Build stronger DFS rosters using projection-driven optimization tools. Set salary caps, stacks, and team limits. Download lineups as CSV or PDF for contests quickly.
Use this format to paste or upload your own pool.
| Name | Positions | Team | Salary | Projection | Ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. Harper | PG/SG | NYK | 7,800 | 41.2 | 55 |
| R. Diaz | SF/PF | LAL | 6,900 | 36.8 | 50 |
| K. Novak | C | DAL | 7,300 | 38.5 | 54 |
| A. Green | SF | CHI | 5,600 | 29.7 | 43 |
The optimizer selects one eligible player per roster slot to maximize total projected points while satisfying constraints.
Internally, a branch-and-bound search explores candidate combinations and prunes paths that cannot beat the current best projection.
The optimizer targets maximum projected points under a strict salary cap. In a typical eight-slot slate, nudging median projection from 30.0 to 31.5 points per slot adds about 12.0 points to the total lineup expectation. When projections are close, the tie-breaker becomes fit: a 0.8-point downgrade that unlocks a 3.0-point upgrade elsewhere is usually correct.
Value can be viewed as Projection ÷ Salary. For example, a 28-point player at 5,200 salary yields 5.38 points per 1,000, while a 44-point player at 8,400 yields 5.24. Small value gains compound when multiple mid-range players fit together. As a quick screen, many players aim for 5.0+ points per 1,000 on balanced slates.
Multi-position eligibility increases feasible combinations. If 35% of your pool is dual-eligible, flexible slots like G, F, and UTIL usually prevent dead-ends and reduce the chance that the last slot forces an overpay. Conversely, if a position is thin, keep at least 6–10 candidates eligible for that slot to avoid “no lineup found” outcomes.
Max-from-team limits manage correlation and late-swap risk. With a cap of 4, an eight-player build cannot exceed 50% exposure to one team. Raising the cap to 6 often increases projection in small slates but concentrates variance. For game stacks, raise the cap and compare projection against a diversified lineup.
Ceiling inputs help you compare upside profiles. A common heuristic is Ceiling − Projection; a 55 ceiling on a 41.2 projection implies 13.8 upside points. Prioritize higher upside when you need uniqueness, especially in large-field contests. If two players project within 1.0 point, the one with 6–10 extra ceiling points can be the better tournament choice.
Search time grows with pool size. Trimming to the top 120 players after sorting usually keeps optimization responsive while retaining most of the projection mass. If you upload 250 players, start with a pool limit of 120, then rerun at 160 only if the result looks too constrained. Exporting CSV and PDF supports quick review, sharing, and consistent contest uploads for faster decisions.
It works with any DFS format if you provide positions, salaries, and projections. Adjust the roster slots to match NBA, NFL, NHL, or custom contest rules.
Your constraints may be too tight. Increase the salary cap, raise the pool limit, lower the minimum projection, or relax the max-from-team rule so the search has feasible combinations.
Start at 100–140 for speed, then increase if results look too restrictive. Pre-filtering your pool to realistic starters and rotation players usually improves both accuracy and runtime.
Optimization currently maximizes projection. Ownership and ceiling are displayed for decision support. Use them to compare leverage and upside, then rerun with a refined pool if needed.
Not directly in this version. A simple workaround is to temporarily remove alternatives at the same salary tier, or create a reduced pool that only includes the players you want eligible.
The included generator produces a simple one-page PDF with text. It opens in standard viewers. If you need styled tables or multi-page exports, integrate a dedicated PDF library.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.