|
Put in 55 lineups this week, about 90% GPPs, on DK and FD. Figured I'd post my exposure percentages by position. There's obviously a ton of value in week 1 which means there are even more combinations than usual that are promising for GPPs, hence the wide variety in my picks here.code:
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
lloyol posted:My Millionaire Maker roster went busto but I also entered a $9, $400k slant guaranteed with a rushed selection of a roster. I was in the money around mid-day but swapped out Bridgewater and Randle for Romo and Terrence Williams minutes before SNF started. I'm in 467th and have 155.04 with Peterson tomorrow. Looking forward to the sweat! Similar. I'm 162/95833 in a $3 tournament with Peterson to go. My lowest score in that lineup came from Odell. Oh, what could have been. Still, I think I could get a good cash here. Not the Millionaire Maker but if it keeps me in the green for the week I'm happy. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Effort post incoming... This week didn't end so well... something from AP would have been a boost to my top lineup but still, multiple lineups in the top 1K out of 100,000 is fine by me. Finished just above even for the week. Still, a bit frustrating as I felt I had a lot of hits on value plays, but most of my lineups had some big misses as well. I feel like intuitively I should have done better; what I'm thinking is that I need a way to spread out my combinations of players more evenly. Creating lineups by hand, one at a time, I get multiple players in my head at once. I'm making lineups and I'm trying to increase my exposure to Benny Cunningham at the same time as I'm trying to get more Frank Gore, for example. Hit on one but it's canceled out. Even if I'm aware of these combinations and trying to ensure variety I think I end up with more "clumpiness" than is optimal. So, I've been thinking about developing a better strategy. At the same time I've been watching the developments of various DFS strategy sites over the past year and the proliferation of "lineup optimizer" tools. These all seem to be doing linear programming: given a set of linear constraints (for example, sum of salary must be less than or equal to X, sum of # of RBs must be exactly 2, etc). This type of problem can be solved easily and so the application of linear programming to DFS is cropping up as a web service available at many sites that offer fantasy-point projections. However, the true problem of setting lineups is not a linear optimization problem, it is a stochastic optimization problem. There is uncertainty in some of the elements of the problem: the salaries are known, but the fantasy points are not. Going off the mean or median expected fantasy points produces good lineups for cash games but offers no way to truly take advantage of the tails of the expected point distributions, which is where you need to hit to win a GPP. I have been doing some reading on stochastic linear optimization and I think I finally figured out a system for creating an optimal portfolio of GPP lineups. It is easy to implement and I am excited to try it out. The one piece missing, though, is projections in terms of probability distributions as opposed to medians or means (I need to generate Monte Carlo simulations of all fantasy points scores). I am firmly a believer in taking advantage of the work of others (not to say being a leech---standing on the shoulders of giants and all that), so I have little desire to make my own projection model when there are so many out there. Even though I have academic experience with mixed-effect regression I don't think my time would be well spent putting together my own model of fantasy point performances. So many people are doing it, that even if they aren't doing it right I think there's little edge there. The edge, I think, is in working out a better method for how to use projections; that is how to go from the projections to the lineups. If at all possible I'd like to get into this area. (and just to be clear, I am only thinking about implementing a stochastic optimization strategy for myself and collaborators, maybe posting lineups it generates, but I have no intention of making a web service in the foreseeable future). Basically, my approach will formalize the intuition behind a "spray and pray" GPP strategy. So, here are my options:
Why am I posting this? I'm wondering if anyone wants to collaborate. I'm not sure if anyone else is interested in going to this level, but if you already have a projection model that does reasonably well, we could work together to create probability distributions from it (if it doesn't generate them already). Alternatively I could use help to make a more realistic model of the expected points distributions using the numberfire SD as a predictory of variability (among others). I've got a lot going on in my life so I only have the weekends really to work on this. With the right help I could get this done quickly, I think. The stochastic optimization method I want to use is deceptively simple. The hard part is getting the projections in the form of distributions in the first place. If anyone is interested in helping, please PM me. Please don't PM me if you just want get onboard but don't plan on contributing. I promise I will come back and share the strategy once it is coded up and paired with a model. Also, I mentioned in the other thread that I have been working on tools to scrape lots of data sources, mostly for archival purposes (what I would need the data for is only just becoming clear to me). I don't want to make this code public but I have no problem sharing it with you all. PM me a GitHub username and I will give you read access to the repository. Currently I have the following modules. Each runs from the command line and saves to a CSV or HDF file. code:Anyways, those are my thoughts and plans after week 1. Looking forward to hear from some of you, even if it's just to mock me and my nerdiness (and my abysmal dollars per hour return of the time I've spent working on NFL DFS).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
On the way to implementing my Master PlanTM, I made some correlation plots similar to the ones I made last year. Correlations range from -1 to +1 and describe the connection between two variables. A positive correlation means that they tend to swing in the same direction (for example, temperature is positively correlated with air conditioner usage). A negative correlation means that they tend to swing in opposite directions (for example, car ownership rates are negatively correlated with public transit usage). In general, consensus is to avoid negative correlations and seek positive correlations in GPPs, and the reverse in cash games. Putting positive correlations in your lineup will result in a higher variance for that lineup: more likely to hit big but also more likely to miss completely. Instead of splitting it up, I did it in kind of confusing way to get all the info on the same plot. Along the diagonal, the correlations are between players at the same position on opposing teams. For example, the top left square (on the first graph I'll post) shows a weak positive correlation (.073) between opposing QBs. Above the diagonal, the correlations are between players on the same team. For example, the second square in the top row shows a moderately weak positive correlation (.14) between the QB and RB1 on the same team. Below the diagonal, the correlations are between players on opposing team. For example, the first square in the second row shows a very weak positive correlation (.017) between a QB and the opposing RB1. I should add some kind of indicator for these different regions of the chart but I don't have any good ideas. Fantasy-point correlations Note: all correlations are multiplied by 100 to reduce the number of zeros. So the range is from -100 to 100.  Points to note: the correlations are modest overall. Obviously the QB is highly positively correlated with his receivers. Perhaps surprisingly the QB is positively correlated with the RBs on the team as well. The kicker is positively correlated with the big scorers on the offense and even more positively correlated with the defense. The defense is positively correlated with RB1 but has little relationship with anyone else (besides the kicker). Probably the most surprising to me is the positive correlation between RB1 and WR1 on the same team. On opposing teams, perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest correlations are negative ones between the defense and the other team. There is some positive correlation among the passing games on opposing teams. But, in my opinion, these aren't the correlations to look at. After all, the WR1 and the WR2 always have the same QB throwing to them. They always play the same defenses, and experience the same game script. And those are factors that you are already taking into account if you are doing it right. So, taking these correlations at face value will result in an overestimation of the tendency of these scores to swing in one direction. What we want to know is not "how are fantasy points correlated" but "how are deviations from what I otherwise expect to happen correlated?" To get an index of general expectations, I used numberfire's 2014 weekly projections. Correlations in projected fantasy points  This graph shows, in a sense, the correlations in our expectations of player performances. My example stands out: WR1 and WR2 on the same team are much more highly correlated here than in the previous chart. Correlations in projection errors To put it together, here are the correlations in the projections errors. How much are the swings (relative to what we already expected to happen in our basic analysis) correlated?  Here, some of the correlations from the first plot are toned down; for example, the same-team RB1-WR1 correlation goes away. This correlation in the first plot was not due to unpredictable swings, but rather the factors that we are already taking into account when we rank the players every week. I think these are the correlations you should keep in mind making your DFS lineups. Conclusions Aside from the obvious ones (QB to his targets, kicker to rest of team, and defense to opposing offense), correlations should not be a big factor in your decisions. They are pretty small overall. Notes I assigned each player a position on the depth chart by ranking their fantasy-point projections (i.e., not the actual performances). I am saving rotoworld's depth charts for this season so this can be more accurate going forward. Also, I only have data from 2014 so the sample sizes are small. I could have incorporated 2015 week 1 but  . I have that data but it's in a slightly different format, but eventually I'll be incorporating 2015 data (if people are interested I could update this every week, but the changes won't be that interesting). Without actually calculating a significance threshold I can say with some confidence that all or nearly all of these correlations are not significant. Past fantasy-point totals are easy enough to get but I can't analyze the swings meaningfully without projections as well. And I am not comfortable assigning players to their position on the depth chart based on results alone. The fantasydata.com historical package has historical depth charts, but it costs $799 so I'll have to take down a GPP first  .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
