The PGA Tour heading down to Texas for this week. The Hewlett Packard Enterprise used to open it is at Memorial Park Golf Course. We're gonna break down the course for today. We're gonna talk about the field, not a bad field either. So kind of a fun one for sure this week. Let you know what we're seeing, what we're thinking and our favorite golfers in each salary tier over on FanDuel. Welcome on in to the Heat Check Fantasy Podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network and numberfire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for numberfire.com. Joined here as always by Brandon Gedula. He is the managing editor of numberfire.com. Brandon, Houston Open. Coming up this week, how are you doing today? I'm good. We got the Victor Hovland hit last week. That was fun. God, and I even won with Victor Hovland for our end of show betting tax too. Okay, so I have a hole to dig out of now. You do. And despite the fact that you had Hovland in our head to head, I ended up winning that one barely, so that feels good. We had a 2v2, didn't we? I think that or a 3v3, I can't remember. But a lot of overlap last week. Possibly a lot of overlap this week too. But also some vindication because we talked a lot about Hovland answer in Thomas and we said that answer was our favorite process play, but that JT Hovland were great pivots. Of course, Hovland won. JT did outscore answer last week, although we were a little bit wrong with the draft percentages. They were all basically 38% rostered across Fandle. It was basically dead even, but point remains. We talked about that again. It's really hard, especially as of Tuesday morning, to project popularity, but they kind of just shared the same number there, but either way, coming in to this week, feeling pretty solid with a good event last week. And we don't like to look just at last week for golfers and say, hey, they're in good form, but I'm gonna say it for us. I think we're in great form right now. Wouldn't it just be you given that you beat me in the bobble hat and got the win pick? No, I mean, we had a lot of overlap again last week, so.  I'll take the credit if you want to give it to me. Yeah, I'll give you credit, yeah. I mean, hey, my wins are your wins aside from the head-to-head and our bats whenever they don't overlap. Really false. I relish in your defeats, I relish in everything that I can. So I disagree for sure. So this week it is a huge snow, but it is at Memorial Park Golf Course. It is 7,040 in 12 yards and it is a par 70 and not a ton of course history here because it got a big renovation. This is just the second year they have been here. So we have only one season of course history to look at. There are 132 golfers in the field. The top 65 plus ties make it after the first two rounds. So Brandon, we do have at least one year to look at here. What stands out to you for Memorial Park Golf Course based on that one season? Yeah, so this is kind of a week where you gotta figure out how much we can put into one year of just results. And usually for us we need a little bit more but also at the same time, whenever we're looking more at what stats matter, we have to be a little bit more lenient. I think I'll be less inclined just to target guys who played well here a year ago because I'd rather learn more about the course holistically than just assume that golfers will follow up their good finishes from last year with another good finish. But the green sizes here are 7,000 square feet on average which is about 1,000 square feet bigger than your average PGA tour course.  Carlos Ortiz won at 13 under. Last year's cut line was three over par. There was some wind specifically on the weekend but not necessarily for all four rounds. So it's kind of telling that a 13 underscore won it, that the cut line was over par despite these big greens. And with everything, stroking it around the green actually seemed to pop a little bit more than usual. And behind Ortiz too, like it wasn't just sort of Ortiz and then like a pile up behind him at 12 and 11 and 10 under. Ortiz finished 13 under, Dustin Johnson and Hideki Matsuyama, coincidentally, master's winners. They were the only other golfers under par. So this one probably could play like 10 under par for the winning score. And that makes for a very different event than what we mostly see in the swing season, which is usually more birdie fests. And as we always talk about birdie fests, kind of bring everyone into play because you have fewer difficult holes. And the way that elite golfers really separate from the rest of the field is they score well on difficult holes. If it's an easy, scoreable par four, for the most part, everyone in the field, maybe aside from like the bottom tier guys, the true bottom tier, it's a pretty level playing field at that point. So then variance goes up. So it's kind of a weird combo for this time of year where it's probably will play a little bit tougher. We're looking not necessarily at that birdie fest. So my key stats for this week are going to be stroke scan approach, of course, stroke scan off the tee. I still want birdie or better rate because that's how golfers will separate. It's not a course so hard that I'm looking only at bogey avoidance. Stroke scan around the green and then putting on Bermuda. Those are gonna be my key stats for the week. And I think that the way to sum that up is just saying target good all-around golfers because when it's not gonna be as low and if it's a more difficult course, there are more ways you can sink yourself and there are more ways to torpedo what could otherwise be a good round. So that's why I am just kind of looking at the key strokes gain stats across the board because I want golfers who are good all-around golfers. If it's a tougher course, as you said, there can be more separation between the cream and the rest. And so I think that that's why to me, I want to skew toward just getting the best golfers. So to me, it is off the tee approach around the green putting. I know that that's really boring, but I think given the way this course sets up, but also the fact the field's pretty good, I think that that is somewhat necessary to me. Yeah, the field's good. The scores, it's gonna help weed out some of the weaker golfers. We have a lot of long par fours here. I think three, yeah, three par fours are over 500 yards. That's pretty long for a par four. We've got 237 yard par three. That is, of course, I'm not saying it's not reachable for some golfers, but the difference in loft for the longer hitters is really gonna benefit them, or it should in theory, at least.  That's how you gain the most strokes off the tee. But, you know, I think that one thing that we can always keep in mind is even if we're looking at the four stroke scan stats, that will add up to total strokes gained, which honestly is never that bad of an idea in virtually any field, but we can also weight those differently. Like we can put more emphasis on, you know, off the tee or approach. Although this week, stroke scan around the green, based on what we saw last year, might need a little bit more weight than usual. So, you know, it's not just play, look at the stroke scan total leaderboard, play those guys, although, you know, again, probably not the worst. As I've learned over the years, if you have like adjusted stroke scan numbers, it's really not the worst way to play golf. Yeah, I mean, like that's kind of, we wanna, we should do it. We wanna dig in and be like proximity from this range or this range or whatever, just use the good golfers. Yeah. It's pretty tough there. I think I would say is, although it is a decently long course for a par 70, I would also emphasize going off the tee over distance, because looking back at last year, you had guys like Tiro Hatten and Jason Day, who don't grade out well in either distance or accuracy individually, always did it for the full season. Both those guys graded out well, stroke scan off the tee, and they both finished well here. So I think that that's another reason why, and you look at the data golf numbers, it actually favors accuracy by a smidge, I think over distance. So I would lean towards off the tee versus distance in terms of your off the tee stat. We'll talk about the golfers who did well here last year in that one event. And just one second, but first, hey football fans, Fandle is giving you the chance to bet on week 10 of the NFL season. All you gotta do is go to sportsbook.fandle.com or download the Fandle Sportsbook app, place a three plus legs, same game parlay wager on any week 10 NFL game. If your bet loses, get a refund and site credit max refund is $10. Bet on week 10 of the NFL season with Fandle by heading over to the Fandle Sportsbook today and placing a risk-free NFL same game parlay must be 21 plus and present in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia or West Virginia. Refund issued as non withdrawable site credit that expires in seven days. Max refund is $10, restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fandle.com. Same game parlay available for multiple sports in all states on mobile and web. Gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBER. Visit fandle.com slash rg in Connecticut, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Indiana, 1-800-9 with it. For confidential health in Michigan, 1-800-270-7117. In Tennessee, call the red line at 1-800-889-9789. In West Virginia, 1-800-GAMBER.net or in Arizona, call 1-800-Next Step or text Next Step to 533-42. Also a quick reminder, our NFL week nine a recap podcast is posted up on the Number of Fire Daily Fantasy podcast for you talking about James Connor and his new role for Arizona, talking about offenses, elite offenses that have been struggling, what to do with those going forward and more our week 10 preview coming up on Thursday, 10 a.m. on the Fandle YouTube page up on the Number of Fire Daily Fantasy podcast meet after that, Tom Becchio has you covered with NBA and NHL podcasts every weekday. Austin Swain has USC coming up this Friday for Saturday's card and no NASCAR, which makes me sad. But either way, still plenty of good stuff here on the Number of Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed. Okay, as mentioned just one year, of course history to look at here for this event. So we're not gonna do a full past history segment for Brandon, did wanna dig in and hide some guys who may have stood out to you last year based on what they did at this course. Who stands out when you look back at the data there? Yeah, I mean, just looking at the golfers who finished well, Carlos Ortiz won, Taylor Gouge finished fourth, Seb Straka and Brooks Capca finished tied for fifth. I'll talk more about Capca in the current form section, but he played part in renovating this course, getting it PGA tour ready. So I think that that's gonna be one of the bigger storylines again this year, especially after the T5 last year, Sam Burns was the betting favorite at 14 to one. Now, 18 to one, so co-favorite with Scotty Schaeffler. He finished seventh along with Jason Day, Tiro Hatton, Mackenzie Hughes. Not, I mean Burns nukes it, but again, not all these guys are launching it. 11th, we had Adam Long, Shane Lowry, Aaron Wise. And then