A Lesson in Risk Managment Strategy (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

No. It comes down to projections and ADP and how to maximize value throughout the draft through inefficiences of other drafters.

(League) size doesn't matter.

1) ADP is completely different in 10 man leagues than in 14, and for good reason. 2) You're right about trying to maximize value, but there are some players whose value is based on the possibility they'll play. For example, Carson Palmer would be a much better QB pick in an eight person league than in a 16. Reuben Droughns is worth a lot more in a 16 person league than he is in an 8 person.

 

[ookook]

I agree with the sentiment that in a big league I am willing to take more risk because I need to try to score big to reduce the value I lose at the other end of the snake.

So ignoring PPR silliness, I might go:

8-team: LJ

10-team: LT

12 or more: SA

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I could see it last year with someone like Priest in the mix. Knowing the slim pickens available at the 2nd/3rd turn in a 14 team league would steer you towards a safer pick if you had two players ranked closely otherwise.

This year, I don't see enough of an injury risk with LJ, Alexander, LT, or Portis to let league size sway me one way or another.

Let's assume we're in Vegas tomorrow for the WCOFF. How do you rank the three joffer?

1 - LJ (by a pretty fair margin)2 - LT

3 - SA and Portis almost dead even

WCOFF is different than your standard 12 teamer though, LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.

What makes WCOFF different from a 12 team ppr league? Are there other rules/scoring there?

 

[bostonfred]

I agree with the sentiment that in a big league I am willing to take more risk because I need to try to score big to reduce the value I lose at the other end of the snake.

So ignoring PPR silliness, I might go:

8-team: LJ

10-team: LT

12 or more: SA

Do you think Alexander is the riskiest of these players?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I agree with the sentiment that in a big league I am willing to take more risk because I need to try to score big to reduce the value I lose at the other end of the snake.

So ignoring PPR silliness, I might go:

8-team: LJ

10-team: LT

12 or more: SA

Do you think Alexander is the riskiest of these players?

I think there are 3 types of risk associated with any given player (in order of importance):1) Personal Performance Risk

2) Injury Risk

3) Team Performance Risk

PPR is the risk that the player not perform up to their talent and situation, regardless of injury (on a PPG basis, if you will)

IR is the risk that the player gets injured

TPR is the risks associated with the team affecting the players opportunities.

I can certainly see SA (loss of Hutch) and LT (Rivers) as being higher in the TPR category. But I can't understand how people can think that a player who needed to be called out by coach, sulked for awhile, and then actually performed (albeit at a high level) for only 9 games has less PPR risk than SA or LT. Those two have proven it for several years. So are folks that think LJ is the least risky only considering IR and TPR?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I could see it last year with someone like Priest in the mix.  Knowing the slim pickens available at the 2nd/3rd turn in a 14 team league would steer you towards a safer pick if you had two players ranked closely otherwise.

This year, I don't see enough of an injury risk with LJ, Alexander, LT, or Portis to let league size sway me one way or another.

Let's assume we're in Vegas tomorrow for the WCOFF. How do you rank the three joffer?

1 - LJ (by a pretty fair margin)2 - LT

3 - SA and Portis almost dead even

WCOFF is different than your standard 12 teamer though, LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.

What makes WCOFF different from a 12 team ppr league? Are there other rules/scoring there?

I think because in WCOFF the competition is so tough that you have to take the player with the potential to score the most points. LJ has the highest possible upside of the big 3. Guy could go 2,000 & get 30td's.

 

[nygiants56]

Also, changes who is left at the turn for your 2nd/3rd round picks.

if you pick #1 overall you're picking 28th and 29th when it comes back to you again , right?

its a safe bet to say that the most of the top 15 RB's will be off the board ( assuming your league is like most others, where RB's are drafted early and often), and at least 5 WR's, 5 QB's, and a few top TE's like Antonio Gates/Gonzalez/Shockey/Heap..

so a guy picking #8 overall isn't getting a RB comparable to LJ/Lt/SA, but, he could have drafted a WR like Chad Johnson or Steve Smith or a QB like Palmer at the 8th spot ( depending on your scoring system, that is)

so the advantage of having a guy like one of those three rbs is tremendous, since the dropoff in talent is huge! Also, many NFL teams are now employing the RBBC approach, and you would have drafted one of the few RB's who don't play for teams that use RBBC. thats a huge advantage for you.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I could see it last year with someone like Priest in the mix. Knowing the slim pickens available at the 2nd/3rd turn in a 14 team league would steer you towards a safer pick if you had two players ranked closely otherwise.

This year, I don't see enough of an injury risk with LJ, Alexander, LT, or Portis to let league size sway me one way or another.

Let's assume we're in Vegas tomorrow for the WCOFF. How do you rank the three joffer?

1 - LJ (by a pretty fair margin)2 - LT

3 - SA and Portis almost dead even

WCOFF is different than your standard 12 teamer though, LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.

What makes WCOFF different from a 12 team ppr league? Are there other rules/scoring there?

I think because in WCOFF the competition is so tough that you have to take the player with the potential to score the most points. LJ has the highest possible upside of the big 3. Guy could go 2,000 & get 30td's.

OK, gotcha. Thanks.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I could see it last year with someone like Priest in the mix.  Knowing the slim pickens available at the 2nd/3rd turn in a 14 team league would steer you towards a safer pick if you had two players ranked closely otherwise.

This year, I don't see enough of an injury risk with LJ, Alexander, LT, or Portis to let league size sway me one way or another.

Let's assume we're in Vegas tomorrow for the WCOFF. How do you rank the three joffer?

1 - LJ (by a pretty fair margin)2 - LT

3 - SA and Portis almost dead even

WCOFF is different than your standard 12 teamer though, LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.

What makes WCOFF different from a 12 team ppr league? Are there other rules/scoring there?

I think because in WCOFF the competition is so tough that you have to take the player with the potential to score the most points. LJ has the highest possible upside of the big 3. Guy could go 2,000 & get 30td's.

OK, gotcha. Thanks.

Another difference is you can start 3rb/3wr or 2rb/4wr.

 

[The Ref]

I am taking all bets regarding who misses the most games due to injury.

I'll take Alexander...anybody who wants some action can take the proven Larry Johnson.

Let's dance.

I have two words for you...Electronic Arts

With that being said, I wouln't touch that bet.

 

[Muahahaha]

The larger the league, the more you need a "sure thing" with that #1 pick.  There is less opportunity to recover from a risky pick when fewer "consistant production players" are available between each pick.

The alternative to changing strategy with the first pick though, is mitigating that risk later in the draft by picking up hand-cuff players.

Disagree with this sentiment. I think LUCKS says it best when he says later on in this thread that in the WCOFF "LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.". Why is that?Well what do you wamt in your #1 pick in any league size? You want a guy that will stay healthy and consistantly put up the most points. But there is rarely an opporunity to optimize all conditions, so you have to evaluate what is the most imporatnt.

Much can be learned from statistics, in that in the long run, you always want to choose the play with the most expected value. That is, you determine the value of all probable outcomes and multiple them by their probablity. So, for example let's say you are considering Larry Johnson vs. Shaun Alexander. Say for example that you argue that there is a 90% chance Shaun stays healthy and scores 200 points, but a 10% chance he scores only 80 points (due to injury). Then you say 200*.9 + 80*.10 and you expect Shaun Alexander to score 199 points. For Larry Johnson, perhaps you argue that he can score 230 points 65% of the time, but only 60 the other 35% of the time. You give LJ an expected value of 174.5.

In the long run, you always take the play with the most expected value. Its a no brainer. Given enough chances, that play pays off the most. But in a redraft league, its not the long term. Its a one shot proposition. You have to ask yourself, how much do I need to leave some expected value on the table in order to maximize my chances of winning?

League size plays a big factor here. If I handed you a $25 chip in a casino and told you that if in an hour you didn't have a thousand dollars to give me, what game would you play? The highest expected value would be to play conservatively at craps or at blackjack, but that isn't going to give you the money you need. You need to give up a lot of expected value and put that $25 chip down on a number at the roulette number and say a prayer.

When your league size is small, you take the expected value and stick to the sure thing (think pass line craps bets or conservative blackjack) when you play in a big league (or a huge league like WCOFF) doing "good" isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to do outstanding. So in that case you leave expected value on the table in order to try to show a huge return.

So the point is, small league = take less risk, maximize your value. Big to huge league = take more risk, try to maximize your investment and shoot the moon. THis is where I think LUCKS was originally going. If you play in an 8 team league Shaun Alexander is a no brainer at #1. But when you play in WCOFF, Larry Johnson is your no brainer.

Excellent post. I have been saying this for a while. You gotta embrace risk in the WCOFF, not shun it. #1 reason why I took LJ in the fifth last year & won my satellite.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The larger the league, the more you need a "sure thing" with that #1 pick. There is less opportunity to recover from a risky pick when fewer "consistant production players" are available between each pick.

The alternative to changing strategy with the first pick though, is mitigating that risk later in the draft by picking up hand-cuff players.

Disagree with this sentiment. I think LUCKS says it best when he says later on in this thread that in the WCOFF "LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.". Why is that?Well what do you wamt in your #1 pick in any league size? You want a guy that will stay healthy and consistantly put up the most points. But there is rarely an opporunity to optimize all conditions, so you have to evaluate what is the most imporatnt.

Much can be learned from statistics, in that in the long run, you always want to choose the play with the most expected value. That is, you determine the value of all probable outcomes and multiple them by their probablity. So, for example let's say you are considering Larry Johnson vs. Shaun Alexander. Say for example that you argue that there is a 90% chance Shaun stays healthy and scores 200 points, but a 10% chance he scores only 80 points (due to injury). Then you say 200*.9 + 80*.10 and you expect Shaun Alexander to score 199 points. For Larry Johnson, perhaps you argue that he can score 230 points 65% of the time, but only 60 the other 35% of the time. You give LJ an expected value of 174.5.

In the long run, you always take the play with the most expected value. Its a no brainer. Given enough chances, that play pays off the most. But in a redraft league, its not the long term. Its a one shot proposition. You have to ask yourself, how much do I need to leave some expected value on the table in order to maximize my chances of winning?

League size plays a big factor here. If I handed you a $25 chip in a casino and told you that if in an hour you didn't have a thousand dollars to give me, what game would you play? The highest expected value would be to play conservatively at craps or at blackjack, but that isn't going to give you the money you need. You need to give up a lot of expected value and put that $25 chip down on a number at the roulette number and say a prayer.

When your league size is small, you take the expected value and stick to the sure thing (think pass line craps bets or conservative blackjack) when you play in a big league (or a huge league like WCOFF) doing "good" isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to do outstanding. So in that case you leave expected value on the table in order to try to show a huge return.

So the point is, small league = take less risk, maximize your value. Big to huge league = take more risk, try to maximize your investment and shoot the moon. THis is where I think LUCKS was originally going. If you play in an 8 team league Shaun Alexander is a no brainer at #1. But when you play in WCOFF, Larry Johnson is your no brainer.

Good post -- thoughtful and well written.My view is pretty much the opposite, though. WCOFF aside (since that's an entirely different ball of wax), I am willing to take more risks in an 8- or 10-team league than I am in a 12-, 14- or 16-team league.

In an 8-team league, you have to have a total stud at every position to win the league. All teams have plenty of studs because there are so many to go around. The VBD baseline is higher at every position, so in order to handily outperform the baseline, you need extreme studs. And getting extreme studs often means taking risks. Risk-taking is also more acceptable in a small league because if your top pick busts, you will still have a good shot at getting studs with your later picks.

Contrariwise, in a 14-team league, if your RB1 busts you are likely screwed. There aren't as many studs to go around, and if you miss your shot at one with your first picks, you are unlikely to be able to make it up later. There's more competition for waiver-wire pickups, and there's less available on the waiver wire anyway. So in a 14-team league, I feel like I absolutely cannot bust with my first picks. I am therefore more likely to play it safe, where in a smaller league I'd be more willing to take chances.

 

[LHUCKS]

The larger the league, the more you need a "sure thing" with that #1 pick.  There is less opportunity to recover from a risky pick when fewer "consistant production players" are available between each pick.

The alternative to changing strategy with the first pick though, is mitigating that risk later in the draft by picking up hand-cuff players.

Disagree with this sentiment. I think LUCKS says it best when he says later on in this thread that in the WCOFF "LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.". Why is that?Well what do you wamt in your #1 pick in any league size? You want a guy that will stay healthy and consistantly put up the most points. But there is rarely an opporunity to optimize all conditions, so you have to evaluate what is the most imporatnt.

Much can be learned from statistics, in that in the long run, you always want to choose the play with the most expected value. That is, you determine the value of all probable outcomes and multiple them by their probablity. So, for example let's say you are considering Larry Johnson vs. Shaun Alexander. Say for example that you argue that there is a 90% chance Shaun stays healthy and scores 200 points, but a 10% chance he scores only 80 points (due to injury). Then you say 200*.9 + 80*.10 and you expect Shaun Alexander to score 199 points. For Larry Johnson, perhaps you argue that he can score 230 points 65% of the time, but only 60 the other 35% of the time. You give LJ an expected value of 174.5.

In the long run, you always take the play with the most expected value. Its a no brainer. Given enough chances, that play pays off the most. But in a redraft league, its not the long term. Its a one shot proposition. You have to ask yourself, how much do I need to leave some expected value on the table in order to maximize my chances of winning?

League size plays a big factor here. If I handed you a $25 chip in a casino and told you that if in an hour you didn't have a thousand dollars to give me, what game would you play? The highest expected value would be to play conservatively at craps or at blackjack, but that isn't going to give you the money you need. You need to give up a lot of expected value and put that $25 chip down on a number at the roulette number and say a prayer.

When your league size is small, you take the expected value and stick to the sure thing (think pass line craps bets or conservative blackjack) when you play in a big league (or a huge league like WCOFF) doing "good" isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to do outstanding. So in that case you leave expected value on the table in order to try to show a huge return.

So the point is, small league = take less risk, maximize your value. Big to huge league = take more risk, try to maximize your investment and shoot the moon. THis is where I think LUCKS was originally going. If you play in an 8 team league Shaun Alexander is a no brainer at #1. But when you play in WCOFF, Larry Johnson is your no brainer.

Good post -- thoughtful and well written.My view is pretty much the opposite, though. WCOFF aside (since that's an entirely different ball of wax), I am willing to take more risks in an 8- or 10-team league than I am in a 12-, 14- or 16-team league.

In an 8-team league, you have to have a total stud at every position to win the league. All teams have plenty of studs because there are so many to go around. The VBD baseline is higher at every position, so in order to handily outperform the baseline, you need extreme studs. And getting extreme studs often means taking risks. Risk-taking is also more acceptable in a small league because if your top pick busts, you will still have a good shot at getting studs with your later picks.

Contrariwise, in a 14-team league, if your RB1 busts you are likely screwed. There aren't as many studs to go around, and if you miss your shot at one with your first picks, you are unlikely to be able to make it up later. There's more competition for waiver-wire pickups, and there's less available on the waiver wire anyway. So in a 14-team league, I feel like I absolutely cannot bust with my first picks. I am therefore more likely to play it safe, where in a smaller league I'd be more willing to take chances.

Maurile and I agree here.

 

[John Mamula]

No.  It comes down to projections and ADP and how to maximize value throughout the draft through inefficiences of other drafters.

(League) size doesn't matter.

1) ADP is completely different in 10 man leagues than in 14, and for good reason. 2) You're right about trying to maximize value, but there are some players whose value is based on the possibility they'll play. For example, Carson Palmer would be a much better QB pick in an eight person league than in a 16. Reuben Droughns is worth a lot more in a 16 person league than he is in an 8 person.

1. Obviously.2. Disagree. Droughns is a top 15 RB regardless. Value is value.

 

[joffer]

The larger the league, the more you need a "sure thing" with that #1 pick.  There is less opportunity to recover from a risky pick when fewer "consistant production players" are available between each pick.

The alternative to changing strategy with the first pick though, is mitigating that risk later in the draft by picking up hand-cuff players.

Disagree with this sentiment. I think LUCKS says it best when he says later on in this thread that in the WCOFF "LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.". Why is that?Well what do you wamt in your #1 pick in any league size? You want a guy that will stay healthy and consistantly put up the most points. But there is rarely an opporunity to optimize all conditions, so you have to evaluate what is the most imporatnt.

Much can be learned from statistics, in that in the long run, you always want to choose the play with the most expected value. That is, you determine the value of all probable outcomes and multiple them by their probablity. So, for example let's say you are considering Larry Johnson vs. Shaun Alexander. Say for example that you argue that there is a 90% chance Shaun stays healthy and scores 200 points, but a 10% chance he scores only 80 points (due to injury). Then you say 200*.9 + 80*.10 and you expect Shaun Alexander to score 199 points. For Larry Johnson, perhaps you argue that he can score 230 points 65% of the time, but only 60 the other 35% of the time. You give LJ an expected value of 174.5.

In the long run, you always take the play with the most expected value. Its a no brainer. Given enough chances, that play pays off the most. But in a redraft league, its not the long term. Its a one shot proposition. You have to ask yourself, how much do I need to leave some expected value on the table in order to maximize my chances of winning?

League size plays a big factor here. If I handed you a $25 chip in a casino and told you that if in an hour you didn't have a thousand dollars to give me, what game would you play? The highest expected value would be to play conservatively at craps or at blackjack, but that isn't going to give you the money you need. You need to give up a lot of expected value and put that $25 chip down on a number at the roulette number and say a prayer.

When your league size is small, you take the expected value and stick to the sure thing (think pass line craps bets or conservative blackjack) when you play in a big league (or a huge league like WCOFF) doing "good" isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to do outstanding. So in that case you leave expected value on the table in order to try to show a huge return.

So the point is, small league = take less risk, maximize your value. Big to huge league = take more risk, try to maximize your investment and shoot the moon. THis is where I think LUCKS was originally going. If you play in an 8 team league Shaun Alexander is a no brainer at #1. But when you play in WCOFF, Larry Johnson is your no brainer.

Good post -- thoughtful and well written.My view is pretty much the opposite, though. WCOFF aside (since that's an entirely different ball of wax), I am willing to take more risks in an 8- or 10-team league than I am in a 12-, 14- or 16-team league.

In an 8-team league, you have to have a total stud at every position to win the league. All teams have plenty of studs because there are so many to go around. The VBD baseline is higher at every position, so in order to handily outperform the baseline, you need extreme studs. And getting extreme studs often means taking risks. Risk-taking is also more acceptable in a small league because if your top pick busts, you will still have a good shot at getting studs with your later picks.

Contrariwise, in a 14-team league, if your RB1 busts you are likely screwed. There aren't as many studs to go around, and if you miss your shot at one with your first picks, you are unlikely to be able to make it up later. There's more competition for waiver-wire pickups, and there's less available on the waiver wire anyway. So in a 14-team league, I feel like I absolutely cannot bust with my first picks. I am therefore more likely to play it safe, where in a smaller league I'd be more willing to take chances.

Maurile and I agree here.

y yo tambien

 

[bostonfred]

No.  It comes down to projections and ADP and how to maximize value throughout the draft through inefficiences of other drafters.

(League) size doesn't matter.

1) ADP is completely different in 10 man leagues than in 14, and for good reason. 2) You're right about trying to maximize value, but there are some players whose value is based on the possibility they'll play. For example, Carson Palmer would be a much better QB pick in an eight person league than in a 16. Reuben Droughns is worth a lot more in a 16 person league than he is in an 8 person.

1. Obviously.2. Disagree. Droughns is a top 15 RB regardless. Value is value.

No, value depends on baseline. Droughns is worth less in a league with fewer RB starters and more in a league with more RB starters. You might try to make the case that you project Droughns to still be top 15 on the list of running backs - which is not what I said in the original post - but even then, when you project him there, you're projecting the stats you think it's most likely he will get. Or some expected value of his statistics.

But in a fictitious scenario where there's one guy who is very likely to get 1200/7, and another guy who is either going to get 800/4 or 1600/10, I'd take the latter in an eight team league, while I'd take the former in a 16 team league. Droughns appears to be more like the former example, while the rookie backs seem to be more of the latter.

The lack of position scarcity rewards people who take risks looking for the #1 player at a position, and the smaller number of owners means that there will be much better backups available later in the draft.

 

[John Mamula]

No.  It comes down to projections and ADP and how to maximize value throughout the draft through inefficiences of other drafters.

(League) size doesn't matter.

1) ADP is completely different in 10 man leagues than in 14, and for good reason. 2) You're right about trying to maximize value, but there are some players whose value is based on the possibility they'll play. For example, Carson Palmer would be a much better QB pick in an eight person league than in a 16. Reuben Droughns is worth a lot more in a 16 person league than he is in an 8 person.

1. Obviously.2. Disagree. Droughns is a top 15 RB regardless. Value is value.

No, value depends on baseline. Droughns is worth less in a league with fewer RB starters and more in a league with more RB starters. You might try to make the case that you project Droughns to still be top 15 on the list of running backs - which is not what I said in the original post - but even then, when you project him there, you're projecting the stats you think it's most likely he will get. Or some expected value of his statistics.

But in a fictitious scenario where there's one guy who is very likely to get 1200/7, and another guy who is either going to get 800/4 or 1600/10, I'd take the latter in an eight team league, while I'd take the former in a 16 team league. Droughns appears to be more like the former example, while the rookie backs seem to be more of the latter.

The lack of position scarcity rewards people who take risks looking for the #1 player at a position, and the smaller number of owners means that there will be much better backups available later in the draft.

Bah. You can keep your baselines. I have no interest.Bottom line it comes down to drafting more players who as a team can outscore your opponent's team, regardless of # of people in the league. Regardless of league size history tells of us average drop offs as you go down the ranking list. Those dropoffs do not change based on league size despite the fact that value appears to change if you use a static baseline of last starter (or whatever).

Baselines are only good for ficticious examples as they have no real merit in the real world of a live draft where there are inefficiencies, varying rankings and strategies of owners, and randomness...essentially Chaos Theory.

Because of all of this, baselines completely break down at round 2 at best IMO. If you know basic fundamentals of fantasy football and have a sound overall draft strategy you won't need to know the baselines for those first two rounds anyway.

So if your argument is based on values derived from baselines, well that tells me all I need to know.

 

[bostonfred]

No.  It comes down to projections and ADP and how to maximize value throughout the draft through inefficiences of other drafters.

(League) size doesn't matter.

1) ADP is completely different in 10 man leagues than in 14, and for good reason. 2) You're right about trying to maximize value, but there are some players whose value is based on the possibility they'll play. For example, Carson Palmer would be a much better QB pick in an eight person league than in a 16. Reuben Droughns is worth a lot more in a 16 person league than he is in an 8 person.

1. Obviously.2. Disagree. Droughns is a top 15 RB regardless. Value is value.

No, value depends on baseline. Droughns is worth less in a league with fewer RB starters and more in a league with more RB starters. You might try to make the case that you project Droughns to still be top 15 on the list of running backs - which is not what I said in the original post - but even then, when you project him there, you're projecting the stats you think it's most likely he will get. Or some expected value of his statistics.

But in a fictitious scenario where there's one guy who is very likely to get 1200/7, and another guy who is either going to get 800/4 or 1600/10, I'd take the latter in an eight team league, while I'd take the former in a 16 team league. Droughns appears to be more like the former example, while the rookie backs seem to be more of the latter.

The lack of position scarcity rewards people who take risks looking for the #1 player at a position, and the smaller number of owners means that there will be much better backups available later in the draft.

Bah. You can keep your baselines. I have no interest.Bottom line it comes down to drafting more players who as a team can outscore your opponent's team, regardless of # of people in the league. Regardless of league size history tells of us average drop offs as you go down the ranking list. Those dropoffs do not change based on league size despite the fact that value appears to change if you use a static baseline of last starter (or whatever).

Baselines are only good for ficticious examples as they have no real merit in the real world of a live draft where there are inefficiencies, varying rankings and strategies of owners, and randomness...essentially Chaos Theory.

Because of all of this, baselines completely break down at round 2 at best IMO. If you know basic fundamentals of fantasy football and have a sound overall draft strategy you won't need to know the baselines for those first two rounds anyway.

So if your argument is based on values derived from baselines, well that tells me all I need to know.

Droughns had a good year, but mostly because he stayed healthy and didn't share much time. He didn't significantly outscore any of the ten backs that finished right after him, even though many of those backs missed some time. He's the definition of a slow and steady scorer. In an eight team league, unless you can start four backs, you will usually have someone on the bench that can contribute about what Droughns would on any given week. With the exception of the three week stretch from weeks 9 to 11 - where he scored both of his two touchdowns - he was never really irreplacable in any given week.

The reason the "baseline" is important is that you have to understand the caliber of player that you can get as a backup before you decide if you want to pick a risky player. You simply don't win eight team leagues without studs, because your middle tier RB2 doesn't outperform your opponents' scrub RB2 by enough to make up for their top tier players outscoring your middle tier RB1.

 

[John Mamula]

Fortunately it is just not about two RBs.

 

[anborn]

A FFL season can't be won in the first two rounds... but it can be lost there. This is even more so the case in larger leagues. As the rounds increase, so can your ability to take on risk.

 

[KCC]

I am taking all bets regarding who misses the most games due to injury.

I'll take Alexander...anybody who wants some action can take the proven Larry Johnson.

Let's dance.

Just to be clear, are you saying Alexander will miss fewer games than Johnson or more? I would bet that Alexander misses more games. Given the regular season stats listed previously, Alexander looks like he's been more durable. However, he didn't look so durable in the playoffs and, as mentioned before, is older. He also may have lost some motivation to play through injuries with his new contract.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The larger the league, the more you need a "sure thing" with that #1 pick. There is less opportunity to recover from a risky pick when fewer "consistant production players" are available between each pick.

The alternative to changing strategy with the first pick though, is mitigating that risk later in the draft by picking up hand-cuff players.

Disagree with this sentiment. I think LUCKS says it best when he says later on in this thread that in the WCOFF "LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.". Why is that?Well what do you wamt in your #1 pick in any league size? You want a guy that will stay healthy and consistantly put up the most points. But there is rarely an opporunity to optimize all conditions, so you have to evaluate what is the most imporatnt.

Much can be learned from statistics, in that in the long run, you always want to choose the play with the most expected value. That is, you determine the value of all probable outcomes and multiple them by their probablity. So, for example let's say you are considering Larry Johnson vs. Shaun Alexander. Say for example that you argue that there is a 90% chance Shaun stays healthy and scores 200 points, but a 10% chance he scores only 80 points (due to injury). Then you say 200*.9 + 80*.10 and you expect Shaun Alexander to score 199 points. For Larry Johnson, perhaps you argue that he can score 230 points 65% of the time, but only 60 the other 35% of the time. You give LJ an expected value of 174.5.

In the long run, you always take the play with the most expected value. Its a no brainer. Given enough chances, that play pays off the most. But in a redraft league, its not the long term. Its a one shot proposition. You have to ask yourself, how much do I need to leave some expected value on the table in order to maximize my chances of winning?

League size plays a big factor here. If I handed you a $25 chip in a casino and told you that if in an hour you didn't have a thousand dollars to give me, what game would you play? The highest expected value would be to play conservatively at craps or at blackjack, but that isn't going to give you the money you need. You need to give up a lot of expected value and put that $25 chip down on a number at the roulette number and say a prayer.

When your league size is small, you take the expected value and stick to the sure thing (think pass line craps bets or conservative blackjack) when you play in a big league (or a huge league like WCOFF) doing "good" isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to do outstanding. So in that case you leave expected value on the table in order to try to show a huge return.

So the point is, small league = take less risk, maximize your value. Big to huge league = take more risk, try to maximize your investment and shoot the moon. THis is where I think LUCKS was originally going. If you play in an 8 team league Shaun Alexander is a no brainer at #1. But when you play in WCOFF, Larry Johnson is your no brainer.

Good post -- thoughtful and well written.My view is pretty much the opposite, though. WCOFF aside (since that's an entirely different ball of wax), I am willing to take more risks in an 8- or 10-team league than I am in a 12-, 14- or 16-team league.

In an 8-team league, you have to have a total stud at every position to win the league. All teams have plenty of studs because there are so many to go around. The VBD baseline is higher at every position, so in order to handily outperform the baseline, you need extreme studs. And getting extreme studs often means taking risks. Risk-taking is also more acceptable in a small league because if your top pick busts, you will still have a good shot at getting studs with your later picks.

Contrariwise, in a 14-team league, if your RB1 busts you are likely screwed. There aren't as many studs to go around, and if you miss your shot at one with your first picks, you are unlikely to be able to make it up later. There's more competition for waiver-wire pickups, and there's less available on the waiver wire anyway. So in a 14-team league, I feel like I absolutely cannot bust with my first picks. I am therefore more likely to play it safe, where in a smaller league I'd be more willing to take chances.

Maurile and I agree here.

I agree with MT and LHUCKS here, but the counterpoint argument is interesting.My risk aversion decreases as the draft wears on. I'll take far more risk in Round 11 than in Round 3.

 

[John Mamula]

My risk aversion decreases as the draft wears on. I'll take far more risk in Round 11 than in Round 3.

I would hope so.

 

[Football Menace]

However, in 1 ppr leagues, right now I have all 3 of the top guys in their own respective tier and they're relatively far apart to where it would not change my decision between either league.

This answer I can live with... if you're projecting seperate tiers and you believe the injury risk is relatively the same(both of which I disagree with) then you wouldn't change your rankings.This almost never happens for me...risk plays a much larger role in my rankings/projections than it does for almost every single expert I've seen.

You're creating a risk when it's not there. Sure common sense would tell ya any player could get hurt. Beyond that Shaun hasn't missed a game his whole career and LT has missed just one. This is similar to someone predicting lost time due to an injury for Favre or Peyton. On the other hand, LJ who you deem less risky and has missed what amounts to a full season in just 3 years. That's 1/3 or 33% or awful reliability IMO.

IMO You're off here LHucks. As usual, you have some solid ideas and thoughts behind it but your starting hypothesis truly seems to be that LJ is less risky than the others. It was flawed from the beginning. The same great line that blocked for LJ blocked for Priest and Blaylock who have missed a ton of time too. A line can be argued that they protect the QB and thus save him from injury but (esp in KCs case) not save a RB from injury.

Sorry bro, not a fan of this theory by you

Good luck with your book. I'll buy it ASAP. I, too, have similar ambitions and have been deleting pages upon pages of "nonsense" lately so feel free to PM me if ya ever wanna whine about how grrrr the whole process is.

I don't think those games were b/c of injury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember LJ missing a game b/c he was hurt.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

However, in 1 ppr leagues, right now I have all 3 of the top guys in their own respective tier and they're relatively far apart to where it would not change my decision between either league.

This answer I can live with... if you're projecting seperate tiers and you believe the injury risk is relatively the same(both of which I disagree with) then you wouldn't change your rankings.This almost never happens for me...risk plays a much larger role in my rankings/projections than it does for almost every single expert I've seen.

You're creating a risk when it's not there. Sure common sense would tell ya any player could get hurt. Beyond that Shaun hasn't missed a game his whole career and LT has missed just one. This is similar to someone predicting lost time due to an injury for Favre or Peyton. On the other hand, LJ who you deem less risky and has missed what amounts to a full season in just 3 years. That's 1/3 or 33% or awful reliability IMO.

IMO You're off here LHucks. As usual, you have some solid ideas and thoughts behind it but your starting hypothesis truly seems to be that LJ is less risky than the others. It was flawed from the beginning. The same great line that blocked for LJ blocked for Priest and Blaylock who have missed a ton of time too. A line can be argued that they protect the QB and thus save him from injury but (esp in KCs case) not save a RB from injury.

Sorry bro, not a fan of this theory by you

Good luck with your book. I'll buy it ASAP. I, too, have similar ambitions and have been deleting pages upon pages of "nonsense" lately so feel free to PM me if ya ever wanna whine about how grrrr the whole process is.

I don't think those games were b/c of injury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember LJ missing a game b/c he was hurt.

I don't think LJ has ever missed an NFL game due to injury.

 

[bostonfred]

Fortunately it is just not about two RBs.

That's it? You're not going to start decrying baselines and then say something random about chaos theory?

 

[John Mamula]

Fortunately it is just not about two RBs.

That's it? You're not going to start decrying baselines and then say something random about chaos theory?

BASELINES HAVE NO CHANCE

 

[Family Matters]

I am taking all bets regarding who misses the most games due to injury.

I'll take Alexander...anybody who wants some action can take the proven Larry Johnson.

Let's dance.

Just to be clear, are you saying Alexander will miss fewer games than Johnson or more? I would bet that Alexander misses more games. Given the regular season stats listed previously, Alexander looks like he's been more durable. However, he didn't look so durable in the playoffs and, as mentioned before, is older. He also may have lost some motivation to play through injuries with his new contract.

I want to use this post to respond to the risk theory(s) being discussed here. My first question is why would either of these guys be expected to miss any games this year?My 2nd questions is I still do understand how a player becomes injury prone based on league size. A given player is no more likely to be injured in a 8 team league than a 16 team league. I still feel like you can out think yourself on this one.

Now if we're talking about Palmer then I can see why you would float his risk factor. Clearly the likelyhood he will miss games is high due to the fact he's already known to be injured. That's a lot different than guessing he might get injured.

Predicting injuries is not an artform. It's just a guessing game. And no one can do it well that I've seen. If you can then please explain it in plain english as to how you do it. I know you can assign risk factors based on past experiences but to predict that Alexander or LJ will miss any games is just throwing darts at the board. There is nothing there to suggest that either will miss any time this year.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I am taking all bets regarding who misses the most games due to injury.

I'll take Alexander...anybody who wants some action can take the proven Larry Johnson.

Let's dance.

Just to be clear, are you saying Alexander will miss fewer games than Johnson or more? I would bet that Alexander misses more games. Given the regular season stats listed previously, Alexander looks like he's been more durable. However, he didn't look so durable in the playoffs and, as mentioned before, is older. He also may have lost some motivation to play through injuries with his new contract.

I want to use this post to respond to the risk theory(s) being discussed here. My first question is why would either of these guys be expected to miss any games this year?My 2nd questions is I still do understand how a player becomes injury prone based on league size. A given player is no more likely to be injured in a 8 team league than a 16 team league. I still feel like you can out think yourself on this one.

Now if we're talking about Palmer then I can see why you would float his risk factor. Clearly the likelyhood he will miss games is high due to the fact he's already known to be injured. That's a lot different than guessing he might get injured.

Predicting injuries is not an artform. It's just a guessing game. And no one can do it well that I've seen. If you can then please explain it in plain english as to how you do it. I know you can assign risk factors based on past experiences but to predict that Alexander or LJ will miss any games is just throwing darts at the board. There is nothing there to suggest that either will miss any time this year.

It's not about predicting injuries. In the "what if he gets hurt" scenario, can you cover yourself with talent available in Rounds 2-5 or not?In a small league, 8-10 teams, the value of player available is far higher than in a 14- or 16-team league.

You can easily have 3 starting RBs in an 8 team league, so taking a health risk first overall is mitigated by the talented RB2 and RB3 you get at the 2nd/3rd Round turn at picks 20 and 21 in a 10-team league. In a 14 team league, 28 and 29 offer much less.

 

[Family Matters]

I am taking all bets regarding who misses the most games due to injury.

I'll take Alexander...anybody who wants some action can take the proven Larry Johnson.

Let's dance.

Just to be clear, are you saying Alexander will miss fewer games than Johnson or more? I would bet that Alexander misses more games. Given the regular season stats listed previously, Alexander looks like he's been more durable. However, he didn't look so durable in the playoffs and, as mentioned before, is older. He also may have lost some motivation to play through injuries with his new contract.

I want to use this post to respond to the risk theory(s) being discussed here. My first question is why would either of these guys be expected to miss any games this year?My 2nd questions is I still do understand how a player becomes injury prone based on league size. A given player is no more likely to be injured in a 8 team league than a 16 team league. I still feel like you can out think yourself on this one.

Now if we're talking about Palmer then I can see why you would float his risk factor. Clearly the likelyhood he will miss games is high due to the fact he's already known to be injured. That's a lot different than guessing he might get injured.

Predicting injuries is not an artform. It's just a guessing game. And no one can do it well that I've seen. If you can then please explain it in plain english as to how you do it. I know you can assign risk factors based on past experiences but to predict that Alexander or LJ will miss any games is just throwing darts at the board. There is nothing there to suggest that either will miss any time this year.

It's not about predicting injuries. In the "what if he gets hurt" scenario, can you cover yourself with talent available in Rounds 2-5 or not?In a small league, 8-10 teams, the value of player available is far higher than in a 14- or 16-team league.

You can easily have 3 starting RBs in an 8 team league, so taking a health risk first overall is mitigated by the talented RB2 and RB3 you get at the 2nd/3rd Round turn at picks 20 and 21 in a 10-team league. In a 14 team league, 28 and 29 offer much less.

Thanks for replying Jeff. In giving this some thought I find I do this now. When drafting player A or B I wonder what's available down the line and what are my chances with this guy. I do this in all leagues. What I'm not sure pans out however is that you can recover form losing your round 1 RB for example with a guy(s) you draft in rounds 3 or later just because you modified your risk strategy. If you handcuff you might accomplish that like the Holmes/LJ owners did last year. But to expect to find a player capable of RB1 performance there isn't always going to pan out. In fact it usually doesn't. What does sometimes happene is that you drafted great QB's, WR's and TE's that might make up some differneces to your team score. Last year for example some owners got the gift of a great kicker on Rackers. He made the difference for some teams because he was so much better than the other kickers. Enough so that he made up differences in team's overall scores.

But back to the origianl point of this thread, which is changing your risk startegy based on league size. The point that was being made is that you chnage the risk factors on a player depending on league size. I'm not sure where the real value is in saying that. I can see that in dynasty versus redraft. In fact I can see that in "best ball" versus setting line ups but it's a small modification usually.

Let me play devils advocate on this. What problems do you create for yourself in applying a different risk strategy? Let's say in a draft an owner decides that he must protect himself against injury risk and wants to handcuff, like Holmes/LJ last year. Clearly in this case the handcuff has to happene by round 5. When do most players draft their RB3? In round 3 or 4 often. So you might actually improve your team by waiting until round 5 to get RB3 (LJ) and draft a better QB/WR/TE that improves the overall scoring of your team.

Let's look at the owner that says I am applying risk adversion here and taking LT instead. He's safer. Now LT had a great start but finished poorly last half of last year. So this owner goes RB1, RB2, RB3 perhaps and then WR1 and WR2 his first 5 picks. Let's look at these 2 teams:

Team 1 has the better RB production and WR production because he was able to go WR a round earlier which can be a nice upgrade. The other owner was lagging at both positions. How will he recover at this point? He will likely continue to play it safe to protect what he's started? Could be.

Clearly the guy who took more risk and covered himself fared better than the guy that was protecting against risk. So why not put your team in a better position?

The Holmes/LJ combo blew him away. That was not a tkae it safe play at all but it is the one that put teams in a position to win.

 

[Family Matters]

Another thought about risk adversion theories. In order for them to work other teams must have problems. If you are going to avoid the high upside player for a safer pick that will underperform the top 2 or 3 guys then you also must hope that the palyers you avoided are going to miss games during your playoffs. Otherwise all your doing is accepting defeat. You're setting your team up for failure becasue your team's success is built and predicated on other's failures.

Play it safe and you put the outcome in someone elses hands. By avoiding players ranked above your safe pick you are saying that you need all of those players to fail before your guy can succeed. Get the players that can win it for you then you are only hoping for their injury status to be at risk. Would rather need for 2 or 3 RB's to become injured or just your guy to be healthy? The odds are stacked against you in a "risk adversed" format.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

The larger the league, the more you need a "sure thing" with that #1 pick. There is less opportunity to recover from a risky pick when fewer "consistant production players" are available between each pick.

The alternative to changing strategy with the first pick though, is mitigating that risk later in the draft by picking up hand-cuff players.

Disagree with this sentiment. I think LUCKS says it best when he says later on in this thread that in the WCOFF "LJ is the obvious #1 pick for that format IMHO.". Why is that?Well what do you wamt in your #1 pick in any league size? You want a guy that will stay healthy and consistantly put up the most points. But there is rarely an opporunity to optimize all conditions, so you have to evaluate what is the most imporatnt.

Much can be learned from statistics, in that in the long run, you always want to choose the play with the most expected value. That is, you determine the value of all probable outcomes and multiple them by their probablity. So, for example let's say you are considering Larry Johnson vs. Shaun Alexander. Say for example that you argue that there is a 90% chance Shaun stays healthy and scores 200 points, but a 10% chance he scores only 80 points (due to injury). Then you say 200*.9 + 80*.10 and you expect Shaun Alexander to score 199 points. For Larry Johnson, perhaps you argue that he can score 230 points 65% of the time, but only 60 the other 35% of the time. You give LJ an expected value of 174.5.

In the long run, you always take the play with the most expected value. Its a no brainer. Given enough chances, that play pays off the most. But in a redraft league, its not the long term. Its a one shot proposition. You have to ask yourself, how much do I need to leave some expected value on the table in order to maximize my chances of winning?

League size plays a big factor here. If I handed you a $25 chip in a casino and told you that if in an hour you didn't have a thousand dollars to give me, what game would you play? The highest expected value would be to play conservatively at craps or at blackjack, but that isn't going to give you the money you need. You need to give up a lot of expected value and put that $25 chip down on a number at the roulette number and say a prayer.

When your league size is small, you take the expected value and stick to the sure thing (think pass line craps bets or conservative blackjack) when you play in a big league (or a huge league like WCOFF) doing "good" isn't going to cut the mustard. You have to do outstanding. So in that case you leave expected value on the table in order to try to show a huge return.

So the point is, small league = take less risk, maximize your value. Big to huge league = take more risk, try to maximize your investment and shoot the moon. THis is where I think LUCKS was originally going. If you play in an 8 team league Shaun Alexander is a no brainer at #1. But when you play in WCOFF, Larry Johnson is your no brainer.

Give this a big in my book.Let's use everyone's favorite analogy, shall we? Poker.

I'm at a table where I am first to act / Under the Gun / UTG on the first hand. This is essentially 1.01. Fresh table - you don't know anyone (WCOFF for example).

I have "AA" dealt to me - same as having the best player on my board available (best hand, best player).

Do I:

(A) bet conservatively to feel out the table, leaving more guppies in for the flop,

(B) bet moderately to see play the hand like I normally would (push some out), or

© bet 50-75% of your $ right out of the gate.

If you choose "C" you are in the "big risk" bucket. If you choose "B" you're picking your BPA, and "A" you are choosing the least risky player.

With "C", going "mostly all in" with AA on the first hand, you run the risk of unknown players calling you and lowering your odds of winning. If 2+ call, your odds shrink to negative expectation of winning - you could be out first hand. This is much riskier with 12-16 players at the table (big league) where someone else may get a pair and then hit a set to beat you. Yes Aces wins 80+% vs. one player, but odds drop significantly as others are added to the mix.

Choice "C" is less risky with fewer players, as fewer will call you. Still, it is risky. There is also bigger upside to taking that risk - less players means there is less likelihood a player will have a hand to want to stay in with you - but it is not without risk. Overplaying / taking too much risk early on can be detrimental. There's still a chance to catch up later in the game, but you're playing from behind after 1 hand/round (with fewer chips / less value).

Choice "A" doesn't maximize your value at your position playing first (forcing other hands out), so you pass on a better option / player and allow others in the league / game to beat you easier.

Choice "B" is the best play in all cases - pick BPA and plan accordingly. Playing closer to "A" than "B" in a bigger game / league is safer, but could allow others to beat you in the long run.

I hope that made my point where I would be more inclined to "B" in many many scenarios and possibly only take a (slightly) more conservative approach in a big game. "C" is usually overplaying / taking on unnecessary risk.

 

[Bri]

You're creating a risk when it's not there. Sure common sense would tell ya any player could get hurt. Beyond that Shaun hasn't missed a game his whole career and LT has missed just one. This is similar to someone predicting lost time due to an injury for Favre or Peyton.

On the other hand, LJ who you deem less risky and has missed what amounts to a full season in just 3 years. That's 1/3 or 33% or awful reliability IMO.

IMO You're off here LHucks. As usual, you have some solid ideas and thoughts behind it but your starting hypothesis truly seems to be that LJ is less risky than the others. It was flawed from the beginning. The same great line that blocked for LJ blocked for Priest and Blaylock who have missed a ton of time too. A line can be argued that they protect the QB and thus save him from injury but (esp in KCs case) not save a RB from injury.

I don't think those games were b/c of injury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember LJ missing a game b/c he was hurt.

[nitpick reply]Menace, I didn't write that he was hurt. I mentioned the other KC RBs getting hurt. I wrote that he missed what amount to a full season

[/nitpick reply]

Coach's doghouse and the mere fact he was a 3rd stringer and(can't find this info for some reason) maybe he was just inactive. IIRC He got in a barfight a while back, did he miss time for that?

Point is he was on the Chiefs for 48 games and only played in 32 of them. Previous poster alluded to the KC line being so great and thus saving the RBs from injury and it doesn't/hasn't worked that way. Priest and Blaylock missed a bunch of time. Remember last summer it was a question of when Priest will get hurt not if? And then where to draft LJ? Well then IMO it's not reasonable to deduct fromt hat that the great KC line saves the RB from injury.

In fact (if I had time I'd look to see if Priest was the most often injured RB) it might be just the opposite and the coach's confidence in the line brings an overworked and injured RB as a result.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's use everyone's favorite analogy, shall we? Poker.I'm at a table where I am first to act / Under the Gun / UTG on the first hand. This is essentially 1.01. Fresh table - you don't know anyone (WCOFF for example).I have "AA" dealt to me - same as having the best player on my board available (best hand, best player).Do I:(A) bet conservatively to feel out the table, leaving more guppies in for the flop,(B) bet moderately to see play the hand like I normally would (push some out), or© bet 50-75% of your $ right out of the gate.If you choose "C" you are in the "big risk" bucket. If you choose "B" you're picking your BPA, and "A" you are choosing the least risky player.

I would say that C is the least risky. You're most likely just going to pick up the blinds without a fight. If you get called, you're a huge favorite without having risked giving anybody correct implied odds to call.You are more likely to get action on your hand if you follow options B or C, but you are also giving your opponents more of a chance to outdraw you; so these options are riskier.

With "C", going "mostly all in" with AA on the first hand, you run the risk of unknown players calling you and lowering your odds of winning. If 2+ call, your odds shrink to negative expectation of winning - you could be out first hand.

The more people that call, the higher your EV is (up to 8 or 9 callers -- I forget which, but it really doesn't matter. For practical purposes, the more callers the better if you're going all in pre-flop with aces).Are we in the right forum?

 

[Longshot88]

I wouldn't say you guys are totaly off base here, I can see how a players value can change depending on league size. to some degree. ( I still dont see the point of playing in a 8 team league) the problem i see is the same problem i have with VBD.

your values are based on PROJECTIONS..

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Let's use everyone's favorite analogy, shall we? Poker.

I'm at a table where I am first to act / Under the Gun / UTG on the first hand. This is essentially 1.01. Fresh table - you don't know anyone (WCOFF for example).

I have "AA" dealt to me - same as having the best player on my board available (best hand, best player).

Do I:

(A) bet conservatively to feel out the table, leaving more guppies in for the flop,

(B) bet moderately to see play the hand like I normally would (push some out), or

© bet 50-75% of your $ right out of the gate.

If you choose "C" you are in the "big risk" bucket. If you choose "B" you're picking your BPA, and "A" you are choosing the least risky player.

I would say that C is the least risky. You're most likely just going to pick up the blinds without a fight. If you get called, you're a huge favorite without having risked giving anybody correct implied odds to call.You are more likely to get action on your hand if you follow options B or C, but you are also giving your opponents more of a chance to outdraw you; so these options are riskier.

With "C", going "mostly all in" with AA on the first hand, you run the risk of unknown players calling you and lowering your odds of winning. If 2+ call, your odds shrink to negative expectation of winning - you could be out first hand.

The more people that call, the higher your EV is (up to 8 or 9 callers -- I forget which, but it really doesn't matter. For practical purposes, the more callers the better if you're going all in pre-flop with aces).Are we in the right forum?

Yes, we're starting to meander into another forum , but I believe you are incorrect here GB.Straight up, AA beats most hands at a 80+% clip.

With say 5 callers, your odds are below 50%.

Example:

AA vs KK = 82.36% you win, 17.09% you lose, 0.54% tie.

AA vs KK vs QQ vs JJ vs 10,10 = 44.50% you win, 54.78% you lose, 0.72% tie. (all pairs from same 2 suits).

Just more chances of others getting three of a kind to beat you, for example.

ETA source:

Poker Calculator

 

[radballs]

Big difference between +EV and odds to win the hand.

 

[bostonfred]

Let's use everyone's favorite analogy, shall we?  Poker.

I'm at a table where I am first to act / Under the Gun / UTG on the first hand.  This is essentially 1.01.  Fresh table - you don't know anyone (WCOFF for example).

I have "AA" dealt to me - same as having the best player on my board available (best hand, best player).

Do I:

(A) bet conservatively to feel out the table, leaving more guppies in for the flop,

(B) bet moderately to see play the hand like I normally would (push some out), or

© bet 50-75% of your $ right out of the gate.

If you choose "C" you are in the "big risk" bucket.  If you choose "B" you're picking your BPA, and "A" you are choosing the least risky player.

I would say that C is the least risky. You're most likely just going to pick up the blinds without a fight. If you get called, you're a huge favorite without having risked giving anybody correct implied odds to call.You are more likely to get action on your hand if you follow options B or C, but you are also giving your opponents more of a chance to outdraw you; so these options are riskier.

With "C", going "mostly all in" with AA on the first hand, you run the risk of unknown players calling you and lowering your odds of winning.  If 2+ call, your odds shrink to negative expectation of winning - you could be out first hand.

The more people that call, the higher your EV is (up to 8 or 9 callers -- I forget which, but it really doesn't matter. For practical purposes, the more callers the better if you're going all in pre-flop with aces).Are we in the right forum?

Yes, we're starting to meander into another forum , but I believe you are incorrect here GB.Straight up, AA beats most hands at a 80+% clip.

With say 5 callers, your odds are below 50%.

Example:

AA vs KK = 82.36% you win, 17.09% you lose, 0.54% tie.

AA vs KK vs QQ vs JJ vs 10,10 = 44.50% you win, 54.78% you lose, 0.72% tie. (all pairs from same 2 suits).

Just more chances of others getting three of a kind to beat you, for example.

ETA source:

Poker Calculator

Your point is actually a great analogy for why you'd rather take a risky superstud in WCOFF, but a safer pick in your home league. You're right, aces will only hold up ~50% of the time when all in preflop against five hands. But you'll win 5x as much. That's why, even if you'll lose fairly often, you'd still love to get your chips in with the best hand. And if we take the analogy a step further, if you fold your aces, someone else is going to win that hand, and now you're going to be up against someone with four times your stack. That's usually not good.

If you're interested in a discussion of why you would call 10 times out of 10 with aces in that situation, Maurile has a couple articles.

Same thing goes for WCOFF. If Larry Johnson is, say, 25% likely to be the runaway best RB this year, then your best chance to win the league is to have Larry Johnson, even though 75% of the time he regresses to the mean, or gets hurt, or whatever. If you take someone else, not only will you not get the scoring you would have gotten from LJ, but you'll be up against others who did. Any edge you can get in winning the first prize increases your overall EV.

In a home league, though, you may not need to take those kinds of risks. In that case, you might prefer to take your risks elsewhere, because you're competing against a smaller field.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I can't argue the Poker analogy Jeff because I don't play (I know...alert the media. Someone on FBG doesn't play or care about Poker??).

But I still think that Sammy has the best idea. I'm going to take more risk with my 1st round pick in a larger league. I will either win or suck badly. That's OK with me. But my chances of winning with the highest risk/reward guy are greater in a larger league because the talent (and therefore expected points) are more spread out. I'm not saying that this is the safe way to play. It isn't. But I think it's the best way to play. In a smaller league, where the talent and expected points are easier to come by, I play safer in the 1st round. With every team having good players, even with some busts thrown in, I want the most guaranteed points I can get.

I don't expect everyone to agree with the strategy, but I have to think some other people feel this way.

FWIW, in the recent SSL4 draft when I ended up with the 1st overall pick, I choose LT by a hair over LJ because I'm not very confident that LJ will match his 9 game numbers of last year and I think LT could hit the jackpot again in PPR leagues with a new QB dumping it off to him.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Let's use everyone's favorite analogy, shall we? Poker.

I'm at a table where I am first to act / Under the Gun / UTG on the first hand. This is essentially 1.01. Fresh table - you don't know anyone (WCOFF for example).

I have "AA" dealt to me - same as having the best player on my board available (best hand, best player).

Do I:

(A) bet conservatively to feel out the table, leaving more guppies in for the flop,

(B) bet moderately to see play the hand like I normally would (push some out), or

© bet 50-75% of your $ right out of the gate.

If you choose "C" you are in the "big risk" bucket. If you choose "B" you're picking your BPA, and "A" you are choosing the least risky player.

I would say that C is the least risky. You're most likely just going to pick up the blinds without a fight. If you get called, you're a huge favorite without having risked giving anybody correct implied odds to call.You are more likely to get action on your hand if you follow options B or C, but you are also giving your opponents more of a chance to outdraw you; so these options are riskier.

With "C", going "mostly all in" with AA on the first hand, you run the risk of unknown players calling you and lowering your odds of winning. If 2+ call, your odds shrink to negative expectation of winning - you could be out first hand.

The more people that call, the higher your EV is (up to 8 or 9 callers -- I forget which, but it really doesn't matter. For practical purposes, the more callers the better if you're going all in pre-flop with aces).Are we in the right forum?

Yes, we're starting to meander into another forum , but I believe you are incorrect here GB.Straight up, AA beats most hands at a 80+% clip.

With say 5 callers, your odds are below 50%.

Example:

AA vs KK = 82.36% you win, 17.09% you lose, 0.54% tie.

AA vs KK vs QQ vs JJ vs 10,10 = 44.50% you win, 54.78% you lose, 0.72% tie. (all pairs from same 2 suits).

Just more chances of others getting three of a kind to beat you, for example.

ETA source:

Poker Calculator

Your point is actually a great analogy for why you'd rather take a risky superstud in WCOFF, but a safer pick in your home league. You're right, aces will only hold up ~50% of the time when all in preflop against five hands. But you'll win 5x as much. That's why, even if you'll lose fairly often, you'd still love to get your chips in with the best hand. And if we take the analogy a step further, if you fold your aces, someone else is going to win that hand, and now you're going to be up against someone with four times your stack. That's usually not good.

If you're interested in a discussion of why you would call 10 times out of 10 with aces in that situation, Maurile has a couple articles.

Same thing goes for WCOFF. If Larry Johnson is, say, 25% likely to be the runaway best RB this year, then your best chance to win the league is to have Larry Johnson, even though 75% of the time he regresses to the mean, or gets hurt, or whatever. If you take someone else, not only will you not get the scoring you would have gotten from LJ, but you'll be up against others who did. Any edge you can get in winning the first prize increases your overall EV.

In a home league, though, you may not need to take those kinds of risks. In that case, you might prefer to take your risks elsewhere, because you're competing against a smaller field.

Nice clarification. I had been mixing "chances of winning the hand" and EV.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Big difference between +EV and odds to win the hand.