well you guys get the idea.

it sucks because i have a dream that someday it will be like 2007 where i could bet millions on sports betting with bets ranging from NFL to Ukranian Division 2 basketball in my underwear. And DFS is gonna ruin that since its on pace to be banned and I;ll be stuck here in my Vegas prison forever repeating the same tasks over and over.

Was just coming to quote this. I'm torn between laughing, crying, and melting my own face off in a cauldron of pure acid.

i think DFS existing next football season has to be an underdog right now

The thing that's striking (or maybe not) is the casual overconfidence these higher-ups showed. Like they had an absolutely terrible read on the everyone-thinks-this-is-a-huge-scam hivemind of the gas-huffing public, not to mention they continually provoked the hive with annoying ads, and then opportunistic media types were waiting in the wings to swarm in and feed off the negative buzz to sell a sensational "scandal."

Those PFT comments are how real people think, and even though the media stories are full of half-truths (half may be generous), the damage is already done, and any Tom, Dick, or Harry the Pool Cleaner from Sandusky you meet on the street is gonna fire off one of those random HOT TAKES from the PFT comments section, and they will be part of the majority opinion.

There was a lesson to be learned from online poker, and that is when you're skating on thin, legally gray ice, the risks are amplified such that you have to be almost unduly above board, if not only to avoid drawing the ire of politicians, AGs, and public pitchforks. But instead, in the most fratastic manner ever, they were like, "Nah brah, we got 'dis," and proceeded to not just poke at the hive but smash it like a dangling piñata with the DeMarini CF8 of adspam, impropriety, and just general douchiness. So here we are.

I think they have confidence because of all the people who have a stake in it. The leagues/teams not only don't oppose it, they partnered with them to get their cut. There's simply too much money and too many powerful people involved to just have it all end because a few of the anti-fun congressmen decide they don't like it.

Unfortunately, it looks like that could all be changing because of this scandal, regardless of what actually happened and/or is happening. If the public starts to think that this is a scam and "insider trading", it could put pressure on the leagues/teams to cut ties. Kind of like what's going on with FIFA right now, if your major partners are backing out, you're probably in trouble.

The only issue I see is advertising money is rough to come by now and FD/DK are spending an insane amount per week on advertising. I was surprised all these sites attacked them and didn't try to cover it up because of that.

Web advertising tends to be different than other types, ad networks are used and sites often don't know the brands which will be advertised

yea but every team and sport and any sports website is affiliated with DK directly

like CNBC was all anti DFS but NBC owns part of FD

Like most games and sports, I think its fair to say there's a large element of skill and a big element of luck involved in DFS. But if you're going to make a skill argument, I think you shoot yourself in the foot when you don't really care about level playing fields.

I don't mind so much that skilled players are seeking new players in single-entry games, but one player firing 200 entries in a GPP while another player has just one is ridiculous. How are you going to prove skill by allowing that? I can't really imagine regulation becoming a reality without considering that issue.

I think poker makes the same mistake with multiple entries in tournaments. Its absurd that the person who won the tournament also may have lost it five times.

I'd bet a lot that DraftKings and FanDuel will still be around and offering contests at the start of the 2016 NFL season. There's a lot of big money behind DFS.

problem is it looks like the media got their share but the gov't didn't get paid off and now they want their revenge

Why does multi entry mean that there isn't skill? Multi entry means you reach the long run faster.

Because. If you get stopped on 4th and 1 at the goal line, you don't get to rebuy and try again. If you're in golf tourney, you don't get to abort your first round and start over if you double-bogey the first hole. It really makes the "but how much did you lose" argument pretty viable. Does the single entry player who wins a GPP have 200 times more skill than the guy who entered 200 times? It just muddies the water when you're trying to prove your "skill".

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. There are single entry tournaments and there are multientry, they both have their own appeal, no reason there can't be both. Neither shows any less/more skill than the other.

Multi entry proves who has the bigger bankroll, and who can write the better code. Single entry is where the skill is.

Okay. Here's a better example. We agree to play heads up. We play 1000 times. You win 30% of the time. I win 70% of the time. I'm a much better player, right? No. You're a much better player. That's because I'm playing four lineups. You're playing one. All things being equal, I should win 80% of the time, but I'm only winning 70% of the time. You just have one bullet against your four opponents, all of which are me. Maybe we'd both be beaten by the rake, but you'd make out better than I would in terms of money and obviously in skill.

In short, I believe people understand a level playing field where everyone has an equal chance. My math was easy in the example above. I couldn't begin to explain it conceptually when some players enter a 5,000 entry contest with 200 tickets, and others have 30, 13, 7, 3, 1 etc. And you can't just say the guy with the most money wins. If it was a freeroll with an arbitrary number of entries per player, how would figure out the most skillful then?

I'm fine with the existence of both kinds of contests. I'm just saying the skill argument is muddied greatly in multi-entry events.

All that said, I much appreciate your sense of fair play in DFS and I wish you continued success.

There is a pretty simple math calculation called ROI that takes into account the fact that some people entered more than others.

dont care enough to check previous posts to tell if you are trolling or not, so good job

ive never understood the whole 'players with the most entries win more/bigger bankroll bigger advantage' kinda arguments. i mean sure the guy who has 200 entries is more likely to win the tournament than the guy who has 1 but hes also going to go broke much quicker if hes not a good player. like somebody said already it only gets you to the long run faster.

the edge that ray and max have in these things doesnt come from the fact that they have a bigger bankroll. if you gave the average dip**** rg forum member who complains about these types of things an equal sized bankroll to play in these big tourneys he would just lose it quicker.

Not only does Max have the bankroll to drop 888 entries, he has the algorithm that allows mass editing of these entries moments before lineups lock.

Only a handful of DFSers have that combination of money and technology.

the script stuff is obv a different discussion. i just dont see how having more money by itself will make you a better dfs player. would warren buffett be the best dfs player in the world just bc he could afford to max enter every contest?

fwiw DK fell 4268 entries short of filling

maybe the news did have some effect!

they still cleared 929,640 in rake tho

What are these scripts and algorithms you guys speak of?

With a Buffett sized bankroll you could diversify your cash game contests to help minimize variance. So yes, a bankroll by itself helps.

It only helps in GPPs if you're good at making multiple lineups. Again, this is where the algorithmic automated entry/edit becomes an issue.