2019 Daily Fantasy Sports ⛳️ Game Theory, DFS Sleepers, Roster Construction [DFS Podcast] GPP Stacks

– I’m gonna show you guys
how to use ownership, game theory, and roster construction to play DraftKings in
FanDuel Golf like a pro. We’re starting right now. (upbeat electronic music) What’s up, guys? Joe Holka here. Welcome to another daily fantasy
sports and betting video. If this is your first time here and you want to become a profitable DraftKings player and
get better at betting, start now by subscribing to the channel. Make sure you click that notification bell so you don’t miss anything along the way. If you’re already a Holkamaniac, you know that the best thing you can do at this point, smash that like button. We’ll get started, guys. Kind of an interesting question came up, and we ended up asking the group. Is there ever an ownership
level where a player becomes an auto fade in large field tournaments? (thunder rumbling) – You got the expensive guys like JT, and he’s gonna be 28 to 32% owned. Depending on their contest,
that’s not really a fade for me. So when it gets down lower and the guy’s like 30% or over 25, then yeah, that would probably be an auto fade. Like if he’s a $7200 industry-wide value, in GBP that’d probably
just pivot somewhere else. – Before Gup goes here, I have a question. So some sports, there’s ownership that really doesn’t get past 30% or so, but then we have NBA where it’s not that uncommon to see a guy hit 60, 70. Is golf like that as well, or normally do we not see
guys reach that range? – No.
– I think the max you see around golf is around,
I mean, I’ve seen 40% whereas something like, you have DJ and there’s a dominant course history. He’ll get up to 40% but I think it’s rare to see anything in the
40% and above range. – That’s good to know ’cause I think it actually really affects
leverage in general. I know in NHL, honestly I think people get too contrarian at times, because you’re not really leveraging a ton if the chalk stack
of the night is 20%. So always kind of
interested in how that is different for different sports. So Gup, is there a kind of ownership range that is this an auto fade for you, or are you kind of on
the same page as Drew, that it just totally depends? – Yeah, I so correlate it
back to my expected value. So if it’s, say, Scott Piercy this week’s catching fire ’cause
of his course history, and he loves this course and
he tweets about this course. And I have him at an expected value of X and then all of a sudden
his ownership’s 18%. Which could be one and a half to two times what I think he should be in the field, then that could be a
fade or a pivot for me because it’s just not
worth me to go up to that. And that could be any price level. So there’ll be, because
of the way I build, I don’t look at ownership as much. Because if I’m doing a five max deal, well, if I have a guy two
out of my five lineups, he’s automatically 40% for me.
– Absolutely. – And so I more look at
how I think the rest of the field’s gonna build
but I do do mass entries. Especially when I’m hoping PGA eventually gets where they have a lot better, not milli maker every week. That’d be awesome, but
something close to that. But when they do have the milli maker, I’m in it and I max that. And so I have that strategy. And I definitely would look. I have a way where I’ll
look at the price range and I’ll fade on ownership based on the rest of the group in that deal. And I’ll also jump on
people because of that. So if this week, so Snedeker
was pretty popular last week, kind of like Tambo said earlier, and then now you look at projections and I don’t know if I
could get him above 10%. Probably 6% to 8% this week. At his price range, with who he’s around, I may jump on him just from he’s there, I think he’s still a good play but now I’m getting leverage on the rest of the people around him. So that’s where I would
look at the ownership side. – And then when it comes to the chalk, I’m less likely to fade
the chalk at the top. If it’s a guy that I really like that week, I’ll eat the chalk. But any time we get really chalky guys down in the six/7K range on DraftKings, golf is such a volatile sport, and especially when you’re
not a top-tier golfer, that any time a guy’s gonna
be more than 15% owned, I’ll just automatically
cross them off my list. Unless it’s an extreme value
that you can’t pass up on. – Yeah, that actually went
right into my biggest question, was I think that the chalk
at the value side of things versus expensive chalk
is probably something that you have to think about too. I always want to at least throw some parallels out there to NFL. So what it sounds like is that there’s this super-thin, cheap wide receiver, or cheap tight end that everyone’s on. It makes sense in tournaments that, kinda, pivot away from that situation. Just because some of these guys that maybe don’t have a high
