NFBC Message Boards

How many teams turn a profit over time?

Although I like having an overall $100k prize, I have otherwise argued in general for more flatness in the fantasy prize structure because it keeps more teams in the game (as does a higher % payout, of course).

Running a random simulation based on last year's Main Event prize structure, assuming you play in 30 main events over a career, this is what I came up with ...

For each 15 team Main Event league:
• 1 team will realize a net return on investment (ROI) of 300-400%
• 1 team will realize about a 50% ROI
• 1 team will be close to breakeven
• 12 teams will lose at least 15% of their investment

If all teams are equally skilled, these simulated results should be in the ballpark. If I run the same results but assume that 3 teams in each league are clearly inferior and cannot get into the money, then 2 teams in each league reach breakeven and 11 still lose at least 15%.

Running this simulation for the Diamond, a single league with no "overall" contest:
• 3 teams realize an ROI of about 50%
• 3 additional teams are profitable
• 2 teams are close to breakeven
• 7 teams lose at least 15%

No real point to this other than curiosity, and I know how much Dough loves seeing stats. I'm sure Zola could put together a more accurate sim, but he didn't, so this is it.

Interesting numbers.. Which is why the NFBC does a great job of offering the overall grand prize structure (Main/Primetime/Online/Auction) and also offering those of us who wanted a larger league prize without the overall prizes (Ultimate/Super/Diamond/Satellites).

Personally, I like having that large prize to strive for, but winning the ultimate auction, investing 5K and winning 40K (or even finishing 3rd and doubling my money) is pretty enticing too, but if you are entering these contests and expect for it to be your primary income source, you are likely going to be disappointed.

KJ Duke wrote:How many teams turn a profit over time?

Although I like having an overall $100k prize, I have otherwise argued in general for more flatness in the fantasy prize structure because it keeps more teams in the game (as does a higher % payout, of course).

Running a random simulation based on last year's Main Event prize structure, assuming you play in 30 main events over a career, this is what I came up with ...

For each 15 team Main Event league:
• 1 team will realize a net return on investment (ROI) of 300-400%
• 1 team will realize about a 50% ROI
• 1 team will be close to breakeven
• 12 teams will lose at least 15% of their investment

If all teams are equally skilled, these simulated results should be in the ballpark. If I run the same results but assume that 3 teams in each league are clearly inferior and cannot get into the money, then 2 teams in each league reach breakeven and 11 still lose at least 15%.

Running this simulation for the Diamond, a single league with no "overall" contest:
• 3 teams realize an ROI of about 50%
• 3 additional teams are profitable
• 2 teams are close to breakeven
• 7 teams lose at least 15%

No real point to this other than curiosity, and I know how much Dough loves seeing stats. I'm sure Zola could put together a more accurate sim, but he didn't, so this is it.

Ummm. I've never won a penny in what like 4-5 years or so of the main. So, can we have a category for lose at least 100%?

JimyMarlboroBallgame wrote: Ummm. I've never won a penny in what like 4-5 years or so of the main. So, can we have a category for lose at least 100%?

I'm guessing statheads would claim "small sample size" so keep trying.

Conversely, I won the first and only league I played in at my rookie NFBC season. My paranoid size has me thinking STATS "let" me win to get me hooked, knowing somehow that I would join about 8-10 leagues in 2014.

That's not crazy, is it?


Cheers!

Deadheadz wrote:

JimyMarlboroBallgame wrote: Ummm. I've never won a penny in what like 4-5 years or so of the main. So, can we have a category for lose at least 100%?

I'm guessing statheads would claim "small sample size" so keep trying.

Conversely, I won the first and only league I played in at my rookie NFBC season. My paranoid size has me thinking STATS "let" me win to get me hooked, knowing somehow that I would join about 8-10 leagues in 2014.

That's not crazy, is it?


Cheers!

I'm not sure I could win a league if there were literally 14 canines forced to click a mouse somehow when it was their pick. Or say they bark at a certain name or they pick a treat out of a hat with a player name on it. I would still lose to them.

JimyMarlboroBallgame wrote: I'm not sure I could win a league if there were literally 14 canines forced to click a mouse somehow when it was their pick. Or say they bark at a certain name or they pick a treat out of a hat with a player name on it. I would still lose to them.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Jimmy Fallon Late Night Roto League where there's one human and 14 golden retriever puppys making selections. Hey, if it works for picking the Super Bowl and the Oscars why not fantasy baseball, right?

KJ Duke wrote:How many teams turn a profit over time?

Although I like having an overall $100k prize, I have otherwise argued in general for more flatness in the fantasy prize structure because it keeps more teams in the game (as does a higher % payout, of course).

Running a random simulation based on last year's Main Event prize structure, assuming you play in 30 main events over a career, this is what I came up with ...

