NFL FORUM

Comments

  • JonBales

    RotoAcademy Lead Instructor

    • 507

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2019 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x3

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    I’ve been doing some research on optimal lineup construction, and I’ve really started to buy in more and more to the idea of unbalanced teams. I mean ‘unbalanced’ in a couple different ways.

    One is cap allocation. How often do we see one top WR, one second-tier guy, and one cheap option in lineups? I think it’s natural to want to create a balanced lineup, though not always optimal. A specific week of NFL and certain values will dictate the best strategy, but in general, I think there’s a lot of value in potentially being unbalanced. One of the reasons for that is being contrarian; you can potentially create a really unique lineup without actually buying in on any super low-value contrarian plays, and being unbalanced is one way to do that because it’s unlikely to run into many lineups with three stud WRs, for example.

    The other way I’m thinking of being unbalanced is in terms of ownership; it seems like there are often a lot of “semi-contrarian” lineups that end up trying to sort of decrease ownership a tad and still maximize value for the most part, and that middle ground I think might be the worst spot to be. Instead, I’ve been thinking of how useful it might be to pair a couple very clear low-ownership options with chalk. You’re likely securing the top values, but then trying to differentiate your lineup with just a couple contrarian selections mixed in.

    I think that extreme type of approach – one of risk-minimization on one end and extreme risk-seeking on the other – is probably better than trying to “have it all” with each individual selection and create balance with your lineup.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @draftcheat said...

    The number of lineups one is entering into the tournament is not relevant to this discussion, imo.

    I think it definitely is. If you’re entering 1 LU and pivoting off what you feel are the best plays due to ownership you’re playing foolishly, unless you’re using it to tie break close decisions. If you’re entering 100s you’re of course going to have ownership based pivots worked in, you pretty much have to even create that many LUs.

  • draftcheat

    • x3

      2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x5

      2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @Priptonite said...

    It absolutely is.

    For a player who can only afford to enter 1-3 NFL lineups per week, it would take them at least 2 seasons just to hit 100 entries. Don’t you think that player might be interested in entering lineups that give him a better chance of cashing, even if he’s giving up some top 0.001% finish equity?

    Compare that to someone who can submit that 2-seasons worth of entries into 1 contest.

    edit: lolmath

    If you’re at all worried about cashing in a GPP, you’re playing incorrectly. It doesn’t matter if you have 1 entry or 500, the correct way to play is to optimize your chances to finish in the top few spots.

  • Priptonite

    • Blogger of the Month

    @draftcheat said...

    If you’re at all worried about cashing in a GPP, you’re playing incorrectly. It doesn’t matter if you have 1 entry or 500, the correct way to play is to optimize your chances to finish in the top few spots.

    Not if you’d go broke trying.

  • pmsimkins

    • 2014 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @draftcheat said...

    If you’re at all worried about cashing in a GPP, you’re playing incorrectly. It doesn’t matter if you have 1 entry or 500, the correct way to play is to optimize your chances to finish in the top few spots.

    This I agree with you on. The issue is that only way to finish in the top 5 is create the lineup that scores the most. It’s as simple as that. The challenge in this game is scouting player performance not finding gimmicks, at least when playing minimal numbers of LUs.

    This discussion is like a venture capitalist arguing with a day trader over the best way to be an investor. The two guys are ultimately playing the same game, but their respective opinions are going to be very different based on how they’re playing.

  • hambazaza

    RG Blog Program Manager, 2014 RG Party Beer Pong Champion

    • Blogger of the Month

    • Beer Pong Champion

    @Priptonite said...

    Not if you’d go broke trying.

    You shouldn’t play dfs if you will go broke trying to win.

  • Priptonite

    • Blogger of the Month

    @hambazaza said...

    You shouldn’t play dfs if you will go broke trying to win.

    That’s not what I said…

    The odds of finishing top 5 in a massive GPP are very very low. For a low bankroll player only playing a few lineups per night, it might make more sense to enter lineups that sacrifices some of that top 5 equity to increase their chances of just cashing. They can chase bigger finishes when their bankroll is larger and can handle the volatility.

  • deactivated79425

    its not that damn hard i bet half the kids in america could make a decent team on most any day. you are thinking way to hard on this

  • realdeals

    @riverbandit said...

    its not that damn hard i bet half the kids in america could make a decent team on most any day. you are thinking way to hard on this

    A decent team doesn’t ever take down a GPP or really even cash. His analysis is referring to winning a GPP w/ 100k + entries.

  • chris1485

    I really don’t understand people that play minimal lineups trying to argue with people who play for much more money frequently. They are obviously doing something well, why would you not try to take analysis as just that. If you are so confident in your own strategies, then start betting more and stop criticizing people who are only trying to help.

  • 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).