Cancel out theory?

[jerryskids 5,191]

I'm usually not a proponent as I believe you start your best player, but I have an interesting situation. I'm up 6 in a ppr with either Tate or Cooks going tonight. I currently have Tate in but IMO it is a tossup. Opponent has Brees. Would you switch to Cooks to hedge somewhat?

 

If you don't think it is a tossup, I'd be interested in that opinion as well.

[Thornton Melon 544]

I would've played Cooks over Tate anyway. If you think it's a tossup, play Cooks.

[jgcrawfish 232]

really skids? play whoever you think will get you the most points. Brees could go for 40 tonight with only 5 pts for Cooks. There is no cancle out theory. There is no spoon.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

I have more faith in tate

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Oh and cancel out only works the other way. If he is playing cooks and you have stafford and brees. Brees may have a good game but not throw any of it to cooks.

[jerryskids 5,191]

really skids? play whoever you think will get you the most points. Brees could go for 40 tonight with only 5 pts for Cooks. There is no cancle out theory. There is no spoon.

I said in my mind it is a tossup.

 

I guess I see Tate as a lower risk/reward, which is why I have him in.

[jerryskids 5,191]

Oh and cancel out only works the other way. If he is playing cooks and you have stafford and brees. Brees may have a good game but not throw any of it to cooks.

I don't know if it doesn't work, but I agree it works better if the roles are reversed.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The only true cancel out theory is hacking into your opponent's account.

[weepaws 2,457]

I'm usually not a proponent as I believe you start your best player, but I have an interesting situation. I'm up 6 in a ppr with either Tate or Cooks going tonight. I currently have Tate in but IMO it is a tossup. Opponent has Brees. Would you switch to Cooks to hedge somewhat?

If you don't think it is a tossup, I'd be interested in that opinion as well.

Mm tough call I think I would roll with Tate .

[Antiramie 50]

This situation is neither interesting nor unique. jerryskids, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent question were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Start the player you think will get the most points.

[Quickolas1 80]

Start Cooks regardless

[weepaws 2,457]

This situation is neither interesting nor unique. jerryskids, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent question were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Start the player you think will get the most points.

Far out .

[nobody 2,037]

Hey, retards, he said he thinks it's a toss up, so telling him "start who you think will get the most points" doesn't really help

[jerryskids 5,191]

Hey, retards, he said he thinks it's a toss up, so telling him "start who you think will get the most points" doesn't really help

I know right? Antiramie wins the special participation medal for prefacing his statement with that quote.

[tanatastic 2,061]

An interesting concept at play is that Tate represents a possible upside in that his tds and yards arent tied to your opponent. He could get 2 tds and Brees gets none but with cooks thats not the case. Id start Cooks but since its a tossup to you, thats not relevant. You will likely need a miracle and Tate represents that. Cooks scoring 3tds isnt the xmas miracle that will win for you necessarily.

[jerryskids 5,191]

An interesting concept at play is that Tate represents a possible upside in that his tds and yards arent tied to your opponent. He could get 2 tds and Brees gets none but with cooks thats not the case. Id start Cooks but since its a tossup to you, thats not relevant. You will likely need a miracle and Tate represents that. Cooks scoring 3tds isnt the xmas miracle that will win for you necessarily.

 

Thanks all. I've convinced myself that Tate is the play because Cooks would need a disproportionate amount of receptions from Brees to maintain my lead, so Tate is the better option. In other words, Frozenbeernuts may be right. Or not, I'm not quite sure. Anyway, go Tate$#@!

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Tate rewards you.

[Quickolas1 80]

Start Cooks regardless

 

Cooks - 28 pts

Tate - 22 pts

 

Brees - 26 pts

 

You were very lucky Tate scored 2 touchdowns as he typically only scores 4-5 per year.

[R8RMick 242]

On a side note... with all this talk of Josh Norman, folks are forgetting that Darius Slay is having a monster year. Old school CB who loves to hit and tackle. That's an all pro play at the end or Cooks has another TD.

[thePRO 78]

 

Cooks - 28 pts

Tate - 22 pts

 

Brees - 26 pts

 

You were very lucky Tate scored 2 touchdowns as he typically only scores 4-5 per year.

Unless passing TDs are 6 points.

[tanatastic 2,061]

If TDs are 4 he won, if they are 6 he lost. Either way it's a Christmas miracle from Tate who is dog excrement.

