stats vs. specialized knowledge

[ccwhoelse?]

does anyone have information about whether using stats to evaluate a game helps you determine an edge? stats like X team has done better in Y month or teams that can play defense have a greater chance of beating teams that throw more than they pass?

also, if a person has specific knowledge of a sport does that add to his edge or is it insignificant?

for example, a former NFL player who understands the game of football better than the average joe or the sportsbook, does his understanding and knowledge give him an edge?

which of the two is more important, if either?

[MCS]

I would say that most winning bettors win because they understand the math and logic of sportsbetting, as well as know ways to look for edges (e.g., find rogue lines).

Very few people are able to handicap well enough to beat the juice. I suspect that being a former pro athlete would not give you much of an edge, if any. Sportsbooks are great at evaluating teams and setting lines. Also, players don't really understand their sport as well as you would think, at least when it comes to gauging team strength and setting lines.

[BobJoeJim]

I don't know about specialized knowledge, though I'll bet it's probably got at least some utility, and possibly a lot.

As for stats, they absolutely help, without stats you have absolutely no way of knowing which team has an edge, since even things like wins and losses are stats. However the key is to know which stats matter, and how much.

Things like who has a better record in a given month are, in my opinion, basically useless. In general you want to ignore situational stats about very specialized things, since they don't come up often enough to be proven accurate (in statistics terminology, a small sample size leads to a large deviation).

Stats are great, but they aren't everything, and by being selective with them you can "prove" almost anything, so the key is to know which stats actually have meaning, and not trick yourself into betting on one team because "Hey, did you know they've never lost a road playoff game when it was above 55 degrees at kickoff? They're a LOCK!" Usually in cases like that they're actually 1-0, in a 1982 game that has zero relevance.

[SumZero]

This is a bit like the baseball faux argument about which is better sabermetrics and stats or scouting. The answer is that it is a false dichotomy and both are useful. I have no doubt that you can be successful in sports betting just using statistical and logical analysis (although the type of analysis you do is unlikely to be stats like teams doing better in Y month or on Tuesday IMO). I have no doubt that someone who has inside knowledge will sometimes have insights (I don't have this knowlege so I'm less clear on how often these edges appear or how well you'd do relying on nothing but this insight). But clearly the best of all worlds is to combine both.

[DougOzzzz]

Most knowledgable sports fans are lousy bettors. A lack of understanding of statistics is the main reason.

I'm not saying that a knowledge of the sport isn't greatly useful. I just think that it is much easier to win utilizing only statistics (and mathematics - i.e., line shopping, middling, scalping etc.) than it is to win utilizing only a knowledge of the sport. Both is best, but virtually all successful sports bettors have a strong knowledge of statistics and probability.

[craig]

Plus, the linesmakers collectively know more about the game than the average bettor or sports magazine. Even on this forum, people argue about things that are already factored into the line.

craig

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, the linesmakers collectively know more about the game than the average bettor or sports magazine. Even on this forum, people argue about things that are already factored into the line.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not really interested in the average bettor, but a specific type of bettor.

so what i can conclude from what everyone wrote it is that it would be either:

1) the line is as close to a 50/50 proposition as humanly possible (in general)

or

2) the line in reality isn't 50/50, but most bettors are using the same information the linesmakers have so the action winds up being pretty equal.

-------------

with all due respect, i hear many people argue about factors that, IMO, have very little to due with one team's strength or weakness.

what you are saying is that linemakers have a very efficient system of weighting the factors that determine one teams degree of superiority over another and that this system produces lines that are rarely beaten by "sytems" of individuals.

i think if you, for example, gave a NFL coach and the linemakers the same information, i would think the coach would be able to beat the line because he had 1st hand knowledge of what to look for and what matters.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

i think if you, for example, gave a NFL coach and the linemakers the same information, i would think the coach would be able to beat the line because he had 1st hand knowledge of what to look for and what matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are ex-NFL coaches on ESPN. And you know what? They suck at predicting outcomes. The skills it takes to become a successful NFL coach and a successful sports bettor are very different.

[vilemerchant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, the linesmakers collectively know more about the game than the average bettor or sports magazine. Even on this forum, people argue about things that are already factored into the line.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not really interested in the average bettor, but a specific type of bettor.

so what i can conclude from what everyone wrote it is that it would be either:

1) the line is as close to a 50/50 proposition as humanly possible (in general)

or

2) the line in reality isn't 50/50, but most bettors are using the same information the linesmakers have so the action winds up being pretty equal.

-------------

with all due respect, i hear many people argue about factors that, IMO, have very little to due with one team's strength or weakness.

what you are saying is that linemakers have a very efficient system of weighting the factors that determine one teams degree of superiority over another and that this system produces lines that are rarely beaten by "sytems" of individuals.

i think if you, for example, gave a NFL coach and the linemakers the same information, i would think the coach would be able to beat the line because he had 1st hand knowledge of what to look for and what matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally don't think linesmakers are as expert at these sports as people seem to think. So long as they charge JUICE and can get somewhere close to balancing each game they can't lose. For the punter, it's damn hard to spot a coin-flip with a 54/46 coin vs a 50/50 coin. The juice gives the books a lot of margin for error.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
There are ex-NFL coaches on ESPN. And you know what? They suck at predicting outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

is that their job?

many NFL coaches and ex-players dumb down (substantially) their TV analysis to cater to the average watcher.

not only is their audience not interested in what a zone dog is, but they'd probably think it was a special food the steelers fans BBQ'd at a tailgate.

being on TV requires a persona, which makes shannon sharpe much more interesting to watch than the quality control coach who spends 80+ hours a week pouring over game film.

do you think ABC hired John Madden to personally handicap sports games and educate the public about the difference between a drop step and a bucket step - or rather to prevent fans from watching a game with no commentary.

do you really think that John Madden is actually as foolish as his commentary/vocabulary leads one to believe? do you think a person who has won a superbowl and a very good winning percentage puts forth his special insight on national TV in front of millions of viewers who professional gamblers themselves call "squares."

---------------------------

does the president's scientific advisor who has a PhD is astrophysics explain space exploration projects to the president in terms of red shifts and mass constants - or does he give the president an executive summary?

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't think linesmakers are as expert at these sports as people seem to think. So long as they charge JUICE and can get somewhere close to balancing each game they can't lose. For the punter, it's damn hard to spot a coin-flip with a 54/46 coin vs a 50/50 coin. The juice gives the books a lot of margin for error.

[/ QUOTE ]

the line doesn't always have to be waaay out of whack from reality.

consider the following analogy:

X number of financial firms each employ 1 security analyst with an MBA to study the scuba diving nose plug making industry.

there are also millions of individuals investors in scuba diving gear who participate in this market.

there is also exists a former CEO of one such scuba diving nose plug making company.

the chance of such a person finding favorable investment opportunity overlooked by the analysts and individual investors is greater investor.

do you see why?

--------------------

if the financial markets are not efficient, there is no way a the aggregate of all sports lines are. you will always be able to find the line out of touch with reality if you know what to look for and look hard enough.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
i think if you, for example, gave a NFL coach and the linemakers the same information, i would think the coach would be able to beat the line because he had 1st hand knowledge of what to look for and what matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever watch television or read magazines? Ex-coaches and players are as clueless as anyone when it comes to picking winners. They love favorites more than the squares, and when they do give analysis, it's rarely any more insightful than the typical "The Chargers run defense should be able to limit the Denver ground attack..." humdrum.

Did you just rent "Two For the Money" or something?

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
There are ex-NFL coaches on ESPN. And you know what? They suck at predicting outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you really making an informed statement here?

ABC, CBS and FOX employ more coaches than ESPN.

Have you actually tracked these phanton ESPN ex-coaches predictions for a significant sample?

Did these phantom ex-coach turn TV analysts make their predictions with respect to point spreads?

Did they say that they predict X team to beat Y team with a likelyhood of 55-70% or that such a team will beat the spread 100% and you can beat your house on it?

Compare the number of ex-coaches to the number of washed up players and full-time professional journalists.

Then realize that these people are not being paid to be a professional tout service and they can just as easily say the Colts will win as they can turn off a lightswitch. Then change their mind because they have a "feeling" the next minute just as easily as turning on the lightswitch. Especially since it doesn't matter at all (except for the occasional joke by their colleagues). They might not even have put any effort into it at all. They just might be having fun since it doesn't involve money and they have an emotional attachment to one team(read: like them).

Or maybe their producer said, "Ok guys, Chris and Tom, you pick the Colt. Ron, you make the "bold" prediction and pick the Steelers."

---------------------------

Tomorrow, will you tell me that if 8 people young adults live in a house, 4 male and 4 female, they will have a crazy orgy every weekend because you saw it on some reality TV show on MTV?

If everything was so simple that we could state them in two line generalizations, discussion boards would not exist.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you just rent "Two For the Money" or something?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4457423

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever read online discussion boards. posters are as clueless as anyone when it comes to discussing topics. They love rehashing more than the ignorant, and when they do give analysis, it's rarely any more insightful than the typical "shop for the best line, don't you know you impossible to beat the oddsmakers" humdrum.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

i'm not sayings that you shouldn't shop for the best line or manage your money.

i'm not saying there are people out there that can predict winners with 70% probability.

i'm saying that some people have a larger edge than others. excuse me for actually trying to examine a few instances where the results deviate from the norm. i didn't know that it would make you feel uncomfortable.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
Very few people are able to handicap well enough to beat the juice...Sportsbooks are great at evaluating teams and setting lines...at least when it comes to gauging team strength and setting lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Plus, the linesmakers collectively know more about the game than the average bettor or sports magazine. Even on this forum, people argue about things that are already factored into the line.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4442280&an=0&page=0&gone w=1#UNREAD)

"Favored teams have been covering the point spread at a rate approaching 60 percent, a virtually unprecedented clip."

"How did it happen? Simple. The favorites covered the point spread an incredible 63 percent of the time."

[/ QUOTE ]
You would think you were reading something in the onion since the linemakers are generally infallible.
[ QUOTE ]
i'm saying that some people have a larger edge than others...a few instances where the results deviate from the norm.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BobJoeJim]

Coaches are very knowledgable about what to focus on in order to increase their chances of winning, but that doesn't necessarily translate well to knowing how likely it is for a team to win. They can break a game down into what things each team needs to do in order to compete, but that doesn't mean they have the foggiest idea exactly how likely each team is to implement those strategies.

Therefore a coach doesn't necessarily have an edge in predicting whether a game will go over or under a spread.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are ex-NFL coaches on ESPN. And you know what? They suck at predicting outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you really making an informed statement here?

ABC, CBS and FOX employ more coaches than ESPN.

Have you actually tracked these phanton ESPN ex-coaches predictions for a significant sample?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I haven't. And I admit I might be wrong. However, I have seen quite enough to know that they are usually on the opposite side of documented, winning handicappers. That makes me believe that it is highly unlikely that they would be winning handicappers themselves.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
Coaches are very knowledgable about what to focus on in order to increase their chances of winning, but that doesn't necessarily translate well to knowing how likely it is for a team to win.


[/ QUOTE ]

you're are right about the first part, but i don't see follow how you infer the second part.

if a coach and a linemaker saw a team's practice and game plan, both would make a determination of that team's likelyhood of winning the next weeks game against a particular opponent.

[ QUOTE ]
They can break a game down into what things each team needs to do in order to compete, but that doesn't mean they have the foggiest idea exactly how likely each team is to implement those strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right, they don't know how a team will implement a particular strategy. but they know and can see when one particular team is already implementing that strategy.

a coach can watch a team play and know that a team is utilizing a particular defensive coverage. he knows this will be good for this team in the long run. maybe the team caught an unlucky break for a game or two and so the stats or results are skewed. wouldn't this give the coach the advantage over the linemaker?

basically, he would have an easier time determining if a team is favored by too much. if the line is in line with reality or not. if it is, then no big deal. if it is not, then gamble it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore a coach doesn't necessarily have an edge in predicting whether a game will go over or under a spread.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you clarify it please, cause i think what you are saying has merit. i just don't understand it well. thanks for replying btw, i appreciate your response.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I haven't. And I admit I might be wrong. However, I have seen quite enough to know that they are usually on the opposite side of documented, winning handicappers. That makes me believe that it is highly unlikely that they would be winning handicappers themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, I think it is bad to make a judgement or assertion with so little information.

To be exact:

You have no idea what they are basing their pick on. Maybe their daughter flipped a coin and said, "Seahawks daddy." You will never know since it is television and you will never hear real football analysis on television.

