You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm not sure that's what the "book" says, and that's not my position- I'm not in the camp for "100% always kick" in this situation, I think we should consider many more variable besides time and point differential, at least when there are still 7 minutes to play. If the book says "never go for 2 until absolutely necessary", then I disagree with the book.

I'm in the it is almost always the better choice to go for two, but I agree that there are other variables involved which might create exceptions. That is not however the poll results or the history of what NFL coaches have done.

Again, that's a mistake in the use of the information, not in the timing of it. Even if you go for 2 early and make it, it is a mistake IMO to play for only 1 more possession- the odds are you aren't going to score a TD on your next possession, you'd improve your odds by giving yourselves 2 chances at it, if feasible.

The information is that being down 7 or 9 is statistically better than being down 8. We know that here without even game being played. That means kicking the PAT should require additional information to create the exception to place you in the inferior position, not the other way around. Now of course you are correct that the reason being down 8 is statistically at a disadvantage is because "the book" leaves NFL teams playing for that one TD without consideration of much else.

 

[CalBear]

The stat guys in baseball got in the door by arguing situations that happen more than five times a year league wide.

Look, this isn't some massive statistical argument like showing that clutch hitting doesn't exist, or that stealing bases is a waste of time. This is very straightforward game theory; get as much information as you can as early as you can. No one on the PAT side has even presented a counter-argument, other than to make meaningless assertions (like "you want to keep it a one possession game"), or to quote "the book." Well, the book is wrong on this one, as it's wrong on a lot of things, and I still see no argument coming from the PAT side.

Actually, the counter-argument has been presented plenty of times- it isn't clear that the information gained by going for 2 early provides the trailing team with any quantifiable advantage over the leading team.

Your assertion is contradicted by the fact that teams down 8, or 15 or 16, lose more often than teams down 9 or 17 (respectively). That fact strongly implies that it's more important to have the knowledge than the point.

Both teams gain the same exact information, and have the same opportunity to adjust their gameplans accordingly. Sure, if you go for 2 early and miss, you now know you need at least 2 more possessions, but so does the other team. It's impossible to say for sure who benefits more from that information.

It's impossible to say for sure, but it's possible to measure the results, which very clearly favor the team ahead.

 

[Sam Quentin]

... the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

Agreed. That is why eliminating that logical fallacy as early as possible is the superior strategy. When you are down by nine you pretty much are forced to play to score ten and win in regulation. When you are down eight you get fooled into believing you are down a touchdown and you play for a tie. I'd argue that all things being equal, playing to win is superior to playing for overtime.

Again, that's a mistake in the use of the information, not in the timing of it. Even if you go for 2 early and make it, it is a mistake IMO to play for only 1 more possession- the odds are you aren't going to score a TD on your next possession, you'd improve your odds by giving yourselves 2 chances at it, if feasible.

but even there, if it's truly a one-possesion game, I'd want to know. I don't want to rush my plays and "conserve" timeoyts unnecessarily or leave my opponent time to come back if it is a one possession game

 

[cvnpoka]

I was once on the fence and then I went to the "Go for 2" camp.I asked my 10-yr old son this same question and he said "Go for 2" as his first answer, with the reasoning of "if you wait to go for 2 with a minute left in the game, you probably won't get the ball back with time to go get a field goal if you miss."Sounds right to me.

once the madden generation inherits the coaching jobs these decisions will be approached a lot differently. and correctly.

 

[faulknromos]

I counted 135 half-tards.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I wanted to add an aside as to why I think this debate is so interesting to so many, or at least, why it's so interesting to me:

It's true that this situation presents itself very few times in a given season. I can't remember the last time my team found itself in this situation. But the poor decision-making reflected in the decision to kick the extra point first is informed by many of the same things that lead to poor decision-making by NFL coaches in many other situations that show up every single game. The most prominent of these is fourth down decisions.

Ridiculous amounts of data- enough to remove concerns about sample size, for sure- show that coaches are far, far too conservative on 4th down. They punt when they should go for it, or they kick field goals when they should go for it, or they punt when they kick field goals.

Here's the last part of a four-part study on 4th down decisions.

Here's a different graphical representation of the same basic information.

Here's one study that explains the same basic information in more of a prose format for the more word-oriented.

So you're talking about rampant inefficiency. Any time there's an inefficiency, the question of "why" is, in my opinion, fascinating. In this case I think it's massive levels of risk aversion complemented by concerns about job security and a decision-making process that is placed under a harsher spotlight by a broader group of critics than any other decision-makers I can think of except maybe the president. If you're a stat dork, it's a really interesting subject.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

... the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

Agreed. That is why eliminating that logical fallacy as early as possible is the superior strategy. When you are down by nine you pretty much are forced to play to score ten and win in regulation. When you are down eight you get fooled into believing you are down a touchdown and you play for a tie. I'd argue that all things being equal, playing to win is superior to playing for overtime.

If you're down 7 with :15 left and score a touchdown, I assume you would "play to win" and go for two?

 

[humpback]

... the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

Agreed. That is why eliminating that logical fallacy as early as possible is the superior strategy. When you are down by nine you pretty much are forced to play to score ten and win in regulation. When you are down eight you get fooled into believing you are down a touchdown and you play for a tie. I'd argue that all things being equal, playing to win is superior to playing for overtime.

Again, that's a mistake in the use of the information, not in the timing of it. Even if you go for 2 early and make it, it is a mistake IMO to play for only 1 more possession- the odds are you aren't going to score a TD on your next possession, you'd improve your odds by giving yourselves 2 chances at it, if feasible.

but even there, if it's truly a one-possesion game, I'd want to know. I don't want to rush my plays and "conserve" timeoyts unnecessarily or leave my opponent time to come back if it is a one possession game

Wanting to know that information is a valid argument for going for it early. I don't necessarily agree, I think the team in the lead benefits from that information as well, but at least it's open for debate. It being mathematically proven that the "correct" strategy is to always go for 2 early is just plain false. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You have to go for 2 first, because then you're only down 7.If you wait until the 2nd TD and miss the two-point conversion, you won't have enough time left to get the ball back and drive for another score.

How do you have enough time if you miss it the first time?

There are seven minutes left - there are literally an infinite number of things that can happen in seven minutes, as humpback and others have pointed out. You have to go for it the first time, because then you're only down by 7, so you just need an easy PAT on the 2nd TD to tie (or you can go for another 2-pointer to win if you want to try to end it before overtime).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... the mistake isn't the timing of going for two, it's making the assumption that you're going to make it when you go for it.

