Cash games reward survival
In cash formats, the payout is comparatively flat and the goal is usually to beat a threshold rather than finish first out of tens of thousands of entries. That increases the value of secure role, strong median projection, salary efficiency, and avoiding unnecessary failure points.
Prioritize reliable opportunity.
Do not force contrarian plays simply to be different.
Do not force correlation when it reduces lineup quality.
Popular value can be perfectly acceptable when the projection is justified.
GPPs reward top-end outcomes
As the field grows and the payout becomes more top-heavy, ceiling, correlation, ownership combinations, leverage, and duplication become more important. A lineup that is slightly less likely to beat half the field can still be more valuable if it meaningfully improves its path to the very top.
The same player can be graded differently
A high-owned running back with secure volume might be ideal for cash while offering less tournament leverage. A volatile deep-threat receiver might be unnecessary in cash but useful in a large field if his ceiling and ownership create an asymmetric payoff. Neither grade is inconsistent; the contest changed the objective.
How JARVIS uses contest context
One slate, multiple lenses
On a full slate, JARVIS can grade Cash, Single Entry, 3-Max, Small Field, 20-Max, 150-Max, and Milly-style contests separately. The point is not cosmetic variation. Each column asks a different strategic question of the same evidence.