A FOX TV Football analyst isn't like a Goldman Sachs Durable Goods analyst.

For sure, your sample is corrupted - especially since these people are performing in front of a camera.

My comment was that a person with specific knowledge (coach/player) could handicap better than the linemakers.

You are saying, no you are wrong since coaches and players on TV suck at predicting winners compared to the handicappers.

Just because your only access to coaches and players is through the media and popular culture does not mean that your sample is representative. Your error is further magnified by the fact that your sample has information that may not be true since it is obscured by the desire for higher ratings by TV producers.

You can say that it is unlikely that the picks made on television by ex-football coaches and players are winners.

A better sample would be one of ex-NFL coaches and players who actually handicapped games or made a real attempt to do their best "picking winners" and comparing it to the linesmakers.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

A better sample would be one of ex-NFL coaches and players who actually handicapped games or made a real attempt to do their best "picking winners" and comparing it to the linesmakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't have the necessary information to make an accurate assessment. As I said, I might be wrong. I don't think I am though. Maybe it is because I am more of a stats guy myself and would like to believe that an understanding of statistics is more important to becoming a successful sports bettor than an understanding of the game. And, based on the evidence, NFL coaches generally don't have an understanding of statistics. This is quite evident by their reluctance to go for it on 4th down in about 90% of the situations that it makes sense from a purely statistical standpoint.

I'm not saying that the knowledge that an NFL coach has wouldn't be extremely useful for betting on NFL games. I'm saying that I believe most NFL coaches don't understand probability enough to succeed at sports betting. If they did, then I think they would crush the bookies.

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coaches are very knowledgable about what to focus on in order to increase their chances of winning, but that doesn't necessarily translate well to knowing how likely it is for a team to win.


[/ QUOTE ]

you're are right about the first part, but i don't see follow how you infer the second part.

if a coach and a linemaker saw a team's practice and game plan, both would make a determination of that team's likelyhood of winning the next weeks game against a particular opponent.

[ QUOTE ]
They can break a game down into what things each team needs to do in order to compete, but that doesn't mean they have the foggiest idea exactly how likely each team is to implement those strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right, they don't know how a team will implement a particular strategy. but they know and can see when one particular team is already implementing that strategy.

a coach can watch a team play and know that a team is utilizing a particular defensive coverage. he knows this will be good for this team in the long run. maybe the team caught an unlucky break for a game or two and so the stats or results are skewed. wouldn't this give the coach the advantage over the linemaker?

basically, he would have an easier time determining if a team is favored by too much. if the line is in line with reality or not. if it is, then no big deal. if it is not, then gamble it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore a coach doesn't necessarily have an edge in predicting whether a game will go over or under a spread.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you clarify it please, cause i think what you are saying has merit. i just don't understand it well. thanks for replying btw, i appreciate your response.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, all I'm really saying is that I don't know, and so I'm taking a soft line and trying to avoid any absolute statements.

My primary point though is just that while there are some correlations between the skills of handicapping versus the skills of coaching, I think there are many differences.

For example, in coaching I would think it is advantageous at times to think in absolutes, you are trying to win the game THAT time, not just to win the game 55% of the time. Yes, anything that increases your odds is good, but from a psychological perspective I think that it could be detrimental for the coach to think in TERMS of the odds, so many coaches probably don't.

If that premise is true, then it would be logical to assume that those coaches could be innefective trying to translate their knowledge to the realm of handicapping where odds play a huge role. They know a lot that the average capper doesn't, but they also lack a lot of key knowledge.

In the end, I would say that all other things considered, specialized knowledge probably is helpful; an ex-coach would probably do better betting his sport than a random guy off the street, with equal knowledge of probability and gambling concepts. However as a SUBSTITUTE for gambling knowledge (which I know isn't what you're talking about, but I do suspect it's what at least some of your responders were considering), I would consider special knowledge almost worthless. I can't imagine ANYONE, no matter HOW much they knew about the ins and outs of a sport, betting it profitably without a good grounding in general sports knowledge too.

As for quantifying the value of knowledge, that is something I'm in no position to try to do.