Agreed. That is why eliminating that logical fallacy as early as possible is the superior strategy. When you are down by nine you pretty much are forced to play to score ten and win in regulation. When you are down eight you get fooled into believing you are down a touchdown and you play for a tie. I'd argue that all things being equal, playing to win is superior to playing for overtime.

If you're down 7 with :15 left and score a touchdown, I assume you would "play to win" and go for two?

Probably. Without looking I assume I said so here where it worked and here where it didn't. I'm going to assume that the team I'm coaching has gone for enough twos already this season that they are prepared for the event and are better than a 50-50 chance of succeeding. However, if I am coaching team average with a 40% or 45% probability of success and playing a team about my equal or supposedly not as good I take the roughly 50-50 of overtime. As posted several times in this thread I think there is no reason to believe that Houston had a much better than 50-50 shot of converting two and should have went for it both times (assuming they make the first). Worst case is they would have come out of the game with the same lost that they have anyway. I wonder what the stats are for teams that play with nothing to lose reckless abandon in the 4th quarter to comeback and tie a game and then revert back to "normal" in overtime. I'm guessing they lose more often than not because they were behind to begin with because they were the inferior team. (Now Houston throwing from their end zone might not apply here, but I think you get the point.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

..., I think the team in the lead benefits from that information as well, but at least it's open for debate. ...

The team with the lead plays it by the book and gets even more conservative up "two possessions" leaving the trailing team with even more opportunity. The stats suggests that this observation is true in that teams down 9 are almost as successful as teams down 7.

 

[humpback]

This is the part that amazes me- how on earth are a couple of books, written several years ago, about an entirely different sport, remotely relevant to this discussion? Besides, there are stats guys in the NFL, just not necessarily head coaches. If the stats said that going for 2 early was unquestionably the right choice, I'm relatively certain at least 1 team would've tried it by now. Are we really making the assumption that either no one in the NFL has run the numbers, or they have but they always choose to go against the odds?

A book published in 1988 demonstrated that going for 4th and 1 was almost always the correct choice everywhere on the field. (The only exceptions were late in the game where kicking a FG would win the game.) With a couple of noted exceptions, every NFL coach goes against these odds in most cases. These numbers have been reaffirmed since by several other studies. Yet almost no one in the NFL plays the odds. There has also been a few studies that suggest going for 2 every time would be statistically advantageous, but who does that? So why should we believe that someone would have tried this by now? And since we are talking about small advantages with high risk of second guessing, so why do we think the non stats guy head coaches are going to think that the small advantages in a short season are worth the hassels?

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty big numbers guy- I have extensive course work (undergraduate and graduate level) and utilize them daily in my work. I also know how easy it is to manipulate them to "say" almost whatever you want, and how if you use them incorrectly, it's going to give you false conclussions.Here's why this can't be "solved" mathematically (I wish it could be, believe me)- even in your previous link (post #722), notice the disclosures: "This type of analysis is difficult because it is impossible to observe the counterfactual, what would have happened if the opposite decision had been made", "As I mentioned earlier, this study of many different games, in which there is immense variation from case to case, was not likely to reveal a clear pattern in the form of one strategy leading directly to a team winning a game", and "A definite complication of this study is the play-to-play and game-to-game unpredictability of the NFL, and this makes it difficult to come up with any strategic theory that is consistently accurate".What were the odds of Houston making the 2 pt. conversion Monday night? Most would say it was 42% (or whatever the number is), but think about it for a minute- why does it matter what the success rate was previous to this attempt? Does the fact that 2 entirely different teams under completely different circumstances 10 or 15 years ago went for it and missed it have any influence on your chances to be successful right here and now? This attempt can only have 2 outcomes- it's either successful or unsuccessful- it can't be 42% successful. That's why you can't just rely on past data to answer this question- every scenario is unique and independent from previous (and future) ones.The same goes for "going for it on 4th and 1". Even if you wanted to (incorrectly) assume your odds at success are equal to previous tries, there are MANY other things you should consider as well. It's not like you're going to get 100 4th and 1 attempts in a game, so if you fail on this try you can balance it out with successful ones later. There can be HUGE implications from that one attempt being successful or failing, and they have to be factored in. I agree, coaches are generally too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, but that certainly doesn't mean they should go for it everytime, even though the "odds" say they should.Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc). We can't even prove what the correct odds are in football, nevermind say that the correct play is to always go with those odds. Every situation is unique.Again, if there was only one proven correct answer here, it wouldn't be a discussion. If it could be solved by using math, then the NFL would have computers making all of the decisions. There's more to it than that.

 

[Jersey35]

This is the part that amazes me- how on earth are a couple of books, written several years ago, about an entirely different sport, remotely relevant to this discussion? Besides, there are stats guys in the NFL, just not necessarily head coaches. If the stats said that going for 2 early was unquestionably the right choice, I'm relatively certain at least 1 team would've tried it by now. Are we really making the assumption that either no one in the NFL has run the numbers, or they have but they always choose to go against the odds?

A book published in 1988 demonstrated that going for 4th and 1 was almost always the correct choice everywhere on the field. (The only exceptions were late in the game where kicking a FG would win the game.) With a couple of noted exceptions, every NFL coach goes against these odds in most cases. These numbers have been reaffirmed since by several other studies. Yet almost no one in the NFL plays the odds. There has also been a few studies that suggest going for 2 every time would be statistically advantageous, but who does that? So why should we believe that someone would have tried this by now? And since we are talking about small advantages with high risk of second guessing, so why do we think the non stats guy head coaches are going to think that the small advantages in a short season are worth the hassels?

