The Two Point Conversion When Eight Down

[iH8poker]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if a team misses the 2 the first time, do you still think they are 42% the second time?

Football isn't some independent trial game and trying to reduce it to that is an insult to the game. This isn't craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what your problem is? You are thinking as a game theorist and not a magician. Could you imagine if a football coach was half baked, but a magician? He would lose cause it is a competition. You are right for sure...making the 2 point on the second attempt is probably about 20%, not 42%, thus, not a good idea, as proven earlier.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you believe your chances of getting 2 are greater than 50%"

No. Especially not in a college overtime structure where there are vast differences in kickers' abilities.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

right on....in this instance, Oregon State has one of the best place kickers in the country. I think they were afraid they wouldn't be able to hold Mizzou from getting TDs in OT. I agree with his decision to go for 2 yesterday.

[iggymcfly]

The point is that if it's the right decision to go for two when 1 down, it has to be even more the right decision to go for two when 8 down. You're costing yourself the chance to go to overtime ~25% of the time if your 2-point conversion is a 50/50 proposition and you do it on the 2nd TD instead of the first one.

[DpR]

I agree that most coaches probably do not understand that math involved.

However, another outside factor that effects the decision making is that if a game does not go to overtime, that otherwise could have, the fan base is upset to a level that assumes the losing team was 100% to win in OT. See the bengals vs denver game. As a cinci fan you FEEL like that extra point cost you the game, where it really only cost them a chance to win the game. The heat the coach faces however does not account for that.

[renodoc]

What if you are down by 1 in college OT and need to just kick a PAT to keep the game going?

[MathGeek]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all just wrong. I am almost sure that the great majority of the coaches have no idea that they will win more often given the 42% and the 50% probabilities. They probably think that the two pointer has to be 50% to make it worth it. The various excuses you are giving them are not their reason, though they might use them if confronted with the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree with David who knows the game theory. The naysayers are just plain wrong. A great game theory text for the average guy is Thinking Strategically by Dixit and Nalebuff. They examined this exact situation in the context of the national championship game (or it's pre-BCS equivalent) between Nebraska and Miami (1988, I believe). They do all the math using only HS algebra, explain all the assumptions, and point out this fact: if it's mathematically and strategically correct AND no one else does it, it's an even BETTER play because of the surprise factor. Even if the play has marginal or slightly negative EV overall, the element of surprise would make it a good strategic move.

Mike Caro (see Doyle's intro of Mike in SuperSystem I) showed Doyle charts and figures that include psychology in each of his mathematical analyses of starting poker hands and the holdings of likely opponents. Game Theory by Philip Straffin is the best and most readable sub-calculus game theory text and will anyone learn to set up these analyses and to include any complicating factors you wish. Game theory models of reasonable simplicity can include the "regret factor" of missing the 2 pt conversion and being excoriated in the press and by the fans. We can also include assumptions about the psychology involved for the teams, coaches and players. Game theory models are incredibly robust, and it's one of the least complicated branches of mathematics for the math novice to learn.

TO GET TO DAVID'S ORIGINAL POINT, ARE THERE SITUATIONS IN POKER WHERE THE CONVENTIONAL PLAY IS JUST PLAIN BAD? If so, then playing correctly in that situation will have an even higher EV than normal given the element of surprise.

I would like to know what poker situations people feel match David's example. Let's do the math/psychology/theory on those!

[TheWorstPlayer]

Nearly everyone in this thread has missed David's larger point, which has nothing to do with football or poker or any specific circumstance. The point is that many supposed experts do not do any substantive analysis, even when it is relatively trivial to do, and instead rely upon intuition and conventional wisdom. I think people have mentioned the reasons for this, albeit often indirectly. Even experts feel more comfortable being conventional and going with the crowd than going out on their own, particularly in circumstances where the general populace, the mass media, and their bosses will publicly criticize their decisions, especially if they do not work out well in the short term.

This is true in many fields, and in many different circumstances.

[MyTurn2Raise]

He's wrong though...football coaches are well aware of this stuff. ESPN has done a few articles. Experts have weighed the argument and found going for two is wrong.

THis is not ignorance. This is thought out.

[wdead]

no david, you are wrong. you are not smarter than the combined knowledge of 2p2. admit it.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
He's wrong though...football coaches are well aware of this stuff. ESPN has done a few articles. Experts have weighed the argument and found going for two is wrong.

THis is not ignorance. This is thought out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole point of the argument is that these so-called experts haven't done the basic math to weight the argument. I think David believes, and I agree, that many of these "experts" probably aren't even capable of doing the math.