percentage to hit the cut, but are super high-owned,
based on probably what their salary is or based
on their long term form. It seems like those are– – It’s like when Rashard
Higgins is chalk in NFL. That dude’s just like–
– And you just know the week’s gonna be brutal. – He’s just 0% to be a good tournament play at 30% or whatever. And the same thing is,
this will happen 20 times during the course of the PGA season. Where some guy is 7.8K and he’s playing where he played at college
or he has three T5s in a row. Something will influence
ownership for like, I’m not even. Si-Woo Kim, some tournament will be projected at 19% ownership or something, and he’ll just be an egregious
play at that ownership. – Yeah, Davis, expand a little bit on ownership before we move on from that. Is this a sport where you’re playing at least a little bit of chalk? Are you really trying to get
contrarian and get to the top, and is that the best way
to kinda get to the top? – Well, the chalk that you probably want to be eating is the expensive guys. Whether it be, like, you take a stance on Dustin Johnson over Rory Mcllroy, or Hideki over Jason Day
or something like that. ‘Cause just the way that
golf player pools are built, the expensive guys are just never going to get below a certain
ownership threshold, just because of how the rosters shake out. There’s no molding position shoots that everyone’s just in the one spot. And then, yeah, basically the whole method is what Drewby explained. Which is trying to make
similarly-priced pivots for guys who project similarly, but getting massive ownership discounts so when that hits you’re getting an edge. As opposed to having very similar and non-unique roster construction. (thunder rumbling) – By the way, if you’ve
ever found value in any of my videos or livestreams, one of the best ways to support what I’m doing here for free is to go over to Twitter, give me the follow. And then if you’re new to the community, I definitely do a ton of content exclusive to Instagram as well. So take a few seconds if you
can, follow me over there. I would really appreciate it. This might be the most important thing that we’ve learned this
entire journey together, and it’s that DFS pricing
is relatively efficient, based on Vegas lines, and DFS ownership is far from efficient. (thunder rumbling) – I think that people play
too much chalk generally in PGA DFS, especially in
large field tournaments. And that’s why I kinda want
to separate it a little bit. Cash games you might be
able to win some weeks with four of six guys
getting through the cut. Five of six, you’re looking pretty strong and you’re definitely
winning with six of six. In tournaments you’re not gonna, unless you get six of six you’re barely gonna sniff a min cash. And so you’re gonna need the winner. You’re gonna need all six
golfers through the cut. And then if you’re playing the super large field tournaments, you’re also gonna need those guys to all finish inside the top 20. And it just becomes
something that’s really hard to hit that optimal kind of lineup. I’ve found that the
pricing is very efficient, and DFS ownership is not efficient. Looking at, kind of, studying
the average performances over the previous couple years. In general the Vegas odds
and DFS pricing generally groups people roughly
where they should be, but the DFS market always kind of overreacts and over-owns certain guys. So if you’re able to get guys that have comparable odds to
finish inside the top 20 but I’m able to get them at 5% ownership, you play them at 20%, then I’m basically getting four to one on the price. And over the long run,
that stuff’s gonna add up. – So these type of
percentages at DailyRoto looking at top 20, top 5% to win, is that kinda what you’re saying with trying to get guys at lower ownership that has a similar projection or a similar percentage of a chance
to finish in the top 20? – Exactly, so I create
this leverage score, basically taking the top 20 odds minus the ownership to try to identify the guys that could still be strong values. And oftentimes it still tells
you that a 20%-owned guy, which seems high, he might be one of the highest five owned
players of the tournament. But he’s still a pretty good value to finish inside the top 20. And so that would be an example where it’s a pretty good play. In other cases, you have
a guy that maybe is 50/50 to miss the cut and he’s gonna be one of the highest owned players. And those seem like pretty easy situations where you should be looking for pivot. Ultimately, the best weeks I’ve always had have been you’re gonna
get a few weeks a year where the field only gets 1% of lineups have six of six guys through a cut. And so if you’re able to
get 10% of your lineups through on that week and
