Terms & Conditions

Internet Magazine

Non–US new players
Get five 2+2 books


Order Books
Book Translations
Forum Login
 
 
Expand All   Collapse All

 Two Plus Two 
2+2 Magazine Forum
Special Sklansky Forum
2+2 Pokercast
About the Forums

 General Poker Discussion 
Beginners Questions
Books and Publications
Televised Poker
News, Views, and Gossip
Brick and Mortar
Home Poker
Beats, Brags, and Variance
Poker Theory
Poker Legislation

 Coaching/Training 
StoxPoker
DeucesCracked

 German Forums 
Poker Allgemein
Strategie: Holdem NL cash
Strategie: Sonstige
Internet/Online
BBV
Small Talk
German Poker News

 French Forums 
Forum francophone
Strategie
BBV (French)

 Limit Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes Limit
Medium Stakes Limit
Small Stakes Limit
Micro Stakes Limit
Mid-High Short-handed
Small Stakes Shorthanded
Limit––>NL

 PL/NL Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes
Medium Stakes
Small Stakes
Micro Stakes
Small-High Full Ring
Micro Full Ring

 Tournament Poker 
Small Stakes MTT
High Stakes MTT
MTT Community
STT Strategy
Tournament Circuit

 Other Poker 
Omaha/8
Omaha High
Stud
Heads Up Poker
Other Poker Games

 General Gambling 
Probability
Psychology
Sports Betting
Other Gambling Games
Entertainment Betting

 Internet Gambling 
Internet Gambling
Internet Bonuses
Affiliates/RakeBack
Software

 2+2 Communities 
Other Other Topics
The Lounge: Discussion+Review
El Diablo's General Discussion
BBV4Life

 Other Topics 
Golf
Sporting Events
Politics
Business, Finance, and Investing
Travel
Science, Math, and Philosophy
Health and Fitness
Student Life
Puzzles and Other Games
Video Games
Laughs or Links!
Computer Technical Help
Sponsored Support Forums
RakebackNetwork
RakeReduction.com
Other Links
Books
Authors
Abbreviations
Calendar
Order Books
Books by Others
Favorite Links
Feedback
Advertising Information
Home
Posting Hints
Privacy Notice
Forum Archives

The 2+2 Forums

Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 2/26/2006)

Be sure to read the   Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

This is an archive. The main forums are here

These forums are read only.


 
UBB.threads™ Groupee, Inc.

Other Topics >> Sporting Events

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
valenzuela
addict


Reged: 12/19/04
Posts: 453
Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
      #3827267 - 10/31/05 10:29 PM

So lets suppose team X is down by 14 againt team Y, there is Z( i dunno the value of Z but i do know z is a positive value) time left. Team X should go for 2, here is why.
If team X scores another TD they will regret going for one on the long run
If team X scores two td here are the outcomes:
If team X goes for one one the first TD they will lose 1,594% of the time.( trust me, do the math by urself)And they will force OT on the other games.
If team X goes for two they will lose 36% of the time, they will win however 39,6% of the time.
So why dont teams go for 2 when theyre down by 8 late on the game??
Here is the val theory( who was stolen from somebody else i dont remember)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
xxxxxx
addict


Reged: 10/08/04
Posts: 671
Loc: It's Machine Washable, dahlink...
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: valenzuela]
      #3827358 - 10/31/05 10:41 PM

Sorry, I don't speak jibberish.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tomdemaine
enthusiast


Reged: 02/05/05
Posts: 236
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: xxxxxx]
      #3827598 - 10/31/05 11:13 PM

Quote:

Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.




clearly you do


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BadBoyBenny
journeyman


Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 66
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: valenzuela]
      #3827637 - 10/31/05 11:18 PM

How do you lose more than 100% of the time???

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Victor
journeyman


Reged: 07/13/03
Posts: 68
Loc: cleveland
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: valenzuela]
      #3827718 - 10/31/05 11:28 PM

ummmm. this may be the most inciteful and perceptive post ever written in this forum.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Voltron87
veteran


Reged: 11/25/04
Posts: 1326
Loc: checkraising young children
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: valenzuela]
      #3827916 - 10/31/05 11:57 PM

Quote:

So lets suppose team X is down by 14 againt team Y, there is Z( i dunno the value of Z but i do know z is a positive value) time left. Team X should go for 2, here is why.
If team X scores another TD they will regret going for one on the long run
If team X scores two td here are the outcomes:
If team X goes for one one the first TD they will lose 1,594% of the time.( trust me, do the math by urself)And they will force OT on the other games.
If team X goes for two they will lose 36% of the time, they will win however 39,6% of the time.
So why dont teams go for 2 when theyre down by 8 late on the game??
Here is the val theory( who was stolen from somebody else i dont remember)




WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kyro
addict


Reged: 05/23/04
Posts: 400
Loc: Rochester, NH
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: valenzuela]
      #3827920 - 10/31/05 11:58 PM

Can I buy some pot from you?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MCS
member


Reged: 09/04/02
Posts: 143
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: valenzuela]
      #3827984 - 11/01/05 12:10 AM

I think the following may be what he is saying:

Assume you score two TDs, you make the 2-pt conversion 40% of the time, the PAT 100%, and the opponent doesn't score at all. Then the following are possible:

(1) You make your first two-point attempt. In this case you win because you kick the PAT on your second TD and win by 1.
(2) You miss your first and make your second. In this case you tie.
(3) You miss your first and second. You lose.

(2) is identical to kicking two PATs. (1) happens 40% of the time. (3) happens 36% of the time. So you come out ahead!

The problems is that coaches get blasted for unconventional gambles that don't work, but get only a bit of credit for gambles that do. You will be fired if you miss two 2-pt attempts in a playoff game and lose by 2.

Good post though. I like your idea and wish someone would try it.

The breakeven percentage for this is (3-sqrt(5))/2 which is around 38.1%.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Sklansky
enthusiast


Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 241
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: MCS]
      #3829701 - 11/01/05 06:16 AM

I wrote about this exact same thing a long time ago on another forum. Literally millions of people already know this idea (which is even stronger than you imply because two point conversions are over 40% and one pointers are less than 100%.)

As for

"The problems is that coaches get blasted for unconventional gambles that don't work, but get only a bit of credit for gambles that do. You will be fired if you miss two 2-pt attempts in a playoff game and lose by 2."

I don't buy it. Not when it is so clear cut. (I've read the "losing momentum or morale" argument but for professionals that can't make up for a significant decrease in mathematical win probability.) All a coach has to do is show the simple math to the owner, preferabley BEFORE it comes up, and he is out of hot water if it backfires.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Matt Williams
journeyman


Reged: 02/20/05
Posts: 82
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory. [Re: David Sklansky]
      #3829808 - 11/01/05 07:02 AM

Quote:

I don't buy it. Not when it is so clear cut. (I've read the "losing momentum or morale" argument but for professionals that can't make up for a significant decrease in mathematical win probability.) All a coach has to do is show the simple math to the owner, preferabley BEFORE it comes up, and he is out of hot water if it backfires.




Yea, but the problem is public opinion means just as much to the owner if not more than actual results. Let's say an owner gives his coach the go ahead to try for 2 points. If the team fails to convert, the public outcry would be for the coach to be held responsible. No one is going to say "Well, if the owner is OK with it, I am too.". If it occurred a 2nd or 3rd time, someone would be held responsible whether or not the owner gave the coach it's blessings. It's all PR and money.
Just look at what happened in the USC-ND game. Had USC failed to score at the end, all the networks and football fans would want Pete Carroll's head on a platter thinking USC would have won in OT against ND. Granted, it's not the NFL, but USC would have lost a lot of money if it had to "settle" for a lesser bowl game for failing to convert the riskier play.

Edited by Matt Williams (11/01/05 07:05 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:   

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 1027

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us 2+2 Publishing

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Message Boards and Forums Directory Message Boards and Forums Directory