Discussion on the best H2H format that we should build. (edited)
*UPDATE* After consideration and support of H2H's, we have decided to drop the rake on H2H's to 5% regardless of Draftstars OR user created, which is below the industry standard rake of 10%.
You can stack entries on user created H2H's and they will auto enter the lobby when your previous contest fills for that entry fee.
@Draftstars: Awesome, thanks DS. @Lampy @Chriseddy999 @jayk123
@Draftstars: Thanks guys! Hopefully we see a big increase in H2H numbers for 1st week of AFL finals. Also thanks for implementing the player projections for multi game slates.
@Draftstars: Great move, love it.
I just tried to create heaps of games and they aren't appearing in the lobby, but my balance has been hit from them.
Tiny bit worried as it was a fairly large amount. Do they take a while to appear? Or do I needa call someone?
@Chriseddy999: they are visible, however looks we have a bug when the AFL filter is active. Will get it fixed.
You can also view all your stacked entries in "My Contests" https://play.draftstars.com.au/my-contests/upcoming and they have an icon to show you they are not visible in the lobby yet.
@Draftstars: One bug I noticed is that if you create 5 H2Hs, and then try to change your primary lineup under 'My Teams', the teams in your H2Hs that are currently hidden from view do NOT change.
So you have to manually go through your 'My Contests' tab and open up each hidden H2H and then import->update. I got caught out on the first 2 AFL games playing my placeholder lineup in a number of matchups, and lost.
Please look into that this week.
Overall, did you see much of an increase in H2H comps?
@Lampy: thanks for reporting this. I will get the tech team to fix this first thing.
I appreciate the 5% rake for the DS generated H2Hs, but the inability to enter multiple H2Hs at same stake level in 1 go usually sees me play very few H2Hs on each slate. I'm sure that number would be far greater if I have option to enter a bunch at same time, and not sit in front of computer and keep checking to add 1 more each time one fills. Perhaps try doing 5% H2Hs for user created ones for 1 weekend and see the difference in H2H action that us and DS are missing out on due to the stubborn stand off that currently exists?
Also strongly consider reducing the # of stake levels available. Most of them sit vacant anyway due to the 3 stake sitting rule, so why not reduce the spread, and encourage more diversity in opponents? Might seem counter intuitive, but I'm willing to bet that the action + diversity will be greater with less # of stakes. "Less is more"
We have turned on [User Created H2H's] now. You can access it here: https://play.draftstars.com.au/create-challenge OR click "Create Contest" on the H2H tab in the lobby. They have a different icon so you can tell which are Draftstars created and which are user created. ENJOY!
@Draftstars: why is rake twice as high for "user created" h2hs? (as though there is such a thing as a h2h that isn't user created...) is this going to be our only way to put up more than 1 per stake at a time?
@jayk123: this was noted above and consistent with the original Draftstars rake system:
1. Rake: H2H contests created by Draftstars have a 5% rake, user created H2H will have a 10% rake.
Yes, it will be the only way to put up more than 1 per stake at a time.
@Draftstars: Oh please. The original DS site charged more for user created CUSTOM games, like if someone wanted to use a $120k salary cap or create some weird multi day slate that wasn't offered traditionally. Being able to create multiple h2hs per stake is a core feature of all DFS sites. It doesn't (and shouldn't) result in increased rake anywhere else.
Clearly no-one's going to put up any bs user created h2hs, so you obviously want those of us that put up games to get irritated at our games constantly falling out of the lobby and those of us that take games to have less choice available to us because... reasons? I guess you just don't want people to play h2h?
@jayk123: we built the H2H's inline with this thread and set out the rake structure upfront with no hidden surprises. We would have built an entirely different system if not for the requests here.
We understand the industry standard is 10% rake on H2H's and we chose to continue with 5% for Draftstars created H2H contests out of good will and support of the feature.
We will take your feedback on board and monitor the progress of H2H's on the platform.
@Draftstars: Are you guys going to make it possible to sit more than 1 table at a given limit, with only 1 of those tables showing in the lobby?
For example, PlayerA should be able to sit as many $5 tables they please, but only one of them displays in the lobby. So when one of them is joined and taken off the lobby, a new table displaying PlayerA and an empty spot is created.
Seems like a no brainer from your end as you're missing out on a lot of potential rake. Regs are only able to sit one table per limit atm and they won't notice when it's taken, leaving periods where no one is sitting > less rake for you guys and worsens customer experience.
@Chriseddy999: we support that with user created H2H here: https://play.draftstars.com.au/create-challenge
@Draftstars: But I'm better off playing blackjack :\
@Draftstars: Can you up the max stake limit of NRL H2H's you can sit at to 4 please? There isn't enough action at $100+ games to make it worth sitting them at the expense of 10, 20,50 etc.
** Update **: we have released an early version of H2H contests. Only Draftstars admins can create them at the moment. It follows the rules documented in this thread. User created H2H will be available ASAP.
@Draftstars: Thanks DS. Do DS admins have to create new H2H's manually as they see them or will the system auto-create an open H2H as one is joined?
@Knova: we just setup the initial H2H, then when 1 person joins it will clone.
@Draftstars: Couple of little things re: the rollout:
1) There's a bug where if the first h2h you take of someone else's is their biggest one, you can't take their smaller ones along side it.
2) Please give us h2hs on every slate including all the smaller ones. There's already a nice h2h tab right there in the lobby, you could just move all h2hs to that tab and take them out of the main lobby to get rid of the clutter. The first DS client was built that way anyway - we needed to tick a box to see h2hs, they weren't there as a default, so it won't be a completely new thing. (Although if you just wanna make sure ppl know h2hs are back for a little while first then that makes sense)
3) On the app, you can't see who each h2h belongs to. Some kind of identifier is needed there so that ppl can easily pick who they wanna play instead of getting annoying clicking around to see who each one is and it often being someone they either don't want to play or aren't allowed to play anymore bc of the 3 stake rule.
Thanks for getting h2hs back to us, and great work with all the changes lately!
@jayk123: thanks for the follow up.
1) This is not a bug, it was requested and discussed above by @Knova:
"E.g. If you join someone's $20 H2H, then they cannot join any H2H you put up for $20 or lower for that slate. If you were to put up a $50 or higher H2H after joining the $20 H2H, then they would be able to join the $50 one, and then not be able to join any additional H2H's of $50 or less against you subsequently."
2) We only just turned them on, so will keep adding slates as we go. We do recognise the lobby will get out of control with H2H's, so your idea of just having them in the H2H tab is probably where we will end up.
3) I think you are referring to the "join more contests" screen. It currently doesn't show who has joined yet, whereas the lobby does show this on mobile & desktop.
It was an early release so we didn't go another weekend without H2H's. More to come!
@Draftstars: thanks for the reply! re: point 1), i think that what knova meant was that if for example, Player A puts up a $10, $20, and $50, player B takes those 3 games, and player A then later puts up a $100, player B should still be able to take that game because that player's "highest stake" has now changed. this stops people being able to exploit the system by putting up smaller games until people above them take them, then putting up bigger ones. however, in it's current form, if someone puts up a $10, $20, and $50, you can click the $10 then the $20 then the $50 and take all 3 (which i assume is how it's meant to work), but if you happen to click the $50 first, you can't click the $20 or the $10 anymore, which is just annoying. seems like you should always be able to click someone 3 times, even if you arbitrarily happen to click on their biggest game first.
@jayk123: Correct on my point for point 1.
Re point 2: I felt the "tax" people should pay to put up H2H games in the lobby was 1x their highest stake against anyone who wants it, not 1x each stake they sit at against anyone who wants it as others suggested, so the DS system is operating as I envisioned.