you’re able to sacrifice the weeks where maybe the field gets 20%, then over the long run
that puts you in a much better position to finish
towards the top end. Yeah, just to clarify for the folks who haven’t played a lot of PGA DFS. We’re not really talking about playing guys who are 1% owned here. Typically you’re looking at the guys who are the top 20
favorites in the tournament. Mostly all of them are
gonna carry 10% ownership, so we’re talking difference between 10 and 30% ownership more
so than throwing darts. I would say in general,
I try to draw a line if a guy doesn’t have 15% odds
to finish inside the top 20, I’ll kind of slap him
out of my player pool. And just the slate size matters a lot too in the tournaments that you’re playing. In some of the tournaments, a small field, $1500 buy-in, you just need
six of six through the cut and you’re live to win that tournament. And so what you need
from the cheap guy there, it’s a lot more likely
that the chalk is gonna pay off there than it
is when you’re playing with millionaire maker and all your guys have to finish inside the top 20. That’s such an unlikely
performance from any golfer, so I think that ignoring the value guys and fading them more in
the large field tournaments is definitely probable. – Good chalk versus bad
chalk, like you talked about. Typically in golf, the good chalk is the more expensive chalk. They’re the studs for a reason. JT this week is in a field
that has almost nobody in it. If you want to call Spieth
the stud still these days, I’m cheering for him this week. But just give you an
idea, it’s a worse field so JT is better off. So I don’t care what he’s really owned. If anything, I’d probably
want to get him 60% if I’m gonna max out at that
percentage for my entire pool. ‘Cause I know he’s gonna be 30 to 35%. As far as getting contrarian goes, golf has the highest
recency bias of any sport. I play most of the sports, NFL
and golf the most diligently. But the other sports, this sport has more recency bias than you’ll ever see. One guy has one bad
Saturday/Sunday the weekend before, and the next week all of a sudden his ownership drives to the bottom. He’s not a bad golfer. Put it like this, we got a guarantee Patrick Reed won’t be owned nearly at all. But last week he’s the hero. In Hawaii, he’s so good at that course, all of a sudden he doesn’t translate. But the stats won’t say it. As Gup mentioned, everyone
goes on to the same podcast to see the same
stats and the same models. You’re not gonna have anything different, you’re gonna have the same
lineup as everybody else. You’re not gonna leverage
the field at all. (thunder rumbling)
– Before we jump back in. If you like my work and you
want to support my work, the number one way you can do so for free is by bookmarking my Amazon link and using it in your day-to-day shopping. What you buy literally doesn’t matter as long as my link brings you to the site, you’re doing your part
to support the channel. So let me know in the comments as well, if you decide to join the Amazon crew. I’ll definitely give you a
shout out on the next video. One of my favorite tips basically
across any DFS sport is, one of the best ways to use game theory to be unique in tournaments
is just to have a different roster
construction than the field. A lot of times there’ll
be tons of good plays at the high-end at the low-end and just being kind of unique through
a roster construction of maybe having a mid-range team, gives you a lot of leverage on the field. So we talked a little
bit about that as well. (thunder rumbling) So Gup you mentioned just that you think one of your biggest or your largest edges is in roster construction. So what does it actually take to win a GBP at different sizes,
different entry levels? Expand on your building
techniques a little bit. – It’s separate from football, I mean, with golf the first thing, the difference, obviously we talked about is virtually every single week you
have to get six to six. It’s kind of like a part one
and a part two tournament is when you’re tryna build is, you know, especially if you’re doing a three max. Or even a 333, I think
is the 15 max this week. I may not put 15 in there. I may build, with my history
I can put three to five in and still be plus EB
going into the contest. In that, some guys will go and let’s say, they may build three different bullets and go this is my high-ceiling lineup, low-ceiling lineup, average lineup. I don’t really do that, I really just, kind of what Drew was just saying. I really try to tighten
down my core with my players to where I want
to get to for the week. And then I just look for the spots where, I’m a big play the guys
you like, to an extent. And so I look for the edges elsewhere. If I’m up top and I’m close between JT, B. Campbell, and Woodland this week, I may put all three of ’em one, one, one. – Sure.
