Monday Morning and theres nothing better to do than to help someone else count their million dollars. Hopefully I can sneak a few bucks in my back pocket in the process of pushing my process closer to the winning process. The two main questions I ask myself as I review the 3 lineups below are 1. Does my data have a path to reaching the winning lineup? 2. What leveraage was necessary? Lets dive in!
$15 Large field here. Interestingly enough he landed on 2 players from the 6k range. THe field is large enough to where that strategy made sense. Normally I wouldnt reach for the 11k range in a major but Scheffler showed us that he is a cut above the rest of the field this year.
For reference, this is the chart I posted Tuesday:
Scottie Scheffler: Showing as a slight leverage play against the field, but priced quite high to make him optimal. Thats why the 2 6k players were in to balance things out. High risk high reward play!
Cam Smith: Its funny, my chart says hes priced appropriately for his odds BUT overowned and that you can get direct leverage by playing Rory Mcllroy for the same price / fraction of the ownership. Day for Rory leveraged his foot up Cam Smith's backside and stole 2nd, although the winning lineup won without Rory. A note; Cam Smith was a course fit for this tourney so he was good chalk.
Shane Lowry: Looking down the chart, at my other green dots, low and behold, we get Shane shining. I have always said to watch them green dots. Spieth is green too but not all green is gold.
Si Woo Kim: I didnt have a path to playing Kim per these charts. Instead I did like Seamus Power in that same price range and low ownership. Power did ok. Kim was on my chart in previous weeks, so I assume recent form led to this play. If there are other reasons, let me know.
Kevin Na: I cant say I was on him as he hasnt done anything since January. I wouldnt have recommended him, and quite frankly he wasnt necessary for this lineup to win 1st as there were cheaper plays that did better. The good news is - he did make it to my leverage chart and therefore I can say he was within reach of the good plays to go contrarian with.
Charl Schwartzl: I dont see any hints of him in my radar either. Perhaps he was filtered out after missing 6 straight cuts leading up to the masters. No thanks - wont chase that!
$100 Milli Maker here. Less entries to deal with
Some familiar names (Cam, Lowry, Na)- but then we see Zalatoris and Fleetwood. Zalatoris was pretty close to that value line under Hideki. Fleetwood appears to be one of the top value plays. Corey Conners is a bomber and this course is great for those types of players. I imagine that it was the selling point for him. He is also on the value line, but really chalky so I didnt go that path often, yet he was a good play.
$4444 Milli maker
I imagine that this lineup was a bit closer to the pocket because I see quite a bit of the most popular plays on the board, but they are infact all on my board. Fitzpatrick was a good value in his odds per that scatter chart. This would be the most reachable lineup Ive seen for an average player if it didnt cost over $4k.
So - what as the optimal lineup and which players showed up the most optimal across optimal lineups?
A guy named Min Woo lived up to his name if you played him. Also to note Harry Higgs actually came out here and did his thing for cheap. Otherwise paying up for the best player in the world was a good idea, and then pairing down to Lowry for the midrange. Although Cam Smith is in the top lineups, he wasnt all that optimal of a play even in hindsight, as I only see him in 12% of the top 500 lineups I could generate.
In summary - it seems some chalk are infact good plays and cant be fully avoided. Going into next week, I may start to identify the chalk that makes sense in addition to the leverage plays. Ill be posting up tomorrow!
Comments