MAIN FORUM

Comments

  • Mphst18

    Should contestants who are the sites top revenue contributors (could use previous month reward level platinum or black as a disqualifier) be playing in these contests (like the quarter arcade) and should it be the sites responsibility to curb this activity rather than a morality honor code/question.

    Yes there are beginner tournaments but the pools size and prizes are not the same risk/reward as the normal GPPS where a beginner now has to play against individuals who are entering contests from $1k down and IMO shouldn’t be in quarter arcade GPPS.

  • tooltime

    I don’t see why a person who plays a 1k buy in should not be able to play a .25 buy in. I see a problem with them being in everything. It would be nice to play a 50/50 or double up with different people. There should be a lower limit of how many contests 1 person can enter a day.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    I think there should be some restrictions on the quarter arcade. They should be beginner contests that allow newer players to familiarize themselves with GPP’s and try out different strategies in my opinion. My average buy-in is around $20. I typically focus on the $27-33 range GPP’s. Thousands of people play much higher than me. But even at that level (I would never play the quarter arcade anyway), I think I personally should be restricted from playing the quarter arcade.

    But I would be against any restrictions beyond that. Some of the $3 buyin prize pools are huge and should be available to everyone.

  • sports_nerd

    The only way this would happen is if further regulation was demanded by lawmakers. The sites would never do it, because the DFS company’s reliable profit is from the “high rollers.” I believe it’s highly likely for a new upcoming DFS site to further regulate and protect the low dollar games from the high roller sharks that enter every contest. I feel it definitely needs to be regulated in the 50/50s and dbl ups. When I see names in the $1 dbl ups that are also in the $1000 dbl ups, it doesn’t sit well. If I wanted to play someone with that type of DFS success, I will just challenge them in a H2H, but right now I don’t, that’s why I play the $1.

    Regulations could enforce a per slate spent dollar restriction up to $2 buyin, because I agree with Stew, $3 GPP have decent prize pools. Example: if a player for a given slate spent more than $250 on that slate, they will be rejected for the $0.25 contests. If they loophole and enter those contests first, they will be rejected to go beyond $250. For the $1 contests, those who spend less than $500 per slate. And $2 contest, those that spend less than $1000.

  • g_nagy

    FD has total contest entry limits for < $10 (500 for NFL and 250 for every other sport), so that helps some. You can always use Yahoo’s product where they have a max total of 10 entries in any GPP and certain cash games without “veterans” allowed. Those are a few reasons why I’m not the biggest fan of DK compared to the above, other two, sites.

  • BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX

    • 43

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #9

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x4

      2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    I just started playing DK recently, and max enter the quarter arcade, is this immoral?

  • Mphst18

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    I think there should be some restrictions on the quarter arcade. They should be beginner contests that allow newer players to familiarize themselves with GPP’s and try out different strategies in my opinion. My average buy-in is around $20. I typically focus on the $27-33 range GPP’s. Thousands of people play much higher than me. But even at that level (I would never play the quarter arcade anyway), I think I personally should be restricted from playing the quarter arcade.

    But I would be against any restrictions beyond that. Some of the $3 buyin prize pools are huge and should be available to everyone.

    Agreed that is why I put in the title of the thread top prize also less than $10k.

    I also agree that they shouldn’t be allowed to enter H2H or double ups les than a certain dollar level (not sure what that number should look like, $20, $10).

  • AssaniFisher

    • 74

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #50

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x2

      2015 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x6

      2016 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    I think the overall topic of this thread is a very worthwhile discussion. I like the idea of barring the top ~50 pros from playing the quarter arcade. I like the changes both sites have made in recent months to have more beginner’s costs and restrictions on pros entering low stakes contests. I think its an interesting and somewhat admirable stance for a top pro to refrain from playing low stakes. With that said…

    I think its ridiculous to even raise the question of whether its the sites responsibility or an honor code question. Of course its the sites responsibility. Due to the low cost of the entry fees, I think people might be underestimating the % of a pro’s income that comes from low stakes(the GPPs mentioned in this thread + $5 and below cash games). With the increasingly tougher competition and the lack of a continued rake % decrease past the $500 level on DraftKings, many of the high stakes contests that go off result in every player being -EV. I’m totally guessing here and would welcome anyone who has data to correct me, but I would say the top 50 pros are expected to make an average of $150k in 2016 and $15,000 of that comes from low stakes. In 2015, before some of the changes were made, low stakes probably made up an even higher percentage. Making a moral judgment about another person because they make $150k and won’t give up $15k in the hope that it makes a discernible difference in the low stakes economy of an online game(which it won’t btw) is utterly absurd imo. I can’t take a person seriously if they legitimately entertain this viewpoint, and I don’t think they are worth listening to when it comes to having a conversation about proper rules and regulations for DFS.

  • sethayates

    @AssaniFisher said...

