Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (2 Viewers)

[tackle for loss]

Colts spent the entire night setting up the Texans for play action on early downs and didn't pull the trigger once that I remember. They ran the ball very well but they should have (tried to) capitalize on it. 

Coaches always try to outsmart other teams instead of just try to beat them with their best players. The Colts HC thought his best way to win was to hand it to a practice squad player who has been on 3 teams in 3 years over and over and over again. While he got yards and got in the EZ, you lost. 

Colts won the last 4 against Houston, but they choose to run with their backup RB instead of torching a secondary with nothing but backups themselves...and lost.

Bad coaching, embarrassing actually. A public apology for the inept play calling we witnessed should be issued. lol

 

[smbkrypt24]

Coaches always try to outsmart other teams instead of just try to beat them with their best players. The Colts HC thought his best way to win was to hand it to a practice squad player who has been on 3 teams in 3 years over and over and over again. While he got yards and got in the EZ, you lost. 

Colts won the last 4 against Houston, but they choose to run with their backup RB instead of torching a secondary with nothing but backups themselves...and lost.

Bad coaching, embarrassing actually. A public apology for the inept play calling we witnessed should be issued. lol

I disagree with this take.  Williams was pretty good last night.  The colts built this team behind that OL so running is a key to their success. I am sure if Hilton was healthy there would have been more passes to him and he would have opened up more for Brissett.  

I agree with barrack about using play action last night.

 

[davearm]

Coaches always try to outsmart other teams instead of just try to beat them with their best players. The Colts HC thought his best way to win was to hand it to a practice squad player who has been on 3 teams in 3 years over and over and over again. While he got yards and got in the EZ, you lost. 

Colts won the last 4 against Houston, but they choose to run with their backup RB instead of torching a secondary with nothing but backups themselves...and lost.

Bad coaching, embarrassing actually. A public apology for the inept play calling we witnessed should be issued. lol

It's not exactly Harrison and Wayne on the outside these days.  Just a gimpy Hilton and a bunch of guys that are the WR equivalent of Jonathan Williams.

 

[barackdhouse]

It's not exactly Harrison and Wayne on the outside these days.  Just a gimpy Hilton and a bunch of guys that are the WR equivalent of Jonathan Williams.

By not trying, though, you are doing the defense's job for them. When the Texans watch film on this they're going to cringe a little bit when they see the chunk rush yards they gave up, but then they're going to laugh and high five each other at how dumb the Colts were for not trying to leverage that run game success with play action. 

 

[efactor]

Coaches always try to outsmart other teams instead of just try to beat them with their best players. The Colts HC thought his best way to win was to hand it to a practice squad player who has been on 3 teams in 3 years over and over and over again. While he got yards and got in the EZ, you lost. 

Colts won the last 4 against Houston, but they choose to run with their backup RB instead of torching a secondary with nothing but backups themselves...and lost.

Bad coaching, embarrassing actually. A public apology for the inept play calling we witnessed should be issued. lol

I only watched about half the first quarter and all of the 2nd quarter, but Brissett was pretty bad, so maybe that had something to do with it.  Even his completions were behind his receivers of they had to go to the ground to catch them.  Was not throwing the ball on target in the quarter and a half I watched anyway.

 

[Dizzy]

Coaches always try to outsmart other teams instead of just try to beat them with their best players. The Colts HC thought his best way to win was to hand it to a practice squad player who has been on 3 teams in 3 years over and over and over again. While he got yards and got in the EZ, you lost. 

Colts won the last 4 against Houston, but they choose to run with their backup RB instead of torching a secondary with nothing but backups themselves...and lost.

Bad coaching, embarrassing actually. A public apology for the inept play calling we witnessed should be issued. lol

Tight ball game... two very, VERY bad drops by TY Hilton probably cost them the game.

The practice squad player looked pretty good to me. Last night was on TY and he knew it.

 

[lod001]

This one is almost a year long of stupidity.

The Bengals were successful last year running a gap blocking scheme. So much so that this year they scrapped it for a zone blocking scheme because the new guy 's dad (Callahan) is a zone blocking guy so of course he cant think for himself and changes to what his dad likes. Massive failure. Well, they gave up that disaster and went back to a gap blocking scheme. Mixon is performing again since that change.

How do these guys get jobs? Oh yeah, his dad is a NFl coach.

