I've noticed that I'm getting quite a few Google hits from people searching on Snapdraft. Sorry about that, I don't have any special tips, bonus codes or other goodies for Snapdraft - other than to tell you to go get the free five bucks they're offering for you to sign up and try it out. Just go there and sign up. Go now.
But before you go and as long as you're here, let me ask: Are you a serious daily fantasy sports player? If so, why are you playing at Snapdraft? This is an honest question, I'd really like to know - please leave a comment below. There may well be logical reasons to play at Snapdraft. If you think the competition is easier, the contest structure gives you an advantage or you can get games that you can't get elsewhere, those would all be legit. Maybe there are other reasons I'm overlooking.
Otherwise, though, it seems to me like you're losing money. It's simple - the "house" takes a bigger cut at Snapdraft than they do at Fantasy Sports Live.
For kicks, I wrote a little computer program this evening ("nerd notes" are below). It ran a simulation of 10,000 trials on each of the following - $50 bankroll, used to enter 9 x $5.50 10 player "winner take all" contests at FSL (cost $49.50) or used to enter 10 x $5 10 player contests at Snapdraft (cost $50.00). Payouts are the standard $50 at FSL, $40 at Snapdraft. I did not attempt to model the more typical 3 place FSL payout, just used the winner take all contests as the closest comparable to Snapdraft.
For a player with a 10% chance of winning each contest (i.e. 1 in 10 - if the results were random), the average ending FSL bankroll was $49.74, with a high roll of $300.50 (6 wins) and a 35.21% chance of "going busto". The same player (10% chance of winning) at Snapdraft had an ending bankroll of $43.72, high roll of $240.00 (6 wins) and a 31.68% chance of "going busto".
For a player with an edge - a 15% chance of winning each contest, the average ending FSL bankroll was $72.93, with a high roll of $350.50 (7 wins) and a 20.29% chance of busto. Snapdraft sim resulted in $63.48, $280.00 (7 wins) and a 17.64% chance of busto.
If you're incredibly superior - 20% chance of winning each contest, the sim produced an average FSL ending roll of $95.83, high of $400.50 (8 wins) and a 11.76% chance of busto. Snapdraft: $83.58, $320.00 (8 wins), 9.79% chance of busto.
The interesting result is that the Snapdraft player in each case ended up with a smaller bankroll than the rake difference itself would predict: The FSL player pays 9 x $0.50 in contest fees or $4.50 in total, the Snapdraft player effectively pays $1 per contest (the 20% "rake" on each) or $10.00 in total, or $5.50 more than the FSL player. And yet the FSL player came out $6.02, $9.45 and $12.25 ahead (10%, 15%, 20% chance players, respectively). Rake compounding FTL. The FSL players did have a higher chance of "going busto", which is probably due to the difference in the number of contests (9 vs 10).
You can take this with severalgrains metric tons of salt. I'm not a mathematician. It doesn't really prove anything - you were probably saying "duh" from the get go, it's not like the rake difference is hidden.
What you should take away, though, is that the "rake" matters - the lower the contest fees are, the better chance you have to be a profitable daily fantasy sports player. You don't even have to be a high volume player - note that we're talking about runs of 9 or 10 contests TOTAL here - to see a significant difference in results.
I play at Fantasy Sports Live for this reason and many others.
I did see when I looked today that Snapdraft has some 25 player contests up and that both the NBA and NHL contests seem to have launched. Also, they now appear to have a $10 bonus on a $100 deposit. FYI, FWIW.
NERD NOTES: Holy cow, has it really been ELEVEN YEARS since I wrote a computer program? It has. I had to download a copy of Turbo Pascal - now available as freeware! - and essentially re-teach myself the correct syntax. It wasn't hard (like riding a bicycle if you want the hackneyed analogy), it wasn't even time consuming. This type of sim isn't rocket science. I might even call it fun. Now, if only I could teach myself Java or something that's not completely dead I might take a crack at creating that football roster optimization program I've been dreaming of....
Yes, there are some weaknesses in the Turbo Pascal random number generator. I don't think they're material, however.
Last but not least, Legal Nerd reminds you that Snapdraft is a product of NBC Universal, fanball or whatever division of General Electric that happens to own it. No claim is made in any way shape or form to the name, likeness, product, copyrighted phrases or whatever other nonsense they might have protected legally. All rights are reserved to the owner, etc etc etc. Same for Fantasy Sports Live. This is a blog, reviewing products. Send any deeply held grievances to me via email at res ipsa poker (no spaces) DOT communism is a failed system.
But before you go and as long as you're here, let me ask: Are you a serious daily fantasy sports player? If so, why are you playing at Snapdraft? This is an honest question, I'd really like to know - please leave a comment below. There may well be logical reasons to play at Snapdraft. If you think the competition is easier, the contest structure gives you an advantage or you can get games that you can't get elsewhere, those would all be legit. Maybe there are other reasons I'm overlooking.
