If you have randomness over 100%, it is possible to have a negative value. The randomness adjusted projection does not show in the lineup card so you won't see it but in the back-end it can be negative.

For example: if you want someone's score to range from -5 to 15, set the projection at 5, with a randomness of 200%.

Yeah, you can use the button at the bottom right of the table:
screenshot

That will copy the data to your clipboard, then you can just paste onto a google spreadsheet or excel.

Under advanced settings you can set all your exposures simultaneously to 100%

First off, this is going to be a long post. We love that our users provide suggestions and we draw new features from your suggestions a LOT. However, this is a request that needs more detail, because there isn't a good, obvious way to handle minimum exposure. If we implement minimum exposure the way we implement maximum exposure, the optimizer will have a high chance of giving undesirable results.

We chose to handle this situation indirectly through groups and calculate more rather than directly. Minimum exposure would be enforced with players who wouldn't otherwise get into your lineup due to their lower projections but get forced into your lineup. So, what you can do is create a group of "risky" plays and force all lineups to take at least one of them, and you can actually get minimum exposure if you set maximum exposures carefully. For example, if you have a group of 4 players but want someone's minimum exposure to be 20%, set the sum of the other 3 players' exposures to 80%. Of course, this annoying to calculate and not easy to do compared to having a box for minimum exposure like we have for maximum exposure. Alternatively, you can increase the exposure of a player by locking the player and doing a "calculate more" then removing a few lineups from the previous crunch. However, if you have a lot of minimum exposures, that you want to enforce, trying the calculate more method would make it clear how difficult this problem actually is.

So why are we so resistant to implementing minimum exposure? Because it's so easy to do, it's dangerous for new users. There is no unique way to enforce minimum exposure, so when we create an algorithm we need to come up with a way that makes sense to the user. With max exposure we have two ways to enforce it: group and each. With max exposure, group acts in the following way: look at the number of lineups requested, what ever percentage the exposure is set to, that is the limit, remove the player from the pool once that limit is reached. If you want 50% exposure to a single player and you're asking for 100 lineups, that player gets removed from your pool and won't get picked again. How would this work with minimum exposure? It would work the opposite, if you want 50% minimum exposure, you limit the number of lineups without the player, once this is reach, you lock the player for the remainder of lineups. This is fine if your exposure is only set on a small number of players, but if it's set on a lot of players then what happens is, you get lineups that you normally would without exposure, then when you reach the limit of lineups you can have without the players that were left out, then suddenly you're going to be locking all of these players together for the next few lineups. Remember, minimum exposure would only be enforced with players whose projections are on the low end and would normally not be used in many lineups, so the lineups toward the end would just be stacked with multiple "lower projected" players and the early lineups would just be the lineups you would've had without exposure.

Then we have the situation with the each exposure setting. Under max exposure, what it does is it keeps the proportional exposure constant as lineups are being generated. If a player has a max exposure of 50% under each, it means that if a player is used in the first lineup, they are removed for the second, added back into the 3rd lineup, if they are used in the 3rd, they are removed in the 4th. With minimum exposure, it would work the same way except backwards. If they are not used in the first lineup, they are locked in the second etc...
If we look at an example of what would happen with "risky" plays (I'm only choosing risky plays, because again, minimum exposure would only be enforced with "suboptimal" lineups), say we have 4 "risky" players set at 25% exposure. Because of their low projection, they would not be picked in the first 3 lineups, then the 4th lineup they will all be locked together (assuming they fit). Again, you're getting 3 lineups that you would've received anyway, and a 4th lineup that you would never want to use.

Of course, if you are fairly experienced and you're very, very careful about setting up your pool of players and their projections, you may be able to trick the optimizer into doing what you want. However, if you can do that, you can probably do it using groups and/or calculate more. The difference with groups is that it's much more difficult to end up with the bad situations you find with minimum exposure. We don't want to push out a feature that is very difficult to use properly. However, if anyone has an idea on how to implement minimum exposure that doesn't cause low projection players to get lumped together just to meet the requirements we are open to suggestions.

I noticed minimum salary couldn't be set to 50k because the salaries of the players are too low. Maybe that's your issue.

Yes, you will need to separate the crunches. You can join the crunches by using the crunch settings afterwards.

Make a 2 four stacks each with every team.

This is a weird situation, which you may have to do something like creating a set of 5 circular groups, with each player being a key player in one of them.
i.e:
Group 1: If player 1 is picked, use player 2.
Group 2: If player 2 is picked, use player 3.
Group 3: If player 3 is picked, use player 4.
Group 4: If player 4 is picked, use player 5.
Group 5: If player 5 is picked, use player 1.

You don't actually need to only use 1 player in the secondary part of the group, you can make it so that it says: if player 1 is picked, use players 2,3,4,5 etc... But I'm not sure exactly which is faster in terms of compute time.

This is the only way I can think of that will give you the all/or nothing constraint you're thinking of.

The 94 players were potentially available, and of those, 18 of them were used. When you exclude a player by unchecking their box, you are guaranteed that player is not used.

Each lineup has 10 players in DK MLB I believe. So the maximum number of players that can be used over 2 lineups is 20. You only have 2 players overlapping between the two lineups.

I think there a misunderstanding of what "number of players used" means.

No worries, don't hesitate to ask.

