NBA FORUM

Comments

  • lordwu84

    The ResultsDB tool has been a great help in doing research and finding leaks in my though process. I noticed something curious from the main 10/25 Fall Festival tournament. Otto Porter vs. Lakers was the highest owned player by the public on the slate at 45%. Across any projection site I looked at, Porter had one of the highest value and projected ceilings, and had been crushing it in the past couple of games, and was in a tremendous spot vs. Lakers. Yet Youdacao, ChipotleAddict, and Awesomo all completely faded Porter: 0% ownership.

    It seems to me they are using similar models/thought process here and I can’t figure what they saw to fade Porter. If there’s something so basic I’m missing here, there is a massive leak in my game, albeit I’m a low stakes grinder. It can’t be as simple as fading public chalk, as why didn’t that apply to all of the other high owned players.

    Any thoughts on what led all of them to fade Porter?

  • scsa1998

    I know on the podcast that morning Seige and Stevie were both off porter. Honestly I don’t remember the reason though.

  • bucherpsu08

    Which site? I think his price was like $7500 on FD which is absurd IMO. I realize he had back to back games with a usage rate of 19 and 25 but his average is around the 15 mark. That’s a pretty steep price to pay for that.

  • scsa1998

    @bucherpsu08 said...

    Which site? I think his price was like $7500 on FD which is absurd IMO. I realize he had back to back games with a usage rate of 19 and 25 but his average is around the 15 mark. That’s a pretty steep price to pay for that.

    He was 5,900 on DK that day. Also wasn’t Jason Smith back

  • lordwu84

    This was on DK. He was 5900, Jason Smith was back but did not start and only ended up with 8 mins.

  • mellofellowsu

    I’m sure they had some exposure but I don’t see how you can trust Porter, as in have close to 50% exposure. He’s still relatively inconsistent.

    I think it was just probably more of a leverage play against the field due to his up/down nature rather than anything they saw. There’s no rhyme or reason as to when he’ll go off and when he’ll dud.

  • fathalpert

    • Moderator

    • Blogger of the Month

    “Otto Porter vs. Lakers was the highest owned player by the public on the slate at 45%.”

    Maybe that was the reason they faded? If someone is going to be 45% owned, perhaps that’s the time to do a fade.

  • acderryberry

    Because hes Otto Porter

  • thejulionation

    Played him on Draft….killing it. Thats where you play him.

  • CassBoom

    I wish I knew, but their models are sick

  • osuryanf

    It doesn’t make sense from a basketball perspective to fade him in a ridiculously good matchup, but some pro’s are pretty heavy set on fading the chalk at times. It’s a huge risk, no doubt, but if he tanks then they’re jumping 40%+ of the field.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    My guess is that it was all a game theory play. Winning huge GPP’s is not always about just trying to pick who you think the highest scoring players will be. Sometimes it’s about leveraging your ownership of players against the field. For example, if they projected Otto Porter to be 45% owned but I only thought he reaches his ceiling 10% of the time, yet they had someone at a similar price with similar upside, it would make much more sense to pivot off Porter to a much lower owned guy who could certainly outscore him that day.

  • walkoff9

    • 995

      RG Overall Ranking

    If he’s projected to be that highly owned many people are simply not going to have some exposure. I know personally that’s usually a 100% or 0% spot for me.

    On a historically volatile player it makes some sense. Obviously they knew the risk that if he came anywhere near his ceiling they were in trouble.

  • NoLimits0

    I don’t think pros make choices like the ones being described here. I actually think they largely ignore ownership and go with who they think are the absolute best plays. Tonight like all of them just went with chalk like Giannis, Jokic, Mitchell, whoever else.

    For porters situation, it could simply be these particular pros didn’t project him that high for that night. That was the night Jason Smith was potentially coming back and it was a blowout situation. I also bet they didn’t have Wall either.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @NoLimits0 said...

    I don’t think pros make choices like the ones being described here. I actually think they largely ignore ownership and go with who they think are the absolute best plays.

    I can guarantee this is false in large field GPP’s. Obviously cash games are different animal and they just play the optimal lineup. Same goes for some of the higher buy-in GPP’s with low entries. But in large field GPP, everything they do is based on ownership and their exposure to a particular player. Now that’s not to say they do not play chalk. Giannis could be 50% owned and you see him in all of the pros lineups. But my guess is they have 80-100% exposure to him. In this case, even though he is chalk overall, they have much higher exposure to him than the field. Ownership is not always just about fading a high owned player. It can also be about being over exposed to an already high owned player.

  • mellofellowsu

    @Stewburtx8 said...

    I can guarantee this is false in large field GPP’s. Obviously cash games are different animal and they just play the optimal lineup. Same goes for some of the higher buy-in GPP’s with low entries. But in large field GPP, everything they do is based on ownership and their exposure to a particular player. Now that’s not to say they do not play chalk. Giannis could be 50% owned and you see him in all of the pros lineups. But my guess is they have 80-100% exposure to him. In this case, even though he is chalk overall, they have much higher exposure to him than the field. Ownership is not always just about fading a high owned player. It can also be about being over exposed to an already high owned player.