The idea of someone putting H2H's up in the lobby and having someone work up the ladder taking their $10, $20, $50 H2H's was not really my intention but I'm okay with that being a thing if someone wants to be first to the trough to put up their games. They could always come to the party later and take everyone else's H2H's at the highest stake they want to play to stop people doing that to them. The one issue I see with this method would be looking at ChrisEddy in AFL who sits at stakes beyond what most players would open games at, so he could always ladder h2h's against everyone.
@Draftstars there's also this issue of not being able to sit more than once at a given limit. Players should be able to sit infinite $500s for example, the key being that only one will show in the lobby at a time.
When you click the + sign to join a H2H table after entering your team, it shouldn't be capped to 1. It should be unlimited, though only 1 of them showing per limit.
@Draftstars The '+' sign highlighted on the right should go to infinite, or at least 5.
And the other two highlighted parts are two full H2Hs. They should show the contestant sitting in that table just like the open lobby does. Maybe with a ($100, $50) in brackets, if you've already matched them at the $100 and $50 limits.
@Chriseddy999: Yep agree with both of these. I think that is DS's intention but because we are all so antsy about getting H2H's back they put them up early for us whilst they iron out the kinks. Something I'm very happy about!
@jayk123: the post from @Knova specifies once you join the $20 H2H you can't join another H2H for $20 or lower (for that slate/user). This is how we implemented the rule. It sounds like you might want a different rule that replaces this one?
@Knova: we think we implemented the rule as originally requested. Maybe there is a grey area that wasn't considered?
@Chriseddy999: yes, you will be able to sit as many H2H's for that limit as you can pay entries for (maybe we will put an arbitrary limit in place) once we have the user created H2H's in place with the cloning feature and they will open in the lobby by themselves once filled. (We released early) ;)
Your second point might not be feasible as it's completely different logic on the "submit more" screen. Once we have the user created H2H, it might become less required.
@Draftstars: Ahhh yep, gotcha. Thought this may have been the finished product. Sounds good, cheers boys!
@Draftstars: Nah you implemented as originally requested. Thanks DS
@Draftstars: Really enjoying having H2H's back so thanks DS.
The new system looks to be working as intended but I'll leave the AFL guys to comment on it in more detail.
Here is some quick feedback for the little things with H2H's for the next update:
1. The lobby should be structured as biggest games with 1/2 entries for the next slate to start up the top, down to the smallest h2h's games with 1/2 entries for that same slate, then repeat for the biggest 0/2 entry games down to smallest for that slate. So on and so forth with slates later to start in that day. When new games are created they should fit in to this structure.
2. Being able to join/create multiple H2H's at the stake levels you are sitting at, at the same time.
3. I'd like to see the filled H2H's filtered to the bottom of the lobby on my screen (and not displayed to people who aren't in them as the current system does). I'd also like the ability to hide them should I so choose.
4. Once you submit an entry in to a contest and can go to the "submit more" section; Most people who click submit more are either 1. Adding a main entry to a mini contest (or vice versa), or 2. Have entered a cash team that they want to throw in to 6-mans, multipliers and H2H contests. I would like the H2H filter to remain in that screen but be set by default to "Show H2H's" for this reason. The order contests should be showed on that screen should be feautred contests at the top (main/mini), then 6-mans and multipliers in stake order, then H2H's with 1/2 entries in stake order, then H2H's with 0/2 entries in stake order.
Refer to post for update.
We have reviewed all the posts in this thread (several times) and tried to determine the best path forward. The following is our conclusion:
1. Rake: H2H contests created by Draftstars have a 5% rake, user created H2H will have a 10% rake. We have some ideas for this for a future enhancement.
2. Max H2H/slate/entry fee: A user can only have a maximum of 3 open H2H contests in the lobby at 1 time for a maximum of 3 entry fee brackets. e.g. userA has 1x $10, 1x $20, 1x $50 only visible in the lobby. Once any other user joins a contest of userA, the contest will not be visible to the general public and userA can replace that contest with another contest at their specified entry fee.
3. Max per slate, not below: userA has 3x H2H contests in the lobby; $20, $50, $100. If userB enters the $50 contest, userB can no longer join the $20 contest but can join the $100 contest. Once a new max entry fee is reached, userB can no longer play against userA at a lower entry fee for that slate.
4. Limit 1 contest with user v user for slate/entry fee: A user can only play against another user 1 time per slate per entry fee. e.g. if userA plays against userB for a $50 H2H Saturday slate, userA & userB can no longer play against each other in this exact combination.
5. Clone my contest: A user should be able to specify the number of copies of a H2H contest they create. e.g. userA would like to create 10x $50 H2H Saturday slate contests with 1 entry in each. Only 1 can be visible at a time in the lobby until the previous fills.
6. Show entrants: The H2H contests need to show the entrants username that have joined e.g. Entrants: userA, userB
Hopefully we haven't got this too wrong. We are starting on it straight away and all going well, it will take approximately 2 weeks to develop and release. We know this timeline is not ideal, but we are very happy we waited and got your feedback otherwise we would have developed something completely different and left you more disappointed.
We will monitor this thread for any further comments and keep you updated.
@Draftstars: Will you guys be introducing an 'unregister' option? Because that would be useful with the limit of 3 open H2H contests at any one time. Example say if you had 3 open H2H contests at $5, $10, $20 and weren't getting any action, so you wanted to get rid of your $10 H2H and open up a $50 H2H.
@Draftstars: Is this for all sports? The issues the "3 stake max" address don't even exist in NRL. Is it possible to have NRL be 5 stake max or 4 stake max and monitor it moving forward whilst keeping the other sports at 3 stake max?
@Lampy: this makes sense for H2H's. We will add this to stage 2 of delivery.
@Knova: initially it will apply to any sport to reduce scope and get it live. We can review this once it's live.
@Draftstars: Well done fellas, unreal customer service. Seriously impressive. That solution hit the nail on the head and solves everything imo. Not sure I fully understand point 3 though, but from what I gather it seems good as well.
@Draftstars what about some extra high stakes alternatives between now and the release of the new H2H stuff? Can't see any downside to offering a few extra high stakes games or mid-high stakes games as they always fill. Just more rake for you guys and happier regulars between now and then.
Not a priority obviously, but seems pretty easy and logical to do
Point 3 was to address @Knova idea here;
@Draftstars: Point 4 should be optional, similar to old ability to turn MMB on/off. Not sure if it is/isn't here given wording. 90% of people will have it on but if 2 guys want to go at it with multiple h2h's per slate against each other, they should be able to.
The other points are sufficient to stop someone forcefully taking multiple H2H's against someone who doesn't want to play them more than once
@Chriseddy999: we will throw a few up and see how they are received. Keep in mind, none of the above will apply. They will just be normal contests with max 2 entrants, payout Top 1.
@Knova: this use case could be handled with "private contests" once we turn them on. We have tried to keep the rules generic to benefit the majority of users.
@Draftstars: Great to. See feedback is being taken on board with the construction. Tip of the hat for that.
I also believe @chriseddy is on the right track with a rankings system, though i would like to see it implemented with tiers. Now i get that this is big money for some of the players on here and they are very good at fantasy sports, but the same people winning all the time with their 50 entries takes the fun out for people like myself who only pop in 1 or 2 lineups. This is why h2h is disproportionately popular on this site, we have a much greater chance of an equal contest and even a few wins. This is not to knock Jaykay or knova or kiwinoz or any of the other players i would deem "top tier". Good luck to them, but i know i avoid h2h with knova et al, but really enjoy my long running battles with ropatitime, muddy and the like. I think a lot of beginner players get turned off when they try their hand in a mini (where the winner had 50 entries) and a h2h against a top tier player, and get completely flogged, thus losing interest. I would like to see a number or letter appear next the players name to allow players to, match up with players of a similar record/ability. And bring back single entry features, God I miss them. I really enjoy DStars and have been on here a few years now, but i rarely play the features anymore because of the same people winning using their multi lineups systems consistently. H2H is the most fun aspect of ds these days and i think we lesser players need to be protected to some extent, we play for the enjoyment, not as a 2nd income. Again, not having a go at the top tier guys, just trying to create a more level playing field for the rest of us to keep enjoying ourselves.
