisfy more people. This would give an outlet to people pushing the limits of mass multi-entry strategy, so they can still compete but the people who think multi-entry is inherently unfair can stay away.

  • dude_abides7

    @DoubleTime said...

    Saw somebody mention the Ethan thing earlier, this reminds me a lot of that. In good ways and bad. Ethan was cleared of doing anything wrong, yet there was a total witch hunt on these forums where people jumped to all sorts of conclusions and were ready to crucify him. News stories, WSJ. He did not deserve the scrutiny, that was bad. The good was that some common-sense rules for the good of the industry came out of it, like employees not being able to play. Whether it gave them an unfair advantage or not, for the appearance of the industry it was not a good look. Reminds me of this situation, where PG + CA probably do not deserve the scrutiny, yet maybe something good regarding rules and policies will come of it.

    The underlining theme in all of these “scandals” (valid or invalid) is that DK/FD are late to the game and unilaterally ignore red-flags and the cries from their user-base until it is already too late and the industry is getting sodomized by the press and regulators.

    I refuse to believe this is because these big site are run by idiots. They aren’t. They just care more about maximum profit, above all else. (And I mean EVERYTHING else. Fair play, transparency, better business practice…you name it). Some could say that all business is geared toward maximum profit and earnings. To a degree they would be right. My point is that DK creates ZERO perspective that they care about anyone else but their high rake contributors.

    Sure, people are gonna complain, but I think it is universally agreed (across all playing levels) that DK fails at transparency and customer relations. Over and over and over again. There is no excuse for it. Many companies that are much, much larger and valued much higher seem to do an adequate job of it. In the end, whether DK actually cares about their users is irrelevant. They just need to project the idea that they do. In this they get an “F”.

  • Mphst18

    @Mphst18 said...

    The wed 9/14 Medium Chees ($150 MLB, 60 entry max is some pretty strong data). when comparing the MIL/COL stacks there are more examples just highlighted 2. (CA lineups left, PG RIGHT), PG did uses Scooter G in other lineups so could have replicated his brothers lineup in the first example accept don’t have to since he already covered it, so PG can cover DJ.

    CA PG

    SP Rick Porcello SP Rick Porcello
    SP Joe Musgrove SP Joe Musgrove
    C Tom Murphy C Tom Murphy
    1B Chris Carter 1B Chris Carter
    2B Scooter Gennett 2B DJ LeMahieu
    3B Nolan Arenado 3B Nolan Arenado
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar 3B/SS Jonathan Villar
    OF Carlos González OF Carlos González
    OF Ryan Braun OF Ryan Braun
    OF Keon Broxton OF Keon Broxton

    SP José Fernández SP Rick Porcello
    SP Steven Brault SP Steven Brault
    C Tom Murphy C Tom Murphy
    1B Chris Carter 1B Chris Carter
    2B DJ LeMahieu 2B DJ LeMahieu
    3B Nolan Arenado 3B Nolan Arenado
    1B/SS Daniel Descalso 3B/SS Jonathan Villar
    OF Ryan Braun OF Ryan Braun
    OF Charlie Blackmon OF Charlie Blackmon
    OF Domingo Santana OF Domingo Santana

    From the same slate let’s look at HOU/MIL and MIL/CLEV and HOU/PHL and CIN/COL Stack. Again PG did use Springer, Santana, Wieters, Renda in other lineups so he could have had the same lineup but why do that when your brother can cover the entry for you and you can keep building more LUS in total then the 60 per individual allowed.

    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    SP Joe Musgrove HOU SP Joe Musgrove HOU
    C Evan Gattis HOU C Evan Gattis HOU
    1B Chris Carter MIL 1B Chris Carter MIL
    2B José Altuve HOU 2B José Altuve HOU
    1B/3B Yuli Gurriel HOU 1B/3B Yuli Gurriel HOU
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL 3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL
    OF Ryan Braun MIL OF Ryan Braun MIL
    OF George Springer HOU OF Keon Broxton MIL
    OF Teoscar Hernandez HOU OF Teoscar Hernandez HOU

    SP Anibal Sánchez DET SP Anibal Sánchez DET
    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    C Manny Pina MIL C Manny Pina MIL
    1B Chris Carter MIL 1B Chris Carter MIL
    2B Jason Kipnis CLE 2B Jason Kipnis CLE
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL 3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL
    SS Francisco Lindor CLE SS Francisco Lindor CLE
    OF Rajai Davis CLE OF Rajai Davis CLE
    OF Ryan Braun MIL OF Ryan Braun MIL
    OF Domingo Santana MIL OF Keon Broxton MIL

