Log in Register

Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Create an account

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Name *
Username *
Password *
Verify password *
Email *
Verify email *

fb mb tw mb

Monday 25th Sep 2017

Happy Monday.

Yes, I know it is a bit late for our normal Extra Points post, but we are making a push to play and conquer Daily Games.

As I was discussing this with Lord Z, I noted that playing daily was potentially addicting, and Todd responded with an agreement, noting a bunch more gerunds. You know what gerunds are: they are verbs that become nouns by adding an "ing" suffix.

And, that just seemed like such a natural way to describe watching your team earn or lose points, as you grumble about who you should have played and who you should have benched.

So, with an eye on what happened, with a little bit of a glance on what lays ahead, here goes a start with a new angle.

Second-guessing: I planned on starting Drew Brees Sunday, against a seemingly weak Tampa team, but thought twice (thanks to Todd's prodding), narrowing things down to either Matt Ryan or Cam Newton, two of my favorite players. In the end, I made the right choice with Cam, but until kickoff, in fact, until the game was over, that was all I was doing (and not just the QB slot, either).

Exciting: Playing Odell Beckham, Jr. was fun, and he delivered, and it was cool watching him rack up points. However, there is an attrition factor as over 40% of my league played the best young receiver in the NFL. Meaning when I got 10 points from him, so did nearly half the league. Meaning I didn't gain anything on them.

Excrutiating: Rob Gronkowski was out, so I made a late move, and grabbed Tim Wright, who did virtually nothing (two points). In the process, I looked hard at Coby Fleener. Oops.

Satisfying: There was a lot of good defense Sunday, especially the Panthers, who completely dismantled the Falcons. Though picking Carolina to stop the red-hot Matty Ice was counterintuitive. So, I went with Kansas City, figuring at home, against a familiar rival, that a strong pass defense would have it over a good pass offense (Philip Rivers). Turned out that was right.

Exasperating: Eric Decker was right there, along with Markus Wheaton as starting options, but at the last minute I switched to James Jones. I guess this is kind of like second guessing, only more painful (and I am still shaking this concept down, and the categories could be, uh, changing).

Addicting: That it is. I am already looking at who to play during the first round of playoff games this coming weekend. Right now, Antonio Brown and Torrey Smith and Justin Forsett have caught my eye. Along with the Camster.

Anticipating: We are coming up to my favorite two weekends of the NFL season for the Wild Card and subsequent games are where the upsets really occur. Though I have to admit that with all that was up in the air yesterday--Atlanta v. Carolina really was a playoff game--that the postseason really did start a week early. How much fun is that?


0 #3 Lawr Michaels 2015-01-02 22:53
I get your point Perry. However, change is change. I don't think the bulk of Mastersball readers who play the season long format (which i do prefer) will lose anything. We will still cover that.

However, daily's are a different kind of game, and require a different kind of strategy.

I like playing games a lot, and playing different formats does not make things exclusionary in my view.

in fact, doing a full season auction as opposed to a snake draft offers the same chance for strategizing differently as does doing a daily game and an auction. And, i play scoresheet and strat too, all of which require a different twist and set of projections as well imho.

i find the games fun. i understand the next generation of players likes them. i am happy to see why they like the format, and see what i can figure.

it is good for business, i hope.

as for legality, technically, Z is right. philosophically, who cares?
0 #2 Todd Zola 2015-01-02 20:33
The white elephant in the room...

It all depends on one's definition of gambling.

LEGALLY, it is not considered gambling. That's the on-the-record fact. There are certain conditions that DFS - or any pay-for-play must meet and if they do, under current statutes it's not considered gambling by the letter of the law.

Off the record? Yeah, it's a form of gambling. But so is season-long pay-for-play. So is investing in the stock market. So is a 401K. To me, anytime your trying to turn $X into more dollars with the chance it becomes less dollars then it's gambling.

We can discuss the control one has over a DFS outcome versus the control in a season-long league versus the buying stocks or investing in baseball cards for that matter.

Maybe one is more of a gamble?

But, according to the UIGEA, in the eyes of the government, it's not defined as gambling.
0 #1 Perry Van Hook 2015-01-02 20:07
Allow me to add one more gerund ....

Gambling - what you are doing with your money in daily games.

The advantage you have in using Mastersball projections and tools and the fantasy input of all the excellent writes here is negated in one day games (well except for Todd's epistles on that format is a slight help if you choose to keep DOing

Add comment

Security code

Latest Tweets





Our Authors