whoa...

if this cat is believable...whoa.

small time shoutout to the boss TOMG/g123 he'd know why...

Yeah I can say for myself that not being able to bet on sports is a big reason why I started playing DFS. Having something riding on a game where you're normally not emotionally invested in the outcome or anything is pretty fun and DFS is one way of doing it. In previous seasons I would potentially sleep through part of or the entire sleight of early games but now I find myself waking up before the games start to double check my lineups and to watch all the action on RedZone.

The leagues know this,so hopefully they won't run away.I bet on NFL games for years with the usual ups and downs and it became ho hum.I had an argument with my bookmaker and finally said f**k this.I spend a fraction of what I did sports betting and enjoy it more.I even watch PGA/NBA/NHL now ffs.

Caveat: I'm from the UK and therefore don't have extensive knowledge of DFS and maybe this idea has been mentioned before or is possibly in action already.

Regarding DFS and the fact that the majority of money is being won by mass entry pros.
As was mentioned in the new Pokercast, there is a concern that casual, single entry, players basically have no shot and this could bring into question the sustainability of the game for casual players.

Years ago I used to be a high ranking player at Golden Tee in the UK. When the monthly tournament with prizes started, it became clear that the people who won the tournaments were those who shoveled coins in and played multiple entries (mainly on days when the course conditions were favorable).

To combat this the structure was changed so players would move into different divisions based on historic performance. After 3/4 months of play, the divisions were provisionally set and, not surprisingly, the high volume players were in Gold, medium in Silver and the remainder (mainly single bullet players) were Bronze, Each division had a separate prize pool with Gold having the largest pool.(From memory, the split was approx 60/40/20). There was relegation and promotion so if you didn't cash (or indeed enter) for a few months you would drop a division.

All players were effectively playing the same game but the single bullet players weren't volumed out of the prize money and as a result they weren't turned off from the game.

Could this system transfer well to DFS?
Not saying all tournaments need to be like this and the headline tournaments could still be 'open' events.

Sounds like a good idea to me atm. All the games that currently exist could still exist just as 'Open field' events, and there could be a tiered system in addition, with smaller contests obviously, but only competing against players that play in your buyin range.

There's actually dueling conspiracies on this issue.

'The pros have an unfair advantage and win everything, the little guy doesn't have a chance' is more prevalent, and 100% wrong, as seen by clowns with a single **** lineup winning the MM and other huge paydays over and over and over again.

Then there's the also common:

'Why do these nobodys keep winning/placing high in the milly or w/e big GPP, dude's got 12 wins and just opened the account, seems fishy, rigged' This one is also constant on RG, every day, including all over the scandal megathread, because Hitler, I mean Ethan followed some big winners AFTER they won on twitter.


They can't win. At least before this fiasco it was just sore losers, now everyone with an internets has an opinion on what's rigged and what is needed to fix DFS.

Why is a single entry player winning the MM a clown?

I think the shark/whale issue is separate from the inside info scandal, except in the sense that its apparent that some of these DFS employees are playing like whales. That's one of the mind-numbing things about this situation. If employees were allowed to plunk down $20 a night, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. But when you consider Petr Gibbons being such a prolific player, while at the same time being a DFS employee, you wonder how anyone in management could think this would be okay.

Meantime, I think the arguments on both sides of the shark issue are quite valid. But for the long term health of the industry, I think a rating system should be considered. That said, I think its very possible that company revenues could drop because of it.

What if sites capped cash game action based on your smallest buy-in? For example if you enter a $1 50/50 you are capped at $100 action for the day, increase the cap each level, and unlimited above the $20-25 range? Not sure if tournaments should be included or have a separate cap based on smallest tournament entered. Of course this would need to be automatically enforced by the software, and would prevent anyone from entering contest that would exceed their cap. Thoughts?

How about just limiting the number of contests a player could enter? Like 100 a day. How many $1 contests would the sharks be playing then? It would force them into higher buyin levels in order to acheive the volume they need.

Back in the day, internet poker players could multi-table their asses off if they wanted to. But they couldn't cover the whole site. Same thing could apply here.

I agree. I proposed something like this at one point, but cannot find the thread.

I think that for cash games you should only be allowed to play 3 levels below your highest buyin. So if you play the $50 h2hs you can also play $5-20 ones. But if you play the $109 h2hs you can't play the $5 ones, but can still play the $10 ones. If you're playing the $215s then you can't play the $10s in that slate. I would say that once you hit $100 it is a free for all and you can play 10ks and $109s to make sure there is an opportunity for volume.

I would also keep this rule in place for all GPPs with fewer than 1k entries. If there are more than 1k entries in a gpp then you can play it even if its a $3 GPP and you're playing the $5,300 Thunderdomes too.

Then, as a last step, they could reduce the multi-entry levels to still allow volume but on a much smaller scale. Say they allow only 100 entries into the millionaire maker. Its restrictive to some guys like you, but not so restrictive that you can't still get some real volume in and push an edge.

The problem with that in the big payout GPP's is they won't get enough entries and will have an overlay meaning they lose money.

I have no idea if this falls under the category of "If I give you $100 can you double it?" - but chiefsplanet is putting together a pool to play on FD for the rest of the NFL season. Looking for strong DFS players who can help with lineups - if anyone's interested. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...php?p=11782497

They might be leary of taking brand new accounts, so put your DK/FD sn in the post.

True. I'm certain the sites want to promote their big payout contests. They don't want them to go away. They would have valid concerns.

The reason state lotteries are so popular is that they can promote huge money prizes. The players don't seem to care that virtually every penny is either raked off or funneled into that big money payout. Believe it or not, lotteries could actually be fair and fun if rakes were reduced from 50 to 10 percent and if prize pools were equally divided. But lottery departments argue it would kill off that big money promotion, thus killing their revenue, and unfortunately, they're right.

JFC you're an idiot. Let's pool money with randoms on the internet to fire a bunch of ****ty lineups in a top-heavy gpp and worry about little details like escrow and taxes later. What could go wrong? No wonder you're living paycheck to paycheck on a six figure salary.

This is why I thought the Golden Tee tier method was better, as high volume players can still enter their mass entries. The big tournaments would still be 'open' events.

I can't ever see a site thinking the path to success is limiting the number of times people can enter.

As you say, poker sites can have hundreds of tournaments running simultaneously and it's impossible for a single player to enter and play all of those tournaments. In theory, with DFS, he can.

I don't think this is really a problem. From the week 1 MM stats we had only 15,865 entries that would not have been allowed under this rule and they still would have profited on the $10mm gtd.

This is not true at all but see it said all the time around here. For example if last week's Sunday Million at Draftkings was capped at 100 entries, there would have been 10,443 less entries, assuming everyone who had more than 100 entries still would have entered 100 times. The tournament still would have had 366,324 entries for a total of $7,326,480. So DK would not have raked as much but would have still been profitable.

Sites may need to slightly lower the size of the GPP's if they lowered the max entry limit but the idea we can't still have massive tournaments without allowing people hundreds of entries is completely false.

EDIT: CalledDownLight I'm not sure why my numbers differ from yours, I only have 75 people with > 100 entries. You might be summing your groups instead of keeping them separate. I come up with 216,531 unique players.

I'm no computer programmer, but it would be interesting to hear from one. Seems like doing all these things would take a while in development.

And what if I'm a small stakes player, but I want to go for it one time with a $215 heads up contest. Then am I stuck with $20 minimum buyins after that?

no idea on the programming

on the buyin thing I would do it on a slate by slate basis. So you could play a $215 thur-mon contest then play lower on sunday-monday contests or higher for NBA one day then lower the next.

FD has an overall contest limit. I think it is 5000 now.

I could maybe see a contest limit per buy in level / contest type. So maybe you are allowed to play 50 double ups at the $1 level, 50 at the $2 level, etc, alongside 50 $1 H2Hs 50 $2 H2Hs and so on.

But anything more complicated than that (like the "tier system" or the "you can't play anything 3 buy in levels below your top buy in" rule) would just be confusing.

5,000. Wow. Ok. Mark me down as in favor of lowering that number. Sounds like an easier IT fix too.

Those are values you calculated for week 1?

For NFL, it was 1k until they changed it very recently, like 2-3 weeks ago. So all of the talk about lowering entry limits feels like a major pipe dream to me, at least until after the IPO.

It was 1000 a day as of a couple weeks ago, which Ray, myself, and many others thought was too low for NFL. They over corrected in the worse possible way by by raising it to 5000 per slate, per day, so like 20,000 for NFL Sunday.

So they were doing the right thing (though they were over doing it) and decided to blow that to hell in the arms race with DK, who lets Max and gannondorf play thousands upon thousands of contests a day, even at baseball where it's a real problem, to the point that gannondorf max enters quarter gpp's, this is a guy playing 100's of K a day, entering 200/2350 in a quarter game FFS, and FD looked at that and said "that's what we want"? I really don't get it

No, my numbers are from week 4. I misread and didn't realize the other chart was week 1 numbers, so both examples show the same thing, as does every other tournament I've run the numbers on.