    I think the overall topic of this thread is a very worthwhile discussion. I like the idea of barring the top ~50 pros from playing the quarter arcade. I like the changes both sites have made in recent months to have more beginner’s costs and restrictions on pros entering low stakes contests. I think its an interesting and somewhat admirable stance for a top pro to refrain from playing low stakes. With that said…

    I think its ridiculous to even raise the question of whether its the sites responsibility or an honor code question. Of course its the sites responsibility. Due to the low cost of the entry fees, I think people might be underestimating the % of a pro’s income that comes from low stakes(the GPPs mentioned in this thread + $5 and below cash games). With the increasingly tougher competition and the lack of a continued rake % decrease past the $500 level on DraftKings, many of the high stakes contests that go off result in every player being -EV. I’m totally guessing here and would welcome anyone who has data to correct me, but I would say the top 50 pros are expected to make an average of $150k in 2016 and $15,000 of that comes from low stakes. In 2015, before some of the changes were made, low stakes probably made up an even higher percentage. Making a moral judgment about another person because they make $150k and won’t give up $15k in the hope that it makes a discernible difference in the low stakes economy of an online game(which it won’t btw) is utterly absurd imo. I can’t take a person seriously if they legitimately entertain this viewpoint, and I don’t think they are worth listening to when it comes to having a conversation about proper rules and regulations for DFS.

    My intention here isn’t to make this a political debate but I read something interesting yesterday. Here is an article about Trump not releasing his tax returns.

    That’s not what I want to discuss though. Scroll down to the bottom of the article to this portion.

    Trump’s strategy to ease his company’s tax burden has resulted in sore feelings in some communities, where local governments rely heavily on tax receipts from large businesses. In Ossining, N.Y., home to a Trump National Golf Club, town officials say that a tax break being sought by the company would cost their coffers more than $200,000 a year. In seeking the reduction, Trump’s attorneys have claimed that the club is worth far less than the roughly $15 million value assessed by the city.

    Trump’s attorneys have filed papers with the state claiming that the “full market value” of the property is $1.4 million. The same golf course appears on Trump’s new financial disclosure form released this week as part of his presidential campaign — valued by him at more than $50 million.

    The above article is from May 21 but this dispute is actually ongoing. It highlights the same issue that we see here. Trump is doing what any smart business man would do. He’s contesting the assessed value of his property which will lower his property taxes. Why would he just hand over an extra $200,000 per year if he doesn’t have to?

    Some might say, “Trump is a billionaire, it’s not fair that he’s dodging $200K in taxes that a small town drastically needs.” Who are we to say what someone else’ financial situation is? I have no idea what Saahil Sud makes off DFS. Let’s say that number is $1M every year and of that, he wins $20K off contests lower than $10. Certainly, he doesn’t need that extra $20K. It is only 0.01% of his income. If the site prevents him from winning that $20K I’m sure he won’t throw a fit. However, if the site lets him play those contests and he can win that $20K with relative ease why wouldn’t he? What kind of person walks away from $20,000 of easy money on moral grounds? There aren’t many that would. (Yes, I realize there are players that do). Developing an ecosystem is 100% the job of the sites. We shouldn’t judge anyone for entering any contest that the site is willing to let them play.

  • TheRyanFlaherty

    @BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX said...

    I just started playing DK recently, and max enter the quarter arcade, is this immoral?

    As someone that typically plays low stakes on DK I don’t think it’s immoral.
    It’s not breaking any rules and the goal of DFS is to maximize profit, I look at my bankroll and game selection every day in an attempt to balance/maximize profit, so to criticize you for doing the same would be disingenuous.

    I do however think it is a worthwhile discussion.
    I’d tend to agree with the OP. My assumptions being that those games are populated by new/casual players, so allowing those games to be an area where those players can profit and have some success will be great for the overall growth of DFS.
    The money is going to float up. So it’s been my stance that seeing Top 10 players in these games is forsaking dollars tomorrow to steal pennies today.
    Again, no problem with that, but it does seem shortsighted.

    Speaking for myself, I play those games because I’m someone that deposited $25 a year and a half ago. I play everyday, most of the time treading water, but taking a shot at bigger prizes. and now I have around $125. I play those games because it makes sense within my bankroll.
    If I hit a thousand dollars tonight my game selection would change instead of a $1 Gpp, .25 league, .25 booster. I’d take the step up and go to $3 GPP, $1 League, $1 Booster. (Possibly higher as I realize that second ex. could even fit within proper bankroll management with my current total, but I’ve gone lower because I’ve really struggled with MLB DK this year. It’s been a cycle of losing about 2 weeks straight then having one good night to make it back….For my own sanity I’ve chosen to risk less each night.)