    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    SP Joe Musgrove HOU SP Joe Musgrove HOU
    C Matt Wieters BAL C Cameron Rupp PHI
    1B Tommy Joseph PHI 1B Tommy Joseph PHI
    2B Jonathan Schoop BAL 2B Jonathan Schoop BAL
    3B Maikel Franco PHI 3B Maikel Franco PHI
    3B/SSManny Machado BAL 3B/SS Manny Machado BAL
    OF Adam Jones BAL OF Adam Jones BAL
    OF Mark Trumbo BAL OF Mark Trumbo BAL
    OF Roman Quinn PHI OF Roman Quinn PHI

    SP Anibal Sánchez DET SP Anibal Sánchez DET
    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    C Tom Murphy COL C Tom Murphy COL
    1B Joey Votto CIN 1B Joey Votto CIN
    2B/OF Tony Renda CIN 2B DJ LeMahieu COL
    3B Nolan Arenado COL 3B Nolan Arenado COL
    OF/SS Jose Peraza CIN OF/SS Jose Peraza CIN
    OF Carlos González COL OF Carlos González COL
    OF Adam Duvall CIN OF Adam Duvall CIN
    OF Scott Schebler CIN OF Scott Schebler CIN

  • Zieg30

    @hendog said...

    I think there is an instinct here in general to go too quickly to restrictions. The more restrictions there are the more policing is necessary and the more people are incentivized to find workarounds that stretch the rules. For example, if there weren’t entry limits in the first place there wouldn’t be an issue of circumventing them.

    There is literally a single restriction on the big GPPs – everyone is limited to 150 entries (which includes not building a de facto 300 by colluding with someone). It should not be a difficult one for everyone to abide by.

    It’s simply nonsensical to suggest that the proper way to fix a cheating problem is “if rules didn’t exist then there wouldn’t be any to break!”

    I am not suggesting there should be a completely level playing field, but some entry limits are required so things don’t get out of hand. 150 seems pretty reasonable to me.

  • dude_abides7

    @hendog said...

    In my opinion allowing profit sharing is fine because it occurs after the results are in, so it’s not taking money from anyone.

    The agreement that one would profit share (and setting of LU’s complementing each other accordingly) happens before the contest, not after. When the physical money transfers is irrelevant.

    Your take on much of this issue I do not agree with. That said, I acknowledge that most of what you say is well thought out on sound reasoning, albeit different than mine. I respect that. I can not say the same for this ^ quote however.

    I know you like empirical data. That is fine. But at some point you need to look at the human element here. Sometimes things aren’t as involved as you make them.

    In the end I don’t want anyone’s livelihood being taken away on speculation. But my grandfather used to say to me, “If it looks sh&t and smells like sh&t…..it’s probably sh&t and I’d steer away from eating it.”

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @zshoom said...

    “Agreeing with friends or other fantasy sports players to share winnings (provided that you are not pooling entry fees) in a contest you are both playing in.”

    Why the hell is this allowed in the first place? Seems like the first thing DK should do to tackle collusion is explicitly forbid this.

    Unless I’m missing something, this (ridiculous) rule makes the type of collusion these guys are accused of legal.

    Hypothetically – they team up to work on projections (legal), generate 300 lineups (legal), split the lineups in half (legal), submit the lineups using their own money (legal), share winnings (legal…for some reason).

    I think this thread needs to shift away from tarring and feathering these players, and focus on forcing DK to explicitly forbid this type of play. Until they do that, this type of play will continue.

    I think the idea behind this was the Draftkings did not want to say the following is not allowed (I know I have and still will participate in this several times with friends).

    We both enter our own lineups. I have 5 lineups. My friend has 3 lineups. I don’t even discuss lineups with anyone else but sometimes we just say” I’ll give you 15% on a top 10 finish on my 5 lineups for 25% on a top 10 finish on your 3 lineups.

    Basically in case one of us has a good sweat going or hits for a 4+ figure score, the other person has a stake in it. To me, this is all good and fun amongst friends. Gives you a rooting interest in each other, which is especially nice if your own lineups bomb.

    Once you get into the realm of both putting max entries into a GPP and then splitting all profits, now I feel you are working together and circumventing max entry restrictions. My guess is that 99% of the time you are also working together to build lineups and core strategy behind your combined set of lineup as well. To me, this type of behavior should not be allowed. It’s just the difference between the two can get a little blurry.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @Zieg30 said...

    There is literally a single restriction on the big GPPs – everyone is limited to 150 entries (which includes not building a de facto 300 by colluding with someone). It should not be a difficult one for everyone to abide by.

    It’s simply nonsensical to suggest that the proper way to fix a cheating problem is “if rules didn’t exist then there wouldn’t be any to break!”

    I am not suggesting there should be a completely level playing field, but some entry limits are required so things don’t get out of hand. 150 seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Yeah I understand this perspective too. I don’t think getting rid of the rule is always the answer, of course, or even that in this case it is necessarily the best answer. Just throwing out one perspective that I fully realize is not going to be popular.

    I do think an anything goes contest would be interesting at the very least. I wonder how many entries the mass-entry sharps would find to be optimal.

  • hendog

    • 2017 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @dude_abides7 said...

    The agreement that one would profit share (and setting of LU’s complementing each other accordingly) happens before the contest, not after. When the physical money transfers is irrelevant.

    Fair point. My after-the-fact argument doesn’t stand up to this, I’ll admit. I guess I just don’t see profit-sharing agreements as shady or predatory in the first place.

  • zshoom

    • 2016 Single Entry Series Finalist

    @hendog said...

    True but why do you think these things should not be legal? They are not giving anyone an unfair advantage (again, unless they do some weird exposure trick with the 300 lineups).

    In my opinion allowing profit sharing is fine because it occurs after the results are in, so it’s not taking money from anyone. If you’re in first place in the milly maker with one game left you can contact the second place guy and say “I can’t handle the sweat, let’s split the combined winnings 60-40 (or whatever)”. Poker players do this all the time in big tournaments.

    And I mean if you win a million dollars shouldn’t you be allowed to give some to your brother? It would suck if you could give a gift to one of your brothers but not the other because he played in the same tournament.

    I think there is an instinct here in general to go too quickly to restrictions. The more restrictions there are the more policing is necessary and the more people are incentivized to find workarounds that stretch the rules. For example, if there weren’t entry limits in the first place there wouldn’t be an issue of circumventing them. Personally I think there should be “anything goes” contests where you know what you’re going up against when you enter, in addition to single-entry, 3-entry-max, etc.

    People just have to accept that it is not an even playing field. Some people have more time to dedicate to DFS. Some people have statistics or programming knowledge. Some people know more about sports. I don’t think “even playing field” should be a goal. Transparency, on the other hand, is important. And since I know my perspective is not shared, some kind of split where some games have extra rules designed to make the playing field more even (e.g. single-entry) and others are (transparently) anything goes, would satisfy more people. This would give an outlet to people pushing the limits of mass multi-entry strategy, so they can still compete but the people who think multi-entry is inherently unfair can stay away.

    Maybe I worded my reply too strongly. I don’t necessarily think profit sharing should be illegal…just not explicitly legal, if that makes any sense. What you do with your money after it’s won is your business – the problem is agreements that occur before the contest starts.

    By explicitly permitting profit sharing, it is now virtually impossible to stop people from colluding, since it is legal to share strategy and it is legal to share profit. Shared strategy plus shared profit = collusion. On their own, neither of these things are bad, but together they create a pretty ripe environment for exploitation of the game. With these rules in place, it is now legal to do “some weird exposure trick with the 300 lineups”.

    Obviously sharing winnings should be allowed if it is done after the contest out of the winners free will, but I think staking and selling percentages of winnings will have to be outlawed in order for DFS to clean itself up, even though I don’t see anything inherently wrong with either of those practices.

  • zshoom

    • 2016 Single Entry Series Finalist

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    I think the idea behind this was the Draftkings did not want to say the following is not allowed (I know I have and still will participate in this several times with friends).

    We both enter our own lineups. I have 5 lineups. My friend has 3 lineups. I don’t even discuss lineups with anyone else but sometimes we just say” I’ll give you 15% on a top 10 finish on my 5 lineups for 25% on a top 10 finish on your 3 lineups.

    Basically in case one of us has a good sweat going or hits for a 4+ figure score, the other person has a stake in it. To me, this is all good and fun amongst friends. Gives you a rooting interest in each other, which is especially nice if your own lineups bomb.

    Once you get into the realm of both putting max entries into a GPP and then splitting all profits, now I feel you are working together and circumventing max entry restrictions. My guess is that 99% of the time you are also working together to build lineups and core strategy behind your combined set of lineup as well. To me, this type of behavior should not be allowed. It’s just the difference between the two can get a little blurry.