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2019/11/14/20962159/bengals-weekly-lineman-the-transition-to-a-gap-style-blocking-scheme

 

[dgreen]

13-13 game with 0:26 remaining in the 4th quarter. Haskins completes a pass to McLaurin to get to the Lions' 21 yard line. Callahan immediately calls their last timeout with 0:20 left and then kicks the FG.

Lions still had two timeouts and should have been the ones using their timeouts. Redskins should have let the clock tick down after the McLaurin catch to make the FG the last play of the game. Even after using the timeout, there was plenty of time to run a play and spike the ball to stop the clock and kick the field goal. Or, again, it's possible the Lions would have used timeouts.

It all worked out, but that Redskins timeout didn't make sense to me.

 

[Rubi]

Pat Shurmur waking up in the morning thinking he's a competent NFL head coach.

 

[Gally]

Surprised nobody said anything in here about Dallas kicking a FG with 5 minutes left to close the gap to 4 pts instead of going for it.  That was as stupid as can be.  They never got another chance to score a TD.....

Not to mention having your return guy set up for a normal kickoff when nobody had kicked the ball past the 20 yd line going that direction on kickoffs due to the wind. 

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Bengals' coach: Ryan Finley is our starter for the rest of the season.

(A few weeks later in a lost season)

We're benching Finley.

It's not in the team's best interests to see what your nine-year starter can do. It doesn't help Finley get better. It doesn't help the team's draft spot. 
It's a move designed to eek out a few wins and save the coaching staff's jobs. The same staff that has the team 0-11. I guess it's not stupid for a coach to try and save his job.  But it's a stupid move for the team imo.

 

 

[Rubi]

Surprised nobody said anything in here about Dallas kicking a FG with 5 minutes left to close the gap to 4 pts instead of going for it.  That was as stupid as can be.  They never got another chance to score a TD.....

Not to mention having your return guy set up for a normal kickoff when nobody had kicked the ball past the 20 yd line going that direction on kickoffs due to the wind. 

If I'm not mistaken I believe The Cowgirls did get the ball back with 2 1/2 minutes to play and 3 timeouts,but didn't get far on that drive.

 

[Gally]

If I'm not mistaken I believe The Cowgirls did get the ball back with 2 1/2 minutes to play and 3 timeouts,but didn't get far on that drive.

Which is what I meant by they never really got another realistic chance at a TD...….

The fact they did get it back does not make the decision to not go for it any better.

 

[CalBear]

Which is what I meant by they never really got another realistic chance at a TD...….

The fact they did get it back does not make the decision to not go for it any better.

Being tied is not the same as being ahead.

 

[Gally]

Being tied is not the same as being ahead.

Of course. What is your point?

 

[[scooter]]

Surprised nobody said anything in here about Dallas kicking a FG with 5 minutes left to close the gap to 4 pts instead of going for it.  That was as stupid as can be.  They never got another chance to score a TD.....

There were actually 6+ minutes left; they did get the ball back, and it was the right call.

They needed 8 points to win. Statistically, it was better for Dallas to get 3 of those points during regulation than to try for a 45% chance of getting those points in overtime.

 

[Gally]

There were actually 6 1/2 minutes left; they did get the ball back, and it was the right call.

They needed 8 points to win. Statistically, it was better for Dallas to get 3 of those points during regulation than to try for a 45% chance of getting those points in overtime.

Agree to disagree.  They never even came close to getting in position for a TD again (and hadn't really gotten that close all game so why think they could later?).  There was likely a chance they never got the ball back (just because they did didn't mean it was likely to happen).  If they planned to go for it then their play calls would have changed at 2nd and 7.  Instead of trying two passes (2nd and 3rd down) and then kicking it would have been worth running on 2nd down which had been working on that drive to that point making a more manageable 3rd and/or 4th down. 

 

[[scooter]]

There were actually 6 1/2 minutes left; they did get the ball back, and it was the right call.

They needed 8 points to win. Statistically, it was better for Dallas to get 3 of those points during regulation than to try for a 45% chance of getting those points in overtime.

Agree to disagree.  They never even came close to getting in position for a TD again (and hadn't really gotten that close all game so why think they could later?).  There was likely a chance they never got the ball back (just because they did didn't mean it was likely to happen).  If they planned to go for it then their play calls would have changed at 2nd and 7.  Instead of trying two passes (2nd and 3rd down) and then kicking it would have been worth running on 2nd down which had been working on that drive to that point making a more manageable 3rd and/or 4th down. 