I saved numberfire 2014 weekly projections but I would love to have more. Feel free to use them yourself: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kimu8bw9i0hsdcv/numberfire-2014.csv This year I'm saving everything I can think of. Edit: I just checked numbefire and they do have weekly projections for every player. I'm wondering if what I scraped last year was not the weekly projection made just before that week but rather the weekly projection made at the beginning of the season for all future weeks. Hmm.. I also have CSVs from many but not all weeks, from the FantasyPros cheatsheet. It would take some work to put that all together. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
I love NFL but I don't think there's enough games in a season to even out variance. Even if you play cash games. If you're a degenerate like me who prefers tournaments then you will never beat variance. I mean, maybe in 20 years I'll have played enough NFL slates to know if my strategies work, but probably that still wouldn't be enough. For that reason alone I'm tempted to play other sports. But I'm scared off of NBA because of the need to pay such close attention to gametime decisions. And I'm scared off of MLB because of the ridiculous day-to-day variance, even if over the course of a super long season it would balance out. Actually, that gives me an idea. Do any DFS sites do multi-day MLB slates? Like you get 5 games of each team? That could be pretty awesome actually.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Yup my best lineup this week was my cash lineup. Currently winning over 90% of H2Hs. Note to self: always enter cash lineup in a tournament.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I agree. It definitely looks bad for DK and there's been a bunch of mistakes recently. The sites look unprofessional and need to clean up their act if they're going to keep rolling out the ads. On the other hand I wouldn't draw a connection to Ethan's win on FD and have no problem with DFS employees playing on other sites. This is not anywhere near "insider trading" as some are saying. I'd be more worried about someone who works for the NFL than someone who works for a DFS site.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
cams posted:the percentages in question that helped him win were those that say who is being started by more players. if you know who is and is not being started by a percentage of the players, you know where you can find points that other players are not expecting. He received the ownership numbers after the FanDuel lineups locked so it seems unlikely that they helped him win. Not to mention that there are publicly available projections of ownership percentages that are more accurate than using DK ownership percentages on FD.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:And what ownership website is updated within an hour of locking? If that were the case we could make BANK on DK late swaps. FantasyPros projects Fanduel ownership percentages based on the Thursday slate. They model how the ownership numbers change from Thursday to Sunday. I would imagine even the simplest model (take away Thursday players, increase the other numbers accordingly) is more accurate than just using the DraftKings numbers. They're available before lineups lock. If you think knowing the FanDuel numbers provides a huge advantage on DraftKings and vice versa, then go for it. That strategy is already available. So, I don't think that data is as valuable as everyone's making it out to be. Still, it was an embarrassing error and there should be precautions and external oversight to make sure it doesn't happen. We can debate whether DraftKings employees should be able to play on FanDuel and vice versa. Personally I don't think it's a major problem (granted that there are proper controls on the data that isn't publicly available). How would this work? If I want to start a competitor DFS site, would I be immediately banned from FanDuel and DraftKings? If so I'm less likely to do so, and so this entrenches the market share of the big players. And where do we draw the line? If I have a site where I develop a model of player performances, do I now have an unfair advantage? Is FanDuel not allowed to bring "star" DFS players onto the payroll like the poker sites did? That said, I don't think those arguments are the end of the debate. I can see the other side. But instead of having this debate the community is throwing wild accusations and making up stories about what happened. At worst it's one individual cheater, people are acting like DraftKings is corrupt as an organization. (which, it very well might be. but there is no more reason to believe so than there was a week ago. just evidence that they're incompetent)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
I know I come off like a shill or apologist, but I think banning employees from playing other sites is a bad move in the long run. Obviously it needs to happen now, until their data integrity policies are improved, but I don't think it's a good thing for this to have to happen. For one, I don't want people who don't play to be setting the prices and designing new contests. Also, would people care if an ESPN employee played season-long Yahoo pro leagues? I'm sure there are tons of private data in season-long that could be used to an advantage in other leagues. I am legitimately curious: those of you who agree with the banning as a permanent move, how do you feel about the equivalent in season-long?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I can only speak for Draftkings playing because I play there mostly but the sharks are setting the prices and designing new contests, I just didn't think the Sharks were partially DFS employees, I figured they were just the rest of the ex-poker players. Yuzenn posted:And for season long leagues, who cares? These aren't being managed through the websites, they are being managed by off website league managers. There isn't nearly as much daily money being exchanged and also is a much more casual medium. I don't think I'd care in that instance. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Based on the current PR situation, yes. But from day one? I disagree. And it's not an issue of being fair to their employees, it's an issue of being able to put out a good product. If they had banned employees from day one I just don't see how they could have been nearly as successful. To me it comes off like restricting everyone who works at a bank from ever investing money anywhere. Clearly I'm in the minority with that opinion but if the data integrity problems never occur I don't see how employees playing on another site looks improper.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Guys, winning isn't evidence of cheating. I can't believe I need to say that. And the sites have been hiring DFS experts, because---surprise---they are well qualified to work on DFS products. Most of them were just as successful before they were hired, if not more so due to reversion to the mean. It's well known in the industry that if you want to work for a site you should win some tournaments to prove that you know what you're doing. Kind of like in other industries, where past success helps you get a job in the future.old dog child posted:It's also important to note that multiple teams cannot own the same players in a season long league. In a season long league, you're more likely to win if you own a player that lots of other teams own, which is the complete opposite of daily leagues. Right, so the analogy would be (for example) looking up who the top waiver claims are on the site you work at, and then claiming those guys on the site you play on. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:This is literally a useless exercise. It's more like having access to your league's FAAB bids and being able to bid $1 more on the players you want. What? Even the worst accusations are nothing like that. The issue is DFS employees playing on sites other than the site they work at. They've never been able to play on their employer's site. old dog child posted:That''s a dumb example. Here's the secret to finding out the top claims: read Rotoworld. Shocking, I know. That's exactly my point. The best way to find out what the ownership levels will be on a DFS game are to look them up on FantasyPros.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:No. FantasyPros does not have future ownership levels. They have projections, i.e. guesses. Right, but the accusation is that ownership levels on DraftKings were used to gain an advantage on FanDuel. In that sense, the former were (allegedly) used as an estimate of the latter. My point is that the FantasyPros projections of FanDuel ownership levels provide a better estimate of FanDuel ownership levels than the actual DraftKings ownership levels do. If the actual DraftKings ownership levels were known by people entering DraftKings contests, then yes this is completely different. Even ignoring the existence of explicit projections of ownership levels, the analogy to the season-long waiver wire holds up. Having premature access to waiver wire claims (in leagues other than your own) would not be that valuable because it is pretty easy to figure out who people will claim by reading articles, watching SportsCenter, etc. Similarly, having premature access to ownership levels (in leagues other than your own) would not be that valuable because it is pretty easy to figure out who people will play by reading articles, watching SportsCenter, etc. This is an irrelevant derail though (and entirely my fault; apologies) because even if the advantage is minimal it still shouldn't be allowed. I agree that your (2) is the most likely outcome here. I welcome the third-party investigation and will be surprised if they find anything more damning than incompetence or carelessness. My original post defending the (eventual) ability of (certain) employees to play at other sites was just in response to this comment: Spoeank posted:Only [days since DFS sites were founded] days too late!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Oy, I had a terrible week. Still up on the season at least, but barely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
If you want to play cash games (as in, not-tournaments), play head-to-heads and not 50/50s or double-ups. The reason is that it allows for a larger range of outcomes. If you score in the 49th percentile your ROI will be -100% in a 50/50 but only like -10% in a bunch of head-to-heads. In the long-run they may be equally profitable but the name of the game is minimizing variance. Especially if that :tenbux: is all you're going to deposit--don't want to lose it all the first week. If you want to play tournaments, avoid the ones with the highest number of entries. They're too much of a crapshoot. It would suck to have an amazing lineup and end up in 100th place out of 250,000 players and end up with only $100, when you could have taken down a 2,000 player tournament for $1,000 with the same lineup. Just making those numbers up but the payouts are so top-heavy that the biggest ones are not going to be profitable unless your bankroll/mental state can handle losing thousands of entry fees without giving up. For both categories of games, enter the smallest dollar amount that is available. Only move up in stakes when you can't get enough action at the level you're playing at. So if you want to wager $100 in head-to-heads, play 100 $1 head-to-heads. I have yet to branch out of FD and DK, so I can only speak to those two. Even though FanDuel's site is much more polished and easy-to-use than DraftKings I would recommend the latter for new players. For one, there's no kicker, which will help your variance (obviously only a consideration in NFL). They have a 25-cent tournament, which does go against my rule about large-field tourneys but if you can't resist it may as well be 25-cents rather than $1. They also have an option when you create head-to-head contests to limit the number of times any oppoonent can sign up against you. I always set this to 1 and it prevents getting all your games picked up by some shark who notices you haven't won much. Also, they have late swap (you can swap players as long as their games haven't started, as opposed to everyone locking as soon as the first game starts). I personally don't like it as you have to keep up with the reports on game day to get the most value, and if you play dozens of GPP lineups like i do it's a hassle. But if you're only playing one or two lineups it's not much of a hassle and it would be frustrating if you hear some bad news on someone in your lineup and can't do anything about it. Finally, for NFL you should know that DK is 1-PPR and FD is 0.5-PPR so that gives a big boost to high-volume receivers and passing backs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
SLICK GOKU BABY posted:I've been using FantasyPros for NFL projections since it's free and seemed to be okay last week. However they don't do any Defense projections, are there any sites that publish defense fantasy projections? Just looking for a way to find the defenses that are going to put up 10-20 points on their own. http://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/fanduel-cheatsheet.php?position=DST
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
I kind of like the FanDuel Thursday lock, for GPPs at least, because if there's some value player due to an injury rumor or something, often you can get him at low ownership. By Sunday everyone's on them. Of course there's the risk that the injury rumor doesn't pan out but that strategy has worked out for me in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Well, I did it... simulated the slate 200 times and submitted the 200 resulting "nuts" lineups to the DraftKings 25-cent GPP. The percentages look reasonable but man, some of these lineups are ridiculous. Goodbye $50.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:Problem with head to head is how it's difficult to match up against anyone but dfs pros because they have the same idea. DK at least has the option to only allow opponents to play against you in a limited number of contests (as few as 1 per opponent, which is what I always set it to). In FanDuel there are H2H Matrix games which accomplish the same thing. overdesigned posted:Do they have, like, web APIs for this, or do you have to go through and click every single one of those in? I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rotogrinders-draftkings-t/lokmacldfjfgajcebibmmfohacnikhhd?hl=en-US I'm not sure if it's an API underneath or if it's just automating site interactions, but if you ask nicely and your use case falls within their guidelines, they'll hook you up: https://newsroom.fanduel.com/2015/10/08/scripting-policy/ I would love to make a Python library or command-line tool instead of using a Chrome extension, but realistically there are many DFS-related programming things I'd rather do first (like perfect these Monte Carlo simulations).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Also how in the world do you simulate the games? For now I'm using the projections at numberfire, which include confidence intervals. I can recover the projected variance from the confidence intervals, and I calculated covariances from historical data (posted the results upthread). So I can come up with a variance-covariance matrix for every game, take the means directly from the projections, and pull numbers from the corresponding multivariate normal distribution. I'd like to do something more sophisticated, at the moment I'm stuck with numberfire since I haven't seen anyone else that publishes standard deviation or variance. I'd like to continue taking the means from someone else's projection, but estimate the variance based on the raw-statistic projections. For example every receiver would have an estimated variance as a function of the projected number of targets, receptions, yards, and touchdowns. This is likely what numberfire is doing anyway, but they probably don't put a lot of focus into getting the variance estimates right, whereas it's my primary effort with this strategy. Of course this is probably all a moot point since I'll likely lose all my entries this week and not have any confidence to continue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
I subscribed to BayesFF but it's not good enough for my purposes. It's only the model, without any manual adjustments of the projection based on injuries and depth chart. Also, he uses the same shape parameters for every player at each position. So, it's a good modeling strategy for the means, but like most other sites the variance aspect is an afterthought. I have not seen FantasyLabs, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll take a closer look.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
In case anyone is curious, my Monte Carlo lineups won back $45 out of $50, so I'm okay with that. I'll probably keep on trucking and hope for a big win someday. My top lineup had 217.54 points, to finish 289/329,000 (for a whopping $9) with Russell Wilson, Arian Foster, Lamar Miller, Travis Benjamin, DeAndre Hopkins, Alshon Jeffery, Julius Thomas, Chris Ivory, and the Jets. Not bad for a lineup that's pretty much randomly generated. It even has a RB-DST stack, something I like to put in my "handmade" lineups. I had several more lineups above the 99th percentile. I think I won the other $5 back in H2Hs, basically a break-even week.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:Grats and all, but come on, you can't be sharing all this with us and not tell us what your worst lineup was  Fair enough. My worst lineup finished at 324,810/329,000 with a whopping 90.42 points: Andy Dalton, Darren Sproles, Danny Woodhead, Randall Cobb, A.J. Green, Golden Tate, Tyler Eifert, Adrian Peterson, and the Jets D.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I absolutely love the 25-cent DraftKings games and wish FanDuel offered them too. I've been putting hundreds of lineups into them the last month or so, with some success. Although it can be kind of frustrating. I spent all afternoon yesterday trying to switch Rawls into as many lineups as possible while the DK lineup page was taking a minute to respond to every click (due to having so many lineups). (This is why I hope they will resolve the scripting controversy by building features that one would write scripts for directly into the site. I doubt it will happen though) That said, using the SSN thing as a reason to prefer DK over FD seems silly. Asking for your SSN is a sign of them being less shady, in my opinion: taking more precautions with the fluid legal situation, strengthening relationships with partners (e.g. payment processors), etc. If you want DFS sites to be regulated and protect you from fraud and whatnot, then you have to be okay with them asking for your SSN. (You don't have to be okay with giving it, if you don't feel they've made enough changes yet, sure. But this is clearly part of them taking steps in that direction.) I wouldn't be surprised to see DraftKings follow FanDuel here. Many of the smaller sites also ask for SSNs even before you attempt to withdraw.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Can you explain what kind of mass editing you are doing before submitting? I've never really had lineups up there more than the time it takes to submit them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
The SituAsian posted:Edit: also maybe its already been posted (im such an absentee landlord) but theres a guy on the reddit collecting millionaire maker data for the max entry sharks and surprise surprise theyre for the most part consistents loser at least for this contest Basically do not ever go chalk in gpps unless you're maxadalury and going 100% exposure to Randall cobb in week 3 win you a million dollars. That's really cool. There's so much data I wish I could grab from the games (e.g. the 50/50 cash lines from every past slate would be a great benchmark to have) but I don't want to get banned for scripting. If only the sites would make their databases public once the contests close. How sick would that be? There'd be so much interesting analysis done by the community.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Ugh DK now is limiting the 25-cent games to 50 entries. This ruins my strategy. At least they could have 50-cent games or something in-between, as I can't afford the kind of volume at $1 that would make me comfortable with the sample size...and it seems even the $1 games have a 50-entry limit. Need to go up to $3 before you hit a 500-entry limit. This is stupid. I'm all for protecting the beginners from the sharks but they're squeezing out the players in-between.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
He also didn't really do any research as to how to avoid the toughest competition, and ignored (or more charitably, misunderstood) the advice he was given as to which games to enter. I won't claim there aren't any problems, but none of this is new. In response to these issues over the last several months, the sites have banned employees, introduced beginner games, lowered buy-in limits to multi-entry tournaments, introduced limits on the number of low-entry games any one player can play, introduced a stricter script policy, and made several controversial scripting features available to everyone as core features of the website. There are still more protections needed but the sites have been doing just about everything critics are asking for. And yet no one is attributing to them even the least bit of good faith. Finally, I can't stand the way people assume that multi-entering tournaments is basically a way to print money. If you think it's easy, go put up 100 lineups in a 25-cent tournament. You don't need to be a high-roller to try it. And on the flip side, if you look at everyone who regularly enters 100+ lineups into the most expensive tournaments, just about all of them are down money over the course of a season. Someone buying $1000 of Powerball tickets doesn't affect the odds of my ticket winning. And if I wanted better odds I'd play a smaller game. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:this isn't something that the writer should get credit for, but i did take away from that article the useful bit of info that there are some important differences between DFS and, say, online poker. the difference being that the DFS player can much more effectively and insidiously hunt for fish and evade detection. this is due to the fact that DFS is generally an asynchronous game, versus a synchronous poker game. the DFS player can sit back and let their scripts do the work, while the poker player must actually sit at the ready, even if they are multi-tabling, and their ability to play is limited by the human brain's ability to multi-task and process information. the asynchronous aspect also might encourage shadier sharks to adopt strategies such as having multiple accounts, so that they can avoid being highlighted as such. the sound and fury of these mainstream media thinkpieces is of course not equal to the weight of anyone who is really conversant in the game, but such subtle issues are important to account for and understand. I'm not sure I agree with your comparison to poker, as far as fish-hunting. I played online poker back in the day and everyone used programs that tracked the stats of yourself and everyone at your table. Advice was to leave the table if there wasn't anyone to target. And when you were targeting someone it would not simply be because they were a poor player, but also to take advantage of specific systematic weakness in their game, picked up by your stat tracker. In DFS, there's fish-hunting going on in H2H games, but not only are there ways to avoid it (e.g. on DraftKings you can set that you can only play each opponent once) you can also just avoid H2Hs. The author's idea that he is being fish-hunted in tournaments and 50/50s comes across as pure paranoia. Interesting point about the synchony aspect though. It's true that if you're devoting a full-time schedule to DFS you're not going to be limited in the number of lineups you can construct except by the site's limits. But again, I don't think multi-entering is inherently predatory or unfair or whatever. In any case I think the best we can hope for is that there is some kind of security arms race between the DFS sites and the would-be rulebreakers, just as in other areas of internet life. I don't see any reason to believe that the DFS sites are purposefully letting the rulebreakers win, which is what the authors of these articles seem to be implying. Not sure what you're getting at re: you're lazy at coding...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
I'm that guy entering 500+ lineups into the 25-cent and $1 GPPs. I just love watching the Sunday and Monday-night games with like a dozen lineups that could win big if the right player goes off. No big wins yet through week 2 (last night I needed 10 more points from Alshon for first). Last season one first-place finish covered all my losses the other weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Well what do you know the DFS community is attempting to self-destruct again. Turns out someone who won the milly maker was colluding with his brother. The evidence you ask? Well, you see, they each entered the max number of lineups, and they didn't submit any of the same lineups. How sneaky of them!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
I don't play cash, but had a break-even week in GPPs. Two finishes in the 10-20 range and several more 20-50. No big wins but enough to keep playing the same volume next week.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Well what do you know the DFS community is attempting to self-destruct again. As I said: http://www.wsj.com/articles/draftkings-investigating-potential-collusion-in-1-million-contest-1475091553?mod=e2tw I can't read the article but I've been following the discussion, and the accusations are based on just barely more than nothing. Lutha Mahtin posted:Broad question: where can I start reading to learn the basics of football statistics and analytics? Alternatively, where can I start reading about the same for basketball or hockey (NBA/NHL), in preparation for those upcoming seasons? I feel like I need to understand the basic numbers more than I do, as a nerd who peaced out about sports after age 15 or so. I tried to think of the answer to this but I'm not really sure. Best place to start I guess is a site like Fantasypros that publishes projected fantasy points.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
I realize I'm talking to myself here but anyone who wants to see some real  takes should check out this thread.A guy from FantasyCrunchers comes in and says "hey we checked they have separate accounts and logged in at different times from different times and did everything separately". The consensus seems to be "of course they did, they're really sneaky about their cheating."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
I don't think so; he had already talked to the users in question so it's not like he's just posting about them out of the blue. I assume they gave him permission to share that information.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
If Diggs gets 18 tonight and beats McKinnon by at least 6, I'm getting a 4-figure payday. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Papes posted:Sorry mate, I don't think you hit Nope. That was a super frustrating game. That second McKinnon touchdown dropped my winnings by like $500. Anyone else notice the change in payout structure? GPPs are so much flatter than they were last season.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:16
|
|
.