For each 15 team Main Event league:
• 1 team will realize a net return on investment (ROI) of 300-400%
• 1 team will realize about a 50% ROI
• 1 team will be close to breakeven
• 12 teams will lose at least 15% of their investment

If all teams are equally skilled, these simulated results should be in the ballpark. If I run the same results but assume that 3 teams in each league are clearly inferior and cannot get into the money, then 2 teams in each league reach breakeven and 11 still lose at least 15%.

Running this simulation for the Diamond, a single league with no "overall" contest:
• 3 teams realize an ROI of about 50%
• 3 additional teams are profitable
• 2 teams are close to breakeven
• 7 teams lose at least 15%

No real point to this other than curiosity, and I know how much Dough loves seeing stats. I'm sure Zola could put together a more accurate sim, but he didn't, so this is it.

For years I've done everything possible to make the NFBC league prizes better without raising the entry fee too much and I think we have a nice balance now. No matter how you slice it in the 15-team format, there are going to be more losers than winners and no math is going to make it better. The key is finding a formula that rewards the league champ for the time and effort he/she put into winning the title, while still giving a big enough grand prize to entice folks to enter that national contest.

When we started the NFBC in 2004 with a plan for 300 teams and an entry point of $1,250, it was tough to offer a $100,000 grand prize AND fair prizes for all three league finishers. Heck, our league prizes those first two years were only $7,500. Today we have league prizes of $11,000 and league payouts of 4.33 x entry, 2 x entry, and your entry back.

However, we are seeing bigger and bigger carrots grabbing more and more attention in this industry and there are times I wonder if maybe we should follow suit. Is it time to raise the grand prize of the Main Event to $150,000 and make it top heavy again? Should we stretch the big carrot out there and drive demand again, then working back later to increase league prizes again after we blow past 435 teams? It's something I'm mulling over now before making the site live for 2014. Why don't we make the Main Event grand prize so big that it's worth your time to play even more often here?

I know the answers, but while some want flatter payouts of prizes others want the carrots to continue growing. It can be done that way, but only if folks realize the ROI levels decrease when the carrot increases. I understand that and wonder if now isn't the time to take that chance.

Thoughts?

Personally, I think that raising the overall carrot for the Main Event causes an even bigger problem. The payout structure is already far too top heavy in my estimation, if it's tilted even further that way I think that it would cause more owners (myself for sure) to field less teams in the competition.

I just don't see how an increase of the grand prize from $100k to $150k would even change anything. Are there really high-stakes fantasy baseball players out there who won't play for $100k, but would jump in with the marginal increase? Just seems like a terrible idea to me.

What it would really be hurting are the players you are trying to attract. I know of many low level players who want to step their game up and progress to the Main Event, but cite the top-heavy payout structure as the main reason that they DON'T play in the Main Event.

Just my opinion though, curious to hear what others have to say on the topic.

agree totally with lw17. in fact- I think the diamond and other supers address the high roller/ big prize issue.

Likewhat17 wrote:Personally, I think that raising the overall carrot for the Main Event causes an even bigger problem. The payout structure is already far too top heavy in my estimation, if it's tilted even further that way I think that it would cause more owners (myself for sure) to field less teams in the competition.

I just don't see how an increase of the grand prize from $100k to $150k would even change anything. Are there really high-stakes fantasy baseball players out there who won't play for $100k, but would jump in with the marginal increase? Just seems like a terrible idea to me.

What it would really be hurting are the players you are trying to attract. I know of many low level players who want to step their game up and progress to the Main Event, but cite the top-heavy payout structure as the main reason that they DON'T play in the Main Event.

Just my opinion though, curious to hear what others have to say on the topic.

I agree with Dave. Likewise, although Greg already knows my opinion on this, from a business standpoint the more top-heavy the prize pool, the more customer churn you're going to have because you're concentrating the game's liquidity into the hands of fewer and fewer players. It makes it harder to win or at least get close to "breakeven", and you'll knock more and more players out of the competition with a steeper prize pool.

You could make a stronger case in football because the untapped customer base is no doubt a lot larger than for baseball, but I still think it's a short-sighted move that hurts your business over time. For baseball, I don't think it's even close enough to be debatable - I think it would have a clearly negative impact.

I agree with all of the comments above. One more vote to keep at $100K.

It's top heavy and it should be. Reward the person who bested 434 others. I think 150k to 1st is the prize that justifies the amount of time and work that goes into it. The ME for $1500 or $1650 is what it is. It won't be a 600 entry event. There are too many other options to catch peoples $ and attention. So let's make it something special for us ME lifers. 150k will get you 100k in your pocket after taxes.

It's not watered down up top. It's not league $ centric. There are other games for players who prefer those.

