Prob would give you a huge advantage considering how much the best players are making there. You could literally take the 10 best winners and make combos out of all of their lineupsOriginally Posted by ThreeBet
Like if it were poker and an employee could take the big winners hole cards and review them they would prob get better but they would still have to process and use the information correctly
For Dfs they just have to copy and paste. It is like theft IMO
Prob would give you a huge advantage considering how much the best players are making there. You could literally take the 10 best winners and make combos out of all of their lineups
Like if it were poker and an employee could take the big winners hole cards and review them they would prob get better but they would still have to process and use the information correctly
For Dfs they just have to copy and paste. It is like theft IMO
Yeah, when I made the first post I kind of was thinking of it like they only had access to the overall % of all players combined and not for specific end users. I just couldnt see where you gained much of an advantage knowing just the overall %'s.
You are right where the obvious play would be to simply look up the biggest winners and combo their plays. That is a huge advantage.
SO obviously, when ever money is involved there is always going to be shady stuff going on. This was actually pretty far down on my list of things they would do to cheat. But in reality, shouldnt everyone have realized this was obviously happening? I would bet way too many of the employees have access to this info.
LOL Boston Herald:
Fairly scummy but not cheating.
It's a massive edge.
Any skilled player would pay 100x more to know pool selection %s than he would to see top 10 winners' lineups.
Source: Officials from House Energy & Commerce Committee to discuss impact of DFS controversy. Hearing has been requested to assess DFS.
I don't know who's twitter this is, but has 20k followers. Also has MLBs response of being surprised to learn employees could participate (ughh) on it.
https://twitter.com/DavidPurdum
Talking about this live on outside the lines...how deep will this rabbit hole go...
Purdum is a freelance gambling reporter who's generally respected by notoriously cunty pro sports bettors.
It's a little shocking that ESPN is covering this given their equity in DraftKings. Any publicity is good publicity? Blow up current DK ownership so they can seize greater control?
It's a massive edge.
Any skilled player would pay 100x more to know pool selection %s than he would to see top 10 winners' lineups.
Saying its a "massive edge" worth "100x more" without explaining why doesn't really further the discussion.
http://larrybrownsports.com/fantasy/...profile/276741
Not saying dude cheated but.....on a PR level....it looks bad:
Saying its a "massive edge" worth "100x more" without explaining why doesn't really further the discussion.
You are essentially 'setting your board' against the field, with this information.
If you could have the actual real, fields owned percentages per player (variables) across the field before selecting your lineups, you could then take their expectations and figure out which combinations of players, who also have the lowest owned %s and given matchups, can likely send you to the top of the leaderboard. That prized top .1 percentile in Big fields GPPs.
Owned %s is your edge, or lackthereof on the entire field. If player 'X' is owned 45% and gets 25pts, but player 'h' is owned 3% with reasonably the same expectation (be it bc of matchups/splits/historical pitcher vs. batter matchups w.e) You then will know across the field (where the huge edge comes in) that player producing 25 pts owned @ only 3% will carry you over 97% of all other lineups owned. You would always want to select the lower owned player with reasonably the same or more expectation. If you had player/variable 'x' who also got 25 pts but was owned 45% of the board, all 45% of lineups would gain with you when that player scored. 45% across the field isn't a significant edge, not enough of one to outpace over 350,000 combinatorials in NFL for example. Whereas a 3% owned player will always gain you against the other 97% of other lineups, who don't have him when he performs.
Its literally the most pertinent and should be coveted data in all of DFS, always and ever. In constructing highly optimal lineups your edge on the entire field is via owned %s. This is how you even have a chance to outright win at all. If you have players who are all highly owned, you aren't going to sniff that coveted top .1 percentile like that.
This is why so many 'pros' are also employees, the being on the inside is the edge they have that you and others don't and up to this point couldnt ever get. It has been dirty and it 100% needed to happen. I believe the games get fairer from here on out, and thats a totally net positive to actually good players, who had people like this chewing peoples EQUITY over a long and large sample slowly but surely. It has gotten too brazen, too pathetic, too widespread it was not going to last much longer before being found out.
This is a blessing in disguise imo, one way or the other and was necessary.
Last edited by garrett; 10-06-2015 at 02:51 PM.
Owned %s is your edge, or lackthereof on the entire field. If player 'X' is owned 45% and gets 25pts, but player 'h' is owned 3% with reasonably the same expectation (be it bc of matchups/splits/historical pitcher vs. batter matchups w.e) You then will know across the field (where the huge edge comes in) that player producing 25 pts owned @ only 3% will carry you over 97% of all other lineups owned. You would always want to select the lower owned player with reasonably the same or more expectation. If you had player/variable 'x' who also got 25 pts but was owned 45% of the board, all 45% of lineups would gain with you when that player scored. 45% across the field isn't a significant edge, not enough of one to outpace over 350,000 combinatorials in NFL for example. Whereas a 3% owned player will always gain you against the other 97% of other lineups, who don't have him when he performs.
