Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

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)

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

Sorry, I don't speak jibberish.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly you do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

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

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

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

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

Can I buy some pot from you?

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

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%.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

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.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

sklunsky understood. shows you are deficient in math.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't follow american professional sports too closely, do you?

I understand the math behind it, and it makes sense. The chances change depending on how good the defending team's red zone defense is, and the offense, but that's obvious.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

[ QUOTE ]
sklunsky understood. shows you are deficient in math.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i understand it, its not complicated. my post was mostly about valenzuelas awful layout and wording. he also has a history of posts like these, like his tennis predictions. and i dont know why im defending myself to a gimmick account.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

English isnt my mother language...I knew somebody would figure the post out and the discussion would start.
I think NFL coaches are big pussies AND theyre not really good at math.( btw in my example i have 99% for a PAT, 40% is a conservative amount so that ppl realize its still +EV)

Imagine the indianapolis colts.
First of all an NFL coach is probably not a stupid person, however he might be bad at math and thereby wont get the theory at first but he should get it on the end. So now the coach know its better going for 2.
Now the coach needs to explain the theory to all of his staff, lets suppose they all understand the theory.
Now the coach needs to expalin the theory to the owner, after a lot of talking...the owner will say something like " that strategy of urs better workout"...ok so now the coach knows he will get flamed if he loses.
The coach needs to expalin the theory to the players........after 8237299272729819 years all the players get the theory.
So know all the teams know its better to go for 2.

Lets suppose its the AFC championship game and Indy is behind 14 against NE....4 minutes to go.
TD indy!!!!! wooo.
Tony Dungy mind: shiit, if we miss the 2 pt. attempt we are soooooo screwed. Damn...I think I rather go for one.
I cant be a sissy I have to go for 2, I know its better, i know it.
Tony Dungy: Ok boys lets go for 1
Manning: yeah its better.
Announcer: Indy are down by 7!!!
other announcer: now the defence needs to step up here, they have allowed 162 rushing yards today, etc.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

i understand english is a second language for you, but saying stuff like "ur", RANDOMLY CAPITALIZING and atrocious spacing are sort of unrelated to language.


Everyone gets this. It has been around for decades and it is not complicated.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the indianapolis colts.
First of all an NFL coach is probably not a stupid person...

[/ QUOTE ]

EWWWW, bad example.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

Coaches risk looking foolish not only for the decision to go for it, but also because of the bad play call.

Also, I wonder what the stats say about the percentage of games a team wins/loses/ties in overtime after tying from down 14+ points. The smaple size would probably be too small, but believers in momentum would probably like their chances to win in OT.

(I can only remember one game that a team came back 14+ in the 4th to force overtime and it ended up tied).

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

"Also, I wonder what the stats say about the percentage of games a team wins/loses/ties in overtime after tying from down 14+ points. The smaple size would probably be too small, but believers in momentum would probably like their chances to win in OT."

I highly doubt that this is a sufficintly strong argument to go for one. And it is a highly suspect argument if it is being made by someone who is desperately trying to cover up for the fact that he didn't realize, until told, that the two point play was mathematically much better.

Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
 

I still think you underestimate the potentially very significant negative impact to coaches if variance decides it doesn't like them and they lose a couple of games this way. At least until owners/fans/writers understand this concept better and accept it. In baseball, EXECUTIVES are completely willing to ignore all sorts of data re: who is a good player and what helps a team win, and the baseball data are much stronger than the football example.

There is a large enough penalty for losing in an "uncommon" way that it is not fully offset by the increased win probability. The USC play against Notre Dame is a good example. If they lose on that, Pete Carroll gets crucified (well, or he would if they hadn't won 800 consecutive games, though he's kinda earned a pass).