INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • OsRitmos

    Given the criticism surrounding DFS in the last year or so (“scam”, “fraud”, etc.) why haven’t these sites attempted what nearly every single competitive video game in existence has done and implement a true skill-based rating system and forced players of similar skill-levels to player equally-skilled players? I can think of a few reasons, none of which could not be solved if they truly wanted to:

    1. LOST REVENUE – The theory here is that sharks would leave because their advantage essentially goes away. My argument is the “Wal Mart” philosophy. Pander to the average man! If more people won more often I strongly believe you would see MUCH higher retention rates, which directly impacts their bottom line. If you think the big prize pools is what attracts most fish, then advertise those contests as “ALL RANK” contests. Allow me to enter other, smaller, contests with players of my skill rating.

    2. MULTI-ACCOUNTING – How do you stop the big guys from creating multiple accounts, having friends enter, etc.? This is probably the biggest factor and most difficult to prevent. I would look to the financial sector for help on fraud prevention methods – they seem to have it down pretty good. This is not my expertise, so I’d love anyone’s input here.

    3. ADDED COMPLEXITY – This is a stretch, as nearly any competitive game ever created has a rating system, but this would further fragment their Lobby and potentially confuse new players. This is an easy fix with minimal amount of thought with regard to how to present it to the player.

    4. ??? – It’s late and I’m spent. I’m sure I’m missing something. I would love to hear your thoughts.

    In short, for the long-term health of this industry I think they really need to look into this (I’m sure they are, or already have – if so, I would LOVE to hear an explanation). In order to regain customer trust worldwide, I think they should . But then again, nothing these companies have exhibited long-term vision in the past, so why start now?

  • bigmike14

    If the pro’s really wanted to play against the pro’s, they would play them exclusivley in those 5k or 10k H2H’s or 3-5 man leagues.

  • Heterodox

    @sjs1890 said...

    So the best players shouldn’t play the best? The best in most professions have to compete against the best why should dfs be any different? That’s pretty much like Lebron asking Adam Silver if he can face the Sixers every game it just doesn’t work like that in a true competitive atmosphere.

    It’s funny that people think pro sports are a true competitive atmosphere. They are shows. Products. Heavily sponsored events.

    Do you understand the significance of sponsorships? It means you get paid even if you lose. If athletes had to play for a purse, they wouldn’t be trying to compete against the best.

    A few years ago, the Patriots intentionally lost a game so they could get the Jags in the first round of the playoffs instead of the Steelers. And they OWN the Steelers.

    I’ve made the video game comparison myself, criticized the sites for not having even basic matchmaking, but it just doesn’t hold. When I play video games, I go after the best player. That’s what’s fun for me. It’s boring beating people who don’t care all that much. The original Gears of War was great for this, because it also didn’t have matchmaking, and you could find the top players, always in certain maps, with loaded teams, especially on sunday nights so they could get a jump on the leaderboards for the week. I would think, “I’m going to lose. My team is random, theirs is loaded, they play more than I do, they have better connections, BUT, I’m still pretty good at this game, and I’m going to be a huge pain in the ass. I’m going to go after the best guy over there, and I’m going to get kills on him. Every kill I get is a win, even if I lose the game, because he’s a favorite, and he cares a lot about his KD. Fuck KD whores. I’m going to ruin his stats. I couldn’t care less about my own.”

    That was so much fun for me, it led to some pretty good competitions on those occasions where my random team turned out to be pretty decent, or some good players were willing to play on my side, but, if money were on the line, there’s no way I’d have been playing that way, because I’d have gone broke. And those guys wouldn’t have cared about their KDs or their rankings if they were taking my money.

    The new Gears is fantastic by the way. The last two and a half sucked.

  • CleverGroom

    @Heterodox said...

    Do you understand the significance of sponsorships? It means you get paid even if you lose. If athletes had to play for a purse, they wouldn’t be trying to compete against the best.

    Yeah. It’s also worth remembering that even without a ton of incentives to avoid fair competition, your team still cheats.

  • Heterodox

    @CleverGroom said...

    Yeah. It’s also worth remembering that even without a ton of incentives to avoid fair competition, your team still cheats.

    No doubt. They’re the best at it.

  • Heterodox

    CleverGroom, I assumed you were trolling me since I mentioned the Patriots. I see now you were probably making a larger point, but I don’t have time at the moment to address it in the context of the thread, so disregard my previous response.

  • L3gOnD

    This idea implies everyone play against equal competition. So in a world of perfect competition everyone would lose the rake. There would be zero profitable players and nobody would even have the hope of being profitable. In this world it would be impossible to overcome the 12-15% rake and playing DFS would be the same thing as burning money (give or take legality) for every player in the ecosystem.
    You have to love the world we live in, hard work isn’t acceptable…hate those who work hard and beg for even playing fields because those working harder and doing better have an “unfair” advantage. That “unfair” advantage is work ethic.

  • kantiger77

    It seems to me that the easiest system would be to do as the poster suggests, have a ranking system, and then have certain games available for those folks who only want to play similar skill levels. So, if a low stakes new player wanted to play the high stakes shark, they could, but there would also be games available (for lower prize pools, of course) for those who wanted to win a few bucks against similar skill levels.

  • CleverGroom

    @kantiger77 said...

    It seems to me that the easiest system would be to do as the poster suggests, have a ranking system, and then have certain games available for those folks who only want to play similar skill levels. So, if a low stakes new player wanted to play the high stakes shark, they could, but there would also be games available (for lower prize pools, of course) for those who wanted to win a few bucks against similar skill levels.

    There’s non-trivial costs to build, implement, and maintain that system, and it could potentially undermine or cannibalize existing contests. If the new system kills the ecosystem that’s currently supporting the sharks, they’d wither and die.

    You may think that’s a good thing, but they’re footing a disproportionate amount of the bill for this whole edifice. I’m not sure it’s sustainable without the superusers. Don’t think that a flatter, more casual playing field would be more popular with all the little people either: a lot of us are in this because we kid ourselves into thinking that one day, we’ll be sharks too.

    The world’s full of fun, competitive games that offer no clear path toward financial independence. If you’re not trying to earn a living at DFS, and you don’t want to lose your shirt playing against people who do, I feel like it’s just not your game. It’d be extremely tough to build a site that caters equally well to both groups.

  • michaelscarn

    So hilarious. This board is now a cesspool of laziness. Here’s an idea – just because you CAN play and earn money doesn’t meant you DESERVE to earn money.

    Play free rolls or get better. This new mentality of everything needs to be 100% equal always and everyone should get the same stuff even if it’s not deserved is a direct product of the trophy generation.

    Here’s a quote to live by – “don’t get bitter – get better”

  • scottmsteiner

    I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this bullshit. The skill in DFS is not just about picking the right plays, but about entering the right contests based on your bankroll or risk tolerance. The contests you should be entering are all there for you regardless of the “skill” of your opponent.

  • SelfCharmer

    Too many people use the Other people have a bigger bankroll excuse. I get that obviously in the mass multi entry contests (Milly Maker for example) being able to play a lot of LUs to get exposure to all the plays you like can be an advantage.

    But you do not have to enter it. There are tonnes of single entry contests, not the mention the fact that too many people simply cannot be bothered to game select. They just see a contest and click enter. How about you look who is already in the double up, and guess what, it even shows you how many entries people have. If you are not going to be bothered to game select, stop complaining that you cannot win

  • Roma315

    • 705

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #87

      RG Tiered Ranking

    When I spoke with a top account manager he said it was due to keeping players anonymous.

  • Jcb890

    @Roma315 said...

    When I spoke with a top account manager he said it was due to keeping players anonymous.

    And you believed that answer?

  • Tammy409

    @L3gOnD said...

    This idea implies everyone play against equal competition. So in a world of perfect competition everyone would lose the rake. There would be zero profitable players and nobody would even have the hope of being profitable. In this world it would be impossible to overcome the 12-15% rake and playing DFS would be the same thing as burning money (give or take legality) for every player in the ecosystem.
    You have to love the world we live in, hard work isn’t acceptable…hate those who work hard and beg for even playing fields because those working harder and doing better have an “unfair” advantage. That “unfair” advantage is work ethic.

    “Have to love the world we live in, hard work isn’t acceptable…hate those who work hard and beg for even playing fields because those working harder and doing better have an “unfair” advantage. That “unfair” advantage is work ethic.”

    I can buy this premise and postulate when expressed reasonably; rationally and intelligently as you’ve done here… I riled & ridiculed the RG Majority and its ass-backwards, whiny and weak grousing ( in the wake of DK NBA ‘Late Swap’) and stance that those who work harder should win more. The groupthink overwhelmingly was that ‘we deserve more because we A). Bet More, and B). Have greater Twitter skills. That “DK’s decision meant to even playing field” (not reason, but they believed) was akin to Communism . However: the irony was that what they were feeling entitled to more because they somehow worked harder or “participated more’ was really the “Socialist’ POV… As I stated to the group… “Harvard and M.I.T. don’t admit kids who study hard… They. select Geniuses.”

  • 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).