(popping) – I think a lot of guys
fear making their core in the middle or lower-priced
guys as opposed to the high. Well I don’t really care. If I have Chez Reavie this
week, just to make someone up, and he’s high in my model,
and I think he may do well. And I put him in two of the three lineups, and he makes the cut and he’s
$7,600 or something like that. That gives me some advantage where I’m building elsewhere. You know, the terms on over here is balance, lineups, stars,
and scrubs, in golf. And I think that can come into play. So if you decide to go
way up high with two guys, and then you think you can pick two guys down low that gives you an edge. That can give you big edge on the field because most guys might be
scared to go at a $6,500 Fabien Gomez this week,
especially in a 333. But if you take that edge and it pays off then you’re already ahead. I lean more towards playing and building a team that I think will
do the best overall. – The stats are there for a reason. I just use them totally differently, in a sense of, I let
all these small wizards like Colin go and do
the data figuring out. That’s not me, I don’t do that. And I barely know English. (laughter) so, I just go on and I do my own thing. I want to use something like a Fantasy Golf National,
use them as an example, or DailyRoto or whoever
has these sites like that. I want to use those
stats, let other people figure them out for me and then I want to use them for ownership. I watch golf. I spend a lot of time watching golf. Interviews, players,
reading everything possible. And for me it’s more about
things like motivation factors. Right, if a guy has to
go out and win this feat, Ian Poulter at the US Open last year. I don’t care if he’s a GPP player, a cash player, whatever you say he is. I know what the golfer
he is and he’s capable. I’ll die on that hill, I
don’t need a stats model to tell me that you can’t play him in cash this week because whatever reason. I don’t follow those metrics to a T, I use what other people tell
me, I piece it together. And it’s way more of a lineup construction and motivation factors for me. I still want to have
something a little bit tighter especially with my core, and I expanded a little bit different depending on how I feel
about the guy at the top. On a week like this,
still full a field event with a cut but I talked about earlier where I think JT is just
well beyond the field. I’m gonna over with, I might up JT 60% where the field will have him 35. If he does what I think he’s gonna do, I want it to pay off for me. And I’ll get different everywhere else. If it’s an event like the Masters where every guy is seemingly good besides the 10 that are gettin’
cut off, head of the gate, that just get you all to
sort of show up type thing. Or the other guys or whatnot, then you do it a little
bit differently, right? Then I want to change it up because I want to have a little bit more balance. I might want to go after
a smaller area or core. And then back to what Drew said too about, he said something, there’s a mention of, there’s something said for
going the opposite of the group. Like the same as
controlling when he score. It’s the same with the gameplay, how the lineups are being built. You can tell everyone this week is building JT lineups, like
I just said I am even. The other portion I may
switch up completely and drop the first four guys off the top, and start with a
completely balanced build. Because I know most of the rosters are gonna be starting with JT and that’s how I get different that way. – Man, I love that point just because I think so many people think that being contrarian a lot of times just means you end up on the super
thin plays in any sport. And a lot of times just having a different roster
construction just leads you to something that’s
more unique in general. You can still play good plays. You’re just having a
different roster construction, I think it’s something in golf
sports that’s people could do to be contrarian in a smart way. (thunder rumbling) A ton of people have
already taken advantage of this already and
it’s been a lot of fun. But if you’re looking
in investing in yourself and take your game to the next level, I do offer one-on-one coaching. So definitely check out a little bit more information over at JoeHolka.com/Coaching. But if you prefer to continue to just learn in a group setting, I definitely appreciate you guys as well. But what a lot of people don’t realize is if they had a Amazon Prime account, a lot of people do, they
