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.

  • sethayates

    @psualum said...

    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

    If we are going to use this analogy then I’ll point out that there are several smaller “tables” where the fish can go to avoid sharks.

    If you try out any of the smaller DFS sites you’ll find a lot less pros. Every site has it’s own unique salary and scoring. Many of the pros don’t find it worth their time to go after the prize pools on these sites. Especially in a sport like NBA or MLB the best of the best aren’t going to have lineups going on eight or nine different sites. If they do and a late scratch happens they’ll have to prioritize which lineups they can fix which will be the on the Big Two where most of their action is.

    If you want games with less sharks go play on a smaller site. Obviously, the prize pools are much smaller though and when you do have that huge day it will likely to be for hundreds instead of thousands but that’s the tradeoff you make in order to avoid pros.

  • psualum

    I’ve got to disagree with you on a few points, and agree on 1 point you made Seth.

    1) You are right, I could avoid sharks by playing on smaller sites, and I’m considering doing just that with some of my cash game play in NFL this year. Theres nothing wrong with doing so, and I as a avid player know or can find out where sharks are currently not playing.

    2) However, that doesn’t mean that should be the only option. Nor is it likely to be an option for a majority of people who don’t even know of FantasyDraft, Aces, or other small sites

    3) I was not primarily talking about GPP’s, I was more so referencing cash games (50/50, double/triple ups, h2h’s). GPP’s, outside of the Quarter Arcade, should not be restricted in my view.

  • FrancisBooth

    @sethayates said...

    If we are going to use this analogy then I’ll point out that there are several smaller “tables” where the fish can go to avoid sharks.

    If you try out any of the smaller DFS sites you’ll find a lot less pros. Every site has it’s own unique salary and scoring. Many of the pros don’t find it worth their time to go after the prize pools on these sites. Especially in a sport like NBA or MLB the best of the best aren’t going to have lineups going on eight or nine different sites. If they do and a late scratch happens they’ll have to prioritize which lineups they can fix which will be the on the Big Two where most of their action is.

    If you want games with less sharks go play on a smaller site. Obviously, the prize pools are much smaller though and when you do have that huge day it will likely to be for hundreds instead of thousands but that’s the tradeoff you make in order to avoid pros.

    For the most part you can avoid them on smaller sites, but as I said before there are definitely “pros” I have seen on Aces that play ridiculously small stakes. Last night for example I saw one in 50 cent, 1.10, and 2.75 50/50s and not the 5.50 one. As I pointed out before I have also seen “pros” on there that only play the 2.75 gpp and not the 11 or higher. No one is at fault but you would hope “pros” would have a little bit more class.

  • deactivated51600

    I do find it confusing why someone like ChipotleAddict, Ranked #4th overall and as 4th Tourney Player of Year, feels the need to multi enter the Quarter Arcade. Maybe I am just stupid and missing something.

    https://www.draftkings.com/contest/gamecenter/27547915

  • deactivated51600

    @ThatStunna said...

    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.

    You are quite the hypocrite considering you yourself are one of the ‘needy’ people you are criticizing that feel the need to be in 25 cent events. Nice hit tonight with your max entries in the Quarter Arcade! And same on your 103 entries in the $4 Slurve. Very nice scores.

  • deactivated51600

    @sethayates said...

    If we are going to use this analogy then I’ll point out that there are several smaller “tables” where the fish can go to avoid sharks.

    If you try out any of the smaller DFS sites you’ll find a lot less pros. Every site has it’s own unique salary and scoring. Many of the pros don’t find it worth their time to go after the prize pools on these sites. Especially in a sport like NBA or MLB the best of the best aren’t going to have lineups going on eight or nine different sites. If they do and a late scratch happens they’ll have to prioritize which lineups they can fix which will be the on the Big Two where most of their action is.

    If you want games with less sharks go play on a smaller site. Obviously, the prize pools are much smaller though and when you do have that huge day it will likely to be for hundreds instead of thousands but that’s the tradeoff you make in order to avoid pros.

    Seth, genuinely curious, if one can afford to invest ~$4950 maxing out 150 entries in the $33 250k fastball… why would they also feel the need to have $12.50 invested in the quarter arcade?

  • 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).