    But that is working under the assumption that many casual/new players are frequenting those games and that losing consistently to highly skilled players would negatively effect them and make them less likely to re-deposit.
    That could be off base, so they’d really need to do a study on quite a few things to know for sure how big of an issue this really is….

  • Mphst18

    @AssaniFisher said...

    I think its ridiculous to even raise the question of whether its the sites responsibility or an honor code question

    100% agree it’s the sites responsibility but wasn’t sure if you were going to chime in with the same asinine nonsense you say that we can’t expect the sites to have the capability to do things like this as you do around policing their own data and infractions

    Also I find it hard to listen to the same guy who is bragging about his ROI from the Quarter arcade which is the same guy who played H2H down to $1 before others had to point out the ridiculousness of it.

    https://rotogrinders.com/threads/thoughts-on-improving-rake-structure-1405406

  • Mphst18

    @sethayates said...

    t

    I mean I’m not trying to have an entire Business Ethics discussion with you that just because it may be legal to put a plant in a third world country that will save you millions in labor costs but will cause an environmental disaster to the third world country means you should do it (cause that makes you a smart business person) or state the argument well if I don’t do it someone else will.

    If you want to grow your customer base both from a numbers perspective and a beginner customers grow their bankroll perspective in order to play in more games at equal or higher levels you may want to steer away from what could turn them off from playing entirely which is the type of behaviors we are discussing.

  • tooltime

    It would be nice if they made a tourny just for people with real jobs who like sports and don’t have rich parents.

  • ThatStunna

    • 33

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #7

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    I’m not really sure who are the needy people that need to boost their ROI in the quarter arcade by 10%. The fraction of winning professional player entries in the small stakes GPPs is probably small and it’s 25 freaking cents. If these people are putting in 10 entries, then they are acting like they seriously want to win money and don’t really deserve added protection.

    I would like to see some satellites for only lower VIP tier players, since they will have to compete against all levels of players with whatever contest ticket they win and perhaps don’t want to deal with 25 regulars in a 35 person satellite. I would also like to see a cap on lower stakes entries on DraftKings, even if it’s only at the $1 level and excludes large GPPs; I think there’s a cap of 50 but it’s really hard to actually hit that. It seems like newer players will get ground up in $1 contests and that’s a bit harsh.

    Alternatively, a restriction on joining (but not posting) small $1 contests could have a similar effect. A lot of sites could benefit from that, actually; I feel like a lot of new players could be scared off when they post one $1 head to head per day and it’s rapidly taken by a veteran.

  • jecarl2

    Any leagues less than $5 should block scripting. Done problem solved

  • deactivated51600

    @AssaniFisher said...

    I can’t take a person seriously if they legitimately entertain this viewpoint, and I don’t think they are worth listening to when it comes to having a conversation about proper rules and regulations for DFS.

    Interesting take.

  • BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX

    • 43

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #9

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • x4

      2018 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @jecarl2 said...

    Any leagues less than $5 should block scripting. Done problem solved

    Scripting? You mean, the ability to upload multiple lineups, and edit those lineups (on DK)? All you need is excel for that.

    I can assure you that I’ve never once used any type of script, and I max out small stakes tournaments on both FD and more recently, DK..

  • ThatStunna

    • 33

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #7

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • 2016 DraftKings FFWC Finalist

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX said...

    Scripting? You mean, the ability to upload multiple lineups, and edit those lineups (on DK)? All you need is excel for that.

    I can assure you that I’ve never once used any type of script, and I max out small stakes tournaments on both FD and more recently, DK..

    “Scripting” nowadays is a catchall word for “using numbers and/or computers and/or anything I don’t use to do better than I”.

    Google sheets is free and fairly functional for anyone who wants to try “scripting”.

  • znmeb

    @BRORANNOSAURUS_FLEX said...

    Scripting? You mean, the ability to upload multiple lineups, and edit those lineups (on DK)? All you need is excel for that.

    I can assure you that I’ve never once used any type of script, and I max out small stakes tournaments on both FD and more recently, DK..

    And I’m also quite sure you know there’s more to it than just the ability to upload and edit lineups in bulk. If the lineups suck 50 of them will suck 50 times as much as a single one. I just recently started playing 50x in the quarter arcade and I’ve seen your numbers – they’re quite impressive. I hope I can get that good before MLB shuts down for the year. ;-)

  • golferdude31

    • 2016 King of Summer Champion

    I think 1 solution to this problem is to create a way that players can block more than just 3 people from competing against them in head to heads. This way you can block all of the pros that you don’t want to compete against in that manner. I also think they should simply create more beginner contests for people who have a combined career winnings less than x dollars. I don’t see any reason to ban or restrict big time pros from competing in low buy in tournaments. It’s just as much their right as it is anyone else’s to be able to play at any level of buy in.

