I’m unabashedly a DraftKings player and the amount of volume I put into the two sites is not even close. There are a lot of reasons for this, most notably a large portion my bankroll growth coming via DraftKings NHL and PGA offerings, but also including a slight preference to scoring format, better product and industry leading visibility into things like player ownership. Because of this almost all of my action this NFL season has been on DK and it wasn’t until I was filling out my 20th iteration of a GPP lineup on DraftKings this week that I began to wonder if I was acting like a damn fool. Why? Well it struck me that if I was going to be playing different tournament lineups on a weekly basis, was I really wise to limit myself to 1 site when I could instead take advantage of pricing inefficiencies across multiple sites?
At face value, the first tournament lineup you build should be your best one with each lineup after that holding a lower return, though it could still have positive expected value. When I enter my 2nd, 3rd or 10th stack combination it is usually driven by a combination of factors, including acknowledgement of the inherent risk in projections or my opinions, but also the ability to hedge my exposure by grabbing multiple combinations that appeal to me or are in similar spots. And yes, my degeneracy. In some situations I have knowingly sacrificed raw projections to grab low ownership or high upside stacks, but is this really necessary or should we instead be looking to exploit pricing inefficiencies on different sites to gain access to the exact same player exposure, but do so in a more price sensitive manner?