Btw thanks for your work crashthe24. It was a big help. By the way, we have a system in place now where we see the forum posts immediately and will see forum posts as quickly as we see e-mails. But if this forum becomes as active as RG, that may change.

Reset likes/dislikes are at the bottom right (assuming you don't have a crunch up). Resetting exposures is in the advanced options, just click "change all" to 100. Resetting projections are done in the upload projections page, by deleting custom projections. Deleting stacks/groups are done in their respective tabs.

2 thumbs is 16% so that means the player is at 46.4 base projection. The 20% randomness means the player can go from 37.12 to 55.68.

I think it'll be easier to explain using an example. Say you're crunching 100 lineups. There's a player projected at 50 fantasy points. If you set your randomness to 10%, that means that this player will have a projection between 45 and 55. Between each of the 100 crunches, the player gets a new projection between 45 and 55. All other players will have new projections that are in the +/- 10% range as well. So players projected at 10, will get projections between 9 and 11.

Because projections are being shuffled, you're more likely going to get different sets of players being the "best projected lineup". For example, you have 2 players, Player A projected at 40 and player B projected at 50. If you set randomness at 10%, Player A can go as high as 44, and Player B can go as low as 45 so player B will never be projected lower than player A. However, if the randomness was set higher, say 20%, then player A can go as high as 48, and player B can go as low as 40, so SOME of the time player B will be lower than player A. Now imagine this with your full roster pool, and it's easy to see why you get a lot more variety when you increase randomness.

Absolutely, for method one: Let's say you want to create 50 lineups, and you know you want EXACTLY 5(10%) lineups with James Harden. So you want to create the best Harden lineups. So what I would recommend is calculate 5 lineups with James Harden locked, then in a separate crunch, create 45 lineups with James Harden excluded.

Then you can merge the crunches as shown in this clip: http://recordit.co/QwmoC954jP

For method two, let's say you want to have a close to even spread of lineups between LeBron, Westbrook and Harden (only one of each in a lineup). What you can do is create a group (under advanced options) with the 3 of them and set the first dropdown menu to "exactly" as shown below:



What this does is forces every lineup to use exactly one of these players. Now, if you set max exposure values of all of these players so that no two of them add up to 100%, but all 3 values must add up to at least 100%, then all 3 will have to be used.

For example you can set them all to 34% but you cannot set them all to 33% because 33 x 3= 99% so you can't account for 100% of the lineups. You can set them all to 49% but not 50% because if you have two of them at 50%, then you aren't forced to use one of them. Also note, these values don't have to be the same, I just did that for simplicity sake. You cannot use 60%, 40%, 30%, but you can use 59%, 40%, 30% because 60+40=100.

The math becomes a lot more annoying the bigger the group gets, and if you choose to use "at least" instead of exactly. So I highly suggest using method 1 because it's far more intuitive and gives the user more control.

Now for uniqueness, this adds the restriction that every lineup produced must be at least x players different from all other lineups produced. This is useful because you don't typically want lineups that are almost identical to each other, but when you have an optimizer with very few restrictions and a very large pool (default lineups), the top lineups can be very similar to each other. This is a feature you definitely want to use if you don't have many restrictions. But if you set it too high, you can run out of lineups really fast.

As for randomness, this just means that between each lineup, the optimizer will move your projections up to the amount you set. So if you set it at 2%, that means it will optimize based on a different set of projections between 98% and 102% of the original projection for EVERY lineup. This adds a little bit of randomness so it may get you away from playing the same stuff as other people, and it can speed up the solves (if you want me to explain why, I can do that, but it's not too important).

This was the most recent update. You are now able to save/load/merge crunches. If you want to see how they performed actually. Go over to lineup-rewind and load a past crunch.

Details here: https://www.fantasycruncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2706

It should be giving you the lineup with the highest projected score, unless you have randomness or likes/dislikes which makes invisible edits to the projections. If you are not getting the lineup with the highest projected score total, then that's a bug. This of course does not mean "the lineup I want to use most". We have no way of measuring that, and we don't expect our users to just take the top lineup. It just gives you a top lineup determined by a well defined objective.

Can you send and e-mail to support or post here if you don't mind showing your screen with a screenshot of your table and the top lineups that are being produced?

When I calculate by ceiling on FD with all the games on, this is what I see:

I can't click and drag holding the left click to select or deselect multiple players now. I have to manually click each one, one by one. can this be updated?
input boxes are much better than sliders. Any chance you can remove all sliders and replace with input boxes?

You can, you just need to hover over on the left side under the select/deselect column. This is a compromise to the people who were selecting/deselecting accidentally.

This new look and feel is awesome! It is MUCH cleaner and easier to look at. I noticed it is much faster too!

The removal of select/unselect by row feature is excellent...too many times I would accidentally unselect a player by accident.

One bug I found is that several players you can't "like" (thumbs up). For example, Justin Anderson. In fact, if you sort by value, none of those guys you can like until you get down to D. Russell.

Keep up the great work!

Thanks for the bug report, we're working on it right now.

In terms of a "sandbox" server, there may be security issues with that, but the main concern is we simply don't have the personnel to implement features on whim. As even with small changes like this, there is a lot of bug testing that needs to be done.

However, we are considering a bunch of features that will further increase the versatility of the tool which may encompass this request as well. But that's further down the pipeline as we need to figure out the specifics, which is why we're being very vague.

It is true that the best lineup(s) are often projected lower (also maybe lower average, lower ceiling/floor what have you) than the optimal lineup. However, that is not in conflict with the statement that the optimal lineup usually performs better than suboptimal lineups. Because there are far more lineups with lower total average (close to the mean), than lineups with high total averages. So the probability of the BEST lineup having a (near average) total average is much higher than the best lineup having a very high total average. Simply because there could be hundreds, thousands, millions of times as many lineups with a lower total average. HOWEVER, the lineups with higher total averages will perform better than the vast majority of lineups with lower total averages because there are so many that will be really really bad, but these are hidden from you in lineup rewind because you're only looking at the top ACTUAL scores.

Of course this is the same with salary, lineups with a salary of 50k tend to do better than lineups with a salary of 49k, but very often we find that the top lineup is a lineup with a lower total salary. This is because there are more ways to make 49k lineups than there are 50k lineups (usually). So why do we implement salary constraints but not average/floor/ceiling?

The first reason, as previously mentioned, is that the users are very aware of where the bounds are. They get a good intuition for what setting the salary cap to 49.5k means. But that doesn't hold true for setting the average score cap to lets say...250 points.

The second reason is that have a very strong feeling that DFS players actively try to spend all of their salary cap. Even though salary is (somewhat) arbitrarily assigned by the DFS sites, players feel better about a lineup that uses all their salary. Avoiding max salary lineups does decrease the chance of your lineup being replicated in GPPs so there's some game theory edge. This is not likely to be true for average, and definitely not true for "FC floor/ceiling projections", because in order to maximize average score, you would need an optimizer, which isn't used by most DFS players. And of people using optimizer, I imagine very few try to "maximize" the average. They'll probably submit lineups that have high average scores, but not optimal, so if you're trying to avoid those lineups by capping averages to something lower than their already suboptimal values, you're probably in a dangerous zone where there are many many many low quality lineups. And the reason why allowing caps on floors/ceilings definitely won't give you a "game theory" edge is because unlike salary and average, FC floor/ceilings aren't available to everyone.

Third, salary cap is already an necessary constraint, so changing the max from 50k to 49.5k does not affect the solve speed. But if you add a constraint such as total average cap, then you're adding whole new dimension of constraints that will make the computation slower. We're not opposed to adding constraints that may speed the solves down (we've done it many times), but we are very hesitant to add them if they don't provide a clear benefit to users.

Here's an alternative solution, since what you're saying is "projections are good and all, but clearly there's uncertainty so I want lineups that doesn't rely solely on projections". Normally, that's what the other constraints are for, exposure, stacking, groups etc... But if you just want to account for projection uncertainty, just add some randomness. This will give you lineups that you may not get just optimizing on projections, and as a bonus it actually speeds up calculations. And if you feel like randomness doesn't give you control,I would argue that it gives you as much control as setting an arbitrary cap on total average/floor/ceiling would.

I want to emphasize that we really really appreciate our users making suggestions and even debating with us. We're currently not considering this feature because we're not currently convinced that it's a useful feature. If you or anyone else make a good counter argument for implementing the feature, we'd be happy to revisit it. Many times, new features that we come up with ourselves draw inspiration from feature suggestions that we turn down because they provide us with insight on what our users want.

We work on improving the site everyday. But a lot of the things we change are not "features", things like making the site run smoother (across different platforms), developing a knowledge base, improving the interface for other admins/staff so that we can respond to day-to-day issues faster. Currently, we have an extremely full plate in terms of things to do, and we don't want to make promises that we can't keep, but we don't want to just keep replying with "maybe" or "in the pipeline, no ETA".

Good catch, for some reason his projection was 0 for FD and only FD. I've added the projection for him.

Just an update, we believe we've fixed the issue. It was a problem with our database, and not server capacity. We have a server expert on standby for today's slate to monitor the issue if anything arises.

They're invisible +/- 8% to the projection per thumb. So you won't see it in the totals, but they're used in the calculations. Just for easy projection modifications.

It sounds like you'd just want to calculate 65% of your lineups with curry/green exposure restrictions, then lock curry+green for the last 35% and do a "calculate more". Forcing players into exposure percentages is similar to minimum exposures, and I've gone at length as to how there isn't a unique solution set that can be solved with our algorithm and most likely, you will end up having the back end of your lineups all having your low value players with minimum exposure all shoved together.

We're working on something like this.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying for every player you want to select a different projection source if you like it more? I'm not sure but it really sounds like anything we'd implement would look a lot like a spreadsheet. If you organize your spreadsheets by name, they should more-or-less line up, then pick the column that you agree with the most. You can export our projections to a spreadsheet with the "copy data" button at the bottom, if you paste it into a spreadsheet.

I don't know how much better of a process we can implement that won't make the site look overly complex. Do you have an idea of how it would look and how it would work?

It will be the "optimal" solution after the randomness is applied. So I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The percent just puts a cap on how much the projections can change.

What are you "comparing"? If you're looking across numbers, you can do this all in excel/google docs prior to upload. It's something we could possibly implement but I'm just curious if there's more to what you're describing.