already automatically have access to a Twitch
Prime subscription. So with that, you get access to our premium disk workshop as well as a bunch of other subscriber only perks. And regardless guys, if you’re not taking advantage of these livestreams, you’re definitely doing
yourself a disservice. So definitely, give me the
follow over on Twitch, as well. Twitch.TV/JoeHolka so
you don’t miss anything. With the way prize pools
are structured these days, it’s never been more important
to have unique lineups. So I think the best way
to kind of be contrarian and give yourself that
challenge of getting a unique lineup is just to leave a little bit of salary on the table. So we dug into that
strategy a little bit now. (thunder rumbling) – For my style of playing
into the $5/150 max, I want to have as much
volatility in there as I can get. Because I’m still trying to get, you know, someone in the chat has go
leave money on the table. – Yeah. – Right, it’s just a different strategy that you’re going after. I’m looking to leverage guys and I might flip a coin and just play a guy. This ones cliche and
it goes around the lot, but if I know this week Gary
Woodland’s gonna be 20% on, and these aren’t real
numbers, but he’s 10,800. And Spieth is 10,300 and
Spieth is gonna be 5% on. Those aren’t accurate, it’s
gonna be a lot closer than that. But just using it as the example, it’s the same as four to one
odds that you’re giving me. If you give me a head-to-head right now and say four to one, I
don’t even care if they just both woke up on a
bed, I’m playing Spieth. ‘Cause the odds are in my favor there. So I’m gonna utilize that and I’m gonna leverage it in GBPs to try and get ahead of the pack and
just be well ahead of them. Leaving money on the able. – Yep. – Looking into the pod at
some point with correlations, we can talk about it. But as far as the overall,
the generality of it, it’s an individual sport. SO in a football lineup
if I can get up from Chris Conley to Tyreek
Hill with that money, I’m gonna do that. I know that it could still be contrarian to keep down at Conley but
I’d look at Tyreek Hill as he has the upside to break
the slate, Conley doesn’t. I want to use that money. In golf on any given
week Woodland did 8,000, can outdo DJ at 12,000, that’s $4,000. So no matter what he did,
he scored more points, you could’ve left $4,000 on the table and had Woodland over DJ. I know it’s not optimal
going in, that’s hindsight, but I’m just saying the reason why you can leave more money on the
table then some might think. There’s strategy behind it. – Colin, what are your
thoughts on spending the entire cap in correlation, in particular? I think that’s one topic that we’ve had. So I’m kind of back and
forth about correlating with guys that drive the ball
along on certain courses. If that makes some sense. Correlating guys based on
what time they’re teeing off. So, is that a real thing and what do you think about leaving
salary on the table? – As far as correlation
goes, I think the only one, and it’s something that we didn’t really talk about at all for basics
is the role of weather. So, the only kind of factors
that different golfers, golfers do play under different conditions depending on the time of the day. ‘Cause of the way they stagger. Tee times for the guys that tee off Thursday in the a.m. go Friday p.m., and then Thursday p.m. go Friday a.m.. And just do the random
variations of weather. You can get guys who
will have more or less average wind during their time. And that’s realistically the only way you can create correlations for yourself, is getting guys who are all playing in the same weather conditions. It should go that smooth but just because we didn’t cover it yet, windier is bad as far as
going in that environment. And high temperature is
actually really good. If you want a rough equivalency, I would guess that for every two degrees of temperature differential is equivalent to one degree of wind differential for– – I got it. That’s good, so– – I think weather, yeah,
weather is realistically, the only correlation
that you’re going to get. As far as the concept of
