NFL DFS Sims has arrived in the form of SimLabs. You can learn more about how to use SimLabs by reading our DFS sims Frequently asked questions.
When an optimizer generates lineups through user customization and the user scores the lineups, SimLabs simulates the field and scores the lineups for the user.
Each week, we will take a belated look at the SimLabs results and briefly discuss the conclusions. For week 11, I ran the default settings for large field contests with a low range of results and we got a lot of groups.
One option is to increase the range of results to make the lineups more unique. Instead, I decided to play with it. I increased the simulation weight to high, the property weight to medium, the upside weight to medium, and the correlation weight to medium. I’m looking for more lineups that make sense rather than the best point-per-dollar combinations.
The first conclusion was that the exposure reached even further to the top of the Texans and Cardinals. Then the Texans and Cardinals are overwhelmingly the stacks that SimLabs is spitting out. So that QB exposure wasn’t really distributed after and , while RB was very distributed. And finally, there are many summer schedules to play.
All simple things.
so many batteries
There are about a dozen stacks I want to play, but I only play 20 lineups. I was hoping to see the Sims exhibit laid out in stacks.
This was not the case. Sims greatly favors the Cardinals-Texans game and says you have to work hard on both sides of the field. And this is not crazy.
This game has the highest total on the list (48.5), there’s a lot of value on both sides, and the game is barely competitive enough to feel like it could skyrocket. Stroud and Murray are projected to have around 10% ownership due to the ownership split, so it won’t cost an overwhelming number of lineups to be overweight. But it will cost a lot of lineups.
If this were the only game with a total of 50 and no other games higher than 48, you would get an overexposure, if not an attack. But the Lions-Bears game is right behind this game with a total of 47.5, and the Lions have a similarly higher implied total (27.50) than the Texans (27.25).
Of the 150 lineups we ran, 2.67% had , 0.67% had and 3.33% had , while Amon-Ra St. Brown was at 11.33%. Goff’s ~8% pOWN% is just a hair below Stroud and Murray, and SimLabs’ exposure to St. Brown is right about his ~12% pOWN%.
And we still haven’t talked about which is the best offense in football with the highest total on the board (30.00). is expensive, so his exposure was only 11.33%, only 3.33% and zero lineups they had.
It’s the Niners group that ranks third with 15.33% exposure as the top QB on the roster at one point per dollar, followed by Goff, Murray and . appears huge in the Sims with an exposure of 30.67%. Be warned though, Samuel is $900 cheaper than Brandon Aiyuk, but Aiyuk projects better with a lower ownership.
Anyway, getting to the point: With so many ways to go, the main takeaway shouldn’t be to triple up the Cardinals and Texans field. The main takeaway is that we should take some positions in some stacks instead of trying to cover all our bases by dividing the exposure into 10 or 12 stacks. Stack the Cardinals, Texans, Dolphins, Commanders, Lions, Bears, Cowboys, Niners. Hell, the Chargers and Jaguars are also in play. Just don’t try to stack them all.
All simple things, right?
RB is not good
Over $7,000, salaries at RB are quite efficient. It sucks because there are a lot of explosions on this list.
First, we only played for $5,300, but how much? He is projected to have ~31% ownership and Sims is slightly underweight him at 25.33%. This is the lowest I would be comfortable with, and there is an argument for hitting the lock button because it is really difficult to get value in that position.
The next best RB per dollar is and sims were more exposed to him at 30.67% than any other RB.
And then things get weird. 26.67% of lineups were exposed to Josh Jacobs, despite being a 13.5-point underdog. 20.67% of lineups were exposed to , which is the median 3.45 points higher projected than the next RB, but costs $9,300. Then we come to another underdog and both with a decent price of 16.00%. He feels like the best play per dollar in the $6,000 range, but he’s a 9.0-point dog, and Sims are only with him in 11.33% of lineups.
I wish I could rank five RBs for you, all things considered, but I’m still confused at this point and Sims isn’t really taking great stances. Sure, SimLabs makes us spend less in most cases, but it also makes us spend more in many places.
This is not something simple.
We had the cowboys summer schedule with 17.5% ownership, but only 7.33% of SimLabs has the Cowboys summer schedule with 17.5% ownership, but only 7.33% of SimLabs lineups were exposed to them. They failed because of the price.
The Commanders, an inferior defense, are in the same spot as a heavy favorite against the Little Giants with a 17.21% pOWN%, but for only $3,600. This is an acceptable salary for the position, but summer schedule It’s so fucking random.
It is reasonable to want to play this defense in a vacuum, but we do not play DFS in a vacuum cleaner. We live in a salary cap world, a great one DFS the mind likes to say, and ownership is a cost.
The sims expose us to commanders in 10.67% of rosters and that might be the sweet spot. Low weight, but not disappearing completely. But, Sir, this property is a heavy burden.
Do not play 17.21% ownership summer schedule It feels like something simple. Especially over $3,000. Feel free to tell me what you think in the RG. NFL Discord channel. summer schedule It should be pretty silly, but the discussion about how to approach roster spot makes for some interesting concepts.
It’s in the curriculum
Visit our SimLabs Discord channel to read the discussions people are having about their experiences and ask any questions. That being said, SimLabs Frequently asked questions It is extraordinarily fantastic. Many questions can be answered by Frequently asked questions. Please check it out, but feel free to post your questions. Especially the one you think might look stupid. We are all in this together.