Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with


Recommended Posts

Just now, NotSmart said:

Belichick using the "loophole" of running excessive time off the clock prior to the 5 minute mark, in a game where it was meaningless - up 33-0 against the Jets.

He showed his clever trick to the rest of the league, and ultimately had it used against him in last night's playoff loss.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mike-vrabel-bill-belichick-titans-patriots-delay-of-game-062657674.html

 

Personally I thought Vrabel was stupid for not going for it on 4th and 3.  Any other year you give Brady that much time to beat you with a field goal he would have been successful 99% of the time.  In previous years playing not to lose played right into BB and Brady's hands.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Personally I thought Vrabel was stupid for not going for it on 4th and 3.  Any other year you give Brady that much time to beat you with a field goal he would have been successful 99% of the time.  In previous years playing not to lose played right into BB and Brady's hands.

To that effect, trying the 59 yard FG May have also been a better option.

that said, Vrabel trusted his defense & he was right, so...good call after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Personally I thought Vrabel was stupid for not going for it on 4th and 3.  Any other year you give Brady that much time to beat you with a field goal he would have been successful 99% of the time.  In previous years playing not to lose played right into BB and Brady's hands.

In previous years, yes, 100% true.  But in last night's game with NE's offense struggling, betting on them not being able to drive the length of the field for a FG was a good bet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hot Sauce Guy said:

To that effect, trying the 59 yard FG May have also been a better option.

that said, Vrabel trusted his defense & he was right, so...good call after all. 

I don't think it was a good call at all, they got lucky.  Giving Brady and BB 5 minutes for a FG is stupid in most cases. As for a field goal, that shouldn't have been a thought in Vrabel's head and wasn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NotSmart said:

In previous years, yes, 100% true.  But in last night's game with NE's offense struggling, betting on them not being able to drive the length of the field for a FG was a good bet.

In the playoffs you play to win and I wouldn't want to give any NFL team 5 minutes to get a field goal to beat me.  4th and 3 in NE territory was a no brainer to me to go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I don't think it was a good call at all, they got lucky.  Giving Brady and BB 5 minutes for a FG is stupid in most cases. As for a field goal, that shouldn't have been a thought in Vrabel's head and wasn't. 

If they go for it & fail they’re giving Brady a short field.

by punting they put Brady at his own 1. Which worked out pretty well. 

I'm ok with the punt. Said as much on the in-game topic. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

If they go for it & fail they’re giving Brady a short field.

by punting they put Brady at his own 1. Which worked out pretty well. 

I'm ok with the punt. Said as much on the in-game topic. 

I guess we both understand where each other stands, so there isn't anything more to say about it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JamieMurphy said:

They pulled him to the line and tried to block the punt I think

No it was worse than that.  Edelman was in some kind of middle area in no man's land.  He wasn't up trying to block the punt.  He wasn't back to receive it.  He was kind of half way in between, I guess to cover the gunner (who was uncovered due to the all out block attempt by the other 10 guys) on a potential fake.  It made no sense, either have him back to catch the ball or on the line to block it.  He was essentially a wasted player just standing half way in between.  Horrible special teams decision there by the Pats.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zftcg said:

No, I was agreeing with you. They presumably punted for the field position, but the fact that the Pats got the yardage back so quickly proves how pointless it was to make that a priority.

I thought they should have gone for it but this isn't really a fair way to look at it.  You can't just give the Pats credit for gaining 30 yards on those 2 plays while ignoring that outcome if they'd started from the failed 4th down field position.

The Pats gained 30 yards on their first 2 plays.  If they'd started at the 37 after a failed 4th down that would have put them into FG range.  Because of the punt all that did was get them back to their own 37.

 

24 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

If they go for it & fail they’re giving Brady a short field.

by punting they put Brady at his own 1. Which worked out pretty well. 

I'm ok with the punt. Said as much on the in-game topic. 

