PGA DFS - Odds, Leverage and Analysis for The Open - Draftkings Tournaments July 2025

This will be an updated page as time permits, leading up to the lock of the contests. If you have followed my posts in the past, you may understand that I'm a GPP player with leverage in mind every step of the way. Golf is a unique sport in the sense that the cut line matters more than the upside. Therefore this rollout will be a lil more unique than the past.

If this writeup helps you, don't forget to like the post that brought you here!

Cut Makers and Value (updated)

Now this looks like what I would normally post but this scatterplot is focused on the odds of who is likely to make the cut. It is unique in the sense that it only focuses on the players I think have the upside of reaching a target score that I will talk more about in the next section. The highest points in this chart (Scottie of course) indicate the best chances of making the cut. However you cant afford all of the high guys so lets look at the cheap guys too, where Mav McNealy and Harry Hall both are sitting. They are above the trend line that measures who is good for the cost. I didn't see any 5K players pull into this chart but that doesn't mean they aren't playable. However they are filtered for a reason too. The color of the dots is also significant for now, although I updated them to represent leverage.

Lineup Goal (updated)

I believe it is ideal to start with the goal in mind. I am going to project this week's winning lineups to be around 486 with an upside of 598. Since this is a major, I believe scoring will be more limited and closer to the 490 number. As I measure out the upside of each player , this is the pool of players in which I will most likely pull from this week, so if you're following, congrats for limiting the field from 156 down to 50ish from the start.

Course Fits (datagolf) for Royal Portrush

Pretty much expect that golfers have to be good all around at the majors. Distance + accuracy exceed the norm or you pay the price. That means those who are not top drivers may need some scrambling.

The Open - Last 4 Years Strokes Gained

Here I am pulling in the strokes gained numbers over the past 4 years to get an idea of who typically performs the best at this event. Top 3 names should be no surprise. Fitzpatrick and Conners are kinda low priced for what they have done here as well. I will say that bogey avoidance is usually a key indicator at these types of events, as those who shoot themselves out like Morikawa did last week are usually the ones missing cuts and holding your lineup out of contention.

Overall Success Odds vs Situations

This view is the scatterplot using weighted success odds (win, cut, top 5,etc) into one view, which is what I normally put on this page. What I have realized over time is that sometimes making the cut isn't good enough. You need a top 10 or winner involved and so finding who has that potential is super important to scoring.

The 4 tables all have a unique sort from upside, value, leverage and history at the Open. Sepp and Connors both on the cheaper end of the upside list. Then the leverage starts featuring Scheffler vs Bryson, which is intruiging if ownership is accurately saying Bryson comes in 10% owned. That'd make him half the ownership of Rahm and Rory up top.

Actual Wins vs Expected Wins

Colin is quite the annoyance for making this list as someone overdue a win, when he is getting cut randomly. He sets up well for GPP because of his now boom or bust level performances. I currently show him potentially at 9% and now cheaper thanks to sucking so much, but he still needs to make the cut, and I don't know if he has caddy issues or what, but he is showing value there as well this week.

Core but Leverage

Some names to keep an eye on this week as their history shapes them up to be worth a 2nd look at this event.

Last 5 Form

Rahm is kinda up there. I dont know if his ownership is the one to blow up this week (like Fleetwood did last week) but he certainly looks like the golden child coming into this event, next to Scheffler. Difference is Rahm's price point, but I think many people have been more willing to pay down for some balance than to pay up for Scheffler which makes him the bigger leverage at this point.

Last Year's Optimal for the Open

Yea... no one built the optimal. The top score last year that played was in the milli maker at 475.5 and unfortunately I cant see the lineup, although its probably on the internet somewhere. As I look closer, Thirston Lawrence was projected for 0% ownership and seemingly did better than most normal priced golfers by finishing 4th. In fact a very interesting note in last year's event is that Justin Thomas finished 31st in the event yet scored 11th best. I believe he had a meltdown round that blew his chances to finish well. As you can see though the scores last year are in line with my projected total.

2019 Optimal at Royal Portrush

This year was a bit more higher scoring and salary efficient too. Granted, we didnt have the 14k or 5K range that year, so it landed a bit more balanced. I did try and analyze what I could from the top 10 of this field. GIR, capitalizing scoring on par 3s and par 4s, driving accurately with lower trajectory on the shots (to avoid wind), short game play, putting on slow greens and that leads to bogey avoidance.

