Poker Gaming and Life : Logic Problem Underanalyzed

[govman6767]

In Poker Gaming and Life David Sklansky writes a logic problem involving basketball.

The gist was you were down by 2 at the end of the game.

30% chance of winning if you take a 3 point shot

50% chance of tying if you go for easier 2 point shot.

The rationale was percentage wise it's better to go for the 3 point shot if you want to win.

As a basic problem he get's his point across in the book quite well and I chose the wrong shot.

But I think David missed one important factor in this problem. While attempting the 2 point inside shot there is always a GREAT chance for a foul to occur.

So if you are fouled and miss the shot you have to make both free throws to tie (not too bad unless your shaq). Also if you make the first free throw you still may have time to get in a quick tap in if the second free throw is missed and WIN.

But what if you are fouled and make the 2 point shot. You now have an added chance to win the game with the freethrow.

I think the added chance of winning the game with the 2point shot when fouled would be enough to overcome the 5% diffrence in David's Problem. Although without solid statistics I could just be shooting in the wind.

[rakemeplz]

Are you aware of nba refs + hard fouls?

And1's to win games are pretty fricken rare.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware of nba refs + hard fouls?

And1's to win games are pretty fricken rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter in order for Sklansky's logic problem to be correct this must be taken into consideration.