in 15th, we had Russell Knox, Francesco Molinari and Harold Varner, the third. You know, we can dig more into like the stroke scheme off the T, stroke scheme T degree numbers here, but you know, most people are gonna be looking at it just to finish well. So do any of these names jump off the page to you or do you not care enough about what they did in one iteration of this event to put a whole lot of stock into it either way? Why don't care in general, but I think one guy who's interesting is Taylor Gouge because he has decent form, he's been golfing pretty well, has that fourth place finish and he's 11 too. The issue is his off the T numbers are not ideal. Is the way that I'd phrase it. So I think that Gouge is worth his salary despite troubling, I would say, off the T numbers. And I think that that's kind of noteworthy to me is even though when I look at my sheet, I see a big red dot in his off the T number. Are you using dots now? No, I should, but like it's a red rectangle. Is this a Google sheet with? No, okay. I use Google sheets if I have to share it on, share it across my two computers, hashtag how rich or if I have to share it on like a live stream, otherwise it's XO. Okay. I just wanna. Actually honestly, so like we do the Monday night streams with Ryan Williams and like on those, I share Excel and I might wanna consider that for MLB next year, but it means I have to toggle back and forth between like. You can share Excel online. Yeah, I could use one. I dabbled with that. Yeah. And then you can use dropdowns because if you have Excel. What's the dropdown? Well, like an autofill, like an autofill dropdown. What is this? Bro, I got a lot to teach you in the off season. I'm very confused about this. Very clearly you did not turn into my streams then, but. No. Buddy, I'm busy Thursdays. I have to write my stuff. Yeah, well, we'll talk offline and we'll get you set. It's my, look, I went through and changed your formatting for you and you refused to use it, but it is my. I refused to use it because you did that. I would be okay changing my formatting. How do you not do it? It is my goal this off season to have you with a like a firecracker of an MLB sheet. I don't think you realize how much of my motivations in life are driven by spite and like stubbornness. No, I think I think by now I, you're right. Of anyone who would understand that it's either you, it's you basically. Yes, that's true. But yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to derail the show about spreadsheet stuff, but it is a swing season event. So yeah. Anyway, thoughts on Gooch. I like him. I think that he's going to be one of the more under the radar plays because of the salary. Again, fourth year last year, which might bump him up a little bit, but I haven't been the 94th percentile in my long-term adjusted form, which accounts for not only fuel strength, but also at recency. So factoring all that in, he is one of the more standout plays in the let's say 10, five and above range. I think I'm kind of considering the 10, five and above range is the top tier at this point. And I might start including golfers in the low tens is like mid-range picks moving forward, but Gooch I think is going to be, he's in contention honestly for like the head to head, but I would probably have to put Tiro Hattin above him and his salary is even 200 lower. So again, I don't think people are going to play a whole lot of Taylor Gooch because we have so many other big names in this field and the salary is high. So I think that he's going to be a great tournament to that. Other guy I want to ask you about based on course history is Jason Day. So I kind of need a vibes check on Jason Day. Like that's perpetually true. He hasn't played a whole lot recently and when he did play at the CJ Cup, it was not great specifically off the tee, which is kind of like concerning I would say given how good he was there over the summer. So Jason Day did well here last year, only $9,400. Otherwise I wouldn't be discussing this honestly. Where are you at with him right now? The way that he did this, and I can probably just rattle this off in a second, but I was talking about the Strokes game tee to green. He had good tee to green here last year, which is if you give Jason Day a good tee to green performance historically the putter has been good enough to get him like over the line and into turn a top 25 into a top 10 or a top five. But honestly his putting has not been particularly like Jason Day level lately. It's kind of leveled off. Now it's leveled off at still a good rate, but he's become a little bit less certain with the putter. And then whenever you factor in that his ball striking is always just kind of hit or miss. It's not really a situation where I feel inclined to play Jason Day and on the PGA Tour he's got one start since October, or since the start of September. He played the CJ Cup in October, finished 64th, lost 3.3 Strokes off the tee, 0.8 with approach and 2.2 around the green and had just a neutral putter. So he would have missed the cut there. That would have been his third straight missed cut. So I don't have a whole lot of interest in Jason Day for this. Speaking of missed cuts, let's move to current form and talk about Brooks Kepka, who is 11-4. But as you mentioned, he helped design this course or helped redesign this course. And that's what we talked about I'm sure this week. But like we know that Kepka when he's locked in can do some pretty fun stuff. So you're gonna dig into his current form, see where Brooks does that right now, and then we'll decide how we're handling him for this week. Yeah, so we have studs in this field. We have big names in this field and Brooks is at least one of those right now. Definitely a big name. Whether he's golfing like a stud is its own conversation. He missed the cut at the worldwide technology championship. Though we have no shot link data from that event so we don't know exactly what happened there. He was 38th at the CJ Cup with good driving, as always in good putting. Brooks is actually a pretty good putter, especially when he gets things rolling. So I don't wanna write that off because it doesn't really feel like he's someone who's reliant on his putter but he definitely can be. He finished 67th at the Shriners with poor putting. And those are his only starts since a withdrawal to the tour championship. He's got a big event coming up with Bryson at the end of the month. I don't know what his motivation level is going to be. But again, he played a hand in redesigning this course. So that's gonna factor in to the public perception of him this week. Finished fifth here last year with good stats across the board, kind of neutral iron play, which at his worst, he's kind of not great with the irons. That's the biggest kind of knock on Brooks from a statistical standpoint. But that's still at least tempting to me because of a lowish salary of 11,400. And over the past 20 rounds, like even with the not great finishes, Kepka is driving it well. He's third in stroke skiing off the tee, which is one of our key stats for the week. Just 37th in total stroke skiing because he ranks 18th tee to green and 77th in putting among this field. So the tee to green game still can be good. And we know that the putter can be pretty phenomenal for Brooks. So like there's a clear path to another top 10 finish here. It's really not that unthinkable, but Brooks is someone we both always sort of struggle with and we don't know what we're gonna do with. So what is your read on Brooks Kepka for this week? I mean, I think I can see both sides of it because like, if you look back to last year when he finished fifth, he, if you look at his form now compared to what it was at the time, you can do this at fantasy nationally. It's like somewhat similar to the past 10 events to what it was then in terms of stroke skiing total over the past 10 events. Stroke skiing tee to green actually slightly better over his previous 10 right now than he was at that time. But also like, Brooks hasn't burned you for not using him since like maybe the open in July. Like it's been, he finished sixth there. He's fifth to the traveler fourth, the US Open. And since then he has not finished in the top 22. The approach play has been meh. So I can see both sides of it. It just kind of depends on like how much you attribute the downtick to like not caring and how much you think he'll care here. I think it's interesting that he's been playing during the swing season because he probably doesn't have to honestly, but like it's interesting that he is. So I think to me that says he's probably like working on stuff, trying to get things re-engaged, which is encouraging, but like I just have a really hard time feeling like I need to use him. So when I'm looking at him compared to like, like I think Cameron Smith's a better play at 11-six like Cameron Smith, decent amount. Like Gooch is there, Hatton Neiman. There are some good names. I think that Brooks is like in that tier and like I think I'd probably put him right behind Gooch above Hatton and above Neiman. I don't know if that's like too high. I'm not sure if that's high enough for me to use him given that I do want to get to Sam Burns, but like he's a tough one, which is not surprising I guess. Yeah. And that's why I wanted to talk about him. Not because the current form is great. Sometimes we talk about guys with current form that's either really bad or a little bit misleading, but Brooks is more of a like a holistic, like you got to kind of factor in everything with Brooks. I will say that according to fansharesports.com he is tied for first in tags along with, and it's early, so this might change, but along with Matthew Wolfe, who's getting a lot of buzz for being back. I hope Matthew Wolfe's back because he's really fun. But if we're going to get Brooks and Wolfe at 11-four and 11-three generating a lot of popularity, that just makes Taylor Gooch an even better pivot and my simulations have Taylor Gooch, the most likely winner of those three. Brooks is close, Wolfe's not because the long-term form, even with the recency adjustments is not quite there. So just makes it easier to go to Gooch, Hatton or Smith above them. I think that Wolfe and Kepker are the kind of guys you want to target when they're not popular just because the volatility is like off the charts with both of them. So if they're going to be popular, it makes it pretty easy for me to say no. Like I don't know if that's like too drastic, but I think given just the volatility, I'm okay with it. I mean, that's the name of the game of golf. There's really never a way to justify rostering a really chalky golfer unless he is the only option who stands out like above the rest. And we love Sam Burns on this podcast.  So I'm going to be out on Kepker and Wolfe presuming a little bit more popularity than they deserve right now. And if it burns me, it burns me because that's just the name of the game with DFS golf. But the more likely person to burn you is Burns. So that's, no, I knew you were going to say that. I will not get Burns to this week, guaranteed. Let's talk about Carlos Ortiz. Cause we didn't do the full course history dive. He won last year. So let's talk about him here because the current form is actually not bad. He's coming off a runner up at the Mayakoba. We don't have shot link data there, but it's a bit concerning that Ortiz was 2.3 greens in regulation behind the field according to fantasy national, which likely indicates that he was putting his brains out. But he's gotten by other ways previously.  Like he gained 4.6 an approach, 6.1 T to green at the CJ cup. He has 16th in approach the past 50 rounds in this field according to fantasy national. So I'm not concerned that he feasts on the greens, but it's a tougher field this week. His salary is high. He might catch popularity thanks to the win last year and thanks to fact that he was relevant last week too. So am I wrong to be skeptical of Carlos Ortiz at 10.5 for this week? You're not wrong to be skeptical, but I wouldn't write him off entirely. He still has good long-term T to green data. My stats have him in the 81st percentile in this field, which is not really where you need him at that salary, but we're also looking at really good Bermuda putting also in the 81st percentile there, plays well here or has played well here obviously, and coming off of a good result last week. I think that it can be easy for us just to write off good finishes as like variants, but there is this human element too where it probably feels more confident. And like, yeah, maybe he putted well last week. He lost the 2.3 greens in regulation to the field, as you said, but gained 1.7 sand saves. So the scramblings there, but Carlos Ortiz also has that in his bag of being potentially one of the better short gamers in a week. So I think he's one of the better process plays at 10.5, but if he's starting to catch popularity, again, it's a really, really deep field. It's like a really even, a really flat field. So this is just the kind of week where you look around and see who people aren't talking about. And that's not to say play the guys in like the 7,000 range who nobody's mentioned. And it's also not saying, look at someone who you think has a terrible case this week and play them just because nobody, like I'm not gonna play Maverick McNeely at 10.4 over Carlos Ortiz. The gap is still too big, but for me it's just gonna be a week where we're really trying to figure out how to be different. And it's like the easiest kind of week to be different too because we have so many options. Yeah, I think that's the key is again, replaceability, can you replace what they give you for via someone else? And I think with Ortiz you probably can, especially like, I think a lot of that was based on the assumption he'd be popular. That may not want to be the case, but I think if he does wind up catching some buds this week, I think I'd be okay. Pivoting to someone like Aaron Wise in that range and guys like that. Let's move now to some lower salary guys, your guys of value play, Harry Higgs, $8,400. What are you seeing with him recently? I'm just really good form for a value salary of 8,400. I think it's, we're gonna have to have the conversation of are you gonna go with the balance build because we're talking about lots of golfers in the low 10,000 range, probably the upper 9,000 range too that we would mention a lot of names we like. So are you gonna go more balanced or are you going to need values so that you can play Sam Burns plus like a Cam Smith or a Fina or whoever your preference is? So Higgs would have relevance from that standpoint, but again, perhaps the best value or a best form of any value golfer that we have in the field, 39th of the Zozo, ninth of the CJ cup with good iron play there, 27th of the Shriners after missing the cut at the Fortinet championship. But overall data golf ranks him 15th in true strokes gained over the past 20 rounds. And he's 14th over the past three months, drops the 53rd over a larger sample of six months while ranking still though, third in strokes gained around the green in that span. So we kind of know what we can get from Harry Higgs whenever Harry Higgs is playing his golf and it's really good wedge play, really good putting. And this kind of sets up well for him if the stats we saw last year do pan out again this year at this course. So he wasn't initially on my radar until I really caught the form. Any thoughts on Harry Higgs this week? And maybe the bigger question is just like first impression of roster construction. Yeah, so I'm very receptive to this range. I think that there are two guys in the upper 8,000 range I like a lot and there's one guy down here in the $84 range or 84 exactly who I like. You can talk about him later. I'll make up my list of players down there I like later on. I see what you did there. Yeah, and I think that that's kind of part of it is if I'm going for good wedges, I can get that via guy who's probably gonna gain strokes, ball striking too, but then potentially put it off the green potentially, potentially put it off the greens. Has he ever not putted it off the green? I mean, and I say this to somebody who doesn't pot well. I'm gonna have to go back and check the film to see if he is ever not, but we'll get our team of fact checkers on this one. I think I'd rather go with someone who wins a different way than Higgs. Like I'm receptive to it from a roster construction perspective, but him specifically, I am still not totally sold. Am I being too dismissive? No, because we typically don't roster golfers with great short games and weaker ball striking, but I think this is probably one of the few courses where again, it's a small sample. We can overreact or underreact and say like, hey, no, ball striking, like at most courses is going to win out, so you don't wanna chase the good around the green play that we saw last year mattering, but I like Luke List plenty. I know that's who you're talking about. I like Harry Higgs. I don't wanna say more because I like Luke List, so I wouldn't be baited into a head to head, but I will ask you over Luke List's past 10 measured events, how many of those do you think he has gained strokes putting? Probably zero. Two, one of those was a 0.1. That's a game though, that's not a negative, that's green, that's green on the sheet, baby. Or white, I don't know, depending on your gradient. It is very, very, very lightly green. 0.1 is better than negative 5.8, so I'm just smelling victories here, that's all I smell. He has gained, according to Fantasy National, Luke List has gained strokes putting in 34% of his past 50 rounds. 34% is better than zero, like I don't get why this is a bad discussion, like where did you learn math to learn that 34 is zero?  I think that if you told us that when we started the show, we would be like, how many majors does Jason Kochrack have now? Like four? Yeah. The Koch Daddy, just stroking it on the greens. Who knew? This is great. I'm into it. Speaking of good short games, let's talk about famous power. Power is not someone who is going to beast off the tee, which could be a concern this week, but the other numbers for power are pretty good and it makes them interesting here at $9,800. Power's form is scattered as he's largely been playing in alternate field events, stuff like that, and that does include a win at the Barbasol, much, much worse field than this. Since then, since that win though, power has made five out of six cuts. That includes three top 25s in three events during the swing season, 12th at the Bermuda, 11th at the Mayakoba. I think I may not shame his power this week. It's not a bad range. I think that that upper 9,000 range is pretty good, but I'd like to be there because I like it a good amount. Where are you at to shame his power? I like him a good bit. He is an other to consider for me in the mid-range, and if I didn't include, and I'm referring to my helper on Number Fire, where right up, I feature two golfers in each tier, each of the three tiers that we go over at the end of the show too. If I didn't include Shane Lowry there at 10-1, power would have been the guy at the top. So I'm very high on him. I like Shane Lowry. I like Christian Bazadenhote as well at 9,700, especially if we're playing the short game angle. I can always be talked into Cameron Trangalli at 9,900. Russell Henley is kind of our guy as well, 9,800. This is a really solid range, and I've been getting a little bit more top and bottom heavy the past few weeks, breaking away from a more balanced lineup construction, but this week might be the week where I just, I look, my win simulations have Cam Smith at 5.3% likely to win, and that's tops. That's not very high. Makes some good betting value, by the way, but outside of him at Sam Burns at 4.2, and then nobody else is really like, I was like three other golfers above 2, like above 3%. So I can still get similar win equity from some of these golfers in this range, or at least not drastically lower. So this like Shane is power, I'm really drawn to him. I'm drawn to Shane Lowry and the other guys in name. So this might be the way that I play it. And I'll probably try to lock in Sam Burns or Cam Smith into my head-to-head lineup against you, but go like a modified balance from there. I think that's where I'm at too, where I take one of them and then just drop down, like for the second person, like drop down a decent amount, skip over the rest of the 11,000 range entirely and get down, like I think that Aaron Wise is probably where I start to tip, be like, okay, I can buy back in now at 10.7 and feel good about that, but like other guys around there are pretty solid too. Have you considered an Irish stack of power and Lowry powerly that didn't work? Okay, have you considered that for this week? Yeah, for sure. I think Shane Lowry is under salaried. I think power is in a really good spot. I think that they're probably close to locks for my head-to-head, like my main lineup that I use this week against you. And I think that feeling that way is telling me plenty about the golfers right above them. Again, I like some of the names there. The biggest problem for me might be Tiro Hatton at 11,000 because it's a bit high for putting him back into a balanced build, but I like him a lot. So to answer your question, Lowry power very much slated toward like being in my main lineup. Yeah, other thing I would note is part of the reason I like the 9,000 range a lot is I think that there's a massive, massive, massive, massive, massive fall off after the high 9,000 range. I think the low 9,000 range is terrible and like the biggest dead zone in this field. Do you agree with that as well? Yeah, I would say probably so. When I filter my spreadsheet by the guys with like a nine in front of their salary, all the plays I wanted to talk about were like 97 and above. Kevin Strylman is probably the one guy at 93 who I would say I'm good with. But yeah, I'm with you where I would probably just drop down and so like a modified balance could very easily just include, like we'll call it Sam Burns because I think he's the best process player of the week. Burns of value such as a Harry Higgs or a Luke List and then see what that gets me and just try to pepper the middle of this field. I 100% agree, which means what could go wrong? Let's talk about the bookmaker odds here for this week, Sam Burns and Scotty