INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • valterlaw

    http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17374929/otl-investigates-implosion-daily-fantasy-sports-leaders-draftkings-fanduel

    “The implosion of the daily fantasy industry is a bro-classic tale of hubris, recklessness, political naïveté and a kill-or-be-killed culture.”

    Discuss.

    And look who the very first player quoted in the article is:

    “This industry blew up so quickly — no one adequately planned or prepared for it,” says Gabriel Harber, 29, a former high-volume player at DraftKings and FanDuel. “[The executives] didn’t make the substantial investment on self-regulation and the regulatory side that was obviously needed. … Every PR person and lawyer should be fired. How could you let your client engage in this kind of crazy advertising if every legal loophole wasn’t closed? How stupid can you be?”

    One of the least shocking things ever…

  • Tammy409

    @theoddsmaker said...

    I can’t believe he compared DFS to a Pick 6 in horse racing. Couldn’t be more off if he tried.

    Isn’t FanDuel sorta like that? I only played on it one afternoon and I likened it to “CostCo” and a “TV Guide” Crossword; but if ‘Pick Six’ means anything like it sounds?…

  • KillaChap

    @catmando said...

    i still want to know if 1.3 percent are winning which one of you is it? should assume 98 percent here are losers

    I win almost every night. I’m not holding a million dollar check but I’m not foolish enough to think I will, either.

  • KillaChap

    @redron2 said...

    sorry to tell you buddy, the same people would still be the most successful

    Let’s see.

  • sal

    @Unico10 said...

    Yahoo has the $500k Baller with $100k to first, $10 entry and 10 entries max

    Hopefully it fills and gets larger. A decent 1st prize award and a level playing field (I think $100 per player per week is a reasonable amount for anyone to play)

    This sounds good. But if they are trying to lure people into a $100 entry, why not just make it $100 single entry with 10 lineups per player?

  • btwice80

    @sal said...

    This sounds good. But if they are trying to lure people into a $100 entry, why not just make it $100 single entry with 10 lineups per player?

    Because not everyone wants to spend $100, and some might not want to build 10 lineups. If someone wants to risk less money by making fewer lineups, why shouldn’t they be able to?

  • kantiger77

    What’s always been disappointing to me as a newer DFS player has been the fact the sites were brain dead when it came to improving their products and making things fair for all. From the horrible advertising that was tasteless and cheesy to the ridiculously top heavy payouts to the entry limits to the lack of creativity in contest creation, I’ve been disappointed by how terribly run the entire industry was. Their actions cost them college contests, millions of customers and billions in revenue. DFS done in a different way could be really fun, instead it still has the image as a sham industry, and that’s a shame.

  • bigloser11

    @kantiger77 said...

    What’s always been disappointing to me as a newer DFS player has been the fact the sites were brain dead when it came to improving their products and making things fair for all. From the horrible advertising that was tasteless and cheesy to the ridiculously top heavy payouts to the entry limits to the lack of creativity in contest creation, I’ve been disappointed by how terribly run the entire industry was. Their actions cost them college contests, millions of customers and billions in revenue. DFS done in a different way could be really fun, instead it still has the image as a sham industry, and that’s a shame.

    Probably one of the better statements made.I feel like I’m in a casino or betting parlor rather than
    sitting at my desk top trying to figure on skill winning.

  • RangerC

    @kantiger77 said...

    What’s always been disappointing to me as a newer DFS player has been the fact the sites were brain dead when it came to improving their products and making things fair for all. From the horrible advertising that was tasteless and cheesy to the ridiculously top heavy payouts to the entry limits to the lack of creativity in contest creation

    +1

    DK bought out Draftstreet YEARS ago and promised that they would add Draftstreet’s contests (snake drafts, pickems) ‘soon’. We’re still waiting (and will be waiting forever) because those contests don’t fit into DKs vision of DFS – which is 10 pros max-multientering everything with a .01% ROI grinding out 10,000 fish in every contest while the rake churns and churns. You can be pro-DFS (I love it and will play for as long as it is available) and anti-DK and FD.

  • AssaniFisher

    • 74

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #50

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x2

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x6

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    Imo it was one of the better “anti-DFS” pieces, but it still misses the mark on some points. In particular, I find it completely unfair that DFS gets singled out for the % of people who win at it. Stats like the “1.3%” are purposefully misleading(they are referencing a 3 month sample size of Fanduel Baseball DFS, and most casual people who read the article tend to come away thinking that the 1.3% refers to all sports and sites). Moreover, they never seem to present these stats alongside some context and comparisons to other gambling/skill-based wagering games.

    Imagine that a casual player has $100 to risk this weekend, and wants to decide between all the various gambling/skill-based wagering games available: casino games, lottery tickets, online poker, horse racing, sports betting, DFS, and anything else you can think of. If you were to rank them on different factors such as “In which game does the casual have the best chance of having > $100 at the end of the weekend?” or “In which game would the casual get the most bang for the buck while losing the $100?” DFS would rank among the very top options for the amateur to play.

