An analysis of the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am DraftKings contest shows high-volume players building lineups in fundamentally different ways than casual players—and the data suggests why.
46,923 lineups • 14,130 users • 80 golfers • $50,000 salary cap
In daily fantasy sports, the conventional wisdom is simple: sharp players have an edge. But what exactly does that edge look like? How do high-volume multi-entry players actually build their lineups differently than casual single-entry users?
To find out, I analyzed nearly 47,000 lineups from the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am DraftKings contest, separating players into two groups: high-volume (HV) users with 50 or more entries, and casual users with fewer than 50. The results reveal a clear strategic divide—and offer lessons for players at every level.
The Numbers at a Glance
The contest featured 138 high-volume users who submitted 16,767 lineups (35.7% of the field) and 13,992 casual users who submitted 30,156 lineups (64.3%). Despite representing less than 1% of total users, HV players controlled more than a third of all entries.
Both groups used nearly identical average salary—$49,786 for HV players versus $49,824 for casuals. Everyone is spending to the cap. The difference isn’t how much they spend, but where they spend it.
The Projection Alignment Gap
The most striking finding is how closely each group’s ownership percentages track with projected fantasy points. I calculated the Spearman correlation between ownership rates and player projections for each group:
| HV ownership correlation with projections: 0.917. Casual ownership correlation: 0.771. That’s a 19% gap in projection alignment. |
What does this mean in practice? High-volume players are rostering players almost perfectly in proportion to their expected output. High-projected players get high ownership; low-projected players get low ownership. There’s very little noise in their decision-making.
Casual players still generally roster better players more often, but other factors are clearly influencing their picks: name recognition, recent performance, narratives, and likability. The result is a 6.4-point gap in average projected points per lineup (407.9 for HV versus 401.5 for casual).
The Ownership Divergence
Where exactly do sharps and casuals disagree? The data reveals clear patterns.
Players HV Users Love
Cameron Young stands out as the single largest HV overweight at +12.7 percentage points (21.5% HV ownership versus 8.8% casual). At $8,100, sharps see him as the premier value play on the slate. Other significant HV favorites include J.J. Spaun (+8.5pp), Xander Schauffele (+8.2pp), Ben Griffin (+7.1pp), and Kurt Kitayama (+7.0pp).
Notice the theme: these are players in the $7,000-$8,500 range with strong projections relative to salary. Sharps are finding value in the mid-tier.
Players HV Users Fade
The biggest HV fade is Justin Rose at -10.1 percentage points (10.6% HV versus 20.7% casual). At $9,400, casuals clearly love the former major champion, but sharps don’t see the value. Other significant fades include Sahith Theegala (-9.4pp), Ryo Hisatsune (-8.3pp), Ryan Gerard (-8.1pp), Pierceson Coody (-8.1pp), and Jason Day (-7.7pp).
The pattern here is equally clear: casuals are gravitating toward recognizable names and recent form. Sharps are actively fading these “obvious” plays.
Build Structure: Premium vs. Value
Using $8,400 as the threshold between premium and value plays, interesting structural differences emerge.
HV lineups average 2.21 premium players ($8,400+) and 3.79 value players. Casual lineups average 2.35 premium and 3.65 value. The difference seems small, but it compounds across lineup distributions:
| 25% of HV lineups run just one premium player, compared to only 17.7% of casual lineups. Sharps are more willing to go stars-and-scrubs to unlock mid-tier value. |
Conversely, 40.4% of casual lineups use three premium players versus 36.1% for HV. Casuals are paying up across the board; sharps are being more selective about which expensive players deserve roster spots.
The Correlation Trap
Perhaps the most dangerous finding for casual players is how concentrated their player pairings are. The top casual pair—Jake Knapp plus Pierceson Coody—appears in 8.9% of casual lineups. The top HV pair—Cameron Young plus Jake Knapp—appears in just 5.4%.
That’s a 65% concentration gap. And it gets worse: the casual top 8 pairs all revolve around the same four players (Coody, Gotterup, Ryan Gerard, Si Woo Kim). Nearly every popular casual combination includes at least two of these names.
| If Pierceson Coody or Chris Gotterup busts, a massive portion of the casual field goes down together. That’s not a portfolio—it’s a collective bet. |
HV pairs are more dispersed, favoring Scheffler plus cheap value plays (McCarty, Stevens, Michael Kim, Conners) and using Cameron Young as a pivot away from casual-heavy combinations.
Lineup Uniqueness: The Diversity Advantage
In a large-field GPP, differentiation matters. You’re not just trying to score points—you’re trying to score points that other lineups don’t have.
HV lineups are 95.9% unique (16,072 distinct lineups out of 16,767 entries). Casual lineups are only 84.2% unique (25,388 distinct out of 30,156 entries).
That 11.7 percentage point gap is significant. It means sharps are generating 14% more differentiated builds even while entering 150 lineups each. They’re not just copying the same optimal lineup 150 times—they’re building genuine portfolio diversity.
This structural diversity creates edge in two ways: HV players are less likely to split payouts when they win, and they’re more likely to capture first-place equity when their contrarian picks hit.
Inside the Sharp Portfolios
Not all HV players build the same way. Looking at individual user exposures reveals distinct strategic approaches:
The Max Anchor: User “Freddy11” runs Scottie Scheffler at 100% exposure across all 150 lineups. It’s a pure conviction play—betting that the world’s best player will deliver, then varying the supporting cast around him.
The Heavy Anchor: Users like “Awesemo” (72% Scheffler) and “Bsgolfer7” (59% Scheffler) run high exposure to their top pick but leave room for some zero-Scheffler lineups as hedges.
The Balanced Builder: Users like “Fantassin” (41% max) and “Firedog50” (39% max) cap their top exposure around 40%, creating more combinatorial diversity across their portfolio.
The Flat Portfolio: User “B_Heals152” keeps maximum exposure at just 25%, distributing ownership broadly across many players. This maximizes lineup uniqueness at the cost of conviction.
There’s no single “right” approach. Heavy anchor strategies bet on identifying the correct top play; flat strategies bet on portfolio theory and differentiation. Both can win.
What This Means for Your Game
If you’re a casual player looking to improve, the data suggests several actionable takeaways:
1. Trust the projections. The 19% correlation gap shows that sharps are building almost purely on expected value. Resist the urge to roster players just because you like them or they played well last week. Ask: does this player’s projection justify this salary?
2. Find value in the mid-tier. Sharps are overweighting the $7,500-$8,500 range while casuals pile into the $9,000-$10,000 tier. Look for players with strong points-per-dollar in that middle zone.
3. Differentiate your lineups. If your lineup includes Pierceson Coody, Chris Gotterup, Ryan Gerard, AND Si Woo Kim, you’re swimming in the same pool as a huge chunk of the casual field. Consider pivoting off at least one obvious combo.
4. Consider stars-and-scrubs builds. Sharps run significantly more 1-premium builds (25% vs 17.7%). Don’t be afraid to load up on value and take just one expensive stud.
5. Fade the obvious names. When a player feels “obvious,” check the ownership projections. If casuals are piling in at 20%+ and sharps are at 10%, there might be a reason.
The Bottom Line
The sharp-casual divide isn’t about secret information or insider knowledge. It’s about discipline. High-volume players stick to projections, find value where others aren’t looking, build differentiated lineups, and avoid the trap of roster concentration.
None of these edges are insurmountable. They’re process advantages, not talent advantages. Any player willing to do the work can close the gap.