They didn't pin the Pats on the 1 on that punt.  That was a different punt at the end of the game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

No it was worse than that.  Edelman was in some kind of middle area in no man's land.  He wasn't up trying to block the punt.  He wasn't back to receive it.  He was kind of half way in between, I guess to cover the gunner (who was uncovered due to the all out block attempt by the other 10 guys) on a potential fake.  It made no sense, either have him back to catch the ball or on the line to block it.  He was essentially a wasted player just standing half way in between.  Horrible special teams decision there by the Pats.

I was super confused by that at the time. Saw Edelman out there & thought he was going to be used as a returner - then he came up to the line. That was....weird. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, FreeBaGeL said:

 

They didn't pin the Pats on the 1 on that punt.  That was a different punt at the end of the game.

Ah - yes, that’s correct. My bad.

But they did force a punt the other way, so it worked out. 

Vrabel trusted his defense. I agree that in years past that coulda been suicide against a playoffs Pats team. But in this game, the Flaming Thumbtacks D was playing tough, and he let his defense do their job.

whether it worked or not, it’s not an outrageously dumb decision worthy of inclusion in here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I was super confused by that at the time. Saw Edelman out there & thought he was going to be used as a returner - then he came up to the line. That was....weird. 

But that's the thing, Edelman wasn't on the line.  Nor was he back for a return.  He was lined up like 15 yards off the LoS where he couldn't help with either the block nor field the return.  

Here is edelman chasing the ball after it is kicked

The Pats strangely had 3 guys not rush the kicker, while having no one back to field the kick.  It made zero sense as a punt formation in that scenario.  They basically had 3 wasted players that were assigned to do nothing on the play.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another image of the formation just as the ball is being punted

Edelman is just off the screen to the left, around midfield.  Gillmore is blocking for a return, even though no one is back to a return.  Another guy is just standing at the 45 yard line, for the lord knows what reason.  What is the purpose of having him there on that play instead of rushing the punter, given that no one was back to return?

There are 8 guys rushing the punter, 1 guy blocking for a return when there is no returner back, and 2 guys standing around doing nothing.  What the heck were they doing?

Heck even 27 on the near side isn't really rushing the punter.  It's almost like they had punt safe on to protect against a fake when they obviously weren't going to fake it.  They didn't have a return on, didn't have a returner back, and they were barely coming after the block.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I thought they should have gone for it but this isn't really a fair way to look at it.  You can't just give the Pats credit for gaining 30 yards on those 2 plays while ignoring that outcome if they'd started from the failed 4th down field position.

The Pats gained 30 yards on their first 2 plays.  If they'd started at the 37 after a failed 4th down that would have put them into FG range.  Because of the punt all that did was get them back to their own 37.

I see it more as an illustration of how teams tend to overrate the value of field position relative to possession, especially with today’s high powered offenses. 

I thought in the moment it was a mistake to punt. Understanding how Vrabel was able to burn nearly two minutes of game clock when neither offense was moving the ball well makes me reconsider a bit. Still think on balance they should have gone for it, but it’s a closer call than I originally thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trust your defense by punting argument is a dumb narrative.  If you REALLY trust your defence, give them a short field.  When you punt, you are not saying you trust your defense... unless the opponent would already be in fieldgoal range. 

When you punt, you are saying you don't trust your offense to get a first down, AND you don't trust your defense to force a 3 and out. 

I'm really tired of hearing from talking heads that punting is trusting the defense.  You're basically saying we better give the defense an extra 40 or 50 yards in order to stop the opposing offense, because we DON'T trust you to force a 3 and out. 

Edited by kittenmittens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FreeBaGeL said:

But that's the thing, Edelman wasn't on the line.  Nor was he back for a return.  He was lined up like 15 yards off the LoS where he couldn't help with either the block nor field the return.  

Here is edelman chasing the ball after it is kicked

The Pats strangely had 3 guys not rush the kicker, while having no one back to field the kick.  It made zero sense as a punt formation in that scenario.  They basically had 3 wasted players that were assigned to do nothing on the play.

