DraftKings employee wins fanduel 350K with Inside Informatio

[renman]

First off I don't care what that guys win percentage is. He knew the percent owned beforehand and set as many Lineups as he wanted using "contrarian" plays.

I was somewhat encouraged by the msg from fan duel saying none of their employees will be allowed to play dfs anymore...it's a start.

But that info from The Franchise is alarming. Seems like they don't give a damn and do what they want. I'm no high roller but I deposit much more than I should on those two damn websites. I may continue to play some but at most 10% what I do now. The game is rigged. I don't care what Jeff Mans says. I'd have had a better chance of cashing if I played VJax last week too. If I'd only known he was .05% owned before kickoff. Is draft kings hiring???

I disagree. Knowing % owned gives very little if any advantage to anyone. If I had known Vincent Jackson was only .5% owned, I still wouldn't have played him. Please explain to me how knowing what the % owned of a player is going to effect how he actually performs. Aaron Rodgers could be 50% owned, but if I think he is going to have a great week and his salary is not too high, I am playing him and looking for bargains elsewhere. This entire thing is so overblown, its ridiculous. Ethan Haskell won $350,000 in a FanDuel contest and probably is barely in the positive in the past year. Someone explain to me how exactly does knowing the percentage owned of a player effect how many points he is going to score........

I agree with this. In my opinion, knowing the % owned is dramatically exaggerated as some kind of advantage. To be honest, I think most good DFS players can predict what the % owned numbers will be with relative accuracy. It still comes down to picking guys who will produce stats at a salary that provides value. Knowing % owned doesn't help in this area. You don't need to know % owned to be contrarian with a player pick. This story has been dramatically exaggerated and blown out of proportion in my opinion. I believe the massive explosion of the industry and how quickly DFS has worked its way into the mainstream sports media world, combined with the staggering number of commercials (which I think actually starts to irritate people) made the DFS industry a target. Next thing you know you have ignorant media outlets, who have no clue about any of this, using sexy scandal fueling words like "insider trading" and "cheating" and next thing you know it is all over the news.

I am all for a spotlight of accountability being shined on the industry and I am all for making sure there is absolutely no chance that any shenanigans can go on. But lets not exaggerate THIS SPECIFIC situation because based on what I have seen, nothing really happened.

[Greg Ambrosius]

How did we get to this point in DFS? I mean REALLY, how did we get to this point?

I feel the same way about DFS right now as I did in 2011 about WCOFF. Really? How could you be so stupid? How did you get to this point?

Because it's not that hard. It really isn't. It shouldn't have been hard for WCOFF to take in millions of dollars in entries and pay out millions of dollars in prizes without going bankrupt and defaulting on more than $1.5 million to consumers.

And it shouldn't be that hard for DFS companies to grow slowly and keep their data away from people who could profit from it. I mean, think about it: Is it really that hard?

The two companies are great for the industry, but why must they grow so far so fast? Why are they trying to be multi-billion dollar companies by end of this year? Is it the IPOs they are seeking? Is it greed? I mean, why the need to have million dollar prizes every week when two years ago that was an unfathomable year-end prize? Why?

And why allow employees who have access to the most important data to play unlimited on competing sites? Wouldn't there be a red flag that seeing other top players' rosters could be an advantage (few seem to be talking about that angle)? Certainly knowing the percentages owned is an advantage, but the combination of both would be a BIG advantage. And if you knew that dozens of your employees were making more in this market than in their salaries, wouldn't that be a red flag?

How did we get to this point? Maybe because we are at this point it will be a good thing. Maybe third parties are needed to come into this space and say "whoa, you're going too fast." Maybe an Attorney General needs to look into everything and reset the path that DFS is on. We all know how DFS could be run better (lower multiple entry levels for one), so why not press reset now and get it right? It's a fantastic marketplace, but you can feel that something isn't right. Maybe in the long run this will be a good thing.

Or maybe it will be WCOFF. Let's hope not.

[Tom Kessenich]

I will stand by my statement that knowing the percentage owned means very little to winning. We all know the guys that will be highly owned and those who will be sleepers. Its not rocket science.

I disagree Alan. For example, I assumed Devonta Freeman would be highly owned last week and as a result I faded him in my tourneys. Turns out he wasn't highly owned at all (at least in the ones I played) and once again he was a difference maker. Not knowing that cost me in the tourneys I played. If I had known he was only going to have 12% or so ownership I would've started him for sure because I thought he was in position to do well again.

[Cdh]

Thanks for your input Greg and Tom. I faded Freeman for that same reason Tom. Dumb move...among others.

[Tom Kessenich]

Thanks for your input Greg and Tom. I faded Freeman for that same reason Tom. Dumb move...among others.

Obviously the players you start have to do well. In that respect Daily is no different than season long. However, the concern for me is that someone starting hundreds of lineups compared to my 2 or 3 or 4 has a significant advantage if they have access to percentage owned information. With every player to choose from (unlike season long where you have your team and maybe a few options on the WW) there are several options you can utilize at similar price points. The deciding factor in tourneys would likely be percentage owned.