leaving money on the table and keeping ownership lower. We’re always tryna keep ownership lower, regardless of what sport we’re playing. And I think normally you get a lot more bang for your buck, I think, in golf. Especially around the millionaire maker and around the Masters because we’d get a lot more casual money. It’s something like over 50% of lineups reach the cap in the milli maker. Because there’s so much of your equity is tied up in top heavy payouts, you need to avoid duplicate
lineups like the plague. And just making sure that
you don’t spend everything, or don’t spend over cap
is the easiest defense you have against your
lineup getting duped. – Yeah, I think Nodoe mentioned that even just going down to leaving like $300 on the table was a drastic difference between leaving a $100 or
leaving $200 on the table too. So, something to think about for sure. (thunder rumbling) One of the best ways to find sleepers and kind of use game
theories to your advantage in PGA DFS is really to just
embrace the variance guys. You really want to be
benefiting from the chaos. If things are going nuts,
if the track is not hitting. How does that help you get to the top? And that’s how I really want you guys to continue to think about this and we’re gonna dive into
that a little bit now. (thunder rumbling) Drew what are your
thoughts on when weather, like are you even paying attention to that kind of thing when
you’re building your teams? Like when people are kind
of expected to tee off versus other parts of the field. Are you building groups that
way in MME, that type of thing? I guess it’s something I’m still kinda piecing my head through. – Yeah definitely. I think there’s something to be said for being contrarian and going
the flip side of those waves. – Sure. – But yeah, generally speaking, I kind of fall in the range of single entry. You know three max and then I run a really small pool of
MME, nothing like Tyler. So, generally speaking
I’m pretty tight on my core and I’ll find guys
that have the best chance. They’ll have the bearable weather, I don’t really try to
get too cute and flip it. It kind of worked out
this last year in the British Open and I think
the win was supposed to be nasty like a.m./p.m. for
Thursday and then Friday. And then guys that start the p.m./a.m. actually played better. It wasn’t much of a
stroke difference but just going to those guys are
gonna be half the ownership. And for the most part it was pretty crazy. – Yeah, I do think that from a strict mathematical, like a
rigorous statistical approach the DiaGolf way I think
is clearly superior. Where really all that they’re trying to do is look at adjusted scoring based on the fields
that these guys are in. But like with everything in DFS, I think there is a little
bit of an art to it. And some of the edges are things that are, some of the edges and some of the things that you can exploit are not always things that are gonna show up
exactly in the data. Or things that the data
would kind of laugh at. For example, Zach Johnson
finishes 3rd every year at the John Deere and and Bubba Watson is like in the top five at the Travelers’ Championship every year. And I’m positive that those guys will, well Zach Johnson will
priced away at the John Deere but Bubba probably
won’t at the Travelers’. And those are pieces of information that you can use to
help make decisions on. There’s some courses where
guys just do well every year and that’s something that I would weigh, that’s something that I would
use in my decision making. That Drewby and probably
other people who are much more strict do like
the adjustment scoring, probably it just doesn’t factor into the decision making at all. – Yeah man, hashtag field game, I guess– – Hashtag, hashtag. I will say PGA much, much, much less of a field game than the NFL is. – Just don’t be a chalk donkey. I think it’s gonna put you in a better position any given
week to have six guys make the cut but over the long wrong it’s gonna be hard to
take down tournaments and ultimately if you’re
not quitting tournaments, it’s gonna be hard to
be successful in DFS. So definitely try to focus
on at least having two or three contrarian elements to your team. Focus on the right game selection, and the right tournaments, and I think that you’ll be able to turn a nice profit. (thunder rumbling) – If you want to learn how to become a profitable daily fantasy sports player and get better at betting start now by hitting the subscribe
icon on the bottom right hand corner so
you don’t miss anything. Thank you so much for watching and I’ll see you guys next time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *