DFS is a strange bird. The last several weeks I have found myself in an interesting conundrum. On paper, I know what I should be doing and am doing it. I’ve won more than I’ve lost so that’s not the issue. It’s just I’m not wired to strategize to win more than I lose. I’m wired to want to win every time I play. I’m not naïve. I know that’s not possible in any endeavor of this nature, including traditional fantasy play. The losses by far outpace the wins. But that doesn’t stop me from yearning to win every time.

The thing is when playing DFS, you get that feeling of elation/satisfaction or frustration/disappointment on a weekly, if not daily basis. It really toys with one’s emotions. For me it’s not the money or notoriety; it’s the personal challenge of being good at what I do. This is amplified by the fact I feel obligated to be good at it if I’m being paid to advise you how to be good at it. Truth be told, this is what really eats at me.

It’s hard for me to separate business from pleasure, so to speak. I sit in my well-broken in desk chair and offer credos such as “You’re not going to win every time so don’t sweat it. So long as you manage your bankroll properly and hit on enough of your cash games, you’ll be fine.”

Then come Monday nights when the final seconds tick off the clock, even though I usually end up in the black, I look at the lineups that failed and utter phrases that would make Richard Pryor blush.

My guess is I’m not alone in this regard. I also suspect that this scenario frequents those of us that play at a level above casual but below grinder.

We spend our Sunday mornings trying to decide the best of several very enticing options. Much of what I do in this space is offer advice on how to first come up with a list of a few candidates then identify the best. The very useful Fantasy Alarm DFS Playbook distills it all down to the very best choices at each position. But we still have to put the puzzle together – or duplicate what we share as our optimal lineup.

This is the part that really gets to me. I know the solution. It’s quite obvious.

Put in more lineups, covering all the different permutations focusing on the best options.

Easier said than done – for many reasons. Some are financial, some are practical and some are personal.

Many of us have a limited bankroll. No problem, you say. Just play more games with less expensive entry points. Instead of playing a couple of $10 or $25 cash games with a cheaper GPP or two (along with the Millionaire Maker), play several $2 or $5 cash games.

Yeah, right. You know what happens then? I hit on a few and see my bankroll grow by $4 or $10 and spend more than that on comfort food lamenting not using them in games that would have won $50 or $100. So not only am I then down in dough, I’m up in calories. And quite frankly, I can’t afford either.

Which brings us back to, “You’re not going to win every time so don’t sweat it. So long as you manage your bankroll properly and hit on enough of your cash games, you’ll be fine.”

My goal is to come out ahead ten weeks of the 17 week season. Grinders want to win ten of the 17 lineups they put in each weekend. Or 100 of the 170, you get the idea.

So somewhere around Wednesday or Thursday of each week, I stop wallowing in my own self-pity and begin thinking of ways to make my success rate 11 or 12 of the 17 weeks.

While some of this is an over-dramatization of what I go through, the general message is absolutely genuine. The player in me takes this stuff personally. But this is my job so that whole wallowing in self-pity is an exaggeration used to help make a point. I only wallow Monday night. Come Tuesday I’m over it and strategizing.

To that end, I have rethought some of my general approach to setting my DFS football lineups. It’s nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering; it’s actually mostly common sense that wasn’t so common, or sensible to me earlier. I can’t just play 170, or even 17 cash games so I need to stick with upping the odds in those I do play.


The abridged method is based on the experimentation recently presented with respect to identifying the optimal quarterback. That is, the first step is choosing a QB and the rest of the picks are not chosen willy-nilly but done based on the team, the opponent, etc. Previously, while I may have started with the QB, the rest of the picks did not necessarily account for exactly who I chose. Incorporating this new line of thinking serves as a filter to organically narrow down several would-be possible options.


It should be noted that the results using my QB ranking system paled in comparison to last week’s success. I don’t want to imply I’ve cracked that code by any means. But I do believe that in terms of the big picture, it serves as a useful jumping off point. Case and point, here’s how I concluded last Friday’s column:

So here's my game plan. Aaron Rodgers will anchor most of my cash games, paired with Rivers on two-QB sites. My GPP guys will be Luck and Cutler.

The call of Rivers wasn’t so hot but as it turns out, I audibled to Drew Stanton as my second QB on Fantasy Aces and Draft Day so I was covered.

Later this week I’ll outline the abridged process I am now using to set my lineups. You’ll see a lot of conventional wisdom incorporated.