    Good information here.

  • shockermandan

    • Moderator

    @NoLimits0 said...

    I actually think they largely ignore ownership and go with who they think are the absolute best plays

    Also agree this to be incorrect. NBA is different because sometimes chalk is chalk for a reason, but if you want to look at the most extreme cases, look at some of the stacks that get thrown out there by the heavy-volume folks in MLB. Ownership comes up huge in impacting those choices for the high volume guys.

  • NoLimits0

    Well I’ve actually done some analysis on this.

    So perhaps some players do take into account ownership but I doubt the majority of pros do. Obviously no pro is here to discuss this nor would they ever share their secrets, but I think the majority just run some optimizer that spits out the top 150 lineups and have some constraint like at least 2-5 unique players or something between 2 different lineups.

    If you are going to say like Giannis was 50% owned and pros have like near 100% exposure to him to get overexposure I don’t think that’s the correct logic. I think it just happens pros had Giannis rated as the highest player overall that night, so when they optimize their 150 lineups it happens Giannis is in nearly 100% of them simply becuase he was the highest rated player for them per price point. Since most pros have similar projections and pros make up like almost a third to half of the total entries in a GPP field, that’s why the overall ownership of Giannis becomes 50%.

    It’s the same logic with Otto porter. Maybe those pros the OP mentioned just simply didn’t have Porter rated that high so they didn’t choose him in any of the 150 lineups. If a player is rated not that high and you are optimizing for 150 lineups it makes mathematical sense you have him in 0% of them.

    To prove my point here, you can just historically look at the pros you mentioned. Youdacao almost like NEVER chooses Otto Porter on a large slate. Even when he’s projected for low ownership. This just proves my point that he simply doesn’t like Porter and like almost never chooses in his optimizer of 150 lineups. It has nothing to do with his projected ownership.

    It’s great in theory to think a lot of people pivot off of plays for ownership reasons, etc. but in reality I doubt most of the pros are actually practicing this. Some might but I think most literally just go with their top 150 and throw in a constraint like 2-5 unique players so the lineups are somewhat different. In theory it’s a great idea to talk about but I bet in practice most pros don’t do it. No pro will ever answer so this is just all speculation.

    Another point you can see with data that helps my point is that for all players under 5% owned, a 150 max player (it’s not 100% right but it’s a short handed way to define pro) is far less likely to own that player over 5% than a non 150 max guy. This means pros generally are far more likely to choose overall chalk plays than a random non pro and you can do this analysis yourself to confirm.

    The fact that pros (defined as 150 max) as an aggregate (again maybe some pros don’t fit this mold but the majority do) choose chalk plays at a higher % than non pros shows me that overall pros could care less about ownership and simply choose their lineups on their top 150 lineups, with the only constraint being unique players.

  • NoLimits0

    @shockermandan said...

    Also agree this to be incorrect. NBA is different because sometimes chalk is chalk for a reason, but if you want to look at the most extreme cases, look at some of the stacks that get thrown out there by the heavy-volume folks in MLB. Ownership comes up huge in impacting those choices for the high volume guys.

    I answered some stuff in the above post but as for this one, I disagree with what you are saying. Yes it’s true I’ve seen PG or CA employ this strategy, but overall most pros do not employ this strategy. Pros or max entry guys sometimes make up like a quarter to a third to maybe even almost half of the field for a large GPP. Let’s say they make up like 30% just for simplicity. The stacks you refer to (like when the Marlins went off on Darvish in Texas that won one of the brothers a ton of money) were at like 3% overall. This means that at most 10% of the pros thought like this, which is a super small majority of pros. The rest went with the standard optimizing plays, regardless of ownership.

    However, that 10% is a huge assumption. You are assuming that the 3% is made up of entirely pros. I took a look that night. That 3% on the Marlins was made up of 40% pros and 60% non-pros so yes pros had a bit of edge there (since overall pros were only 30%) and CA/PG had a lot to do with that 40% but it isn’t significant enough for you to say pros are choosing on these low ownership plays at a different rate than ordinary people who ignore low ownership plays.

    I think it just came out to be around 3% of overall people had the Marlins rated as the best stack that night, not that all 3% chose them simply to be contrarian.

  • billholler

    @NoLimits0 said...

    So perhaps some players do take into account ownership but I doubt the majority of pros do.

    I didn’t read anything after this first sentence because it is 100% wrong. Fading the chalk is the easiest way to win large field GPPs. Of course you lose if the chalk performs as expected but the players mentioned in the original post can afford to take that chance and it’s seemingly rare to see the chalk outperform expectations.

  • neogamer

    • x2

      2013 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    • 2015 FanDuel NBA Playboy Mansion Finalist

    @lordwu84 said...

    Youdacao, ChipotleAddict, and Awesomo all completely faded Porter: 0% ownership.

    There is a reason why you know these names. They make decisions like these and win big money doing so. Interestingly enough the Lakers have given up the least fantasy points in the league to small forwards. Casual players just see “vs Lakers” and load up on the guy coming off a big fantasy game. People who do this stuff for a living notice trends before the masses and take advantage of recency bias in large field tournaments.