[TWolf2006]

I think specialized knowledge has a huge advantage over a statistical guy with absolutely no knowledge. But I'm not talking about football here or ex coaches. My example is this I'm Canadian I dont know anything about soccer, but I would trust a proven winning sportsbettor from England who has followed the English Premier for many years.

On the other side the statistician who has equal knowledge will be even better than just the specific knowledge guy.

Example Take the playoff pickem freeroll by sportsbookpal. I'm tied with 4 other guys exact same records. We all have the same knowledge of NFL. I am in last of the 5 teams that are 10-6 because the statistician guy got better value for the same bets. So where as specific knowledge nets you a 285 win. Specific knowledge and statistics nets you a 320 win.

Now on the other hand the guy with absolutely no knowledge, except statistics I would think would do very poorly unless they just do no risk bets all the time.

And the guy with neither of these attributes probably needs some help.

[Indiana]

I'm a full-time statistician in my real life and it doesn't help a lot when it comes to sports betting. This is why I cannot consistently beat football and other sports that the public knows well. The only sport that I can consistently beat is boxing because I am a dire fan and the public doesn't follow the fight game that carefully.

Indy

[fun160]

[ QUOTE ]
if a person has specific knowledge of a sport does that add to his edge or is it insignificant?

[/ QUOTE ]

It didn't seem to help Pete Rose, who was apparently had horrible results betting baseball.

It appears that many athletes/ex-athletes are action junkies and thus willing to take the worst of it. Rose, Art Schlichter, Michael Jordan, etc.

[TWolf2006]

I guess when I think of specific knowledge, I more think of people who are successful betters on certain sports and not of people who played the game.

Coaches and players would be bad because they have the mentality that their going to win every year. I dont know about ex coaches and players however.

[fun160]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the evidence, NFL coaches generally don't have an understanding of statistics. This is quite evident by their reluctance to go for it on 4th down in about 90% of the situations that it makes sense from a purely statistical standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, you've hit upon one of my pet peeves. There are many timid coaches willing to punt or kick a field goal when going for it is clearly the +EV play. I trust you've read It's Fourth Down and What Does the Bellman Equation Say? (http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/nber9024.pdf) Of particular interest are the charts at the back of the paper.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, you've hit upon one of my pet peeves. There are many timid coaches willing to punt or kick a field goal when going for it is clearly the +EV play. I trust you've read It's Fourth Down and What Does the Bellman Equation Say? (http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/nber9024.pdf) Of particular interest are the charts at the back of the paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider two examples. The first is fourth and 3 or 4 on the fifty. If the team goes for a first down, it has about a fifty-fifty chance of success...but the team will gain an average of about 6 yards on the fourth-down play; thus it is on average better off than its opponent if it goes for it. If the team punts, the opponent will on average end up with a first and 10 around its 15. Both standard views about football and the analysis in Section II suggest that the receiving team and the punting team are about equally well off in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I stopped reading. I'll read the rest later.

It is not standard football view that your opponent is just as well off on the 50 as it is on his 15.

Have you ever heard of risk-adjusted return?

It is better to pass up the marginal opportunity of getting a first down between the 50 and 40 and putting your opponent on the 15 when you risk a good chance of giving him the ball on the 50.

In poker, often the correct play is to pass up a small edge in an early round to exploit an even bigger edge later.

Waiting for the turning to raise is a great example.

Sometimes, it is correct to try to win a pot right away then to maximize a small EV event or push a tiny edge.

One of the posters in this thread mentioned a related point:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, in coaching I would think it is advantageous at times to think in absolutes, you are trying to win the game THAT time, not just to win the game 55% of the time. Yes, anything that increases your odds is good, but from a psychological perspective I think that it could be detrimental for the coach to think in TERMS of the odds, so many coaches probably don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider two examples. The first is fourth and 3 or 4 on the fifty. If the team goes for a first down, it has about a fifty-fifty chance of success...but the team will gain an average of about 6 yards on the fourth-down play; thus it is on average better off than its opponent if it goes for it. If the team punts, the opponent will on average end up with a first and 10 around its 15. Both standard views about football and the analysis in Section II suggest that the receiving team and the punting team are about equally well off in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I stopped reading. I'll read the rest later.

It is not standard football view that your opponent is just as well off on the 50 as it is on his 15.