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty big numbers guy- I have extensive course work (undergraduate and graduate level) and utilize them daily in my work. I also know how easy it is to manipulate them to "say" almost whatever you want, and how if you use them incorrectly, it's going to give you false conclussions.Here's why this can't be "solved" mathematically (I wish it could be, believe me)- even in your previous link (post #722), notice the disclosures: "This type of analysis is difficult because it is impossible to observe the counterfactual, what would have happened if the opposite decision had been made", "As I mentioned earlier, this study of many different games, in which there is immense variation from case to case, was not likely to reveal a clear pattern in the form of one strategy leading directly to a team winning a game", and "A definite complication of this study is the play-to-play and game-to-game unpredictability of the NFL, and this makes it difficult to come up with any strategic theory that is consistently accurate".What were the odds of Houston making the 2 pt. conversion Monday night? Most would say it was 42% (or whatever the number is), but think about it for a minute- why does it matter what the success rate was previous to this attempt? Does the fact that 2 entirely different teams under completely different circumstances 10 or 15 years ago went for it and missed it have any influence on your chances to be successful right here and now? This attempt can only have 2 outcomes- it's either successful or unsuccessful- it can't be 42% successful. That's why you can't just rely on past data to answer this question- every scenario is unique and independent from previous (and future) ones.The same goes for "going for it on 4th and 1". Even if you wanted to (incorrectly) assume your odds at success are equal to previous tries, there are MANY other things you should consider as well. It's not like you're going to get 100 4th and 1 attempts in a game, so if you fail on this try you can balance it out with successful ones later. There can be HUGE implications from that one attempt being successful or failing, and they have to be factored in. I agree, coaches are generally too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, but that certainly doesn't mean they should go for it everytime, even though the "odds" say they should.Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc). We can't even prove what the correct odds are in football, nevermind say that the correct play is to always go with those odds. Every situation is unique.Again, if there was only one proven correct answer here, it wouldn't be a discussion. If it could be solved by using math, then the NFL would have computers making all of the decisions. There's more to it than that.

This is a very rational and well-spoken post. While I'll concede that you may be correct that this cannot be "proven" in the sense that you are asking for, I would suggest that it can be (and probably has been in this thread) proven to the level of reasonable doubt (insomuch as a scientific theory can be proven) that going for two early is very likely the right decision, based on the evidence put forth.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is the part that amazes me- how on earth are a couple of books, written several years ago, about an entirely different sport, remotely relevant to this discussion? Besides, there are stats guys in the NFL, just not necessarily head coaches. If the stats said that going for 2 early was unquestionably the right choice, I'm relatively certain at least 1 team would've tried it by now. Are we really making the assumption that either no one in the NFL has run the numbers, or they have but they always choose to go against the odds?

A book published in 1988 demonstrated that going for 4th and 1 was almost always the correct choice everywhere on the field. (The only exceptions were late in the game where kicking a FG would win the game.) With a couple of noted exceptions, every NFL coach goes against these odds in most cases. These numbers have been reaffirmed since by several other studies. Yet almost no one in the NFL plays the odds. There has also been a few studies that suggest going for 2 every time would be statistically advantageous, but who does that? So why should we believe that someone would have tried this by now? And since we are talking about small advantages with high risk of second guessing, so why do we think the non stats guy head coaches are going to think that the small advantages in a short season are worth the hassels?

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty big numbers guy- I have extensive course work (undergraduate and graduate level) and utilize them daily in my work. I also know how easy it is to manipulate them to "say" almost whatever you want, and how if you use them incorrectly, it's going to give you false conclussions.Here's why this can't be "solved" mathematically (I wish it could be, believe me)- even in your previous link (post #722), notice the disclosures: "This type of analysis is difficult because it is impossible to observe the counterfactual, what would have happened if the opposite decision had been made", "As I mentioned earlier, this study of many different games, in which there is immense variation from case to case, was not likely to reveal a clear pattern in the form of one strategy leading directly to a team winning a game", and "A definite complication of this study is the play-to-play and game-to-game unpredictability of the NFL, and this makes it difficult to come up with any strategic theory that is consistently accurate".What were the odds of Houston making the 2 pt. conversion Monday night? Most would say it was 42% (or whatever the number is), but think about it for a minute- why does it matter what the success rate was previous to this attempt? Does the fact that 2 entirely different teams under completely different circumstances 10 or 15 years ago went for it and missed it have any influence on your chances to be successful right here and now? This attempt can only have 2 outcomes- it's either successful or unsuccessful- it can't be 42% successful. That's why you can't just rely on past data to answer this question- every scenario is unique and independent from previous (and future) ones.The same goes for "going for it on 4th and 1". Even if you wanted to (incorrectly) assume your odds at success are equal to previous tries, there are MANY other things you should consider as well. It's not like you're going to get 100 4th and 1 attempts in a game, so if you fail on this try you can balance it out with successful ones later. There can be HUGE implications from that one attempt being successful or failing, and they have to be factored in. I agree, coaches are generally too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, but that certainly doesn't mean they should go for it everytime, even though the "odds" say they should.Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc). We can't even prove what the correct odds are in football, nevermind say that the correct play is to always go with those odds. Every situation is unique.Again, if there was only one proven correct answer here, it wouldn't be a discussion. If it could be solved by using math, then the NFL would have computers making all of the decisions. There's more to it than that.

This is all true. I think there's less variance from team to team and situation than situation than you suggest, but there is no "right" answer. If someone said they'd likely wait to go for two because chances of success are greater on the second try because there's a good chance the defense would be "gassed"- see the Ravens on Monday night- I couldn't really argue with them. I might disagree, but it's a subjective evaluation.The reason this thread is 18 pages long isn't because of arguments like that- in fact if you look back through the thread you'll see that me and the rest of the "go for 2 early" crowd concede that there are other elements to the equation that may reduce or even remove the benefits of going for 2 early. The reason it's 18 pages long is that the majority of people are selecting "100%-definitely don't go for 2" in the poll, and most of them are basing their answer on logic explained by nothing more than "making it a one possession game." That is a wrong answer and a meaningless justification.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The reason this thread is 18 pages long isn't because of arguments like that- in fact if you look back through the thread you'll see that me and the rest of the "go for 2 early" crowd concede that there are other elements to the equation that may reduce or even remove the benefits of going for 2 early. The reason it's 18 pages long is that the majority of people are selecting "100%-definitely don't go for 2" in the poll, and most of them are basing their answer on logic explained by nothing more than "making it a one possession game." That is a wrong answer and a meaningless justification.

From October:

The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.

There are two aspects to this question. There is a subjective element that people can and will disagree about (e.g. how each scenario affects player morale, etc.) - there are perfectly valid arguments against going for two that approach the question from this subjective angle.There is also an objective element that cannot be disagreed with (e.g. how many possessions are required following each scenario). You and many others are getting this objective part wrong. That's not an opinion, and it's not something that will be decided by public polls. It's a question with a right answer, and you're getting it wrong. If 80% of the public voted and said that 2 + 2 = 7, that wouldn't make it right. It would just mean that 80% of the public weren't coming up with the right answer.

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The thread lives on because people continue to hold erroneous beliefs like going for two early results in a greater chance of requiring extra possessions than kicking the PAT.