Otherwise, though, it seems to me like you're losing money. It's simple - the "house" takes a bigger cut at Snapdraft than they do at Fantasy Sports Live.
For kicks, I wrote a little computer program this evening ("nerd notes" are below). It ran a simulation of 10,000 trials on each of the following - $50 bankroll, used to enter 9 x $5.50 10 player "winner take all" contests at FSL (cost $49.50) or used to enter 10 x $5 10 player contests at Snapdraft (cost $50.00). Payouts are the standard $50 at FSL, $40 at Snapdraft. I did not attempt to model the more typical 3 place FSL payout, just used the winner take all contests as the closest comparable to Snapdraft.
For a player with a 10% chance of winning each contest (i.e. 1 in 10 - if the results were random), the average ending FSL bankroll was $49.74, with a high roll of $300.50 (6 wins) and a 35.21% chance of "going busto". The same player (10% chance of winning) at Snapdraft had an ending bankroll of $43.72, high roll of $240.00 (6 wins) and a 31.68% chance of "going busto".
For a player with an edge - a 15% chance of winning each contest, the average ending FSL bankroll was $72.93, with a high roll of $350.50 (7 wins) and a 20.29% chance of busto. Snapdraft sim resulted in $63.48, $280.00 (7 wins) and a 17.64% chance of busto.
If you're incredibly superior - 20% chance of winning each contest, the sim produced an average FSL ending roll of $95.83, high of $400.50 (8 wins) and a 11.76% chance of busto. Snapdraft: $83.58, $320.00 (8 wins), 9.79% chance of busto.
The interesting result is that the Snapdraft player in each case ended up with a smaller bankroll than the rake difference itself would predict: The FSL player pays 9 x $0.50 in contest fees or $4.50 in total, the Snapdraft player effectively pays $1 per contest (the 20% "rake" on each) or $10.00 in total, or $5.50 more than the FSL player. And yet the FSL player came out $6.02, $9.45 and $12.25 ahead (10%, 15%, 20% chance players, respectively). Rake compounding FTL. The FSL players did have a higher chance of "going busto", which is probably due to the difference in the number of contests (9 vs 10).
You can take this with several
What you should take away, though, is that the "rake" matters - the lower the contest fees are, the better chance you have to be a profitable daily fantasy sports player. You don't even have to be a high volume player - note that we're talking about runs of 9 or 10 contests TOTAL here - to see a significant difference in results.
I play at Fantasy Sports Live for this reason and many others.
I did see when I looked today that Snapdraft has some 25 player contests up and that both the NBA and NHL contests seem to have launched. Also, they now appear to have a $10 bonus on a $100 deposit. FYI, FWIW.
***
NERD NOTES: Holy cow, has it really been ELEVEN YEARS since I wrote a computer program? It has. I had to download a copy of Turbo Pascal - now available as freeware! - and essentially re-teach myself the correct syntax. It wasn't hard (like riding a bicycle if you want the hackneyed analogy), it wasn't even time consuming. This type of sim isn't rocket science. I might even call it fun. Now, if only I could teach myself Java or something that's not completely dead I might take a crack at creating that football roster optimization program I've been dreaming of....
Yes, there are some weaknesses in the Turbo Pascal random number generator. I don't think they're material, however.
Last but not least, Legal Nerd reminds you that Snapdraft is a product of NBC Universal, fanball or whatever division of General Electric that happens to own it. No claim is made in any way shape or form to the name, likeness, product, copyrighted phrases or whatever other nonsense they might have protected legally. All rights are reserved to the owner, etc etc etc. Same for Fantasy Sports Live. This is a blog, reviewing products. Send any deeply held grievances to me via email at res ipsa poker (no spaces) DOT communism is a failed system.
2 comments:
The one thing I have noticed that I like about snapdraft is the ability to pick players from multiple days.
With FSL, you can only pick players that play on that specific day. So, for example, MNF games don't count or, should I say the opportunity to take one of the high potential weekly fantasy stat studs is playing on MNF, you can't pick him.
I have Forte on my team this week, and he might just make the difference for me... ok probably not...
Nice analysis. One problem I see is that saying someone will win 15% or 20% of ten player leagues indicates quite a huge edge on the field. The 15% player is more than 50% better than the average player, and the 20% player wins more than twice as often as the average player he is against. I doubt edges that large can be obtained in single daily fantasy contests where the edge is entirely determined by the draft. At the actual edges that can be found against an average field, an 80% payout structure is probably not beatable long term by anyone.
I would guess people play there for fun, and the chance for a lottery style payout.
Post a Comment