Have you ever heard of risk-adjusted return?

It is better to pass up the marginal opportunity of getting a first down between the 50 and 40 and putting your opponent on the 15 when you risk a good chance of giving him the ball on the 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding. You are better off on the 44 yard line than your opponent is on the 50. I.e., the claim is the going for it is a 50/50 event and the 50% of the time you make it you are on the 44 yard line. The times you don't make it your opponent is on the 50 yard line. Thus going for it is a small +EV play. The opponent 1st and 10 on the 15 is also about equally good for you and your opponent. I.e., your opponent will score from there about as often as you will as they have the ball but you've given them bad field position. Thus the claim is punting is a 0 EV move. And thus one should go for it with 4th and 3 on the 50 according to the paper.

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding. You are better off on the 44 yard line than your opponent is on the 50. I.e., the claim is the going for it is a 50/50 event and the 50% of the time you make it you are on the 44 yard line. The times you don't make it your opponent is on the 50 yard line. Thus going for it is a small +EV play. The opponent 1st and 10 on the 15 is also about equally good for you and your opponent. I.e., your opponent will score from there about as often as you will as they have the ball but you've given them bad field position. Thus the claim is punting is a 0 EV move. And thus one should go for it with 4th and 3 on the 50 according to the paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not misunderstanding. I understood exactly what was written in the paper.

My point was that you should pass up the "predicted" marginally +EV opportunity of going for it on 4th down and 3 or 4 on the 50 in order to put your opponent down on his 15.

Since the game will only last 60 minutes, this situation will not come up that often in the game. Therefore, you should not be willing to RISK giving your opponent the ball near the 50 yard line (when you fail the attempt) when you can easily give it to him at his 15.

I am not comparing the value of making the fourth down conversion and not making the fourth down conversion with the opportunity cost in a vacuum, i.e. the value of the opponent having the ball on his 15.

That is exactly what is suggested. Since your other option is 0 EV, you should go for a slightly + EV situation. This is wrong.

I do not want to compute my value in such a manner since the 1 game does not afford me 4,323 such opportunities.

It is very likely that following such a strategy could lead me to SCORE more points than average, however WIN fewer games than average.

Maybe this is clearer than my previous post when i wrote:

It is better to pass up the marginal opportunity of getting a first down between the 50 and 40 and putting your opponent on the 15 when you risk a good chance of giving him the ball on the 50.

[ccwhoelse?]

You can not make your decision by comparing the EV of the two decisions here (since the calculation only determines the value of going for it based on the average possible gain on 4th down).

I am comparing the value of going for the 4th down to the risk associated with it. This is better for me in 1 game than comparing the value of going for the 4th down to the value of my other option (punting).

In poker, for example, the risk is inherent in the EV calculation. But in this paper, it is not.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
a former NFL player who understands the game of football better than the average joe or the sportsbook, does his understanding and knowledge give him an edge?


[/ QUOTE ]

The NFL guy is sunk unless he really understands lines. I primarily bet and handicap baseball. Where most guys fail is in understanding what the true odds are. They get wrapped up in who "should" win when that isn't the problem that needs solving. The problem is whether they win more or less than the line states. Without the undertsanding of the line and probabilites that it may or may not offer an edge you don't have much of a chance. It's really pretty simple but few really ever figure it out.

[fun160]

[ QUOTE ]
You should not be willing to RISK giving your opponent the ball near the 50 yard line (when you fail the attempt) when you can easily give it to him at his 15.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Bill Cowher disagrees with you.

In football, as in poker, aggression pays.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of USC going for it late in the Rose Bowl?

[ccwhoelse?]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently Bill Cowher disagrees with you.

In football, as in poker, aggression pays.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of USC going for it late in the Rose Bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't watch the rose bowl.

Everything is situation dependent. Individual circumstances make the determination for whether to go for it on 4th down or not.

How exactly does Bill Cowher disagree with me?

Because he goes for two 4th and short plays in the 4th quarter of a game where his offensive line is dominating the colts, a team with poor run defense? He also had 21-10 lead at that point.

If that doesn't smell like an individual circumstance grossly in cowher's favor - i don't know what is.

How often have you seen Cowher throw the ball in a 4th down scenario? Thank you.

Next time, maybe you should bring a real argument.