Optimal with Leverage (updated)

This chart represents the summarized odds in comparison to the most optimal plays, while circling the leverage that falls above the trend line. In past few weeks theres always one of these names that is under projected in their ownership and then rise much higher come tournament time. I believe that person will end up being Jon Rahm personally, and that folks may come down off Scheffler to him when building lineups. In the same salary range, we have Fleetwood, Bryson and maybe Rory too, who seems to be a bit popular at his home course. Bryson missed the cut last time here but is holding quite the leverage for anyone taking a shot. Fleetwood might bounce back and so I could see his ownership also slightly rising but his lack of top 10 or win equity might also hold him down a little bit. I will say that Xander odds of making the cut were higher and put him above the value line in that regard, verses here where we factor in win equity.

On the cheaper end, I have come around to saying that Connors and McNealy may be two names I use a bit more than others to fill out lineups. There could be others like Hall and Rai that I also get to depending on the build type.

Correlated Course History

These guys are quite elite as 80% of the time they have finished in the top 20 of the correlated courses in the past 5 years to this one.

On the opposite end of the spectrum...

This list is the no fly zone. Surprised to see Xander up there so that makes him a fade candidate to me for being expensive.

If this writeup helps you, don't forget to like the post that brought you here!

Variance Tracker

Double checking the golfers with the most variance on this track. The higher up, the higher your chance of successfully reaching a score of interest. The further left, the safer you are to hit your project. Then those further right have the most variance, meaning boom or bust in their scoring. Thats leaving Fleetwood on the safer end at least, and seemingly Bryson on the other end of the spectrum.

Top Ownership Awards vs Top 10 Finish Odds

Getting a lil deeper into the rabbit hole here where we look at the top 4 ownership expectations; Scottie, Rahm, Hovland and Rory. I believe PGA players are some of the sharpest lately based on high ownership plays consistently panning out. However these 4 cant all be in the winning lineup due to price. The underowned plays are circled around them and then confirmed whether or not they have done well at correlated courses through the line. McNeally and Rai are the only 2 without a top tier history to turn in at the correlated courses. Hovland also is missing this from the top 4 owned. It doesnt mean they fail but it starts to provide some feeling of where to go if only building 1 lineup.

Most Paired Chalk

I ran the optimizer for 1000 lineups with each chalk play locked in one by one, in order to estimate which player is most likely to appear in the same lineup with that chalk. This is what I found above. If you feel that you want to play the chalk, one way to differentiate would be to fade the 2nd guy who pairs with them the most. Otherwise you are likely to dupe someone elses primary construction. For example, if I am playing Rory, I'm going to try and avoid Fleetwood in that given lineup. If playing Scheffler and really like Fleetwood, I may get away from McNeally (potentially) and play Fleetwood instead (who actually only paired with Scheffler 11% of the time). Its just a way to work with the grain, as opposed to against it. Even Bryson shows up 8% of the time, so taking those two is possible if you believe in at least 3 sub 7k players doing well.

Least Leveraged Plays

These are the plays that have the least leverage on the slate yet are owned 10% or more (top guy has the least leverage of all).. Historically, they have hit the optimal quite a bit whenever I fade them entirely so ideally we pick which ones we have some or no interest in. However lets see if we can find the good vs bad chalk:

I circled 5 names that could be considered good chalk, due to potential to make cut and then have a shot at the upside we need to win. I will do a 20 max and let those 5 in and keep the rest out, especially Rose who didnt check any boxes for me. Maybe he misses cut altogether? I'll root for that.

Optimal Lineups

Top Projection

This is the default projection optimal. My thoughts: 1. I would prefer to use more salary than that and 2. I am not entirely loving Bryson as my top play despite the ownership. He is the top leverage on the board and so I will play him but not gonna like it. His game doesnt fit the build for this course unless he plays with some grace. Otherwise it has enough leverage and upside to win if they all play their best (which, i'm looking at Morikawa with the side eye).

Top Probability:

This one seems to feel better on all levels. No one is going to want to play JJ Spaun. The only issue here is that Rahm could infact end up the top owned play on the slate and that is always bad mojo for me. Otherwise I sorta like this one.

If you made it this far, you are a real one. Thanks for supporting this page and good luck to you in your contests.