- Go for it on 4th down (~35% chance of getting TD)
- Make XP (~95%)
- Get field goal with 2 minutes to go OR win in overtime (~65%)

Now compare that to:

- Kick FG (~95%)
- Get TD with 2 minutes to go (~30%)

If they had changed the strategy by running on 2nd down, then maybe they increase the chances of scoring a TD, but not enough to flip the overall percentage. (Keep in mind that they would have lost more time if they had run on 2nd down, which would have ultimately reduced their odds of scoring at the end of the game.)

Regardless, once they got to 4th-and-7, Dallas absolutely made the right call statistically.

 

[davearm]

- Go for it on 4th down (~35% chance of getting TD)
- Make XP (~95%)
- Get field goal with 2 minutes to go OR win in overtime (~65%)

Now compare that to:

- Kick FG (~95%)
- Get TD with 2 minutes to go (~30%)

If they had changed the strategy by running on 2nd down, then maybe they increase the chances of scoring a TD, but not enough to flip the overall percentage. (Keep in mind that they would have lost more time if they had run on 2nd down, which would have ultimately reduced their odds of scoring at the end of the game.)

Regardless, once they got to 4th-and-7, Dallas absolutely made the right call statistically.

Not sure about that.  I just had a little fun with the pro-football-reference win probability calculator.

Dallas' win probability if they make the FG, and give NE the ball @ NE 25, first and 10 with 6:04 remaining and NE a 4 point lead: 14.2%

Dallas' win probability if they make the TD, and give NE the ball @ NE 25, first and 10 with 6:04 remaining and tied: 44.4%

Dallas' win probability if they get no points (get stopped OR miss the FG), and give NE the ball @ NE 7, first and 10 with 6:04 remaining and NE a 7 point lead: 6.2%

So if they can make the FG at a 95% rate, then by electing to kick, they move their win probability to 13.8% (.142 x .95 + .062 x .05 = .138).

Given the above, the breakeven success rate on going for the TD is 20%. (.444 x .2 + .062 x .8 = .138)

If you're right that they had a ~35% chance of getting TD, then they should have gone for it, as it would have moved their WP to 19.6%.  (.444 x .35 + .062 x .65 = .196)

So in the end, (and assuming the 95% FG success rate), the right call for Dallas depends on whether you put their success rate going for it on 4th down above or below 20%.

 

[Gally]

- Go for it on 4th down (~35% chance of getting TD)
- Make XP (~95%)
- Get field goal with 2 minutes to go OR win in overtime (~65%)

Now compare that to:

- Kick FG (~95%)
- Get TD with 2 minutes to go (~30%)

If they had changed the strategy by running on 2nd down, then maybe they increase the chances of scoring a TD, but not enough to flip the overall percentage. (Keep in mind that they would have lost more time if they had run on 2nd down, which would have ultimately reduced their odds of scoring at the end of the game.)

Regardless, once they got to 4th-and-7, Dallas absolutely made the right call statistically.

Are those percentages based on historical success of all teams against all defenses on 4th and 7?   I assume that to be true.  If that is the case then that is where I disagree.  In the rain against the Pats defense with how the Cowboy offense was playing I would put the TD with 2 minutes left at much lower of a percentage chance. 

I understand your statistical references but I have an issue with the blanket percentages based on all teams.  All teams are not created equal.  For general instances it gives you some perspective but each individual case is different and varies from those numbers.  The Cowboys best chance to win was to plan to go for it on 4th down at that spot on the field during 2nd down.  It changes the play calls and puts them in a better chance to win that one game in the rain in that situation.  We will never know for sure. 

 

[[scooter]]

Are those percentages based on historical success of all teams against all defenses on 4th and 7?   I assume that to be true.  If that is the case then that is where I disagree.  In the rain against the Pats defense with how the Cowboy offense was playing I would put the TD with 2 minutes left at much lower of a percentage chance. 

Fair enough. But then you must also lower the percentage of A) scoring a TD when going for it on 4th down, and B) winning the game in overtime.

The numbers are all relative.

 

[Gally]

Fair enough. But then you must also lower the percentage of A) scoring a TD when going for it on 4th down, and B) winning the game in overtime.

The numbers are all relative.

Agree with this.  Based on that game in those conditions I believe the best chance the Cowboys had to win was to plan to go for it on 4th down if needed when it was 2nd and 7 and go for the TD on that drive.  That was their best chance all game to get in the endzone. 

 

[CalBear]

Agree with this.  Based on that game in those conditions I believe the best chance the Cowboys had to win was to plan to go for it on 4th down if needed when it was 2nd and 7 and go for the TD on that drive.  That was their best chance all game to get in the endzone. 

That's a reasonable position to take, but kicking the FG isn't "obviously stupid." Regardless of the outcome of the 4th-and-7 play they need another score to win the game.

 

[Gally]

That's a reasonable position to take, but kicking the FG isn't "obviously stupid." Regardless of the outcome of the 4th-and-7 play they need another score to win the game.

But without getting a TD they had no chance to win the game.  A TD extends the game a FG does not.  The Cowboys never got that close for a TD the entire game other than that one instance.  Based on the way the game had unfolded planning to go for it on fourth and adjusting your play call on 2nd knowing you would go for it gives the best chance to extend the game. Kicking a FG did not give them that same opportunity.

 

[CalBear]

But without getting a TD they had no chance to win the game.  A TD extends the game a FG does not.  The Cowboys never got that close for a TD the entire game other than that one instance.  Based on the way the game had unfolded planning to go for it on fourth and adjusting your play call on 2nd knowing you would go for it gives the best chance to extend the game. Kicking a FG did not give them that same opportunity.

I understand your argument. You apparently don't understand mine, which is that you need two scores to win the game, and that if you "never got that close again" you were going to lose, regardless. Kicking the FG means that if you get close again, you can win.

 

[Gally]

I understand your argument. You apparently don't understand mine, which is that you need two scores to win the game, and that if you "never got that close again" you were going to lose, regardless. Kicking the FG means that if you get close again, you can win.

I understand your argument.  I just don't agree that it is increasing your winning ability.

You have to get a lot closer to score a TD than a FG.  Especially with Maher's range with the wind.  A TD extends the game to give you opportunity at a second score.  A FG doesn't extend the game.  A TD does.

 

[CalBear]

I understand your argument.  I just don't agree that it is increasing your winning ability.

You have to get a lot closer to score a TD than a FG.  Especially with Maher's range with the wind.  A TD extends the game to give you opportunity at a second score.  A FG doesn't extend the game.  A TD does.

"Extending the game" doesn't matter if you never score again.

Your choice is to take an action which has a low probability of success (going for it on fourth and 7) but a greater payoff, vs. an action which has a high probability of success (28-yard FG) but a lesser payoff. It is not obviously stupid to choose either one.

 

[ghostguy123]

Cardinals down 10 with about 12 minutes to go.  4th and 2 at the Steelers 10-ish yardline.

Going for it.  Why?  Kick the FG and make it a 1 score game.  

Really Murray should have ran it for easy 1st down and maybe TD, but instead threw an INT.  Besides the point, was a dumb move

 

[Joe Summer]

4th-and-2 from the 10 you should go for it almost every time as a matter of principle.

 

[ghostguy123]

4th-and-2 from the 10 you should go for it almost every time as a matter of principle.

Almost every time..........but not when you are down 2 scores and a FG makes it 1 score, or when you are up 1 score and a FG makes it 2 scores.

 

[lod001]

The play by play speaks for itself. Mixon was the only player to actually gain yardage. 6.2 ypc and Taylor goes full blown stupid.

Look at this garbage:

2nd & 7 at CLE 9

(6:21 - 3rd) J.Mixon right guard pushed ob at CLV 3 for 6 yards (J.Schobert).

3rd & 1 at CLE 3

(5:54 - 3rd) (Shotgun) A.Dalton pass incomplete short right to C.Uzomah (S.Redwine).

(5:52 - 3rd) Timeout #1 by CIN at 05:52.

4th & 1 at CLE 3

(5:52 - 3rd) (Shotgun) J.Mixon right guard to CLV 2 for 1 yard (D.Ward; J.Schobert).

1st & Goal at CLE 2

(5:34 - 3rd) (Shotgun) A.Dalton sacked at CLV 10 for -8 yards  SERIOUSLY!!!???!!! (sack split by L.Ogunjobi and B.Cox).

2nd & Goal at CLE 10

(4:50 - 3rd) (Shotgun) A.Dalton pass incomplete short right to G.Bernard.

3rd & 10 at CLE 10

(4:47 - 3rd) (Shotgun) A.Dalton pass incomplete short left to S.Morgan.