    Consider PGA DFS for example. An amateur player could enter a $1 HU vs a pro, pick 6 random guys who use up all the salary, and at worst he’ll end up with a ~35% equity sweat that gives him 4 days of enjoyment. What else provides the customer with 4 days of enjoyment for $1 while doing no research whatsoever and playing against a professional who has put in hours of research? I’m pretty sure that scratch-off lotto tickets are much less than 35% equity and those only give you a few seconds of enjoyment. Plus, on top of all that, in DFS the amateur has the option to work hard and increase his chances of winning. DFS is a way better product than most of these other games, and this becomes very clear when you compare them side-by-side instead of merely referencing stats like the 1.3%.

  • Heterodox

    @AssaniFisher said...

    Stats like the “1.3%” are purposefully misleading(they are referencing a 3 month sample size of Fanduel Baseball DFS, and most casual people who read the article tend to come away thinking that the 1.3% refers to all sports and sites). Moreover, they never seem to present these stats alongside some context and comparisons to other gambling/skill-based wagering games.

    The stat was presented in the context of ads which claimed anyone can win, and implied that it was easy to do so. Here is the passage:

    ““In hindsight,” an influential consultant close to both companies says, “those commercials were even more insane because they knew they were under federal criminal investigation.”

    There was more bad news, but this time it hit publicly. McKinsey & Company released an alarming study showing that a tiny percentage of daily fantasy players win consistently — only 1.3 percent playing baseball. Analyzing three months of results scraped from FanDuel, McKinsey’s study raised major questions about the long-term viability of fantasy sports’ “ecosystem.”“

    You see the part where it explains that they analyzed three months of results? It comes right after the reference to baseball.

    Any article that acknowledges that anything bad has ever happened in DFS, or that there could possibly be any darker side to any aspect of the game, its culture, or its community, is an “anti-DFS” article, and the best the writers can hope for is that it is considered “one of the better anti-DFS pieces” by someone who has so much contempt for the casual player that he not only thinks they can’t read, but also thinks that they’re getting 4 days of enjoyment out of the slim chance of winning $0.90 on a $1 bet.

  • Cameron

    RG Co-Founder

    • 2014 FanDuel NFL Survivor Champion

    • 2016 RG Season Long Champion: NFL

    @AssaniFisher said...

    Stats like the “1.3%” are purposefully misleading(they are referencing a 3 month sample size of Fanduel Baseball DFS, and most casual people who read the article tend to come away thinking that the 1.3% refers to all sports and sites).

    Agree with the sentiment on this stat. I’ve grown tired of seeing the popularity of this stat used. Hoping we can see a more realistic, long-term study released, which includes the $1M winners in NFL season.

    Also really agree with your calculation on PGA equity, and the return in entertainment value it provides. — Some people spend way more money playing freemium games like Candy Crush (for entertainment value), where they don’t have any chance of financial return, and the time of enjoying that entertainment can last way longer.

  • zshoom

    • 2016 Single Entry Series Finalist

    I could be wrong, but wasn’t the 1.3% related to a percentage of the winnings (1.3% of players win 90% of prize money, something like that). If that’s the case, then the stat is even more misleading than people are saying.

    Say 5% of players are risking 5k+ a night. The best of that group is going to take home the lions share of top ten prizes in tourneys. That really has nothing to do with the player who is playing $20 a day and winning $200 a week for $60 profit, or the player who is playing $20 a week and winning back $35 for $15 profit. To most people, DFS is not a career – the pro’s may cry into their beers over a $75 week one football profit, but to the rest of us any amount of money won is chalked up as a victory.

    I read somewhere else that 15% of players win money…which is more or less how it should be for a skill game. They could maybe level the field a bit and try to get that number closer to 20%, because having 85% of players lose consistently is not ideal for retaining players….but either way, the 1.3% is a useless stat in my opinion.

    Re: the article. Title aside, it’s a pretty fair piece. The DFS companies got cocky and those commercials were ridiculous. Hopefully the past year has humbled them a bit and they run their business like a business, instead of a frat house get rich quick scheme. Looking at some of the changes they’ve made recently, I think we’re on the right track.

  • Mphst18

    @AssaniFisher said...

    Stats like the “1.3%” are purposefully misleading(they are referencing a 3 month sample size of Fanduel Baseball DFS, and most casual people who read the article tend to come away thinking that the 1.3% refers to all sports and sites).

    ok how’s this then for a sample size and straight from the site to their investors.

    Unlike what FanDuel told consumers in its advertisements, FanDuel told its investors that only the top 0.1% of users actually win money. The top 10,000 users had a negative 9.5% return on investment.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    I wonder if RG could do an anomymous survey like on survey monkey, just for our sake, to see what percentage of grinders are profitable? Something simple like “I have lost more money than I’ve won playing DFS: true or false.” Perhaps that would give us a better perspective? I’m sure there have been a crapton of people who have deposited $5, lost and walked away… wonder how much people like that versus people who lost 10k (or something) sway the data?

  • bigloser11

    @jimfred82 said...

    I wonder if RG could do an anomymous survey like on survey monkey, just for our sake, to see what percentage of grinders are profitable?