 

[VaTerp]

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty big numbers guy- I have extensive course work (undergraduate and graduate level) and utilize them daily in my work. I also know how easy it is to manipulate them to "say" almost whatever you want, and how if you use them incorrectly, it's going to give you false conclussions.Here's why this can't be "solved" mathematically (I wish it could be, believe me)- even in your previous link (post #722), notice the disclosures: "This type of analysis is difficult because it is impossible to observe the counterfactual, what would have happened if the opposite decision had been made", "As I mentioned earlier, this study of many different games, in which there is immense variation from case to case, was not likely to reveal a clear pattern in the form of one strategy leading directly to a team winning a game", and "A definite complication of this study is the play-to-play and game-to-game unpredictability of the NFL, and this makes it difficult to come up with any strategic theory that is consistently accurate".What were the odds of Houston making the 2 pt. conversion Monday night? Most would say it was 42% (or whatever the number is), but think about it for a minute- why does it matter what the success rate was previous to this attempt? Does the fact that 2 entirely different teams under completely different circumstances 10 or 15 years ago went for it and missed it have any influence on your chances to be successful right here and now? This attempt can only have 2 outcomes- it's either successful or unsuccessful- it can't be 42% successful. That's why you can't just rely on past data to answer this question- every scenario is unique and independent from previous (and future) ones.The same goes for "going for it on 4th and 1". Even if you wanted to (incorrectly) assume your odds at success are equal to previous tries, there are MANY other things you should consider as well. It's not like you're going to get 100 4th and 1 attempts in a game, so if you fail on this try you can balance it out with successful ones later. There can be HUGE implications from that one attempt being successful or failing, and they have to be factored in. I agree, coaches are generally too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, but that certainly doesn't mean they should go for it everytime, even though the "odds" say they should.Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc). We can't even prove what the correct odds are in football, nevermind say that the correct play is to always go with those odds. Every situation is unique.Again, if there was only one proven correct answer here, it wouldn't be a discussion. If it could be solved by using math, then the NFL would have computers making all of the decisions. There's more to it than that.

The thread lives on because people continue to hold erroneous beliefs like going for two early results in a greater chance of requiring extra possessions than kicking the PAT.

The thread lives on because people continue to hold onto to erroneous beliefs about, and misrepresent, the possession argument. People are also conflating the argument of going for 2 early and the argument on the approach of teams when down by 8.

 

[Sam Quentin]

CalBears numbers have disuaded me of the idea that you may have a higher probability of success on the second try due to momentum or the defense being "gassed."

I think this is a human nature issue. I tihink a defense up 9, potentially 7 doesn't play at quite the intensity of a defense with the game on the line on one play. I think that an offense that is down is in panic mode reegardless of the situation. I'm actually suggesting that the early try may have a slightly higher success rate than a late try.

 

[jackdubl]

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Isn't this idea muddied by the fact that a 7 point game is also only potentially a one possession game. It may be a five possession game. I believe a team scores a touchdown 53% of the time when it starts from the 34 yard line(courtesy of advancednflstats.com), so, even down by 7, there's about a 50/50 chance that it's a two possession game. I don't think it helps to say something is potentially this many or that many possessions. I think you look at your best chance of winning, which is you win in one possession if you can, and you strategize from there.This has nothing to do with the original discussion of going for two early.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Isn't this idea muddied by the fact that a 7 point game is also only potentially a one possession game. It may be a five possession game. I believe a team scores a touchdown 53% of the time when it starts from the 34 yard line(courtesy of advancednflstats.com), so, even down by 7, there's about a 50/50 chance that it's a two possession game. I don't think it helps to say something is potentially this many or that many possessions. I think you look at your best chance of winning, which is you win in one possession if you can, and you strategize from there.This has nothing to do with the original discussion of going for two early.

Sure. That's a point I addressed weeks ago. The number of possessions (one or two or three or ten) isn't knowable - the error people are making is concluding that going for two first requires one more possession (2 vs 1, or 3 vs 2, or whatever) than kicking the PAT.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The thread lives on because people continue to hold onto to erroneous beliefs about, and misrepresent, the possession argument.

Please show what you believe to be a proper representation of the possession argument. Because so far IIRC, every point you've made referencing the number of possessions has been incorrect.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The reason this thread is 18 pages long isn't because of arguments like that- in fact if you look back through the thread you'll see that me and the rest of the "go for 2 early" crowd concede that there are other elements to the equation that may reduce or even remove the benefits of going for 2 early. The reason it's 18 pages long is that the majority of people are selecting "100%-definitely don't go for 2" in the poll, and most of them are basing their answer on logic explained by nothing more than "making it a one possession game." That is a wrong answer and a meaningless justification.

From October:

The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.

There are two aspects to this question. There is a subjective element that people can and will disagree about (e.g. how each scenario affects player morale, etc.) - there are perfectly valid arguments against going for two that approach the question from this subjective angle.There is also an objective element that cannot be disagreed with (e.g. how many possessions are required following each scenario). You and many others are getting this objective part wrong. That's not an opinion, and it's not something that will be decided by public polls. It's a question with a right answer, and you're getting it wrong. If 80% of the public voted and said that 2 + 2 = 7, that wouldn't make it right. It would just mean that 80% of the public weren't coming up with the right answer.

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The thread lives on because people continue to hold erroneous beliefs like going for two early results in a greater chance of requiring extra possessions than kicking the PAT.

18 page thread because of something I wrote seven weeks ago? I'm honored.

I think it's the Go For 2 first side that keeps talking down to everyone like they are idiots and don't understand. I think the other side recognizes what they are saying and that it's possible it could make sense but you guys want to hear that you are 100% correct. And people just don't agree with that.

 

[CrossEyed]

A team coached by a FBG would never be down by 15 at any point of a game.

 

[cvnpoka]

Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc).

lol wtf

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

18 page thread because of something I wrote seven weeks ago? I'm honored.

Don't flatter yourself, it had nothing to do with your comment. I was just confirming TobiasFunke's post with my post from October.

I think it's the Go For 2 first side that keeps talking down to everyone like they are idiots and don't understand. I think the other side recognizes what they are saying and that it's possible it could make sense but you guys want to hear that you are 100% correct. And people just don't agree with that.

Clearly there are some people that don't understand the fact that the number of possessions required to win the game isn't affected by the timing of the two-point conversion. That kind of misunderstanding leads to much of the other erroneous reasoning that the PAT-first crowd has put forth, and is exactly what my post from October, and Tobias's post from today, is referencing. If someone wants to argue a subjective case, like how being down by 7, 8, or 9 affects both teams' playcalling, then that's great. A lot of us will probably disagree on our conclusions, but that's how subjective topics often end up and it's a totally acceptable and productive way to engage in a discussion. For a little while in the middle of this thread, we reached that point and it was good. But if one person says 2 + 2 = 4, and another says 2 + 2 = 5, that's not just a disagreement of opinions. One person is actually right, and the other person is actually wrong.

Is there a way to tell someone that they are actually, factually, objectively wrong about something without having it come off as condescending to them? I don't know, probably not. They obviously don't think they're wrong, because if they did they never would have said the wrong thing in the first place, so when you point out that they are wrong, they'll probably get offended. I don't know what to do about that. Nobody's going out of their way to talk down to anyone, but really there's no reason to continually indulge the 2 + 2 = 5 guy by telling him his opinion is valid and he's entitled to it, or that he might be right depending on the situation, or any other such nonsense. And the discussion isn't going to get any more interesting and useful if we're still waiting for some people to figure out that 2 + 2 doesn't actually equal 5.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The thread lives on because people continue to hold onto to erroneous beliefs about, and misrepresent, the possession argument.

Please show what you believe to be a proper representation of the possession argument. Because so far IIRC, every point you've made referencing the number of possessions has been incorrect.

I was hoping to hear back on this, but perhaps I can proactively answer your response, based on your earlier posts in the thread. There isn't anything new here, but maybe if it's worded a little differently it will make more sense for those who are hung up on it.The problem, as has been pointed out many times already, is that people think of an 8-point deficit as a "one possession game". It isn't.

Let's say you have a 40% chance of succeeding on the 2-pt conversion (it doesn't matter what the number is, so feel free to replace 40 with anything else). Also assume, for the sake of simplicity, that you have a 100% chance of successfully kicking a PAT. To use your terms:

[*]If you decide to go for 2 on the first TD, there's a 40% CHANCE, that, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, you can tie the game with one more possession, and a 60% CHANCE that you will need 2+ possessions.

[*]If you decide to go for the PAT on the first TD, there's a 40% CHANCE that, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, you can tie the game with one more possession, and a 60% CHANCE that you will need 2+ possessions.

The CHANCE of needing just one more possession to tie the game, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, is exactly the same either way. Delaying the "reveal" doesn't change the CHANCE in any way that, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, you're actually in a "one possession game," it just means you have to wait longer to find out.

That's the part that's being misunderstood. The CHANCE that you have a "one possession game" on your hands, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, is exactly the same whether you go for 2 first or kick the PAT first (even though you don't realize it). The only thing that changes is when you find out whether or not the CHANCE works out in your favor. You can either find out now, or you can find out later. That is the only question here. That's the question we're supposed to be debating. Deferring the 2-pt conversion attempt to the second TD does not in any way affect the probability that you will be able to tie the game with your next possession.

That seems a little counterintuitive, right? Clearly if you go for two on the first TD, you could miss (oh no!), and therefore the probability that you will be able to tie the game with another TD is negatively affected. In fact, if you miss, you have NO chance of tying the game with another TD! That's certainly bad! But that's only half the equation (that's the negative half that the risk-avoiding PAT-first crowd is overweighting). If you go for two, you could also make it (wha?!!) - and then you DEFINITELY tie the game with another TD (still using the 100% PAT assumption from above - it doesn't matter that PAT conversion rates are actually less than 100% because the argument is unchanged). On the other hand, if you kick the PAT first, then you will definitely have a 40% CHANCE to tie the game with another TD, but you don't get any points for definitely having a chance. You either DO tie the game, or you DON'T. You have to take that 40% CHANCE at some point, and from a probability standpoint it doesn't matter when (multiplication is commutative).

Now, from a strategic standpoint, it DOES matter when you take that chance. Many of us throughout this thread have explained why we believe it's pretty obvious that it benefits the trailing team to take that chance sooner rather than later, but if you disagree with that part feel free to provide a counterargument.

 

[humpback]

Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc).

lol wtf

Too difficult for you to understand?

 

[humpback]

This is all true. I think there's less variance from team to team and situation than situation than you suggest, but there is no "right" answer. If someone said they'd likely wait to go for two because chances of success are greater on the second try because there's a good chance the defense would be "gassed"- see the Ravens on Monday night- I couldn't really argue with them. I might disagree, but it's a subjective evaluation.The reason this thread is 18 pages long isn't because of arguments like that- in fact if you look back through the thread you'll see that me and the rest of the "go for 2 early" crowd concede that there are other elements to the equation that may reduce or even remove the benefits of going for 2 early. The reason it's 18 pages long is that the majority of people are selecting "100%-definitely don't go for 2" in the poll, and most of them are basing their answer on logic explained by nothing more than "making it a one possession game." That is a wrong answer and a meaningless justification.

It's clear to me that the majority of arguments in this thread, by both sides, are severly flawed.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

One person is actually right, and the other person is actually wrong.Is there a way to tell someone that they are actually, factually, objectively wrong about something without having it come off as condescending to them? I don't know, probably not. They obviously don't think they're wrong, because if they did they never would have said the wrong thing in the first place, so when you point out that they are wrong, they'll probably get offended. I don't know what to do about that.

You're the best person to answer this. You're more worried about telling people they are wrong on something than actually showing them they are wrong. But you are convinced you are correct anyway.I, for one, believe an 8 point deficit is a one possession game. But some of you point out it's a one possession game 50% of the time. Fine. Then a 1 point deficit isn't a one possession game either because no one is guaranteed to score on any possession. There's no such as a XX possession game based on that logic.

 

[Sam Quentin]

 

[Sam Quentin]

This is all true. I think there's less variance from team to team and situation than situation than you suggest, but there is no "right" answer. If someone said they'd likely wait to go for two because chances of success are greater on the second try because there's a good chance the defense would be "gassed"- see the Ravens on Monday night- I couldn't really argue with them. I might disagree, but it's a subjective evaluation.The reason this thread is 18 pages long isn't because of arguments like that- in fact if you look back through the thread you'll see that me and the rest of the "go for 2 early" crowd concede that there are other elements to the equation that may reduce or even remove the benefits of going for 2 early. The reason it's 18 pages long is that the majority of people are selecting "100%-definitely don't go for 2" in the poll, and most of them are basing their answer on logic explained by nothing more than "making it a one possession game." That is a wrong answer and a meaningless justification.

It's clear to me that the majority of arguments in this thread, by both sides, are severly flawed.

care to point a few out?

 

[cvnpoka]

Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc).

lol wtf

Too difficult for you to understand?

well ya, for some reason, its always too difficult for me to understand that someone could hold such fundamentally incorrect beliefs.

 

[AB in DC]

The probability of successfully converting your first attempt at a 2-point conversion is the same whether you try it after the first TD or the second TD.

FALSE.We're not talking random probabilities here. We're talking about eleven human beings vs. eleven other human beings. Different circumstances = different odds of success.

 

[AB in DC]

Whole bunch of you assuming that the leading team doesn't score again.

If the leading team scores again, it doesn't really matter what you do. The decision is unimportant in that case, and not really worth discussing.

By the same logic, if the trailing team fails the two-point conversion, it doesn't really matter what you do. So this whole thread is about an unimportant decision.The odds of winning are about the same in both situations (i.e., practically zero).

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

One person is actually right, and the other person is actually wrong.Is there a way to tell someone that they are actually, factually, objectively wrong about something without having it come off as condescending to them? I don't know, probably not. They obviously don't think they're wrong, because if they did they never would have said the wrong thing in the first place, so when you point out that they are wrong, they'll probably get offended. I don't know what to do about that.

You're the best person to answer this. You're more worried about telling people they are wrong on something than actually showing them they are wrong. But you are convinced you are correct anyway.I, for one, believe an 8 point deficit is a one possession game. But some of you point out it's a one possession game 50% of the time. Fine. Then a 1 point deficit isn't a one possession game either because no one is guaranteed to score on any possession. There's no such as a XX possession game based on that logic.

Perhaps a clearer way to think about it is the odds of tying the score based on the point deficit.When down 7 points, the odds of scoring a TD are X. The odds of making that extra point after the TD event are about 98%.When down 8 points, the odds of scoring a TD are X. The odds of making the ensuing 2-pt try after the TD event are in the 40-45% range.The TD odds cancel out here when comparing the two. Therefore an 8-pt deficit can be erased (resulting in a tie score) 40-45% of the time after a touchdown - so an 8-point deficit can be a one-possession game 40-45% of the time. Otherwise, 55-60% of the time, two possessions would be required to attain at least 8 points.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You're the best person to answer this. You're more worried about telling people they are wrong on something than actually showing them they are wrong. But you are convinced you are correct anyway.

Countless and various explanations have been provided in this thread - far more than should ever be necessary, in fact. Some people, yourself apparently included, obviously are still having trouble with some of the concepts, but that's not the fault of all the people who have provided the various explanations. There's only so many ways you can explain the same basic concept before it becomes clear that it's just not worth the effort. And yet many of us have continued to make the effort to explain it anyway. But go ahead and tell me what I'm worried about.

I, for one, believe an 8 point deficit is a one possession game. But some of you point out it's a one possession game 50% of the time. Fine. Then a 1 point deficit isn't a one possession game either because no one is guaranteed to score on any possession. There's no such as a XX possession game based on that logic.

You're right, but you're missing the point (and this specific point has been made more than once in more than one way already in the thread). There's no such thing as an "X-possession game"; in this context, at least, it's a meaningless phrase.The fact is that it doesn't matter what you call it. Call it a "one possession game" or a "1.6 possession game" or a "purple nurple game" - they're just labels, they don't really mean anything. And yes, it is unknowable in advance how many possessions will be required to score - you might score on your next possession, or it might take you two possessions, or ten, or maybe you'll just run out of time and never score. That also is irrelevant. The error isn't that you're calling it a "one possession game" (although that appears to be a symptom of the actual error being made) because it doesn't really matter what you call it.

The actual error being made is the idea that going for two early puts you at a greater risk of requiring more possessions than kicking the PAT. It's been framed and phrased a dozen different ways by the PAT-first crowd but it all amounts to the same fundamental logical error. The number of possessions required to win the game is not affected by the order in which you attempt the 2-pt conversion and the PAT. Any PAT-first argument that relies in any way on the premise that kicking a PAT first "keeps you alive", "keeps it a one possession game", "gives you a CHANCE", "minimizes the number of possessions," etc., and that going for 2 early puts you at any greater risk of requiring two possessions is fundamentally incorrect. Many such arguments have been made here and they're all guilty of the same error, and they're all wrong. There is really no other way to say that; if there was a word for it that wasn't so offensive to you, I'd use it, but there isn't. They're just wrong.

 

[AB in DC]

You know, this is really just intellectual masturbation on both sides of the argument.

On one side are the people who want to delay the tough decision until the last possible moment, on the vain hope that avoiding a tough decision will make it go away.

On the other side are the people who want the "knowledge" that comes after a tough decision, on the vain hope that this knowledge will somehow give you more control over the outcome.

Either way, the entire argument is built on a fallacy. The "kick" crowd seems to think that a missed conversion now is somehow worse than a missed conversion later. The "go for it" crowd seems to think that one team's offense can control how many points they score over the rest of the game, and that knowing the result of a conversation is more valuable to one team than another.

The bottom line is that this decision is only relevant in one circumstance: The trailing team outscores the leading team by exactly one TD over the rest of the game.

- If this happens, you'll need to make a two-point conversion one way or the other, so it doesn't matter whether you go for it the first time or the second time; you pick whichever circumstance you believe the likelihood of success to be higher.

- If this doesn't happen, then an outcome +/- 1 point from a XP kick isn't going to affect the final result one way or the other.

It's really that simple.

 

[humpback]

Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc).

lol wtf

Too difficult for you to understand?

well ya, for some reason, its always too difficult for me to understand that someone could hold such fundamentally incorrect beliefs.

Not surprising that you don't get it. Next time you get the urge to "lol", makes sure you're looking in the mirror.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The "go for it" crowd seems to think that one team's offense can control how many points they score over the rest of the game

Link to anyone who has made that assertion?

and that knowing the result of a conversation is more valuable to one team than another.

Assuming you mean conversion, I very strongly believe this is obviously true - but that's one of the more interesting, subjective parts of the discussion that we should all be engaged in rather than repeatedly debunking the same fallacious PAT-first arguments that keep getting raised.

 

[VaTerp]

The thread lives on because people continue to hold onto to erroneous beliefs about, and misrepresent, the possession argument.

Please show what you believe to be a proper representation of the possession argument. Because so far IIRC, every point you've made referencing the number of possessions has been incorrect.

I was hoping to hear back on this, but perhaps I can proactively answer your response, based on your earlier posts in the thread.