Schaeffler. Now the co-favorites over at Fangirl Sportsbook, they're both 18 to one. Dipson to Kim Smith at 23 to one. Sung Jam is 24 to one. Tony Finau is 25 to one. Matthew Wolfe 29 to one. Before we get to a gaggle of golfers at 30 to one. Those guys are Brooks Kepke, Taylor Gooch and Joaquin Neiman. Tiro Hatton is 31 to one. Carlos Ortiz is 34 to one. And then Aaron Wise rounds up the top group here at 35 to one. So as we've been discussing, Brandon, it seems like our lean is one stud plus balance. Are you sticking with that as your optimal build for this week? I think it has to be. So it's gonna cause me to narrow down the studs that I like. Spoiler alert, it's really Cam Smith, Sam Burns. And then I think by default I'm gonna have to be lower on Tiro Hatton than I want to be just from a roster construction standpoint. He's under salaried. So I couldn't theory justify making him my top golfer and getting like a powerful balance from there. But I think it's really those three and I do think that the line of construction this week, it makes most sense not to be digging around in the value tier. And then that goes back to what we talked about. If the winning score is about 10 under, it's an over par cut line, something like that that does benefit the better golfers. And at a certain point the drop off is a bit too great to be lingering too far down into the value tier. We're talking primarily about Burns and Smith. Are we overlooking Sung Jae, Shaeffler, Fee Now, all those guys, are you okay with glossing over them in order to be more concentrated at the top? So I have Sung Jae as second overall in my combo model which includes course fit, long-term form, stats I'm looking for. So like he's a great play but this is the type of field where we have, again, talking about ways to pivot at every single spot. Like you could just like throw a dart if you printed out the list through a dart and said like here's 9,700 is the salary, find me like a pivot above and below. You can pretty much do that. Maybe 9,700 is the worst example I could have picked because we said it drops off right there but the point remains where like it's nothing against Sung Jae. It's just that I think Burns is a better play. I think Cam Smith fits here really, really well. So, you know, we're overlooking them yes but it's not because, I don't think it was because we would say we would dislike them. Like I have Sung Jae second, Shaeffler's ninth in my model. Fee Now is 18th but Tony Fee Now is also just really good at golf but like Cam Smith's fourth, Burns is first, Brooks is actually eighth for me. So it's like I'm, you can't play them all. Yeah. And it has nothing to do with not liking those names. I would say if anything I like Wolf the least but that's just because he's still trending back from a really bad time in his career. I think the toughest decision for me would be, I think Burns is one. I would consider going Sung Jae over Cam Smith for number two but- I'll take a bet for the fun of the show. No, I mean like I don't have a lot of conviction in it and like I'd prefer to go with the ones or I feel strongly and I'm still kind of weighing it but I think like if you told me right now, hey Sung Jae's roster rate is a lot lower than that of Cam Smith and Sam Burns, sure. I'll take the pivot. I think that's where I'm at with Sung Jae right now is I'm monitoring popularity and if I think Sung Jae's gonna go overlooked relative to those two specifically, I'll pivot to him. Yeah, and I always like feel strange doing shows like this because sometimes it comes down to like, well just try to track and see like who people aren't talking about but- Right. You can't really make a case for Cam Smith over Sung Jae in like pound the table and say, no, like you cannot play Sung Jae in. Now if you wanna talk about popularity, I will say that Sung Jae has no tags yet on Fanshare. So he might be the guy who just kind of goes a bit overlooked in that event. Again, I have Sung Jae in ranked second in this field. Like I'm just not playing him because I think Sam Burns is better at $100 more in salary and Cam Smith at least jumps down 300 in salary. So, but like that's what golf is, especially in a field like this. Do you show any betting value on Sung Jae? Just this is for me, this is not for the listeners. I don't, you know, I love you listeners but I'm just curious for me. Let me check. Sung Jae is, he is minus 0.4%. Where is it relative to Burns? Who's the better value? Sung Jae's the better value. Okay. Just asking for me selfishly. It's just that Cam Smith is the loan like betting value. Noted, noted. Might have to bug you about this later too. Yeah, I mean, and it's not like I don't, I mean, maybe I'll post these on number fire at some point, like my win simulations or something, but. Mm-hmm. Okay. Keeping in mind. Are they up already? Did I just ask you something that's already posted? Yeah, they're up. Oh, wow. Okay, cool. No, it's fine because numbers do change and I try to update it when I can. I updated some stuff last week because the numbers change so much on answer. I'm thinking of contents of Nightmare because like I do that like that Friday piece for NFL stuff, like it talks about injury reports and then like it gets posted 9.30 on Friday-ish by 9.45, half of it's outdated and I hate it. So posting or updating content as a nightmare and I just, I like, I do put updates in there sometimes, but like I just, I wish I didn't. It, yeah, it's tough. And like the floor sealing simulations I do for NFL. Right. Publishes Friday and it's like we get clarity and so I try to go in Sunday morning, most days when I can. But you also don't want to like rush things and update stuff that's like not completed. So, yeah. But I think, you know, yeah. I think people kind of can make some judgments from there that too. Yes. Okay. So which golfers odds have shifted most significantly since things opened? There was a lot of movement. So what would stop most of you? Like everybody moved almost nobody shortened, which is possibly noteworthy, but I will say that Sam Burns did go from 14 to 18 to one, which means that he just opened up as the favorite, but is now like the co-favorite. So that could help with some popularity, but I do think that again, the research shows and we talked about Justin Thomas last week, like he ended up being the most popular golfer by a little bit. So it's like a magnet that carries a lot of weight, basically like drawing them up towards the top. Yeah. Sung Jae M 18 to 24. So that's pretty noteworthy, especially if you play the angle of Sung Jae being a value Aaron Wise 29 to 35, Adam Scott 31 to 36. I think more notably would be that Scotty Schaeffler stayed Pat at 18 to one. Well, everyone else sort of moved around him. Seamus power shortened all the way from 50 to 47. And then the only other movement I saw for a Monday into Tuesday was three long shots Charlie Hoffman, Jonathan Vegas and Taylor Moore at 90, 90 and 100 to one all stayed there. Respectively, respectively. And I like all three of those names, specifically Vegas, specifically Hoffman. I would be fine with Taylor Moore though as well. I love Hoffman and I love Vegas. I almost had both those guys in my player picks. I see that they're yours. So I'm glad that someone's covering those bases. Power 50 to 47. Does that impact your view at all of him in that really good tier? Or is it more so, hey, his odds may have been longer than they should have initially. I think he's like the one B in that tier if I can include Lowry. And if I look only at golfers below 10,000, I would have power rank number one. So power, I would have power power ranks number one there. So I'm gonna play a lot of Seamus power. I think he's a really good process based play this week. And the loan drawback, I think of the balance bill is that we do have Vegas and Hoffman below 9,000. And I think that they very easily could be like 94 and I would still wanna play them. So that might be the route like a burns plus those two and go from there. I have that now. Other thing with power, I think he actually opened at 60 and he's now down to 47. That would be, okay. I mean, he's pretty early, but. There's some steam here. I'll say that. You mentioned Vegas and Hoffman. Anyone else with lower salaries with good odds stands out to you? Gary Woodland is 90 to one, Joel Damon 90 to one and Russell Knox 90 to one all at 9,000. So that's nice and symmetrical there. Cameron Davis and Taylor Moore are 100 to one. Davis is 8,800 this week. Moore's salary is 8,400. So we've got Moore, List and Harry Higgs all at 8,400 in a tougher week with like the field of top feeling a little more like we have some standouts. I would be very drawn to that, but it's like also the kind of week where you can play Taylor Moore, Harry Higgs and Luke List in your lineups and then still kind of get the top of the field wrong. So that's always a little bit daunting to me. And I would rather play the, again, it's still a low probability that Moore Higgs and List are top 10. So I would probably rather just avoid them, take the value with Vegas and Hoffman who I think are both very clearly under salaryed by a bit and not dig down too much farther unless I really change my tune on the top of the field, which seems unlikely. As a decent chance we have like a 1v1 in our bobble hat this week, by the way, based on the way this sounds. Yeah, it's very possible. I think there's a very obvious build though, which is why. Yeah, just avoid the low 9,000 range. Like that's the build to me. Like whatever you take to get there, I think that's where I'm at. Weather for this week, you mentioned there was wind last year, not as much this year. Chance of rain early in the morning on Thursday should be clear by around 10 a.m. Wind speeds will be around seven miles per hour early in the morning, and then increased to around 11 miles per hour by 2 p.m. on Thursday. Similar pattern Friday without the rain. Winds, a hair lower in the morning than they are in the afternoon. They never get above nine miles per hour there. There could be some wind late in the round on Sunday, but not enough where I'd look at wind splits or anything. So to me, I don't think there's too much here to justify offering process or anything, bumping guys up or down. I think it's pretty straight for this week. Despite there being some wind, some rain, I think we should be good to go. So with that said, let's dive into our player picks here for the very long title, Hugh Snopin, Brandon, who stands out to you in the upper tier on Fandall for this week. Kim Smith, good hat game, and that's enough for me, but does the hat, so like, okay, question for you. Because like Sam Burns had this going on at 1.2. Does the facial hair factor into the hat analysis? Does the facial hair have to mesh with the hat? Like how does this work? I'm not a facial hair guy. You have facial hair. But I'm not like a, I have facial hair because I don't shave often enough. That's basically, that's it. But like Kim Smith, a wild looking dude, Sam Burns used to be thankfully shaved and then won, like, you know, maybe take a hit, man. Like, I think like, you know, does that factor into the hat model? No, there would be two different models. I