@MPFairhall: thanks for the valuable feedback. We had discussed internally about a ranking system. Lots of room for improvement ahead of us here.
@Draftstars: as i said earlier, i think its great that your taking feedback on board and ha ing the players themselves involved in the process. Well done.
Great discussion guys, everyone so passionate. As a casual player I like to choose who I play h2h against, having said that I don’t play often and if I do I’d only play the one person once in a slate. So I might do 3 h2h against 3 different regs, just to test myself for fun. Therefore I doubt at this stage of me playing dfs I wouldn’t set up any h2h myself as I lose the ability to choose my opponent. Just giving the feedback of someone of my level
Deleted post, as just saw DS post while I was writing.
I really want to thank everyone that has contributed to this conversation and kept it constructive. It's an honour to have this community on our platform and we really want to deliver what you want at the end of the day.
I feel it's time as a company we process all this feedback and offer a proposal to the H2H's and an expected delivery timeline we can work towards.
I will post back here ASAP. Feel free to continue to discuss it, but we have a good idea what everyone is looking for and completely understand the urgency to get H2H's back.
Thanks for your patience, we will not let you down.
I know I'm going too get shut down coz i don't really have a decent theory on this. Do "weak players" even post h2h's in lobby? if a problem is high stakes players snapping up every "no name", or someone angle shooting the good players so they can sit there with a high stake h2h.. just make a 10% rule. post a $500 then their minimum h2h is $50.. $200-$20, $100-$10 and so forth. Post a $500 h2h be prepared to play every level below that..$850. This will need a choose your max h2h (every slate), once you select say $100. thats it you cant go up if you decide later you want too.(MMB 1x per stake with-in your allowed range(optional)). This would stop good players bottom bouncing and average players angle shooting to get higher stakes for peanuts. (and if something like this has been suggested I'm sorry there are some long comments on this blog). Shoot me down as you please..
This would also be the same for the players who don't want too post in lobby and just lurk in the corner. too access h2h's in lobby you need to click enter h2h contests, 1-10, 2-20, 5-50, 10-100, 20-200, 50-500. 1 "room" per slate allowed. once joined a contest from a particular room then you cant join another room. think this would encourage a steps progression. if player is doing well in the 2-20 then he can move up to the $5-$50 and play his $20 games but maybe throw in a $50 without having to compete with a $50-$500 player for the $50 h2h. Also it doesn't have to be them set ranges, but that just an example
@Instorgata: Nah mate, that's a great suggestion. That's exactly what I'm suggesting, except a limit of 3 stakes instead of the 10% rule. Basically you're limit would be 5 stakes.
And your point about the weak players never open sitting is something I discussed earlier when @jayk123 said,
"i don't think that it's good for the game for people to select the "protect me from being preyed on" option and still get sniped multiple times in a row by the same person when they put up games. there's just something psychological/emotional that happens when someone takes more than one of your games. to me that's the exact type of thing that drives recs away"
Clearly speaking for himself, and not weak players at all. As he's well aware that no weak players ever open sit. And if they do, it's never more than one table that is always snapped up within 10 minutes anyway. I replied to @jayk123 with all of this but he hasn't replied.
I also replied to him about him absurdly suggesting I may have a hidden agenda with my 3 band limit suggestion. What don't you get mate? I'm the #1 cash player on Draftstars - literally every further restriction to the rules is going to be WORSE for me. I'm doing the exact opposite of what you're suggesting I'm doing. What don't you get about that? If I was fighting for my own profits, I'd have the band as wide as possible. I'd be agreeing with what everyone is saying in here.
You can't keep making completely incoherent statements that attack my integrity and not back them up as soon as I call you out on them. Because to the naked eye, people will actually believe the nonsense coming out of your mouth. You have this weird tendency to just make completely absurd or contradictory statements that you express with such confidence that most people would just take as the truth. And that's not on when you're speaking about me (I'm not just referencing this instance, you know what I'm referencing).
This all might seem like an overreaction, but there have now been numerous instances now where you've attacked my character with completely false/misleading statements to which I've let slide.
You are just a solid regular who parades around like an elite reg and disguises his intentions behind everything he says. In reality, only your volume is what makes you decent, and you're very worried that all of these changes will ruin any profits you are making. Everything you suggest is in some way beneficial to you and it's so transparent. Stop overselling yourself and misleading people that are otherwise oblivious.
@Chriseddy999: Haha woah. That was quite the twist ending after pleasantly scrolling through all of that discussion. I'm not interested in trainwrecking what has been a fruitful and promising thread so far. DM me if you want :)
Re: the thing about feeling "preyed on". On MB, I have a rule for myself where I don't take more than 1 of anyone's game unless they're playing high stakes. But obviously sometimes you forget someone's SN, and take their game the night before, then in the morning they put up another one and you see it and take it. (There are a lot of Jimmy07 and Johhny29s out there, especially early in each season.) I've had numerous people complain in the chat when I've mistakenly taken the second one, despite me rarely ever doing it. And anyone that's lurked the Rotogrinders board over the years can attest to the endless whining about people at small stakes having multiple games taken by Saahil, Chipotle etc.
Obviously that's all just anecdotal evidence, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me to be a thing. As you've suggested throughout your posts, the most important people are the recs, so asking them would be the best thing. Maybe DS could do some kind of targeted survey towards people that have played a reasonable amount of casual h2h?
@Chriseddy999: Looking back at your original post, I echoed most of what you were suggesting without realising. So we're mostly on the same page. The only difference is my twist on it that instead of restricting players to 3 bands, have DS only provide 5 bands/stake levels total across the site for a player to choose from.
I'm sure your system would work, but can you explain the whole 3 band rule in one 'layman's terms' paragraph popup that a rec player would understand? If you can, and DS say that it won't be an issue implementing that framework, I'll vote for your system.
Basically, I think we're over-complicating things when we can have a relatively straight forward, easy to understand system that ticks almost every box.
Does anyone see any downside in funneling H2H action into 5 stake levels vs the previous 9 stake levels?
Oh and Chris, check your ego at the door before returning. No one likes a big head.
- Each player is limited to displaying 3 levels of open H2H tables in the lobby at any given time
- If a player has the MMB option enabled for player A, it means that an opposing player, Player B, can only challenge Player A a maximum of once per level. In the case of Player A openly displaying a $20, $50 and $100 table in the lobby, they are prone to playing against Player B 3 times: once at each level, for a total of $170.
- You may still join opponents' tables outside of your 3 limits as much as you'd like, as long as you haven't already joined them at that limit for the slate
Doesn't feel very well written, but I think I'm just about done with this thread.
No arrogance involved Lamp. This was well, well overdue. One of the richer things I've heard in a while just quietly. If you disagree with anything, my door is always open for prop bets mate.
So now that I'm sober and have read everything properly, I'll reword my thoughts concisely in this post.
- Having H2H's moved to in-progress so that it's back ASAP under a highest stake MMB system is a no-brainer.
-Bumhunting: Very unlikely to be a real issue under highest stake MMB. It was only creeping in because of the exploits of the old system.
- Two potential problems for the H2H lobby in the medium-long term: Predatory look of the lobby; Best guys sitting all stakes.
- If best guys sitting all stakes is seen as a genuine problem already in AFL/NBA then introducing the band of stakes mechanism would solve it and reduce any potential predatory looking lobby in the future.