Yeah - I noticed that as well. He ran up to the line, then floated back to no man’s land. 

it was just a weird way to use him in that situation. I couldn’t figure out what they were trying to accomplish. I thought maybe it was a suspected fake?  I assume Edelman is hands team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kittenmittens said:

The trust your defense by punting argument is a dumb narrative.  If you REALLY trust your defence, give them a short field.  When you punt, you are not saying you trust your defense... unless the opponent would already be in fieldgoal range. 

When you punt, you are saying you don't trust your offense to get a first down, AND you don't trust your defense to force a 3 and out. 

I'm really tired of hearing from talking heads that punting is trusting the defense.  You're basically saying we better give the defense an extra 40 or 50 yards in order to stop the opposing offense, because we DON'T trust you to force a 3 and out. 

But time is also a factor.  In end-game strategy you’re putting them deep in their own territory without a lot of time on the clock.

and yes, 4th down there was not a very high % play, so not “trusting the offense” to convert there is understandable. 

i said it at the time & I still believe that punting there was the right call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

Personally I thought Vrabel was stupid for not going for it on 4th and 3.  Any other year you give Brady that much time to beat you with a field goal he would have been successful 99% of the time.  In previous years playing not to lose played right into BB and Brady's hands.

This isn’t “any other year”.  That’s why the decision by Vrabel was fine

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

In the playoffs you play to win and I wouldn't want to give any NFL team 5 minutes to get a field goal to beat me.  4th and 3 in NE territory was a no brainer to me to go for it.

They were playing to win.  Vrabel bet on his great punter pinning the Pats deep in their end.  He bet on his very good defense shutting down a weak offense.  It was 4th and 4 (not 4th and 3) which is a passing situation.  There is a decent chance they don’t convert which would give the Pats 25-30 yards closer to FG range.  I would have been ok with the decision to go for it but punting given the game script was not a bad decision at all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I thought they should have gone for it but this isn't really a fair way to look at it.  You can't just give the Pats credit for gaining 30 yards on those 2 plays while ignoring that outcome if they'd started from the failed 4th down field position.

The Pats gained 30 yards on their first 2 plays.  If they'd started at the 37 after a failed 4th down that would have put them into FG range.  Because of the punt all that did was get them back to their own 37.

 

They didn't pin the Pats on the 1 on that punt.  That was a different punt at the end of the game.

Exactly this.  The fact that they punted and pinned the Pats back is the reason why Belichick made the decision to not go for it on 4th down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean Payton and his non-stop whining after last year's NFCCG prompted a terrible rule change on pass interference that frustrated fans and truly diminished the enjoyment of watching the NFL on a weekly basis.

And his team is drummed out of the playoffs again this year on...get this..a non-pass interference call.

Thanks Sean...can't wait to see how you screw up the rules this off-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doeseatplace said:

Sean Payton and his non-stop whining after last year's NFCCG prompted a terrible rule change on pass interference that frustrated fans and truly diminished the enjoyment of watching the NFL on a weekly basis.

And his team is drummed out of the playoffs again this year on...get this..a non-pass interference call.

Thanks Sean...can't wait to see how you screw up the rules this off-season.

:shrug:

Payton was fully justified in complaining about an egregiously bad call that cost them a trip to the Super Bowl. Today’s non-call was borderline at best (looked like a bunch of hand fighting on both sides to me), and Payton declined to criticize it after the game. 

But hey, don’t let any of that get in the way of your chosen narrative

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Payton, he had a couple brain fart decisions at the end of the game today. With 2:14 left he didn’t take his last time out andallowed the clock to run down. Then on the penalty at the of the game he chose to run off 10 seconds instead of using the time out. That was at least two, maybe three plays he lost on that decision. I love Payton the play caller but this guy makes some of the poorest decisions at the end of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

Speaking of Payton, he had a couple brain fart decisions at the end of the game today. With 2:14 left he didn’t take his last time out andallowed the clock to run down. Then on the penalty at the of the game he chose to run off 10 seconds instead of using the time out. That was at least two, maybe three plays he lost on that decision. I love Payton the play caller but this guy makes some of the poorest decisions at the end of games.

