This whole situation was bound to happen. As others have pointed out, this is an unregulated industry. I think DFS as a whole will be better off as a result this - since they'll be forced to securely store player pick data that can't be accessed by anyone other than the contest participant until the contest starts. FanDuel and DraftKings already have very strict internal rules about this, but I don't think their tech enforces those rules.. yet. Kind of surprising really when they're spending $15M a week on ads.
From there, I think the debate will turn into whether employees at one DFS site should be allowed to play on other sites (actually, that debates already on).
I, for one, think they should be able to. It gives employees the opportunity to experience what it's like to be a user of a similar product. It lets them stay up to date on their competition. And I just think it keeps people inspired. If you really like this stuff - enough that you want to work at a company that makes it - I think it's motivating to experience that when you can't use your own product due to its nature.
However, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. I think I actually saw that FD and DK have already banned their employees (in the wake of this) from playing on each others sites.
But to me.. that's silly. If you make it impossible for employees at DK to have access to the data ahead of time and vice versa, then there's really no unfair advantage. Plus, if their products weren't the exact same (and products in this industry WILL diverge), then it also wouldn't matter.
I don't know. They may think it's impossible to have an advantage, but there's always an incentive to find that loophole. Forbidding employees to play on others' sites at least disincentivizes it a bit.
Also, I don't think it's too surprising that FD or DK don't enforce their rules too harshly. As long as they are making a lot of money, why do they care?
That's true - as soon as you close one option, people look for the next one. I'm still not in favor though. I just feel like it's an over-the-top response that potentially fails to address the real problem. It won't be too hard for employees to just use their friend's accounts. If the focus isn't on preventing access to the data and instead on a misguided attempt to cut it at the knees, then the problem's still there.. kind of reminiscent of a lot of bad government policy.
They'll care about it becomes an impediment to them making lots of money, which seems like right now.
From there, I think the debate will turn into whether employees at one DFS site should be allowed to play on other sites (actually, that debates already on).
I, for one, think they should be able to. It gives employees the opportunity to experience what it's like to be a user of a similar product. It lets them stay up to date on their competition. And I just think it keeps people inspired. If you really like this stuff - enough that you want to work at a company that makes it - I think it's motivating to experience that when you can't use your own product due to its nature.
However, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. I think I actually saw that FD and DK have already banned their employees (in the wake of this) from playing on each others sites.
But to me.. that's silly. If you make it impossible for employees at DK to have access to the data ahead of time and vice versa, then there's really no unfair advantage. Plus, if their products weren't the exact same (and products in this industry WILL diverge), then it also wouldn't matter.