    There’s nothing wrong with that…except that the same wording that allows it, also paves the way for more calculated ‘profit sharing’ that violates the intention of the game and the 150 entry limits.

    Say you and your friends all split up and make lineups, then you enter them and trade percentages – legal and no problem.

    Say I talk with my friends about general strategy, then we split up and make our lineups – legal and no problem.

    Say some industrious team of pros decides to combine these two legal practices into a 300 entry collusion scheme netting them hundreds of thousands – still legal, but now a problem.

    I don’t think that the sites have to actively forbid people from sharing profit…but they should definitely not make it “legal” in writing. By making it legal, they now have no leg to stand on when going after people manipulating the entry limits.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @zshoom said...

    There’s nothing wrong with that…except that the same wording that allows it, also paves the way for more calculated ‘profit sharing’ that violates the intention of the game and the 150 entry limits.

    Say you and your friends all split up and make lineups, then you enter them and trade percentages – legal and no problem.

    Say I talk with my friends about general strategy, then we split up and make our lineups – legal and no problem.

    Say some industrious team of pros decides to combine these two legal practices into a 300 entry collusion scheme netting them hundreds of thousands – still legal, but now a problem.

    I don’t think that the sites have to actively forbid people from sharing profit…but they should definitely not make it “legal” in writing. By making it legal, they now have no leg to stand on when going after people manipulating the entry limits.

    Tend to agree. I think the Community Guidelines would of served a much better purpose if they only included those items listed under “Not Allowed.”

    By listing the items under “Allowed” as well, some of the items seem to contradict each other.

  • Mphst18

    @Mphst18 said...

    From the same slate let’s look at HOU/MIL and MIL/CLEV and HOU/PHL and CIN/COL Stack. Again PG did use Springer, Santana, Wieters, Renda in other lineups so he could have had the same lineup but why do that when your brother can cover the entry for you and you can keep building more LUS in total then the 60 per individual allowed.

    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    SP Joe Musgrove HOU SP Joe Musgrove HOU
    C Evan Gattis HOU C Evan Gattis HOU
    1B Chris Carter MIL 1B Chris Carter MIL
    2B José Altuve HOU 2B José Altuve HOU
    1B/3B Yuli Gurriel HOU 1B/3B Yuli Gurriel HOU
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL 3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL
    OF Ryan Braun MIL OF Ryan Braun MIL
    OF George Springer HOU OF Keon Broxton MIL
    OF Teoscar Hernandez HOU OF Teoscar Hernandez HOU

    SP Anibal Sánchez DET SP Anibal Sánchez DET
    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    C Manny Pina MIL C Manny Pina MIL
    1B Chris Carter MIL 1B Chris Carter MIL
    2B Jason Kipnis CLE 2B Jason Kipnis CLE
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL 3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL
    SS Francisco Lindor CLE SS Francisco Lindor CLE
    OF Rajai Davis CLE OF Rajai Davis CLE
    OF Ryan Braun MIL OF Ryan Braun MIL
    OF Domingo Santana MIL OF Keon Broxton MIL

    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    SP Joe Musgrove HOU SP Joe Musgrove HOU
    C Matt Wieters BAL C Cameron Rupp PHI
    1B Tommy Joseph PHI 1B Tommy Joseph PHI
    2B Jonathan Schoop BAL 2B Jonathan Schoop BAL
    3B Maikel Franco PHI 3B Maikel Franco PHI
    3B/SSManny Machado BAL 3B/SS Manny Machado BAL
    OF Adam Jones BAL OF Adam Jones BAL
    OF Mark Trumbo BAL OF Mark Trumbo BAL
    OF Roman Quinn PHI OF Roman Quinn PHI

    SP Anibal Sánchez DET SP Anibal Sánchez DET
    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    C Tom Murphy COL C Tom Murphy COL
    1B Joey Votto CIN 1B Joey Votto CIN
    2B/OF Tony Renda CIN 2B DJ LeMahieu COL
    3B Nolan Arenado COL 3B Nolan Arenado COL
    OF/SS Jose Peraza CIN OF/SS Jose Peraza CIN
    OF Carlos González COL OF Carlos González COL
    OF Adam Duvall CIN OF Adam Duvall CIN
    OF Scott Schebler CIN OF Scott Schebler CIN

    I mean I can keep going and going on what appears to be a intentional method to as a team have 120 lineups in a individual 60 max contests.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Mphst18 said...

    I mean I can keep going and going on what appears to be a intentional method to as a team have 120 lineups in a individual 60 max contests.

