The Daily Grind: Untimely DFS Advice
I had a conversation on Twitter the other day in relation to the latest DraftKings “scandal.” Don’t worry, this one is actually pretty bland. DraftKings pays some people to write about DFS and make recommendations. These same people also play and make money on DraftKings.
It’s the same thing a thousand writers do (including me on RotoGraphs). The affiliated writers don’t receive any inside information. The only difference between what I do and what they do is that DraftKings profits directly from their content. Also, one of their writers has made millions of dollars. I’ve made a few thousand. I suppose that’s a noticeable difference too.
Some people worry these writers will use their platform to subtly influence ownership rates and improve their results. I can tell you from experience that it’s sometimes painful to post my first string picks. I play for small stakes so I don’t worry about shedding the occasional percentage point on my win percentage. I’m also unlikely to strongly affect the overall results. I could see how playing high stakes and high volume could really warp your incentives as an advice column writer.
Here’s my process. I usually have some kind of hook or topic. For RotoWorld, I write a bargain picks column. My job is to pick 18 bargains and write about nine of them in more detail. On normal days, I’ll find something like 25 guys I consider viable bargains. After I give away 18 of those, guess which ones I actually use. Yep, some combination of the seven I didn’t publicize.
There’s nothing nefarious in this. I really truly gave you my 18 favorite bargains. Sometimes individual picks are so unique to me that I don’t worry if I overlap with my readers. Usually, I know my picks echo the crowd. And there are a LOT of writers out there making picks. Rajai Davis versus a lefty? He’s a good bargain, but I’ll look elsewhere for myself.
I assume DraftKings’ contractors are doing the exact same thing. They probably make picks in good faith, and then they probably wisely use plan B for themselves. They undoubtedly have a heavier influence on ownership rates than me, but it should hardly matter.
Think about the way the games are divvied up. There are a few massive tournaments, some mid-sized “leagues,” and a slew of smaller games. With the exception of the massive contests like the FanDuel Squeeze ($2 entry, 10,000+ participants), most of the user base is scattered between countless contests. If a DK writer joins a 100 owner 50/50, what are the odds that more than a couple participants read their picks? Presumably pretty low.
The Part With Advice
Most readers use picks-based articles incorrectly. At least, based on my Twitter chat, that’s what we writers assume. I mentioned my bargain column. I offer up 18 inexpensive players on FanDuel. The point of the column is to help you afford a Kershaw or a Blue Jays stack on a given day.
You should view my actual selections as irrelevant. It’s all about finding a process that fits your roster building. I recommend specific players, but the best way to use the post is to stay current on the latest trends. Here are some useful questions to ask while reading player pick columns:
- Which stacks are valuable?
- Which stacks are overused?
- Who has an injury-related slump?
- What types of players are best for filling cracks for cheap?
Additionally, these articles are very useful for staying on top of the player universe. Jimmy Rollins was miserable for most of last season. There was a brief period when he was a very productive DFS play. My job is to stay on top of when you can and can’t expect something from him. This is the type of information you should leverage from my articles.
It’s not intuitive, but DFS picks articles shouldn’t be read with the intent to use the writer’s recommendations. There will certainly be times when you see a pick and decide to jump on the bandwagon. Mostly, this type of post is best used for staying on top of an ever-changing fantasy landscape.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Two facts are clear, writers have influence on what players some people use in DFS and writers play in DFS where knowing and influencing what players people use is valuable. Whether you write about your A choice and use your B choices or vice versa doesn’t really matter. All that matters is there is an obvious opportunity for a conflict of interest.
DFS really needs to clean all this stuff up. It seems like there is a new “scandal” that pops up every couple weeks regarding these old issues that have already been solved in other industries. Specifically this issue should be handled the same way that the investment advice is handled, with full disclosers. If that makes it harder for writers to win at DFS, that is just the sacrifice you have to make to do your job.
Isn’t the disclosure implied? Speaking only for myself, I’m up front that I often use players I haven’t specifically hyped in one of my columns. I’ll even share my rosters before a contest starts when people ask (as privately as possible of course). I’m not sure what else I could possibly disclose.
As for somebody writing for DK or FD, the disclosure only seems necessary when the article appears on a third party site (i.e. ESPN). For all I know, they do make a disclosure. I don’t read anything from ESPN, DK, or FD, so I wouldn’t know.
Disclosures should never just be implied. When recommending stocks or other investments, you will generally see a full breakdown of what stock if any the author own that are mentioned in the article. Now the incentives are different in DFS were you want to use players you don’t recommend as opposed to the stock market were you generally want everyone to make the same moves of you, but I think the overall concept still applies. A simple “This author has 10 DFS entries today. Clayton Kershaw appears in 4 of their entries. Matt Harvey appears in 0 of their entries.” should follow an article in which you recommend Kershaw and Harvey.
A huge problem with the DFS industry is transparency and the appearance of possible corruption. If you want the industry to succeed, writers like you should really get out in front of these type of issues. Every time a “scandal” article appears in Forbes your chances of convincing a politician that DFS is a clean and fair game of skill decreases.
One issue with this is that most advice columns are written day of or the previous evening. Small details have a big influence on lineup construction so I couldn’t possibly tell you who I’m using an in what proportion until closer to game time.
Like I said earlier, your job as a writer means you should be held to different standards which might make it more difficult to win at DFS. That is just a sacrifice writers need to make for their career. It is no different than a clubhouse attendant betting on baseball games. Just because they are engaging in that action doesn’t mean a conflict of interest exists, but the mere possibility is enough to force strict rules on the job in an attempt to prevent such conflicts.
But this is already the case, I make the game much harder on myself. I give away my best picks. I gave away my methodology in 2014. I taught an easy to prey upon user base how to implement all of my tricks with regards to weather factors, park factors, etc.
Granted, the industry probably would have caught onto my way of thinking without me publishing it. I doubt I have THAT many readers. But the point is I already make it hard on myself. And I already adjust for every possible conflict of interest I can imagine.
I see that my last comment was confusing. It’s simply not feasible to list the players I’m using in proportion because articles are published between 5 and 20 hours before I make lineups.
Every other step has already been taken (at least as it applies to me). In 2014, TDG’s association with FanDuel was very clear. Last year, I made it equally clear that it was an independent column. Those are the only disclosures I deem valuable, necessary, or possible.
You give away your best. but what if others dont? You dont see the issue there?
There are a ton of shady people out there. If a writer who has a huge stake in a contest decides not to mention player A b/c he thinks that’s his best shot at winning….there’s a clear conflict.
it’s stacking the deck really….
It’s up to the reader to judge the quality of the picks. If the reader can’t do that, they really should not be playing DFS. It’s a game for the most thoroughly educated fantasy players.
And if a writer is consistently making B quality picks, then he’s probably sandbagging his readers. So stop reading his stuff.
SO, you’re saying it is a reader’s responsibility to know if the author is giving the best 18 picks out of 27? How do you suggest the reader know this? Especially without a detailed summary of your line-ups compared to your recommendations/winnings?
How does he do that? He’s presumably reading your article to save time and inform his choices. If he could do all the research that you do, wouldnt he just do that?
So what’s the point of your articles then? You seem to say it doesnt add much, which makes it advertising that masquerades as an aid to the person—advertising which could easily mislead someone.
Lastly, this is not how DFS is marketed. And you seem to ignore that issue. if DFS is saying anyone can win just by reading a few articles. And you are saying that “it’s a game for the most thoroughly educated fantasy players” someone is being disingenuous. That’s lying and borderline theft.
At least with casinos and lotteries you generally know your odds of winning. No one knows the odds of winning any DFS game…
Oh, DFS’s marketing campaign is a complete scam. It’s why their legal defense against gambling is so damned shaky. Or at least hypocritical. They’ve done it to themselves.
The odds of winning a given DFS contest are no more difficult to calculate than poker odds before the hand is dealt. It’s an even split among all users, less rake, subject to user skill (which is always relatively opaque).
And yes, the other point about reading good authors is a challenge. I’ve always viewed TDG as a sort of dynamic forum for micromanaging owners. That’s the point of my articles. I can’t speak for others.
Jimmy Rollins – DFS All-Star
I may be in the minority here, but I’d be happy if FG refused to take a nickel from the DFS world and did not bother writing articles that tacitly encourage participation in it.