    Interesting idea.You would hope to get honest answers and not ‘‘the fish that got away’‘ stuff.I am personally down about 800 $ after 4 yrs playing.
    One site at a time and have been the longest currently w/ DK.The 25 cent and 1 $ events are enough for me.. jmf

  • eileengalloway

    Typical ESPN nonsense!

  • sethayates

    @Cameron said...

    Agree with the sentiment on this stat. I’ve grown tired of seeing the popularity of this stat used. Hoping we can see a more realistic, long-term study released, which includes the $1M winners in NFL season.

    Also really agree with your calculation on PGA equity, and the return in entertainment value it provides. — Some people spend way more money playing freemium games like Candy Crush (for entertainment value), where they don’t have any chance of financial return, and the time of enjoying that entertainment can last way longer.

    Agree with this but I’ve always wondered why the sites themselves don’t squash this. They don’t need a study, they already have the data. Why wouldn’t either site come out and say “Last year we issued 100,000 IRS 1099s to players who profited $600 or more.”

    Is there a reason the sites can’t release this data (privacy) or is it that the information would be embarrassing (small number of winners)?

  • MRCOOKONUTS

    @jimfred82 said...

    I wonder if RG could do an anomymous survey like on survey monkey, just for our sake, to see what percentage of grinders are profitable? Something simple like “I have lost more money than I’ve won playing DFS: true or false.” Perhaps that would give us a better perspective? I’m sure there have been a crapton of people who have deposited $5, lost and walked away… wonder how much people like that versus people who lost 10k (or something) sway the data?

    No need for a survey.The DFS sites know this already as they have every statistic for every individual player that has used the site.Deposits,withdrawls,wins,losses,,etc.It doesnt matter how much you invested.Profit is profit.Losses are losses..and stats are kept by the companies..Also,a survey like this does not put DFS in a good light because we know what the results are.You do not believe that a tiny fraction of all DFS players are profitable and the numbers are actually tainted?

  • Riley

    RG Co-Founder

    @MRCOOKONUTS said...

    They know this already.They have every statistic for every player that has used the site.Deposits,withdrawls,wins,losses,,etc.

    This is categorically false.

    We have only ever gathered winning results from any site we’ve collected data from. If we collected more information, our rankings would be very different from what they are (a rankings list of who has actually won the most money is almost certainly more accurate than the version we are forced into based on the data we are allowed to collect).

  • Riley

    RG Co-Founder

    Please see my response at https://rotogrinders.com/threads/rotogrinders-data-867199 for a more detailed description of the data we collect.

  • MRCOOKONUTS

    @Riley said...

    This is categorically false.

    We have only ever gathered winning results from any site we’ve collected data from. If we collected more information, our rankings would be very different from what they are (a rankings list of who has actually won the most money is almost certainly more accurate than the version we are forced into based on the data we are allowed to collect).

    Are you saying sites dont have personal statistics on each deposit withdrawl,wins losses etc?
    Its in our account information log.

  • MRCOOKONUTS

    @Riley said...

    This is categorically false.

    We have only ever gathered winning results from any site we’ve collected data from. If we collected more information, our rankings would be very different from what they are (a rankings list of who has actually won the most money is almost certainly more accurate than the version we are forced into based on the data we are allowed to collect).

    I wasnt refering to what RG knows.I meant what the DFS sites know about each player.
    I edited my original response to clarify.I meant a RG survey was unnecessary.

  • jimfred82

    • Blogger of the Month

    @MRCOOKONUTS said...

    lso,a survey like this does not put DFS in a good light because we know what the results are.You do not believe that a tiny fraction of all DFS players are profitable and the numbers are actually tainted?

    so, if all of that’s true, how could this hypothetical, probably not going to ever happen, survey make it look worse than 1.3%? You really think that 98.7% of the people on RG are losing players? The data they used pulled a three month span of MLB off of Fanduel and DK; not only is that a tiny sample size, of one sport, but also only two (albeit the biggest, obviously) of the sites that people play on.

    But I’ve been called naive on here before for believing that people are more successful than they actually are, so you may be right.

  • Riley

    RG Co-Founder

    @MrCookonuts

    Sorry. You had quoted “I wonder if RG could do an anomymous survey like on survey monkey.” when you replied with “They already have all this information.”, and it reads as though the “They” you are implying is “RotoGrinders”.

    For the sake of other people reading this thread, I wanted to make it clear that RotoGrinders does not have this data.

    Thanks for clarifying how it reads in your initial reply above!

  • MRCOOKONUTS

    @jimfred82 said...

    so, if all of that’s true, how could this hypothetical, probably not going to ever happen, survey make it look worse than 1.3%? You really think that 98.7% of the people on RG are losing players? The data they used pulled a three month span of MLB off of Fanduel and DK; not only is that a tiny sample size, of one sport, but also only two (albeit the biggest, obviously) of the sites that people play on.

    But I’ve been called naive on here before for believing that people are more successful than they actually are, so you may be right.

    Yes I believe 90+ perecent of players are not profitable.
    Many broke even,lost 1.00 10.00 100.00 etc but are not profitable come end of year.

  • 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.