INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • Schreiad

    I was looking at some numbers for the rake for the upcoming MLB tournament and cant figure out how they could possibly be raking 15-20% but seems they are.

    Its insane…Look at the $3 for MLB $165k moonshot:

    $3 entry, they will get 64,700 entries, so total collections of $194,100.

    $165,000 in the prizepool (the guarantee).

    So that means, $29,100 in rake.

    $194,100/29,100 = 15% rake

    Thats absurd, what do you all think?

    And the payouts are so flat now, almost 30% of the field pays, first place only $5k…totally a rake trap IMO, too bad

    Or am I wrong? Looking at it wrong?

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @sjs1890 said...

    Yes capitalism is fine theres nothing wrong with that, thats what makes this country great. Rake was always expected to go up that was a given. What was not a given was how poorly and a joke they distribute the total prize pool in these so called now lottery gpps. The fact that the majority of gpps are sooooo top heavy proves they dont care about the vast majority of the players. Rather than that they cater to the max entry players so they are more likely to hit the big prize therefore they spend more cash on the site on more max entries just a shame.

    You’re right that the contest structures are very skewed towards multi entry. That being said I don’t think it’s any evil scheme by DK. If you read these forums daily and watch how contests fill on the sites it’s clear these contests are what a lot of casual players want. It’s really the low dollar players screwing themselves. Unfortunately players like me who want to make some money but don’t choose to hold 6 figures of capital get screwed too.

  • MrFantasy

    @RangerC said...

    Birdie ($3) – Keep $52800 of $352800 pool ~15% rake

    Quarter Arcade ($.25) – Keep $1050 of $7050 pool ~15% rake

    Dogleg ($33)- Keep $42889 of $317889 pool ~13.5% rake

    3-Wood ($300) – Keep $16500 of $166500 pool ~10% rake

    Clubhouse ($1060) – Keep $4500 of $79500 pool ~6% rake

    DK does not care one bit about anything except whales and attracting fish during NFL. I’ve asked them multiple times to run a slate for PGA alternate events and every time I just get a fake reply. Instead of trying to improve their product and increase revenue that way their answer is to cut rewards and raise rake.

    Do you think anyone would win if rake in the $1060 clubhouse was 15% rake? It’s not about them giving high stake players preferential treatment in this situation. If they didn’t offer a lower rake in bigger buy in games nobody would play them.

  • rebkell

    Not to defend the sites, but NY when the bill passes will 15% of the NY entries, and NY is supposedly the biggest player in the game, so at 15% of 15%, means NY will get 2.25% of the rake, is my math correct. of course this is only for the pct of the pool that is NY players, but Tennessee is getting 5% or 6% I think, and Mississippi wants their cut, so the rake is getting raked quite heavily already. Not to mention all the registration, gaming fees, whatever they want to call them.

  • zachj

    @wolfjb1 said...

    My business is not a charity and neither is DFS

    Maybe one day UNICEF will get into the DFS business but until then we will be paying high rake

  • wolfjb1

    @sjs1890 said...

    Yes capitalism is fine theres nothing wrong with that, thats what makes this country great. Rake was always expected to go up that was a given. What was not a given was how poorly and a joke they distribute the total prize pool in these so called now lottery gpps. The fact that the majority of gpps are sooooo top heavy proves they dont care about the vast majority of the players. Rather than that they cater to the max entry players so they are more likely to hit the big prize therefore they spend more cash on the site on more max entries just a shame.

    sjs1980, I agree. But I would say that we are talking about two entirely different things. High rake is one issue. Payout structure – whether it’s too flat or too top-heavy, etc. – is an entirely different issue.

    You’re right that they don’t care about the majority of the players. They care about making money and nothing else. That’s why they cater to the big fish – the big fish make the money for them. Guppies (like me) are irrelevant to their bottom line.

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 619

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    @bcmf42 said...

    excuse my ineptitude…

    … stocks

    Hey BCM, what are you trying to say here? You may be running into a Textile issue (we use textile instead of html on the forums).

