Dynasty, in Theory: On Humility

There's a lot of strong dynasty analysis out there, especially when compared to five or ten years ago. But most of it is so dang practical—Player X is undervalued, Player Y's workload is troubling, the market at this position is irrational, and take this specific action to win your league. Dynasty, in Theory is meant as a corrective, offering insights and takeaways into the strategic and structural nature of the game that might not lead to an immediate benefit but which should help us become better players over time.

Humility as a Competitive Advantage

Last week, I talked about the bid-ask spread—the gap between how much we'd pay to acquire a player and how much we'd charge to let him go. I mentioned some good and bad reasons for this spread, and ended with the idea that the knowledge one of my leaguemates wants one of my players gives me cause to question whether I'm misvaluing that player, saying: "And this, I think, is wise... It is an acknowledgement that the world is complex and this hobby is hard, and we are fallible."

I want to expand upon that idea some. Let's call it "humility as a competitive advantage".

Because that's a large part of what this column is about. This is often a hard sell; the internet tends to reward content that is authoritative and self-assured over that which hems and haws and hedges and hesitates. And yet I hedge. I hesitate. I hem. (I draw the line at hawing, though.) I do so because, If the goal is to be maximally accurate, there are few better starting places than a frank acknowledgement of the significant possibility that we are wrong. 

In another column on sports betting, I love to geek out on the concept of bet sizing, or the way to decide how much money to place on a specific wager. Many believe that the key to becoming a profitable gambler is just having good picks (and that is certainly necessary), but it's a simple mathematical fact that even with good picks, you can still lose money with bad bet sizes.

How to Go Broke with Good Bets