Thursday, Sep 29th
Monday, Oct 3rd

Loose Ends (Free)


What do we do with Chalk?

Chalk actually becomes increasingly simple to digest and understand if we follow the guidelines proposed in previous sections, in that we can easily identify “good chalk vs. bad chalk.” For example, a backup running back with a starter injury, running behind a top ten offensive line, in a good matchup equals good chalk, whereas a backup running back with a starter injury, running behind a bottom five offensive line, in a poor matchup equals bad chalk. If the player in question is a good on-paper play prior to looking at price on the week, we should strive to be even-to-overweight the field. If the player in question is a poor on-paper play prior to looking at price, nine times out of ten I am completely fading them, leveraging Game Theory principles and everything we’ve already discussed to allow others to make mistakes while I capitalize on them. As we discussed in the previous sections, we should already have an idea of who classifies as good chalk, and who classifies as bad chalk, prior to ever looking at pricing or expected ownership percentages. For MME, I prefer complete fades of “bad chalk” as opposed to simply being underweight, as we should expect our process to guide us to our affirmations, and we should have confidence in our assertions (confidence is entirely its own struggle that we will cover later in this course).

What to do with ownership projections

Because I am not looking at ownership projections until Saturday evening, in most cases, I am simply using them as a means to confirm or deny the assertions I have made throughout the week by leveraging Game Theory (projected ownership percentages aren’t even accurate until Friday/Saturday anyway!).

If we start our research for the week by looking at ownership or player pricing, we are introducing biases into our research before we even begin!

We want to let our research and process lead us to optimal plays as opposed to looking for our research to confirm the preconceived notions that are introduced through seeing a projected ownership number or a player’s price.

Let’s repeat that ::

We want to let our research and process lead us to optimal plays as opposed to looking for our research to confirm the preconceived notions that are introduced through seeing a projected ownership number or a player’s price.

Basically flipping the script entirely on how you may have approached a slate in the past is a big transition, so there will be growing pains associated with this. We have to trust our process, and know that the process is what leads to the results, not the other way around.

The big picture

When pulling this all together, our mindset each week should be focused on finding the best on-paper, in-a-vacuum plays from which to field our teams. Next, we look at player pricing and begin to classify players as core plays, good chalk, bad chalk, and high ceiling/low floor MME plays. We can then start making our Game Theory assertions, picking apart the field and finding what a majority of entries will look like, and how we can leverage that knowledge to maximize our EV. From here, we build our rosters, then take into account ownership percentages to either confirm or deny our Game Theory assertions. Finally, we tinker with maximum ownership percentages in MME builds, or make sounds process-driven changes to our SE/3-Max rosters.

This is a great place from which to deviate, and a great foundation to a repeatable +EV habit pattern. COVID is sure to throw a wrench or two in these plans this year, but if we’ve put in the work early in the week, we will be better suited to handle any late week personnel changes that may arise. Lex Miraglia will be doing great work on game breakdowns this year for OWS, in addition to the legendary JMToWin NFL Edge articles and podcasts, so we’ll be well equipped to handle any late personnel changes introduced due to COVID.

Monday morning quarterback

With every slate, we’re given valuable feedback on our process. Whether or not we were profitable the previous week matters not; what matters is our process and Game Theory assertions that led us to the plays we made. We need to consistently analyze our own processes in an attempt to be constantly evolving and improving. Some questions to ask ourselves on Monday include ::

  • Were our Game Theory assumptions correct?
  • Where can our process improve?
  • What pieces of information were applied correctly using Game Theory?
  • What did we get wrong and how can we ensure that doesn’t happen moving forward?

One of the most enjoyable aspects of DFS is this immediate feedback we receive! If we aren’t using this information to learn, grow, and move forward, we’ll get left behind the field.

If you have any questions regarding Game Theory, its application, or anything pertaining to fantasy football, feel free to reach out on Twitter @HilowFF!

And if you’re focusing on GPPs this year (hoping to learn how you can do what JM and I have talked about on the site: growing your bankroll through a tighter, more focused approach than the field is using, and leaning on GPPs as your bankroll booster), I want to strongly encourage you to step inside the next five lessons for a “Next Level” look at leveraging game theory for bankroll boosts!


If you don’t have access beyond this page, you can buy the “Next Level” lessons for ONLY $29!!!

From Lesson 7 ::
“WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO LEVERAGE GAME THEORY TO BUILD ‘CONTRARIAN ROSTERS,’ AS OPPOSED TO PLAYING ‘CONTRARIAN PLAYERS.’ “

Register New Account