Season2026·Week1
UpgradeNFL · Week 1
A deliberately different question. Not 'who scores the most', but 'where is the crowd wrong, and how much does being right there actually pay?' When Contra and Medallion agree you have conviction. When they disagree, the contest format decides.
Leverage plays
44
Fades & traps
0
Chalk lineup dupes
0
Contra lineup dupes
<1
The tournament plane
Up and to the left is where large-field tournaments are won: a high ceiling that few other entries will have. Down and to the right is where they are lost — popular players with no realistic path to a slate-breaking week.
Buy
| Player | Own% | Spike | Lev | Δ rank | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.3 | 55% | 7.54× | +5 | 82 |
Uniqueness
In a winner-take-most tournament you are not paid for being right. You are paid for being right while others are wrong. Those are different objectives and they recommend different rosters.
Leverage makes that concrete: P(ceiling week) ÷ projected ownership. A player who spikes 18% of the time at 4% ownership returns more tournament equity per roster slot than one who spikes 26% of the time at 40% ownership — even though the second player is unambiguously better.
Expected duplicates is the reality check. Multiply each player's ownership together and scale to the field size, and you get roughly how many identical entries you will face. A lineup with 200 twins cannot win a tournament outright no matter how many points it scores.
The trap category is the one that costs people money: popular and low-variance. Perfectly good in a cash game where you only need to beat the median, actively negative in a large field where a safe 17 points is indistinguishable from losing.
One honest caveat, stated plainly: there is no free feed of real DFS ownership, so the crowd here is modeled from public attention signals — waiver velocity, search rank, projected points. The ordering is trustworthy; the absolute percentages are an estimate. Treat a 4% projection as “low-owned”, not as 4.0%.
| 4.7 | 59% | 5.57× | +6 | 81 |
| 1.7 | 40% | 10.25× | +13 | 81 |
| 1.8 | 41% | 9.94× | +10 | 80 |
| 2.7 | 50% | 8.41× | +7 | 80 |
| 1.0 | 23% | 10.30× | +22 | 80 |
| 3.5 | 58% | 7.39× | +1 | 80 |
| 1.0 | 17% | 7.78× | +26 | 79 |
| 2.3 | 46% | 8.73× | +8 | 79 |
| 1.0 | 28% | 12.14× | +15 | 79 |
| 1.7 | 25% | 6.67× | +8 | 78 |
| 2.3 | 44% | 8.51× | +8 | 78 |
Sell
| Player | Own% | Edge | Lev | Why |
|---|
Average ownership 12.6% · expected duplicates in a 100,000-entry field 0
Uniqueness
Average ownership 2.8% · expected duplicates <1