[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've written about this before and I'm sure I am not the only one who has thought of it. But I felt it was important to bring it up with this group because so many people have a hard time fully grasping that serious decision making errors are made by mathematical illiterate "experts" regardless of the amount of experience they have. This most often occurs when the situation doesn't arise often enough for mere observation to be a reliable guide. Sometimes you just have to do the math. (I can hear some of you saying that if the situation rarely comes up, who cares. But what about if many different types of situations requiring math come up?)

The particular example I use here occurs when your football team scores a touchdown in the final minutes of the game when down by 14 points. Aside from extreme circumstances they should now go for two. (And then two again if they miss and score later.)

The math that proves this is amazingly easy and I will get back to that in a minute. But first I want to discuss the often stated objection that a coach might use. Namely "you haven't taken into account the psychological deflation a failed attempt will cause". My reply is twofold. First I do not for a minute believe this to be true. Players know the overall strategy which includes a miss now and a success later. To think that a miss psychologically deflates players to the point where it makes up for a fairly significant increase in the theoretical chances of winning doesn't seem right. I can't prove that though.

But the bigger problem with the coaches statement is that it was a RATIONALIZATION after the fact. If it was said by someone who understood the math and legitimately felt it should be rejected, fine. But this kind of thing is usually said by coaches AND ALL SORTS OF SUPPOSED EXEPERTS IN MYRIAD FIELDS to defend their stupidity. They didn't have any idea that theoretically the two point conversion or any of the myriad of mathematically based conclusions experts in other fields are unaware of, is the right decision. So they scramble to justify their ignorance. (Another weak excuse is that "my owner would fire me because he doesn't know the math". So spend three minutes explaining it to him.)

I changed my mind about doing the calculation. Anybody on this forum who can't do it should be ashamed of themselves.
Assume a two point attempt is 42%, a one point attempt is 98%, overtime is a 50-50 proposition, and there is time for one more score at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, are you trying to avoid overtime?

According to your example, I just scored a TD, and I'm down by 8 (if I kick the EP, I'm down by 7). I have a few minutes to go, and I'm hoping to score one more time.

What difference does it make to win the game in regulation versus overtime?

Using your example, if I go for 2 now, and miss, I HAVE to go for 2 on the next score in order to even get in OT!?! If I miss that, I'm done.

I understand that mathematically you can prove that you score often enough to go for 2...it's just that it's an unnecessary risk. I would rather win the game in overtime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are not understanding the question. The object is to maximize the chance that you will win weather or not that involves overtime. If you assume a 42% 2 point conversion rate, a 98% one point rate, and a 50/50 chance, in overtime, then you will win more often by goin for 2 (including both games that go to overtime and games that end in regulation). If you can't figure this out, then you probably need to study statistics a bit more. You are not trying to avoid overtime, but you are not trying to get to overtime either. Weather or not there is overtime makes no differnece.

Weather or not these assumpitions are reasonable has been the subject of some debate in this thread.