Thanks, but no thanks. It's been presented in the proper context several times but as I said before you continue to misrepresent the argument. So you either don't understand it or are being intellectually dishonest. Whichever is the case, I don't care anymore.At the end of the day, the thread asked what "you" would do as a coach. I answered based on my experience as a coach and what in fact "I" would do. It also happens to be what the vast majority of real coaches in fact do and what the people voting on this poll would do by over a 3-1 margin. Now I fully believe that the masses are often wrong about things but I don't believe that to be the case here and find it amusing that the "losing" side of the argument is so smug and insistent on being correct. But again, I don't care anymore. The Houston game was what I assume got this thread bumped again and is what drew me into it. I think Houston absolutely made the right decision and gave themselves a chance to win after being down 15, scoring, and only getting one more possession. People are confusing opportunity with results and, again, conflating the arguments of going for 2 first and the approach when down by 8.Coaching decisions are not reduced to simple mathematics and probability and there are too many variables to prove this "mathematically" one way or the other. What I would love to see is those who feel so strongly about this to actually get coaching jobs and test their theory in practice. When that happens I'd love to address the issue again. But at this point, I've added my input for better or worse and I'm done.Enjoy the rest of this discussion for however long it lasts. Im about to get drunk and watch the game tonite.Cheers

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thanks, but no thanks. It's been presented in the proper context several times but as I said before you continue to misrepresent the argument. So you either don't understand it or are being intellectually dishonest. Whichever is the case, I don't care anymore.

It's disappointing that you don't want to go ahead and point out exactly what you think has been misrepresented, because I'm confident I understand exactly the point you've repeatedly made, and it's been repeatedly wrong. Enjoy getting drunk.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Believe it or not, I'm actually a pretty big numbers guy- I have extensive course work (undergraduate and graduate level) and utilize them daily in my work. I also know how easy it is to manipulate them to "say" almost whatever you want, and how if you use them incorrectly, it's going to give you false conclussions.::What were the odds of Houston making the 2 pt. conversion Monday night? Most would say it was 42% (or whatever the number is), but think about it for a minute- why does it matter what the success rate was previous to this attempt? Does the fact that 2 entirely different teams under completely different circumstances 10 or 15 years ago went for it and missed it have any influence on your chances to be successful right here and now? This attempt can only have 2 outcomes- it's either successful or unsuccessful- it can't be 42% successful. That's why you can't just rely on past data to answer this question- every scenario is unique and independent from previous (and future) ones.::Again, if there was only one proven correct answer here, it wouldn't be a discussion. If it could be solved by using math, then the NFL would have computers making all of the decisions. There's more to it than that.

Sure that has been acknowledged. The question though is if the cumulative history of the game provides data where it can be clearly shown that going for 2 early is a small but real statistical advantage what should be the default position absent any other unique circumstances for this particular decision? There are 18 pages because the always kick the PAT crowd is arguing that the default position is to chose the statistically disadvantaged position. They don't even allow unique circumstances to change this position. You always pick the statically inferior choice in order to have the best chance of winning. Can your graduate level work explain that? Can it explain how never in 66 or so times this situation has been faced that the circumstances were never such that going for two would be the right call?

There can be HUGE implications from that one attempt being successful or failing, and they have to be factored in. I agree, coaches are generally too conservative when it comes to going for it on 4th down, but that certainly doesn't mean they should go for it everytime, even though the "odds" say they should.

It is pretty obvious that NFL head coaches with little job security and immense scrutiny fear the implications of the failures more than they appreciate the benefits of success. However, this is just an explanation for how incorrect decisions are made routinely, it doesn't change the math or add any new information.

The same goes for "going for it on 4th and 1". Even if you wanted to (incorrectly) assume your odds at success are equal to previous tries, there are MANY other things you should consider as well. It's not like you're going to get 100 4th and 1 attempts in a game, so if you fail on this try you can balance it out with successful ones later.

Right. An NFL season is such a small sample size much of the things being discussed could never even out even a small run of bad luck over the course of a season such that you are guaranteed to win more. You are correct it doesn't work that way. And considering the entire industry swears by the book and immense second guessing happens for even trivial failures going against the grain one might even argue that any potential gain in this game is not worth the risk of losing the confidence of the team for the rest of the season. I get that. I think that is still indicative of bad leadership but I can concede such things factor into the decisions. But that still shouldn't change the default position.

 

[cvnpoka]

Here's a poker analogy- professional players could be playing Hold Em with the cards all face up, so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated (which you can't do in football remember), but they still wouldn't always play "by the book". Even though you may be getting "correct" odds to make a call, the "right move" may be to fold (it's for all your chips, etc).

lol wtf

Too difficult for you to understand?

well ya, for some reason, its always too difficult for me to understand that someone could hold such fundamentally incorrect beliefs.

Not surprising that you don't get it. Next time you get the urge to "lol", makes sure you're looking in the mirror.

take your little poker hypothetical to a reputable poker forum and see what the reaction is.

 

[Jersey35]

The "go for it" crowd seems to think that one team's offense can control how many points they score over the rest of the game

Link to anyone who has made that assertion?

and that knowing the result of a conversation is more valuable to one team than another.

Assuming you mean conversion, I very strongly believe this is obviously true - but that's one of the more interesting, subjective parts of the discussion that we should all be engaged in rather than repeatedly debunking the same fallacious PAT-first arguments that keep getting raised.

I'd love to discuss this aspect of the argument in more depth over here.

 

[CalBear]

The bottom line is that this decision is only relevant in one circumstance: The trailing team outscores the leading team by exactly one TD over the rest of the game.

- If this happens, you'll need to make a two-point conversion one way or the other, so it doesn't matter whether you go for it the first time or the second time; you pick whichever circumstance you believe the likelihood of success to be higher.

- If this doesn't happen, then an outcome +/- 1 point from a XP kick isn't going to affect the final result one way or the other.

It's really that simple.

Would you like to explain why teams down 9 win more often than teams down 8, and why teams down 17 win more than teams down 15?

 

[humpback]

take your little poker hypothetical to a reputable poker forum and see what the reaction is.

