NHL Best Bets for Tuesday (11/19)
Kenneth Le
Each week, I’ll review my single entry lineup, as well as a couple others. I will also track success rates throughout the season. The criteria for the other lineups to make the article (and tracking) will be > 10% of my overall investment. We’ll just be looking at my single-entry lineup this week.
The goal here is to hold myself accountable for the decisions I make while also helping to provide a blueprint for long term success in GPPs.
Throughout the year, I’ll emphasize the top 10% and top 1% hit rates. While profit/loss is at the mercy of significant variance at the top of tournaments, these hit rates stabilize much faster and can therefore paint a stronger picture of our performance. I’m still fairing well in my overall cash rate and top 10% rate, but I moved to 0/9 in SE. Boo!
Despite another loss, I feel incredibly good about my new strategy of paying down at RB (also discussed on FTN NFL Live), so let’s see if there’s anything we can take away from this week to improve the process moving forward.
The Single-Entry
Every choice we make can be categorized in one of four groups:
- Bad Process & Bad Outcome
- Bad Process & Good Outcome
- Good Process & Bad Outcome
- Good Process & Good Outcome
We’ll begin with #1:
Bad Process & Bad Outcome
N/A
Bad Process & Good Outcome
N/A
Good Process & Bad Outcome
Lamb earned the first A-grade of the year in my correlated leverage article and had a chance to deliver in a big way, with a slate-high 212 airyards! Unfortunately, Dak Prescott missed him on two would-be long TDs and was inefficient elsewhere, resulting in an incredibly underwhelming 2-23-0 receiving line for the Dallas superstar.
Like Lamb, Chase made the correlated leverage section and also had the opportunity to deliver us to GPP glory – he was third on the slate with 172 air yards (on 13 targets!). His 6-49-0 line was almost as disappointing as Lamb’s, considering the volume.
Philly Passing Stack
Jalen Hurts missed Dallas Goedert deep downfield on the opening drive, potentially for a TD, but was excellent all game thereafter. The passing volume wasn’t there, but Goedert still posted a dominant .80 WOPR (DeVonta Smith’s was .93!).
The lack of passing volume directly hurt Kenneth Gainwell too, as the RBs combined for zero targets.
Good Process & Good Outcome
Allen dominated the Chargers’ opportunity with a .8 WOPR, delivering 25.4 DK points (WR2) without a TD. His spike in volume was predictably accompanied by a low-volume day for Austin Ekeler. The correlated leverage worked exactly as desired here.
Dillon was heavily involved for the first three quarters and was the most effective part of the Green Bay offense. It’s a shame they didn’t give him much of a chance in the red zone or 4th quarter – perhaps they would have won!
Dillon outscored the mega-chalk options, Ekeler and Ezekiel Elliott. In fact, Dillon and Gainwell combined for 19.3, nearly matching Zeke and Ekeler’s 23.8. If you told me my RBs would be within 4.5 points of the mega chalk and Lamb and Chase would be #1 and #3 in airyards, I would have guessed it was a huge week for me. Week 9 was wild!
Takeaways
Not every slate will be so devoid of ownership for pay-down RB options, but my main takeaway is that when using this strategy, there’s no need to avoid chalk at QB or WR, something I’ve typically tried to do in the past.
My other takeaway is that I should perhaps be a bit less correlation-oriented at the RB position. I had plenty of Javonte Williams, Melvin Gordon, and James Conner in MME. In hindsight, the increased probability of those guys hitting was almost certainly worth foregoing the correlation that Gainwell provided in their stead.
Lastly, let’s check in on our mega-chalk RBs so far this year. While ownership varies by contest, the six highest ownerships I’ve seen are:
Four busts! Smash spots for RBs are no longer the free spot they once were. Pay for the WR ceilings instead!