You can usually figure out what's wrong when you open up the csv file. If the player ids are missing, then that player does not have an ID for that specific slate or you may have unchecked the "include player ids" checkbox. If the player ids are there but it doesn't work, it means that the wrong ID is there and you selected the wrong slate in the dropdown menu right before exporting.

HOWEVER, this current week, FD had two slates for thurs-mon and sunday main, they probably loaded one incorrectly then we pulled that data and they replaced it and we got that one instead. And there were two of the same slates in the dropdown menu with different player IDs. We later on realized what had happened because of a support e-mail and removed the extra slates.

So, if you ever have issues, just e-mail us at support@fantasycruncher.com with your problem, and if you attach your csv file we can figure out what's going on fairly quickly.

So, are you trying to stack QB with at least 2 WR/TE from same team? Or is it something different?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVLgavSvQo0

It's not about what will actually happen, it's about optics. We can potentially know whose account is uploading the csv file, and it really doesn't matter which lineups go in, only which ones come out. So pitchforks will be raised. As we become more popular, these are the types of things we need to consider when adding new features, it's unfortunate but that's the truth of the matter.

If you have a core of 3-6 player, you can throw them in a group and tell cruncher to select (exactly/at least) x amount of them. The more you lock, the faster it will go, but you will have less diversity in your lineups.

Nice!

Not one click but you can de-select the entire pool, then use the checkboxes in the filter area to only show players that are part of a PP unit, then use the select all checkbox at the top of the table to only select these players.

The first request is quite difficult because you would need to lock those players into specifically those slots. So I'm not sure if that's possible.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second suggestion. You can straight up exclude players from your pool by unchecking them and that will ensure that you only use players that you want.

Here's how you can do it, but it's a bit tricky. First you calculate 50 lineups for the thurs-Mon slate. Then remove the two games using the game filter and hit "calculate more WITHIN THE SAME CRUNCH (do not hit the normal calculate button). This will ensure these next 50 lineups will be eligible for use for Sunday only slate. Running them on the same crunch ensures that lineups will not overlap.

Now when it's time to export, you will need to do some editing to the lineups. When you go to upload for the thurs-monday slate, on the export menu, select the appropriate slate, download the csv file. Then open the csv file and DELETE the bottom 50 rows to remove your Sunday lineups. Now upload the file onto dk/FD.

When you want to export for Sunday, switch the slate in the export menu to the Sunday slate. Download the csv file. Open it and delete the first 50 lineup rows (and shift rows up). Before uploading it to DK/FD.

Let us know if you have any issues via e-mail, as we respond a heck of a lot faster.

He's projected at 0, you can add him by giving him a projection higher than your threshold (set in your account profile) in the player manager. Or you can lower that projection threshold to 0 to see all the players in the database, but that will slow down the site load speed and calculation speed.

In terms of calculations, there's not much that can be done. My recommendation is to use a smaller pool.

Hi, this is not a bug. This is DK's new NBA rule changes. Adding positional flexibility (sg/sf players) along with their already 3 flex slots skyrockets the number of combinations. That's why it's much slower than on FD.

Are you unable to move the filter further to to the left? If not, then that's a bug. But for you to get Lebron back, you can add him in manually via the player manager if you give him a projection that falls into that range. Also, check whether or not he'll show up in your lineups when you calculate. The sliders filter out visibilty, not availability, if he's projected at 90, he should show up in every line up, unless you de-selected him beforehand.

You can use the team stacking rather than positional stacking.

First off thanks for the suggestions. I will address each of these points one at a time:

-We can't tell you why a run won't work. It's never one constraint, it's always all of them. As an analogy, when an elevator goes over the weight capacity, you can't just blame one person for pushing it over the limit. The constraint that you're looking for that's breaking your calculations is not easy to identify. It's not necessarily the most or least restrictive one. Usually this happens with small slates, be sure to change the # offensive players against defense in the advanced settings.

-Working on it. It's something we want users to save, but we need to figure out the right way to do it.

-You can already do this. In your account settings, you can lower your projection threshold to 0.

-Working on it. We're going to improve positional stacking a lot. This is the first season we had flexible positional stacking, it's going to get better.

How can you have option a) QB stacked with only 1 WR on his team. And at the same time never have a) 2 WRs from another team if there are 3 WR slots? Or are you playing on a site besides DK/FD?

Edit: In addition, how can you never have a TE on a team not on the QB unless you always require QB+TE?

Or do you mean, the remaining WRs/TEs cannot be on the same team UNLESS they're on the same team as the QB?

If you want two WR/TE on the same team as the QB, the rule you should set should be QB with 2 (WR/TE) from same team. If you want at least one, set that number to 1, but put 2 positions on the right box.

This is not a function you do with stacking. It's what you do in "groups" for specific players.

This is because we don't know how many possible lineups there are with your set of constraints until we try to generate them. The logistics to do what you are asking for is very costly computationally. One would need to solve for every possible lineup, and we're talking about numbers larger than number of stars in the universe. Then we'd have to go through and filter out only the ones that fit your criteria real time. Both of these steps would require a lot more computing power than we're capable of.

We just pushed out a positional stacking feature in the advanced settings. Simply put a "RB with 0 WR/TE from same team" rule and that should do it.

I'm not sure I understand, what would be the objective that you are maximizing using two criteria?

Thanks for your input, however, the actual exposures are linked to the crunch, and you can have multiple crunches. So how would that interface actually work?

We need a source for stats so that we can provide stats and make projections. Also if we are to support it, we will likely make projections in a similar way to NFL, because we don't know anything about CFL specifically. But the main issue is still to get a good source for stats.

Just checked, they're not there for the 3 slates for today.

As in they're not there on Draftkings so we don't have salaries for them.

A few hours after the last game has been played typically. We wait a while because sometimes not every site loads their player salary information, sometimes they even change it in the first few hours.

I don't know what you mean by bumps (not projections I hope), I meant increase the exposure for the players you may want as fillers as well as in stacks.

Hi,

My subscription shows cancelled in my profile. I do not know how it became this way other than my cheapskate wife doing this for me on my laptop. Regardless, I do not wish to cancel, but can't find a way to renew.

Ricky
Twitter= EadesScience

I've added back your subscription with a trial period that ends as the same time as your normal billing cycle. In the future please send this type of request to support rather than on the forums. I'm closing this topic since this has been resolved.

The slate is there for DK. Fanduel doesn't have a 2 day slate on their own site. Are you on the right page?

Edit: A Thurs-Fri slate was recently added to FD, we're working to incorporate that.

I see, if you want to change a subset of your lineups it may be more difficult, you're right. Of the top of my head the way to do it would be to preserve the crunch you used to upload the lineups. Then you can use our lineup searching feature to isolate the Kemba lineups, remove them and calculate more. However, this requires you to leave your browser tab open which can be a hassle.

For now, that's the best that we can do, it becomes a difficult process because the lineup CSV comes from your account on DK and we're not allowed to log into your account. There may be some work-arounds, but it will take some time to plan and execute.

You need to combine it with the "select all/none" checkbox. The sliders only change visibility. So you may want to move the range to the players you don't want and "select none", or first select none, slide range to see players you want and "select all"

This is because there are two Matt Duffy's, the player manager differentiates them by Matt Duffy:SF (or Matt E. Duffy) vs Matt Duffy:HOU or (Matt M. Duffy)

It's different because you can put in multiple teams and it'll pick from the list of multiple teams. And you can add more than 1 stack. So, it finds you the highest projected score among stacked lineups. You won't find another optimizer that can do this (yet, our competitors like to copy us).

In a more detailed response, the reason you are not seeing him is because the default player projection threshold is set to be 3. There are two things you can do. You can add him in via player manager just by giving him a projection greater than 3. The format is first column: First name space Last name; second column: projection score. The other way is to lower the threshold to 0 which you can do from your account profile. This is less advised because it increases your player pool which then slows down the optimization algorithm and the rate at which the page loads because you're going to be adding a lot of players.

Not ready, sorry, it probably won't be ready until the 1-2 days before game day.

You guys may not need projections but we're still going to get a ton of e-mails complaining about bad projections. That being said, it's something we'll be looking to add after we get baseball up and running smoothly.

Please send an e-mail to support and attach all the screenshots you can. That is a very odd occurrence and no one else reported anything like this. My feeling is that you may have used the sliders to filter out players, but you didn't actually filter them out. The sliders only change what's visible to you, it doesn't remove players from the pool in itself. If you are to use them as a filter, you need to "select none" then make only the players you do want visible, then "select all". Alternatively, you need to select all, then move the sliders so it only shows players you don't want, then "select none".

There's no way that Galloway and Acy were missing from the pool without someone reporting it. This is why I suspect that is what happened.

generating lots of lineups without a flex on DK for me

Can you e-mail us with a screenshot of the lineup and your advanced settings?

We'll look into it, is it FD, DK or both?

Works fine for me, I just tried it (you owe me $6), did you make sure you filtered the correct games out AND selected the correct game slate on the drop down menu?

You betcha.

Could you provide a screenshot via e-mail to support with the specific lineup and some of your settings? It would help us a lot in determining what the bug is.

We added a new checkbox. After you upload projections, on the player table in lineup cruncher, in the top checkbox (it used to only be select all/none), there's an option to only select players with custom projections.

This is because we do not produce DvP rankings based on the positions given by DFS sites (as they are often wrong), and we use their "true position" of course this still isn't the best for players who play multiple positions frequently but it is the best we can do. I hope that this gives you a better understanding of what you see.

Do you know what causes it to break? I think refreshing fixes the issue but did you change any of the advanced options?

A CSV file is just a format for spreadsheets. So, in order to upload lineups,

1. Decide what slate you're going to play, set your game filter so that the same players are available.
2. Create your lineups on FC as you would normally do.
3. Select the correct slate on the export tools
4. Select the lineups that you want to export
5. Hit download CSV
6. click on the available link or go directly to https://www.draftkings.com/lineup/upload
7. click Upload CSV on the draftkings site, select the file that you downloaded from us.

You should see something like this:

Closing the thread because this has been resolved.

For anyone wondering, this issue arises when you try to "resubscribe" after getting a failed payment notice. What you need to do is change your credit card information from your account profile and just wait for us to try to charge your card again the next day. Upgrading again will cause you to be on two subscriptions simultaneously and be double charged going forward. Let us know via support@fantasycruncher.com if you got double charged.

To crunch future slates, we need future salary data and slate data. Unfortunately, that's usually not provided until the previous day's slates are closed. On top of that, the DFS sites themselves often make salary changes or add/remove players after they release this information. That's why you sometimes see us missing players (most of the time they're just under the projection threshold in your account settings) or having them on the wrong team or for the wrong salary. Because we don't want to constantly be pulling data from their site, we do our import some time after the final game of the previous day's slate has ended.

There's a bunch of screenshot extensions for chrome/firefox. I use lightshot. We just need to see you logged in so we know it's you.

Also, congrats on the big win!

Also, if you save a lineup to "My lineups" you can see its score the next day (and any day in the future).

I often get an error message saying it can't fit under the salary cap whenever I try to lock in a goalie with a couple other players

Perhaps the players you're locking is against the goalie you're locking. In the advanced section we have a "# of offensive players vs goalie allowed" and the default is 0.

While we are happy that you won, we want to make it absolutely clear, we do not "make you lineups". Lineups created with our service should be a reflection of your research. We turn a poorly defined problem ("Make the best lineup") into a well defined problem with a solution ("What is the best line lineup assuming we know what everyone will score"). Obviously, we do not know what everyone will score, these are projections.

But projections ultimately are educated guesses. We give you a good start point, since our service would be inaccessible if we asked all of our users to make a projection for every single player. We leave a lot of work left for our users to tweak the projections or change the definition of the problem ("what's the best lineup assuming we know what everyone will score AND must have LeBron James and must not have more than 3 players from any single team and...etc...)

So, to answer your question about GPP vs cash lineups, that will depend on how the user uses the software. For 50/50's you need to score in the 50th percentile or higher and there's no reward for going much higher so you might go with more conservative plays. For GPPs, typically you'd want to enter multiple lineups and you definitely want to have a few players with low ownership (figuring out low ownership will come with experience).

Finally, not even the staff here knows how our users use our service. Our goal is to make the tool very flexible and we have found that many of our users use it in a way that we would not imagine.

Check your player manager, do you see custom projections? Are you making sure you're looking at the "all" tab and not the "my pool" tab.

We lock our users at the price they sign up at, we've raised our prices over the past year.

We don't consider their positions the same way that DK does. As you know, these DFS sites often put players as positions that they aren't. We consider the position that is more accurately representative of the position they play in games.

Does that make sense?

Are you the same person that e-mailed us? Try a manual Fanduel lineup entry. If that is blocked, then it's your issue with FanDuel. I believe after you've won a certain amount, they force you to give tax information before you can withdraw.

Depends on how many lineups you're making. In the end you probably care about diversity, not particularly uniqueness. Similarly to exposure, uniqueness creates really bad lineups if you're making a lot of lineups. For example: a player pool of 160 and a uniqueness of 8 (if max players per lineup is 8) will have a maximum of 20 lineups, and after the first few, the rest will be absolute trash. It is a very restrictive constraint, the more lineups you make the faster the quality of lineups decline.

I don't know the exact number, perhaps other users can chime in, but if you're making 100 lineups, I wouldn't go very high.

Jonathan,

That's what the consistency score is for. Standard deviation is not the best stat since it isn't adjusted for what a player typically scores. Consistency takes that into account. We scale variability into a score that ranges from 0 to 100.

The slider filters don't actually remove people from your pool. If you look at the tabs at the top, you will see that your locks are still there (at least mine are). If they are being removed, that's a bug, let us know.

The way to use the filters is to use it in conjunction with the select all/none checkbox. If you want to remove some players, slide to only show those players and then select none. Otherwise those players aren't being removed from your pool.

Good catch, I've zeroed him out.

Also, in the advanced settings, this can be done by "group" or "each". If you set a player to 50% exposure:

Group means, it knows you're going to try to make 10 lineups, it will keep the player in the pool until he's in 5 lineups.

Each means, it knows you want him in 50% of your lineups, he will be excluded in every other lineup.

Regardless of setting, this gets REALLY funky when you adjust the exposure settings of too many players at once, and you could possibly end up with junk because it will decide to remove all of your good players simultaneously for some lineups.

We don't want to take too much credit. You did the research and made the final decisions, congrats to you!

Sounds like an issue only pertaining to you, the reason I say that is because if that was the case, we would be flooded by support tickets by now. Send us an e-mail to support@fantasycruncher.com with maybe some screenshots and we can figure it out from there. We're very fast at responding to these issues via e-mail.

Basketball monster gives a lot of information and is a very useful research tool because it provides more than just projections (very good stat history and matchup information). We see our relationship as symbiotic with a little bit of overlap rather than competitive.

I know it's not exactly what you asked about but I just wanted to put that out there.

This highly depends on yahoo's position on mass lineup importing. It can be done, whether or not they will allow it is another issue. We are not currently in contact with a yahoo dfs representative. This is probably something we will look to address once we get NBA ready. We apologize for the lack of updates across the board, it is mainly because NHL and NBA start so close to each other.

I'll add that to our to-do list.

We don't have plans on supporting NBA preseason, we are very excited for the NBA regular season. Believe me, we're itching for it too.

Sorry about that, we was listed as a Texan. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, he should be visible if you import him now.

Full disclosure: I am a Miami Dolphins fan :-)

May god have mercy on your soul.

We typically go pretty conservative with our projections, players that play a low number of snaps will typically be under your threshold. It's not that you shouldn't play them, we just feel uncomfortable giving them a playable projection. This is more because of the blowback we will receive if we over-project fringe players. We leave that up to you guys because you guys will dig in deeper with your research.

He has a projected score of 0. You can put in a projection from the player manager or lower your threshold in your account profile. I think the player manager option is better because it doesn't add all the 0 projection players to your pool.

an invisible +/- 8% per thumb up/down. Users asked for an easy way to give a boost through "liking" a player.

Allow me to step in and ruin the fun a bit. Just a bit. While it is a very powerful and flexible tool, the downside is that it will be very difficult for us to troubleshoot your issues or debug an issue if it's on our end. It's going to take a lot of planning to build a tool that is as fool-proof as possible. So the development may take a while. So please be understanding and patient, knowing our history, the first release will have a lot of bugs, and you guys will essentially be bug testing for a while.

I've heard a bunch of cool things, (like csv import), but if you'd like to give us some sort of mock up that we can work off of. It may accelerate the process ;), just saying.

No, you are not the only one, but Fanduel's lineup entry format makes it difficult for us to do that. It might not be too difficult if you only ran 1 lineup, but for the people who run many, it would be hell to set up. Draftkings format makes it easy, if you enter a dummy lineup that takes a bunch of entries, you can simply upload the new lineups, and then merge the old dummy lineup into the new one (manually). I'm not saying you should play draftkings (because I still prefer fanduel but that's not relevant), just saying it's not as simple as one may think.

I understand that you may want to reserve your spot in many tournaments but perhaps it might be safer for you to not build dummy lineups, pressuring you to play even if you don't have time to really dedicate your lineup. Most tournaments don't fill up until the last hour or so, so as long you build the line up prior to that using lineup cruncher it might work out. I'm just saying it might end up saving you those times where you enter a dummy lineup and find that you didn't have time to actually make a lineup. This happens a lot if you live on the west coast...

Anyway, maybe I'm wrong about it being difficult, and Dave (praise upon him) will figure out a way for it to do what you want, because ideally, it should be able to do that. But I'm not sure if it's all that easy to do.

Send in a support e-mail, you're more likely to get a immediate response once it's fixed.

We are aware that our Monday-Thursday slate is off, I don't know how long it will take Dave to fix this but he is working on it. Sorry about this inconvenience, it's a very tricky thing to implement a slate that uses games from different weeks.

Let me be the first to say, congrats on your foresight on Barnidge, I really hope you didn't get persuaded off of playing him. We want our forums to have open discussions about sports, and when there's open discussion and opinions, there will be some levels of disrespect. As long as it stays on topic, we won't moderate it. Anyways, you definitely earned bragging/call out rights.

The thing about why we set the default for minimum projection to be 3, is because there are a LOT of eligible players in the NFL, and if we were to put all the players into our table, the experience will be much worse for many of our customers because it will slow down the load process and your average computer will definitely feel it. Most of our new users (like yourself) don't know this, and we get e-mails asking about why player x,y or z aren't showing up. That is our fault, we don't have a solution on how to convey this default floor that we've set to new users without them asking. Most of the time, there is no harm, but on occasion we miss big value plays like Mr. Barnidge, that will be up to players like you who clearly have done more detailed research than us to make those adjustment changes.

Also, if you see projections that you think are clearly off, let us know (like you did), it could be that we have not made adjustments based on news or there was an error with our projection algorithm.

We just added exposure %. If you lower that to 50% it will make sure the player shows up in a maximum of 50% of the lineups per crunch.

Anytime, I always like to hear about the cool ways everyone builds lineups. Our philosophy is to make a tool that is flexible but not intimidatingly confusing and with many of these posts you guys build lineups in ways that I don't think of trying to do.

We aren't able to do this yet, it's something we're looking into.

Until we implement a way to let you guys have customize-able columns, we want to try to keep the format as clutter free as possible. If something is available elsewhere semi-conveniently, we'd like to limit the amount of redundancy.

You are correct, only in the situation in which you have the unique players setting to 1. The order the lineups come out matter if you have unique players set to anything higher because the previous lineups influence the future lineups in each crunch. I might be wrong but I hope I can convince you that I'm right.

Thanks for this update. Amazing!

Question about the "group" vs. "each." At the end of the day, if you create 100 lineups with the same exposure percentages - one time with "group" selected and one time with "each" selected, you will get the same 100 lineups, just ordered differently. Correct?

While "each" makes it easier if you want to create a different number of lineups than the options provided (top 75 for example). You can then take the top 75 lineups if you create 100 and you will still have the exposure that you want.

Am I understanding this correctly? Sorry for the confusing wording.

Thanks for the idea crashthne24.

I will try it for the last two weeks in MLB. Do FC offers NHL too?

Yes, we offer NHL as well.

Providing relevant stats is in a neat manner is something we are always looking to do. We do obviously show targets when you look at a player's individual card. But in order to show it on the table, we would need a way to do this without cluttering up current view.

All of these are great ideas, and some of them are already on the to-do list! Thanks!

Each successive calculation takes longer, that's just how our algorithm works. To speed it up, try to shrink your player pool by adjusting the sliders to take out players you would never use. (remember to first select none, then slide, then select all, verify the number is what you want near the top next to "my pool")

We currently are not thinking about college sports because the player pool is just so large and the turnover is huge that we don't have a reliable way to make projections. We are currently focused on improving our NFL product.

There were no games yesterday, it was the all star game. So I guess it just looks for the previous slate.

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up, there's an issue with the salary import for these players because draft kings uses a different alias for the players than we do. So when we look to import salaries these players were missed. I've manually put in the salaries and we're looking to fix this. Let us know if you find other players like this.

Hi Sandwich,

Typically it's easier for us to answer these types of inquiries through our support e-mail system. The access to lineup cruncher usually happens as soon as you sign up to premium with a valid payment method (the system will charge then refund $1). This gives you access to our one week free trial in which you can cancel before it ends at no charge at all.

The sliders don't automatically filter out the players, you must first select none, which empties your player pool, then slide the bars wherever you want then select all. Then you will have a reduced number of players in your pool.

Done!
We gave him a projection of 2.5 just in time for John Wall returning to the lineup. You might have to adjust your settings under Account>My Profile to see him since his projected score is so low.

We take into consideration the starting pitcher, but it's much harder to predict who will be relief pitching and for how long. But we don't directly use BvP stats because of sample size, we use other metrics instead.

He should be in the pool now after you refresh, sorry about that.

I think this is a mistake on our part. I believe this was a dummy projection that was not updated. We should have caught this sooner.

I think that if you just shrunk a player pool to around 35, set a minimum salary, ran for 500 lineups and still used projections, you'd get enough variety, if you saw a player being used too much, just lower the projection until they reach a % ownership you are comfortable with. A little warning though: managing 500 lineups is hell in NBA with last minute news.

Just updated

Sorry about that, we didn't put in a projection for Singler but we have one now. The reason you didn't see him was because his projected score (0) was lower than the threshold set in your profile settings (default is 3)

If you're asking about what it searches for, I can tell you that it finds the global maximum projected score given constraints such as position requirements and salary cap.

If you're asking about how it does it and why it's so fast, we can't tell you that (for obvious reasons).

I want to throw out a word of caution once this becomes live. If you optimize for ceiling, you're hoping that everyone in the NBA hits their ceiling that day and you're picking the top 9, this of course is astronomically improbable. If you're optimizing for ceiling, you're going to have to lock a few more players than normal to be your "anchors".

We're having issues with our stat source. We're working on integrating a more reliable (and expensive) source so that we won't have these problems in the future. Please bear with us.

We never planned on using lineup rewind as a tool to evaluate our projections. But, if you would like to do that, you can export our projections pre-lock, then load them into the player manager in lineup rewind. We aren't trying to hide anything, we just don't want people to go under the assumption of "oh their default projected lineup did well yesterday, let me put $X on it today".

Lineup rewind was meant as a tool for users to evaluate their own projection edits, catch value plays that went unnoticed and to satisfy the curiosity about the perfect lineups.

We are! You can follow us @fantasycruncher, or me @fc_taicheeze or Oreo @00oreo00. I haven't been the most active twitter user but we're looking to add more strategy based content soon.

I think the number of possible lineups far exceeds 731 (probably in the hundreds of thousands if not millions in my rough estimation). Maybe there are 731 possible [i]good[/i] lineups. Still I wouldn't be so sure. But we can entertain that idea, let's say there are only 700 lineups. If the tournament allowed for far more than 700 entries, you are likely to make a decent amount of money, as you will win the entire prize pool IF no one makes a duplicate lineup of yours. If 5 people do the same thing and makes all 700 lineups, you will get one fifth of the entire prize pool. But you should keep in mind that this is ONLY a viable strategy if the number of possible lineups is much much lower than the maximum number of entries, if you do this for a tournament that only has 1000 possible entries, you will most likely lose your money to rake.

Hmmm. Okay, I see what you mean. We will have projection export coming soon. You will be able to export them, and re-import them into lineup rewind.

I'm not so sure about that. There might be some intentional sabotage if we did something like that. This is a competitive arena and it is in everyone's best interest that your opponents get bad information. If you want to bounce ideas back and forth, you can use this forum, find people you think are trustworthy and smart and just discuss lineups with them. I regularly talk to my group of friends as well as Oreo and we end up with different lineups but it makes it less likely that I overlook a player.

There wasn't too much news, a bunch of questionables and a confirmed George Hill out which was kinda expected.

I'm actually not sure if that would be helpful, for some people having an aggregate score there may be harmful. A lot of times players with the least consistency are the best plays because right now consistency is done on a per game basis. So back up players that have had extra minutes from time to time because they play behind an injury-prone starter will have very low consistency but when in fact they're one of the best plays of the night. Having an aggregate consistency score may potentially cause our users to make a bad play so we're going to leave it out for now.

We are working on getting some blog posts in the future on how to be a better DFS player. In terms of how to use the tool, you can check out my video tutorial here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSPmTUm5Bg&index=2&list=UUkLshlynPgwGU6bOdjG6Ccw.

When you say maximum potential, do you mean having the highest ceiling? What you should do then is adjust the projections based on what you think each player's maximum output should be for that given day/week, and this should be based off of your research. But also, keep in mind that players that have very high ceilings typically also have very low floors and stacking your team with players like that will give you very inconsistent results which is fine for tournament play but scary for 50/50 and h2h plays.