David Scott's Article, WOW do I ever disagree with him.

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

You're the biggest bozo in here Redpimp and this thread as well as the last proves it. Your strategy of going for two while up by seven is the single most stupid statement I've ever heard anyone make about football. Don't agree with Fezzik's choice of going for two while down by four but let's see here... Fezzik is a professional gambler, you're a professional mouth-runner; don't think you need to be giving him advice.

 

[Illini]

Not a shred of mathematical assumptions to back anyone's position here! I guarantee all I've spent far more time thinking about this and analyzing it than anyone on the board.

I LOVE to start with the down 8, what do you do scenario? EVERY "expert" says, you gotta kick it. The numbers show what a horrific assumption this actually is!! The truth is you gotta go for two.

Assuming you always make the extra point, and two even teams, and you will get 1 final score at the end of the game, you obvously go OT and have a 50-50 chance to win.

If you have just a 40% chance to make a two point conversion, then obviously you now have can win by 2 scenarios (remember all analysis assumes you will get in the endzone again, otherwise nothing matters).

1. Go for two, make it (and then win with your next TD) prob= 40%.

2. Go for two, miss it (and then go for two again and make it, and then win in OT. Prob = .6 * .4 * .5= 12%

So even with very conservative 40% conversion assumption, we can see that going for two after the 1st TD gives you a 52% chance to win.........and this assumes kicking is 100% foolproof.....which we all know isn't the case.

The bottom line: THe math is crystal clear. No logical person could disagree with this. Given the go for two down 8 is so clear, surely any logical person would start sweating bullets about his preconceived notion that one should kick for 1 when down 4.

Now I agree the analysis becomes more complex when down by 4. To sum it up mathematically, your expectation when kicking is almost 1.0 points, going for two is more like .80-.90 points. So obviously, early in the game, going for two is a mistake (but not much of one, it has a trivial cost in expectation).

However, by going for two when down 8 or 4 late in the game, you will win lots of games by 1 point only, and you will never lose by just 1, therefore over the long run, your opponents will ever so slightly outscore you, but you will win more games (since you will win evey game decided by 1 point).

Getting off topic a bit, I might add that this is a VERY complicated situation when down 4. I'm fine with someone saying "Let me think about this" or "Let me run some simulations". Those saying "I'm right, that is it" I simply don't relate to. I will say the "old school" thinking is that one should never gamble. There is a feeling that one "deserves" 7 points for a TD, and one should never fool with this. The math of course says something different.

I don't know why we debate letting the opponent score when you are down 1 out of timeouts. A sharp 8 year old knows this.

A better question is what to do when tied with a 4th and 1 on the opponents 10 with 1:15 left, and the opponent with 1 timout left. The answer is to go for it, and it is not even close. Assuming the kicker is a stud, and a team makes the 1st down 60%, they will win the game around 80% of the time going for it. When kicking the 3, they win WAY less than this.

Yet 90% of the old schoolers would kick in this situation. The Virginia team faced this situation vs. Cuse and actually made the right call, and bet bashed by the media. Why? Because people HATE any play call resembling a gamble, even if it is totally justified.

You make some good points that I've never thought about. However, I still disagree and here's why. You are assuming everything is equal, and you can't do that. If a team comes back from being down two touchdowns and goes into overtime, they have a huge momentum advantage. In the NFL, the overtime rules do not exactly give each team a fair shot. However, if a team has that much momentum, it will be hard to stop. Remember FSU-Miami last year? FSU domintated the entire game up till the last 3 minutes. When Miami came back, I knew FSU was done and had no chance in OT. Everyone knew that. So, a mathematical formula, even though technically correct, would never be enough to convince me that going for 2 is the right decision after scoring to cut it to 8. Just kick it, play defense, and use the momentum that it all creates to win in OT.
As far as going for it on 4th and 1, from the 10 with 1:15 left.......I'm not following you there at all. Whatever math you used, it is totally dependent on what kind of defense you have and what type of offense the other team has. Can't really put a real-life number on the chances of victory by kicking a field goal. But I can put the percentage at 100% that your house would get burned down if you were the coach and you did not convert the 4th down.

