Cancel out Theory

[cbfalcon 824]

It's not a weekly move or anything, but if you don't have cancel out ability at your disposal, you'll never be a complete FF player.

[jerryskids 5,207]

Owners who don't understand the cancel-out theory are probably the same ones who believe FF is 100% luck because dadblammit they picked the #22 WR over the #23 WR and they were expected to score one more point than their opponent, and somehow they lost$#@! Without understanding variability or math in general.

[brotherbock 349]

It's not a weekly move or anything, but if you don't have cancel out ability at your disposal, you'll never be a complete FF player.

So is it like a Mortal Kombat finishing move? Down-up-down-down-A-A?

[mobb_deep 917]

I canceled out my opponent and won by 1. Great defense by me.

Defense wins championships.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

I think people who don't understand cancel out theory are intimidated by those that do. So they act angry to cover up the fact that they don't know what's going on.

 

Sad, really.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

It's not a weekly move or anything, but if you don't have cancel out ability at your disposal, you'll never be a complete FF player.

We all have our limitations.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Owners who don't understand the cancel-out theory are probably the same ones who believe FF is 100% luck because dadblammit they picked the #22 WR over the #23 WR and they were expected to score one more point than their opponent, and somehow they lost$#@! Without understanding variability or math in general.

No, that kind of thinking would be the opposite of someone who thinks FF is all luck (it mostly is). Thinking the no. 22 WR should outscore the no.23 is decidedly in the "its strategy" camp because they think the players should rank where they are drafted. In reality, Gurley scores piss and Theo riddick gets 2tds.

 

But I know what your saying. Just start who you think will score more, that's it.

[giraldi02 470]

Don't forgot about the Non Cancel Out theory.

 

Example...if tonight I was down 25 with either Antonio Brown or DeSean Jackson left, but my opponent has Big Ben.

 

I can't win with Brown, so I have to bench him for DeSean. It's the only option.

There's variability though. What if your opponents QB gets hurt on the first play of the game?

 

The league scoring could also make a difference on strategy. What if Big Ben completes 15 passes to AB, but doesn't throw a TD and has a few INTs.

 

I'm not trying to discredit the theory fwiw. It's an element you have to be aware of. Merely unraveling more layers of the cake

[tanatastic 2,061]

My dream in life is to line up every person on this forum who thinks that their Tates 10 cancels out his opponents Staffords 10 because they play on the same team, and slap them, hard.

[GornFishin' 57]

There's variability though. What if your opponents QB gets hurt on the first play of the game?

 

The league scoring could also make a difference on strategy. What if Big Ben completes 15 passes to AB, but doesn't throw a TD and has a few INTs.

 

I'm not trying to discredit the theory fwiw. It's an element you have to be aware of. Merely unraveling more layers of the cake

 

If Ben gets hurt, the likelihood of Brown having a big game decreases significantly. Playing Jackson is even more the right call because of this.

 

I was 25 points ahead with Ben left versus a guy with Antonio left. However big a game Brown has I'm not going to lose. Because he doesn't have that big a game w/o Ben.

[TimHauck 1,802]

Surprised tanatastic is posting so much in this thread, he got slaughtered in the last one a couple years ago.

[TimHauck 1,802]

There's variability though. What if your opponents QB gets hurt on the first play of the game?

 

The league scoring could also make a difference on strategy. What if Big Ben completes 15 passes to AB, but doesn't throw a TD and has a few INTs.

 

I'm not trying to discredit the theory fwiw. It's an element you have to be aware of. Merely unraveling more layers of the cake

Injuries are certainly possible, but not always likely.

 

Yeah I think the only way that's possible is PPR. Otherwise Ben would need to throw like 7 INT's

[RLLD 3,455]

This thread is pretty awesome.

[TD Ryan2 314]

I'll be using the cancel-out strategy this week.

 

I have to choose between starting TY Hilton (@DEN) and Marvin Jones (vs. TEN)

My opponent has Stafford at QB.

 

Jones has both the better match up and the Stafford Cancelling factor... cancel-out theory makes this a no-brainer to start Marvin.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

I'll be using the cancel-out strategy this week.

 

I have to choose between starting TY Hilton (@DEN) and Marvin Jones (vs. TEN)

My opponent has Stafford at QB.

 

Jones has both the better match up and the Stafford Cancelling factor... cancel-out theory makes this a no-brainer to start Marvin.

That's easy. The better question is would you start Andre Roberts over TY?

 

I say yes but then again I am a pretty big proponent of the theory. Others may disagree.

[DankNuggs 305]

I canceled out my opponent and won by 1. Great defense by me.

Veteran move by you... Sometimes winning and losing is decided by savvy and pure moxie...

[t-birdie 8]

I had a cancel-out party with all the naysayers' moms last night. I scored big time.

[t-birdie 8]

My dream in life is to line up every person on this forum who thinks that their Tates 10 cancels out his opponents Staffords 10 because they play on the same team, and slap them, hard.

 

Only a confused person would think that.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

 

Only a confused person would think that.

Poor tanny is confused about a lot of things

[cbfalcon 824]

Nobody is arguing that Cancel Out Theory is full proof. Sure, Ben could get hurt on play 1 and Brown still goes off. Or sure Brown could rush for 126 and 2 TDs on a couple of long reverses.

 

But it's a percentage play. Run 100 simulations of the game, and if Cancel Out Theory wins you even one more simulation than not employing it would, then you have no choice but to deploy it.

 

Today is may not help. But skill wins in the long run, and those that don't know how to use this tool are the same guys that argue they should have chased a flush when only getting 2-1 odds on their call because "it would have hit".

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Nobody is arguing that Cancel Out Theory is full proof. Sure, Ben could get hurt on play 1 and Brown still goes off. Or sure Brown could rush for 126 and 2 TDs on a couple of long reverses.

 

But it's a percentage play. Run 100 simulations of the game, and if Cancel Out Theory wins you even one more simulation than not employing it would, then you have no choice but to deploy it.

 

Today is may not help. But skill wins in the long run, and those that don't know how to use this tool are the same guys that argue they should have chased a flush when only getting 2-1 odds on their call because "it would have hit".

End of season points is something else to consider. The odds of djax outscoring Ben by 25 are pretty much non existent besides injury. Might as well get as many points as possible.

[tanatastic 2,061]

I'll be using the cancel-out strategy this week.

 

I have to choose between starting TY Hilton (@DEN) and Marvin Jones (vs. TEN)

My opponent has Stafford at QB.

 

Jones has both the better match up and the Stafford Cancelling factor... cancel-out theory makes this a no-brainer to start Marvin.

Wrong, it has absolutely zero correlation and whoever scores more was the right play. I know what you think you are trying to do. You think you are "hedging against Stafford having a big game because if he does, jones will profit too.". But that's completely false. Stafford could throw 5 TDs and Jones gets none and has 3 points. Or maybe Stafford throws 0, what did you cancel out with Jones 50yds there if Hilton has 80yds? There is zero, I mean ZERO reason to factor your opponents Stafford into your choice of Jones or TY. Start who you like more, don't even look at your opponents team, is has a factor of 0 when it comes to the effect on your teams score.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Surprised tanatastic is posting so much in this thread, he got slaughtered in the last one a couple years ago.

There is a zero% chance of that being true.

[TD Ryan2 314]

Wrong, it has absolutely zero correlation

but there clearly IS a correlation.

If Stafford has a HUGE day, it is more probable than not, that Jones will have a huge day.

 

and, to be clear, a correlation is when two statistical variables fluctuate together... Staffords ability to complete passes and TDs, and Jones ability to catch the ball, are very much dependent on one another - a QB cannot complete a pass without a receiver on the other end - even if that receiver is himself - in which case, I'd have both the cancel-out AND combo strategies in play.

[tanatastic 2,061]

but there clearly IS a correlation.

If Stafford has a HUGE day, it is more probable than not, that Jones will have a huge day.

 

and, to be clear, a correlation is when two statistical variables fluctuate together... Staffords ability to complete passes and TDs, and Jones ability to catch the ball, are very much dependent on one another - a QB cannot complete a pass without a receiver on the other end - even if that receiver is himself - in which case, I'd have both the cancel-out AND combo strategies in play.

I would rather have a chance at my WR going off while his QB throws 0tds.

[edjr 5,567]

My league has a rule if you are playing the league leader in fantasy points, you MUST play any players you have on your team that will cancel out any of his player.

[shutdown 40]

Wrong, it has absolutely zero correlation and whoever scores more was the right play. I know what you think you are trying to do. You think you are "hedging against Stafford having a big game because if he does, jones will profit too.". But that's completely false. Stafford could throw 5 TDs and Jones gets none and has 3 points. Or maybe Stafford throws 0, what did you cancel out with Jones 50yds there if Hilton has 80yds? There is zero, I mean ZERO reason to factor your opponents Stafford into your choice of Jones or TY. Start who you like more, do t even look at your opponents team, is has a factor of 0 when it comes to the effect on your teams

There absolutely is a statistical correlation to Matt Stafford's performance as it relates to Marvin Jones. An above average performance by Stafford is statistically likely to transfer to Marvin Jones. It certainly is no given that this happens, but it is the more likely outcome that if Stafford preforms well, Jones will too.

 

As an oversimplified exercise I went back an looked at the 2015 game logs for Detroit and used Stafford and Golden Tate as examples as Tate was the #2 receiver for Detroit last season so arguably the equivalent of what Jones is now.

 

In 16 games, Stafford threw for more than 2 TDs in 4 games. I'm defining an average game as 2 TD's as he threw 32 for the season. Tate caught 1 or more TD's in 4 games last year. 3 of those games were games where Stafford threw 3 or more touchdowns, so in 75% of Stafford's above average games, Tate also had a TD, likely making his scoring day above average. Only 1 of his TD's came in a game where Stafford threw 2 or fewer TD's.

 

Conversely in only 1 game where Stafford threw for 3+ TD's did Tate not have a TD himself. So yes it certainly can happen, but it was not likely to happen last season.

 

In a game where we don't know the outcome until after the games are played, any information to offset risk should be factored into the equation. In this instance, if all things were equal between Hilton and Jones, and my opponent had Stafford starting, I would elect Jones over Hilton. I don't necessarily agree that all things are equal between them, but if, in that owner's mind they are, it's statistically likely that his team would benefit from his opponent's QB play, thus mitigating some risk of a big game from Stafford.

[jerryskids 5,207]

Remember the cancel-out is only employed when you expect a superior performance from the rest of your team. If the opposite is true, you need to employ the anti-cancel-out-theory (ACOT) to leverage the variability.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Remember the cancel-out is only employed when you expect a superior performance from the rest of your team. If the opposite is true, you need to employ the anti-cancel-out-theory (ACOT) to leverage the variability.

I wish I could cancel out the entire weekend after getting beat 72-160. I expected superior performance than his players, then remembered I was watching the NFL. I need to buy a gun.

[TD Ryan2 314]

I would rather have a chance at my WR going off while his QB throws 0tds.

jerry gets it... the only way this doesn't work is if he goes ACOT on me and benches Stafford at 12:59pm... then I'm stuck with Jones and no cancelability.

 

so, I'll be ready... full-ACOT-watch before kickoff.

[tanatastic 2,061]

jerry gets it... the only way this doesn't work is if he goes ACOT on me and benches Stafford at 12:59pm... then I'm stuck with Jones and no cancelability.

It's like he cancels your cancel! I get it now, It's so clear!

[jerryskids 5,207]

jerry gets it... the only way this doesn't work is if he goes ACOT on me and benches Stafford at 12:59pm... then I'm stuck with Jones and no cancelability.

 

so, I'll be ready... full-ACOT-watch before kickoff.

 

We should develop an ACOT app which monitors your opponents' lineup and automatically inserts back in the superior player in that situation. Everyone but tanny would buy it. Winning$#@!

[TD Ryan2 314]

 

We should develop an ACOT app which monitors your opponents' lineup and automatically inserts back in the superior player in that situation. Everyone but tanny would buy it. Winning$#@!

you laugh man, but this is how ordinary guys get rich... it's easier than ever to invent the pet-rock today.

integration with CBS, ESPN, YAHOO, NFL would be the toughest part... but this is significant enough that you could convince end-users to change platforms knowing that ACOT monitoring is a standard feature.

[DankNuggs 305]

There absolutely is a statistical correlation to Matt Stafford's performance as it relates to Marvin Jones. An above average performance by Stafford is statistically likely to transfer to Marvin Jones. It certainly is no given that this happens, but it is the more likely outcome that if Stafford preforms well, Jones will too.

 

As an oversimplified exercise I went back an looked at the 2015 game logs for Detroit and used Stafford and Golden Tate as examples as Tate was the #2 receiver for Detroit last season so arguably the equivalent of what Jones is now.

 

In 16 games, Stafford threw for more than 2 TDs in 4 games. I'm defining an average game as 2 TD's as he threw 32 for the season. Tate caught 1 or more TD's in 4 games last year. 3 of those games were games where Stafford threw 3 or more touchdowns, so in 75% of Stafford's above average games, Tate also had a TD, likely making his scoring day above average. Only 1 of his TD's came in a game where Stafford threw 2 or fewer TD's.

 

Conversely in only 1 game where Stafford threw for 3+ TD's did Tate not have a TD himself. So yes it certainly can happen, but it was not likely to happen last season.

 

In a game where we don't know the outcome until after the games are played, any information to offset risk should be factored into the equation. In this instance, if all things were equal between Hilton and Jones, and my opponent had Stafford starting, I would elect Jones over Hilton. I don't necessarily agree that all things are equal between them, but if, in that owner's mind they are, it's statistically likely that his team would benefit from his opponent's QB play, thus mitigating some risk of a big game from Stafford.

Cancel-out has moved from a Theory to a Law

[IGotWorms 3,316]

Cancel-out has moved from a Theory to a Law

Did you actually read that whole post?

[mobb_deep 917]

Nobody is arguing that Cancel Out Theory is full proof. Sure, Ben could get hurt on play 1 and Brown still goes off. Or sure Brown could rush for 126 and 2 TDs on a couple of long reverses.

 

But it's a percentage play. Run 100 simulations of the game, and if Cancel Out Theory wins you even one more simulation than not employing it would, then you have no choice but to deploy it.

 

Today is may not help. But skill wins in the long run, and those that don't know how to use this tool are the same guys that argue they should have chased a flush when only getting 2-1 odds on their call because "it would have hit".

 

 

To use an analogy, if you trade away $10 and get $10 back, you are cool if it happens, and cool if it doesn't. It's when you are giving away $5 and getting back $10 that you made the right move.

[TimHauck 1,802]

There is a zero% chance of that being true.

Here is tanatastic trying to disagree, but actually agreeing with the "cancel out" theory:

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=438502&&page=3

 

Luck can be "QB X that I feel will score more" so its no matter there, just using for sake of example.

 

Im still taking QB X since i feel he will score more. But for sake of argument, if I felt they were dead even I may choose ryan to prevent a case where his wrs score 3 tds and my qb has 5 points.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Here is tanatastic trying to disagree, but actually agreeing with the "cancel out" theory:

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=438502&&page=3

 

Yup.

 

Tantasic is one of the tards that bought in to the Hawk Moth theory also.

I say ban him on general purposes alone.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Here is tanatastic trying to disagree, but actually agreeing with the "cancel out" theory:http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=438502&&page=3

That was me compromising that in the obscure MNF scenario where you only have those players to go and he only has players in the game as well that hedging is a semi conceivable, albeit flimsy tactic. That was a long convo of me trying to come to some middle ground to just end it. I even said "for the sake of argument." In that quote. That's universal language for trying to compromise and see other points of view without flaming. You can't even own me when you think you have me dead to rights and link something, it's still a fail. That thread gave me PTSD and was the last cancel out thread we had I believe.

 

Mensa goes wayyy too far in that thread as if every lineup decision is a delicate tapestry of strategy involving playing the opposite of what your opponent is playing and it's just a mess. I could barely even get through it with my sanity intact. You joining in was like pee icing on a crap cake. Glad you linked it though, people will have a good laugh poring it over.

 

Also I think people are mixing up cancel out with hedging and risk mitigation.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Yup.

 

Tantasic is one of the tards that bought in to the Hawk Moth theory also.

I say ban him on general purposes alone.

 

Never heard of it and even after googling i don't get it, but I want to.