Cancel out Theory

[TimHauck 1,802]

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.

Yeah they will get a good laugh at your posts mostly.

 

There is no "mixing up" hedging/risk mitigation with "cancel out." It's the same thing. It's just if you don't call it "cancel out" you might get less trolls.

[mobb_deep 917]

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

It was a bat.

[nordwave 2]

I understand the desire for this theory to be true, but it just doesn't work that way - especially if we're talking about lineup decisions made before the majority of games start on Sunday morning. Both a QB or WR can have independantly good games, so just ignore your opponent's lineup.

 

In this very rare scenario though, I might consider this:

 

- if you can decide between two similar QBs in late Sunday or Monday games, after knowing where your matchup stands in the earlier games

- and your opponent is starting the stud WR for one of those QBs

 

Then, if I have the lead in the matchup I might lean towards starting the QB throwing to my opponents WR, just to potentially guard against a major points swing. I guess this could be considered trying to "cancel out" the WR, but I would call it "playing it safe" instead. But it would only be a consideration if my QB choice was close, i.e. I'm projecting them to score about the same. I'm still not going to sit Luck or Brees on a Monday night to start Shaun Hill instead.

 

So that's it, only one rare case in which I could buy that theory. But definitely not if you're talking about lineup choices at the beginning of the week - too many variables involved, just ignore your opponent and start the players who you think will score the most.

[brotherbock 349]

I understand the desire for this theory to be true, but it just doesn't work that way - especially if we're talking about lineup decisions made before the majority of games start on Sunday morning. Both a QB or WR can have independantly good games, so just ignore your opponent's lineup.

 

In this very rare scenario though, I might consider this:

 

- if you can decide between two similar QBs in late Sunday or Monday games, after knowing where your matchup stands in the earlier games

- and your opponent is starting the stud WR for one of those QBs

 

Then, if I have the lead in the matchup I might lean towards starting the QB throwing to my opponents WR, just to potentially guard against a major points swing. I guess this could be considered trying to "cancel out" the WR, but I would call it "playing it safe" instead. But it would only be a consideration if my QB choice was close, i.e. I'm projecting them to score about the same. I'm still not going to sit Luck or Brees on a Monday night to start Shaun Hill instead.

 

So that's it, only one rare case in which I could buy that theory. But definitely not if you're talking about lineup choices at the beginning of the week - too many variables involved, just ignore your opponent and start the players who you think will score the most.

 

That's the case that I buy the theory in, too.

 

Here's a game for two people:

 

1) There are two slot machines.

2) Machine 1 pays out a total of $100, and it does it 75% of the time.

3) Machine 2 also pays out $100, but only 10% of the time.

4) If we choose the same machine, we split the payout evenly. If we choose different machines, we each get the whole payout of our machine.

5) You begin the game with $20 more than me.

6) Highest money total at the end of 3 pulls wins.

7) You choose first, and pick Machine 1.

 

Now it's my choice. Which machine should I pick? The one that's more likely to get me more money, but that will also get you money each time? I will literally never beat you if I go with Machine 1. My odds are poor, but my only chance of beating you is to go with the machine that's less likely to make me any money at all.

 

 

You have Big Ben on Monday night with a point lead. Machine 1 is me having Antonio Brown. Machine 2 is me having Willie Snead.

 

 

Clearly, with FF and not slot machines, there's a chance I could win with Brown--Ben gets injured, for example, and Brown still gets his. Or he scores on three reverses and Ben doesn't throw a score. But those are even less likely than Snead outscoring Brown. So if you must win that game (season point total doesn't matter anymore), you have to go with Snead.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

Super pissed somebody spilled the beans on ACOT. Thanks for letting everyone know about it

[JTB 52]

The system can, and is proven to work if you use the right theory of cancellation.

[Gladiators 1,904]

Super pissed somebody spilled the beans on ACOT. Thanks for letting everyone know about it

 

Pretty much everyone knows about it. Very few know how to implement it.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

 

Pretty much everyone knows about it. Very few know how to implement it.

<--- Wrote the book on it

[t-birdie 8]

Just start who you think will score more, that's it.

 

Maybe your league is different, but I don't want to score the most points - I just want to score more points than my opponent.

[kutulu 1,551]

Going to try a double cancel out with a triple lindy this weekend.

[Vikes_Fan 8]

I'm guessing more often than not this doesn't work, though in some occasion it may. I get to test it this week as I have Moncreif and Allen going against Luck on the other side. Not really planned to go that way, those two are deserving over anyone on my bench. Hopefully, Luck doesn't target Hilton much in the red zone. In reality though, even if they cancel out, I need good games from some of my RBs to make it work.

[TimHauck 1,802]

Think I will be employing the Cancel Out Theory this weekend.

 

Deciding between Flacco and Cousins (14 team league and I was last to pick a QB). I'd project them about the same (Yahoo actually has Cousins a little higher in my league).

 

Opponent has Wallace. Not exactly a stud WR but a guy with potential for a big game. Combined with Cousins' inconsistency I think I am going to go with Flacco to also help cancel out/mitigate/hedge against a potential big game by Wallace.

[gardenstatepkwy 5]

I didn't read this whole thread but I always looked at this as insurance.

 

If my opponent has Eli and I'm playing OBJ it gives me a layer or insurance that OBJ will most likely get some of what Eli does. Given the same example I wouldn't necessarily play Victor Cruz or Shepard because my opponent has Eli though. I guess its more peace of mind for me than actively using this strategy.

[jerryskids 5,207]

Super pissed somebody spilled the beans on ACOT. Thanks for letting everyone know about it

 

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm going to guess I was drinking at the time. Heavily.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

 

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm going to guess I was drinking at the time. Heavily.

Loose lips sink ships

[Ray_T 591]

The bottom line, is that you gotta be a little bit smart in how you do it.

 

Typically the cancel out player should be a #1 or #2 WR or their respective QB.

 

The theory suggests that if the QB has a big game, his respective WR's will likely also have a big game.

 

it does not always work but it does work often enough that people use the strategy.

[Thornton Melon 544]

Going to try a double cancel out with a triple lindy this weekend.

 

pppfftttt.....I call that "Tuesday"