Quahogs wrote:It's top heavy and it should be. Reward the person who bested 434 others. I think 150k to 1st is the prize that justifies the amount of time and work that goes into it. The ME for $1500 or $1650 is what it is. It won't be a 600 entry event. There are too many other options to catch peoples $ and attention. So let's make it something special for us ME lifers. 150k will get you 100k in your pocket after taxes.

It's not watered down up top. It's not league $ centric. There are other games for players who prefer those.

You come at this from a whole different angle than us mortals Steve. I don't think I could ever win the overall, so what does it matter what the top prize is? It's a lottery ticket (although an expensive one) for most of us. I'd like to see the 100K left alone and add to the league prizes or the 2nd - 20th place overall prizes if the contest continues to grow.

Money wrote:

Quahogs wrote:It's top heavy and it should be. Reward the person who bested 434 others. I think 150k to 1st is the prize that justifies the amount of time and work that goes into it. The ME for $1500 or $1650 is what it is. It won't be a 600 entry event. There are too many other options to catch peoples $ and attention. So let's make it something special for us ME lifers. 150k will get you 100k in your pocket after taxes.

It's not watered down up top. It's not league $ centric. There are other games for players who prefer those.

You come at this from a whole different angle than us mortals. I don't think I could ever win the overall, so what does it matter what the top prize is? It's a lottery ticket (although an expensive one) for most of us. I'd like to see the 100K left alone and add to the league prizes or the 2nd - 20th place overall prizes if the contest continues to grow.

Lottery sells. Just look at the daily games and FFPC's ME football contest (over 1000+ entries). But every player in this event is knowledgeable. Every player knows their chit and thinks they can win. I don't think anyone enters the ME shooting for 3rd in their league. The only thing changing is a bump to entry of $150. Let's get the prize to lottery level but sell it as skill driven.

I agree with the majority. The 150,000 Grand Prize would not draw near as many new players as a more symmetrical pay out would.
It's not about that ONE guy who wins a lot of money. It's about the chances of winning money....period.
Lets face it, the only reason to put a prize of $150,000 out there is for advertising. To say we're giving away $150,000 sounds a little more impressive than $100,000. It stops there.
The reality is that the top prize is really not a notion for most players.
Most players are seeing how much they can 'realistically' win.

Quahogs wrote:Lottery sells. Just look at the daily games and FFPC's ME football contest (over 1000+ entries). But every player in this event is knowledgeable. Every player knows their chit and thinks they can win. I don't think anyone enters the ME shooting for 3rd in their league. The only thing changing is a bump to entry of $150. Let's get the prize to lottery level but sell it as skill driven.

Lotteries work better at low price points. At high price points you'll quickly run out of participants unless you have a massive untapped player pool. Maybe you have that in football (although you still have to reach them); you don't have that in baseball at these stakes.

Well 100k isn't drawing the masses. Players inherently opposed to a high top down won't enter either way so for the price of a DC (which players flock to - talk about a lottery ) Let's take the BIG PRIZE to a to a level suitable to the countries PREMIER HIGH STAKES event .

You guys are acting like we're thinking about doubling the entry fee to add to the grand prize. We've had a $100,000 grand prize for 10 years now and early on you had a 1 in 300 chance to win it; now it's 1 in 435 but it's still $100,000. Dan says you can't realistically win it, yet there seems to be some new names there every year. If you win your league title now, you probably have a 1 in 29 chance of finishing first overall AND you win a nice league prize.

Competitors have entered this space at $1,600 per team in the past; we remain the lowest priced high-stakes contest in the industry. I hadn't really thought about changing it too much, but knew that saving $100 per team probably wasn't helping us win any new customers, either. I've always been frugal, as you can tell by an increase of $250 here in 10 years.

I don't think it's unrealistic to look at a bump in the grand prize given the fact that last year we had a record number of teams for this contest, making the goal of winning it all more amazing. Early on we built the big grand prize and all other prizes increased around it, and I think it's realistic 10 years later to look at doing that again, not only here but in our other national contests as well.

We'll look at the numbers again and see what they look like, but there are ways to grow the Main Event without killing off the contest.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: Why don't we make the Main Event grand prize so big that it's worth your time to play even more often here?

Is that extra $50,000 going to change anybody's thoughts in how we play or how much we play?
No, not at all.
To tell the truth, for a lot of us, it has become more than just about the money.
We are ecstatic when even winning a Main Event League.
Greg should be very proud of accomplishing this. A Main Event win is a badge of honor.
A Main Event title is what every drafter is looking for when entering a Main Event.
Few, if any, are thinking of winning the Overall prize.

Quahogs wrote:Well 100k isn't drawing the masses.