don't have a facial hair model. I think it's fun. I always kind of side with guys who are a little more de-gaffey when it comes to the facial hair because I've been there. It's a very corporate sport. And when you see guys deviate from like the corporate clean cut stuff, I'm into it. But not the Sam Burns like mustache that needed to go. Well, like watching the Ryder Cup and watching like Daniel Berger in a hoodie. Like, I was like, this has given me life because it just speaks to me. But yeah, long hair, whatever facial hair, like the hat game really comes down to like you. And it's like an expression of individuality. It's a humble assault on the commonplace, as I like to say, just stole from White Collar, which is a show we both love, but you don't seem to get it. I've not rewatched it in a bit. I started to do that. I got sidetracked. It's a great show. It is a great show. There's a little bit more to Cam Smith to like this week than just the hat and just the hair and just the mustache, facial hair, whatever he's got going on at this point. But I do think Sam Burns is the better process-based play, but outside of that, there's a lot to like about Cam Smith. He is the most likely winner according to my win simulation model. He should benefit at a course that rewarded around the green play last year. He's the 96th percentile and adjusted around the green play over the past calendar year. He's the 97th percentile, both in birdie or better rate gained and bogey avoidance. So that works at a course where winning score is probably gonna be around 10 to 13. So I'm all in on Cam Smith. And I kind of get the vibe that we are shaping up toward a 1v1 in our head to head. So I might pivot from Burns. So I do think is the better, safer play to Cam Smith just to get some fun going on for this weekend. Okay, so you don't want another 1v1 like we had in the NFL last week, gotcha? No, especially because that did not go in my favor. Should have, it should have. I'll say that, I deserve that win, but I'll take it. I've got Sam Burns here. It doesn't really have many weaknesses, which goes back to what we discussed at the top, where I want well-rounded guys who can take advantage of a tough field and a tough course. Burns ranks ninth off the T, sixth and approach, 21st around the green. He's also second in remuda putting, which is one more path to success, but also one less path to failure. The play for Burns during the swing season has been awesome. He has gained at least 8.2 strokes, T to green and two out of three events. Finished fifth in the one event where he didn't reach that, because he putted well. I think he's worthy of the top slot here. I think that Burns is a tremendous option.  You can fit it if you want, but I'm not going to. Who else do you like here in this upper range? I like Stuart Hatton. I think he's going to be a way that we can differentiate a bit at 11,000. It's a good salary. And if you really got unbalanced, you could make the case, I think, for Hatton to be your top golfer. He's second in value among golfers with a salary of at least 10-5 in my model behind only Sam Burns. We're about a year moved from when he was in his best form, but there's a lot to like again. Since the start of October, he's finished second at the Alfred Dunhill Lynx Championship, 18th at the CJ Cup, 40th at the Worldwide Technology Championship. He also rates out 96% tile in adjusted stroke scheme T-degree over the past year during his time on the PGA Tour. So when I say I might try to pivot away from Burns for our head to head, Hatton I think needs to be part of that to make up for the win equity. I'm kind of foregoing with Burns, but Hatton, I want to make sure is like, I'm kind of making it known that he's probably my third play at salary behind Cam Smith slash Sam Burns. And then I think it's Hatton, number three. Okay. Would you like a Hatton versus Sam Burns bet? You answered way too fast, so I'm pivoting. You answered way too fast. I was like, anyone in that range I'm probably gonna be good with, so. You knew I was gonna ask Aaron why. So I pivoted to be Sam Burns because you answered way too fast there, way too fast. I'll take a Hatton over wise bet. Okay, I'm frightened how fast you answered. Anyway, let's talk about Aaron Wise here.  But Wise is consistent AKA good floor with upside, which to me is a combination we should value most. He's gained at least 5.6 strokes T-degree in three straight measured events. He gained 6.5, two before that. Wise ranks 21st off the tee, 30 second in approach, fifth around the green. The issue obviously has been putting but that's at least getting less bad. He's gained in four of the past six measured events. His most loss in that time is 1.7. So maybe the putting becoming less terrible, maybe. He's 10-7. I think that helps offset Burns' salary quite a bit, which is nice, the three to dollars can go a long way. Where are you at on Aaron Wise this week despite the fact you're putting Hatton above him? I like him fine. It's just a kind of like a casualty of not being able to play everyone there. I'm 13th in my model this week. Lots to like about him. I was trying to do the math in my head, but I don't think I slept enough for that. But kind of viewing like a Burns plus Aaron Wise versus Cam Smith plus Tiro Hatton, it's probably about the same. It is. So that's like a conversation I think I'd have to have. Okay. And I might side with, I think I was side with the Cam Smith, Tiro Hatton. Do you want to make that a two bet Burns? To like add stuff up then. Yeah, you're right. You're right. That's way too much. So let's move down to the mid range. What you got down there? Sorry, I clicked over because I thought you were making me do another bet. No, I'm not going to make you do math. That's way too harsh. This is rude. I know this math. She and Larry Salary's too low. Hey, so I know he's above 10,000 and that's usually our cutoff, but I don't know, it's our podcast. So it's kind of whatever here. He finished 11th year last year, was fourth in Strokeski and Teter Green during that. I think he's a good betting value at 46 to one. His, the longterm forms good. He's 99th percentile and adjusted to Teter Green play and around the green over the last year. Like I don't really have a whole lot else to say. I think he's just, he could easily be 10, seven and I would still have interest in them. Yeah. I think that Larry definitely interesting to me in that tier.  We talked about him in the current form, but that form holds up even when you adjust for like playing against weaker fields. If you look at data golf's true strokes gained, power ranks fifth over the past six months. The guys ahead of him are Sam Burns, Cam Smith, Scottie Schaeffler, Adam Scott. So yeah, power did it in the Barbasol and lower level fields, but he was good enough to move the needle even when you adjust for that. The short game is good for power. The ball striking seems to be trending up. So I'll take that for sure at $9,800. Any final thoughts for you on power or Lowry Brandon or this range in general? I've got power ranked fifth in my model for the week, which is actually better than Lowry, but I would probably just side with Lowry by a tinge outright, but- You can still go both. I think that both is probably the route. We kind of have like Lowry and power and then Vegas and Hoffman, just kind of all seeming under salaried. So what I might try to do is build some lineups where I have just one of each of those and then duplicate and then just rotate in, get that combination going. But honestly, I'm gonna play both a lot. Yeah, I think that's the right route. Okay, who else do you have here in the mid-range? So I mentioned Kevin Shrillman as the name in the low nines that I would prefer, but I think that's probably mistaken because I think I would just take my chances with Emiliano Grillo at $9,100. Missed the cut here last year when he lost 1.5 strokes to the field, but gained 3.6 strokes from approach, lost 4.2 strokes with his wedges and putter, which is pretty typical for Grillo. The concern is always the putting, but he's been kind of decent on Bermuda over the past 100 rounds according to Fantasy National, losing 0.11 strokes per round, which if you know anything about Emiliano Grillo's putting, that's close enough to neutral where you're okay with it, especially for how good the TD Green play is. He did play here last year and I think people probably will just write off the fact that like, oh, he missed the cut, so doesn't suit him well, but playing a course at least for two rounds whenever a lot of golfers are coming in, having not played it or seen it as much, I think there's value in that. So Grillo at $91 does stand out to me in this range, but I don't really anticipate building in the low nines anyway. Yeah, I think that with the Grillo, like I haven't seen the course, like I'd rather have them have seen it and missed a cut than have not seen it. I think that's the way I'd phrase it there. You mentioned Strylman, I'll talk about him here. I agree with you where I'd like to avoid this range. If I wind up where I'm like, I really like the other five guys, don't wanna change that. And I'm in the low 9,000s, I would go Strylman. Betting kind of a funk recently, he hasn't finished better than 31st since August 15th, but some of the stuff is still there. Strylman ranks 23rd in approach, 54th off the tee, 45th around the green, and it hasn't put it all together at once in the same event in a while, which is disappointing in the reason the finishes have been underwhelming. I still think that's in there though, and this low 9,000 range is underwhelming, so I would rank Strylman highest. What I would say though is I wanna get up, I think probably it depends on your view of HV3, because he's $9600, otherwise I'd make the cutoff 97. I think that I wanna get back up to like 97 at least. Do you agree that's where the cutoff occurs after 97.96 or so? Yeah, Varner I think is very playable. I have him 15th for the week. Ian Polter I could see the case for at 22nd for me, he's 9500, but again, just not really the right range. The win equity for those guys really starts to drop off compared to the upper 9s and low 10s, so there is a bit of a, it's like a more gradual drop, and then whether you would say Polter or not, right after that there's a pretty drastic shift there for me, so I don't anticipate, and again, I think Kevin Strylman, I really don't agree though, justifiable plays, we don't recommend golfers that we don't like just to have people covered. It's like, you can make a case for them, but it's just really the bigger question is, are we gonna build lineups that require us to roster them? Probably not. Ideally not, I think that's the way I'd phrase it. Let's move down to the low range, the value plays, who do you have down here? So we both like Jonathan Vegas, so I'll leave it off with him. He has the top value for me in the sub 9000 range, his salary is 8800. He just has like good stats across the board, it's kind of a neutral putter on Bermuda, and anytime you can get even neutral putting with good T-degree golfers, you want that, he's in the 88th percentile for me in adjusted T-degree and play. It was 44th here last year, good ball striking, bad short game, that's in the cards again. A 44th is not gonna really move the needle, even at 8800, so that's the question with Vegas is whether the short game shows up, but even if he's like okay with the short game, we're looking at some higher upside. So still a bit of a floor because he does nuke it, and the irons are generally good, so that's like the closest thing you can have to a floor in golf, and if there's anything beyond that, we're looking at top 15 potential. I think the good thing is the short game is not an outlier in how bad it is. Like there are guys, like Luke List for this putting, who are outliers and how bad they are. Vegas isn't that, like he's not good, but he's below average, but he's not an outlier in how bad he is. That's why he's my favorite guy down here too. 8800 dollars, gonna crush it off the tee, good approach play, I think that he makes a lot of sense. So I agree, Vegas number one, I almost put Charlie Hoffman as my second option, you have him as yours, what drew you towards Hoffman? Just going back to him, he's a really good golfer long-term, like he's underrated, Austin Swame, and I have talked about, who does our UFC podcast, and a ton of other content for us at Number Fire. We talked about how Hoffman is just kind of long-term underrated, and that's really the case. He's in the 91st percentile and adjusted tee to green play over the past year, 29th year a year ago, good Bermuda putter, just one of the better value plays. Again, if his salary was 95, I'd still be interested, same for Vegas. If it was more realistically like 92, I would want that, but I can get like four, I would say under salary golfers with Power, Lowry and these two guys that I think I just kind of got to go there in my primary lineup. I think that that's kind of like something I wish I'd do more in the NFL, is just like focus on the undervalue guys. Like I believe in my process of like game stacks and stuff like that, but sometimes I just need to take some value. And I think that that is, this is the format for doing that because game stacks don't matter. So I agree those guys are all undervalued and Hoffman right now is in my bubble hat, probably leaning towards keeping in there. Other option would be Luke List. And there's a reason why I'm going with Hoffman is because List is not a cash game type option because the putting is really bad. Missed the cut last week, but that was not as long of a course. This one is long. List is probably going to crush it. T to green ranks fifth in the field off the T 21st approach and actually 34th around the green. So we say the short game is bad for list for focusing specific on the putting. There is one area where he will lose. And as Brandon mentioned, he will lose there. You can almost make that in, but he's had events where he is still finished top seven despite not putting well because everything else is so good. And he's better on Bermuda than Ben Grasse at least. So that's good. Having the ability to finish top 10 while losing strokes, putting is not something most guys in this range can do. So I think that that's the reason I am inclined towards Luke List is he can do that. Not a lot of guys down here can. So I think List is my favorite of the guys 84. Are you going Higgs? Are you going more? What are you leaning with down here? I currently have List first because he's just the better long-term player, but I might flip that. Okay. It's just, it's tough to overcome, and I don't know how to say this, zero with percentile on Bermuda putting. I think I'd probably rank them more Higgs List at this point. I think I need to make an update to my helper on Number Fire. Well, when Luke List wins, you will owe him an official apology on the podcast. Can we do a more versus List? Absolutely. For sure. Would you also do a Higgs versus List bet? No. I'm more inclined to more for this one. Let me just double check the script before you write it down. That's already, it's in writing. Yeah, that's actually fine. I'm good with it. Are you? Yeah, because Higgs is like really good at the short game, whereas Moore is just kind of like, you know, whatever, you know, so yes, I am better with the more head to head. I like Taylor more. So, on-term. So, we'll see. Okay, let's finish up with our win picks here. Didn't forget this week. Based on the odds over at Fandall Sportsbook, I think I know where I'm going. Do you want to go first or should I? For sure, I'm doing Cam Smith. Okay. What, 23-0? I don't know from there. You have to, you go. I'm going Slammin' Sam Burns and Sheamus Power. Sam Burns, 18-1, Sheamus Power, 47-1. Gimme then Lowry. I like that. 46-1 for Shane Lowry. I like that one. I think that's a pretty good pick. I'm gonna make good picks this week.  Maybe you were correct to give us credit. I'm looking forward to closing out all my tabs on Friday, very early in the morning, saying, oh, wow, all these guys missed the cut. That will be a whole lot of fun. So, you're Shane Lowry and Cam Smith, and I've got Sheamus Power and Sam Burns. I actually think those two line-up salary-wise as well. So, that's like a two-me-two. Anyway, we're not gonna do that because that's a lot of map. Anyway, that is all that we have here for the Hewlett Packard Enterprise who snopin'. Why did they just make these names so long? Anyway, that's all we got for this week. We're in any final words of wisdom for the listeners before they go to fill out their line-ups this week. It is a really good field overall, very deep and a lot of pivots. Again, we're not recommending SungJM, but it's not because we don't like him. I think SungJM, if he continues to have no tags, no buzz, it's going to be a phenomenal play. Same for like Tony Fiena, Scotty Schaeffler. So, it's gonna come down to game theory this week. So, be open to, you know, as people say, in the writing world, killing your darlings and just not playing the best process plays and making the better long-term decision.  Or what does that mean? Yeah, like in your ideas and like whatever's not working. This is why I'm not a writer. I can't do that. I'm not either. This is the man who's written a book. Anyway, that is all we have here for today on the PGA side of things. But still, plenty of good stuff on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed, of course, NBA, NHL, Daily via Tom Vecchio, UFC, Friday via Austin Swain, NFL Week 10 preview Thursday at 10 a.m. on the FanDuel YouTube page and up on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed immediately after that. So, search for it wherever you get your podcasts, hit subscribe and leave a rating and review. Brandon, if people have questions for you on Twitter, where can they find you there? I'm Matt Godulla, 13, G-D-U-L-A-1-3. And I am at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the FanDuel podcast network at FanDuel Podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for today. Good luck to you with your lineups for the long-named Hugh Snopen. We'll talk to you once again next week. This has been the Heechak Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.


Good morning, John. Thanks for your video this week. It has been really hard, impossible, maybe, to think much about policy this election season. But the really significant interest in that video was encouraging, because it means that people do still care about policy, even if it seems like it's all about personality and storytelling and demonizing the other. But with that said, I'm now going to go in any other direction. I apologize. And talk a bit about the ideas and the stories that are behind, not just politics in the U.S. right now, but I think politics all over the place. There has been a rise in nationalism and protectionism. And the story of those people are telling is often about how awful things are, about the great coming wave of our enemies, about how we have let ourselves be corrupted, and worst, about how we've consciously decided to be weak. I don't even know what to call this ideology. It probably has some name that I don't know. But at its heart, I feel like there's a perspective that I cannot abide. That strength is control, and that compassion is weakness. I can understand how and why this misconception occurs. If you're strong, you can make the world how you want it to be. And many want to change how the world is. Maybe they need to change how the world is. They have legitimate insecurities for themselves and their families. But to go beyond that in your rhetoric as a politician, into this country is losing, rather than we need to use the resources we have, and there are many to protect our citizens, that's not about protecting anyone. To me, it feels like trying to find people's wounds, their insecurities and their biases, and then aggravating those wounds intentionally. Part of the secret to this rhetoric is that you can never call the country strong. That would be counterproductive. We can't talk about the fact that American industrial production is higher now than it has ever been. That the job market is strong, that the American military spends more than the next eight militaries combined. This rhetoric is based on inflaming or manufacturing fear and insecurity. Because from there comes ruthlessness, comes disregard for morality, comes self-righteousness, comes the framing of people who are not like us as either evil or corrupt, whether that's Syrians or protesters or political opponents. It can be part of our job as citizens of a democracy to recognize when the fears being pitched to us are made of cardboard and styrofoam. Because yes, we do have huge problems to face. Problems old and new that can be influenced by good policy and good people and good strategy. But so much of the fear we have been fed is no more real than a Transformers movie. They have to say our country is losing because a country that is strong digs deep not into building walls and dehumanizing other people, but into civic service and altruism, into openness and understanding and peacekeeping and collaboration. Just as when an individual person is confident and self-assured, the only logical course is to try and share that great gift that you have been given with other people. Compassion is the ultimate manifestation of strength. And because America is strong, our compassion has grown. We have finally opened up the joy of marriage to all loving couples. We have opened the doors to immigrants and refugees. We are finally taking a look at some of our traditions and language and recognizing the hurt that they can cause. And many are open to conversations about mass incarceration and how it has disproportionately affected people of color. And of course, we have a long way yet to go. But to those who see that progress as a manifestation of weakness, to the people who puff themselves up and beat their chests and yell about strength while pouring salt into the wounds of insecurity and fear, I can never see your rhetoric as anything other than sad, hurtful weakness. Weakness that is getting in the way of our ability to get on doing the good work that humanity needs to do. And I have no doubt that in the fullness of time, we will move past this. And we will do that good work. John, I'll see you on Tuesday.


So what's it like you know taking your characters from this larger storyline We've seen for a while and now having this radically different kind of unique storyline How do you handle that as an actor? It's very interesting being separated from everything that's going on especially at the end of volume 8 everything was so intense You had no idea what was gonna happen and for all of our characters all of a sudden be away from that well I hope everything's okay up there. I don't really know what's going on The moment I really loved too was when the rest of Team RWBY finally finds Yang and she's like you guys aren't supposed to be here This is bad if we're all down here. It's a little heartbreaking, but she's trying to be strong and she's like dang I love that that's happening and from my standpoint to like RWBY at the end of volume 4 We had her go off on her own in an attempt to I think take on the mantle leader Decide what needs to happen and really not put anyone else in harm's way So that happened to you is even more heartbreaking not only is RWBY not exactly aware What has happened after she had had her fall? It's like her sister now is kind of in all this danger too from my standpoint It is awesome to explore this really unique and fun world But like RWBY's still dealing with a lot and now on her own by force not by choice So we'll we'll see how she pairs. Yeah, it sounds like your characters are kind of coming into this with a lot of baggage They're taking into a whole different unique story as an actor. How do you portray that? How do you carry that weight from something but have to react to something wild? I can answer this Hang on their backs Yeah In my mind, it's really I think the biggest deal for Weiss in this situation because it was her home She hasn't probably had time to process all of that and then all of a sudden She's now in this new place dealing with whatever this is Weiss is very no-nonsense in general From my perspective acting wise I feel like Ruby's taken a little bit of Weiss's like attitude there even in front of all this whimsy and wonder like She's annoyed really like I have to deal with this now as all this imminent danger is befalling my friends and my home Like why am I dealing with this talking cat? Love them by the way, very cute, but a problem in the moment It's always a challenge I think when us as actors get put into these scenarios where you have to deal with so much trauma essentially and to figure out how our characters are managing that Emotionally mentally and everything but I think that's part of the fun of voice acting is is trying to put yourself into these scenarios in these Situations and understand how your character would perceive it I know yang uses comedy a lot too kind of deal and I think that really comes out this volume which has been really fun high-five High-five characters in a bad place. It doesn't mean they're just gonna be mopey right the whole time I'm sure we've all been a situation where something really hard was going on our life or you know Maybe a family member passed away or whatever and you still crack a joke with you know your friend or you know Like it's not just all or nothing.  Yeah, even exactly you sit on your suitcase to zip it Yes, it's a bit of sweetness instead of just a joke. Yeah, exactly when I think you're saying that with Ruby specifically I mean for the whole team, but then Ruby herself like they've all been trying to just move forward through these intense conflicts And for her now to actually have a moment where it's kind of catching up to her. I think is some of the more fun Interesting things about this volume now on the writing side of things though You guys had a pretty significantly large cast and this volume that you really kind of shrunk it down sort of concentrated What was it like making that jump amazing? Yeah, I focus a little bit easier. It was it was nice Yeah, I mean we're constantly trying to make sure that we we can balance everybody and like get enough of everybody in So being able to like get really step back and say that here's who we're focusing on There's a lot of really great exciting fun characters But to make sure that they all get their do is is really challenging a lot of times You have to lump characters together and they sort of have the same very small stair-step stories and this was nice I mean this one of the things I really like about chapter 2 specifically Is you just get these a chance to tell smaller stories within a chapter, which is harder to do When there's a lot of characters personal this season. Yeah, I know from a voice acting perspective. It was great I was like a three-hour session We were telling me that volume 10 is gonna have about a hundred characters Yeah, that is gonna be very interesting. Yeah, they each have one line What the heck's an arrow fell? Thanks for watching this deeper dive into this week's episode of Ruby If you want more come back every Tuesday after the episode and we'll talk about it and have fun And go watch the episodes on crunchy roll every Saturday. Please go watch my


Yo what's up guys, Mick Smith is back here with another trade roomers video this week! I'm actually in Thailand so sorry about the whole landscape, using a different camera, new microphone, it's not really new but I'm using a microphone that's different and computer setups all different plus you can obviously tell I'm in a hotel but still getting a trade roomers out for you guys, hopefully you enjoy the content, subscribe if you're newly for like if you enjoy these videos but let's get straight into it. First things first, there is a report that the Timbills and the Pistons are looking to trade pretty much, they're looking to trade point guards, Ricky Rubio for Reggie Jackson. Now Reggie Jackson, he loves to score, I mean he loves to attack the basket unlike Ricky Rubio, he still gets assist but like that's not his main thing he's more of a scoring point guard, he's athletic unlike Ricky Rubio so if you had Ricky Rubio and Andre Drummond on the same team I guess it would have worked, I guess it would, I mean it'd be hard, I mean neither the Pistons or the Timbills are exactly happy with their point guards so you can see a swat sort of working out but in saying that Jeff Van Gundy has already denied the statement and they've already said right here any deal would expand to involve other players such as Shabazz Muhammad so I guess if the Timbills involve Shabazz Muhammad maybe some other players I don't know a 2019 first-round pick we could see a trade on our hands. Ricky Rubio for Reggie Jackson, I don't know let me know what do you think about that I mean for the Timbills getting Reggie Jackson that would be that would be a pretty athletic lineup, I mean Reggie Jackson, Zach Levine, Andrew Wiggins, Towns, Gorgie Jeng, that's crazy, I don't know I think it would be a pretty cool trade to see happen so I don't think it's a lot, I don't think it's a loss for any team but I think it could work out. Also the last thing I want to say about the Ricky Rubio trade is the Timbills are actively shopping Ricky Rubio so expect Ricky Rubio to be dealt by Trade Deadline which the Timbills they're looking bright for the future but their record doesn't show it so it'll be interesting to see what they do with Ricky Rubio. The next thing I want to talk about is obviously Carmelo Anthony there's obviously been tons and tons of rumors about Mello, he's on a no trade clause so the only teams that he'd waive his no trade clause apparently would be Cleveland and the Clippers but he also said apparently I've heard of rumor that he'd be willing to go to LA like Los Angeles, Lakers so if I'm a Lakers fan I probably wouldn't want to get Carmelo Anthony just because I don't know Brandon Ingram as of late he's been playing all right I think that he's a nice player that they'd want to develop at the small four position and I don't think they need Mello just I mean why would he go to the Lakers anyway he wants to win well does he know not really probably just wants the money to be honest with you but I just can't see him going to LA Cleveland who are they gonna really trade for Carmelo Anthony I see right here if the next one in mouth Carmelo Anthony says he'd consider leaving New York and that's obvious but he's already met with Phil Jackson and they've already discussed the whole scenario so I think he should leave but I just can't see a trade happening I mean the Celtics if they'd make a good push for them then maybe but it's he's got a no trade clause so even if the Celtics wanted him he'd have to want to go to Boston so I just can't see him getting traded so Mello to Cleveland who would they trade for Mello to be honest with you Clippers yeah Blake Griffin for Mello but Blake Griffin's injured there's an article right here that says David Aldridge now if you don't know David Aldridge he is an NBA reporter he reports news different types of things around the NBA he's a pretty respectable reporter he does stuff in ESPN I believe I don't know if it's ESPN but something he always does like reports about the NBA anyway he said that the Clippers wouldn't even oh my bad I closed the link but pretty much he said the Clippers wouldn't be willing to trade Blake Griffin for Carmelo Anthony so yeah Doc Rivers wants to keep the core together but the core isn't working all right doc either both of them or one of them is gonna leave neither they're not both gonna stay in LA I mean you're not winning one of them's gone to the East I promised you that I will bet someone a hundred dollars no I won't but seriously one of them's gone to the East mark my words now the third player is obviously Rudy Gay he's probably gonna be out for the remainder of the season if not well he'll probably be injured from or past the trade deadline so even if the Kings wanted to trade him obviously you can't trade an injured player which looks like the Kings are gonna have to keep Rudy Gay getting nothing for him and he's probably gonna leave in free agency so not great timing for the Kings but they had they had their chances to trade away Rudy Gay they didn't do it and now they're probably gonna get nothing for him in the past he's already said that he doesn't want to come back to Sacktown in saying that if they make the playoffs which is a possibility what are they in the Western Conference let's take a look there there 11th in the Western Conference so not great in fact I don't know I if they don't make the playoffs he's not coming back and yeah that's what I think now this is one that I think is absolutely crazy I want to hear your thoughts about this trade rumor in the in the conversation it's not even a trade rumor this was a proposed trade by the Orlando Magic to the Miami Heat that's not loading on the screen the intimate is so bad in Thailand right now it's crazy so my bad if it's just a white screen some of the time the internet is so bad here but the article is pretty much saying it's right here firstly Bulls are in Chris Bosch for the future that is that's something to think about let me know what your thoughts about that Chris Bosch you know coming back to the NBA going to Chicago Jimmy Butler Chris Bosch Dwight Wade don't expect Chris Bosch to play many minutes in a you know Chicago uniform in the future but Chris Bosch and Dwight Wade returning maybe