It will never happen, but you’re not alone. Though I don’t know if I’d want FG to not take the money – more money means more and better content, including non-DFS content. But yeah, I’m not really interested in playing DFS and would rather read content focused on full-season fantasy.
To me, DFS is fundamentally different from full-season fantasy leagues (aside from whether it’s gambling or not). In my experience, full-season leagues are primarily for fun and bragging rights. Even in money leagues that I’ve been in, the money is mostly so that everybody has some skin in the game, and people are still playing more to have fun than to win money. I’m sure there are some big-money leagues that invert this, but that’s a very small percentage of full-season fantasy players. By contrast, DFS is largely about money. I’m not saying it isn’t fun, but the idea of winning money is central to how DFS is sold and why people play it.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation on why DFS is kind of a divisive topic among fantasy players. But if people want to play DFS, that’s their business, and unless they’re losing their rent money it’s harmless.
To me the issue is this: something like 1.3% of DFS players win 91% of the money using advanced computer algorithms and up-to-the-minute weather forecasts. In other words, the deck is completely stacked.
That’s a bit misleading – those 1.3% of players contribute vastly more than 1.3% of the money to the pools they’re winning. I’m not denying there are a small number of sophisticated, high-volume players who win money on average, and a large number of casual players who lose money on average, but I doubt it’s as lopsided as those numbers make it look. Besides, as long as the sites are taking their cut, players will always lose money on average. It only makes sense that the ones who have found enough of a competitive advantage to beat those odds are the ones who are playing the most.
Anyway, the point isn’t whether DFS is a sound retirement plan. It would be nice if it was a level playing field, but at the end of the day, I don’t really care what people do with their money.
These are good points, especially the last one. The sites are being disingenuous by advertising the game as a get rich quick scheme. It’s better to look at DFS as a fun contest against some of the most highly skilled participants in fantasy sports. The chance to win money should be a bonus, not the primary draw. Any other viewpoint strikes me as fiscally unhealthy.
So… we should treat it like gambling (sorry, couldn’t resist).
To me, the ability for the “most highly skilled players” to automate their lineups is the single biggest factor keeping me out of DFS. I don’t care about using algorithms to choose lineups, that’s just a more advanced version of the spreadsheet that every fantasy player uses, and only as good as the analysis of the person who makes it. To me, it’s the automation of lineup adjustments that allows players to be “sharks” in DFS. Limit them to manually setting the roster for each entry, and I’d consider it a level playing field.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but my sense of DFS is that the various lineup options essentially have relatively small swings in expected value and huge variance based on actual performance. Where the average player might play one or two lineups a day that they think have positive EV, the high-volume players are essentially playing *every* lineup they think has positive EV.
I strongly agree. Allowing scripts of any kind is ridiculous. I too would be much happier if lineups had to be entered manually. If the algorithms help them win, that’s fine by me.
This is basically already the case. Aside from these occasional one offs like this, even my so-called DFS articles are geared towards traditional fantasy. The Daily Grind is a streaming picks column with some DFS window dressing to increase the value for more readers.
I really don’t think algorithms give you much of an advantage outside of rapid lineup construction. But they’re only as good as the criteria and when it’s game time, your picks still have to perform. It’s why most of the writers I read encourage readers to do their own research and consider other opinions and not just blindly fill out lineups.
If there were an algorithm that would reliably predict when Kershaw gets rocked to a 2nd inning exit, or when the Ravens are going to block a last-second FG and run it back for a TD, or when Joffry Lupul is going to step on a hockey stick and sprain his wrist just moments before puck drop, I’d love to see it.
What does give players an advantage is concrete knowledge of usage rates which was the issue with the employee who raked at rival site. No one with that kind of information should be participating and that’s mainly where the issue exists. The other issue is the casinos and cronies aren’t getting the payola they’re accustomed to.
Isnt one step away from knowing and applying usage rates the ability to influence those usage rates?
If you play DFS and, as a writer/influencer, have the ability to shape what line-ups other people use, there is a significant opportunity to shift the odds to your favor. Which is unfair…
What if Matthew Berry started holding back his best football recommendation and then played that recommendation?
So wait, you’re saying we should read your suggestions and not listen to them? I’ll be glad when this whole slimy mess is over.
I’m saying the theory is more relevant than the specifics.