Introduction

As a dedicated participant in daily fantasy sports, I allocate around 60% of my weekly action to "cash games," which are contests that typically pay out about 50% of the field. These formats include head-to-head matchups, double-ups, and 50/50s. Every week, I review my lineup performance, sharing both victories and losses whilst offering insights into my decision-making process.

Observations from Week 6

In Week 6, I noticed a limited selection of cash options among running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends on DraftKings. This situation indicated that the outcomes would heavily rely on the nuances of lineup construction, particularly with 2v2 and 3v2 matchups among different WR/QB/TE combinations.

Must-Play Selections

- **Bucky Irving**: With Rachaad White sidelined due to a foot injury, Irving seemed poised to take over as the featured back for the Buccaneers. Priced at only $5,400, his proficiency as a pass-catcher (having logged 56 receptions at Oregon last season) made him a compelling choice, especially given the matchup against Spencer Rattler’s team, which I expected to allow the Bucs to control the game.

- **Bijan Robinson**: Although Robinson had been a source of frustration in previous weeks due to Tyler Allgeier's unexpected involvement, DraftKings adjusted his price to $6,600, reflecting his current role. This timing was fortuitous, as he faced the Carolina Panthers, who were statistically the most favorable matchup for running backs.

Preferential Plays

- My RB considerations were narrowed down to just a few: Irving and Robinson, alongside either Tony Pollard or Chuba Hubbard. Pollard boasted a better matchup against the Colts, ranking as the second-best for running backs, while Hubbard’s role was secure in terms of three-down and goal-line opportunities. With just a $300 difference, I leaned towards Pollard.

- While it's uncommon for me to classify a defense/special teams (D/ST) as a must-play, the Bucs' unit stood out given their pricing. I favored the Eagles, Texans, and Steelers over the Bucs, but their costs were significantly higher. With Rattler making his first start behind a weakened offensive line, the Bucs offered excellent value.

- I had high hopes for **Jake Ferguson**, especially with Brandin Cooks out and the Lions being a pass-funnel team. However, my longstanding approach to tight ends in cash games is to opt for the cheapest viable option. Cade Otton emerged as a strong choice, benefiting from a high route participation and a favorable matchup scenario.

- Selecting a wide receiver was particularly challenging this week given the tight pricing on DraftKings. I explored options like Ladd McConkey, Dontayvion Wicks, Josh Downs, Darnell Mooney, and Jalen Tolbert. None were particularly inspiring, leading to discomfort in my choices. Ultimately, the announcement of Joe Flacco as the starter influenced my decision towards Downs.

- I considered four quarterbacks: Spencer Rattler, Dak Prescott, Justin Fields, and Lamar Jackson. Despite concerns about Rattler’s expected performance, his low cost could yield reasonable returns if other quarterbacks underperformed. Ultimately, I opted for Lamar Jackson, who presented a strong matchup.

- My final lineup decision came down to **CeeDee Lamb and Tre Tucker** versus **Diontae Johnson and Drake London**. Despite projections slightly favoring Johnson/London, I felt compelled to embrace the Dallas passing game, expecting Prescott to attempt around 40 passes.

Weekly Results Recap

On DraftKings, I was pleased with my decision-making process, particularly avoiding overvaluing tight ends and staying firm on Robinson despite previous challenges. CeeDee Lamb's disappointing output was a letdown as the Cowboys struggled, although a lucky touchdown reception from Otton salvaged some points. In hindsight, playing Tucker against a tough Pittsburgh defense was regrettable, illustrating the unpredictability of these slates.

Performance Summary for the Year

- **Week 1**: 147.38 points, won 98.6% of head-to-head matchups

- **Week 2**: 116.94 points, won 21.1%

- **Week 3**: 109.3 points, won 54.8%

- **Week 4**: 146.28 points, won 75.3%

- **Week 5**: 143.06 points, won 83.5%