MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • SoccerPwincess

    Imagine that, 199 DK points takes down the $2 million top prize. Just shows you how the “pros” do, when they have to enter 5 line ups or less. Guess they aren’t so much “pro” without the 150 lineups lol.

    My measly 178 DK lineup in the Milly Maker, would have placed 12th in the Live Finals out of the 180 line ups.

    Just wanted to point this out for everyone who thinks these pros are any more knowledgeable than the rest of us. Congrats to everyone who made it into the FFWC, especially those who aren’t pros and can’t enter 150 lineups to qualify.

  • DoubleTime

    • 2016 King of Summer: August

    @Heterodox said...

    I never made this claim. It’s an absurd claim. If you want to waste your time having that argument, since people really really like to have the arguments that are easy to win, go quote someone who actually said it.

    Zieg said: “A large bankroll only provides a fantastic advantage if one is a very good DFS player already. It does not make an average DFS player a good one, or a bad one an average one.”

    You replied: “Do you not think it would give an average player a better chance than he otherwise would have had? You don’t think he’ll cash more often, win more often?”

    My interpretation of this is that you were saying a large bankroll would turn an average player into a winning player.

    Edit: I understand you have had success with max-entering. Maybe it is because you are a very good DFS player already? I think you might be discounting your own skill in the equation.

  • Heterodox

    @DoubleTime said...

    Zieg said: “A large bankroll only provides a fantastic advantage if one is a very good DFS player already. It does not make an average DFS player a good one, or a bad one an average one.”

    You replied: “Do you not think it would give an average player a better chance than he otherwise would have had? You don’t think he’ll cash more often, win more often?”

    My interpretation of this is that you were saying a large bankroll would turn an average player into a winning player.

    Edit: I understand you have had success with max-entering. Maybe it is because you are a very good DFS player already? I think you might be discounting your own skill in the equation.

    I would love to let that last comment stand, but no, I’m not a “very good” DFS player. And aside from one killer night in the QA (NHL, which I have not referenced to further my point, and am not trying to claim means anything at all), I’ve had better results overall than I used to before I started max entering, but I wouldn’t say I’ve had “success”, though that term is somewhat of an abstraction in this context. I think I might be a slightly above average DFS player, and I’m not even sure of that sometimes.

    To your other point, how does this:

    “Do you not think it would give an average player a better chance than he otherwise would have had? You don’t think he’ll cash more often, win more often?”

    Translate to

    “money alone will turn a losing player into a winning player”?

    In a previous post, I said “An advantage is an advantage. It doesn’t make you good in and of itself. It just gives you a better chance than you otherwise would have had.” So maybe if you’re bad, you’ll be less bad, though I don’t even think that’s the case. I accept that you can supercharge bad results by multiplying mistakes and bad decisions across many lineups (and many entry fees). But I don’t think the average player loses simply because they make mistakes (in terms of roster construction.) I think a lot of losing/average players might actually be winning players if they game-selected better, or if they just accepted the reality of the contests they’re playing in and adopted an appropriate strategy.

  • Heterodox

    @SelfCharmer said...

    @Heterodox

    Can you answer my above Q to you?

    I think pmskins covered it. I’m generally only able to post mornings and at night.

    Change the wording of your premise from “completely random” to “average”, and I would say yes, the 50 entry guy would be more profitable. He’d also probably have more fun along the way.

    That’s the part of the multi entry question we haven’t touched on, as it’s only tangentially relevant. But in other threads I’ve recommended that small stakes players consider switching from putting 5-10 lineups in a $3 or 4$ gpp to max entering the QA, or whatever they can afford, not just because it gives them better odds, but because it’s more fun. I did the 10 lineups in the Moonshot or Sniper thing for a while, and it was torture. One thing goes wrong and you lose everything. You don’t get enough exposure to variance. In a contest with 10 people, you can get away with that. When some random hits three HRs, or an ace pitcher gets shelled by the fucking Braves, it’s unlikely anyone in that contest has that batter, and it’s likely that most people have the ace. When you’re up against tens/hundreds of thousands, even if that batter is 1% owned, that’s enough to keep you out of any kind of big money, especially when the people who have him are mostly max-entry pros, who are the best in the field.

    I also think the process of going through everything and coming up with 50 or 150 combinations will help improve one’s game. It causes you to think more, consider angles you wouldn’t otherwise have considered, and might prompt you to think more about the math involved, combinatorics, relative probabilities, etc.

  • Unico10

    • 707

      RG Overall Ranking

    For tomorrow’s slate
    Quarter Arcade NBA max entry limit = 50 ($12.50)
    4 Point Play NBA max entry = 150 ($600)
    Crossover NBA max entry = 150 ($4,050)

    Quarter Arcade challenge a disingenuous argument. (and why only 50? Why not 50 in the crossover for example? Not interested in leveling the playing field when stakes are higher?)

  • jdtrey22

    We all have our own ways to win.. last October i had 150 entries in the snap and ended up winning 30k. this year i played 1 lineup in October and got 2nd in the nfl monster and had an 80k day with 1 lineup and less then 1k in play. there are many ways to be successful just find yours. MME or single entry does not matter. Is the bankroll a factor yes but having more money doesnt mean anything. You can still lose… thats what people forget. How many high rollers dump 100k+ into these Qs and then qualify and still lose. We assume because we see them at the top of the leader boards most night that they are winning players but thats not always true. More money doesnt = more skill. As a multi entry player i have lost so many times 150 entries and not come close, i have also had amazing nights with 1 lu. Yes both work. But having 150 teams is still not even remotely enough. You dont see all the shit nights these guys have where there 150 teams are bottom 10%. You only notice the good days.

  • CNTDFS

    The fastest way to kill the entire DFS economy/ecosystem is for everyone to think that MME is the way to go and what they must do to be a “pro” or even profitable. For 99.9% of you, if you even could afford to, you would be broke within 2 weeks MME every night in NBA or NFL. Just the remedial task of balancing ownership percentages and cores together i guarantee the people complaining would not be able to handle it or have any clue on where to begin to build a +EV strategy. Everyone just give it up these guys are good at what they do and they extrapolate their edge as much as possible by max entering contests. You are not +EV players so your best bet is to 1-5 entry max most contests for the sweats and action with little to no expectation if youre playing tournaments every night. Any expectation other than that, then i hope you are a full time devoted DFS player looking up stats importing data finding trends and correlations 18 hours a day with a ton of computer science background knowledge on how to make that information profitable. But since less than 1% of 1% of you fall into that category just stfu and enjoy the game for what it is and understand that these guys do this for a living. Their lives literally depend on it. You do it cause you saw a commercial and expect to just bink something for huge amounts. Just enjoy DFS for what it is and get a real job.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @pmsimkins said...

    Alright, I’ll weigh in on this more in depth, for some reason.

    First off, when comparing a 1lu player and a max lu player you need to operate from the assumption they both have roughly equal skill and beat the rake long term. If one of the players doesn’t have that skill then the discussion is pointless as the long term result is inevitable, no more money.

    For a given contest at a given entry fee the 1 lu player will have a higher ROI, but gross less money than the max lu player. Given infinite time.

    Contests like the milly maker are very skewed towards the max lu player. The reason is contest size, i.e. time, coupled with pay structure. The 1lu player will have died long before he comes close to reaching the “long term” in milly maker contests. It makes no difference how good he is he’s likely losing money on that contest. The max lu player takes 1/150th the time to reach the long term, thus can reasonably expect a return. The trade off is lower ceiling due to all the sub optimal lineups.

    Long story short, the 1lu player needs to be playing smaller contests to expect a return. Either play higher dollar GPPs or do the 100man or less type contests. Preferably the former since rake is lower.

    The current DFS economy is no different than any other actual capitalist economy. It’s very skewed to the rich. There’s only 3 ways to beat it.

    1. Start with a lot money.
    2. Get lucky.
    3. Be very good and very patient.

    You likely need at least 2 of those things to really get somewhere.

    Exactly considering how volatile and top heavy gpps are these days it clearly caters to the max entry player. It sure is interesting that the majority of the featured gpps are 150 entry limit when it’s not necessary and a lot different from the origin of the game which came from single entry.

  • KindGuy

    This is why I advocate for tournaments in which everyone must put in the same amount of entries. Now THAT is what I call leveling the playing field.

  • bhdevault

    • Lead Moderator

    • Blogger of the Month

    @elementasrat said...

    This is why I advocate for tournaments in which everyone must put in the same amount of entries. Now THAT is what I call leveling the playing field.

    Isn’t that what the Single Entry tournaments are for? Or the 3-5 entry limit contests?

  • ajs1281

    @sjs1890 said...

    Exactly considering how volatile and top heavy gpps are these days it clearly caters to the max entry player. It sure is interesting that the majority of the featured gpps are 150 entry limit when it’s not necessary and a lot different from the origin of the game which came from single entry.

    The featured GPPs are the ones with the biggest prize pools. A decent portion of those prize pools are funded by the max entry people and multi-entry people. Single Entry and 3-5 Max exist but are obviously lower prize pools because less entries are playing. If you ask the casual player which enters 1 GPP per slate why they choose single vs multi and it will come down to “I want the same odds as everyone” or “I want a shot at those big prizes”. Doing away with multi-entry would make single entry tourneys slightly bigger most likely but nowhere near the prize pools today that pull in the casual players and would not generate nearly the rake that the featured max entry GPPs do, so rake would probably end up even worse on tourneys will smaller top prizes and smaller fields.

  • KindGuy

    @bhdevault said...

    Isn’t that what the Single Entry tournaments are for? Or the 3-5 entry limit contests?

    The single entries sure but not the 3 max contests. If you notice, the big name guys or “pros” are very rarely winning those gpps.

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @ajs1281 said...

    The featured GPPs are the ones with the biggest prize pools. A decent portion of those prize pools are funded by the max entry people and multi-entry people. Single Entry and 3-5 Max exist but are obviously lower prize pools because less entries are playing. If you ask the casual player which enters 1 GPP per slate why they choose single vs multi and it will come down to “I want the same odds as everyone” or “I want a shot at those big prizes”. Doing away with multi-entry would make single entry tourneys slightly bigger most likely but nowhere near the prize pools today that pull in the casual players and would not generate nearly the rake that the featured max entry GPPs do, so rake would probably end up even worse on tourneys will smaller top prizes and smaller fields.

    That’s not true the majority of the featured gpps are filled by non max entry users stats show that. Also Single entry tournies could be A LOT bigger by now but DK chooses not to make those their featured gpps and just simply caters to max entry players. DK really should be pushing the issue to make single entry more featured and bigger but they just simply don’t care and don’t want to, they want their max entrants to be happy. I mean the game originated from single entry its pretty weird DK doesn’t want to make that one of their calling cards.

  • Priptonite

    • Blogger of the Month

    @elementasrat said...

    The single entries sure but not the 3 max contests. If you notice, the big name guys or “pros” are very rarely winning those gpps.

    Is it possible this is because there are thousands of other people in the contests, making them very difficult to win regardless of how good you are?

    Just a thought.

  • SelfCharmer

    The thread that keeps on giving. Made it to the bookmarks

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    I would be willing to bet that NBA $4 Four Point Play would fill with 25 entry limit.

  • alsmizzle

    • 2013 RotoGrinders TPOY Champion

    • $1M Prize Winner

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    Typically usefull addition.

  • SelfCharmer

    You were expecting serious replies with useful content on a thread like this….

  • madchuck

    @Mangone said...

    This is the perfect response to this thread….its that simple and if you really think you can dominate with 150 lus get someone to invest in you and back you money cause hey you have 150 lineups you should be able to pay the guy back in no time!

    Exactly

  • sjs1890

    • 2013 DraftStreet DSBC Finalist

    @alsmizzle said...

    What I find is funny why do people insist that we need 150 team limit it was never necassary??? Yesterdays NBA $4 Four Point Play would have filled with a 25 entry limit and I would be willing to be that todays Four Point Play would fill with a 25 entry limit also.

  • Roma315

    • 703

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #86

      RG Tiered Ranking

    If the larger GPPs were single entry they would never fill.
    I’ve won tornaments with only 5-10 entries and had a goose egg with 50 entries. One Tournament I placed first while my other entries didn’t cash. Play within your limits and play whatever gives you the best chance to make some money.

  • 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).