The issue in reaching the masses is price point, not top prize; there are a lot more players at $150-$300 than $1500 ... so raising the top prize to $150k isn't likely to increase the player pool. Having a flatter prize structure while raising the entry fee and pct payout would have a better chance of success.

Suppose the entry fee climbs to $2,000 and 90% of that "extra" goes into the prize pool. Now you have an extra $200k+ to distribute. If half that goes to the overall you could bump the top 5 from:

$100/25/15/10/7.5 to
$150/50/25/15/10, plus a little more for the rest of the top 10.

Greg Ambrosius wrote:You guys are acting like we're thinking about doubling the entry fee to add to the grand prize. We've had a $100,000 grand prize for 10 years now and early on you had a 1 in 300 chance to win it; now it's 1 in 435 but it's still $100,000. Dan says you can't realistically win it, yet there seems to be some new names there every year. If you win your league title now, you probably have a 1 in 29 chance of finishing first overall AND you win a nice league prize.

Competitors have entered this space at $1,600 per team in the past; we remain the lowest priced high-stakes contest in the industry. I hadn't really thought about changing it too much, but knew that saving $100 per team probably wasn't helping us win any new customers, either. I've always been frugal, as you can tell by an increase of $250 here in 10 years.

I don't think it's unrealistic to look at a bump in the grand prize given the fact that last year we had a record number of teams for this contest, making the goal of winning it all more amazing. Early on we built the big grand prize and all other prizes increased around it, and I think it's realistic 10 years later to look at doing that again, not only here but in our other national contests as well.

We'll look at the numbers again and see what they look like, but there are ways to grow the Main Event without killing off the contest.

With the bump to 100k in the "Primetime" event this season, the timing may not be right for this move. From what I've heard around here is that there is a concern for the Main Event given that bump to100k. I think this move needs to wait one season.

Greg Ambrosius wrote:You guys are acting like we're thinking about doubling the entry fee to add to the grand prize.

I think most main event players are more sensitive to percentage payback then entry fee. We'll flock to a new contest if the payback is in the 90s, but closer to 80 we'll look elsewhere. Like the big money leagues, your costs don't go up proportionately to increasing the prize pool, so that's a potential win/win for the player and contest to reach higher stakes.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Greg Ambrosius wrote: Why don't we make the Main Event grand prize so big that it's worth your time to play even more often here?

Is that extra $50,000 going to change anybody's thoughts in how we play or how much we play?
No, not at all.
To tell the truth, for a lot of us, it has become more than just about the money.
We are ecstatic when even winning a Main Event League.
Greg should be very proud of accomplishing this. A Main Event win is a badge of honor.
A Main Event title is what every drafter is looking for when entering a Main Event.
Few, if any, are thinking of winning the Overall prize.

The chance to win the overall prize is the only reason why I play MEs. The higher first prize, the more I will play. I would just spend my money on Supers and Ultimates instead

Hells Satans wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Greg Ambrosius wrote: Why don't we make the Main Event grand prize so big that it's worth your time to play even more often here?

Is that extra $50,000 going to change anybody's thoughts in how we play or how much we play?
No, not at all.
To tell the truth, for a lot of us, it has become more than just about the money.
We are ecstatic when even winning a Main Event League.
Greg should be very proud of accomplishing this. A Main Event win is a badge of honor.
A Main Event title is what every drafter is looking for when entering a Main Event.
Few, if any, are thinking of winning the Overall prize.

The chance to win the overall prize is the only reason why I play MEs. The higher first prize, the more I will play. I would just spend my money on Supers and Ultimates instead

To Dan's point, sure it's a badge of honor to win a Main Event and the money isn't bad, either. But I have to believe everyone who enters the Main Event thinks there's an outside chance that he can be holding the big check soon and cashing the $100,000 grand prize. I'd be shocked if everyone who entered the Main didn't think that way and Dan can talk from experience as he finished second overall.

Bob's point is valid and we obviously see this in all other fantasy sports.

Just to prevent anyone else from jumping off the ledge, let's look at what it would take to make the Main Event $125,000 and growing all other prizes from there. It doesn't seem like a big reach if my math is right.

And someone resurrect my old Fantasy Sports Magazine that died with Fanball so that I can put Dan Semsel and Ken Norred on the cover holding up that big $100,000 NFBC check!!! Now those were the days.

Okay, just a hint that the easy math for the Main Event could see league prizes go up slightly, and overall prizes go up, including 1st, 2nd and 3rd overall. And the bigger number would be a nudge in the right direction after a decade of six-figure prizes. So it's a way to enhance all areas of our contest, not just first place overall.

It's not as drastic as everyone had envisioned! Stay tuned and thanks for resurrecting a thread that needed a jolt. Nobody was responding to KJ's ROI post before this morning.