The fact he's investing his time in building tools for others rather than putting all his time into winning on his own, raises doubts about his actual winnings.
One explanation might be that he's maxed out how much he can win.
One explanation might be that he's maxed out how much he can win.
Poker is a game of skill just like backgammon. You can wager money and there is risk (chance) involved, but you can develop skills which will ensure that you are a winner over a less skilled opponent. Just like golf. There is always the chance that you will not make the necessary strikes and a less skilled opponent takes a game from you, but over the long run, you can sufficiently influence the outcome and achieve a positive win rate. This is what makes it a skill-based game. You influence it by your skills. You can place wagers and gamble on the outcome, but that doesn't suddenly make it any less not a game of skill.
I'm not very familiar with fantasy sports, but to the best of my knowledge, the same holds true there too.
A game of chance cannot be distinguished from games of skill. All games involve chance. This problem probably arises from the poor understanding of "chance" and probabilities by the people who wrote the law (presuming Hanlon's razor here). They wanted to ban games where the operator bleeds the players dry, like slots, lottery, etc., and called them "game of chance", but there is more to the story of "chance", like i outlined above.
The definitions are different in each case, but none of them work that way. In New York, for instance, the outcome depending materially on chance, whether or not skill is also involved, makes it a game of chance.
Given the government's heavy use of lotteries and other gambling as a cash source, the laws appear to be designed by lawmakers with a solid understanding of chance and probability and a desire to ensure that monetary gambling (with gambling defined as "an activity where the influence of chance outweighs the benefits of skill, for most participants") be restricted to the state, not commercial entities.
The relevant point being that not everybody believes they're a "game of skill" in the "skill vs. chance" slider which is relevant to the law. While there's no question that like every game, user actions (skill) can impact the outcome, how much it can impact the outcome is what determines whether something is classified as a game of skill or chance. Perhaps it's more clear if we say "a game of primarily skill" or "primarily chance".
If daily fantasy sports is primarily skill-based, they can do it. If it's primarily chance-based, it's illegal in the US. Which is why they're pushing for it to be referred to as "skill-based".
Very few games that we'd call gambling (e.g. blackjack) are 100% chance though. Maybe dice games? Lotteries? Even in games where the house always has edge, you can lose less by playing optimally.
Losing less does not mean you can win, which is the case in poker. To the best of my knowledge, it is the case in fantasy sports too.
Roulette and slot machines.
Honestly though I reckon it's a fine line between a person day trading their pension, a spread better and a poker player.
At the very least I'd love to see how it's distinguished legally.
Indeed, the stock market and fantasy sites are extremely similar, with the same fundamental issue -- a small number of people with a technical and information advantage are essentially skimming the table clean of the entry fees of a lot of people picking randomly or emotionally.
But the question is ratio between luck/skill
Your comment should be higher up the page.
Happens all the time, works all the time.
If he gets a large percentage of the DFS player pool to play his algorithm's lineups and he goes a different direction, he'll crush the GPPs.
If his software is telling people to pick XYZ great lineup, he has to come up with a better lineup otherwise they all share the prize and he gets nothing.
That being said the whole industry is under siege. He may just be trying to make as much as he can before it officially becomes gambling or automated play becomes illegal.
If he makes it available to everyone he will still be making money if the courts don't rule in his favor... Plus fantasy sports are huge right now. I'd say with his track record he has the potential to make a very profitable startup.
He also had to pony up $24k to submit 888 lineups on the day he won $221k, so I'd say he's doing all right.
There clearly is a need for better information, tools, and software for DFS players to make their decisions. Whether this will hurt his winnings by making his competition smarter is another issue. Can't find fault in him by branching out to another stream of revenue.
Another thing is that this type of job, relying on gambling for a living, can be prone to huge swings in wins and losses. So people look for ways to soften the blows with stable income.
There are mathematical systems to beat blackjack (counting cards, change your bets when the odds are in/out of your favor). Are you doubting this?
The number of people that are going to successfully read the book, count cards, and beat the author are few to zero. The number that will buy the book? Many. Heck, I've read poker books, but don't play poker. It's interesting to learn algorithms, reasoning, and also to consider the psychological elements.
As an aside, blackjack is beatable if you count cards. The books are not bogus (not sure if you are implying that or not).