reuniting in Chicago I don't know it could happen I guess I Bosch off the bench could be cool to see I just wanted to return and in fact I want it to be healthy but it would be cool to see him back in the NBA the second thing is if I can find it yeah so the move for our Goran Jardjik let's talk about that the proposed trade was Nikola Vucovic and a first-round pick for Goran Jardjik what are your thoughts about that do if because I ran a poll into I didn't run it but I saw a poll on Twitter there was a poll saying should the Miami Heat have taken that trade let me know what you thought the poll was you know saying that the Miami Heat shouldn't have made that trade which obviously they denied the trade then yeah they just didn't go ahead with the trade to be honest as a heat fan my opinion this is what this is my thoughts do it making the trade would have freed up a lot of cat space for the Miami Heat because Draganj is on like an 85 million dollar contract Vucovic I don't believe he's on a very big contract at least not compared to what Draganj is on plus we got a first-round pick for those that don't know we don't even have our first round pick for next year so having two this year would have it would have been I think it's I think it's this year yeah or a future first-round pick so even if it wasn't this year even just getting a future first-round pick would have helped us out a lot considering we don't have our own pick for next year if we're gonna rebuild it would be an interesting trade to go with because we get two first-round picks white side and Vucovic on the other hand working together it wouldn't work out because one of them would have to be bench obviously it'd be Vucovic it was a cool trade it's interesting to talk about Pat Riley obviously didn't like the trade he probably liked it he just didn't go ahead with it and the Miami Heat do have a lot of faith in Goran Draganjic so that might that might be another reason the coach Eric Spoltra loves Goran Draganjic so yeah I don't know we just we didn't go ahead with the trade and what are your thoughts about the trade to be honest with you I don't mind it either if we did it or we didn't do it maybe Pat Riley has a trade in mind that he wants to get who knows Pat Riley is a pretty good GM I'd be I wouldn't be surprised if he had a trade up his sleeve the next one and this is pretty crazy the ESPN as it says right here if they report that there's debate in the organization whether to keep or trade Jimmy Butler like because they want to do a rebuild but they don't want to do a rebuild with Jimmy Butler because obviously a rebuild doesn't really work when you have a star player you know the drill it doesn't work that way you need to rebuild and tank or you have a star player and compete right obviously that's normally how it works some exceptions here and there Jimmy Butler do I see him being traded if the ball start playing bad it could happen like seriously a trade could happen and if they do want to rebuild I'm expecting the Celtics to give them future Brooklyn Nets first-round pigs Jadlam Brown if you're the if it's hard though it's really hard to think about it because Jimmy Butler is a superstar he's an amazing player it would be hard to see him in a Boston Celtics uniform we already had this discussion last week I won't if you want to watch last week's episode go check it out it's on my channel obviously but do I see Jimmy Butler being traded no but it could happen man it definitely could happen now a few days ago maybe about a week ago about a week okay let me stop there I'm white as hell the New Orleans Pelicans and the Atlanta Hawks were in trade talks as you know Atlanta was trying to see who they could get for everyone Paul Millstaff Carl Corbett obviously he he got dealt to our Cleveland even Dwight Howard he was on the block and there was actually a trade rumor Dwight Howard to the New Orleans Pelicans to pair him up with Anthony Davis this was before Atlanta decided not they're not gonna make any more trades after the Carl Corbett trade which I don't buy into that I think of it if a nice trade offer comes up for Atlanta I strongly believe they'll consider it either for Paul Millstaff or Dwight Howard I don't know but yeah there was rumors that they're gonna try and get Dwight Howard New Orleans are gonna try and get Dwight Howard that is what I'm trying to say obviously right now it's it's not gonna happen but New Orleans wants to make a move they have Tyrick Evans still they're looking to move Tyreek even drew holidays on the block which is the last trade I want to talk about drew holiday what are your thoughts returning to the 76ers or not as you can see there's a rumor that the 76ers are interested in drew holiday and to be honest if you got a team of drew holiday to pair up with Ben Simmons once he returns Joel Embiid who in my opinion is one of the greatest rookies of all time look at the per 36 minute obviously he doesn't play 36 minutes doesn't even play close he doesn't even get enough game time in my opinion he should get more game time like the injury is past him in fact he actually got injured the other day but it wasn't serious but still I still would see I would love to see true holiday back return to Philly where he actually made the all-star team that will be pretty cool but with that said if you guys enjoyed the video please subscribe leave a like that we got let's try and aim for 4,000 likes for the next trade rumors episode as you know I like to do this series every week so if you're excited for the next week's episode give this video a big thumbs up hopefully your trade comes out soon because I'm tired of all these trade rumors I want to straight to finally come out obviously we had the car call for one but yeah we want a new one anyway subscribe show new on the road to 200,000 subscribers sorry about the whole setup and the internet being so in Thailand can't really do much about it but yeah it's actually probably a better camera anyway I'm out


Okay, so if we have two samples of carbon dioxide that are taken from different sources and they're decomposed into their constituent elements, we find one sample produces 4.8 grams of oxygen and 1.8 grams of carbon and the other sample produces 17.1 grams of oxygen and 6.4 grams of carbon and we're going to show how these results are consistent with the law of constant composition. So I've written down the masses of oxygen and carbon from sample 1 and sample 2 respectively and what we're going to do here is just use that law of constant composition. Remember we do the mass of element A in sample 1 divided by the mass of element B in sample 1 and that should equal, if it divides by the law of constant composition, the mass of A in sample 2 and the 2. So these two numbers should be equivalent. So let's just see if they are okay. So what do we got here? So the mass of oxygen in 1 divided by 0.7. Here's hopefully the masses of the other, the ratio of the masses. We can see 2.7 equals 2.7 so this is the law of constant. So if there are any questions, we'll do another one in a second.


Oh no, what is wrong? Yes? 20 ways to escape the police. Be happy to get a ticket. Sir, you're speeding, I'm gonna have to give you a ticket. No way! To what concert? Don't think about the past. Sir, you were going 135. I was. Am I now though? You went over the limit. I did. But how about now? Am I though? Am I over the limit now? Do you have any proof to prove that I'm going over the limit now though? Do you though? Okay, you got me there. Did I though? You got me there. Be fast at coming up with excuses. Sir, where are you headed? Um, fashion show. So this fashion show doesn't happen to be next to the new big bank, is it? What a coincidence, it is. Okay, you got me there. Use playing cards. Excuse me, sir, where are you headed? Um, straight? Straight? Okay, go. Faggot. Don't drive. Sir, you were caught speeding. Now, the question is, how did you do that? Be romantic. I can do as fast as I could. To what? To see you. Oh. Make sure you're doing fine. Hi, how are you? Fine. Here's your fine. Fine. Why do people always ask me for fines? Have a good reason to be on the road. Sir, may I ask why are you speeding above the limit? There's a huge sale at the coffee and donut store. I can't miss it. Why didn't you say so? Let me take you there. It's gone. Sir, why are we taking my car? Can't miss that sale. Sir, you're driving too fast. It's okay. I'm the police. I'm the kid. It's okay. I'm the police. Drive someone else's car. I'm going to need you to step out of your vehicle, please. I can't. And why is that? Because this is not my vehicle. Okay, you got me there. All right, you may go. I stole it. You got me there. I said it's okay. You can go. It's not my vehicle. You got me. It's against the law. There. I should not be in this vehicle. Sir. Appreciate someone else's dreams. Why did you stop me? Sir, I've always wanted to be your red light. Have an emergency. Sir, why are you speeding? I need to get to the hospital as soon as possible. My wife's water broke. Oh, my God. I'm so sorry. Okay, okay. You can go. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Where's your wife? That's what I forgot. Okay, sir. Please drive back to your wife slowly. Okay. Remember, this is an emergency. Slow is fast. See you in a bit. Yep. Take it's ready. Sir, you're speeding. Was I? I'm sorry. Sir, you didn't see the sign? I did. What sign? Where is it? Use technology to your advantage. Are you using your phone while driving? No. I'm using my phone to drive. Ah, nice. Okay. Please go. Don't argue with the police. Sir, you're speeding. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to give you a ticket. Okay, fine. You seem to be okay with this. I made a mistake. I'm paying the price. Are you saying you're complying with the police? Of course. I respect you guys.  You disgusting human being. Fight me. Fight me. I want trouble. Come on. Don't stop. Sir. Oh my god. Let me get this guy. Where is the taxi when you need one? Where your seat belt? Sir, please wear your seat belt while you're driving. This is a warning. Be a winner. Yeah, it's true. Looks like we have a potential 44, 12, 35, 23 and 20. Over. What are those numbers? What are the results? I want a million dollars. Oh, cool. All right. So for your one million dollar fine, sir. Use a known and unfortunate police stereotype. Sir, I'm gonna have to arrest you. Are you saying this because I'm black? You're black?   Get out, sir.  Come on. Get arrested for the second time. Sir, why are you handcuffed to the car? Because you arrested me five minutes ago and you happened to have stopped me again. But why is it attached to the wheel? Because you generally thought that this way I could not get out of the car. Ah, smart. You can go. You got me there. And finally, be delusional. Yes, officer? Sir, you were caught speeding. Really? Yes. No. I said yes. Don't make me repeat myself. Also, your seat belt is not on. I'm sorry. It's okay. I'm glad you corrected it. Are you getting tired of this? Are you going to find me, officer? I don't think you should. But if I were you, I would. But you are you and not me. So therefore I will. Why? Because we have already discussed all of this. Anyways, give me your driver's license. I will find you. No, you won't. Did she just run away? Oh my God.