Implied Odds This is an extension of pot odds and represents the ratio of the total amount you expect to win if you complete your hand, to the amount you would need to call to continue. Put simply, you don’t have the correct odds to call, but if you reason that there’s a good chance that your opponent will bet again when you hit your draw, you might be getting the implied odds to call. Implied odds are an important aspect of no limit hold’em, but as a beginner you should stick to pot odds, and only consider implied odds when you have more experience, because while pot odds are an exact calculation, implied odds takes some guess work and knowledge of your opponents’ tendencies. While pot odds can be calculated with total accuracy, calculating implied odds is more of an art than a science.Tournament PlayMuch of what has been offered so far is beneficial for both cash games and tournaments. But you should approach opponents in tournaments that are desperate a little differently. In a cash game, being pot committed doesn’t really come into play. The term pot committed simply refers to a player who has half or more of his chips already in the pot so if he loses this pot he is pretty much finished anyway. This player will be calling, not based upon the pot odds, but due to his predicament. Players calling in tournament play without the correct pot odds does not necessarily indicate poor play. Calling may well still represent their best chance mathematically to move forward in the tournament and make some money. Hence the expression, do or die!The reverse situation relative to pot odds can also occur in tournament play. Imagine being in a situation wherein you have the correct pot odds to call but folding could be the better option to advance. An example of this type of phenomenon would be holding the nut flush draw with one card to come with two other opponents already all-in by a monster stack late in a tournament. The pot could be offering you greater than the odds required to make the call mathematically correct but the fact still remains that you will miss your flush 80 percent of the time. If you were on the bubble with the big stack bully already having two other players all-in and you knew you would only prevail in the hand 20 percent of time – I think a fold would be in order.------------------------------I won't bother trying to explain to you the difference between pot odds, implied pot odds, expected value, etc. The fact is, there are times where even with the mathematically correct odds to call, the better decision may be to fold and vice versa. This is because the math only looks at things in a vacuum, ignoring many other important factors.In the NFL, the odds of converting a 2 pter, or a 4th and 1, or anything else can't be known in advance- you can only estimate them using implied odds. Even if you could accurately calculate them, there would be times where the "smarter" play would be to go against those odds- a 4th and 1 on your own 15 yard line with 30 seconds to go in the half is a much different situation than a 4th and 1 from your opponents 35 yard line with 30 seconds to go in the half. Your odds of converting it should be roughly the same, so the math will tell you to make the same decision, but the risk/reward is entirely different.

 

[CalBear]

In the NFL, the odds of converting a 2 pter, or a 4th and 1, or anything else can't be known in advance- you can only estimate them using implied odds. Even if you could accurately calculate them, there would be times where the "smarter" play would be to go against those odds- a 4th and 1 on your own 15 yard line with 30 seconds to go in the half is a much different situation than a 4th and 1 from your opponents 35 yard line with 30 seconds to go in the half. Your odds of converting it should be roughly the same, so the math will tell you to make the same decision, but the risk/reward is entirely different.

The math, if done properly, includes calculation of expected value, which includes the value of risk and reward. You're missing the concept by a long, long way if you don't understand that.In fact, the trivial math says you should always kick the PAT, because the expected value of a PAT in terms of points is always higher than the expected value of a 2-point conversion. The properly done math includes the calculation of how likely it is that the number of points you get will contribute to winning the game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

-poker stuff-

But you're mixing up your analogy here. You're right, the "correct" play to win a single hand of poker might not actually be the "correct" play to win the whole tournament (which is ultimately all we care about). Similarly, the "correct" play to score additional points after a single TD is probably a PAT, but that might not actually be the "correct" play to win the whole game (which is ultimately all we care about). If you correctly map the parts of your poker analogy to the appropriate parts of the football game, I don't think you're making the case that you're trying to make. A PAT has a higher expected value than going for two, just like calling a poker hand with the proper pot odds has a higher expected value than folding - but near the end of a tournament, in the right situation (say, your nut flush draw example), the "correct" play is to fold, just like near the end of a football game, in the right situation (say, after cutting a 15-point deficit to 9 with seven minutes left), the correct play is to go for two. The big picture goal of winning the game, or the tournament, is what we need to consider when properly evaluating our options.

 

[sn0mm1s]

The bottom line is that this decision is only relevant in one circumstance: The trailing team outscores the leading team by exactly one TD over the rest of the game.

- If this happens, you'll need to make a two-point conversion one way or the other, so it doesn't matter whether you go for it the first time or the second time; you pick whichever circumstance you believe the likelihood of success to be higher.

- If this doesn't happen, then an outcome +/- 1 point from a XP kick isn't going to affect the final result one way or the other.

It's really that simple.

Would you like to explain why teams down 9 win more often than teams down 8, and why teams down 17 win more than teams down 15?

Hypothetical:You are down 23 at the start of the 4th quarter and score a TD on the first play. Do you not kick the PAT OR go for 2 because the chart shows that you are more likely to win a 17 pt game than a 15 or 16 pt game?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The bottom line is that this decision is only relevant in one circumstance: The trailing team outscores the leading team by exactly one TD over the rest of the game.

- If this happens, you'll need to make a two-point conversion one way or the other, so it doesn't matter whether you go for it the first time or the second time; you pick whichever circumstance you believe the likelihood of success to be higher.

- If this doesn't happen, then an outcome +/- 1 point from a XP kick isn't going to affect the final result one way or the other.

It's really that simple.

Would you like to explain why teams down 9 win more often than teams down 8, and why teams down 17 win more than teams down 15?

Hypothetical:You are down 23 at the start of the 4th quarter and score a TD on the first play. Do you not kick the PAT OR go for 2 because the chart shows that you are more likely to win a 17 pt game than a 15 or 16 pt game?

You're not more likely to win a 17 point game than a 15 or 16 point game. Historically, teams have won more often down by 17 than by 15 or 16. Those are two totally separate concepts. The latter is likely because teams employ suboptimal strategy when 2-pt conversions come into play. That doesn't mean you would ever willingly put yourself at a greater defecit than necessary.

 

[sn0mm1s]

The bottom line is that this decision is only relevant in one circumstance: The trailing team outscores the leading team by exactly one TD over the rest of the game.

- If this happens, you'll need to make a two-point conversion one way or the other, so it doesn't matter whether you go for it the first time or the second time; you pick whichever circumstance you believe the likelihood of success to be higher.

- If this doesn't happen, then an outcome +/- 1 point from a XP kick isn't going to affect the final result one way or the other.

It's really that simple.

Would you like to explain why teams down 9 win more often than teams down 8, and why teams down 17 win more than teams down 15?

Hypothetical:You are down 23 at the start of the 4th quarter and score a TD on the first play. Do you not kick the PAT OR go for 2 because the chart shows that you are more likely to win a 17 pt game than a 15 or 16 pt game?

You're not more likely to win a 17 point game than a 15 or 16 point game. Historically, teams have won more often down by 17 than by 15 or 16. Those are two totally separate concepts. The latter is likely because teams employ suboptimal strategy when 2-pt conversions come into play. That doesn't mean you would ever willingly put yourself at a greater defecit than necessary.

So are you also saying that teams down 9 are not more likely to win than teams down 8 as well?