Re Bumhunting: Can see it poking it's head up under the old MMB system. Can't see it being an issue under any reasonable MMB system like the highest stake MMB one. It's not like poker where you can play 10 hands and realise someone is competent so you sit out. If you wanted to attempt it you would have to play all the regs that wanted to play you at your highest stake, and then would need all the other H2H's you get to more than compensate. It's not like $5/$10/$20/$50 action is so amazing that someone who isn't already competent would benefit by doing this. Essentially I agree with Jayk's post on this.
I see 2 main concerns in the future for the H2H's in the lobby
1. The lobby looking predatory with hundreds of open H2H's.
2. The guys who open sit at the highest limits sitting all the way down to the lowest limits. Essentially the best players sitting every stake.
The lobby looking predatory: I don't see this as a thing right now. It's more of a "where the lobby could go" scenario. It certainly is not something that needs to be addressed before the return of the H2H lobby. Highest stake MMB would reduce some of the open H2H's in the lobby anyway.
Best players sitting each stake: This isn't the type of thing that right now is a no-brainer to fix before the return of H2H's. This being an issue is more real than the lobby looking predatory right now for higher volume sports like AFL and NBA. I'm the only one who sits all stakes for NRL and it hasn't impeded anyone from doing what they want with regards to NRL H2Hs. NFL and Big Bash are pretty similar to NRL in this regard too. I'll leave the AFL guys to comment on if they think it's an issue, and why. The "band of stakes" fix would solve any potential problem here in the future though.
With that in mind, I think highest stake MMB is the no-brainer way H2H's should come back in the short-term. There is no real concern that highest stake MMB doesn't address for this time frame. IF, and only if, highest stake MMB isn't enough to discourage potential bum hunting then you could look at CE999's 1 H2H per stake per slate MMB. Similarly, if when highest stake MMB is implemented and the highest stakes players sitting all limits is seen as an issue in AFL/NBA then can look at band of stakes.
Short-term multi-accounting consideration under highest stake MMB: this incentive already existed under the old system and as far as I'm aware, was not enough to incentivise anyone to actually do it? So the problem isn't even a real one right now. If it were to become a thing, it's very easy to identify suspicious accounts/cash teams and provided the players were vigilant and Draftstars were willing to act, it would be easy to stop.
As none of these issues are genuine concerns right now, Draftstars is needlessly losing themselves a bunch of income, and many people who want to play H2H's are needlessly missing out and having a worse DFS experience because of it.
Honestly it'd be a bit ridiculous if this isn't the last weekend we are without H2H's.
@Knova: Playing devil's advocate here to aid in discussion and implementation.
Under a 'highest stake MMB' from a programming perspective, say I join Jayk's $50 h2h, and then post a $100 H2H which Jayk already has a few open games. What happens? Does that void our $50 h2h and then take an extra $50 from my account and create a new $100 H2H? Or is there a warning popup preventing me from sitting at $100 with an explanation? Or does the $100 H2H get posted, and jayk would be eligible to join if he wants? If the last option, essentially means that whatever stake someone joins your h2h, they won't be able to play you at any of the lower stakes?
@Knova: Agree with everything here, particularly that an immediate stopgap solution needs to be implemented. This should be DS's clear #1 priority right now.
I hope I'm not coming across as barracking for the system I proposed, because I really don't mind what's implemented as long as it solves the issues. However, I do think the Band System better system than the Highest Stake system. Only because of this:
"- If best guys sitting all stakes is seen as a genuine problem already in AFL/NBA then introducing the band of stakes mechanism would solve it and reduce any potential predatory looking lobby in the future."
This IS an issue right now. I've had 3 or 4 recreational playing friends say that they don't want to play H2H because they don't wanna verse the best guys continuously.
Basically, I just think it solves everything the highest stake suggestion solves as well as other issues on top of that.
Highest Stake rule solves the following:
- eliminates the possibility for weak regs to angle shoot good regs
Speaking in terms of the near future, this is:
- bad for weak regs
- good for strong regs
- neutral for recreational players (their issues still remain)
Band Rule does the following:
- solves rec players' experience issue through lower level diversification. In doing so, provides weaker regulars access to more recreational players. This is an in depth topic that could be discussed at length. But this is a vital part of a healthy ecosystem. We want weaker regs pushing up. Don't get me wrong; I'd love to have this monopoly forever on the high stakes stuff, but it's just not feasible for the ecosystem going forward. People want to hear about friends constantly winning; this effect is diminished when profits are skewed to the top 5 guys
- solves the issue of top guys sitting all limits
This is (near future):
- bad for strong regs
- good for weak regs
- good for rec players
Like I always say, the rec players' experience must be the priority as they are the net depositors and the reason DFS thrives.
Wanna reiterate, I'm not 100% convinced on the Band Rule. I'm just stating the effects I think either will have. I could def be misunderstanding some concepts/effects of the Highest Stake rule and would love to be informed.
Forgot to write, the Band Rule obviously eliminates the issue of weaker regs angle shooting better regs as well.
Genuinely wanna hear reasons why the Band Rule is worse off for the community than the Highest Stake rule. Would love to be converted.
@Lampy: I think I outlined it in my initial post but it would work as follows. The initial $50 H2H can't be unjoined as it is a completely filled contest. Highest stake MMB would kick in and stop Jayk joining any other H2H of yours that is $50 or less. If you then join a $100 H2H, as that stake is higher he would be able to join one of these before highest stake MMB would kick in for all H2H's of yours that are $100 or less. In the scenario you proposed he would have 1 $50 h2h against you and 1 $100 h2h.
@Chriseddy999: Well the band rule should be in addition to highest stake MMB. Without it the best reg monopolizes the Highest stakes they can, the 2nd best monopolizes the next band of stakes and the 3 best regs have all the H2H's in the lobby.
The band of stakes with highest stake MMB isn't a worse system than highest stake MMB on it's own. The issue is the time and negotiating involved in determining how wide the bands should be, the extra developmental time, and that outside of some anecdotal evidence, it wouldn't necessarily provide a better experience right off the bat for most people. So if it takes extra time and doesn't improve the product for most people straight away, should we forego H2H's for the extra time it takes to implement this system. DS could always develop the new H2H system with the ability to limit the number of stakes a player can sit at, and have it initially set to infinite whilst negotiation takes place I suppose. That way they could implement band of stakes later on.
If it were introduced, I like the idea of making the highest stake you can sit at be restricted by having to be under a multiple of your lowest stake.
The best multiple that comes to mind for AFL would probably be 11x: For example: You have a $5 H2H open, then you can open sit all H2H's that are less than ($5X11 = $55), so you could sit all H2H's $5-$50. In reverse, if the highest table you have open is $50, then the lowest you could sit would be all stakes higher than $50/11 ($4.54) so again you could sit all H2H's $5-$50. Same is true for $1-$10, $10-100, $20-$200, $50-$500, $500-$5000 (A boy can dream).
The reason I suggest this system over simply 3 stakes, 4 stakes, 5 stakes, is that the buy in levels may change or may not be evenly spread in the future whereas this system would always give you a consistent band.
Also good to keep in mind that at this stage: Have 1 AFL reg who believes it's a problem. What are the other AFL guys thoughts?
Also with regards to your rec friends CE, they don't play H2H because they don't want to play the best guys continuously but are they willing to play someone who's 5% worse? That is what they'll get under band of stakes. I can't imagine there's a massive number of players out there who are thinking they'd play if only it was a different screen name and a marginally worse player. For mine, this is where double ups come in.
@Knova: I just wrote out a long post and then realised, I think we're basically arguing for the same thing. Except your bands will be somewhere around 5, which I think is good, but not optimal.
I also think that each limit you sit at, you should be allowed to be played against at least once by opponents; otherwise you simply don't belong there.
I'm almost done with this stuff anyway, because it's taking up too much time.
Few quick things:
I'd have the Band Rule only applying for open-sitting. So you could join that guy sitting the $200 because you're not attempting to open a table, you're joining someone.
