We’re only hours away from Ryder Cup Week. DraftKings announced that they will host contests for the event, but I haven’t seen any details aside from the announcement. I must admit, I wasn’t interested in relearning a course we saw five years ago and won’t see again for a while. I also wasn’t interested in trying to figure out the strategy for whatever style contest DK rigs up. Therefore, I apologize, I don’t have a preview of the Ryder Cup for you.
I wanted to write to you this week, however, because I did something that I don’t normally do in the update. I put out some picks. I’ve written that I’m not a tout, so it was odd for me to make those picks.
First, a word about those picks, and then I’ll get it into my thoughts about the picks.
The Plays and Fades are designed to be leverage spots, they’re supposed to be risky calls that, if they go right, will create some separation for you in GPP contests. The Plays are golfers projected to have low ownership, and not necessarily golfers that performed well in my model. The Fades are golfers that are projected to have high ownership; they may or may not have performed well in my models. These Plays and Fades are meant to be uncomfortable.
I thought that the Plays and Fades went well overall.
Four out of the five Plays made the cut; the only Play to not make the cut was Alex Smalley. At approximately 5% ownership, he would’ve given us a good amount leverage had he made the cut and performed well on the weekend. I think this is the kind of risk we have to take if we want to take down a GPP.
The Fades didn’t go as well. Three out of the five Fades missed the cut. Unfortunately, the two that made the cut are performing well; Hideki Matsuyama is T32 at -7, and Mito Pereira is T3 at -12.
I only have regrets over two of the picks. The first was Webb Simpson as a Play. It looks like it’s going to work out well, but it really wasn’t a great call for GPPs. I thought his ownership was going to be a lot lower than where it actually came in, over 20% and one of the most-owned golfers on the slate. At that level, he doesn’t give us any leverage and we’d have to differentiate ourselves elsewhere in the lineup. He should have been a cash game call.
My second regret is Hideki Matsuyama as a Fade. It’s not because he’s performing well, but because he should’ve been a lock for GPPs. With the lowest projected ownership among the 10k+ golfers by far, I should have dismissed my own thoughts on him and rostered him as a leverage play. Going forward, unless there is an injury or some other glaring issue, I think I’ll always roster the lowest-owned 10k+ golfer.
I’m not concerned about Mito Pereira, even though he has a good shot at winning the tournament. The logic was sound; fading the chalkiest golfers on the slate is risky, but you can get a lot of leverage if they miss the cut. You have to pick your spots when playing the chalk, and I picked wrong this week. I’ll keep fading some of the chalk, and hope to make better calls.
I hope you founds the Plays and Fades useful. I found it useful to try to communicate my thought process, so I’ll keep doing them.
That’s it, quick hitter this week. I’ll be back in full force next week for the Sanderson Farms Championship.