fbpx

Ask the Sharks: Episode 2

Ask the Sharks: Episode 2

Transcript

Andy Baldacci:
There is about a 15 second delay, 10 second delay between when you guys see us on the YouTube stream and when we’re saying this. We’re going to do our best to stay on top of everything. There might just be a little lag there. Welcome to the second Ask The Sharks. We’ll just give everyone a minute or so to get in here.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah, excited to do this and to talk about sliders and about this big new update that we’ve pushed out. Where’s everyone joining us from today? Max is in a random hotel room.

Daniel Steinberg:
Are you?

Max Steinberg:
Yeah.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. Danny is in California. Matt? You’re coming from Oregon?

Matt Hunter:
Portland, Oregon. Yeah.

Andy Baldacci:
Nice. I’m in Texas. What about you guys on the stream? Okay. Let me just share this to Slack.

Max Steinberg:
Someone’s from North Carolina. East Coast.

Daniel Steinberg:
Wait. Where’s the YouTube link?

Andy Baldacci:
I’m posting it in Slack right now.

Daniel Steinberg:
Okay.

Max Steinberg:
Ones from the 305, that’s [crosstalk 00:01:02].

Daniel Steinberg:
I’ve never lived in the 305. From Florida, Miami.

Max Steinberg:
Yeah. Maryland.

Daniel Steinberg:
Yeah, where in Maryland? Me and Max grew up in Silver Spring.

Max Steinberg:
Yeah.

Daniel Steinberg:
Spring or springs?

Max Steinberg:
I think it’s Spring.

Andy Baldacci:
You forgot?

Daniel Steinberg:
It’s hard to remember if there’s an S at the end or not.

Max Steinberg:
608.

Daniel Steinberg:
Parkway Drive. What’s 608? Indiana?

Andy Baldacci:
I tried. I tried to get Squid on this one. He’s on his NASCAR binge. I think he’s building like a NASCAR simulator right now in all honesty. I don’t know what started this. He’s like the least but most NASCAR guy you’d ever meet. He has no idea about anything to do with it, but loves drinking beers in America even though he’s Canadian.

Andy Baldacci:
Hopefully, at the end of this weekend, we might have some data NASCAR sims to go with. Yeah, he won’t be joining us today. Anyway, so I think we’ve given people enough time to get in here. We’ll kick it off.

Andy Baldacci:
My name is Andy Baldacci. I’m the CEO of SaberSim. With me today, I’ve got DFS pros Max and Danny Steinberg. We also have the founder of SaberSim, Matt Hunter. How’s everyone doing?

Matt Hunter:
Good. Hey, guys.

Daniel Steinberg:
Hi.

Max Steinberg:
Doing great.

Andy Baldacci:
Very lively. I know you’re on [crosstalk 00:02:39]. It’s 10:00 a.m. Anyways, today what we’re going to do is just really dig into SaberSim’s sliders and that’s correlation, ownership fade and smart diversity settings. Those are what we really use to build that pool of high upside lineups. This, frankly, will be most valuable for people already using SaberSim. If you’re not familiar at all with our tools, that’s fine. Still stick around because I think you’re going to get a lot out of this.

Andy Baldacci:
We also do have a free three-day trial. If you want to see it in action, you can sign up for that over at sabersim.com. When I was kind of just thinking about this and we were all figuring out the roadmap of SaberSim and what we want to build, we just went back to what originally got us into this and why we built SaberSim to begin with.

Andy Baldacci:
Really, we were just kind of frustrated with having to spend hours researching every slate and then setting all kinds of rules and groups and everything else in optimizers, in order to actually use that research to build strong lineups. The reason that software exists, the reason that we use software in our lives is to make things easier. It seems to me like the traditional DFS tools did not get that memo at all or maybe, I don’t know, they’re just too lazy to innovate.

Andy Baldacci:
Whatever it is, just the tools that were out there made things harder. What we try to do at SaberSim is just cut out all of that busy work so you can invest your limited time where it has the biggest impact. That’s on things like staying on top of the news and dialing in your projections, not adjusting 1000 different settings. Our mission is to make it easy as possible for you to build winning lineups. It’s always going to take work, there’s no easy button to beating DFS. We do the grunt work for you so you can build on a strong foundation, rather than just wasting your time starting from scratch every single day.

Andy Baldacci:
We have made some huge improvements on that traditional DFS process. There’s a lot more we can do. The update that we just pushed out maybe an hour ago, I don’t even know if it was that long ago, is a big step in that direction. To summarize, the way SaberSim works is we follow a three-step lineup building process. First, you review and adjust the projections. Then, you choose your bill settings and finally you dial in your exposures.

Andy Baldacci:
The update today entirely reworks that second step so that it’s not just more intuitive, but it also gets you better results. Just being honest, I think, the biggest mistake we made when planning out the app is how we presented those sliders, how we presented correlation, ownership fade and smart diversity. We kind of just threw it at you, gave you a few defaults for how to set them and just sent you on your way.

Andy Baldacci:
For us, we’ve been working on this for so long that these ideas were kind of second nature to us. It really is an entirely new way of building lineups. We weren’t doing enough to help you set them. The defaults that we had in there, which we didn’t originally, but we added in, the defaults helped, but they weren’t specific enough. You have to make too many adjustments and that led to a ton of rightfully asked questions. Like, how should I set these for single entry contests? Are they the same for NFL and NBA? What’s considered a small slate or a large slate? Are multipliers more like cash or GPPs?

Andy Baldacci:
There were just so many different variables in there that it made it really confusing. It ultimately had people feeling like they were looking for some sort of Holy Grail combinations of sliders that always worked. That’s really the issue that we’re trying to resolve with this update is that there are no best sliders. If there were, we would just give them to you. We’re not holding anything back. We’re not trying to hide anything from you. If there was this kind of Holy Grail combination of sliders, you’d have them.

Andy Baldacci:
The reality is that you can build winning lineups with many different combinations of sliders. They are an incredibly important part of the process, because they control how we build upside into your lineups. There’s no perfect combination. Really, you shouldn’t spend much time at all getting them dialed in, at least with this new update. Before learning how to make those adjustments was not simple because when you looked at all those variables, there were hundreds of adjustments you’d have to make and it was different for each sport, if you want to get it really dialed in.

Andy Baldacci:
We realize that we weren’t kind of living up to that ideal of making things as easy as possible for you and doing what software is meant to do. We were adding unnecessary busywork to the process. Rather than expect you to watch all the videos and figure out all the adjustments to make, in today’s update, we just built that into the app. Matt is going to show you this in just a couple minutes.

Andy Baldacci:
What you can do in the build settings now is you just tell us the contest type, the entry limit, and the size of the contest you’re building for. We’re going to set the sliders based on that and automatically adjust them for the number of games on the slate as well. Matt has spent the last few weeks building smart defaults for all of the hundreds, if not, thousands of different combinations. Again, he’s going to walk through those in just a minute.

Andy Baldacci:
We still do let you make any adjustments that you want based on your risk tolerance or personal preference. Because we’re taking into account all those important variables, you really can just leave them alone for the most part and just stop worrying if you’ve set them right. You’re going to have a much stronger foundation going forward. Again, make the tweaks, make the adjustments, but if you’re confused about them, if you’re not sure exactly what to do, you can leave them alone and know that we’ve got your back there.

Andy Baldacci:
Matt, can you walk through those new defaults and just kind of explain how these variables work? We’ll see how smoothly we can get this screen sharing.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Yeah. I’ll just share my screen here.

Andy Baldacci:
As we’re doing this, I’m going to be keeping an eye on the chat to see what questions are being asked. At the end of this, we’ll do a live Q&A. I think the demo itself though will get into a lot of the questions that are asked. Again, if you have anything, just put it in the chat, and we’ll circle back at the end.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah, does it look good? You can see my screen?

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah.

Matt Hunter:
Okay, awesome.

Andy Baldacci:
No one really cares anyway, so we’re good.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Like Andy said, basically, the change that we made is to have much more granular options for the type of contest that you’re entering. Then, being able to see how those different choices will affect the sliders. One thing that we want to show here is that you don’t even need to … for newer users that don’t even want to mess with it, or don’t really care what the slider is at, you don’t even need to see those settings. You can just close that and just choose based on your contest and that’s okay.

Matt Hunter:
The work that I’ve been doing is to make these slider settings as close as possible to what you’re looking for for these types of contests. I’m just going to go through how these sliders change and how the settings adjust based on the different type of contest. We’ll just start. The default view that you get is a GPP, which for those that are kind of new to the terminology is just a tournament in DFS.

Matt Hunter:
Generally, that’ll be top heavy so that a lot of the payout is going to the top 110 or 0.1% of the contest. We also have the ability to change based on the size of the contest and the entry limit. We’ll start off with just showing the 150 max. This would be like the big contest on DraftKings or FanDuel, where there might be 10 to 50,000 entrance. Often, these would be like a $15 entry limit or sorry, entry fee. They could really be anything. You might be playing the mini max that’s $1, but it’s still the 150 max 50,000 entrance.

Matt Hunter:
You can see that we start out with a very high smart diversity and a few takes up on ownership and a little bit on the correlation. Basically, the reasoning for this is smart diversity is a way to give you more upside in your lineups. You want this to be high, especially for a fairly large field, because you’re really looking to get in that top 0.1% of the entrance. What smart diversity does is it basically narrows the range of simulated games that we’re looking at in each lineup.

Matt Hunter:
You’re getting lineups that have a higher ceiling and we might be sacrificing a little bit in terms of the average performance for the lineups. What we’re getting is lineups that have more of a ceiling. Even if you have correlation lower, those lineups are still going to incorporate the correlation that’s part of the simulations. Because when we’re choosing these lineups, we’re actually adjusting the points so that they account for the way that the players relate.

Matt Hunter:
We can see that actually, if we look at the entrance, we can change it even higher. If you are entering a contest that’s maybe it’s 100,000 entrance or in NFL, you might have the Million Maker which is 250,000 or something like that. If we choose that, you actually see that the smart diversity goes to very high because, really, we care about that absolute ceiling for the lineups because it’s so difficult to get first place out of that huge field that you really want to look for those lineups that have absolute ceiling.

Matt Hunter:
Then, you also saw that the ownership fade and correlation increased as well. That’s just because those factors become even more important, the more we care about that upside and getting to the top 1%. With 150 max contests especially, those are generally going to be those contests that are more difficult, they’re more top heavy, and so there’s less value in getting a min cash where we’re just trying to get them the top 20% of the contest. We really care about getting at the very top to have like a plus CV outcome.

Matt Hunter:
When we change that, we see that the ownership increases, the correlation increases and smart diversity increases. As we go down this list, we’ll see that all three of these settings are going down with it. We still care about correlation and ownership and a 1000 entry contest, but not as much and we care more about just having high average outcome rather than that ceiling outcome because we just don’t need to have a really, really ceiling performance out of your lineup when you’re only competing against 100 to 1000 entries.

Andy Baldacci:
One of the cool things that I really like about this is one it obviously just makes it a lot easier. It also just makes studying this process very straightforward because rather than kind of having to use rules of thumb on, okay, if I were to change, like … what is the impact on a single entry limit versus a 20 max entry limit? I can just see by switching from those two and just see what we think changes. It just makes it a lot easier for me to just build like a mental framework for, okay, here is what the baseline is for these type of contest. Here’s how they differ.

Andy Baldacci:
As I make changes, these are the types of things we’ll be looking at. Matt, these are different for every sport as well, right?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. I can go over to NHL right now and …

Max Steinberg:
Can I cut in for a moment?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah, sure.

Max Steinberg:
Thanks. One thing that I think is important is smart diversity and correlation are linked together in an interesting way, because as you raise smart diversity, as Matt said, we’re building your lineups on a smaller and smaller group of simulations. What correlation is in practice, right, is how players actually score together in the real outcomes of games, right? That’s what that correlation number is.

Max Steinberg:
If you raise smart diversity really high or the preset smart diversity is very high. What that means is, we’re just building your lineups based on the projections of just a few games. Matt, tell me if I’m wrong, the highest setting is just actually one game.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah.

Max Steinberg:
When you have smart diversity very high, we’re actually already incorporating correlation in a way because players are going to do well together in those small packets of simulation. That’s why a lot of times in certain sports, especially NBA, you might see smart diversity as a preset setting very high and that correlation low. That doesn’t mean that we’re not taking into account correlation. It just means that we’re not being as repetitive with it because smart diversity already has taken that into account.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Yeah. Just to show you more about the smart diversity when you have it very high, you’re looking at individual outcomes. That’s why when you get into showdown, we really prioritize the smart diversity more than in a classic slate with more games. When you have smart diversity really high for showdown, literally, every lineup is essentially the optimal lineup for a given simulation of the game. For especially these large field GPPs in showdown, that’s what you want. You need to get the top scoring possible lineup depending on …

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah, you’re basically saying like, given this game script, actual game outcome, what is the best lineup from that? That’s what showdowns are all about is saying, okay, here’s one game, what has to happen for these players to do well together? That’s something that a traditional optimizer just cannot do because they’re not going to get the correlations. They’re not going to get how players’ performance impacts the others. By just looking at the outcome of a single simulation, that’s basically the most straightforward way of doing that.

Matt Hunter:
Right. Yeah. With other optimizers, you can create rules that will kind of get you closer to that kind of game script and incorporating that into lineups. Without having a simulator, really, it’s not possible to get those really fine-tuned lineups that have those specific game scripts. You can create all the rules you want, but you’re not going to be able to get every single possibility there. Yeah, that’s why for showdown, we don’t even have correlation set because all that really matters is those simulations which are incorporated into the smart diversity.

Matt Hunter:
If you’re not in correlation, you’re almost double counting the correlation because that’s already incorporated there.

Andy Baldacci:
One of the things, I just wanted to stop you there, Matt, for a second. Just to get into a couple of the questions in the chat. Don asked if the settings are different for different DFS sites. Right now, they’re not. This is an area where you could potentially make some adjustments. If say, Yahoo or FantasyDraft, their payout structures are flatter than DraftKings. You might want to make some adjustments but it’s going to be pretty minor.

Andy Baldacci:
In that case, what I would do is probably like, if assuming that is actually accurate, which I’m not sure, if it’s a flatter payout structure, meaning the prize pool is spread out amongst more of the participants. Then, I would just tone down the sliders slightly from whatever the defaults are. That’s getting pretty in the weeds. I frankly wouldn’t worry too much about that.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. For sites like Yahoo, they’re all ready, I think, all the contests … well, they might have 150 bets now but a lot of the contests are three max or 20 max. That’s being incorporated already is when you have the entry limit that’s going to impact how those sliders are treated and how we’re kind of building those lineups. Other than maybe NFL, most Yahoo and FantasyDraft contests aren’t going to be 50,000 entrance and 150 max. If they are, I think you probably do want to go with a similar sort of settings.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. I think you’ll see if you play around with these that you can notice the patterns and how the sliders change depending on these options. If you want to get advanced based on the payout structure, I think, that’s definitely reasonable. You want to pay attention to what the defaults are giving you to begin with and sort of be careful with how you’re adjusting those and you don’t want to overcorrect.

Andy Baldacci:
Right. Because it already is sort of implied in that.

Max Steinberg:
Although, with the style as well that also has to do with the payout structure, right. Because if you do satellite or wire, it sort of is something that speaks to how top that’d be. If you’re doing like the DraftKings Millionaire Maker, you could set that like a satellite just because it’s if it was like one of those ones where the price falls to a million that’s like one million …

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah.

Max Steinberg:
Yeah.

Matt Hunter:
The assumption with satellite is essentially that it’s a winner take all. If you are in a winner take all, I think it’s safe to treat that as a satellite. You can see even with the same entrance, same entry limit, we’re increasing all of the ownership fade, the smart diversity because you need to be at the top of the contest. That might get impacted here.

Andy Baldacci:
Mike just asked in the chat, what’s the rule of thumb for determining if it’s small slate or large slate? With this update, basically, you don’t need to worry about that anymore. That was one of the mistakes we made before is we just weren’t thinking it all the way through when we were forcing you to do too much work. With this, what’s happening, we’re not asking you to determine if it’s a small state or a large slate because we know how many games on the slate.

Andy Baldacci:
We’re not just considering the style entry limit in entrance when putting the sliders together. We’re also behind the scenes saying, Okay, this is a six game slate or this is a three game slate or this is a 10 game slate, whatever it is, we’re also adjusting based on that. That’s kind of just built in automatically. That’s something you don’t need to worry as much about.

Andy Baldacci:
Before we go on, I want to just jump back to a question Brian asked about why only one sim is better than hundreds for identifying upside. It’s not necessarily that it’s better as a rule of thumb, you always want to use one sim in every situation. What we were talking about specifically is with showdowns. The reason for that is because what upside ultimately means is who has the potential to significantly outperform their average projection. Because if someone gets to an average of whatever, we’ll say 30 points, but their range of outcome is always between 20 and 40.

Andy Baldacci:
Or there’s another one who is between 10 and 20, some other time, but then they’ll have the game where they get 50 points, whatever it may be. That’s not going to show up in the average. The more granular, a better way to say it is like the fewer simulations you’re looking at, the easier it is to pick out those spots where someone really has a potential for those bigger games.

Andy Baldacci:
That’s something that, again, does get pretty technical. Matt, those are for showdowns. Matt, can you add to that a little bit?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah, yeah, I can add to that. I think even outside of showdowns, you’re right that individual simulations don’t necessarily give you a better idea of upside. Part of it does depend on your lineup pool as a whole. When you’re building 150 lineups using really high smart diversity, what you’re getting is you’re going to have more of players that have those higher ceilings in terms of the exposure to those players in your entire lineups than you would if you’re just building on average projection.

Matt Hunter:
I think one way that I like to think about it is if I’m building my lineup pool and remember when we build our lineups, we’re actually building 1000 or 1500 lineups in the background that we kind of then can filter through. If I have smart diversity at the max, my lineup pool is essentially consisted of approximating the probability that each player is going to be in that top lineup in the big lineup basically. Then, you can sort through that pool and figure out, okay, but I want to incorporate … if you sort by projection, instead of Saber score, you might be having a little bit less risk there.

Matt Hunter:
Or if you want to edit your min or max exposure to certain players, you can adjust that. When you are building your pool with this high smart diversity, your pool is consisting of those high upside players and better incorporating the probability that a player is going to hit that ceiling. I think you don’t want to just think about it as the individual lineups with the individual sims but more about probabilities and having your exposures match the probability that players will hit that ceiling and be in that top scoring lineup.

Andy Baldacci:
Were you going to add something Max?

Max Steinberg:
Yeah. I was just saying and I remember simple just something that can remind is, if you have higher smart diversity, what you’re essentially doing is you’re sort of simulating the slate. In a real world slate, what ends up happening is every game is played once on the slate, right? When you have smart diversity set to very high or at the highest setting, what you’re basically saying is … we’re saying, okay, we’ve work in one simulation of every game on the slate and seeing how it plays out and then picking the best players from that way that that slate played out.

Max Steinberg:
It actually is almost simulating not just the game. It’s simulating actually what happens in the slate and then picking the best players from there.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. One of the things I was just going to touch on quickly is, yeah, to kind of build on what Max is saying is that ultimately, for a showdown specifically, there’s one game literally being played. It’s just that one game. You’re not looking to see how players perform on average at all. You want to see, in a single game, what are the possible outcomes and by pulling out individual simulations, that’s basically what you’re doing. That’s how we simulate all the games is we play by play, go through and simulate every game 10,000 times.

Andy Baldacci:
That’s basically 10,000 separate games of this game. What you’re looking for is if you pull out one and say, okay, if this game plays out this way, what is the best line from that? That’s what we’ll give you. There is definitely some risk with that. Because you’re hoping that the game does play out that way. That is also probably the highest ROI approach. If you’re going to use more traditional approaches of looking at averages, you might cash more frequently.

Andy Baldacci:
There’s almost never a game that plays out exactly like average. Hopefully, that helped explain it a little bit. I have been keeping track of a lot of other questions. I’ll try to work those in as we go. If I don’t get to them right now, though, at the end, we’ll circle back. Matt, I was going to ask actually, we’ve been focused really on GPPs. Do you mind just showing cash?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Cash is a lot simpler because, really, you’re going for more of that average outcome. We don’t really care about correlation. We don’t care about ownership much and the smart diversity is low, because we really are caring more about the average outcomes here. You can even see, so we’ve been focusing on the sliders but with cash, we increase the minimum projection and have the high min salary as well. That’s just to ensure that the lineup you’re getting is more geared towards just maximizing that average outcome.

Matt Hunter:
With cash, I would say the sliders are not as important as they would be for GPPs. For the tournaments, we’re really caring about those distributions and the correlations, especially for sports like MLB and NHL where correlation is so important. For cash, it’s really the focus, I think, we kind of have these defaults, but the focus is really on projections and just maximizing the average score of your lineup. I think our approach is still good here of having the sliders here. If you really want to focus on more getting those chalkier players, you can even have a negative ownership fade where you’re trying to get those chalky players in.

Matt Hunter:
In general, I think we would recommend you don’t really incorporate correlation or ownership and you basically just care about building lineups based on close to much bigger groups of sim, so it’s more closer to the average outcome.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. What we should do is also we’ve been focused on MBA and we obviously aren’t going to be able to kind of walk through everything for every single sport. I think it’d be interesting to show how they do differ for NHL, which is a very different sport in terms of variants and everything else involved than MBA.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. The cash kind of stays the same because …

Andy Baldacci:
The principles are the same.

Matt Hunter:
Right. The principles are the same. When we get into GPP, so just one thing to keep in mind is we don’t currently have ownership projections. We have this as neutral now. If you’re uploading your own ownership, for hockey, sorry, for hockey we don’t have ownership projections. If you’re uploading your own ownership, I think, you would want to incorporate that, similarly to other sports. Just looking at correlation and smart diversity, you can see it is a lot different than in NBA, because correlation is just such a huge factor in hockey.

Matt Hunter:
If you haven’t really played hockey DFS or you don’t know the sport too well, it’s just really important because you’ll have players that are skating on the same line together. What that means is that players will basically be spending most of their time in the game with a few other of the same players. They’ll kind of shift in and out of the game in groups or in lines and for power plays as well. It’s a lot specific power play lines. When a player gets a goal, it’s very likely that someone on their same line will get an assist or vice versa.

Matt Hunter:
You really want to care about those correlations and try to get that upside because most of the points do come from goals and assists in hockey. That’s why we care a lot more about correlation in hockey. It’s similar to NBA where as we get lower in our contest, in our entrance, our smart diversity is going down a bit. Correlation is still staying pretty high because we still want to have those stacks and we still want to keep our alignments together because even getting in the top 1% of the of 1000 entries, you still have to have the stacks and you’re still looking for that correlation to hit that upside.

Andy Baldacci:
Did you want to jump in, Max?

Max Steinberg:
I just want to say, Matt, would you mind showing people the player pages for NHL versus NBA just so they can visualize the players and …

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah.

Max Steinberg:
… its difference. I think that hammer on the point like the correlations are much different and much stronger in NHL than there in NBA.

Matt Hunter:
Yup. This is just like a frontline skater and you can see that it’s very high correlations with the players that he’s likely to be on the …

Andy Baldacci:
I’m not a math guy and Giant Squid took most of my math tests growing up, so I’m going to need some help on this one though. What do these numbers mean for correlation? How do I know that that’s high?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Basically, the scale goes from negative one to one. Negative one would basically mean a perfect inverse relationship where it’s linearly the more that one goes up the other goes down. A correlation of one would be basically just, yeah, a perfect positive relationship. Every single time, Max his, I don’t know how to pronounce his last name, Pacioretty every time his points go up, Mark’s points would go up by the exact same percentage.

Matt Hunter:
It’s essentially just a scale on that, so 0.29 might not seem like a lot when you think about it from zero to one. In terms of comparing to other sports, you’ll never see an NBA correlation that is that high. Generally, they’ll max out at maybe 0.1 or 0.15 MLB, which people consider like a very high correlation sport. Generally, you’re not going to see two batters that are higher than 0.15 or 0.2. For MLB, they stack on top of each other so you’ll sort of get a higher correlation as with the lineup as a whole, rather than the two players. This is still a very high number. It might not be as much as, say, a quarterback and a line receiver, but it’s still very high.

Matt Hunter:
Especially, when you consider the correlation between multiple players at once where if one of these players gets a goal, it’s very likely that one of the other ones got an assist or two players got an assist. You might get two assists on with one goal and so all three of them go up at once. You really see that correlation there. Whereas for NBA, it’s just not going to be as high and you’re certainly not going to get the amount of stacking with NBA where you might have two players that have high correlation, but you’re not likely to have three players that have a high correlation.

Matt Hunter:
It just kind of goes down as you increase the group whereas hockey and baseball, you’re going to keep increasing that correlation the more players you add.

Andy Baldacci:
Danny, what were you thinking?

Daniel Steinberg:
I was just going to say like a really simple way to think of like why correlation matters is if you think of a toy game where you’re making two lineups and Max Pacioretty is in one lineup. Like let’s say Max Pacioretty has a really good game, would you rather have, is this [Malik Stone 00:34:57], I can’t actually read the last run.

Daniel Steinberg:
Would you rather have Matt Stone with Max Pacioretty has a really good game is going to do really well? Or maybe Noel whatever, who was a zero percent correlation who may be better projected than Matt Stone. I mean the thing is, even if someone’s like better projected than another player, if they’re correlated, that means it’s more likely they’re going to have a good game when the other person has a good game. That’s exactly what you want when you are trying to make a lineup for this high upside.

Daniel Steinberg:
Correlation is a really good way to measure the tradeoff between, okay, do I want this guy who may be a little higher projected? Or should I put this guy in a lineup who has a little more correlation who may be worst projected?

Matt Hunter:
Right.

Andy Baldacci:
Napoleon, actually, he asked a question with that, I think it’s relevant to talk about now. For hockey, why not set correlation to the highest settings for the sliders?

Matt Hunter:
I think it’s still all just a balance between upside and risk and average performance. Again, it does depend on the type of contest. We do increase the correlation depending on what you’re selecting here. With the highest correlation, you’re going to get a ton of stacks and you might even get four or five player stacks. While they might have kind of an absolute ceiling, they’re not all necessarily … if you have five players from the same team in hockey, maybe one out of 1000 or one out of 10,000 times, they all do really well.

Matt Hunter:
When you have increase in the correlation that way, you’re kind of isolating those top performances, but you might be sacrificing more of the average performance. You don’t always necessarily want to have it at the complete max because you’re then ignoring a lot of those simulations where they don’t necessarily all do well together. It’s all just that balance between risk and upside. That’s how I would describe it. I don’t know about you guys.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. I think just as kind of a word of not even really caution, but at the extremes of the scale for correlation and ownership fade, you can just get some kind of unexpected outcomes. I think unless you’re playing super top heavy contests, you really just try … I just always try to avoid the very highest end of the scale. Because I don’t think there’s enough benefit there.

Andy Baldacci:
I think even at high for hockey in this example, you’re going to get basically all of the benefit of correlation that really is there. Above that is going to be a lot of noise and I just don’t think it’s worth the extra risk that it adds. It’s just trying to be cautious there just because correlation is important doesn’t mean you just want to hammer it all the way to the right.

Matt Hunter:
It does depend on the sport. We don’t have MLB up yet, but I think MLB is going to be a little bit different than NHL, even though they’re both very correlation dependent because MLB the correlation just keeps going up and up, the more players you have in your stack. Whereas hockey, it’s not necessarily entirely linear and they’re sort of … you’ll get a ton of correlation with three. If you could, in theory, put eight players on a team in a stack, you would be lowering your ceiling a little bit because not all eight of those players are going to do well.

Matt Hunter:
Whereas baseball, they continuously correlate with each other more and more. You still do have a little bit of that effect where if you could put the entire nine men lineup, baseball lineup, in a DFS lineup, you might have a little bit of absolute ceiling if for some reason if the team scores 30 run or something. You’re limiting your upside because it’s unlikely that all of them will have that outcome.

Matt Hunter:
There is nuance there between the sports and that is partly why we are trying to make this change is because before that, it’s harder to show that nuance can get that into your lineups because there wasn’t as much granularity in these options. Whereas, now that we have this with MLB, we can adjust these settings and adjust the slider so that you’re better balancing that ceiling upside and your average performance and not increasing risk too much.

Andy Baldacci:
I’m going to jump in and go over a couple of the questions. Just a few quick ones.

Matt Hunter:
Do you want me to turn off the screen share or should we keep this up?

Andy Baldacci:
We can shut it off. Yeah, so there are a few quick ones. Jamie asked when will we be getting projected ownership for hockey? That’s something we have in the works. We didn’t really say anything about it. Matt and Giant Squid actually pushed out a pretty big update to the NBA ownership model that we’re really excited about and through our testing has made a significant impact. We’re going to be working on applying that to other sports, probably starting with hockey. It does take some time and there’s a lot we have in the works to get ready for baseball, which starts up in almost exactly a month.

Andy Baldacci:
I can’t guarantee when we’ll be getting that out but it is something we are working on and just improving all of the ownership models in general.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah.

Andy Baldacci:
Don had asked earlier, will we include FanDuel single game? That is something we do plan to add probably shortly after baseball begins or right around that time. Then, more on the topic of the sliders, a good question is, do the sliders work when using custom projections? The short answer is yes. Matt, do you want to give a little bit or a longer explanation?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Obviously, this is a very tricky situation to solve because the sliders are … especially smart diversity is really based on the simulations. If you’re uploading your custom projections, those aren’t based on simulations, but what we do is we basically take…

Andy Baldacci:
Not based on our simulations.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Yeah, you might have a different stimulator. If you upload your custom projections, essentially what we’re doing is kind of shifting the distributions for the players that we created and shifting them to match your new custom projections. If you have a projection that’s say 10% higher than ours for a player, we’ll essentially take our player distribution that just kind of shift it over 10% so that you’re still getting the benefit of the standard deviation and those distributions that we create but then with your own projections.

Matt Hunter:
It’s not necessarily like the 100% perfect solution but I think it does a pretty good job of still allowing you to take advantage of those simulations while still using your own projections and be able to input your own research and work into it.

Max Steinberg:
Yeah, and I’ll just add to that, Matt has worked really hard on this aspect of it. I think, in general, intuitively how you feel, think it should, when you change someone’s projection, how much exposure, how it changes the upside. It does fit what you would intuitively think. Yeah. When you raise someone’s projection, you are going to get them more. If you lower some projection, you’re going to get them less. The players will interact in the same way.

Max Steinberg:
You’re still getting the best of our product. We try as best as possible to make it sell you adjusting or making your own custom projections work as best as possible and I think we do a really good job with that.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. It also goes back to what we were saying before about how, at the extremes at putting smart diversity all the way up and using custom projections. It’s not going to be a perfect match, but it is more than good enough and it is basically about as good as we can get it. There are just some technical limitations there. I like my simple answer of yes, we do the things with your custom projections. Matt added a lot more nuance there if you do have questions about exactly how we do that.

Andy Baldacci:
One of the other questions was, I’d like it just because of how kind of broad it was but I think it can tie in a lot of things. It’s just, how important are projections and are SaberSim projections good enough? Should you be doing anything beyond that? I’ll just start things off there. I think what we really want to emphasize with this update is that, the focus of your efforts shouldn’t be on the sliders. You should give them some thought, but I really don’t see this step needing to take more than a minute of your time, after you’ve played around with it and seen the impact. Maybe you’ll start to build one set of settings and go back and do a different one.