  • FrancisBooth

    I’m not going to name names obviously, but as a new yorker I have only been playing on Aces until a couple weeks ago. MLB is by far my worst sport. I go broke on it every year. Recently I built my roll back up to where I could play in 11 dollar tourneys as well as the 2.75 ones. The first night I entered, I noticed someone who is right outside RG top 100 who I know for a fact has won some huge tourneys entering the 2.75 tourney and NOT the 11 tourney. I have seen this person in their 50 cents double ups as well, and when I used to play on draft day them and another pro would be in the 25 cent tourneys. I do think that playing in the small stakes tourneys when you have that large of a roll is extremely scummy. Obviously it is the sites job to police this, but you would hope that people that are trying to “help the community” would not be so scummy.

  • Sporin

    Interesting discussion, I wish I had a great answer. I’m a daily player but my daily play is between 25 cents and $5 depending on the sport and my bankroll at the time.

    I admit it, I’m not very good, particularly at MLB. I play a little bit every day because it’s fun and the chance of winning a few more bucks to keep playing is enticing. I play against friends in small leagues, etc.

    Currently the sites offer Beginner Games but that really only covers newbies and assumes that after playing X number of times we all get really good… that’s really not true, as i know all too well.

    Maybe instead of creating games simply for new players, they can create games that exclude people with bankrolls in the 4 and 5 digits? I think that would do a lot more to keep the sharks out of the low level games than anything else.

  • billholler

    So in other words, you don’t want rich folks going to your Walmart and buying the discounted day old bread. Makes sense.

  • Sporin

    @billholler said...

    So in other words, you don’t want rich folks going to your Walmart and buying the discounted day old bread. Makes sense.

    Just throwing out an idea, but it’s not a terrible analogy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    If a real shark wants to keep their bankroll artificially low just so they can fleece us minnows then so be it. But that would preclude them from playing the high stakes contests they actually need and want to play.

    Are there sharks intentionally seeking out noobs to pillage? I’m sure there are. But I suspect that most of the big players only play these cheapie games because it’s easy to just throw their lineups in them, and it’s so cheap that it’s basically no big deal from their money perspective.

    Good dialogue either way.

  • Sporin

    Also, I agree with sethayates in that, as long as the rules are what they are, you really can’t fault the big boys for playing the small contests if they choose too, it’s their right.

    So if the sites want to actually minimize this in a meaningful way, they need to find a metric that makes sense, and I don’t think it’s simply Number of Games Played because we’ve been doing that for years and it hasn’t changed anything.

    By throwing a sitting bankroll limit on SOME contests, you can keep the big boys out of the kiddie pool. It won’t preclude folks who truly just want to manipulate things and take advantage of the minnows, but it will drastically cut down on the top players throwing their lineups into cheaper games just because they are there.

    Again, just ideas, and discussion.

  • psualum

    • 744

      RG Overall Ranking

    I’ve used this example before, but i think Its poignant to the topic..

    Take a top poker player. Initially, a poker player obviously limited to 1 table at a time. No matter how good he was, he had to make a calculation of what stakes/players combined to give him his best expected $/hour. There was no way he could chase every fishy game at the $1/$2 blinds.. they were limited by having to physically be at the table. The distribution of talent was sorted out by the highest stake they could beat (or felt willing to attempt to) and rec players were mostly left to their own devices at the lowest buyin levels.

    With the advent of internet poker, the most gifted people could simultaneously play maybe 50 tables at once. Most had to play less then this obviously. Even in this environment, there were several sites running; a rec player could easily avoid playing top pros if they were so inclined to do so, and most pros were not inclined to go chasing after 10c/25c games (even knowing they would have destroyed them) because the $/hour was just not there when they could easily beat bigger stakes as well. They were limited by the resource of time and concentration ability. Though they no longer had to be at the table physically, there was no way they could viably chase all of the fishy rec games running on the site at a given moment. Again, they would most likely direct themselves to the highest stakes they could reliably beat.

    That brings us now to DFS. The top players in DFS are not constrained at this point by any of the inherent limitations of poker that helped to indirectly protect the rec player from being devoured by a few top sharks. You do not need to physically be present at a table or a computer during gameplay to participate. You are not limited in how many contests you can enter, be it from computer RAM, inability to concentrate, or having your physical presence at a table required. There is nothing stopping a top pro from playing $1k and $1 50/50’s simultaneously. The decision of which game offers the best $/hour is no longer relevant from a game selection standpoint – you can now play the highest level you can beat, along with EVERY level below it simultaneously.

    This is likely not going to resolve itself within the community.. asking pro’s to voluntarily surrender an edge is never going to happen. But I do think that if the state governments were serious about regulations, and the sites were serious about protecting their player pool from drying up, something would be put in place to prevent pro players from playing so many buyin levels at once.

    TL;DR
    We need to put a mechanism in place that brings back the decision of what buyin level a pro should play at, rather then allowing them to play at all levels at once

  • 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.