 

[Illini]

Gentlemen, here we have undeniable logic that we are dealing with a certified imbecile!!!! Here is where you can tell if a person understands a lick of football or not!!!! Any half wit idiot who can understand basic football defenses could have seen there was a good possibility that the Redskins would score again using the very same play they scored their first touch down with!!! It goes to show your inability to even understand simple defensive formations..You must be the only idiot in America hopelessly baffled by the events of monday night football and cant comprehend the simple mathematical logic that shows that there was a very good chance that this play would be open again... (In lay mans words, if the cowboys defense kept up the same bad plays that gave up the first touch down, then of course even inept Joe gibbs would take the advice of his WR who told him to chuck it to him!!!)

You are some wannbe bozo pretending to understand football yet infact you dont understand a lick of it!!!! Played football my ass!!!!

Am done bandying words with you mr Energizer bunny!!!!!

Band geek: you have made a wise decision to stop running your mouth about stuff you have no clue about. Thank you.

 

[Fezzik]

Interactive betting tells the real story on plays like this.

As soon a Virginia decided to go for it on 4th and 1 you would see money POURING onto Virginia -280 to win the game.............

However, if Virginia sent out the fg unit, money would come strongly on Syracuse +260.

Believe me, the most savvy pro gamblers do a great job assessing the probabilities of things to come.

I'm still AMAZED how so many refuse to put basic odds on certain events. They have to fall back on "it all depends on the situation" analyses. They think certain teams have great advantages in OT, etc. Interactive bettors know that OTs are typicall pk'm affairs, with the favorite almost never a -135 favorite or bettter, regardless of the situation. I do agree that when two great defenses play, better to try to avoid the two point conversion.

The Miami-FSU example is a funny one, people saying "Of course Mia would win the OT". Actuallly Miami would likely have been -130 or so. Well, Miami flopped an ideal OT type situation in regulation down 3 with the ball, in the red zone and they found a way to not get in the end zone and lost...........

I've noticed NOT ONE poster has attempted to use any math to argue with me on my points.

I will also say, I respect the fact that optimal mathematical decisions do have a flaw in that they can wreck team emotion..........facing a 4th and 2 from midfield in any high scoring game, it is a nobrainer to go for it. However, miss it and the emotional implications are huge. It is such a strong play mathematically, I'm still amazed coaches don't understand it.

The Pats Coaching staff has long understood the benefits of "gambling" with "risky" play calls like throwing the ball up 3 to try to run out the clock. This is one reason they win so many close games.

 

[Mr.Smith]

what we should talk about is play calling and clock management towards the end of the first half. I am amazed at how dumb it is.

If you have the ball on the 50 in a 7-7 tie with :03 left in the first half, throw the frikkin hail mary into the end zone. What do you have to lose? but nobody bothers. they throw a 15 yard pattern and thats it. thats just one thing, I'm sure we could list all kinds of dumb things done before halftime. teams with scoring opportunites fail to even try.

why? I have no clue. none.

 

[David1]

Going for 2 when you are down 8 or 9 is rediculous. End of discussion.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

The Pats Coaching staff has long understood the benefits of "gambling" with "risky" play calls.....

Are you suggesting they would agree with any of what you just wrote about when and where to go for 2? In fact show me when BB has EVER gone for 2 when losing by 4, show me one time where the Pats have done that and I will be satisfied. If they have ever done it then they have had their FG kicker on crutches and had no viable alternative. BB may be cutting edge on risk but he is not foolish, you don't win like they do by taking good situations away from yourself just so you can say you like to gamble.

You keep talking about math but do you seriously think in the billion dollar NFL they have not gone in and run about 40 billion simulations on what the right move is? Some fat guy eating Twinkies didn't make up the chart one day during training camp, I can guarantee you some of the best minds around decided on when is best to go for 2 versus going for 1. It isn't when you are down 4 late in the game, math doesn't need to tell anyone that who halfway understands the game. Are mistakes made? You damn right they are but going for 1 when down 4 isn't one of them.....




In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

-Mark Twain-

 

[D2bets]

I'm still AMAZED how so many refuse to put basic odds on certain events. They have to fall back on "it all depends on the situation" analyses. They think certain teams have great advantages in OT, etc. Interactive bettors know that OTs are typicall pk'm affairs, with the favorite almost never a -135 favorite or bettter, regardless of the situation. I do agree that when two great defenses play, better to try to avoid the two point conversion.

I alwasy try to catch OT odds at Pinny, Oly and when available on the trading markets and it is not that uncommon to see a team at -180 to -200. I've seen it with my own eyes many times. Now maybe you think the market is wrong, but it happens.

I generally like the way you approach things Fezz, but I think maybe you're trying to be too sensational with some of this.

In reponse to the down 4 situation, again all you've basically said is it's complicated. I don't think your mathematical models are compensating for the change in strategy that results from being down 4 rather than 3.

Sometimes conventional wisdown is right. Sometimes.

 

[Illini]

Fezzik- I was talking about Miami-FSU in 2004. Miami stormed back in the last minute and scored to send it into overtime. They were at home, and the outcome turned out exactly the way that everyone knew it would, just before the overtime. FSU's whole team, and especially Rix, shit their pants and it was over in a heartbeat. -130 would have been a terrible line. Not because of math, but because of the intagibles and the emotional instabilities of the human race. Hard to put a number on that.

As far as the Syracuse example.....are you saying that you would pour money onto Syracuse? You would bet on a +260 team, with one timeout and 1:15 left, which was about to go down 3, pending a 27 yard field goal? You would? You think +260 is a good price there?

 

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

You can't just focus on the math part because after the game you still have numerous games left to play. And the most critical part of coaching is to have the respect of your team; even if you make the right choice mathematically, if your team doesn't understand the math (and 99.5% of players probably don't) and THINKS your foolish then any gains you might make are going to be wiped out in the form of lack of team respect. Kind of like keeping 10-J-Q suited instead of a pair of queens in a hand of 10/7 DB video poker. Even though it's the correct play, most people will believe you're a fool.

 

[Fezzik]

I respect the fact many think kicking down 4 is the right play.

I just think with so many horrific coaching decisions, NO WAY an author should use this controversial decision as a top 10 stupid move.

As for Syracuse +260, heck yes, they would be a steal.

As an example the Raiders were down 6 vs. KC and at +260 they were rapidly bid down, teams win games like this all the time (ask Dallas about this).

As for the comment about the NFL being a billion dollar industry and they clearly will have high powered models to make the right decisions. THAT could be the most incorrect statement I've ever read. Has this poster ever watched the NFL? These bozos make mistakes over and over and over, etc.

John Kelly has documented this on the Stardust Line. The typical NFL coach or assistant coach, etc. gets to see 3-4 games a week, tops. As gamblers we see 20-30 games a week, and we see these situations over and over, and the most savvy bettors know the right moves. For example (all things being normal in the first half) in the NFL you kick the fg on 4th a 1.5 from the opponents 20, but you go for it from the 1.5 yard line, or from the opponents 35, etc.

The squares love to come in here and say it depends on the kicker, the offense, the defense the situation, etc. While I don't disagree completely, the average NFL and college coach should just have a chart that tells him the above. Rather, they are HELPLESS and just go with a gutcheck decision that is often horrific.

Sherman punts on 4th and 1 in the NFC playoff game with 1 yard winning the game from the Eagles 35........AND his OLINE was dominating. Even if it wasn't the man still should have gone for it.

Zona down 3 in Utah has 1 timeout and 4th and 7 at the Utah 37 with 3:20 to go. The punt. OH MY!! Are these guys trying to lose on purpose. Why wouldn't they at least ask the other coach what to do? Can you imagine how happy the Eagles were to see that punting unit coming out??

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

The card I am talking about Fezz is the one all the head coaches carry around that simply tells them after a score whether or not to go for 1 or 2. It does not tell them when to go for a 1st down, when to kick a field go or anything situational like that, it just tells them when it is proper to go for 2 versus taking the gimme. I agree with you though, I imagine most of us do, they make so many boneheaded moves throughout the games it gets to be unbelievable at times watching it, I just don't think kicking the extra point when down 4 is one of them.

Having said that I don't want to use the word fan on a message board but I am generally a supporter of yours. Unlike most you will challenge things and have no problems backing it up with a wager when the time comes. Lot of guys afraid around the forums, though I disagree in this instance I do respect that you got the balls to take a stand when you think you are right. Good luck this week with your plays...

 

[Illini]

I'm no sharp, and have zero experience with interactive betting. But when the Raiders picked up the fumble, I really thought they were going to win the game. The reason? Momentum. That and the fact that they had the ball at midfield with 4 minutes left. Momentum is so hard to describe, and it isn't tangible, but we all know it exists. At +260, I would have felt okay placing a wager at that time. On Monday, I don't know what the line was when the Cowboys were punting up 13-7, but you could just feel the momentum and the pressure mounting on the Cowboys. It didn't surprise me when the Redskins scored the second touchdown. In much the same way, I fully expect to cash my +400 ticket on the Indians to win the AL Central. It may not happen, but it has a ton of value at this point. But in the Syracuse example, can you explain why you would jump up to bet the Orange? I mean, the other team is lining up to kick a gimme "game winning field goal." I don't see any reason to bet on Syracuse. They have no momentum going for them, and the pressure would be on them. They probably would not have great field position. There is so little time, and only one timeout. Is it just a math bet, where the game conditions are ignored? I'm just curious.

As for Syracuse +260, heck yes, they would be a steal.

As an example the Raiders were down 6 vs. KC and at +260 they were rapidly bid down, teams win games like this all the time (ask Dallas about this).

The squares love to come in here and say it depends on the kicker, the offense, the defense the situation, etc. While I don't disagree completely, the average NFL and college coach should just have a chart that tells him the above. Rather, they are HELPLESS and just go with a gutcheck decision that is often horrific.

I wonder the same things about coaches. These people are not stupid, and are in fact very intelligent, at least about the game of football. Many gamblers have no idea how much knowledge it takes to develop a game plan each week in this sport. The fact that these guys have so much knowledge about this complex game, yet are so strategically challenged.....makes you wonder how it can be.

 

[wantitall4moi]

Math really has no place in football, or nay sport for that matter. When people try to use math in things that are dictated by human emotions and influence they get in deep trouble.It isn't as simple as dice and cards where there are a finite proofable number of posibilities. In sports there are many many possible outcomes.

Even by simplifying it to "they have a 45% chance to get the 2 pt conversion" Well I have to think that an extra point is more than twice that probability. And that getting into FG position to tie the game is surely a lot more probable than forcing yourself to score a TD. But that is something that no one can predict or put a number on, so tryig to prove it with math is not possible, and anyone that knows anything about sports knows that. So asking for mathematical proof is silly. It is simply a lot easier, to kick an extra point and then get into FG range.

Regardless, the team that is down needs a lot of things to happen. They first off have to get the ball back to score again anyways. Onside kicks ARE something that can be mentioned in terms of probability, and when they are expected their success rate is very low, but when they are not expected their success rate is actually pretty high. Probably because not a lot of coaches do unexpected things.

So if you are down 4,8,9,900 with a very short amount of time left, the whole onside kick probabilities will throw any conceivable advantage you might think you have out the window.

Also in college, OT is a lot different than the NFL. So that too would make going for 2 down 4 even more foolish. Since both teams have the same amount of possessions there is no fear of a sudden death bad luck beat.

It is sort of like chasing a flush every time you have 5-1 pot odds, you might think it is OK since you will make your flush 1/4 of the time, but that flush isn't going to win every one of those pots. You are going to get beat by a bigger flush or a full house or even quads and straigh flushes along the way. So that throws all the math out the window, even in something where math DOES have some credence.

 

[Illini]

Wantitall- very well said. There was a thread a few weeks ago where this math geek was trying to say that since Ohio St had 1 touchdown in 12 possessions, they had an 8% chance of scoring a touchdown. When I hear shit like that, I wonder why these guys are even watching football. These are the guys that read physics textbooks on Saturday nights. What ever could have turned them on to football?

 

[D2bets]

Math really has no place in football, or nay sport for that matter. When people try to use math in things that are dictated by human emotions and influence they get in deep trouble.It isn't as simple as dice and cards where there are a finite proofable number of posibilities. In sports there are many many possible outcomes.

Even by simplifying it to "they have a 45% chance to get the 2 pt conversion" Well I have to think that an extra point is more than twice that probability. And that getting into FG position to tie the game is surely a lot more probable than forcing yourself to score a TD. But that is something that no one can predict or put a number on, so tryig to prove it with math is not possible, and anyone that knows anything about sports knows that. So asking for mathematical proof is silly. It is simply a lot easier, to kick an extra point and then get into FG range.

Regardless, the team that is down needs a lot of things to happen. They first off have to get the ball back to score again anyways. Onside kicks ARE something that can be mentioned in terms of probability, and when they are expected their success rate is very low, but when they are not expected their success rate is actually pretty high. Probably because not a lot of coaches do unexpected things.

So if you are down 4,8,9,900 with a very short amount of time left, the whole onside kick probabilities will throw any conceivable advantage you might think you have out the window.

Also in college, OT is a lot different than the NFL. So that too would make going for 2 down 4 even more foolish. Since both teams have the same amount of possessions there is no fear of a sudden death bad luck beat.

It is sort of like chasing a flush every time you have 5-1 pot odds, you might think it is OK since you will make your flush 1/4 of the time, but that flush isn't going to win every one of those pots. You are going to get beat by a bigger flush or a full house or even quads and straigh flushes along the way. So that throws all the math out the window, even in something where math DOES have some credence.

I would disagree that math has no place in football, it's just that some of the fractors are so interrelated and so difficult to quantify in certain circumstances that it's next to impossible to completely analyze a decision in mathematical terms. That's why coaches use rules of thumb. And the rule of the thumb, err, the rule, when you are down 4 you kick the extra point. This should not be controversial. It looks easy and it is easy.

Down 9 late pending conversion is a different story though, I do agree with the 2 in most cases but most coaches won't do it.

 

[Fezzik]

Wantitall is totally wrong here.

Math should have a HUGE place in betting on football and in decisions.

Almost all the math geeks I know win betting at football, and poker. Most of the "gut" players lose. Period.

 

[D2bets]

Math should have a HUGE place in betting on football and in decisions.

Almost all the math geeks I know win betting at football, and poker. Most of the "gut" players lose. Period.

Betting? Or scalping/middling? I don't think a "math geek" is necessarily going to pick a side against the same line (pre-game) better than a non-math gut player. He may be a more successful bettor by understanding the importance of value and by being more diligent in making combination advantage plays with line shopping, but then again it doesn't really take a "math geek" to do that, just someone who has a bankroll and is willing to put in the time and effort to win. I know math geeks who make money betting who couldn't (and wouldn't even try) to "pick a side" to save his life.

 

[wantitall4moi]

My math inference was aimed at one trying to determine future probability based on past results.


Math in terms of payoffs and odds are paramount to success.

Betting a +110 side versus a +105 for the same side is exponetially more relevant than saying that a team that is 25-4 in a certain situation has an 86% chance of winning.

One is fact one is conjecture.

The reasons the "math geeks" win is because they know what the best pay odds are. They are manipulating their win amounts(in real cash) to overcome the bias that betting into a vig/hold based system is based on.

 

[Thrillseeker]

If I understand your assumptions correctly, then I don't think the math is correct for being "down by 4"...I think you have a mathematical leg to stand on being "down by 8", but I'm not following the "down by 4" calcs...

If you're down by 4
1) kick the extra pt 100%
2) get another fg 100%
3) win in OT - 50%
Therefore, total prob of winning the game = 50%

If you go for 2
1) make the 2 pt conversion = 45%
2) get another fg = 100%
Win = 45%

1) miss the 2= 55%
2) get another fg 100% (but you are still down by 1 pt)
win% = 0%

Therefore you should kick the extra pt



Down by 8 is a little different under your assumptions...
1) kick the extra pt = 100%
2) score another td = 100%
3) win in OT = 50%
Therefore 50% prob of winning game

1) make the 2 pt conversion = 45%
2) score td in regulation = 100%
Therefore 45% prob of winning game

1) miss the 2 pt conversion = 55%
2) score td = 100%
3) make 2 pt conversion = 45%
4) win in OT = 50%
Prob of winning = .12375

Total prob of winning going for 2 = .57375, therefore go for 2 is mathematically superior...

Of course, independence of all events is assumed, and as many others have stated, that is an incorrect assumption...and the calculations are, of course, highly dependent upon your assumed success/failure rates...

:drink: