Fanduel / Draft Kings Discussion

[ReignOnU]

He posted DK ownership data before the games locked on FD. It's suggesting that DK ownership data could lead to a swing in FD ownership because those games were still open.

[shel311]

Was the game locked on DK? I'd assume they were both Sunday 1pm starts, no?

[ReignOnU]

https://newsroom.fanduel.com/2015/10/05 ... employees/

UPDATE: Integrity of Our Employees

[UPDATE] October 6, 2015: The Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA), DraftKings and FanDuel have always understood that nothing is more important than the integrity of the games we offer to fans. For that reason, the FSTA has included in its charter that member companies must restrict employee access to and use of competitive data for play on other sites. At this time, there is no evidence that any employee or company has violated these rules. That said, the inadvertent release of non-public data by a fantasy operator employee has sparked a conversation among fantasy sports players about the extent to which industry employees should be able participate in fantasy sports contests on competitor sites. We’ve heard from users that they would appreciate more clarity about the rules for this issue. In the interim, while the industry works to develop and release a more detailed policy, DraftKings and FanDuel have decided to prohibit employees from participating in online fantasy sports contests for money.”

October 5, 2015: While there has been recent attention on industry employees playing on FanDuel and DraftKings, nothing is more important to DraftKings and FanDuel than the integrity of the games we offer to our customers. Both companies have strong policies in place to ensure that employees do not misuse any information at their disposal and strictly limit access to company data to only those employees who require it to do their jobs. Employees with access to this data are rigorously monitored by internal fraud control teams, and we have no evidence that anyone has misused it.

However, we continue to review our internal controls to ensure they are as strong as they can be. We also plan to work with the entire fantasy sports industry on this specific issue so that fans everywhere can continue to enjoy and trust the games they love.

[shel311]

Ethan haz a sad

[DRiccio21]

ESPN pulling their sponsored segments during their shows.

yikes.

[shel311]

Talk about terrible timing for FD and DK.

They are not going to be happy with Ethan.

[DRiccio21]

NY Attorney General opening an investigation.

geez, if the big winners have been scamming this whole time and they get busted this is going to be an unbelievable story.

[jsence2]

Shel, here are two examples:

Two weeks ago, I made three teams on DK. One had Ronaldo, two did not. Had I known that EIGHTY PERCENT of all teams had Ronaldo in them, I would've made sure to have him in all of mine. I didn't think he'd have a great match, but it wouldn't have been worth the risk, because if he DID (and he did, over 40 points), any team I had without him was nearly certain to lose. Having two teams without him cost me money; knowing that he would've been in 80% of teams would have prevented that mistake. More than 20% get paid in the smaller games like 50/50, so it would've been an adverse risk to not have him in the team.

A week prior, I had three CFB teams, only one of which had Nick Wilson. I spread my picks out, because Wilson was the 4th highest cost RB and I didn't want to have (what I thought would be) a similar lineup. Wilson goes off for 200 yds and 4 TDs, if I recall. Had over 40 points. I cashed, quite well. Turns out he was in less than THREE PERCENT of all teams, and had I put him in my other teams, I'd have made a killing. That information would've been great to have, because I was 100% certain he was going to have a big game. and knowing that I could get that sort of a leg up on the competition was vital.

So yes, it IS a big deal to know what people are thinking, because many people play both sites with similar lineups. The pricing for players isn't THAT far off to prevent it from being an advantage.

[ReignOnU]

Good effort... but if I'm reading your post right, you're saying that if you knew a high valued player was 80% of lineups, you'd put him in all of yours; then you're saying if you knew a high valued player was in 3% of lineups, you'd put him in all of yours. Not sure I follow your logic here.

I prefer the zig when they zag approach; except for incredibly high ROI, low value players. Then it becomes a matching game... which is where having those user % would be handy.

Better example of using both high/low usage... Everyone is going to have Nate Robinson filling in for the injured Derrick Rose because of his absurd ROI; You use the data to figure out who to match him with to maximize your return. The trick is finding that slight edge with the high level guys that allows you to create a higher reward, with minimal risk. For instance, you have Blake Griffin, LA and Tim Duncan tagged for the same expected output, with similar price points, but Blake is 50% owned, Tim is 10% and LA is 5%... you pair your Nate Robinson in a lineup with LA and in a lineup with Tim. If either guy outscores Griffin, you're now dancing in your winnings.

[DRiccio21]

yeah basically what Jay posted you want to do the opposite of

but thats irrelevant, the point is, having that info is a huge advantage.

like i said earlier, i'm not sure there is any info (that is available) that i would want more than that.

[ReignOnU]

yeah basically what Jay posted you want to do the opposite of

Efficient answer, well done.

[nick]

yeah basically what Jay posted you want to do the opposite of

LMAO, I wrote two responses and deleted them. But this

[jsence2]

Good effort... but if I'm reading your post right, you're saying that if you knew a high valued player was 80% of lineups, you'd put him in all of yours; then you're saying if you knew a high valued player was in 3% of lineups, you'd put him in all of yours. Not sure I follow your logic here.