Andy Baldacci:
You shouldn’t be focused on this. Where I think the bulk of your efforts should be is on the projections and on really dialing those in. It’s not that we don’t believe SaberSim’s projections are good enough. We will put them up out there against anything and we are always improving our models. The point is, though, that an algorithmic model, a program is never going to be able to be perfect. It will never be able to capture all of the nuance that exists in sports. The projections matter a lot. While, again, we think ours are good and a very strong baseline, you do want to spend your time seeing where we may be off. Maybe we didn’t account for some late breaking news in the exact way that you think we should have or maybe we just missed it or whatever it may be.

Andy Baldacci:
Those are the areas where I would focus your limited time. This update is really to give you more time to do that kind of things because we understand that a lot of us have jobs. We’re not pros like Max and Danny and we’re trying to balance this with everything else out there. While it will always take work to win and we do always want to stress that even though we’re improving our models constantly, we do expect you to keep tweaking them to fit the way you see things. This is really just our effort to help give you more time to do those things.

Andy Baldacci:
I guess in my rambling way, the projections are very important. We do think ours are good enough but we think it’s important to always do what you can to try to make them better. Is there anything you guys would want to add to that?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. I mean, I think, one other thing that you can consider, I agree that the projections themselves are really important. Just kind of adding on that, we’re a model and any projection system is going to be basically a model and any model is going to have biases or flaws and you want to always keep in mind and keep an eye on what the projections look like. See if you’re seeing consistent bias towards or against certain players or teams. It’s okay to account for that.

Matt Hunter:
Then, the other thing is that, there is also work that you can do after you run the build because one reason that we designed it so that we build a pool of 1000 plus lineups is that those are all, in theory, viable lineups that you can play in a tournament. Just hitting build and then downloading the lineups that you get at the end maybe sorted by Saber’s score sorted by projection. Those are going to be good.

Matt Hunter:
There are ways that you can adjust your exposures if you want to limit the amount of risk that you have or lower the exposure you have to some players. You still want to do it in, not scientific, but in a somewhat objective way. You don’t want to just lower. If you’re just lowering the exposure to some player because you think that they’re not going to do well. You want to adjust the projection first rather than messing with it at the end. I think there are also ways that you can use the tool to adjust your exposures in a way that that might lower your risk without sacrificing too much value and other things that you can do there.

Matt Hunter:
I think that’s just one other way. I know Max and Danny, I think, have focused a lot on projections and adjusting projections. Generally, I focus a lot more on the post build exposure adjustment than they do, but that’s just kind of a lesson that there’s different ways to use the product. That’s kind of like there’s the step one of adjusting projections. The step two of adjusting sliders which is the step that this update has really taken a lot of work out of that. The step two, you don’t have to do too much because you just choose. We have set the sliders up better. Then, the step three of that post build adjustments is a place that you can spend more time on now in terms of just dialing in those exposures.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah, exactly.

Max Steinberg:
Yeah. I mean, I have something to add to it, if that’s okay.

Andy Baldacci:
Okay.

Max Steinberg:
I mean, I think if you’re playing Daily Fantasy to be able to just like click a button and spend out money then, that’s not like the way that you’re going to be a successful DFS player. It’s like, you want to do stuff that’s going to add value to whatever you’re doing, whether you have 5 minutes to do that or hours to do that. It differs. Sometimes, I’m making Daily Fantasy lineups and I do it in 15 minutes but I always try to do things that are going to add value to the lineups I’m building.

Max Steinberg:
SaberSim handles really well making great lineup construction for you. We are going to use our simulation data to construct really quality lineups for you and give you a lot of control over adjusting projections and how your actual lineups look in the post build process. What you can do, if you have even 5 minutes or 10 minutes or hours is, you can add value by changing an ownership projection, changing a player projection, changing a team projection. There are many ways to do it. You can do advanced stats, you can look at sports books, you can do a lot of different things.

Max Steinberg:
Adding that value is going to make your lineups more profitable. I think your goal as a Daily Fantasy player is going to be, how can I add the most value to the lineups and building before they get built? I would certainly focus on that. I would not focus on just 5 minutes before lock, clicking the build button with the default projections and just thinking, oh, I’m going to win every time. Obviously, that’s not going to happen. You don’t want to just have profitable lineups. You want to have the best lineups. To do that, you’re going to have to do something to add some value.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. That adding value is really what we think a lot about as we’ve been building SaberSim. It’s what kind of started this entire thing is that, when you look at traditional optimizers, there’s zero value in me telling it to build a stack, like that’s obvious. There are so many things you have to set that it’s just dumb. It wasn’t built to understand what goes into a high upside lineup. I have to go in and set all these rules and build all these groups and do all these things that it should be able to do for me, but it doesn’t.

Andy Baldacci:
We have done our best to automate the things that we can and to put into the program tools that take away that truly busy work that is not adding value so that you can focus your time in those areas where you do have leverage. It’s going to be different for every person what that leverage is. Max and Danny, I think, each really love digging into the stats and building up their own models and work on the projections. Whereas for Matt, he likes to get into exposure management, all of that. That might be something entirely different for you. With this update, we’re basically just saying, you’re not really adding that much value in the majority of cases by messing around with the sliders.

Andy Baldacci:
We have put out an update that takes in consideration basically all the variables that exist for this kind of problem, and put in place very smart defaults for each of those so that this is one less thing that you have to worry about. It’s not to, again, give you that money printing machine where you just click a button and win all the contests. It’s to give you time to put it into the places where you can add value. Max and Danny have a lot of videos for the major sports on what they personally do to improve the projections, to work on other things like that. We’re going to be keep coming out with more of those. We’ll have Matt in there and talking more about his exposure management and this and that.

Andy Baldacci:
Today, what we’ve really been trying to do with this update is just take that bullshit busy work that none of us need to do. There’s no value there. Take that off your plate and do a better job than we could on our own. There’s still more work to do and it’s always going to take work to win, but we think this was definitely a big step in the right direction. We’re coming up on that hour mark. I’m going to try to go through some of these other questions a little bit quicker and see what else I can get to in the chat.

Andy Baldacci:
One, we had a while ago from Nick was, does Giant Squid still differ a little bit on the slider settings? I know he like lower standard deviation some cases than the norm? The answer is, yeah. I hope at the end of this, it kind of is clear that you can differ from these. I wouldn’t flip them and go completely opposite from what we have as defaults. For your personal preference, whether it’s risk tolerance, whether it’s just your style of play, whatever it may be, going a couple ticks up or down from the defaults is fine. It’s not going to make or break your lineups. Play around with it, see what fits for you. If you’re unsure what to do, leave the defaults as is. B. Henson asked, go for it, Max.

Max Steinberg:
I was just saying, I think that’s especially true with ownership fade because I’ve talked about this on other videos, but I think ownership fade can be … there are some pitfalls with it, especially if either your ownership or if you sort of like to adjust projections a lot. If you like to adjust projections a lot, what ends up happening is ownership fade can accentuate the ways that you might have a personal bias or maybe the projections or bias. Because let’s say someone’s projected at 1% ownership and you have them at like 10X value. Chances are that’s wrong. I mean, maybe you’re a savant and that’s right.

Max Steinberg:
What it’s going to do with you if set that ownership fade to really high, it’s going to make it so you just get that player at probably at 100% or whatnot …

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. You’re like double counting it.

Max Steinberg:
Right. You end up, I think, accentuating some mistakes that you might have made. That’s something that, I think, in general, it depends on how much you’re adjusting projections, how contrary in person that you are. That’s something that we default it to pretty low and that’s sort of the reason in general.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. Next question is, we’ve got it couple times, it’s basically about limiting player pools, is it counterproductive? Is it something I should do? Should I just trust SaberSim and let it do its thing? You guys can jump in but I think ultimately, this goes back to what Max was talking about with adding value. I think if you are stuck in the more traditional mindset of an optimizer of I need to tell it exactly what to do or it’s going to give me just bad lineups, you don’t need to get a very small player pool for SaberSim to build you good lineup.

Andy Baldacci:
Just off the bat, don’t worry about that. If you find spots where you think we’re off on somebody and rather than just trying to get the projection exactly right, it’s easier for you to just remove them. That’s fine. That is a spot where you can add value because there are going to be some times where maybe we don’t accurately predict how someone’s going to play coming back from an injury, maybe whatever it is that we’re not accounting for you, you disagree with, remove them from the player pool. Don’t feel like you have to cultivate this perfect player pools because if there’s someone that doesn’t have any upside, we’re not going to put them in your lineups. That’s all I would say there. Max, did you want to add anything?

Max Steinberg:
Yeah. I’d just say I think actually, if you have the time to do a build before you do your final build, I think, you definitely should not exclude anyone. Because seeing who you get on a build is a great way to find out, okay, who do I need to look at? Because you say, okay, I’m getting this person 40%. I was not even considering this player. Okay, let’s look at the stats that were projecting them out and see and if you think this might be off or look maybe at stats on NBA or some other data source and see, okay, is this off? Or right? Or do I need to adjust this projection?

Max Steinberg:
Then, if you’re doing your final build and you’re like, I do not want this player. Sure, exclude them, that’s fine. I think, for the process before you make that final build, I would not exclude anyone because I think that’s a good source of information to see who is popping up.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. Adding on top of that, I think it’s probably more valuable to exclude players that maybe you’re just getting 1% of or just kind of a one off, not necessarily blindly but when you’re doing your final build, I think it’s okay to look through your player pool and see, oh, maybe this player is coming up because I have a high smart diversity and maybe he did really well in one sim. He’s too risky of a player to put into my exposures, and you want to remove them.

Matt Hunter:
I think that’s totally valid, but you should have reasons for doing that. I agree that just excluding a player because you don’t like them or they burned you in the past or something. That’s a really bad approach and a way that you’re not winning the long-term by doing that kind of thing.

Daniel Steinberg:
Yeah. I think maybe just a side note, a legitimate reason to exclude players if they’re questionable or you’re not sure they’re going to play in baseball, it’s like that the lineup hasn’t come out and you think maybe this guy is not that likely to play. I mean, exclude them. Or if they’re questionable, exclude them. That’s a really actually good reason to exclude.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. Especially if this is almost like, in my mind, like a requirement. If you are playing NBA and you’re unsure or you know you’re not going to be available closer to the lock, exclude players that are questionable. It’s not a guarantee, crazy things still happen and there are still late scratches. By excluding all the questionable people, unless it’s a small slate and there’s a lot of questionable people like you’re probably not giving up too much. It is much better to do that than to have someone in your lineup that gets zero.

Andy Baldacci:
That’s an edge case sort of but for NBA, it’s really not. It is something to keep in mind is that’s when to do that. The question we had earlier from B. Henson is, “If in multiple 150 max tournaments, should we use the top 150 in both or build 300 lineups?” I think the guys will have opinions on this. I feel like it differs by sport, by the size of the slate, contests and so on. I think, if you’re doing like a pre-max contest, a single entry contest or even a 20 max contest, using separate selections of lineups in each of your contest is less bad because you can have a large number of profitable lineups.

Andy Baldacci:
By diversifying it, you can lower your variance and it’s, I guess, probably a fine trade off depending on your risk tolerance knowing that if I pick lines 1 through 20 and put that in Contest A and lineups 21 through 40 in Contest B, those second set of lines are probably slightly lower ROI than the first. It’s not that big of a deal. I think when you get to 150 lineups, that’s where you’re giving up more especially for something like basketball. In hockey or baseball and bigger slates, it’s probably less of a big deal. That’s just generally how I think about that. Do you guys have different opinions or what do you guys think?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah, man. I think it does probably depend on your settings as well. Obviously with this update, there’s not as much focus on the slider settings but if you have more tighter exposures where you have really high exposure to certain players, you have a lower smart diversity. You have smaller player pool. Your 151st and 300th lineup are not going to be as different in terms of value from the first one as it would be if you had a much more spread player pool and higher smart diversity, where as you get farther and farther down the list, you’re giving up more and more value.

Matt Hunter:
I think it does depend on that as well. I would have generally agree that for single entry and three max and that kind of thing, it’s probably okay to spread them out. If you’re putting in 150 max to a bunch of different contests, we would probably want to just stick with 150. Yeah, I think, it kind of depends.

Andy Baldacci:
Do you hear that, Danny?

Daniel Steinberg:
I mean, I think it’s just a matter of risk tolerance, I guess. I think there’s probably not that much of a difference and that I just normally just go with 150.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. Let me see if there’s … I’m sure there’s some …

Daniel Steinberg:
Hey, there’s a question by someone, [Don Poletti 01:02:08] said, “You offer stacks but I’ve noticed that Max and Danny are against builds.” I think [crosstalk 01:02:14].

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. I saw a few of his other questions. Don, let us know if we don’t get this right but I think it’s basically just saying, should you force stacks in? Is that something you should do? Generally speaking, Max and Danny, from watching all of your videos myself, I don’t think you guys are saying that stacks are bad. You’re just saying that traditionally, the correlation will take care of it for you.

Daniel Steinberg:
Right. I mean, I think the beauty of SaberSim is you don’t have to pick all the stacks and jerry-rig this whole part of the builder, just right to get the perfect stacks. We have a simulator. The simulator is taking into consideration the correlations between different players. When you build lineups, the simulator is going to do a much better job making stacks than you could by just picking it manually. That’s why, I think, we don’t recommend prime to actually manually set different stacks you want to use. Just trust the builder to make the best stacks, given whatever projections you’re using.

Andy Baldacci:
Matt, did you want to add something?

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. I think I agree with that in a sense. I think it’s okay to add stacks. I wouldn’t say that you shouldn’t. If we didn’t want people, if we thought it was really bad, we wouldn’t include that in the site. I think it’s okay but I do think that you should keep in mind that if you add a four stack to your build, you probably want to decrease your correlation a little bit because, if you don’t have a stack and the correlation is kind of building those naturally. If you add a four stack then, you’re adding the stack and then we’re doing correlation on top of that stack. You’re getting more correlation than you would normally.

Matt Hunter:
For baseball, if you don’t have any stacks, you might get some five man stacks, you might get 5-3, 4-3 or whatever. You’ll get kind of a wide variety. Then, if you force them in and then at correlation, you’re just going to have like only maximum, 5-3 stacks or whatever. If that’s what you want, that’s okay. I think you just keep in mind how the stacks are interacting with the rest of your settings.

Andy Baldacci:
What were you thinking, Max?

Max Steinberg:
I’m just saying, I also think another reason is, we actually allow you to do the same thing in the post-build process. In our sports, we have the stack types. We have filters by stack types and you can set a min and max exposure to the stack type. What we’re saying is, don’t limit that. I mean, you can do this and I think there are some reasons to do this. If you don’t limit it before we say a percent build to lineups, you can limit it after SaberSim builds you lineups.

Max Steinberg:
That allows the builder to do all the things that it’s supposed to do. It doesn’t force it to do something that might not be the optimal way to do things. I think we just have that option later. Whereas, I think, a lot of optimizers just don’t have that option later. Either you have to decide right then and now, do I want to build lineups that are four stacks? Or do I not want to build lineups that aren’t four stacks with us? You can just say, okay, well, I see this like a 3-3-2. Let’s say in baseball. I kind of like that.

Max Steinberg:
There’s like a 2-1 and then no stack. I don’t like that lineup. You’ll zero that and say, I don’t want this lineup in the post build process.

Matt Hunter:
Yeah. It’s kind of similar to the one I was saying before about moving players from your pool is, you can do that build and then in the post build step, you can look at your exposures, not just players, but also stack types and make those little adjustments. If you have one or two lineups that are stacked. If you don’t like, just remove them and that’s okay and there’s nothing wrong with dialing in your exposures afterwards.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. To wrap up, we’ll do one more question after this but I just want to add that a lot of what I’m getting out of this, and I hope viewers are as well is that there’s no right way to use this. There are multiple ways to approach it. Oftentimes, Matt, you have a different approach than Max and Danny each do. I’m sure Max and Danny each have several approaches on different things as well.

Andy Baldacci:
That all comes down to the fact that through our simulation process, through our lineup building process, we’re able to build smarter lineups. We’re able to build high upside lineups. We’re able to factor in all of those variables that matter so that we give you that strong foundation and there’s a lot you can do from that. You can set things up front. If you’re more comfortable with that, you can adjust them down the road, if you’d prefer. There’s not one right or wrong way of doing it and it’s trying to just move past that.

Andy Baldacci:
Then, the last one, the last question we’ll answer is and I’m really curious to hear Max and Danny, you guys have thoughts on this, is there a way to build based on the cost of the tournament? The one thing I will first say is that, generally speaking, the higher buy in tournaments have a smaller number of entrance and a smaller entry limit. That’s already going to be accounted for in the sliders. With that in mind, are there other changes you guys would make for some of the higher buy in contest? How would you approach that?

Daniel Steinberg:
Yeah. The first thing that comes to mind or maybe the only thing that comes to mind is just in the higher buy in contests, you have sharper players and normally see ownerships are a lot more concentrated. I would probably maybe move the ownership setting to the right a little bit for a higher buy in contest than for a lower buy in.

Andy Baldacci:
Great.

Matt Hunter:
You could also adjust your ownership projections themselves, if you think, oh, I’m going to enter this high dollar tournament and I think this guy is going to actually be twice as own just because it’s sharper, then change the ownership. Because ours are kind of based on sort of the average tournament. If you have a specific tournament in mind, and you know ownership is going to be different, adjust the ownership projections.

Max Steinberg:
Yeah. I will also add on to the point. I mean, I think a great example is if you played NBA last night, Nasseri, if you looked at the lower buy in contest he’s about 20% owned. The higher buy in contest, he was about 40% on DraftKings. The reason for that is that with people who are like late news type of players, usually the savvier players will get on that a lot better than in lowering buy in contests. If you have sort of something that’s a late news thing that the players somehow has become the chalk, you’d have to have … I hope if you’re playing high stakes NBA, you have a lot of awareness of how players choose players and awareness about what’s going on in the slide.

Max Steinberg:
Because if you are, then when there is that late news, you could maybe jack up a player’s ownership a lot and use that ownership slider to a higher setting. I think that’s really the only thing is, the ownerships are going to be a little sharper and they’re going to be a little more concentrated. I think you also can just trust it. There’s no difference between a higher stakes contest other than that. You also can just trust what you’re doing, your process and SaberSim and you’re going to do well.

Andy Baldacci:
Yeah. To close things out, it goes back to what we were saying about adding value. With this update to the sliders, we’ve made it so not that it’s impossible to add value there and not that there’s nothing left for you to do and to adjust, but that it’s probably not the highest leverage spot for you to focus on and the efforts that you’ll have there to get more value, to add more value to what we’re doing are going to be pretty quick.

Andy Baldacci:
I think some of the things we’ve talked about have shown how and when to make those adjustments. Really, I hope this update makes everything a lot easier for you so you can focus your time on the projections and the exposures. That’s really where we think the most value is to be had. If you guys have questions at all on any of this, or anything else, you can always shoot me an email at support@sabersim.com. You can hit us up in Slack. Reach out to us on Twitter, wherever it is, you want to get ahold of us, we’ll do our best to get back to you.

Andy Baldacci:
This is a fun one. Hopefully, you guys got a lot out of it. We really appreciate it. We’ll talk to you soon. See you guys.

Matt Hunter:
Buy guys.

Max Steinberg:
See you.

Daniel Steinberg:
See you.

TRY SABERSIM FOR FREE

Start building better lineups right now!

Start My Free Trial