If the sites want to improve the win rates from the current 1-2% and not look like total shark tanks spread the gpp prize pool more equitably.Not a new idea but nothing screams screw you recs like giving most of the prize pool to the top 5 finishers.

On my phone it says Im restricted from playing on FD because of my location. I live in Boston and have no affiliation with NY. Anyone have this problem? I emailed FD support 4 times and obviously they never responded.

I'm in boston haven't had that issue on my phone.

thx, yeh its seems weird, maybe they can figure it out, but they never respond by email or Twitter.

Both sites have had a lot of false positives with their new location process.

Gzesh was right. It's like the NYAG copied one of his posts into an article.

AG explanation - "FanDuel and DraftKings have made the argument, over and over — including yesterday in this paper — that they run “games of skill” and are therefore legal. This is nonsense. New York law prohibits sports wagering — betting money on a future event outside of the gambler’s control — regardless of the skill involved. Yet this provision of the law is deliberately ignored by both FanDuel and DraftKings."

"Games of chance often involve some amount of skill; this does not make them legal. Good poker players often beat novices. But poker is still gambling, and running a poker room — or online casino — is illegal in New York."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2441071

As much as I hate that guy, he definitely isn't an idiot.

W I just don't understand how anyone can call what they do "bookmaking." It's basically fantasy contests among players which have existed for 25 years. You cannot wager on an outcome with the company. The only reason they are being targeted is because of their popularity (and the AG gets huge political contributions from horse racing interests and casinos which offer horrible products).


I believe their is an nj court ruling that fantasy sports entry fees are not wagers. So it's very deceptive for the AG and his media allies to throw around the term "bet" so loosely.


The AG should try out a free contest this weekend and see if he enjoys it. But he is probably like many politicians. A fake sports fan who pretends to like the mets for votes when they are winning.

The average player loses. More realistically, 90%+ of players are going to lose long term.

With those expectations in mind, with sports betting you can do zero research, plop down your funds and be assured of a sweat at a reasonable theoretical loss rate of around -4.5%.

In DFS the average player loses at a rate twice that while putting in far more effort.

2.25% using 5D reduced juice as well

It is definitely a challenge for the sites to have a nice flowing ecosystem. I think they figured try to scale as much as possible and slowly restrict higher volume players as time goes on.

It would be interesting to see what the end game of that would look like. You need to find the balance of not letting the sharks eat too much but also you need to have profitable players or else people just will find something else to do.

''Administrative fees'' lol.
''In fact, we have heard from experts that daily fantasy sports players are increasingly showing up in Gamblers Anonymous meetings and the offices of addiction counselors. In 2013, the National Council on Problem Gambling estimates the annual costs of gambling addiction in the United States at about $7 billion, including from crime, incarceration and bankruptcy''.Completely disingenuous,he didn't research this at all.AG is quoting anecdotal statements from a one page letter from the NCPG.Legal decisions are supposed to be based on facts not on something you ''heard''. And despite all the bad,bad things gambling causes NYAG is snugly in the pocket of the casino industry.

No,but he's much more dangerous.He's an ambitious power hungry hypocrite who feels he knows what's best for NY citizens,whether they like it or not.Couple that with a gutless,silent Governor (who is also in bed with the casinos) and the ever present culture of corruption in Albany and he can cause much more damage then any idiot.

If anyone is still interested in keeping up to date, I suggest following Dainel Roberts of Fortune Magazine for some DFS news:

https://twitter.com/readDanwrite

DFS def a gateway drug. Started off with football. Found myself watching actual nascar races this year.

I watched EPL, and 100s of NBA games last year for the first time as well.

I don't know much about the stock market but there was societal gains from it. Money capitalizes companies who employ large swaths of labor, shares are owned by those who have invested nothing but labor, the strength of our currency has some reliance on the volume of the market. Could be overgeneralizing here, but you get the point.

DFS is a game where people bet among each other and the site facilitates the bets, tracking, and set the prices of the game pieces. The currency involved has a fraction of the stockmarket's web of influence and benefits so small the two are difficult to compare.


To say there should be no restrictions on DFS within states is different than saying playing DFS is not betting or gambling. It surely is placing a wager on an event beyond one's control with incomplete information.

Getting abstract about what is betting is a useless game that everyone see right through. The question isn't whether or not these will viewed as games of skill like bowling and golf tournaments or chance like poker with elements of skill. The latter is inevitable because it's undeniable. The question is how the game is classified and regulated and how those classifications and regulations affect the cost and how the game is played.

People trying to make comparisons between DFS and investing in financial markets aren't helping the DFS cause. The two are so extremely different that opponents and lawmakers will not take people seriously that make that assertion.

DFS sites are banks with shades of gambling. It needs to be approached that way with honest dialogue. If you want your voice heard, make educated arguments that will not be instantly dismissed.

Edit: I see the post above mine covered that also.

Anybody read the article on Deadspin that had FanDuel's employee policies. Man were these sites stupid. I get that in the beginning, maybe you did need employees that played so that they would know the product. But once these companies grew so quickly, not one person could see that the policy needed to be that nobody was able to play on other sites. Common sense really was forgotten about.

Maybe the policies needed to be updated but based on the software "upgrades" and such each site has rolled out they most definitely need either employees that play on other sites or volunteer players to give them a lot of ideas/feedback while they are working on designs.

the sites should jump at this.

that would be foolish. the sites are in great danger of not even existing legally. if a state is actually willing to allow them to continue with only a few regulations, then they need to lock that down.

PokerStars has seen great success with focus groups. As dedicated as DFS players are, I bet this approach would have worked and still could for DFS.

This not getting enough attention.

Here is what the Policy guidelines said:

lol can't be real

full link here

http://deadspin.com/fanduel-told-emp...dra-1743814536

It got plenty of attention when somebody posted it like 3 days ago.

In before next week when Chainsaw posts the same link.

The term "bookmaking" does typically mean the house taking on the outcome risk, (for a fee or "vig") and hoping to balance that risk or win its side if the proposition remains unbalanced.

However, a different variety of sportsbetting also exists, where the sponsor does NOT accept outcome risk and rather offers a marketplace where P2P bets are matched, again for a fee. See, e.g. Matchbook.com. This business model is however still illegal sportsbetting under New York and US law. To be specific about DFS, it most closely resembles matchbook model, especially when it offers HU P2P action.

I am not a NY gaming lawyer and am not offering advice as to NY laws.

(Back in 2006, I argued strongly that Poker should challenge UIGEA coverage because the operator NEVER takes outcome risk or accepts bets or wagers ......and only the Players "bet or wagered" or accepted/called bets or wagers, dependent upon outcome risk. Under the UIGEA, allocation of utcme risk actually would have been relevant.... However, the paid-for lobbyists and learned counsel preferred to try arguing "skill" instead, which had ZERO relevance under the UIGEA. But hey, what did I know about the actual role of risk in poker model, compared to a bunch of Beltway Bandit lawyers and lobbyists? )