[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like this explanation, it very clearly explains the situation and gives a good poker analogy. I do have one problem though: the conclusion isn't logical. You admit that in poker, there are advantages to being out of position, but that they do not outweigh the disadvantages. I agree that this is true. But that doesnt mean that it is true in all games. We could easily invent a poker game where being out of position was superior to being in position.

Everyone who is calling me an idiot in this thread (and they are probably correct) is focusing only on the advantages of being in position. As the article I linked earlier correctly points out, this is ABSOLUTELY NOT a logical argument that going second is best. It is entirely possible that football is a type of poker game where being out of position is best. It might not be likely, and it might not SEEM that way, but it is still POSSIBLE. Pointing out one example of a situation where having more information allows you to make better decisions does not prove that going second is actually best.

In the article I linked earlier, they admit as much. They say specifically that this is no proof at all, and that they need to go to the numbers to find out if its really true. It turns out it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
The primary advantage of position in poker is that it allows you to act with a more complete set of information, which allows you to calculate the EV of each of your options more accurately than the person who has to act first, and therefore with less complete information. The upside to acting first is that you have the opportunity to try to introduce untrue "information" that could induce an incorrect decision from the player with position. This is known as bluffing.

I admit, it might be possible to conceive of a poker variant in which acting first genuinely might be an advantage, but the game would have to be designed in some way that places a tremendous premium on effective blufing. I'm having trouble visualizing such a game, but am willing to concede the possibility that one may exist.

I don't see how College Football Overtime could be analogous to that game, though, because there is no opportunity for bluffing when you go first. You either score a touchdown, score a field goal, or don't score. There's no way to trick you opponent into thinking you scored when you didn't. The only upsides for the team that goes first are that they have the same extra information for their defensive play calling that the second team has for their offensive play calling. While this is helpful, college football is a relatively high scoring game, and overtime is designed with an offensive emphasis (by having the teams start in scoring position), so I firmly believe that the more complete information both teams have during the second team's possession is more beneficial to the offense than the defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and for a long time, most people couldnt conceive of how sacrifice bunting a guy to third with less than two outs was inferior to just letting him hit. then they ran the numbers and found out that it was. Now it seems OBVIOUS to all of those in the know, "wasting outs is terrible, its the worst thing you can do" but it wasnt obvious to everyone before.

Dont get me wrong, most of the time when something is obviously correct, it is actually correct. I've already conceded I'm some kind of moron.