  • Cal

    RG CoFounder & Admin

    • 619

      RG Overall Ranking

    • $1M Prize Winner

    • x4

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    Schreiad, check out this extension if you’re not using it already. It calculates the site’s margin % (rake) if the tourney fills, as well as current overlay and your player ownership exposure on the My Lineups page.

    https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rotogrinders-draftkings-t/lokmacldfjfgajcebibmmfohacnikhhd

    The upward pressure on rake is real but I think there can be compromises. While the majority of RG members are rake conscious, the majority of players are not. There are tons of tournaments every day on FD and DK – keep a couple of those at the $3-$25 level at 10% margin to cater to the ROI-driven player.

  • DomTwan

    #FADETHERAKE

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @wolfjb1 said...

    sjs1980, I agree. But I would say that we are talking about two entirely different things. High rake is one issue. Payout structure – whether it’s too flat or too top-heavy, etc. – is an entirely different issue.

    You’re right that they don’t care about the majority of the players. They care about making money and nothing else. That’s why they cater to the big fish – the big fish make the money for them. Guppies (like me) are irrelevant to their bottom line.

    Yes 2 different topics, but my point was that both topics should correlate. If they are going to keep raising the rake I feel its their duty to also flatten out the payout structure. By not flattening out any of these lottery gpps, they themselves are showing to the public they dont care about the vast majority, only the top dogs max entering the gpps.

  • RangerC

    @MrFantasy said...

    Do you think anyone would win if rake in the $1060 clubhouse was 15% rake? It’s not about them giving high stake players preferential treatment in this situation. If they didn’t offer a lower rake in bigger buy in games nobody would play them.

    Lets look at it another way: small $$ entry tournaments have had their rake increased by up to 50% while high stakes tournaments increased in rake by 0%. It’s one thing to have 10% and 6% or 12% and 8%, another to have 15% and 6%. Would high stakes contests not fill at 8-10% rake? The optics of 15% at the quarter level and 6% at the $1060+ level are awful.

  • Olhausen

    @sjs1890 said...

    Vote with your dollars people, thats the only way the paying customers will ever have a say with anything with these dfs sites. 15% rake is appalling, and the worst part I think is that these gpps are so top heavy. For example this upcoming golf milly maker 1 million to 1st 100k to 2nd really??? Who said that was necessary??? DK really needs to get rid of their ego if they are just going to keep raising the rake. Many of these big gpps would have just as much interest imo if they distribute the total pool of money more equally. 1 million out of a pool of 2.5 million to 1st with over 87k entries is just laughable really.

    The extreme top heavy payouts are definitely something I think needs to change. And it seems like Dk has been experimenting with this in the moonshot recently. I mean it is a total joke when you have a 10k to first prize while 31st place was only 60$. I use this as an example because that’s what I received a few weeks ago in the moonshot before the structure changed. It makes it really hard to make money in gpps with payouts like that.
    I believe the first week Dk changed the payout structure 31st place went from 60$ to 300$ which is much more fair in my opinion. Who cares if first place is cut in half from 10k to 5k. How many of us are actually going to take first anyway? As of now they keep tinkering with the structure and 31st pays 150$ which although not as good as 300$ is still more then double the ridiculous 60$ it payed out in the past. Bottom line is I hope we see less top heavy payouts as time goes on. Because it will help tremendously now that the rake is going up.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @RangerC said...

    Lets look at it another way: small $$ entry tournaments have had their rake increased by up to 50% while high stakes tournaments increased in rake by 0%. It’s one thing to have 10% and 6% or 12% and 8%, another to have 15% and 6%. Would high stakes contests not fill at 8-10% rake? The optics of 15% at the quarter level and 6% at the $1060+ level are awful.

    Repost of what I said in page 1. Pretty straightforward.

    The more basic reason the higher dollar contests have lower rake is size of contest and $ amount generated by the players in said contests.

    Here’s two theoretical contests. I’m not bothering with getting the exact dollar values right btw.

    100K gtd contest with 100 players
    100K gtd contest with 100,000 players

    Which contest do you think costs them more to provide? Do you think customer service expenses and server bandwith expenses might be higher to support a group of 100K people?

    To be honest, the high dollar players are getting screwed on rake relative to the low dollar guys. It costs them the same amount of money to facilitate the play of a guy generating 50K/yr in rake as it does to facilitate a guy generating $100/yr. Yet I still have to pay 6-7% in high dollar contests along with the 13+% in the low dollar stuff we all still enter.

  • MrFantasy

    @RangerC said...

    Would high stakes contests not fill at 8-10% rake?

    So because rake has gone up in lower stakes contests you believe it’s only fair that higher stake players have to pay increased rake as well. That’s basically what your saying. As to whether or not the $1k+ contests would fill at 8-10% rake they would fill you are correct. But the size of the contests would decrease because playing higher buy in games wouldn’t offer the benefit of a lower rake like they currently do.

  • FantasyDraft_Rep

    • FantasyDraft Representative

    @britdevine said...

    If you don’t want to play high rake GPP’s, there are sites like Aces, FantasyDraft, and Feud that all have much more standard rake.

    You can’t win 10k in a night, but you also are not playing against the top pros with 100’s of lineups either.

    As Brit pointed out there are other options out there so there are choices. Our rake is much lower than the examples given.

    Also, worth mentioning is we offer Rake Free contests at entry fees above $300.

  • RangerC

    @pmsimkins said...

    Which contest do you think costs them more to provide? Do you think customer service expenses and server bandwith expenses might be higher to support a group of 100K people?

    “Server bandwidth?” We are not streaming freaking 4K video here! Bandwidth? Really? Cheap as hell and minimal for a DFS site anyway.

    Now server load is an issue, BUT both servers and bandwidth tend to be sunk and/or fixed costs. If DK has enough server capacity / bandwidth to handle the 10 AM NFL rush then running a 120K Birdie and a 10 person Thunderdome costs the same amount as they are already paying / have paid for their setup – GOLF isn’t big enough to put a strain on their infrastructure.

    Also, DK has customer service? I emailed them 4 times over the last 4 weeks asking about PGA alternate events and never got an actual response (just one sentence answers that didn’t actually answer the question). Also asked them for their official reason behind the difference in rake 5 hours ago – no response.

    I actually agree that high stakes games should be raked less (6% seems about right) and I’m even OK with 12% for low stakes contests until we reach stability with legislation, but 15% is a freaking joke. Like I said, 12% and 8% is fine, 10% and 6% is fine, 15% and 6% is absurd.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @RangerC said...

    I emailed them 4 times over the last 4 weeks asking about PGA alternate events

    Ta da! That would would be why it’s expensive to service 100K $3 players.

    Good work deflecting from the basic point over my use of the word “bandwidth”. You definitely win. I could have simply said variable overhead, which was my point. The odds of more than half the people on here knowing what that is, low.

    The next time we quote a new product at my work I’ll make sure to charge no more than twice as much for a 10pc order as I would 100K pc order. You know, fairness and optics.

  • bcmf42

    @Cal said...

    Hey BCM, what are you trying to say here? You may be running into a Textile issue (we use textile instead of html on the forums).

    Not sure what happened. It kept cutting my reply short no matter how I tried to format it from my phone. I figured after 4 failed attempts it was a sign to move on… Lol.

  • RangerC

    @pmsimkins said...

    The next time we quote a new product at my work I’ll make sure to charge no more than twice as much for a 10pc order as I would 100K pc order. You know, fairness and optics.

    Data and computing costs do not necessarily scale the same way tangible products do. It does not cost DK 100 times as much to run a 100K tourney vs a 1000 person tourney.

    Online poker sites did not screw their low/mid stakes players like this (we even got things like deposit bonuses) even though it took the same amount of computing power/data to run a 10+1 SNG vs a 100+10 SNG because they understood it was good business in the long run to have a full ecosystem of players. DK would be happy with 10 pros playing 10K fish and nothing in between.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @RangerC said...

    Data and computing costs do not necessarily scale the same way tangible products do. It does not cost DK 100 times as much to run a 100K tourney vs a 1000 person tourney.

    Online poker sites did not screw their low/mid stakes players like this (we even got things like deposit bonuses) even though it took the same amount of computing power/data to run a 10+1 SNG vs a 100+10 SNG because they understood it was good business in the long run to have a full ecosystem of players. DK would be happy with 10 pros playing 10K fish and nothing in between.

    You pay $1-$2 per day for the exact same service I pay $100-$150 per day for. That, in your mind, equals you getting screwed. Spot on evaluation there.

  • RangerC

    @pmsimkins said...

    You pay $1-$2 per day for the exact same service I pay $100-$150 per day for. That, in your mind, equals you getting screwed. Spot on evaluation there.

    If 1000 players place a $1 bet at Bovada, they don’t pay more aggregate juice than 1 guy placing a $1000 bet. (even though according to you they should, because the 1000 guys use more ‘server time’).

    100 players playing a 1+.1 tournament on Bovada (using the same site) pay only slightly more rake ($10, 10%) than 1 guy playing a $100+9 SNG.

    BTW I pay $30-$80 in rake per PGA slate, not $1 per day

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    Since I don’t think people have even the foggiest concept of what it takes to run a business lets go through a way overly simplified guess at some numbers. This is customer service only.

    Lets say there are 100,000 discrete users per week playing low dollar tournies and those users generate 10,000 customer service enquiries per week.

    Now lets say DK is staffed 14-15 hours a day for a total of 100 hours per week. That’s 100 enquiries per staffed hour. If the average rep can close 10 enquiries per hour that means you have 1000 man hours of work per week. Assuming a 40hr work week this requires 25 full time employees 100% utilized in customer service. In reality you’d likely need more employess than this since you’d need to cover peak hours while maintaining workable schedules.

    Now lets assume there are about 200 users playing $1060 contests in a given week. Even if those users generated 50 enquiries per week (2.5x the rate I used above and way too high) and if they took twice as long on average to resolve you’d be at 10 man hours per week. Since you’d still need to cover the working hours you’d need 4 employees who’d only each actually be utilized on customer service 8% of the time.

    This is why the high dollar players do and should be paying much less rake.

  • kllws55

    If you haven’t followed the business side of dfs, FanDuel and Draft Kings haven’t had a sniff of profit. With all the legal fees (mentioned above), fees to states (which will continue to increase), a reduced market due to some states blocking dfs and its no wonder the rake has gone up.To us, it’s a game and a business bleeding money to them. If we balk at playing because of the rake, this won’t help the situation. Its not out of the question that the small guys evaporate in the near future, the big guys merge in an attempt to stay in business. If they don’t turn a profit in five years will FD & DK still be around? I doubt it.

    Just my humble opinion/

  • RangerC

    @kllws55 said...

    If you haven’t followed the business side of dfs, FanDuel and Draft Kings haven’t had a sniff of profit. With all the legal fees (mentioned above), fees to states (which will continue to increase), a reduced market due to some states blocking dfs and its no wonder the rake has gone up.To us, it’s a game and a business bleeding money to them. If we balk at playing because of the rake, this won’t help the situation. Its not out of the question that the small guys evaporate in the near future, the big guys merge in an attempt to stay in business. If they don’t turn a profit in five years will FD & DK still be around? I doubt it.

    Just my humble opinion/

    Draftkings is going to get around 300K in rake from ONE random PGA tournament this week. There are 45 PGA events a year. That’s 13.5 MILLION in rake just from the next PGA season, assuming no growth. Yeah, states now might get up to 15% of rake, but DK is literally making 1000% of what they made on PGA before it exploded, and that’s just PGA.

    DK isn’t profitable because they chose to spend $100 million(!) on terrible commercials that alienated just about everyone (plus other lighting-money-on-fire situations like team partnerships, DK lounges, etc). The core business is already profitable (they could feasibly rake 30 million in GOLF next year between PGA and EURO).

  • deejones49

    If we start playing on smaller sites i think DK will lower the rake

  • tyrique730

    Dude 30 million is nothing that’s doesn’t include them paying the prizes and taxes at the end of season, them spending that money on advertising wouldn’t be bad if they weren’t losing the states they spent all the money in NY is 10% alone and they had to pay legal fees of course they increasing rake while aces stays the same

  • 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.