Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnatus
I think looking at the scoreboard is deceiving...the edge the "best" players have in DFS is getting smaller and smaller...and with the rake the only way to make real money playing cash games especially given the high rake is tons of VOLUME. When looking at the scoreboard & the type of wins that are reported, it seems to me that's what Petteytheft needs to rely on, massive volume, and that's not a knock on him but the reality of dfs cash game grinding. When looking at the rotogrinders scoreboard don't just get caught up in seeing how many wins the person has...ask yourself what it means when that player has a 2-4 days a week of not really reporting many wins. it's not because they're not entering scores of contests that day.
Basically DFS is already becoming very difficult to beat and even the "best" players like Jumanji are resorting to entering 100's of contests a day at stakes as low as a $1-$2 and even there their edge is pretty small. It's too bad though that it's getting so bad that people are already trying to coach and make money off it before the games become even less profitable. At the the same time they're ultimately making the games worse and worse for all of us.
At any rate, DFS is MUCH MUCH easier to get a handle on than poker and you can probably figure it out pretty well even by fidgeting with rotogrinder's tools and analyzing your game by starting at microstakes.
I know I'm jumping into an old thread here, but I feel this post has been poorly addressed -- especially the bolded part.
What is important is that OP has an edge. I've obviously not seen his results, but I'd venture to guess that he does. The fact is, if you have an edge, and a ton of money, then you want to play as much volume as possible. It doesn't really matter if your edge is 5% or 15% -- the more volume you play (ceteris paribus), the more money you'll make. Your edge, of course, interacts with your risk of ruin but that's not relevant in this context. The fact that someone plays "a ton of volume" should never be an argument against that person having an edge. That just doesn't make sense at all. Whether it's big or small is pretty irrelevant compared to (1) if it's positive and (2) if OP can actually give you advice that will make you a better player.
My 2 cents:
1) I think if you pay anyone for coaching, they should be extremely transparent and give you access to their results.
2) I would also add that I don't think there is any scenario where coaching is +EV for both parties unless the student signs up through the coaches affiliate links. This may just be a difference between how I and OP approach things -- but essentially if I was to coach someone, it would mean giving them access to all of my work. And there is just no scenario where I'd ever be compensated enough for that via an hourly. This is generally true in poker coaching too. The incentive structure just isn't there to make someone a better player unless you have a stake in their success as a player (and the "word of mouth" argument is tenuous at best). In poker, I think coaching should only take the form of coaching/staking, where there are powerful incentives on both sides.
Additionally, continuing with the analogy, in DFS, you have much more incentive to hold back. This is because in cash games, anyone can do the equivalent of playing 200 tables at once once they're good enough, because there is no marginal effort required if you're rolling 1 lineup a night and entering it in 500 contests vs. 1 lineup in 1 contest. In poker, you'd be "****ting in your own pond" if you coach someone who then takes money out of your own games. In DFS, this is largely magnified and to continue with the pond analogy, you'd now have food poisoning in a bathtub.
Happy to grapple with anyone who has a different opinion who wants to push back here.
Disclaimer: I'm not making any comment as to whether or not I think the coaching would be worth it. As I've not tried it, I really have no idea. My guess is it is either extremely underpriced or extremely overpriced.