  • NoLimits0

    @billholler said...

    I didn’t read anything after this first sentence because it is 100% wrong. Fading the chalk is the easiest way to win large field GPPs. Of course you lose if the chalk performs as expected but the players mentioned in the original post can afford to take that chance and it’s seemingly rare to see the chalk outperform expectations.

    Again good in theory. Don’t think any pros practice it. You guys are all overthinking this. They didn’t fade Porter because he was chalk. They faded him because he was a bad play that night in a blowout situation with Smith back. Simple as that. And you know what? Porter sucked that night so their projections were right. You are being too theoretical. The reason for the fade was becuase they didn’t project him that high. Youdacao never chooses Porter. I wonder why. Even when Porter isn’t chalk he doesn’t choose him. Because he’s just rated badly in his model as the 3rd option on a team.

    Saying something like they can afford to do so with many lineups is flat out wrong. They had 0% overall. 0/150 had him. If they wanted to do what you implied they would underweight him like 20/150 or 10/150. The fact it was 0/150 simply means he wasn’t projected high. Simple as that.

    And if they really care about fading the chalk how come all the pros had Donovan Mitchell yesterday who was chalk. How come they all had Jokic yesterday who was chalk. Nothing about fading chalk. Simple answer is Porter wasn’t projected high. You guys are going for a high level answer when the answer is simple.

  • billholler

    @NoLimits0 said...

    Again good in theory. Don’t think any pros practice it. You guys are all overthinking this. They didn’t fade Porter because he was chalk.

    Multiple people, including a few successful DFSers, have told you that you are wrong but you refuse to admit it. If you want to improve as a DFS player, you might want to accept your failings and listen to others.

    P.S. Yes they faded Porter because he was chalk. In regards to Mitchell and Jokic, they were both in great spots yesterday especially in reference to their values. I never said to ALWAYS fade the chalk. Sometimes it’s just more obvious.

  • superstars92

    This post is very misleading. You are cherry picking one instance in which several cherry picked pros happened to go 0% on a chalky player. If you want to do this correctly, you must look at many instances and look at all pros. So let’s say you only want to foucs on these 3 pros. That’s fine.

    So in that case, tell me all the times in the last year in which they went 0% on a player who was 40%+ owned by the field.

    I don’t know the answer, but say a player is owned 40% like 30 times in the past year (I just chose 30 but it might be 50, 100, I don’t know). If Otto Porter is your only example, and say like 29/30 times they did NOT go 0% on a player who was 40%+ owned and in fact say like 20/30 times, they even had 20%+ exposure to that player, I would say you just happened to find an odd situation.

    If 29/30 times they do not go 0% on a player who was 40% owned, I would just say they simply just didn’t value Porter very highly that night and it has nothing to do with ownership because why would they not do it the other 29 times? Now, if it’s a consistent thing and they do like 15/30 times they go 0% on a player who was 40% owned, then I would say that probably means an leveraged ownership play.

    Can’t really answer your question, but if you have those stats, get back to me because that will answer your question for you. Otherwise, people will just speculate.

  • hoax

    I have actually been researching purely this for my machine learning model for months now. Pro’s most definitely use ownership projections to ‘aid’ in their lineup creation process. I am by no means an expert at optimization yet and I think this is the whole secret to DFS. Making projections is relatively easy, but diversifying your player pool into the correct exposures to correlate with your risk tolerance, is a very tough thing to master. Since the riskiness of a player is equivalent to their variance, and their actual ownership on the slate, it is impossible to claim pros do not consider ownership when maxing out a big GPP. The whole objective of DFS as a whole is to beat EVERYONE in the field, not create the perfect lineup. Ignoring ownership is a losing strategy.

  • superstars92

    @hoax said...

    I have actually been researching purely this for my machine learning model for months now. Pro’s most definitely use ownership projections to ‘aid’ in their lineup creation process. I am by no means an expert at optimization yet and I think this is the whole secret to DFS. Making projections is relatively easy, but diversifying your player pool into the correct exposures to correlate with your risk tolerance, is a very tough thing to master. Since the riskiness of a player is equivalent to their variance, and their actual ownership on the slate, it is impossible to claim pros do not consider ownership when maxing out a big GPP. The whole objective of DFS as a whole is to beat EVERYONE in the field, not create the perfect lineup. Ignoring ownership is a losing strategy.

    How do you predict ownership? I know general ways like reading the forum and articles, but is there an exact science? I would say you are lucky if you are within 20% of the ownership . The best I can usually do is tell which players are chalky but I can never get exactly the right ownership. For example, tonight Steph will be massive chalk, but will it be 50 or 30%? No idea but that makes a difference. All I know is he’ll be massive chalk, and I’m sure everyone knows this.

    I believe leverage ownership only applies to choosing the sub 10-15% plays as like 40% plays. It’s hard to do a leverage ownership play in reverse, like with Steph tonight. A leverage ownership play would be like choosing Aaron Gordon over Draymond Green for example. However, completely fading Steph seems like not the point of this play (like completely fading Otto Porter Jr. in the OP’s example).

  • 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).