Exploring GPP Ownership
Jason ‘Broady4_’ Broadbridge – 2021 biggest AFL winner.
I’ve had a few questions from members recently surrounding ownership and exposure in GPP’s. Similar discussions frequently pop up in the discord chat – so I thought I’d use the extra day we have available this week to have a look at last week’s West Coast v Collingwood slate and discuss some relevant points. I’ll be using Morts’ great tools at dfsaustralia.com – a staple of my review process.
Firstly I’ll explain a few of the key words we use in DFS.
Ownership refers to the number of teams that have selected a certain player in a comp and is commonly seen as a percentage figure. For example Dom Sheed’s ownership in the Draftstars $75,000 comp was 66.8%.
Exposure refers to the amount of teams that Dom Sheed was found in a single players entries in the same comp. In the same slate Sheed was found in 82.4% of my entries so that is my exposure to him.
Going over or under the field. When I refer to this, I am simply comparing my exposure to what I believe the ownership of a player will be. For Sheed I was over the field, but my 11.2% exposure to Jack Madgen was also well over the field’s ownership of 4%.
Fading. In general, fading means that you are avoiding selecting a player in a lineup. If you entered a single team and it didn’t have Sheed, you are fading Dom Sheed. For multi-entry players however, fading generally means that you are going well under the field on a player. Jarrod Brander was 41.2% owned but my exposure to him was 17.6% because it was my plan to fade him.
GPP plays. When I refer to someone as a ‘GPP play’ it means that I believe he has the upside required to win me a GPP contest – for example the $75,000 comp. A good GPP play might only be 5% owned and you might only have 15% exposure to him but you are still going over the field – if the player scores well it will benefit you more than the field.
Draftstars $75,000 Eagles v Magpies
A good way of looking at what the ownership of a player should be is by assessing how likely it is that player ends up in the winning lineup.
If you think a player has a 50% chance of ending up in the winning lineup – but is only going to be 20% owned – then he is a great play. If you think someone is a 50% chance of ending up in the winning lineup – but is likely going to be owned by 60%+ people – then he isn’t a good play. This obviously isn’t an easy thing to do, but the more educated your guess is the better chance you have at crafting a winning lineup. I have a few simple rules that I use to help me make these decisions …
Players that are priced around the 13k to 17k range are generally never more then a 50/60% chance of ending up in a winning lineup.
As a general rule I don’t like going at more then 80% exposure to these sorts of options because they are never a guarantee of being the best play. For example, Andrew Gaff was talked up all week as being one of the ‘best plays’. He was coming in at a slight discount ($15,160) to what we normally get him at and got a great matchup in Collingwood. He was always going to be very heavily owned. He came in at 52.1% and ended up exceeding expectations with a huge 131, but his exposure amongst the best players was interesting. Chriseddy only selected him in 28.8%, Fatebender almost completely excluded him at 8%, I only had him in 40.8% and Rwhelan kept his exposure to a modest 56.8%. With other decent options around the same price range, its clear that the ‘sharks’ came to the decision that Andrew Gaff was going to be over-owned in comparison to his chance of ending up in the winning lineup and took stances under the field.
Another one that seems to cause confusion is the strategy around attacking Key Forwards. As a general rule I don’t like playing key forwards at more then 40/50% exposure as they are quite boom or bust in nature.
Typically, you want to try and get exposure to key forwards when they are low-owned, and fade when they are over-owned. My particular strategy for this slate was to take advantage of ownerships with Darling and Kennedy. Even though I had them as similar point-per-dollar plays, Kennedy was always going to be higher owned as he was coming off some big games and Darling had just had a quiet game so was going to be lower owned. Sure enough, Kennedy came in at 25% ownership (I had 8%) and Darling came in at 16.2% (I had 23.2%). The perfect spot to be in a single-game slate GPP.
This is also relevant when Key Forwards are selectable as a ruck. The boom-or-bust nature certainly applies to Oscar Allen and he came in at 43% ownership. I’d predict that Allen was only a 30% chance of ending up in the winning lineup with all the different ruck options (and one Brodie Grundy) so he was certainly going to be over-owned. The previously mentioned sharks agreed and played him in an average 27.4% of lineups – well under the field. Obviously, the result did not go this way, but the process is most important in the long run.
Until next Study session, good luck on the leaderboards!