I strongly disagree that the band solution takes longer to implement than the Highest Stake. I think it would be orders of magnitude quicker. Much easier to go "limit player to X bands, limit player to only playing other player once at each band", than it is to go through the whole, "but if he sits me at $20, and then open sits $50, can I join him there? Then what if he then sits the $100s after that? Can I join that too?" It's all a bit complicated and hard to understand compared to the other solution imo. That kinda debate that involves so many specifics will linger on far longer than a "should it be 3, 4 or 5 bands?" debate. Similarly, I think that multiple method is solid, but overly complicated. Though, I guess if it's just ingrained in the code it wouldn't be an issue.
"So if it takes extra time and doesn't improve the product for most people straight away, should we forego H2H's for the extra time it takes to implement this system."
As above, I reckon it's much quicker and simpler to implement. And it does improve the game for everyone except strong regulars. It HAS to improve the experience for weak regulars and rec players by definition, as there are is no downside for them. It's a freeroll their way.
@Chriseddy999: Final post on this for a while as I agree that this is taking up way too much time lol.
The reason I said it takes longer to implement is I think you need highest stake MMB in addition to the band system. The band system by itself I see failing.
If you look at Jayk's analysis of NBA H2H's comparing Moneyball and Draftstars, and then look at how that would pan out with a 3 stake band and no MMB. Newbie would play 500s, 200s and 100's and without any sort of MMB would continuously join the other guys under the "mutually assured destruction" scenario until they didn't sit 500s, 200s, 100s. StevenNFL for arguments sake would then sit 50's, 20's, 10's having lost to Newbie and do the same thing at 50s, 20s and 10s to everyone else. Jayk then takes 5's and 1's and 3 regs have the entire lobby.
Have the 3 stake band system in addition to highest stake MMB and then Newbie still has his 500's 200's 100's, StevenNFL can play them too but pays a tax of 1 500 H2H to newbie per slate, jayks pays a tax of 1 $200 H2H each to newbie and StevenNFL whilst sitting 200s, 100s, 50s and so on down the line. Multiple regs at multiple stakes without the regs sitting all the way down the line (if that's the goal).
This is why I said it would take longer. You'd have to implement the band system in addition to the highest stake MMB so it's impossible for it not to take longer.
Anyway I'm going to bow out of the ongoing discussion now unless I see it heading somewhere I strongly disagree with, as the issues are currently only in sports I don't have a big presence in. It's been a bit unfair of me to steer the conversation to a solution when I'm not as well versed in it. I just want the H2H's back.
I wanna preface this by saying a few things:
1) We all really need to focus on what's best for the format and ignore our short term profits, or none of us will be able to play this format as it will turn into a disaster within a few years.
It's extremely short-sighted to fight for your bottom line while jeopardising the future of a given format - I've seen that mentality burn H2H poker to the ground and effectively ruin my (and a lot of other regulars') career. I guess this is why I'm so passionate about this particular topic and have written a short novel here.
2) It's a little annoying to whoever made this thread to have 'H2H contests' and then a subtitle of "with the ability to block". People will give this an upvote just because they want H2Hs back, not because they necessarily support the MMB rule.
Seems silly to add another 'H2H Contests' suggestion as it will have the same title. I want H2H back more than anyone, though I obviously can't upvote this particular thread because I don't support the outdated MMB system that the old site had. Perhaps make a new one without the subtitle?
3) There are three main things that must be considered when making decisions that change gameplay:
- The system must strive to generate a healthy amount of rake for Draftstars; otherwise they'll become disinterested in offering the service
- Skill must be rewarded. We play this game rather than roulette because there is a skill element and we all like to think highly of our sporting knowledge. In every aspect of life, skill at a given craft is rewarded. DFS is no different.
- Recreational players must ALWAYS be satisfied and their overall experience must be the priority. To put it short; in an advanced deposit/withdrawal/rake ecosystem (that I'd love to go into more depth about at some point as it gives me a stiffy talking about it), net-depositors (rec players) are the reason DFS thrives.
VERY long post, brace yourselves..
Firstly, I think the most important question to answer is: what did the old MMB rule do for recreational players?
Other than restrict the #1 cash player from hogging the entire lobby, it did absolutely nothing for rec players' playing experience whatsoever. There are far better ways to prevent the #1 player from hogging the lobby, which this post discusses later. So, the one issue the old system prevented, it did so in a very poor manner.
As stated in here, the problem with the 1 game/slate option is that players are taking the (logical) route of joining StrongRegular's absolute lowest level game, then denying StrongRegular the chance to sit them at ANY higher stake even once.
But why is this bad for anyone else except StrongRegular, right?
A few reasons...
Once this starts happening, it brings a new breed of player into the market – bumhunters. A bumhunter's sole concern is to target rec players, while giving as little action as possible to good players. They have no desire to improve, and pay very little rake to site. These players will sit all of the good players' lowest limit, while achieving similar profits to the good players, but raking FAR less for the site. They are leeches on the community and the biggest contributors to the H2H format's inevitable downfall. This is because they contribute MINIMAL RAKE, while having ABSURDLY HIGH ROIs because they only play weak opposition. Therefore, they withdraw large amounts from the ecosystem while also failing to produce any rake for Draftstars. This is exactly where H2H poker died. The management of poker sites realised that these H2H games were overall terrible for the ecosystem in general, because they were losing fiat quickly (through withdrawals), while simultaneously producing tiny amounts of turnover (rake). Rake is a complex topic that isn't as simple as withdrawals and deposits, but it's equally as important as deposits for sites to thrive.
Eventually under the old system, we'll get to the point where there will be 20+ bumhunters all open-sitting the H2H games, all only paying minimal rake while getting the SAME ACTION to rec players that good players should have MORE RIGHT TO (as they are actually willing to play other good players and contribute healthy amounts of rake to the system). That's a flawed system that can and will be taken advantage of by bumhunters. Poker hit a point where there was regularly 250+ open tables, with only ONE or TWO games being played.
I understand that this is different to poker. You can't actually see two regs playing against each other. Regardless of that, a lobby that has a skewed amount of regulars open sitting and waiting for action while not playing will ruin the H2H format. It was well established that rec players hated the predatorial look and feel of such a lobby and eventually quit playing the format altogether. It's like a bunch of sharks waiting for prey. So while diversity is a good thing, too much of it is ultimately catastrophic.
That is where this system of 1 game/slate will inevitably arrive at. It's already happening slowly now. We need to arrive at a midpoint solution where the #1 player can't hog everything, but there is a MINIMAL SKILL REQUIREMENT FOR PLAYERS TO OPEN SIT (really wish I had italics here, sorry for all the caps)
Another thing that the old system breeds is that it's going to strongly incentivise multi-accounting from strong regulars. Let's say StrongRegular sees 10 bumhunters all open sitting the $500s, what's going to stop StrongRegular from depositing $5k across his mates' accounts to take advantage of these weaker regulars, just as they are taking advantage of the system? Only ethics, which gamblers have a poor history of showing. This type of behaviour ruins the experience for everyone - recs and regs alike. Once the terms 'cheating' and 'collusion' start getting thrown around, people will move back to sports betting.
The structure must FORCE players to play other regulars at a given stake if they want to openly sit there. If you can't afford to play against the skilled regulars (and contribute a healthy amount of rake to the ecosystem) at a given level/stake, then it's simple - you don't deserve to open sit there. It would be awesome if Draftstars came to the party about reg on reg action and decreased the rake somehow in those matchups. There's plenty of room for innovation in that sense.
There are a lot of innovative solutions that come to mind when dealing with this issue, but they all probably require sophisticated software and lengthy implementation. We don't have that time at the minute.
