Interesting story on CNBC with commentary from Andy Frankenberger and Ed Miller.

Thoughts?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/103045027

strictly speaking, I don't see how poker ever creates more "winners" per say in dollar amount won. They are giving away 1m+/wk to 1st place and multiple 6 figure scores. Now, whether the more common person makes money from DFS than poker, dunno. But DFS is basically like having a big wpt or three every weekend. Just absurd. If I didn't know what I was doing at either game, I'd definitely choose DFS over poker.

The article explains that the top 1.3% of dfs players have an ROI of just 7%. And that's against the fields of mostly clueless opponents.

Back when I was playing online poker in the boom years, the top 1.3% of players had an ROI 10 times that, while even the bad players could squeeze out a small win or at least break even against even worse players.

Once the the market matures DFS will literally be no different than playing the lottery. Once you account for the rake dfs will have worse odds than the black jack.

Yes, the way it is right now your average player is just entering the big tournaments. In those, for the most part you hit a big score or it's going to be tough to be a winner. So the number of winners is basically fairly low but people understand this.

Just rereading the article it's another example of poor journalism...the whole premise of the article is generally off. As someone who plays dfs tournaments I expect to lose but just enter football ones hoping to hit a big score. Also the so called study is fairly meaningless. You cannot determine people rois from a small sample l...

As for number of winners, "Only the top 1.3 percent of players finished in the green during the three months measured by the Sport Business Journal."

The Pros in DFS win more because they can and do enter all levels of competition whereas in poker the top pros are not taking money with their superior skill from $1 games. In short, it is easier to be a winner in poker than DFS.

I didn't read the story but there is one major thing that often gets ignored when analyzing DFS vs Poker.

In DFS, it's easy for the biggest players to flood their +EV lineups into stakes from $1 to $1k+ games. It's a few extra check boxes and nothing more.

In poker, the Galfonds, Sauces, and WCGRider's of the world can't spend their time grinding $100NL. Each additional table is a resource-suck that has a direct impact on your ability and capacity to focus on your other tables (ie your "normal" games). Imagine if the Dan Colmans of the world could jump in every single HUSNG from $1 up to $10k every day in the lobby.

If the DFS sites would begin restricting its big players from playing below a certain buy-in limit, then it would help the economy increase the percentage of players who are actually winning in the games.

Edit: heh didn't see restorative's post as I was typing mine. +1 to what he said too

Draftkings and Fanduel stand to learn a thing or two from poker sites about preserving recreational players money. The current format is beyond ridiculous. Imagine playing against Sauce at every table from 1nl-5knl. That's how bad the current system is set up.

The nice thing about DFS is it's much less restrictive with regards to time commitment. You are not physically tied to the game while it plays out like you are in a poker tournament.

To understand gambling as entertainment, you need to understand the variations of the definition of "winners".

What matters to a recreation-motivated player is the quality of the playing experience, primarily as entertainment. This holds true across gambling, be it poker, video poker, DFS or sports betting.

Briefly, consider video poker, where a player gets to make something like 600 choices per hour and gets 600 outcomes, some "winning" and some "losing". The key is to provide a recreational player with frequent enough winning experiences to make the gambling fun, wins which are closely tied to the decision making itself engage the player more than wins which arise more remotely in time.

The Fantasy sports evolution, already in progress, will move away from the weekly liquidity model and towards ingame decisions by the customers, with frequent decisions and reinforcement by frequent "wins".

I would imagine that it's easier to luckbox into a $1M payday choosing random athletes that you have no control over than it is to run crazy good in a poker tournament and use that luck to take down a top prize that high.

Depends how long the overlays last. Right now, it seems like DFS is a goldmine for "multi-entry" sharks. In the longer term, the rules will change, and there won't be so much "free money" floating around.

Most of the arguments for daily fantasy bring legal would not allow picking the outcome of one play. It centers on legal carve outs for fantasy sports games...so I don't think there is a scenario where you could bet on the outcomes of individual plays unless you live in a place where sports gambling is legal.

What you state is basically correct, except there are scenarios where an ingame performance of say three players in different, yet concurrently broadcast games

My point is that ingame scenarios, with more frequent playing opportunities and more frequent "wins" , will better suit recreational customers who only want action on the games they are watching.

I certainly am not offering a legal opinion here, not even on the current sports-based real money "contests" models. Just looking at the appeal of more frequent "wins" to even long term losing customers.

the rake feels too high in DFS currently. Hopefully the free market changes that but the big sites might already be colluding in this area to keep rake high (like the L.A. area cardrooms do).

also LOL at the guy who said most DFS entrants are clueless. The fields are pretty tough in my experience (2 years winning at NBA-sick brag, dabbling in MLB)

Most individuals probably are clueless. The problem is the good players can enter contests 10000000 times.

Its not as bad as being tied to a tournament all day but
1) you are tied to gathering info right before lock time and

2) I've talked to a top 5 player in the world a lot and he studies and gathers info all day and night, all the time

[x] restrictive to time commitment. You can't really half ass it and expect results.

After reading that article about Ethan from Draftkings I'm certain poker is easier to beat than fantasy. Some people have statistics and numbers no Recreational player can keep up with. You're much better off trying to crack AK suited than your chances of crushing fantasy. https://dfsreport.com/6840/fanduel-draftkings-mishaps/

I find DFS boring and about as exciting as filling in lottery tickets.

If I want action while I watch sports I act like a man and bet directly on one of the teams against a point spread.

"DFS reflects the feminizing of gambling in America and perhaps the culture as a whole."*



*My inner old man

What percent chance that he isn't sharing that info with his bros?

I'm sure there is a inside ring of dudes from every site that just clean up every week.

Check all the top DFS winners affiliations to the people running the big sites IMO

I think that concerns like this are going to drive the industry toward additional regulation, likely under the purview of state government / gaming regulatory agencies.

The bigger DFS gets, the more questions people are going to start asking, and in the status quo there's just not a lot of transparency.

The same can be said with tournament poker. The point is a rec player like myself can just dart throw a bunch of line ups and be on my way. I dont have to sit there for 12 hrs mulitple days because i want to play a live tournament.

If you compare the same things poker is way more time restrictive ainec.

interesting comments

below is the definition for Fantasy Sports from the UIEGA carve out. Just how far could the sites push this? Could it really morph into in game decisions ? what other forms of online gaming where the win / loss was based on this carve out could develop?

What you describe about in game decisions reminds me of the Internet Sweepstakes biz model that popped up in many states where slot parlors were opening all over the place under the guise of the "no purchase needed to win" sweepstakes laws.

In North Carolina, it took the State 5+ years to shut them down. Problem was it took 1-2 years for the state / local prosecutors to win a case, and then technology providers to the slot parlors a few weeks to update their software to skirt around the rulings/findings of each court case they lost. Then the 1-2 year cycle just started all over. it was whack a mole where the mole moved at light speed and the whacker moved in slow motion.

I wonder if the same whack a mole could develop here. Barring an amendment to the carve out at the federal level, then I would assume this will end up in each state court where each State's Attorney General will have to interpret UIEGA themselves and then decide to take action or not.

With DFS looking more and more like a state run lottery, I assume some state Attorney Generals will be getting pressure from their Lottery Departments as the Lottery Depts likely see DFS as DIRECT competition.

I have a lot of fun with DFS and think it is a great concept but the nearly unlimited MultiEntry culture is such a bad decision and so bad for people who just want to dabble.

...and we thought it was bad when FTP allowed 4 MultiEntries...