101–110 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Horse racing (and other sports) insider information is an odd edge case in betting. You can't get rid of it, since the owner/trainer will always know more than the public. So it is grudgingly accepted. Using it as justification for other, preventable insider-information abuse is plain wrong. The fact that it is a bet, and might not always pay out, is irrelevant. If you keep using insider information, on average you w…
Try opening an account with a sports book company using a gaming industry email address. See how long it stays open and unthrottled.
I can't really see the problem here. The employee made a bet. Sure, he used information not commonly available, but he didn't do it on his own site. And it was still a bet, not something that was guaranteed to win. If I was employed by a horse racing trainer, and I happened to know certain information about the preparation of a particular horse, which the public hadn't factored into the available odds, and I placed a…
I hope someone with more authority can chime in- but to continue with your analogy- stocks too are no "sure fire" bet, are yet subject to insider trading regulations. so it would seem the certainty of return is irrelevant.
I don't see how you can know that a player will hit a home run, before everybody else.
What does "DFS" mean? You're all using it in your comments, but I've only known it as "Depth-first search" or alternatively a company that sells sofas in the UK. Google and Wikipedia are similarly stumped.
What does "DFS" mean? You're all using it in your comments, but I've only known it as "Depth-first search" or alternatively a company that sells sofas in the UK. Google and Wikipedia are similarly stumped.
What does "DFS" mean? You're all using it in your comments, but I've only known it as "Depth-first search" or alternatively a company that sells sofas in the UK. Google and Wikipedia are similarly stumped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if your system is to pick high variance players that are also underrepresented on other players rosters how many lineups can there be? I remain skeptical that this is a viable strategy.
Here's an experiment: Go enter some giant free-roll and a $10 tournament with a huge guaranteed prize pool. I would bet that the top score (not the average) in the free-roll will have higher score. Now take the points that each player scored and their original cost and you can use a variant of the knapsack problem[1] to figure out the optimal lineup. You'll see that quite often the optimal lineup wasn't picked by any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but to be fair, the NFL has long known that a huge driver of its popularity is gambling related.
This is true, but major leagues have a hostile relationship with sportsbooks in Nevada since the latter keep all the vig, rather than share it with the respective leagues. It appears the DFS executives are paying the right people, whether in broadcasting, sports leagues and/or lawmakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can enter multiple times I believe with different lineups. So you enter some lineups with high variance low % picked players.
But if your system is to pick high variance players that are also underrepresented on other players rosters how many lineups can there be? I remain skeptical that this is a viable strategy.
You _must_ pick some people that are high-cost high-reward types. The superstars that will almost always get their lion's share of points. You cannot win a tournament just by picking high variance players, or it would be extremely hard to do so. You also have a salary cap so you can't just pick 5 superstar players. The higher their perceived worth, the higher they cost to "buy" them.
So the main point you can differentiate yourself from other players is to find "sleeper" picks. These are players that are OK but not GREAT but if given a proper matchup, could do very well.
For example, you may pick the 2nd best receiver on a team hoping he has a great day because the opposing defense is known to double team the offense's best receiver. This may give the 2nd best receiver more opportunities for catching the ball for yardage/touchdowns.
BUT the thing is, this happens a lot. So you know maybe 4 games where this will happen. But you don't know the percentage picked of each player. Just like in March Madness brackets where picking all chalk (the favorites) to win is a bad strategy because almost everyone else is doing it and at best/worst you will tie, it is to your advantage to bet on players that you think _may_ have a chance, but are picked the least from the pool.
So the advantage this employee got, was he knew how often each player was picked on DraftKings, so given his basic assumptions he just applied those percentages to FanDuel. He knew player X had a good matchup, but _no_ one was picking him. So he plays multiple lineups with player X, buying him up so if he has a good day the employee will win big.
But he also places wagers on player Y, player Y has been picked more than player X, but still enough where the employee can get a good return, so he places a couple of lineups with player Y in it (even combining with player X hoping they both have big games). Buying some lineups with player Y also hedges your bet in case player X doesn't do well. This is probably what you are curious about. You don't pick only player X hoping he does have a great game. You hedge by buying more lineups with him in it, but supplement that with other lineups and picks that you think are +EV.
So the advantage is you know who hasn't been picked a lot. And as you start buying players you have to start spending more "efficiently." If you know player Z has only been bought 10% of the time but you know he has a high likelihood of a big game, you will pick player Z more in your lineups than other lower priced players because his returns will be good.