To answer your first question, a lot. But I think the same point could be made about poker in 2004 when everyone thought they were amazing and knew nothing. It's just that poker took a lot of work to get good, and DFS theoretically takes very little if you have someone feeding you the answers. I don't think it's a problem yet and the industry hasn't hit peak fish afaict. All I am saying is that its inflection point for breaking might be much earlier in its lifecycle than online poker's. Or in other words, people (including me) are saying it is the next online poker because it has striking similarities to online poker, but this could just be a fallacy of composition if it turns out to possess some particular fragility due to one of the (many) differences.

That makes sense. There are people in poker between who kind of gets the idea and given some time to think can usually come up with an OK answer. There is a smaller group that can make a great decision in 3 seconds while stuck, tired, and playing 5 other tables. You're saying that lack of time pressure and lack of diversity in the problem (we're all trying to figure out the most efficient WR from the same list) make DFS too easy as a mass played skill game.

Does that mean the expert play is to give up early on winning through competition? If all the casual players are going to start buying expert picks, the $ are really in selling them their lineups and letting the rake collectively break them?

Goodbye October! That was the worst month I've ever seen in terms of amount of games going on Stars.