What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Mathematical Probability of Tying in Fractional Scoring? (1 Viewer)

L

ldizzle

Footballguy
I just experienced my first tie game. it happened on the last kneel down by big ben. Just curious how many other people have this happened to in fractional scoring?

One other note that on NFL.com it shows big ben -1 yd for the first kneel down and no gain for the second kneel down. if they change that to another -1yd i get the win. :thumbdown:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say they're about the same as successfully navigating through an asteroid field or about 3,720 to 1. :goodposting:

 
It happened 3 times for our league last year and 1 time the year before (which is why we added some rules to tiebreak it). Someone did the math. I think the odds it would occur once in a year were about 750:1, which was more than any of us thought.

 
dennis.moore said:
The odds of tying are 50/50. Either you do or you don't.
Click to expand...
I hope this is schtick.The likelihood of tying depends on your scoring distribution. If scoring in your league has a typical range of, say, 70 points, with whole-number scoring your chance of tying would be something like 1/70=1.43%, which would mean that in every set of 48 games, there's about a 50% probability of a tie. Changing to one decimal point would change that to about 1/700=.143%, and it would take 484 games to get to a 50% probability of seeing a tie. Scoring totals have a bell-curve shape, so the chances are probably slightly higher than that.
 
lexdizzle said:
I just experienced my first tie game. it happened on the last kneel down by big ben. Just curious how many other people have this happened to in fractional scoring? One other note that on NFL.com it shows big ben -1 yd for the first kneel down and no gain for the second kneel down. if they change that to another -1yd i get the win. :goodposting:
Click to expand...
dennis.moore said:
The odds of tying are 50/50. Either you do or you don't.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet? I'll take "you don't" even up.Four years ago we changed to fractional scoring in our Total Points League and it ended in a tie, 1878.4 to1878.4. That had never happened before so go figure.
 
It depends on your scoring rules. If you get 1/20 for passing yards (and everything else is scored as 1/10 or a whole number) then there are 20 different possibilities for what you can have after the decimal point (.00, .05, .10, etc.), so you'll get a tie about 1/20th as often as in leagues without fractional scoring. If you get 1/25 for passing yards then there are 50 possibilities for what you can have after the decimal point (.00, .02, .04, etc.), so you'll get a tie about 1/50th as often as in leagues without fractional scoring (and 2/5 as often as in leagues with 1/20 passing).

 
ZWK said:
It depends on your scoring rules. If you get 1/20 for passing yards (and everything else is scored as 1/10 or a whole number) then there are 20 different possibilities for what you can have after the decimal point (.00, .05, .10, etc.), so you'll get a tie about 1/20th as often as in leagues without fractional scoring. If you get 1/25 for passing yards then there are 50 possibilities for what you can have after the decimal point (.00, .02, .04, etc.), so you'll get a tie about 1/50th as often as in leagues without fractional scoring (and 2/5 as often as in leagues with 1/20 passing).
Click to expand...
whew, that clears that up :confused:
 
ZWK said:
It depends on your scoring rules. If you get 1/20 for passing yards (and everything else is scored as 1/10 or a whole number) then there are 20 different possibilities for what you can have after the decimal point (.00, .05, .10, etc.), so you'll get a tie about 1/20th as often as in leagues without fractional scoring. If you get 1/25 for passing yards then there are 50 possibilities for what you can have after the decimal point (.00, .02, .04, etc.), so you'll get a tie about 1/50th as often as in leagues without fractional scoring (and 2/5 as often as in leagues with 1/20 passing).
Click to expand...
To build on this...In one of my leagues last year with pretty standard lineups & scoring, the average score for a game was 90 points, with a standard deviation of 20. If you assume a normal distribution for scoring with stdev=20, then that means you'd expect a tie about once every 70 games in a league without fractional scoring (based on a simulation of 10,000 games that I just ran). So in leagues with fractional scoring and 1/20 passing you should get a tie about once every 1400 games, and in leagues with 1/25 passing about once every 3500 games.A 12-team league with a 14-week regular season plays 84 games per regular season, so it should have about 1.2 ties per year without fraction scoring, 1 tie every 17 years with fractional scoring and 1/20 passing, and 1 tie every 42 years with fractional scoring and 1/25 passing.
 
since noone has got to the heart of this matter.