I prefer the zig when they zag approach; except for incredibly high ROI, low value players. Then it becomes a matching game... which is where having those user % would be handy.

Better example of using both high/low usage... Everyone is going to have Nate Robinson filling in for the injured Derrick Rose because of his absurd ROI; You use the data to figure out who to match him with to maximize your return. The trick is finding that slight edge with the high level guys that allows you to create a higher reward, with minimal risk. For instance, you have Blake Griffin, LA and Tim Duncan tagged for the same expected output, with similar price points, but Blake is 50% owned, Tim is 10% and LA is 5%... you pair your Nate Robinson in a lineup with LA and in a lineup with Tim. If either guy outscores Griffin, you're now dancing in your winnings.

Soccer: Ronaldo was priced almost 2,000 more (13000 to 11000) than ANYBODY ELSE. He's also going to usually score more than anybody else, which is why he and Messi are priced so much higher

Football: Wilson wasn't priced higher than the field and was actually about 1,000 less than the top guy. To have someone that good be picked by so few, esp when you know he's going to have a great game, is huge

Had Ronaldo not been 80%--let's say closer to 50%--then I would've left him out totally. It's knowing that he's in SO MANY teams that if he scores a bunch that you're screwed, that makes knowing that info helpful.

[DRiccio21]

we understand what you're saying. we're just trying to explain that your logic is flawed. the issue that is causing such a stir is doing the exact opposite of what you're explaining you do.

[jsence2]

yeah basically what Jay posted you want to do the opposite of

but thats irrelevant, the point is, having that info is a huge advantage.

like i said earlier, i'm not sure there is any info (that is available) that i would want more than that.

I'm glad you feel that way, and I respect your opinion. You might be right on the NBA/football side of this.

But this strategy is important with soccer, whether it's DFS or regular fantasy soccer. You can't go into a soccer match saying "Well, I expect this guy to get 1 goal, 2 assists, and 5 crosses" which is what makes leaving out big names with higher ownership so risky. It's the same with fantasy soccer in general. If you were one of the unlucky few who didn't have Aguero in your team this weekend, either in fantasy or DFS, then you got screwed hard, esp when he had high ownership--but NOBODY could have gone into it thinking "oh, he'll have five goals this weekend, odds are there"

With soccer, you have to look at who is likely to have a better chance of getting goals/assists/crosses based on the lineup that starts with him, the player(s) who will be marking him, the form of him, his teammates, and the team he's facing; weather conditions (if it's windy then you're not going to get as many points for crosses; if it's raining, your technical midfielders will struggle, etc), and so on. Then you want to look at the top guys who many will take--if the likelihood is there for them to do well, you run a serious risk if you don't take them.

That said, if I know that last weekend, City has a great chance of racking up points, and I know that their midfielder David Silva is heavily owned but KDB isn't, then I'm likely going to try to grab BOTH of them. If I know that both are owned about evenly, then I take the cheaper of the two (KDB), because both of them have equal chances of goals and assists, but KDB is cheaper and owned by fewer.

[jsence2]

we understand what you're saying. we're just trying to explain that your logic is flawed. the issue that is causing such a stir is doing the exact opposite of what you're explaining you do.

Again, maybe so in football/basketball. I don't play them enough and they're more of a ROI play than soccer is. Most of the plays for me (about 85%) are on soccer. And seeing as I've got one hell of a track record on my plays, if my logic there IS flawed, then let it be flawed, because apparently I'm doing something right.

[Seeitsaveit13]

ESPN pulling their sponsored segments during their shows.

yikes.

Thank god. That shit was getting annoying and repetitive.

[DRiccio21]

we understand what you're saying. we're just trying to explain that your logic is flawed. the issue that is causing such a stir is doing the exact opposite of what you're explaining you do.

Again, maybe so in football/basketball. I don't play them enough and they're more of a ROI play than soccer is. Most of the plays for me (about 85%) are on soccer. And seeing as I've got one hell of a track record on my plays, if my logic there IS flawed, then let it be flawed, because apparently I'm doing something right.

the logic has nothing to do with sports.

it's game theory and math.

not looking to debate this, just giving some friendly advice.

[uf83198]

Well, I just hope it doesnt all implode. I entered 2 for $7 total and won $93 total, and had a blast following my score as the games were going on.

[shel311]

Well, I just hope it doesnt all implode. I entered 2 for $7 total and won $93 total, and had a blast following my score as the games were going on.

That's a great weekend there!!!

I've had one like that through 4 weeks on FD. I basically try play five different $5 lineups in tournies. I usually cash for $10 in 2 or 3 of em, barely breaking even or losing a little. But I hit on one for probably around the same ish payoff as you.

My 50/50s on FD are mostly break even, but I'm doing very well again on FantasyUp so far.