DFS Debacle Reader Perspectives
Last week, I wrote about the various debacles facing the DFS industry. Like any short-sighted capitalists, FanDuel and DraftKings have been grabbing as much revenue as possible. Unfortunately, it looks increasingly apparent that both industry giants forgot about the nature of their service. In America, DFS is only quasi-legal. Draw too much of the wrong attention and they could be punted from one of their largest markets.
Last week’s article generated 108 comments as of this writing. About 25 of those were me responding to others. Another 25 or so can be classified as short jokes. That still leaves quite a few meaningful notes.
As it turns out, some people really don’t like DFS. Their glee over the whole situation is obvious. To them, DFS is a perversion of the classic fantasy game. As much as I don’t want to alienate some of my readers, this line of thinking is strikingly trollish. And I can’t help rising to the bait. Some people prefer traditional fantasy baseball. Some prefer daily fantasy. Nobody has a right to tell you that your fantasy baseball preferences are wrong.
As one anonymous reader put it:
I don’t understand how the interest in DFS has impacted season-long fantasy players aside from the “stupid money” moving on to another format.
If you’re a season-long fantasy ‘purist’ like myself, I don’t see why we can’t just ignore DFS and do our own thing as we always have.
Some readers are worried that regulation of the DFS industry could also affect traditional fantasy leagues – specifically money leagues . Those games are exempt from internet gambling laws. It’s the very exemption DFS sites are using to justify their contests. If the loophole is closed for DFS, then it could be closed for traditional fantasy too. After all, lawmakers aren’t always the most rational or discerning folk.
The good news is that traditional fantasy money leagues should remain safe for practical reasons. As one reader points out, a typical fantasy league is analogous to a weekly poker game with your friends. Technically, it’s illegal. I think. Honestly, I don’t even know for sure.
The law never busts down your door for poker (noise is another story). The same will hold true of most fantasy leagues. A few services could be affected like LeagueSafe. Public, big-money contests like NFBC could also be shutdown.
One of the problems DFS faces is the influx of quants using algorithms and scripts to optimize lineups and exploit the worst users. Interestingly, commenter Joe had this to say:
I’m a quant. I write machine learning algos of cognition for a living. The opportunity cost of my time is pretty high- why in God’s name would I waste time trying to algo DFS? I know people do it, it just seems like they’re probably muscling it. I mean, I love sports, and I do a couple cool things with factor loading models for my yearly teams, but the time I would have to spend to build something I would be proud of in analyzing DFS can be spent in more lucrative ways.
So that’s good news for amateur users. I suspect the low hanging fruit have been plucked from the DFS tree. New entrants should face steep competition on the high volume circuit. It will be harder for them to become established and justify continued investment of their time and energy.
Of the existing users, some will leverage their winnings to leap into other jobs, start a business, or diversify their portfolios. They’re the smart ones. Others will continue beating the DFS horse until it’s well and thoroughly dead. There will always be professionals to “ruin” the game for amateurs, but there’s a definite equilibrium. If too many pros enter, then it’s no longer worth their time.
Mike R. had this to say:
Anyone else find it hypocritical that baseball, who has ads for fanduel and draftkings during their games, still bans Pete Rose for gambling? Call it a game of skill all you want, DFS is gambling on sports outcomes. When 27 baseball teams have agreements with DFS sites, its safe to say they sponsor gambling. The hard rule in baseball since Commissioner Landis served has been gambling of any sort in the game will get you a lifetime ban. Apparently as long as the teams are backing the gambling sites, it’s all ok. Very shady
Honestly, I have to agree. It’s hypocritical. Granted, DFS does seem to be a more harmless form of gambling. Some commenters tried to create scenarios where a player or manager would throw a game or decision for some reason related to DFS. They’re all hopelessly tortured. There are simply too many variables in DFS to control the equation.
Say Joe Maddon pulls Jake Arrieta early because he’s 20 percent owned. Maddon (or his co-conspirators) would still have to pick the right alternatives to Arrieta and spike a lineup. Insider help can improve odds, but not enough to make it financial viable. Bribes are too costly in an era where an entry level manager makes nearly $1 million.
On the surface, I don’t have a problem with baseball teams working together with the DFS sites. However, this could be a slippery slope. When people talk about the integrity of the sport, it’s usually about some overblown, non-issue. Like changing the rules about hitting catchers. In the case of gambling, there’s just soooo much money at stake.
The sport has already become obnoxiously transactional for fans. If you go to a game, you pay for a ticket, a convenience fee, a processing fee, parking, and ridiculous concessions. You can buy a craft beer – it will cost more than a six-pack of that same beer. The DFS ad barrage already cheapens the broadcasts I watch (for what it’s worth, so do the Viagra and beer ads). Teams should be careful moving forward.
Finally, one person asked about The Book. I occasionally reference it in my articles. Think of it as a course on Sabermetrics 101. If you’re interested, use this link so the writers get a small piece of your used copy purchase.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
I’m a traditional player, and aside from the constant ad barrages on television, one real way that DFS affects traditional players is the shift in analysis and writing on the subject of fantasy baseball. As DFS has gained popularity, many of the writers whose analysis I used to enjoy have been pulled over to covering the daily games instead, as well time on podcasts I listen to. It’s a minor complaint, but I think a fair one that shouldn’t be interpreted as “trollish”.
I have to agree, but in deeper leagues, it can be somewhat advantageous when trying to figure out which bench bat to play when your starter gets a day off or becomes day-to-day due to some malady. Still not worth doing more than a cursory scan after I’ve read the rest of the articles that draw my attention on this site.
which good podcasts shifted to DFS?
It is a mixed bag, one of the other things I read on this (may have been his first article), mentioned that DFS giants have pushed a ton of money onto the table to get these guys to write about it.
Money money, means a lot of the part time writers, can move into full time roles. The upside is more content from them (even if all of the more is DFS stuff)
And not all of that money goes to DFS content. In addition to sponsoring columns, the sites do a lot of standard advertisement which can be used for any purpose.
No I agree, it’s a fair point. I used to do a lot more focused content on other topics in the past. I prefer doing the shorter leads for TDG as it let’s me cover a variety of things in one space, but I know at least part of my audience doesn’t click into the article because they think it’s just a DFS column.
Excuse my advertising ignorance. Am I to infer that advertisers directly control some portion of the content? Or is it more indirect: advertisers pay Rotographs, Rotographs writes xx articles on DFS, Rotographs users click through DFS ads, Rotographs writes fewer articles on DFS, fewer Rotographs users click through DFS ads, DFS reduces their advertising?
Also curious as to where the editorial line gets drawn between DFS vs. Fangraphs in regards to SSS. Is there an ethical question there? Or is this purely capitalistic market driving content and it doesn’t concern me?
It’s possible I shouldn’t be talking about this…
In the case of RotoGraphs, our sponsored columns in 2014 existed because of DFS money, but they had no control over the actual content (besides the ad). Last year, DFS sites had absolutely no influence over anything appearing on the site.
Other sites are different, but there’s a range.
I don’t see an ethical issue because there really isn’t a SSS problem. I’m going to write about it for next Tuesday. In short, DFS is NOT about one day, no matter what their ads say. For a power user, the sample is actually larger than a typical roto league.
Brad, thanks for the response.
8 Used from $19.93 19 New from $16.34
My reason for disliking DFS has nothing to do with baseball or fantasy sports. It is the silicon valley style of “let’s grow the business by ignoring the law and by the time we are big enough to be called out on it we will be big enough to lobby for the law to be changed to our interpretation.” Uber and Airbnb do the same thing. The ethical side of me just cringes when companies like these pull in millions or even billions of dollars based on something that is questionably legal.
And yes I’m a hypocrite that uses Uber regularly, but I wouldn’t be upset if they disappeared completely tomorrow. Just like I used Napster but couldn’t blame anyone once that was shutdown.
Re: your Uber and Airbnb comparisons –
I don’t know about calling these companies unethical, to me their only sin seems to be that they’re innovative enough that they’ve been able to threaten some entrenched interests (taxi unions, hotel chains). Unethical seems to be to be when, threatened by what technology is doing to your industry, you respond by trying to use the legal system to quash competition rather than innovate yourself (look at Napster – the music industry won the battle, but in the end the companies that survived were the ones that were willing to update their business models anyway).
Which is really what the regulation of gambling is all about – states don’t *really* have a moral problem with gambling, beyond maybe the most extreme hard liners. If they did, they wouldn’t be so happy to pad their coffers with lottery ticket money or taxes from licensed casinos. I mean, who are the faces of the anti-internet gambling movement? The Sheldon Adelsons of the world. That should tell you something about the real intentions here.
The problem DFS faces, which online poker faced before, is that they’ve grown to the point where they are now on competitors’ and regulators’ radars, which unfortunately in our regulatory state, is when the real battle for survival starts.
It’s not about technology, though. That’s exactly the mindset Ryan is calling out. If the government is going to have regulations, then that’s the way it is. Acting like you have some fancy high-tech service when really what you offer is a convenient way to skirt the law is rather disingenuous.
Doesn’t mean people won’t use it. After all, there are quite a few popular recreational drugs that are extremely illegal. But most drug dealers know they’re drug dealers, not legitimate business leaders.
Not sure how it’s not about technology – mobile apps and the connectivity they provide are at the center of this, and it’s a sign of how mobile networks can be leveraged to connect buyers/sellers/assets in real time in ways that weren’t possible in the past.
As for regulations, some of them are in the public interest, and this is where government legitimately steps in to ensure that innovation doesn’t come at the cost of safety. Many of these other regulations are purely anti-competitive encumbrances on the industry though – cab drivers aren’t outraged at Uber out of concern for the public welfare, they’re outraged because (1)the industry is dependent on a monopoly (medallions) which is being threatened and (2) they are being forced to play by more restrictive rules than their competition.
#2 is a legitimate complaint, but I don’t see how the discussion should be “quash the competition!” rather than “let’s get more competitive”. Clearly, there’s a lot of fat to be trimmed in these industries in both the business model and regulatory sense – and the funny thing about technology is that it’s going to happen sooner or later, you can only hold on to outdated models of service for so long. #1, well, monopolies tend to be anti-innovative, and this is the price you pay.
And come on – comparing them to drug dealers is just specious. We’re not talking about something that has been regularly and explicitly illegal for decades, or even at all….
Great comment. I’d add Amazon as another big name example of that style.
“As one reader points out, a typical fantasy league is analogous to a weekly poker game with your friends. Technically, it’s illegal. I think. Honestly, I don’t even know for sure.”
It might vary depending on the state, but I believe poker home games are legal as long as the “house” is not taking a cut of the entry fee or charging a seat fee. So you most likely aren’t breaking the law when you play a game for money against your friends because gambling isn’t illegal, although running a casino without a license would be.
I live in Md, and have done some work on gambling. We actually have a set of laws that allow for Church’s to host games. Back in the day (really up to about 5 years ago) strip mall casinos would spring up with a church affiliation, the church got a cut, but really someone else got most. They were limited to mainly table games if i remember correctly
That was eventially closed from the court, and finally completely closed when more gambling (more big casinos) were allowed.
One thing that has always struck me as a distinguishing factor between DFS and season long seems pretty obvious: sample size. The single day sample appears to me to give the contests more of gambling feel.
Also, it seems very odd an occurrence of insider trading would have any impact on the broader implications of whether or not the activity, is at it’s core, a game of skill or a game of chance. What we should be discussing shutting down are the two companies who rigged those games. Or sanctioning them Or maybe there’s a class action suit in there.
Oh, the class action lawsuits have already started and are out in full force.
Yeah, I thought what Jay wrote. Not totally sure, but I think it’s a legit point. With that Brad Miller example someone raised from when you mentioned he hit two HR, that would be a blip in season-long fantasy, but meant a payout in daily, so I’m not saying one is ok while another is not, but daily seems to have an awful lot more about luck to it than traditional.
So each state has its own definition of gambling. Nevada is boring because they just list what games they count as gambling. Here’s a broader definition from New York:
A person engages in gambling when he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
1. “Contest of chance” means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.
So ‘material degree’ is the question – I am not bored enough to dig further into it
You don’t seem to understand what the word “troll” means because you’re using it incorrectly. The people who dislike daily fantasy and want to see it curbed if not ended entirely aren’t taking that position to get a rise out of people like you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Their disdain is genuine and therefore not a “troll,” whether or not it is justified. Trying to paint objections as disingenuous simply because you disagree with them is inappropriate. Furthermore, simply because you disagree doesn’t mean that the people who view DFS as a perversion of traditional fantasy baseball are wrong in that belief.
This is an analytics website. We’ve all been beaten over the head a thousand times with warnings about sample sizes and the dangers of teasing out correlations from limited data. DFS is a one game sample. The notion that anyone, no matter how knowledgeable about the sport, can make consistently meaningful predictions about single games is something analytically-inclined people will instinctively regard with skepticism at best if not outright hostility. Attempts to argue otherwise feel like fraud to me. I’m not suggesting that there is absolutely no advantage to be gained from daily fantasy analysis because clearly analysis can help your odds some, but anyone who plays or writes about daily fantasy should proceed with the understanding that the nature of the game means that it will always be predominantly about luck. DFS proponents will counter that all fantasy sports involves luck, which is true, but it’s the luck to skill ratio that matters, both for us and for federal gambling legislation. DFS is overwhelmingly luck with a small amount of skill. Traditional rotisserie baseball is mostly skill with much less luck involved. We all should be able to understand and admit that projections for a 162 game sample will be vastly more accurate than projections for a 1 game sample.
I started writing about fantasy baseball “professionally” in 1998. I played the sport until I wasn’t physically good enough to do so, and I’ve always been proficient with mathematics, so fantasy baseball had a natural appeal to me by combining something I appreciated with something I was reasonably good at. I do not give advice for daily leagues because I do not feel comfortable pretending that I can reliably help people do well in one game samples. As I said earlier, I would feel like I was perpetrating a fraud by giving readers the impression that I had that level of certainty. I also do not play daily fantasy leagues because they’re far more about money than the sport itself. Frankly I don’t even like playing for money in my season-long leagues because, for me, the joy has always come from developing and demonstrating a knowledge of the players involved. DFS is gambling that chooses individuals sports as a means of deciding its lottery. Rotisserie is an immersion in the sport that can be played for money if you so choose. So yes, I do view DFS as “a perversion of the classic fantasy game.” It not only runs contrary to the analytical approach that I appreciate so much, but even more importantly, its focus is on money rather than the sport.
1. I’m not using troll incorrectly nor is it so narrowly defined as you suggest. I perhaps unintentionally included some people who are not actually trolling within my lazy paragraph, but lack of precision is different from misusing the word.
2. On the larger subject, I’m confused why analytically inclined people get caught up with the single game nature of DFS. It’s just like normal baseball in the sense that anything can happen on a given day. Nobody will argue that. However, the Royals would beat the Phillies (or the Indians or just about anyone) more often than not for a number of reasons. DFS is very similar, a superior process should win over time. Anybody who tells you that DFS is about a single game fundamentally misunderstands the “sport.”
1. Trolling is defined as: “making a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” So yes, you undeniably did use that word incorrectly, as there is no evidence that people were calling DFS “a perversion of the classic fantasy game” to upset you. You did what a lot of people online do, employing the accusation of “trolling” as a weapon against those with whom you disagree in an attempt to undermine and dismiss their contention summarily rather than addressing it directly.
2. I’m confused as to why you’re pretending not to understand the vast difference between rotisserie baseball’s 162 game sample and daily’s one game samples only to then mention the problem in your very next sentence. Yes, anything can happen on a given day. There is far too much randomness in any particular day’s results to feel reasonable certainty about your ability to predict those results. Winning on the major sites is more about predicting what lineups the masses will use than who will actually play well, which is why the inter-site involvement was such a scandal. It’s playing the system, not playing something that requires or produces meaningful insight into baseball. DFS is gambling. Rotisserie is not.
There are dozens of definitions of troll. Intolerance is a form of trolling. If it makes you feel better, mentally replace “trollish” with “intolerant.”
DFS and rotisserie are effectively the exact same thing with a different style of draft and different buy-in periods. Roto leagues pay once and mostly keep one roster. DFS users pay daily and use the entire player pool. The game itself, save for some negligible statistical differences, is the same. I know dozens of people who pay more for their Roto leagues than I do for DFS.
I suppose you can even say that DFS uses a larger sample since a typical full season user will play in well over 200 contest periods rather than about 180. If I recall, I had about 230 contest periods and I skipped a bunch of days including every Sunday.
People misusing words in dozens of different ways doesn’t change their actual definitions. I provided you with the definition.
No, it really isn’t. Banning umbrellas from sporting events is not a form of trolling the attendees. A parent forbidding piercings is not trolling his or her child. Trolls may employ intolerance to elicit responses, but they can just as easily employ unreasonable exuberance.
I realize I’ve crossed well into pedantry at this point, but calling daily fantasy leagues “a perversion of the classic fantasy game” is not being intolerant either. Calling for daily leagues to be banned would be considered intolerance, yet being critical of something and expressing disapproval does not rise to that level. There’s a big difference between a person disliking something to the point that they choose not to partake and wanting to prevent anyone else from partaking.
I don’t have a dog in the hunt; don’t care if everyone plays or enjoys DFS, or hates it and wants it to go away forever; but JD is right insofar as you’re accusing people of doing something they weren’t doing by definition and then saying, “well people use that term [trolling] lots of ways, agree to disagree!”
Just because people don’t necessarily agree with you doesn’t make them trolls, or their behavior trollish.
I know you don’t want to get sidetracked on 20 posts about the use/misuse of a single term in a much wider article, but how you use words to frame your opponents (not really opponents, even, just people with other perspectives) matters.
jbolick is right about the misuse of “trollish.”
But I’m not sure he has a strong point concerning the other issue. One single DFS contest might be mostly luck, but over the course of a long season wise play will be rewarding (assuming fair play). That’s very close to setting a daily lineup of a traditional roto league; whether or not I compiled the best stats in the league on that day may be mostly luck, but over the whole season skill is rewarded.
I think the reason “analytically inclined people get caught up with the single game nature of DFS” is because that’s how it’s marketed.
I understand your point that playing daily over the course of a full season takes skill to win. And I agree with that point.
However, at every commercial break of everything on tv right now all we’re told is “you can win today!” Not once in any of those ads do they say anything about playing every day for a whole season. They want the money from the casual fan who will play once or twice here and there, and for those people – their targeted audience – it IS more about luck than skill.
What’s weird though is that they don’t want casual users who only play occasionally.
Their rake is about 10% (it varies by contest). If a guy plays the $2 Squeeze every other week, then they make 20 cents every other week. If instead he plays $25 a day, then they make $35 every other week. If it costs something like $15 to acquire a customer (a blind guess), then those 20 cent customers aren’t worth the cost of acquisition.
I try not to worry about advertising in general, but one of the ads bugs me a little. A guy says (paraphrasing): “I’m a regular schmo, and I won big bucks. The difference is, I played and they didn’t.”
For this regular Joe to win big money, “they” had to have also played! The prize money comes from other people playing and losing. That ad is either aimed directly at stupid people, or is intentionally misleading by implying that the prize money is just put up by the companies themselves.
Brad,
I do think jdbolick is right both about the definition of “trolling” and about the importance of not dismissing the other side’s viewpoint just because you disagree with it. Now, I think many season-long players also dismiss the DFS players’ viewpoint because they disagree, so no one here is an angel.
That aside, I am not convinced that many users do play every day, though I’m open to seeing data to convince me. And I don’t think the DFS sites want the regular users to all play every day because of one reason: those users eventually realize they are losing every single day no matter how smart or clever or well-informed they are.
So the DFS sites gets extra money from them for a month or two but then no more money from them ever. I don’t think that’s in their best interest (and the scope and focus of the TV ads seem to back that up).
(Please let someone run this through the translator)
I looked back. I used troll correctly in intent, but I didn’t explain myself clearly enough within the prose. So I appeared to be referring to people who just didn’t like DFS rather than those who actively take pleasure in denying an enjoyable experience to others simply because they don’t also enjoy the experience. If you go back to the original comments (and really, don’t bother, it’s not worth the time), there are examples of the latter sentiment.
And honestly, if that doesn’t fit the commonly accepted definition, then it’s defined incorrectly. That sort of behavior invokes the imagery of an actual mythological troll. Which is presumably the etymology of the word.
Until the community’s experts can consistently post positive winnings, I’m inclined to believe DFS is luck. When someone who is paid to give DFS advice struggles to break even over the course of the entire season, it’s hard to think of DFS as a game of skill.
But it’s not that it’s entirely (or mostly luck). It’s only luck for the non-quants. For the quants and bot-users and inside traders, it’s 90% skill and 10% luck (on any given day).
That’s the real problem here. In order to actually win over the long-term, you MUST use algorithms, or bots, or have inside knowledge, or cheat.
That’s how this is different from online poker. In online poker, playing lots of tables at once can help you get better and make more money per hour, but it doesn’t actually increase your chances at any given table. Knowing user #5 at your online table is playing 8 other tables doesn’t mean you should throw in the towel and quit. But in DFS, if you’re up against users using algorithms, bots, insider knowledge, etc. you might as well call it a day.
I like both DFS and season-long, playing DFS has made me better in my season-long leagues. I got sick of the Fanduel/DraftKings ads pretty early on, especially since DraftKings has blanketed my favorite podcasts, city buses, billboards as well. They’ve also seemed somewhat tone-deaf in initial public statements, though it seems at this point cooler heads behind the scenes are prevailing. All this said if DFS does go down I don’t think it’ll affect regular fantasy sports at all.