Isnt it also true that the best players will often have a very similar idea for optimal lineup?
I see zero mathematical basis for thinking your chances of wining are lowered by players who share lineups.
Do people also complain that when those lineup sharers lose, that they allow all the other players to win a much larger % of the prize pool? Im thinking no.
If players are multi-accounting, then thats a different and completely legitimate concern.
dude, you want people sharing lineups and firing off 30 of them in the same tournament. as the quantity of their lineups increases, the equity of each additional lineup decreases.
yes there are going to be times when all the lineups cash, but it's going to be ridiculously profitable when all of those lineups brick.
I think it's pretty close to multi-accounting. The same person, or group of people, submit the exact same lineup on all of their accounts. They've done more work or have better info than the average user so they win more often & win more of the prize pool. This essentially shuts your 1 account out of the money when you may have won had your lineup only been going up against a unique lineup for each account.
There are issues with multi-accounting, but the ways in which it could potentially hurt you as an opponent are found in H2H games NOT big tournaments. Typically people are motivated to work together in order to circumvent caps on the number of games allowed or to trick others into playing more H2H games against their lineup thinking they'll be getting diversified action.
It depends somewhat on the prize structure, but in general people working together sharing lineups in large field tournaments hurts them and benefits you.
There are no rules against nor ethical issues with people working together to share research. It's only when they decide to play identical lineups that it can create problems and that is in H2H games.