STRATEGY FORUM

Comments

  • LarryLegend33

    Was analyzing some of my early season basketball results and stumbled across this. (Someone may have posted something similar before, so apologies if this has been done to death)

    It is from last night’s NBA $1 DOUBLE UP [$15,000 GTD] (MULTI-ENTRY), which has 17025 entrants and 7500 winners, and a player can put in a max of 100 entries. I was curious to see the ROI based on how many entries a player puts into the contests. I certainly expected that the people putting in 100 entries would outperform those putting in a single entry, but the difference was startling and figured I’d share.

    Entries Per Player : Total Entries : Avg Entries Per : Players : ROI
    1 – One 2149 1 2149 -79%
    2 – Two 684 2 342 -77%
    3 – Three 342 3 114 -42%
    4 – Four 232 4 58 -52%
    5 – Five 410 5 82 -40%
    6 – 6 to 10 918 9 105 -19%
    7 – 11 to 20 1279 17 77 -14%
    8 – 21 to 50 2771 41 68 6%
    9 – 51 to 99 1540 73 21 -13%
    10 – 100 6700 100 67 15%
    Grand Total 17025 5.52 3083 -12%
  • stv1313

    • 950

      RG Overall Ranking

    Boy . . . I wasn’t aware that I bucked the odds so much last night. I was one of the suckers that entered a single $1 entry into this tourney and I cashed out for a cool 2 dollars. I think I’ll get crazy and enter the big $1 tourney again tonight and see if I can make it 2-for-2.

    Regardless, for number nerds like me, this is a great analysis. Thanks for showing this to us, LarryLegend33.

  • stv1313

    • 950

      RG Overall Ranking

    Oops! Upon review, I see that I’ve already entered tonight’s contest 4 times. My chances of cashing just improved exponentially! Woo hoo!!!

  • YoungFischer

    If I were running a site I’d offer a lot of these contents.

    Massive multi-entry double-ups are such a great money maker. They can squeeze out extra rake by making it a double-up and it’s extremely unlikely to overlay since you can just spam the same team multiple times.

  • ActionJunkie

    Not sure I get this post.

    Skill wins at DFS, um, duh? Skilled players are the ones playing ~100 lineups. What kind of ROI do you expect?

    DFS fills two needs for consumers. Entertainment and profit seekers. You are always going to have both and of course they can overlap. Skill is what drives and determines the latter. You can do all the funny/fuzzy math you want but if you aren’t skilled in said sport then you aren’t going to win in the long-run. Screaming “Pros rule all” is silly and mostly inaccurate. Skills rule all and you either have it or you don’t. Being a Pro is something that happens if you are in the position (skilled/have the time/etc.) and desire such a thing (ie playing high volume).

    It sounds like OP is mad there isn’t more fish. That isn’t going to happen, because again, SKILL rules all. In the end it doesn’t matter if it’s 100 “skilled players” that beat you or 1 “skilled player” using 100 entries. They/he/she was more skillful than you.

    Personally, I LOVE jumping huge trains in double-ups. Makes it feel much easier to cash.

    Common sense FTW.

  • dedlata

    @hendry said...

    gotcha, i clearly see that difference. the implication in a number of threads i see on rg is that double ups are a scam vs 50/50s with the same rake and that doesnt really make sense to me. the problem isnt double up vs 50/50. the problem is increased rake.

    The double up vs the 50/50 is also the problem. Having to beat 56% (double up) of the field or 50% (50/50) of the field is a major difference. Especially in NBA where lineups overlap so much every night. Most people would rather win far more often in a 50/50 and also not pay the 20% higher rake.

  • btwice80

    @JaNelson38 said...

    Im not comparing the 12% to 10%. Im aware the rake is higher. But if two cents on the dollar higher rake makes a contest unplayable to you, there are plenty of other cash games on DK where you can play a single entry 50/50 and get the 10% rake…the contests are simply smaller.

    You absolutely implied that 12% and 10% were the same because the post you quoted contrasted the two, and you led your post with “How exactly?” followed by a paragraph of comparing 50/50s and dbl ups ending with “did you guys think the old BIG 50/50 DK contests didnt take any rake or something?”

    Also funny that your rap about not worrying about who you play is the exact opposite of Assani’s advice which is to spend as much effort on opponent selection as you do on lineup construction.

    Finally, yeah, we’re all aware that DK has small field 50/50s. The smaller fields are why they’re losing hundreds of dollars in entry fees per day from me as I shift a larger share of my volume to FD. I do play dbl ups, but I’m not increasing my play in them which is their goal in eliminating large field 50/50s. Instead I’ll just play more 10% rake games with their competitor.

  • LarryLegend33

    @einars said...

    i would like to point out that this is only 1 night AND it was the first real night of NBA. if there was a single night during the year where the informed player had the biggest advantage over the uninformed i would think it would be opening night.

    i would love to see this tracked over a couple weeks

    Agree 100%. Very early season and large slate are both factors that should play into the hands of the experienced player.

    I would expect other results to be less extreme, especially on smaller slates when there may be fewer situation-based value plays available.

  • dedlata

    @JaNelson38 said...

    Im not comparing the 12% to 10%. Im aware the rake is higher. But if two cents on the dollar higher rake makes a contest unplayable to you, there are plenty of other cash games on DK where you can play a single entry 50/50 and get the 10% rake…the contests are simply smaller.

    What is it that you are not understanding? A smaller contest = more sharks per player in the contest = less likely to win and be profitable. A multi entry contest = more sharks per player in the contest = less likely to win and be profitable. Large single entry = less sharks per player in the contest = more likely to win and be profitable. If you don’t think paying 20% more money to a site to enter a contest is significant, you are the dream customer of a DFS site.

  • btwice80

    @LarryLegend33 said...

    No, it’s actually worse than that. What it means is that for every dollar waged, a player can expect to lose $0.79.

    If you have ten players and one wins but the other 9 lose, the winning player is +$1 while the nine losers are a combined -$9. Add it together and they are -$8 on $10 waged, or a -80% ROI.

    2149 people putting in one entry. 342 people putting in two entries. And combined they averaged winning just over 1 in 10 wages in a double up.

    Those conclusions can’t be drawn from a single night. Or even a single week, tbh.

  • LarryLegend33

    @ActionJunkie said...

    It sounds like OP is mad there isn’t more fish. That isn’t going to happen, because again, SKILL rules all. In the end it doesn’t matter if it’s 100 “skilled players” that beat you or 1 “skilled player” using 100 entries. They/he/she was more skillful than you.

    Personally, I LOVE jumping huge trains in double-ups. Makes it feel much easier to cash.

    Common sense FTW.

    I think you’ve completely misinterpreted me

    First off, I shared data because I found it very interesting and I thought the community might find it interesting as well. Too often, things get said based on hunches or feelings and don’t have any data to back it up. This, I suppose, is slightly better because it has data, albeit for one contest and for one night. I intentionally published the first post without any commentary because I was interested to hear the thoughts and conclusions of others without immediately clouding the data with any interpretation I might have.

    I mean, don’t get me wrong, wouldn’t we all love more ‘fish’? My thought process is more along the lines of a casino that chooses to set slot machine payouts to 95% instead of 80%. You may be more profitable for a while at 80%, but if the loss rate is too high, people lose their money too quickly and too often and don’t come back and it hurts them in the long run. The casino with the 95% payout gives people more entertainment while they lose their money and a lot more people walk away winners, at least for a night. Over the long run, that is a winning business model. Casino have years of experience and analysts that understand this. I know my example is playing the house vs. playing each other, but it is still all about stretching the experience of an entertainment dollar. I simply don’t think it is healthy for the industry to set up and promote contests that are rigged so heavily against people they just spent a fortune to give them a try. Not my companies, but I enjoy the experience and would like to see a healthy, thriving industry.

    Yes, skill rules, but as a whole, the big players have it and the little guys don’t. If you are able to keep jumping them trains and keep winning, that’s great. Just understand that your experience as a single entry guy in a multi-entry contest isn’t the norm, and if you do it consistently enough, I’d imagine most people like you start to become the 100 entries player before long. Why leave money on the table? The reality however is, if you are playing single entry, you are FAR better off finding the largest single contest you can and play there. Would it be so awful if the contest was single entry or even a max of 10 and those players had an ROI of say -30% (40% of which would be the rake) ?

    So, I’m not “mad” about anything. If I have three points they would be:

    1. Hey, this is interesting. Take a look and tell me what you think.
    2. Depending on the type of player you are, you may want to avoid these (or jump the hell in!)
    3. My own winnings aside, I’m a little concerned this isn’t healthy for the industry.

  • LarryLegend33

    @btwice80 said...

    Those conclusions can’t be drawn from a single night. Or even a single week, tbh.

    I’ve tried to acknowledge that multiple times. I was simply trying to illustrate what a -79% return meant. (i.e. it doesn’t mean losing 79% of the time)

  • dictator_teddy

    • 173

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2017 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    @LarryLegend33 said...

    No, it’s actually worse than that. What it means is that for every dollar waged, a player can expect to lose $0.79.

    If you have ten players and one wins but the other 9 lose, the winning player is +$1 while the nine losers are a combined -$9. Add it together and they are -$8 on $10 waged, or a -80% ROI.

    2149 people putting in one entry. 342 people putting in two entries. And combined they averaged winning just over 1 in 10 wages in a double up.

    Oh yes, you are right. I was thinking about this while taking a dump and your math is right. Wow, this really is NOT SUSTAINABLE. If I were a new player, I would quit after losing a few times in a row.

  • 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).