[Antiramie 50]

Hey, retards, he said he thinks it's a toss up, so telling him "start who you think will get the most points" doesn't really help

You know what I do when I think it's a toss up? I think even harder about who will score more until I've made a decision. I don't resort to a ridiculous cancel out theory. It's an unnecessary, irrelevant concept regardless of any circumstance.

[nobody 2,037]

Except cooks just canceled out brees.

 

I know the FF brain trust has decided that stats of a qb and his receiver aren't related, but there is indeed a relationship.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Nothing was canceled. Guys simply scored what they scored and did what they did. If Tate out scores Cooks, Tate was the better play and vice versa. Bree's could have 4 tds and. One to cooks or 4 to cooks. I suggested that si ce it was a specific example of mnf and knowing the score, that Tate represented a higher possible upside. That being if Brees has a bad 0td game, Tate can still score 2 tds but Cooks can't. So Tate represented a potentially bigger point swing. Didn't work out that way but the logic was feasible.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

What happened to Tate in the second half? I was patting myself on the back for being a genius when i went to bed. Then he doesnt catch another pass.

[Thornton Melon 544]

Tate isn't even rostered in my league (11 teams, non-PPR, start 2 WR, 1 flex). I drafted him, dropped him in Week 6, and no one picked him up.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Tate isn't even rostered in my league (11 teams, non-PPR, start 2 WR, 1 flex). I drafted him, dropped him in Week 6, and no one picked him up.

Why? He has been lighting it up..

[jerryskids 5,191]

 

Cooks - 28 pts

Tate - 22 pts

 

Brees - 26 pts

 

You were very lucky Tate scored 2 touchdowns as he typically only scores 4-5 per year.

Close. Brees had 30 in our format so I lost by 2 points.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Close. Brees had 30 in our format so I lost by 2 points.

Oops. Sorry. I bet at half time you were like FUUUUCK YEAH! I feel responsible now. Can i mail you a donut?

[Thornton Melon 544]

Close. Brees had 30 in our format so I lost by 2 points.

 

I told ya to start Cooks

[TimHauck 1,799]

On 12/21/2015 at 7:23 PM, tanatastic said:

An interesting concept at play is that Tate represents a possible upside in that his tds and yards arent tied to your opponent. He could get 2 tds and Brees gets none but with cooks thats not the case. Id start Cooks but since its a tossup to you, thats not relevant. You will likely need a miracle and Tate represents that. Cooks scoring 3tds isnt the xmas miracle that will win for you necessarily.

5 year old thread bump and my first post in 3 years (and not sure if first cancel out theory discussion of 2020?), but you do realize that although you were looking at it from another angle (which I disagree with how you worded), this quote is essentially admitting that the Cancel Out Theory (or more appropriately called “Hedging Against Your Opponent’s Stud Theory”) is a thing, right??

Yes, always start who you think will score the most points.  But if you can’t decide and think they will score a similar amount of points, I will sometimes use the Cancel Out Theory as a tiebreaker.

However, as others mentioned above I mostly only use it if undecided on a QB and playing against a stud WR.    In that situation I think it can be called cancel out,  because most people will look at it as a good thing if their waiver wire/late round QB (at least) “cancels out” a stud WR, which is pretty likely to happen.  However, it’s not too difficult for a QB to outperform a WR if using this tactic the other way.

Nonetheless, the reason I’d disagree with what you said here is because you seemed to imply Cooks scoring 3 TD’s may not win him the matchup.  But it probably would have, since Brees would have had to have 7 total TD’s or so to outscore Cooks by 6 points (for example if PPR, 0.1/rec yd and 0.04/pass yard and 4pt Pass TD, 10 rec/200 yards/3 TD = 48 pts, to beat that by 6 Brees would need to do something like 525 pass yards/5 pass TD 2 rush TD = 53).  Again, the main issue with WR decisions based on the Cancel Out Theory is that the QB can have a good game and the WR a bad one, not so much that if the WR has a good game the QB may too.

 

[nobody 2,037]

I have a new theory I'm waiting to unveil.  The High Variance Theory.  If you're an underdog going into the late games, you should start players with a higher ceiling even though they might be expected to score slightly less on average.  It'll blow people's minds because we'll have to admit that there is a range of outcomes and the size of thar range will be different for each player.  

For instance take a flex option decision I have this week.  Desean Jackson vs James Robinson.  I expect James Robinson to be in that 9-13 range averaging about 11 points.  I expect djax to average about 8 in this spot, but I'd estimate the range of outcomes to be somewhere between 2 and 18 with an outside chance he puts up like 24.  Kind of a chi square distribution.

Now I think James Robinson will score more, but I'm down pretty big after Thursday, since my opponent had Chubb who scored on the high end of his range and I had Pratt and Vonn Bell who scored on the low end of their ranges.  That makes lean toward the higher variance Djax as my play because even if Robinson has a good game, I still need to make up ground somewhere.

High Variance Theory in a nut shell.

[AxeElf 787]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

High Variance Theory in a nut shell.

Some call it the "Swing for the Fences" theory.

[JagFan 97]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

I have a new theory I'm waiting to unveil.  The High Variance Theory.  If you're an underdog going into the late games, you should start players with a higher ceiling even though they might be expected to score slightly less on average.  It'll blow people's minds because we'll have to admit that there is a range of outcomes and the size of thar range will be different for each player.  

For instance take a flex option decision I have this week.  Desean Jackson vs James Robinson.  I expect James Robinson to be in that 9-13 range averaging about 11 points.  I expect djax to average about 8 in this spot, but I'd estimate the range of outcomes to be somewhere between 2 and 18 with an outside chance he puts up like 24.  Kind of a chi square distribution.

Now I think James Robinson will score more, but I'm down pretty big after Thursday, since my opponent had Chubb who scored on the high end of his range and I had Pratt and Vonn Bell who scored on the low end of their ranges.  That makes lean toward the higher variance Djax as my play because even if Robinson has a good game, I still need to make up ground somewhere.

High Variance Theory in a nut shell.

I think you should just play the guy you think will score the most.  

[nobody 2,037]

14 minutes ago, JagFan said:

I think you should just play the guy you think will score the most.  

This is where a the typical FF player will freak out... You don't always know who will score the most points. It's like you're a caveman and I just showed you how to make fire for the first time.

[JagFan 97]

1 hour ago, nobody said:

This is where a the typical FF player will freak out... You don't always know who will score the most points. It's like you're a caveman and I just showed you how to make fire for the first time.

Who didn’t get my joke? 
 

  Nobody...

[Showboat 144]

6 hours ago, nobody said:

I have a new theory I'm waiting to unveil.  The High Variance Theory.  If you're an underdog going into the late games, you should start players with a higher ceiling even though they might be expected to score slightly less on average.  It'll blow people's minds because we'll have to admit that there is a range of outcomes and the size of thar range will be different for each player.  

For instance take a flex option decision I have this week.  Desean Jackson vs James Robinson.  I expect James Robinson to be in that 9-13 range averaging about 11 points.  I expect djax to average about 8 in this spot, but I'd estimate the range of outcomes to be somewhere between 2 and 18 with an outside chance he puts up like 24.  Kind of a chi square distribution.

Now I think James Robinson will score more, but I'm down pretty big after Thursday, since my opponent had Chubb who scored on the high end of his range and I had Pratt and Vonn Bell who scored on the low end of their ranges.  That makes lean toward the higher variance Djax as my play because even if Robinson has a good game, I still need to make up ground somewhere.

High Variance Theory in a nut shell.

Sounds good, but there is no real basis for saying Jackson's ceiling is 18 while Robinson's ceiling is 13 unless you actually happen to know their respective team's specific game plan for this week.  I'd guess you feel that Jackson has a better chance for a blow-up game because he's had blow-up games in the past and Robinson essentially has no NFL history.  As they say in the financial world, past performance does not guarantee future results - this is particularly true for a given week in the NFL.

[nobody 2,037]

Just now, Showboat said:

Sounds good, but there is no real basis for saying Jackson's ceiling is 18 while Robinson's ceiling is 13 unless you actually happen to know their respective team's specific game plan for this week.  I'd guess you feel that Jackson has a better chance for a blow-up game because he's had blow-up games in the past and Robinson essentially has no NFL history.  As they say in the financial world, past performance does not guarantee future results - this is particularly true for a given week in the NFL.

There's also no way to know who is going to score more.  A runningback that's going on the slower side in a game that will likely be a negative game script has a low ceiling.  A deep threat is going to have a wider range of outcomes.

[Showboat 144]

2 minutes ago, nobody said:

There's also no way to know who is going to score more.  A runningback that's going on the slower side in a game that will likely be a negative game script has a low ceiling.  A deep threat is going to have a wider range of outcomes.

That assumes the deep  is even in the Eagle's game plan.  With all the injuries on the Eagles line, their plan may be to dink and dunk.   As you say, there really no way to know....

[AxeElf 787]

1 hour ago, Showboat said:

That assumes the deep  is even in the Eagle's game plan. 

It is.  It goes to Reagor.