    Mphst, it should be expected for some of their lineups to look similar when you consider they enter thousands weekly. They are brothers who share strategy, and may use similar tools (or whatever it is these guys use to do what they do). You need to somehow look at all of their line-ups together to avoid any bias, rather than cherry picking ones that appear similar, putting them side-by-side, and trying to create a narrative for how they landed on those line-ups. Not even trying to say you are wrong or do not have an argument, just that IMO for it to be a strong argument to you need to look at all of their lineups rather than a select few.

  • Mphst18

    I am not sure what entering thousands weekly has to do with comparing 60 entries to 60 entries for one slate. I can’t paste 120 lineups side by side in this forum but the data is freely available. I can show the same thing for numerous slates, but how many do you need ,10 slates, 100 slates, at some point common sense takes over.

    Once one crosses the threshold of rules/TOS there is no aspect of cherry picking. If you were to rob 5 stores but only one caught it on video am I cherry picking because I provide the one with video, or are you a thief regardless?

  • EC4THREE10

    Get rid of these two goons. I said this last time this came up and DK chose to flag them which is laughable.

    Ban and move on. They can keep there money but move on.

    DK don’t ruin DFS for everyone. This is already getting negative press… Do the right thing!

  • rainbowtroutman

    @EC4THREE10 said...

    Get rid of these two goons. I said this last time this came up and DK chose to flag them which is laughable.

    Ban and move on. They can keep there money but move on.

    DK don’t ruin DFS for everyone. This is already getting negative press… Do the right thing!

    Even if DK did ban them,they would simply move to another site

  • deactivated60279

    @Mphst18 said...

    From the same slate let’s look at HOU/MIL and MIL/CLEV and HOU/PHL and CIN/COL Stack. Again PG did use Springer, Santana, Wieters, Renda in other lineups so he could have had the same lineup but why do that when your brother can cover the entry for you and you can keep building more LUS in total then the 60 per individual allowed.

    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    SP Joe Musgrove HOU SP Joe Musgrove HOU
    C Evan Gattis HOU C Evan Gattis HOU
    1B Chris Carter MIL 1B Chris Carter MIL
    2B José Altuve HOU 2B José Altuve HOU
    1B/3B Yuli Gurriel HOU 1B/3B Yuli Gurriel HOU
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL 3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL
    OF Ryan Braun MIL OF Ryan Braun MIL
    OF George Springer HOU OF Keon Broxton MIL
    OF Teoscar Hernandez HOU OF Teoscar Hernandez HOU

    SP Anibal Sánchez DET SP Anibal Sánchez DET
    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    C Manny Pina MIL C Manny Pina MIL
    1B Chris Carter MIL 1B Chris Carter MIL
    2B Jason Kipnis CLE 2B Jason Kipnis CLE
    3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL 3B/SS Jonathan Villar MIL
    SS Francisco Lindor CLE SS Francisco Lindor CLE
    OF Rajai Davis CLE OF Rajai Davis CLE
    OF Ryan Braun MIL OF Ryan Braun MIL
    OF Domingo Santana MIL OF Keon Broxton MIL

    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    SP Joe Musgrove HOU SP Joe Musgrove HOU
    C Matt Wieters BAL C Cameron Rupp PHI
    1B Tommy Joseph PHI 1B Tommy Joseph PHI
    2B Jonathan Schoop BAL 2B Jonathan Schoop BAL
    3B Maikel Franco PHI 3B Maikel Franco PHI
    3B/SSManny Machado BAL 3B/SS Manny Machado BAL
    OF Adam Jones BAL OF Adam Jones BAL
    OF Mark Trumbo BAL OF Mark Trumbo BAL
    OF Roman Quinn PHI OF Roman Quinn PHI

    SP Anibal Sánchez DET SP Anibal Sánchez DET
    SP José Fernández MIA SP José Fernández MIA
    C Tom Murphy COL C Tom Murphy COL
    1B Joey Votto CIN 1B Joey Votto CIN
    2B/OF Tony Renda CIN 2B DJ LeMahieu COL
    3B Nolan Arenado COL 3B Nolan Arenado COL
    OF/SS Jose Peraza CIN OF/SS Jose Peraza CIN
    OF Carlos González COL OF Carlos González COL
    OF Adam Duvall CIN OF Adam Duvall CIN
    OF Scott Schebler CIN OF Scott Schebler CIN

    I’m no scientist but how would 2 people be able to come up with lineups like these without coordinating and building lineups together….come on.

  • 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), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.