The easiest and most convenient solution is to limit regulars to X amount of stakes they can open sit (I recommend 3), and limit the blocking rule to 1 GAME/STAKE/SLATE.
So for example, let's say that RegA sits the $50s $100s and $200s as his 3 stakes. Let's say that RegB wants to sit up there as well. Assuming RegA wants to play RegB, he will play him at all 3 stakes only once, for a total of $350 worth of H2Hs.
I've had numerous recreational playing friends of mine mention that they'll never play H2Hs at low stakes because it's too shark infested. This is because the old system allows regs to literally sit the ENTIRE lobby - some are sitting every limit from $200 all the way down to $1. The above solution not only solves the inherent MMB issues, but also this massive issue; resulting in a much improved experience for rec players as well as regulars.
This will mean that regulars are sitting limits that they are:
1) bankrolled for
2) adequately skilled for
Meaning that a skill curve will be evident the higher you go up the lobby, with the less skilled regulars playing lower levels. i.e the least skilled regulars will be open sitting $1, $2, and $5. The middle guys will be sitting $5, $10, $20. The best guys $100, $200, $500 etc.
Which, in turn, will create a very healthy amount of diversity (excellent for rec players' experience), while also granting weaker regulars the chance to move up the chain by not having to play the best guys on the site at every level. It will also reward skill, as the best guys will be getting action from weaker regulars as they attempt to move up limits, while also getting prime action to recreational players at higher levels. It's beneficial for every single type of player, except bumhunters, who don't deserve to be catered for anyway.
I'm open for any other alternatives that share the same core principles of this post, I just think we all need to acknowledge how flawed the old system was.
If you made it this far, cheers for reading. Looking forward to the responses.
Just realised how repetitive that first paragraph on bumhunters was. My disgust coming through a little strong haha.
@Chriseddy999: whew, made it through the whole thing!
first off, regarding your suggestions, personally i'm not a fan of the game/stake/slate rule. i think that people are generally pretty comfortable playing 1 game vs someone they slightly "fear", but get uncomfortable when it's more than 1. to me, that's the line where ppl start to feel preyed on. i don't think that it's good for the game for people to select the "protect me from being preyed on" option and still get sniped multiple times in a row by the same person when they put up games. there's just something psychological/emotional that happens when someone takes more than one of your games. to me that's the exact type of thing that drives recs away.
i think the suggestion of people being allowed to put up a band of stakes is reasonable, but three seems very low. there really isn't that much action out there. i think that would force a ton of ppl to cluster around the smaller stakes, and leave likely just 1 person putting up high stakes games for each sport. you've accused others of being self-serving - a cynical person might suggest that you're doing the same in suggesting the number three ;) i think 5 would be more reasonable, though obviously not in conjunction with the game/stake/slate rule. i think ppl sitting 20-500, 10-200, 5-100 is pretty reasonable. people get annoyed at ppl sitting $1-2 when putting up $100++ type stuff, and fair enough. but i doubt that people are bothered that someone they're playing for 20 bucks has got big games up too.
re: everything else, i appreciate that you're looking to the future and to ways that things can go wrong/get worse, that's obviously a smart thing to do. but it's hard not to think that to some extent you're projecting things that were issues in worldwide poker that are unlikely to ever be real issues in aussie DFS - there was almost an endless amount of money to be made in poker, so there were hundreds if not thousands of strong players logged on to sites at all times, waiting for a small number of very valuable recs to show up.
in poker if you get a fish on the line, it can be worth many units of the stake you're playing, because they might play you and only you, for hours, often until they have no money left. so being there to catch that is huge, so huge that it becomes a massive aspect of the game. in DFS if you get a fish on the line even at $500s, you only get to play them in that one contest and even if they're quite bad you're what, 70/30 to win? 60/40 in some sports, 80/20 in others? So you make a hundo? two hundo? It's just not the same thing.
It's very hard for me to imagine there being more of a future influx of weak players wanting to play for big money than of strong players wanting to play for big money. So I find it very hard to imagine the DFS landscape developing to a point where there were actual bumhunters. even on DK, which is pretty far evolved, and where people are up millions of dollars, i don't ever remember hearing anyone in the US DFS scene accuse someone else of being a bumhunter.
also, in the two years i've played on DS, i don't remember seeing anyone sitting at stakes that i thought they didn't "deserve" to be sitting at. at all sports, it's pretty much just been the best guy sitting up to 500s, the next best couple of guys sitting up to 200s, the next best guys sitting up to 50s or 100s, and some more guys sitting up to 20s. so i don't think the previous system was as broken as you suggest.
the exploits that you mention (ducking superior players) certainly occurred, but not to an extent where they allowed someone to sit games they didn't deserve to imo. they're still exploits and completely unfair to the best players, so they absolutely need to be fixed, and it seems like a given that they will be since they have to design a system from scratch. i'm sure we all want that. i just personally think that the old MMB system with the exploits taken out would be a very good system.
@Chriseddy999: you are the voice of reason Chris.
@Chriseddy999: thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed post.
We were only paraphrasing with the subtitle from the chat channel. I think it's worth changing as this thread has too much good content to start a new thread.
Our goal is to not lead the conversation, but offer support and deliver what the community wants. We really want to get this right.
@jayk123: appreciate your detailed views expressed here also.
@ffmenikki: Haha thanks mate. Thoughts on the 3 stake limit suggestion?
@jayk123 Agree with the majority of your post, specifically the point about there being far less EV made in DFS from being KOTH as there was in poker. Good point.
Strongly disagree with this though - "there's just something psychological/emotional that happens when someone takes more than one of your games. to me that's the exact type of thing that drives recs away"
Recs never open sit more than 1 table at a time (and even that 1 table is never in the lobby for >10 mins). So my suggestion of having 3 limits per player doesn't affect rec players at all. It only applies to regulars, in skewing the reward back towards the most skillful players, as it should be. While also introducing a skill curve in the lobby for the higher you go up. And if regulars feel "preyed on", then that's a sure sign that they don't belong at that limit imo. Either in skill level or bankroll, or both.
Not sure how/why you think a band of 3 suits me, but I assume it's because I only sit $50-$500 atm. The reason I sit those limits is for two reasons:
1) so I stopped getting taking advantage of from literally every reg in the game. So they have to 'pay' to look at my picks weekly. I was getting taken advantage of from literally every reg on this site until I implemented that strategy, but rightly so. I'd do the same if I was in that position. I guess that flaw is exactly what we're here trying to improve.
2) I think it's unethical to sit lower than $20s. I feel dirty every time I enter a $5 or $10 6-man and I will likely stop playing the $5s pretty shortly. I feel like I have to play all the $5s and $10s just to get enough $ matched with the current system - perhaps more mid-high stakes alternatives could be successful if there's a market so we can get out of these lower games? I also never play $2s or $1s just out of principle. We need to give room for the second tier regulars to push up, it's only healthy for everyone long term.
I can't see how you would think I'd prefer 3 than 5 though. I'd much prefer 5 if I'm speaking strictly for my profits. I just think 3 gives the most room for weaker regulars to grow without being stomped down by the best guys playing stakes that are lower than their skill level. It also cleans up the lobby a lot.
@Draftstars: No worries, I'm just glad we're given a voice that's actually being listened to! Great customer service so far.
Cheers for changing the title, too. I'll upvote now
@Chriseddy999: Full disclosure: I'm replying to all of the above after indulging on a few of Mr Walker's finest and watching one of the great Australian sporting rivalries.
That said, there are a lot of fair concerns raised and reasonable solutions proposed in the above posts.
I would like to raise the following: The majority of concerns mentioned for the H2H system are for the medium to long term health of the H2H ecosystem; The optimal (or close to optimal) solutions to these concerns would require a lengthy and time consuming debate before consensus is met; and; the implementation of this consensus system would make little difference in the short-term to the H2H ecosystem over the highest stake MMB solution I presented above.