I don't know what Karlos Williams' percentage owned ended up being last week but I"m guessing it was around 50%. If you faded him for Duke Johnson, for example you had a significant advantage over at least half the playing field. Sure people could have done that anyway but if I'm putting in hundreds of lineups and I'm fading Williams everywhere I think my chances for success are higher since he was so highly owned and didn't have a spectacular game by any means.

I also don't think entering Thursday games can give you a complete picture. It can provide a glimpse but things can and will change the next 3 days. The advantage I see is having access to the Sunday data. That's the issue I see with all of this. Well one of the issues. There's a whole Pandora's Box of things that could be coming down the pike real soon unfortunately.

[JETS SB]

I will stand by my statement that knowing the percentage owned means very little to winning. We all know the guys that will be highly owned and those who will be sleepers. Its not rocket science.

I disagree Alan. For example, I assumed Devonta Freeman would be highly owned last week and as a result I faded him in my tourneys. Turns out he wasn't highly owned at all (at least in the ones I played) and once again he was a difference maker. Not knowing that cost me in the tourneys I played. If I had known he was only going to have 12% or so ownership I would've started him for sure because I thought he was in position to do well again.

Thats the thing, Tom. You may have started him. I wouldn't have, even knowing the %. His salary went up from $6,500 to $7,400 last week and coming off of the big game, I thought he would fade. Most of these second level backs don't have two great weeks in a row. And I was wrong. But so were 87.5% of the players.

Granted I only typically play 1 entry per week, so my view is only for one lineup. Maybe that's why I dont win. I dont care how many people own the players I am playing. I play the combination that I think is going to score the most points. There are so many combinations.

I dont play the lottery, but if I did, I wouldnt play numbers based upon how many people played the same numbers, if I had the info. There are too many combinations.

I guess I am in the minority here and maybe I am wrong... but I still think this entire thing is overblown.

[JETS SB]

Jets SB, if you fill out 100 lineups with 5 or 6 core players and fill in the rest with good players that are owned only 1 or 2% or less it increases your odds. Couple that with fading the Karlos Williams of last week(where most everyone said was a must start). It's obvious how knowing the data increases your odds exponentially.

Everyone and I mean EVERYONE knew that Karlos Williams was going to be highly owned last week. I didnt need to know the exact number to help me make my decision.

[Tom Kessenich]

Unfortunately I think the issue is real Alan and it's something Draft Kings and Fanduel need to get out in front of. We can't have anyone questioning the integrity of our games be they season long, daily, salary cap, whatever. Consumers need to know that if they pay money to play the games they play are being run legitimately and they have a legitimate chance to win. Once that trust is broken we have a significant problem and that could lead to government intervention which, in my opinion, is the last thing anyone should want.

I think percentage owned data is a significant part of the Daily Games process. If anyone, be they DK or Fanduel employees or anyone, has inside access to that information I believe the integrity of the contests has been threatened. And that is something we simply cannot have.

[JETS SB]

I will stand by my statement that knowing the percentage owned means very little to winning. We all know the guys that will be highly owned and those who will be sleepers. Its not rocket science.

If "we all" know those that will be sleepers then they will be higher owned as everyone will be on the same sleepers. All we can do is guess who will be highly owned, but not the exact percentages. It may mean very little to u, but I'm sure it means a great deal to plenty in terms of their contrarian plays and I definitely can see how it would provide an edge. What percent do u think would have owned Andre Johnson this week? I'd guess the percentage would be very low..and the ppl who did use him in contrarian lineups have a significant edge now. Fact is u may have someone u think is a sleeper but over 15% could be on him as opposed to less than 5%. Regardless what u think in terms of how much/if any advantage it provides, we should ALL have access to the same information from DFS websites and their databases. It's very shady if certain individuals can obtain info pertaining to the contests that most of us cannot.

Are you saying that if you knew that Andre Johnson was owned by 1.5% of players, a guy who has done NOTHING for 4 weeks, you would have played him? I dont think so. The guy looked like he was done. He had a good game last night. Very few played him, nor should they have.

[Tom Kessenich]

I will stand by my statement that knowing the percentage owned means very little to winning. We all know the guys that will be highly owned and those who will be sleepers. Its not rocket science.

If "we all" know those that will be sleepers then they will be higher owned as everyone will be on the same sleepers. All we can do is guess who will be highly owned, but not the exact percentages. It may mean very little to u, but I'm sure it means a great deal to plenty in terms of their contrarian plays and I definitely can see how it would provide an edge. What percent do u think would have owned Andre Johnson this week? I'd guess the percentage would be very low..and the ppl who did use him in contrarian lineups have a significant edge now. Fact is u may have someone u think is a sleeper but over 15% could be on him as opposed to less than 5%. Regardless what u think in terms of how much/if any advantage it provides, we should ALL have access to the same information from DFS websites and their databases. It's very shady if certain individuals can obtain info pertaining to the contests that most of us cannot.

Are you saying that if you knew that Andre Johnson was owned by 1.5% of players, a guy who has done NOTHING for 4 weeks, you would have played him? I dont think so. The guy looked like he was done. He had a good game last night. Very few played him, nor should they have.

If I was playing thousands and thousands of lineups I absolutely would've put him in at least one if not several.