I was under the impression a kneel down was ALWAYS -1yd... I would write a little letter to customer care or whoever... especially if it means you have a valid win.

 
Mario Kart said:
Scoring to the thousandth decimal place resolves these issues.
Click to expand...
I missed out on the playoffs last season due to losing my last divisional game by 5 THOUSANDTHS of a point...I was very mad, to say the least.... :ph34r:
 
Had a game decided by .04 once this year. The only stat that scores that small is passing yards. .04 = 1 passing yard

In this league the average weekly score is in the 230's (IDP).

 
I didn't tie in my main league this week, but my main league team score is exactly the same as another team in another league. Go figure. Does that count? :hijacked:

 
Our scoring tends to be in a 50-60 point range, so with scoring down to one decimal place, I'd estimate the odds of a tie at 600-1. With 6 games a week and a 13 week season, plus a few play-off games, expect a tie every 6 years of so.

 
Phurfur said:
lexdizzle said:
I just experienced my first tie game. it happened on the last kneel down by big ben. Just curious how many other people have this happened to in fractional scoring? One other note that on NFL.com it shows big ben -1 yd for the first kneel down and no gain for the second kneel down. if they change that to another -1yd i get the win. :unsure:
Click to expand...
dennis.moore said:
The odds of tying are 50/50. Either you do or you don't.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet? I'll take "you don't" even up.Four years ago we changed to fractional scoring in our Total Points League and it ended in a tie, 1878.4 to1878.4. That had never happened before so go figure.
Click to expand...
In 1982, we had a tie of 1,567,057.48962 to 1,567,057.48962 and we had to figure that out with the newspaper, a pencil and a calculator.
 
Billy Costigan Jr said:
Phurfur said:
lexdizzle said:
I just experienced my first tie game. it happened on the last kneel down by big ben. Just curious how many other people have this happened to in fractional scoring? One other note that on NFL.com it shows big ben -1 yd for the first kneel down and no gain for the second kneel down. if they change that to another -1yd i get the win. :lmao:
Click to expand...
dennis.moore said:
The odds of tying are 50/50. Either you do or you don't.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet? I'll take "you don't" even up.Four years ago we changed to fractional scoring in our Total Points League and it ended in a tie, 1878.4 to1878.4. That had never happened before so go figure.
Click to expand...
In 1982, we had a tie of 1,567,057.48962 to 1,567,057.48962 and we had to figure that out with the newspaper, a pencil and a calculator.
Click to expand...
Heh, in 1957 we had a tie of 52.68i to 52.68i and we had to figure it out with a telegraph, an abacus and lickspittle.
 
OddibeMcD said:
Billy Costigan Jr said:
Phurfur said:
lexdizzle said:
I just experienced my first tie game. it happened on the last kneel down by big ben. Just curious how many other people have this happened to in fractional scoring? One other note that on NFL.com it shows big ben -1 yd for the first kneel down and no gain for the second kneel down. if they change that to another -1yd i get the win. :scared:
Click to expand...
dennis.moore said:
The odds of tying are 50/50. Either you do or you don't.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet? I'll take "you don't" even up.Four years ago we changed to fractional scoring in our Total Points League and it ended in a tie, 1878.4 to1878.4. That had never happened before so go figure.
Click to expand...
In 1982, we had a tie of 1,567,057.48962 to 1,567,057.48962 and we had to figure that out with the newspaper, a pencil and a calculator.
Click to expand...
Heh, in 1957 we had a tie of 52.68i to 52.68i and we had to figure it out with a telegraph, an abacus and lickspittle.
Click to expand...
Lickspittle? LOL! Pair lickspittle with irrational numbers and you got one solid post!
 
rizzler said:
since noone has got to the heart of this matter.I was under the impression a kneel down was ALWAYS -1yd... I would write a little letter to customer care or whoever... especially if it means you have a valid win.
Click to expand...
Umm...everything is always rounded to the nearest yard. If a kneeldown for a specific QB loses 0.8 yards....and a kneeldown started on the 32.4 yard line (rounded to the 32), it ended on the 31.6 yard line (rounded to the 32). IE: MOST of his kneeldowns will go for a "one yard loss", but about every fifth will go down as a "zero yard loss".Until the NFL decides to use fractional yardage...this will always come up.
 
OddibeMcD said:
Billy Costigan Jr said:
Phurfur said:
lexdizzle said:
I just experienced my first tie game. it happened on the last kneel down by big ben. Just curious how many other people have this happened to in fractional scoring? One other note that on NFL.com it shows big ben -1 yd for the first kneel down and no gain for the second kneel down. if they change that to another -1yd i get the win. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
dennis.moore said:
The odds of tying are 50/50. Either you do or you don't.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet? I'll take "you don't" even up.Four years ago we changed to fractional scoring in our Total Points League and it ended in a tie, 1878.4 to1878.4. That had never happened before so go figure.
Click to expand...
In 1982, we had a tie of 1,567,057.48962 to 1,567,057.48962 and we had to figure that out with the newspaper, a pencil and a calculator.
Click to expand...
Heh, in 1957 we had a tie of 52.68i to 52.68i and we had to figure it out with a telegraph, an abacus and lickspittle.
Click to expand...
Sharks use abaci to figure out league scores, only guppies use dem new fangled calculators.
 
Two weeks ago we had a game decided by .02 points (1 passing yard = .04 is the lowest possible score so I don't even understand how that happened). Everyone was talking about it on our league board. Six years running, and it was the closest game ever.

This week it happened for a second time. Big Ben was one of four players going in the game (Miller, 85 and Pit DST), so I guess it was decided on that play as well.

 
CalBear said:
shredhead said:
Sharks use abaci to figure out league scores, only guppies use dem new fangled calculators.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that "abacuses" is the plural of "abacus," which is a word of Arabic/Greek origin, not Latin.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that either plural is acceptable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abacus

Guppies only give half the story to make themselves appear smarter than they actually are.

http://www.word-origins.com/definition/abacus.html

http://podictionary.com/?p=2874

 
Its been close the last couple of games. we use standard scoring 25 yds = 1pt and .5 ppr

week 7: win by 0.58

week 8: lose by 0.84

week 9: tie 138.82

we both had 2nd highest pts for that week

avg week is 105

Hoping a correction gives me the W :lmao:

 
shredhead said:
CalBear said:
shredhead said:
Sharks use abaci to figure out league scores, only guppies use dem new fangled calculators.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that "abacuses" is the plural of "abacus," which is a word of Arabic/Greek origin, not Latin.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that either plural is acceptable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abacus

Guppies only give half the story to make themselves appear smarter than they actually are.

http://www.word-origins.com/definition/abacus.html

http://podictionary.com/?p=2874
Click to expand...
"It was not until the 17th century that the more general sense of a counting board or frame came into use, and the more specific ‘counting frame with movable balls’ is later still."I can think of other things which could be considered a 'counting frame with movable balls'.

 
shredhead said:
CalBear said:
shredhead said:
Sharks use abaci to figure out league scores, only guppies use dem new fangled calculators.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that "abacuses" is the plural of "abacus," which is a word of Arabic/Greek origin, not Latin.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that either plural is acceptable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abacus

Guppies only give half the story to make themselves appear smarter than they actually are.

http://www.word-origins.com/definition/abacus.html

http://podictionary.com/?p=2874
Click to expand...
Either plural is used in practice, but only one of them makes sense. "Octopi" and "Virii" are in common use as well; they're still wrong.
 
CalBear said:
shredhead said:
CalBear said:
shredhead said:
Sharks use abaci to figure out league scores, only guppies use dem new fangled calculators.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that "abacuses" is the plural of "abacus," which is a word of Arabic/Greek origin, not Latin.
Click to expand...
Sharks know that either plural is acceptable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abacus

Guppies only give half the story to make themselves appear smarter than they actually are.

http://www.word-origins.com/definition/abacus.html

http://podictionary.com/?p=2874
Click to expand...
Either plural is used in practice, but only one of them makes sense. "Octopi" and "Virii" are in common use as well; they're still wrong.
Click to expand...
:yucky: I rest my case!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dschuler
DSchuler’s QB Change Probability: 4 new starters, more on the way? Packers accumulate draft assets, Cardinals back in play for #1 pick
2 3
Replies
103
Views
5K
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry
Scoresman
Will last year's historically low drop in scoring continue into 2023?
Replies
22
Views
1K
Scoresman
Scoresman
Ministry of Pain
Coaching Carousel '24 or The next batch of folks that will be walked out the door in 2-3 years
Replies
26
Views
734
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top