Yeah, I wondered about the runoff as well. The one thing I was thinking was maybe they wanted to preserve the option of throwing to the middle of the field. Still, I feel like they could have done more with that 10 seconds, especially with the best WR in football.

Tbh, in both the Buffalo and NO games, I wasn't crazy about the sequences leading up to their tying FG drives, although I'm not sure I can point to anything that was obviously stupid. With Buffalo, it seemed like they had some plays called up that were covered, so Allen had to throw the ball away. With New Orleans, I feel like we're almost at the point where not throwing to Thomas on every play is obviously stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 32 Counter Pass said:

Speaking of Payton, he had a couple brain fart decisions at the end of the game today. With 2:14 left he didn’t take his last time out andallowed the clock to run down. Then on the penalty at the of the game he chose to run off 10 seconds instead of using the time out. That was at least two, maybe three plays he lost on that decision. I love Payton the play caller but this guy makes some of the poorest decisions at the end of games.

The dumbest clock management I've seen since the Saints in the NFC championship game last year.

Gameclock said 2:45 or something following the Vikings 3rd down play. After their punt, Saints had the ball with 1:55 on the clock. Payton had let them take more than 40 seconds off the clock and gave up the 2 minute warning. When Lutz kicked the FG, they still had their last timeout. 

Pretty sure you always use your timeouts when the other team has the ball. They're going to take a lot longer to run a play than you will. 

 

Edited by cloppbeast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Andy Reid Really Not Understand How to Manage the Clock?

On the one hand, I didn't find the defense of Reid all that convincing. On the other, it was a good reminder that, for all we dump on these coaches over their decision making, they're not idiots, and there usually is a strategy behind what they're doing.

I think Reid is a HOF coach. I just don't think in-game management is one of his strengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

 

Some year some franchise is going to smarten up and give him a six-week trip to Bora Bora after week 16 and win the Super Bowl with someone else in the playoffs.

I dunno, I think he's got a pretty good shot at the SB this year.  They're currently the SB faves in Vegas as of this minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else watch the Jeopardy "Greatest of All Time" tournament? Ken Jennings won largely because, on multiple occasions, he bet everything on Daily Doubles and in Final Jeopardy, even when he was already in first place. If Jennings had missed those questions, I'm sure there would have been a lot of second guessing of his strategy. But my assumption (and I haven't heard him speak to this) is that he recognized that, facing such stiff competition, he was going to have to take some aggressive, calculated risks to vault himself ahead. I would also imagine that he only did it in cases where the category was a subject in which he felt particularly confident.

I bring this up because it reminded me of the argument we often hear that going for it on 4th down, or attempting the two-point conversion, is a bad idea because "If you don't get it, you're screwed." I've mentioned this before in this thread, but loss aversion is a powerful psychological motivator, and we're hard-wired to prioritize avoiding the worst-case scenario. But sometimes you need to recognize that not taking advantage of a situation that calls for aggressiveness, particularly one where the odds of success are in your favor, is itself highly risky. If Jennings had gotten those questions wrong he might have been screwed. But if he hadn't been willing to risk it all he might not have won.

ETA: The big bets were what stood out to me watching the tournament, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Jennings ultimately clinched the title by betting $0 in Final Jeopardy (which was absolutely the right move in that situation). And also that the aggressive betting strategy was pioneered by James Holzhauer (though kudos to Jennings for learning from it and beating him at his own game).

Edited by zftcg
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zftcg said:

Did anyone else watch the Jeopardy "Greatest of All Time" tournament? Ken Jennings won largely because, on multiple occasions, he bet everything on Daily Doubles and in Final Jeopardy, even when he was already in first place. If Jennings had missed those questions, I'm sure there would have been a lot of second guessing of his strategy. But my assumption (and I haven't heard him speak to this) is that he recognized that, facing such stiff competition, he was going to have to take some aggressive, calculated risks to vault himself ahead. I would also imagine that he only did it in cases where the category was a subject in which he felt particularly confident.