4th & Goal at CLE 10

(4:39 - 3rd) Randy Bullock 28 Yd Field Goal

Yep, gotta be tricky.

 

[CalBear]

Almost every time..........but not when you are down 2 scores and a FG makes it 1 score, or when you are up 1 score and a FG makes it 2 scores.

It's not a "2-score game". It's a 10-point game. That means you need 11 points to win. A FG, TD and XP only adds up to 10, so a FG means you still need two scores to win. A TD would give you the opportunity to win with only one more score, so getting a TD on that possession is much more valuable than getting a FG.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's not a "2-score game". It's a 10-point game. That means you need 11 points to win. A FG, TD and XP only adds up to 10, so a FG means you still need two scores to win. A TD would give you the opportunity to win with only one more score, so getting a TD on that possession is much more valuable than getting a FG.

And if you convert the 4th and 2 there is obviously still no guarantee you score a TD on that drive. 

And of course a TD is more valuable there.  Seems obvious.

Make it a 1 score/possession game.  

 

[CalBear]

And if you convert the 4th and 2 there is obviously still no guarantee you score a TD on that drive. 

And of course a TD is more valuable there.  Seems obvious.

Make it a 1 score/possession game.  

It's not a 1 score/possession game if you're down by 7. You need two scores to win.

The value of a TD down by 10 is far greater than the value of a FG down by 10. Of course there's no guarantee you'll make it on 4th and 2, but your chance of scoring a TD from 4th and 2 at the 10 is certainly greater than your chances of scoring a TD on a drive beginning with a punt reception in your own end. Or a kickoff return if the other team gets a FG (and requiring you to still get 10 points).

 

[bryhamm]

It's not a "2-score game". It's a 10-point game. That means you need 11 points to win. A FG, TD and XP only adds up to 10, so a FG means you still need two scores to win. A TD would give you the opportunity to win with only one more score, so getting a TD on that possession is much more valuable than getting a FG.

It is a 2-score game from the pov that if you score the 10 you don't lose in regulation.  Yes, you have to score at least 11 to win, but you don't need all 11 in regulation.

 

[CalBear]

It is a 2-score game from the pov that if you score the 10 you don't lose in regulation.  Yes, you have to score at least 11 to win, but you don't need all 11 in regulation.

Last I checked, getting 11 in regulation and winning is a lot better than getting 10 and going to OT. Like, you win approximately twice as often when you do that.

So if your chance of scoring a TD when going for it from fourth-and-2 at the 10 is at least 50%, you should clearly go for it. And it's a little better than that, because if you get the first down but don't get the TD in the next three downs, you can still kick the FG. Not to mention scenarios where you kick the FG and the other team goes down and kicks a FG to make it 10 again.

 

[bryhamm]

Last I checked, getting 11 in regulation and winning is a lot better than getting 10 and going to OT. Like, you win approximately twice as often when you do that.

So if your chance of scoring a TD when going for it from fourth-and-2 at the 10 is at least 50%, you should clearly go for it. And it's a little better than that, because if you get the first down but don't get the TD in the next three downs, you can still kick the FG. Not to mention scenarios where you kick the FG and the other team goes down and kicks a FG to make it 10 again.

ok.  virtually everyone else is saying the FG was the right call.  you are the sole voice saying otherwise.

 

[kittenmittens]

ok.  virtually everyone else is saying the FG was the right call.  you are the sole voice saying otherwise.

I believe CalBear is correct here on what the right analytics/statistical based call is.  I think this is one of those situations that is not intuitive, but the math plays out. 

 

[CalBear]

ok.  virtually everyone else is saying the FG was the right call.  you are the sole voice saying otherwise.

Virtually no one understands statistics, which is why multi-million dollar NFL coaches keep this thread alive year after year.

OK, according to the PFR calculator, the win probability at fourth and 2 with 12 minutes left is 11.9%.

Your win probability if you kick the FG and the other team gets it at the 20 after a kickoff is 11.4%.

The win probability at first and goal on the 8 is 22.1%. So getting the first down (not even scoring the TD) basically doubles your chance of winning. So if your chance of getting the first down is >50% you should definitely go for it. 

You want to know why your win probability goes down when you kick the FG? Once you do that, PFR has to discount the possibility that you went for it and got the TD, which was a better play.

 

[Steeler]

ok.  virtually everyone else is saying the FG was the right call.  you are the sole voice saying otherwise.

I don't care to argue about these things so I haven't responded.  I was watching the game at that time the decision was made and thought it was the right call at the time and still do.

 

[CalBear]

Virtually no one understands statistics, which is why multi-million dollar NFL coaches keep this thread alive year after year.

OK, according to the PFR calculator, the win probability at fourth and 2 with 12 minutes left is 11.9%.

Your win probability if you kick the FG and the other team gets it at the 20 after a kickoff is 11.4%.

The win probability at first and goal on the 8 is 22.1%. So getting the first down (not even scoring the TD) basically doubles your chance of winning. So if your chance of getting the first down is >50% you should definitely go for it. 

You want to know why your win probability goes down when you kick the FG? Once you do that, PFR has to discount the possibility that you went for it and got the TD, which was a better play.

By the way, if you get the TD, let's say with 1:00 off the clock, when the other team gets the ball at the 20 up by 3, your win probability has risen to 28.5%.

 

[davearm]

It's not a 1 score/possession game if you're down by 7. You need two scores to win.

The value of a TD down by 10 is far greater than the value of a FG down by 10. Of course there's no guarantee you'll make it on 4th and 2, but your chance of scoring a TD from 4th and 2 at the 10 is certainly greater than your chances of scoring a TD on a drive beginning with a punt reception in your own end. Or a kickoff return if the other team gets a FG (and requiring you to still get 10 points).

I'm mostly with you on the TD/FG choice, but the bolded is pretty disingenuous.  While it's true that if you get one score to tie it, you still need another score to win, the same is true of the other team at that point -- they also need another score to win.

So the term "two score game" certainly does not apply equally to a 7 point deficit and a 9-16 point deficit.

 

[ZWK]

Going for it on 4th & 2 was probably the right call. It was definitely not something obviously stupid.

Going for it on 4th & 2 is often the right move, regardless of game situation.

And when you're down 10, scoring a TD is much better than scoring a FG (even though both cut it to a "one score game") because:

now you can take the lead with a TD instead of merely tying it up
now a FG is enough for you to tie the game; you don't need to score a TD
now allowing a FG to the other team will still leave you within 1 score of taking the lead, instead of putting you down by 2 scores

 

[DJackson10]

Giants coaches not having anyone covering the only real Threat at receiver the TE Zach Ertz in the back of the end zone in OT MNF. Probably worst coaching of the season not even close. Literally looked like the players quit on the field for NYG too 

 

[CalBear]

Giants coaches not having anyone covering the only real Threat at receiver the TE Zach Ertz in the back of the end zone in OT MNF. Probably worst coaching of the season not even close. Literally looked like the players quit on the field for NYG too 

Yeah I noticed that too. How do you blow the only coverage you need to care about?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

ok.  virtually everyone else is saying the FG was the right call.  you are the sole voice saying otherwise.

argumentum ad populum

going for it was the right call

 

[apalmer]

ok.  virtually everyone else is saying the FG was the right call.  you are the sole voice saying otherwise.

When asked, "virtually everyone" will say that after flipping a coin and getting tails 9 times in a row, the 10th flip is most likely to be heads. They'd be wrong.

 

[fred_1_15301]

When asked, "virtually everyone" will say that after flipping a coin and getting tails 9 times in a row, the 10th flip is most likely to be heads. They'd be wrong.

Actually I think most people have figured this one out.      

 

[Arodin]

Actually I think most people have figured this one out.      

I think most people have learned to parrot back “still 50%.”  Not sure most people have learned the right answer, which is “bet tails.”  At least anecdotally from convenience sampling my Stats students they haven’t.

If it’s a fair coin, you lose nothing.  But you have substantial evidence on which to revise downward your assumed expectation the coin is fair.

 

[kittenmittens]

I think most people have learned to parrot back “still 50%.”  Not sure most people have learned the right answer, which is “bet tails.”  At least anecdotally from convenience sampling my Stats students they haven’t.

If it’s a fair coin, you lose nothing.  But you have substantial evidence on which to revise downward your assumed expectation the coin is fair.

LOL.  That is not the right answer.  You're a stats professor and you're teaching students to fall into Gamblers Fallacy?  

Also, "bet tails" is the answer to a different question. You know the 10th flip is independent of the other 9 flips.  The odds are still 50 percent.  Your game theory move of betting tails is not wrong, but it's not based on the odds of the coin flip. 

What are the odds of a random coin being unfair in such a way?  A lot lower than hitting 9 tails in a row....