Thanks Garrett for the explanation. I guess the problem I see is that with your example you're not taking into account the cost of each player. I can certainly see where if you had two players at the exact same price with the exact same projected output then you would select the player less owned. Totally understood. The way you explain it, makes it seem like basically taking the lowest owned player in every category would be the play cause you'd have the players that were most likely to only help you. But it seems there is way more to it than that. As you can see when looking at their lineups, they aren't just selecting all of the least owned players.
I guess I just feel like people are saying what a huge advantage this is yet nobody is explaining why it is so huge. I can definitely see where theres a small advantage (like in the example I stated above) .
I'm fully aware that Im just missing something, I just dont know what.
I am not speculating I am telling you how it works.
Thanks Garrett for the explanation. I guess the problem I see is that with your example you're not taking into account the cost of each player. I can certainly see where if you had two players at the exact same price with the exact same projected output then you would select the player less owned. Totally understood. The way you explain it, makes it seem like basically taking the lowest owned player in every category would be the play cause you'd have the players that were most likely to only help you. But it seems there is way more to it than that. As you can see when looking at their lineups, they aren't just selecting all of the least owned players.
I guess I just feel like people are saying what a huge advantage this is yet nobody is explaining why it is so huge. I can definitely see where theres a small advantage (like in the example I stated above) .
I'm fully aware that Im just missing something, I just dont know what.
Of course I didn't imply you just select the player with the lowest owned %s just because of their owned %s. A players expected production relative to his owned % is huge though. Especially if you knew almost exactly what the entire contests player ownership %s were shortly before the contest happened. And could then create your lineup against it. You would select the one with the lowest owned % of say a subset of 3 or 4 though. Assuming they all had the same expectation that contest. And only were different by their ownd % in that contest. These guys actually knew and were able to set lineups, contrary too thats the big issue and no one else could have it, but these 'insiders'. Factor in the ability to 'multi enter' add a few highly favorable lineups with insane knowledge/information and you'll likely win a whole lot with access to this type of information for many months, or years.
You would absolutely always go with the variable that has the biggest edge vs. the field, via a lower owned % in that contest. They need to also have a high expectation too. Price relative to expectation to optimize your output. There is many players to select from in any given slate at all sports. Players are just variables, each variable has an expectation, a combination of them variables a/b/g/j/k/l/i/o = a units net. Algorithms do a lot of this for these 'pros'. Its not really as great as everyone thinks, its scummy especially when they get this really useful information on actual players owned %s when noone else has it.
It's a lot more about price relative to expectation and owned % than most realize. And I am not going to start laying out formulas on a poker forum in a scandal thread. You can take it from there and realize in the wrong hands, people could get a huge edge with this info. And when they are 'pros' and/or employees, its impact would be even more problematic. Especially over a large enough sample in big field/top heavy structures with major money at stake.
Last edited by garrett; 10-06-2015 at 04:26 PM.
I've read that there is a very steep pyramid to the payouts on these sites. What I mean by this is 1% of the players are driving 20% of the entries and claiming 40% of the payouts.
Unless you treat this like you are running a quant fund on Wall Street and can put in hours a day running stats, not only to the players but likelihood of selection, you have no shot over the long term.
Aren't these sites run by poker players? Didn't the card runner crew start them? If so what do you expect?
That was Draftday I think, but your point remains. Seeing pics of the executives of Draftkings and Fanduel reminds me of the Absolute Poker hierarchy.
Don't forget about Draft Day all up in that ass day.
Yeah that makes sense Garrett.
Some user named THAY3R in the 2+2 NVG thread also has some really good explanations. I like this one which combines the experts pick information with the overall player owned %'s
If you overheard/accessed a weather betting expert's private information that he thinks it will rain 1.2 inches tomorrow, you see that 20% of the bettors picked 1.2 inches, 10% picked 1.1 inches, 30% picked 1.0 inches, etc.
Then yes you'd absolutely have an advantage over that person by betting on 1.1 assuming 1.2 wasn't >2x more likely than 1.1
Access to complete raw data and player owned %'s before games start would give someone a gigantic edge, as well as access to experts selections would. Quibble all you want about the definition of insider trading but the possible implications of this situation is pretty damn serious.
It is absolutely absurd that employees let alone bettors have access to this information.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote