# PGA DraftKings — Contest field size, cumulative ownership, and CPT leverage

Practical guidance for **CourtEdge PGA DK Lineup Lab** users. This document summarizes widely discussed DFS theory from public sources (RotoGrinders strategy articles, Awesemo ownership primers, industry podcasts, and classic “game theory” GPP posts). It is **not** proprietary CourtEdge data and does **not** guarantee results.

**Related:** [PGA-SHARP-GPP.md](./PGA-SHARP-GPP.md) (how the lab scores lineups) · [pga-dk-lineup-lab.html](/pga-dk-lineup-lab.html) (builder UI)

---

## Cumulative ownership on a 6-golfer lineup

On DraftKings PGA **classic** and **showdown**, each roster spot has a projected ownership percentage. A simple portfolio metric is the **sum** of those six numbers — **cumulative ownership** (sometimes called “total own%” in lineup exports).

Example: six golfers at 22%, 18%, 15%, 12%, 9%, and 6% own → **82% cumulative**. This is **not** the probability the field plays your exact lineup; it is a shorthand for how “chalky” your six names are relative to the field.

Public GPP writing consistently argues:

- **Higher cumulative own** → you look like more of the field when favorites go low. You need fewer unique paths to “catch up” on leaderboard duplication, but you **share** more winning tickets when chalk hits.
- **Lower cumulative own** → more differentiation when a long shot spikes, but you can **miss the leaderboard entirely** if every leverage name misses the cut or weekend.

The lab shows cumulative own on built lineups and ties **contest field tier** (Small / Medium / Large) to suggested bands below.

---

## Contest field size vs cumulative ownership targets

These tiers describe **how many total entries are in the DK contest** (≤1K, 1K–10K, 10K–100K), not how many lineups **you** upload (1 / 3 / 20 / 150).

| Field tier | Typical DK contest | Cumulative own band (6-man classic) | Chalk tolerance | Leverage expectation |
|------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------|
| **Small** | ≤1,000 entries | ~**75–130%** | High — popular stacks are fine in SE | GPP top-1 still wants 1–2 sub-12% names with real ceiling |
| **Medium** | 1,000–10,000 | ~**65–105%** | Moderate — anchor chalk, don’t clone the field | At least one sub-10% own with top-20 equity for first |
| **Large** | 10,000–100,000 (flagship MME) | ~**50–88%** | Low — pure chalk six-packs duplicate thousands of tickets | Multiple sub-8% names; ownership fade in optimizers |

The lab’s **Contest field** buttons tune scoring (`fieldTierGppTuning` in `js/pga-dk-engine.js`): small fields boost chalk in the rank function; large fields boost low-owned ceiling plays and portfolio diversity.

---

## Can you win a 100-man GPP with six golfers all 50%+ owned?

**Usually no for first place** — even in a “small” 100-entry contest — if you mean six names each projected at **≥50% ownership**.

- Cumulative ownership would be **300%+** (six × 50%). Public post-mortems on PGA GPP wins rarely look like an all-chalk six-pack; the winning ticket almost always includes at least one **low-owned** weekend performer (often sub-10%, sometimes sub-5%).
- **Exception framing:** In a 100-man **single-entry (SE)** contest where you only need a cash or mini-cash, a chalk-heavy build can be rational — you are playing for a high median finish, not unique top-1 equity.
- **Small field nuance:** A 100-man with 6×50% is *less* suicidal than the same build in a 50,000-entry flagship, because duplication is lower — but for **top-1**, you still need a score path the mass field does not own. Six mega-chalk names rarely provide that when one of them finishes T40.

**Rule of thumb from public DFS wisdom:** one chalk anchor (12–25% own) + 1–2 genuine levers (often ≤10%, with make-cut and top-20 equity) scales from small to large fields; **six 50%+ names** is a better cash/contrarian-fade thought experiment than a GPP winner template.

---

## Captain (showdown) vs Classic 6G — when CPT matters

| | **Classic 6G** | **Showdown (CPT + 5 FLEX)** |
|---|----------------|------------------------------|
| **Scoring window** | Thu–Sun (make-cut sim in lab) | One round (Sat/Sun post-cut typical) |
| **Pool** | Full tournament field | ~70–75 made-cut golfers |
| **Ownership math** | Sum six flex own% | Sum six roster own% (CPT slot uses CPT own%, not 1.5× own) |
| **Leverage** | Low-owned star in the six | **CPT slot** — 1.5× points; public strategy stresses **low-owned CPT** with ceiling |
| **When CPT matters most** | N/A | Large-field showdown GPPs, R4 “bombs,” portfolio CPT diversity in 20/150-max |

**When CPT matters (public guidance):**

1. **Post-cut weekend slates** — Only ~75 names; CPT choice is the largest single leverage knob (RotoGrinders / Awesemo showdown articles emphasize CPT% vs FLEX%).
2. **Large entry counts** — In 150-max showdown, repeating the field’s CPT at 25%+ own on every lineup caps upside; diversifying CPT across 3–5 names is standard MME advice.
3. **Ceiling-first rounds** — R4 or soft conditions: CPT should bias to **ceiling** and birdie/bogey volatility, not median projection alone.
4. **Classic slates** — CPT is irrelevant; leverage is **which six** and **wave/wind/course** fit, not a multiplier slot.

The lab ranks showdown CPT candidates with `sharpShowdownCptScore` (ceiling-heavy, ownership fade, field-tier scaling) and surfaces **Post-cut showdown (70/75)** top-10 plays with CPT/FLEX hints.

---

## Course fit and the lab “Top 10” previews

Course recommendations use `data/pga-course-profiles.json` (length, GIR difficulty, rough, par-3/5 bias, wind sensitivity) and your slate’s `sg_ott` / `sg_app` / `sg_putt` when present. The lab sections:

- **Weekend preview (pre-cut)** — Classic slate: top 10 by projection/ceiling blend with auto writeups (“why this course”).
- **Post-cut showdown (70/75)** — Showdown slate after cut filter: top 10 with CPT/FLEX lean and the same writeup template.

Reload slate JSON nightly; profiles are static venue tendencies — replace or extend profiles as your model evolves.

---

## Quick references (public DFS themes)

1. **Ownership is not evil** — You need some chalk to have live lineups when favorites contend (RotoGrinders “core plays” framing).
2. **Leverage must be credible** — Sub-5% own on a missed-cut golfer is not leverage; make-cut and top-20 equity matter (Awesemo ownership tutorials).
3. **Field size drives duplication** — Large GPPs punish identical stud stacks; small GPPs reward projection edge with milder own fade.
4. **Showdown CPT** — The highest leverage single button on weekend slates; low-owned CPT + correlated FLEX stack is the standard sharp narrative.
5. **Cumulative own is a checklist** — After building, sum own%. Compare to the tier bands above before uploading 150 lineups.

---

## Files in this repo

| File | Role |
|------|------|
| `docs/PGA-CONTEST-OWNERSHIP.md` | This guide |
| `docs/PGA-SHARP-GPP.md` | Lab scoring, wind, make-cut sim |
| `js/pga-dk-engine.js` | `top10ForCourse`, `cumulativeOwnGuidance`, `cumulativeOwnGuidanceText` |
| `pga-dk-lineup-lab.html` | Collapsible Top 10 sections + field-tier own guidance |
| `data/pga-course-profiles.json` | Venue traits for writeups |