With those points in mind, I believe it is in everyone's interest to have Draftstars implement the highest stake MMB system now whilst we continue to discuss the best medium/long-term H2H lobby format that encourages action and diversity amongst that action, provides an enjoyable experience for both reg's and rec's who want to play H2H's, and doesn't over incentivize bum hunters. Can we agree that Draftstars implementing highest stake MMB now whilst we continue to discuss and develop a superior system is best for now (and allow us to play H2Hs ASAP without damaging the long-term viability of H2Hs) ?
1. ChrisEddys primary short-term concern for the highest stake MMB system is that it encourages multi-accounting to circumvent it, with only ethics to prevent it. I would contend that given the current small number of high level regs at each sport, each players cash teams are equivalent to finger prints and the other high level players of each sport would be able to identify multi-accounting after a mere handful of slates. If the players and Draftstars are willing to act, then this would be relatively easy to stop. This appears much easier to do than in Poker where the greater number of regs and a requirement of thousands of hands to identify such players makes it more difficult to police (by both the players and the sites).
2. The biggest H2H lobby point that resonated with me is the lobby not appearing predatory (100s of open tables, 1-2 active games). The difference between a rec playing a current 100-500 reg or a 10-50 reg isn't large enough to transform their experience from a good one to a bad one. I believe this should be the primary focus in developing the medium/long-term system. Given the current state of games, I dont think it's necessary at all to restrict strong high stakes regs from lower stakes H2Hs outside of AFL and perhaps NBA. I am not heavily involved in these games so the refs in these games would be able to provide better commentary as to whether bum hunting and predatory behavior is already a problem. If these games were to have additional restrictions placed on them beyond highest stake MMB, then removing the highest stake reg's from $1, $5 and maybe $10 H2Hs in these sports seems most apt. As an alternative to a set number of stakes that someone could sit at, the system could instead limit the multiple between the highest and lowest H2H stake you sit at to a fixed number. For example if the multiple were set to 99x then the highest stake you could sit at would be 99x the lowest stake. This would mean that those who wished to sit at the 500 h2hs could not sit at $5 (5x99=495) or $1 H2Hs. If It were set at 49x then $500 rega could not sit at $10 h2hs or lower. This could be monitored based on the optics of the lobby for each sport and adjusted accordingly.
@Knova: Agree completely that we need to get H2Hs back asap. The purpose of my original post @Chriseddy999 was for this reason, and the way I worded the 1 slate/opponent was because I couldn't think of the term 'multi-match blocking'. Now in it's previous form it wasn't going to destroy the DFS H2H ecosystem. Was it annoying for a reg to take your lowest posted stake? Sure. Did I do that vs a few? Yep. But I'm in full support of most of what has been suggested here, and since the conversation is being had by intelligent individuals who can articulate well, I'm confident we'll have something that the majority can agree on within a week for DS to begin implementing.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, but could help the lobby clutter is reducing the spread of stakes available for H2H. Currently we have $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $200, $500. Could we reduce to say, $2, $10, $30, $100, $300 or other scale of 5 or 6 stake levels?
With that spread, introduce MMB per stake level, which means you could get action for $440 if you post at all levels ($300, $100, $30, $10), but that's part of wanting to sit at $300 level. Looking at $140 if you want to post at $100 level. $40 at $30 level. All of which is reasonable 'tax' vs the best for posting at that level.
Positives for this:
- King gets to take approx 40% more action than the highest stake per opponent.
- You avoid the 'take the lowest amount of reg, then post higher stakes' tactic.
- It encourages people to stick to their bankroll/comfort limits.
- It's easier for DS developers to implement than some of the other suggestions.
- It's easier for a recreational player to understand how it works.
- Lobby looks less predatory, and provides players with larger range of opponents to choose from at each stake level.
DS should also look to bring in some protection at the $2 level from guys who have turned over $x amount in H2H games or who have $x profit from H2Hs or other suggestion. I think this would foster a huge amount of $2 H2H action to get people's feet wet, and then have a crack at a higher level vs the regs.
Any downside here?
In addition, allow people to create their own h2h contests, but they don't have any mmb protection. So whoever can still post $500 h2hs if they want. Or if they want a middling stake level to ones on offer. If people want truly private h2h, then they can password protect it.
Another thought I just had which may not even be necessary and would find some opposition, is if we wanted to clean up the lobby, only show 3 h2h contests per stake level. So people can choose between 3 different opponents. When you have your h2h filled, your next entry goes to bottom of the list at each level. It would spread the h2h action around. Obvious downside is wanting to put up a h2h, and having to wait for other contests to fill before yours appears.
Probably overcomplicating things, but a concept to think about if things get out of control ever.
Also ds please allow it so we can hit + sign to enter 10x a h2h stake at a time. Previously having to enter a h2h 10 times individually was a pain.
I'm a new player on here but I think I would like two options for restricting who I come up against in H2Hs. I think some sites in the US run with variations of these so I'm assuming they work well?
1) The ability for me to specifically block a user from entering any of the H2H's I enter (maybe limit this to me only being able to specify a certain number of usernames, say 10)
2) A global limit your system sets that limits how many H2H contests a user can enter on any given day, by entry fee and sport so that once that user has reached their cap for that sport and entry fee amount, they're prevented from being able to enter any more (of that sport/entry fee configuration) until the next available day.
@tazfromoz: personally i think that being able to fully block opponents from playing you is too extreme for our ecosystem. in many of the sports here there aren't even 10 strong regular h2h players, so if you could just block everyone competent that would open the door to even worse exploits (like a truly middle of the road player being able to put up high stakes games and know they'll only get weaker players taking the games).
global limit seems reasonable though. good way to force ppl to pick a closer band of stakes that they'd like to play.
I don't think either system is necessary. They exist on the American sites which have an underlying population of 15-20x the population of Australia to draw users from, and have had an additional decade for the player pool to mature.
What this leads to is if you were to put up H2H's on American sites without these features as a newer player, is having to potentially play 50+ really competent opponents all the time, just to get a chance to play against weaker ones. Here you might have to do that against 3-5 players if it's one of the bigger sports. For big bash it's closer to 0.
So on the American sites you would have a balance of opponents that is not enjoyable for most people to play against without those systems, compared to here that is a much more user friendly mix of challenging and beatable opponents.
In my view, both of Taz's suggestions attempt to address an issue that is yet to exist here in a substantial enough way to warrant action. The first suggestion reads largely as "I want the ability to ban anyone who's competent" whilst the second seems to needlessly want to limit the volume certain players can play, when the former $1 MMB system would achieve essentially the same thing without needing to limit the volume for those who like to play more.
from a visual perspective..have the players name in the lobby. noticed the newer old ds site didnt have this,only the original one. that way you don't have to click on every h2h posted too see who you are versing. Also maybe some kind of player rating would be cool like the poker sites have.. and 1 MMB per player both ways to eliminate angle shooting.
agree with @instorgata here, another alternative would be to be able to visibly see whether MMB applies to you for a given H2H match in the lobby.
An absolute non-negotiable for when H2Hs return. And tying in with that is only seeing 1 h2h match from each opponent at each stake level. So we don't see 2 screens worth of jay123's $100 H2Hs flooding lobby.
Interested to hear @Chriseddy999 extensive take on H2H MMB and it's impact on the long term health of the DFS economy. My suggestion was to simply keep system the same as previous platform, but apparently that's too self-serving and will be the death of DFS. So please educate us.
@Lampy: Extensive to say the least, I posted it below.
And it could just be an honest mistake, but from my view of course it looks self-serving when you suggest to specifically go back to a system that is so obviously flawed yet just so happens to perfectly suit you.
@Chriseddy999: no-one wants the old exploits to be there if that's what you think we meant by "the old system". clearly knova's suggestions are no-brainers - the exploits need to be fixed, and since they need to build a new system from the ground up, i'm sure they will be. the tax that reg a pays reg b should be a game at the highest stake that reg a ends up putting up, at a minimum. no-one disagrees with that.
@jayk123: To be fair, neither of you having written "the old system" at all in this thread. You've actually explicitly stated the rules of the old system and painted them in good light:
It was the whole, "specifically where you can limit 1 H2H contest per opponent per slate" from Lampy that I took issue with.
And the "And yeah multi match to 1 h2h per slate is an important feature" from you.
Just came across as very self-serving to me. But I'm glad we're on the same page now, hopefully can find arrive at a solution that makes everyone happy for a long time.
Also keep rake structures as they were and only display 1 open h2h per player per stake level
I would like to see the multi-match blocking changed so that it only counts when you join someone else's H2H.
For example, If I put up open H2H's at all stake levels, someone can't play a single $1 H2H against me and then put up their own H2H games at much higher stake levels, without me being able to join. Once I join one of their open H2H's then the MMB should kick in with regard to me joining their H2Hs.
I don't believe it is fair for someone to lock someone out for a $1 H2H because they don't want to play them, but then go on to try and take an equal share of the H2H's against other opponents at higher stakes. I also don't believe players should be forced to play the very best player at each sport for every H2H they put up, and believe this is a good compromise.
An alternative to the above method, would be for MMB to count for all stakes equal or lower than the H2H you have with someone.
E.g. If you join someone's $20 H2H, then they cannot join any H2H you put up for $20 or lower for that slate. If you were to put up a $50 or higher H2H after joining the $20 H2H, then they would be able to join the $50 one, and then not be able to join any additional H2H's of $50 or less against you subsequently.
Interested in opinions and feedback on these two suggestions to MMB
@Knova: this is interesting and worth exploring further. Looking forward to comments on this approach.
@Knova: making a lot of sense here. these suggestions are good.
@Knova: yep these would be good improvements on the previous system. seems like this is what the spirit of MMB is designed to be anyway, there were just some loopholes in the way it was set up last time, allowing for the exploits you mention.
@Knova: Both big improvements on the old system.
I feel like a 3 stake cap and a 1game/stake/slate is better though, as it tidies up the issue of regulars sitting every single limit from $1-$200 as well as solving the issues with the old system.
So for example, let's say that RegA open-sits the $50s $100s and $200s as his 3 stakes of choice. Let's say that RegB wants to sit up there as well. Assuming RegA wants to play RegB because he thinks he's better, he will play him at all 3 stakes once each, for a total of $350 worth of H2Hs.
H2Hs are disproportionately popular among the highest volume players, so it's really important to get them back asap. It's certainly the change you can make that will result in the biggest immediate increase in income on your end. And yeah multi match to 1 h2h per slate is an important feature, promotes diversity in h2h matchups which increases action.
@jayk123: we do want to bring them back as we can see how popular they were. We want to get it right and build what you guys want to play first. The voting counts.
"It's certainly the change you can make that will result in the biggest immediate increase in income on your end."
"And yeah multi match to 1 h2h per slate is an important feature, promotes diversity in h2h matchups which increases action."
Wouldn't this then do the opposite of increasing income on their end though? Furthermore, how does being able to block people from >1 matchup per slate possibly increase diversity and 'action'.
1. H2H contests aren't guaranteed, so there is no risk to Draftstars having them in the lobby. If they fill, they collect the rake, if not, they aren't on the line for prize pool not paid for. Before the update H2H action was significant and by not having these contests up, Draftstars is missing out on the rake from all these contests. This is why their inclusion would be the biggest immediate increase to income on their end. I think you agreed with this but the "sure" may have been sarcastic so I explained it anyway.
2. "How does blocking people from >1 matchup per slate increase and diversify 'action': If this didn't exist then the very best H2H player would end up joining every H2H they see in the lobby playing every other player for all the H2H's they put up. As all H2H's not belonging to this person are continuously joined, only their H2H's are left available in the lobby, leaving it a situation where this 1 person plays everyone else, and everyone else can only play this 1 person. By restricting it to only 1 matchup per slate, then many more players are comfortable to play H2H's knowing they only have to play the best players once whilst getting H2H games against a number of opponents. More players playing against more opponents is the increase in diversity. As for more action, see below;
3. "Wouldn't this do the opposite of increasing income on their end though?": They may receive some additional income initially whilst the very best player continuously joins everyone else until they no longer wish to play. They would very quickly find a situation where they then receive little to no income whatsoever as people decide not to play against the very best player. To see this end result, have a look at the Moneyball lobby.
@ffmenikki: I'll use NBA as an example because it's out of season so it feels a bit less personal. for the last 2 years, Draftstars had MMB, Moneyball had no protections.
the same player --newbie/inspire82-- is the consensus best NBA h2h player on both sites. on MB, he can do whatever he wants, so naturally, he takes a stance where anytime anyone else puts up a h2h he takes it. if i put up 8 h2hs - 1 at every stake from $1 to $200, he takes them all. if i put up 3 $50 h2hs, he takes them all. it's profitable for him to do this even in situations where he's not actually directly making money. for example, let's say he's 53/47 vs me, but needs 55/45 to make money over the rake. that means every time he clicks one of my games, he's losing money, but crucially, i'm losing more money. if he does this enough times, it's worth the small short term losses on his end to "teach" me not to put up h2hs. unless i'm willing to engage in mutually assured destruction, i have to give up my right to put games in the lobby. before long, this means that the only person with games up in the lobby is inspire82. the rest of us that would like to play h2h are reduced to racing to try and click any other poor sod that puts up a game as quick as possible, otherwise we don't get to play at all. someone that's curious about h2hs is likely to play inspire a few times, notice that there's no-one else to play, and get bored and move on to something else.
on DS, they've had MMB. for simplicity i'll illustrate a day where stevennfl wants to play 500s, i want to play 200s, and ilovelamp wants to play 100s. well, obviously newbie has as many games as he wants up at all stakes. but here, stevennfl puts up his games next to newbie, and plays newbie for 500 as a sort of tax for putting up his games. i also get to put up my games, and play newbie and stevennfl in 200s as a tax for putting up my games. ilovelamp also puts up his games, and plays newbie, steven and me in 100s as his tax to put up 100s. then a bunch of other guys want to put up 20s or 50s, and they play all of us once a day at their highest stake as their tax. so it goes all the way down the hierarchy, we all "pay" the people above us one unit per day for the right to put up games, and we each choose where the line is that doing so is profitable for us.
this system means that when someone curious logs on and decides to play a h2h, they click the lobby and see 2 options to play against at 500, 3 options at 200, 4 options at 100, 5+ options at $50, 10+ different options at $20, etc. this is what i mean by diversity. imo it's more fun for people to have the option of playing vs different people, and for those of us that play every day, we all have our action spread around, which reduces variance, increases action (it's actually really fun to play against ppl that you think are as good or slightly better than you daily if you only have to play them once per slate), and there's tons of games all season long. MB h2hs are completely dead very early into each season.
p.s., just to clarify, not trying to imply inspire has done anything wrong. it's simply the natural evolution of a king of the hill type environment with no protections. whoever is the best player is naturally incentivised to act that way. i'm also not trying to imply who's better/worse out of steven, me, lamp etc. just using those as illustrative examples. hope that all makes sense.
@jayk123: fantastic breakdown! Thanks for taking the time to write that down.
@ffmenikki: Exactly right @ffmenikki, it does the opposite of promoting action. It encourages regs to play stronger regs at their lowest limit and minimises income for DS.
There are also far better ways to increase diversity while being a lot more fair to everyone involved
Multi match blocking 100%
Maintain same logic and options as previous platform, specifically where you can limit 1 H2H contest per opponent per slate.