I bring this up because it reminded me of the argument we often hear that going for it on 4th down, or attempting the two-point conversion, is a bad idea because "If you don't get it, you're screwed." I've mentioned this before in this thread, but loss aversion is a powerful psychological motivator, and we're hard-wired to prioritize avoiding the worst-case scenario. But sometimes you need to recognize that not taking advantage of a situation that calls for aggressiveness, particularly one where the odds of success are in your favor, is itself highly risky. If Jennings had gotten those questions wrong he might have been screwed. But if he hadn't been willing to risk it all he might not have won.

ETA: The big bets were what stood out to me watching the tournament, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Jennings ultimately clinched the title by betting $0 in Final Jeopardy (which was absolutely the right move in that situation). And also that the aggressive betting strategy was pioneered by James Holzhauer (though kudos to Jennings for learning from it and beating him at his own game).

I was kind of thinking about this when LSU punted in the national championship game on 4th and 4 from their own 48 (at a time in the game where Clemson's offense was still moving the ball well, no less).

There are basically two scenarios if you go for it on 4th and 4 from there.  After the play either you have the ball at midfield, or Clemson has the ball at midfield.  Surely LSU with their offense is more than 50% likely to convert on that play, so why wouldn't you go for it?

Even if the outcome were 50/50, wouldn't you much rather have 50% chance you get it at midfield vs. 50% chance Clemson gets it at midfield compared to 0% chance you have the ball and 100% chance Clemson has the ball deeper in their own territory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another major factor in a coach's decision is what other people believe.  If you go for it on 4th down and don't get it, people will call for your head.  If you punt, only a small percentage of the general population will make a fuss about it on a fantasy football message board.  So when a coach's analytics guy says that going for it will give an 18% chance of winning and punting it will give a 15% chance of winning, most coaches will gladly accept the 15% chance of winning and avoid the drama.  Coaches like Belichick and Harbaugh are more willing to go for it because they are impervious to criticism.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Don Hutson said:

Another major factor in a coach's decision is what other people believe.  If you go for it on 4th down and don't get it, people will call for your head.  If you punt, only a small percentage of the general population will make a fuss about it on a fantasy football message board.  So when a coach's analytics guy says that going for it will give an 18% chance of winning and punting it will give a 15% chance of winning, most coaches will gladly accept the 15% chance of winning and avoid the drama.  Coaches like Belichick and Harbaugh are more willing to go for it because they are impervious to criticism.

I think most coaches don't care about fan criticism, unelss they face it directly. And some of these guys are legends in their own minds, even if they are deeply flawed coaches. See BoB on both counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this might be off-topic, but CLEARLY the dumbest thing a coach has done over the past 15 years, is Joshy McDaniels duffing the Colts after accepting the job as HC. he's CLEARLY cost himself future HC jobs in the NFL, he's solidified  himself  as always the bridesmaid never the bride going forward. it's pretty evident no one is going to hire him as a HC after that BS stunt he pulled in Indy.what a clown.

and now he's stuck with a Brady-less team with a cheesy overrated defense, and no offensive talent whatsoever ( including the steroid abuser,  'putz' Edelman) , and an up-n-coming AFC East where the Pats are surely to decline. strike while the iron's hot. McD didn't get the memo. shoulda gone to Indy.

* yes , Brady  is out in NE, retired or other.he's finished. he's not the same guy he once was.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2019 at 8:27 AM, Arodin said:

No, actually I don’t KNOW that the 10th flip is independent.  That’s a common assumption based on most coins being relatively fair.  And it’s that fact that the assunption can be called into question that changes the problem.  

The chances of 9 tails in a row on a fair coin is 1 in 512.  Not a huge number, but there are actually 3 possibilities:

1) Coin is fair, and I saw a rare event.  In that case, both outcomes are equally likely, it doesn’t matter what I pick.

2) Coin is weighted to tails (or even has two tails and is a trick coin).

3) Coin is weighted to heads and I saw an even more rare event.

As a statistician attempting to predict the future, I increase my chance of successful prediction above the default 50% if I can assess the relative likelihood of case 2 and case 3.  A run of 9 tails is enough to make 2 far more likely than 3, even if 1 is still by far the most common outcome.

So the correct answer is to guess tails, if you want to maximize the chance of correct prediction.

Don’t see where I taught the gambler’s fallacy.  That would be advocating heads because it was due.  I never did that.

Really? That seems incredibly low to me. I feel like if we tried to actually carry it out physically with what we might agree as a fair coin, even if the flip were done by a machine, that it might take a lifetime before we would ever see tails 9 times in a row (or heads). I'm not saying you're wrong. I agree with the argument you made here. But I was expecting to hear that the odds of hitting 9 in a row were so astronomical that the likelihood of the coin (or flip mechanism) *not* being fair actually become quite plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tanner9919 said:

this might be off-topic, but CLEARLY the dumbest thing a coach has done over the past 15 years, is Joshy McDaniels duffing the Colts after accepting the job as HC. he's CLEARLY cost himself future HC jobs in the NFL, he's solidified  himself  as always the bridesmaid never the bride going forward. it's pretty evident no one is going to hire him as a HC after that BS stunt he pulled in Indy.what a clown.

and now he's stuck with a Brady-less team with a cheesy overrated defense, and no offensive talent whatsoever ( including the steroid abuser,  'putz' Edelman) , and an up-n-coming AFC East where the Pats are surely to decline. strike while the iron's hot. McD didn't get the memo. shoulda gone to Indy.

* yes , Brady  is out in NE, retired or other.he's finished. he's not the same guy he once was.

Drink plenty of water before you go to sleep tonight.  It will help with tomorrow's hangover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

Really? That seems incredibly low to me. I feel like if we tried to actually carry it out physically with what we might agree as a fair coin, even if the flip were done by a machine, that it might take a lifetime before we would ever see tails 9 times in a row (or heads). I'm not saying you're wrong. I agree with the argument you made here. But I was expecting to hear that the odds of hitting 9 in a row were so astronomical that the likelihood of the coin (or flip mechanism) *not* being fair actually become quite plausible.

It’s actually a straightforward calculation.  Each flip has a 50% chance (1 in 2) of being tails, so to get 2 tails requires 50% of 50% (1in 4), and three requires 50% of 1 in 4, which would be 1 in 8.  Keep multiplying by two:  8, 16, 32, etc.  You get 512 for the 9th tail.

Of course since we are flipping a variable number of times before starting over due to flipping a head, it will take more than 512 flips to see this.  It takes 512 series of flips which don’t end until the first head is flipped.  Often that’s one or two, but sometimes more.

If you want to test my math with a simulation, you don’t need a machine.  Use a random number generator to generate a long string of 1’s and 2’s and do a search for the first string of nine 2’s in a row.  Then count the number of 1’s prior to that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arodin said:

It’s actually a straightforward calculation.  Each flip has a 50% chance (1 in 2) of being tails, so to get 2 tails requires 50% of 50% (1in 4), and three requires 50% of 1 in 4, which would be 1 in 8.  Keep multiplying by two:  8, 16, 32, etc.  You get 512 for the 9th tail.

Of course since we are flipping a variable number of times before starting over due to flipping a head, it will take more than 512 flips to see this.  It takes 512 series of flips which don’t end until the first head is flipped.  Often that’s one or two, but sometimes more.

If you want to test my math with a simulation, you don’t need a machine.  Use a random number generator to generate a long string of 1’s and 2’s and do a search for the first string of nine 2’s in a row.  Then count the number of 1’s prior to that.  

Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong I just really thought it would be a *much* bigger number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, barackdhouse said:

Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong I just really thought it would be a *much* bigger number.

One of the ways you can detect whether a sequence of supposedly random numbers was actually chosen by humans is that human intuition about sequences is wrong. We under-estimate how common streaks are in random numbers.

This is part of what leads to things like the "hot hand" fallacy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zftcg said:

Titans not going for two after scoring down 18. Same calculation as when you score down 15. You’re going to need that two pointer eventually; better to try it early so you know what you need. 

Yup I’m saying the same thing in the game thread but not everyone agrees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...