[jjgold]

Unreal

Mathy you boozed up fuk
Get your head out of your ass

[paranoyd androyd]

They still didnt absolutely have too!

There is no difference betwee them going this time verse last TD.

There is still plenty of time left, they DID NOT ABSIOLUTELY HAVE TO.

So you are just a clueless hypocrite.

too vs. to

their vs. there

you're vs. your

etc.

gl

[jstblaze]

too vs. to

their vs. there

you're vs. your

etc.

gl

You can pick on my grammar to ignore your utter stupidity. I dont really mind.

Was too overwhlemed by your hypocrisy.

You didnt address you absolutey stupid remarks.

[face]

the idea is to keep the game within 8 points unless it's near the end of the game

[CollegePro]

thank you denver!!!

[Westcoast0]

this is why john fox is an nfl coach and you're not

[ronald]

Definitely the most SQUARE post Mathy has ever made.

Mathy, stick to math. You are NOT a coach.

Mathy, I think maybe you need a vacation. Go see FISHHEAD in Vegas and relax in his BOARDROOM.

[mathdotcom]

Case 1: You go for it and miss. Down by 2. If Vikings score a TD you are down 9 (two scores).
Case 2: You don't go for it. Down by 1. If Vikings score a TD you are down by 8. You will have to go for 2 now anyways. If you miss, then you're still down another score.

Case 3: You go for it and get it. Tie game.
Case 4: You don't go for it now but go for it later and get it. Still tie game.

So unless you have evidence that 4th quarter 2 pt conversions are somehow easier to accomplish . . .

Attack the post not the poster.

I bet some of you guys think you should never go for it on 4th down unless "it's late in the game" or unless "you have to".

[mathdotcom]

this is why john fox is an nfl coach and you're not

Actually it's because I decided to Become a Pro gambler instead of a zoo keeper (if you think an NFL coach is anything more than a guardian of monkeys, you are mistaken).

[No coincidences]

You don't leave points on the field unless you absolutely have to.

[No coincidences]

Actually it's because I decided to Become a Pro gambler instead of a zoo keeper (if you think an NFL coach is anything more than a guardian of monkeys, you are mistaken).

At least your original statement isn't the most ignorant thing you've said in this thread anymore.

[smoke a bowl]

you NEVER go for 2 until you absolutely have to no need to go for 2 on either of the past 2 td's gl

Why? Could you elaborate please? Keep in mind that "it's just the way it is" is not a sufficient retort. Thanks in advance.

[Westcoast0]

Actually it's because I decided to Become a Pro gambler instead of a zoo keeper (if you think an NFL coach is anything more than a guardian of monkeys, you are mistaken).

pro gambler lol, that always ends well

save the part where you tell me how many hundreds of thousands of dollars youre up

[smoke a bowl]

Attack the post not the poster.

I bet some of you guys think you should never go for it on 4th down unless "it's late in the game" or unless "you have to".

It's amazing how the combination of coaches past blunders and announcers constantly spewing garbage has brainwashed 99% of the football world to believe that punting on 4th and 1 from your own 45 and not going for 2 unless (you have 2 lmfao) can possibly be correct. This is a war you can't win here MDC, but it is also why the sports betting market is still so vulnerable with 1% edges to be had everywhere if you have the ability to find them.

[yisman]

Attack the post not the poster.

I bet some of you guys think you should never go for it on 4th down unless "it's late in the game" or unless "you have to".

Coaches should go for it on 4th down more often. In fact, going for it on 4th and 1 is almost always the right decision, save for rare situations (like where you're in fg range and a FG would tie or win the game late).

However, since two point conversions are less than a 50% proposition, any intelligent person who's familiar with math could have told you that going for two at that point in the game would have been foolish.

[smoke a bowl]

Coaches should go for it on 4th down more often. In fact, going for it on 4th and 1 is almost always the right decision, save for rare situations (like where you're in fg range and a FG would tie or win the game late).

However, since two point conversions are less than a 50% proposition, any intelligent person who's familiar with math could have told you that going for two at that point in the game would have been foolish.

This post had such potential until the 2nd paragraph started.

[yisman]

It's all accurate. You can pick and choose whatever you want to believe, but that doesn't change reality.

[smoke a bowl]

It's all accurate. You can pick and choose whatever you want to believe, but that doesn't change reality.

Just cause a 2 pt conversion is a little less than 50% to be successful doesn't make it right to go for 1 at the end of the 3Q down by 2. and FTR I think any 2 pt conversion attempt with Tebow at QB is a 50+% proposition given his skill set. Obviously the last part is just an opinion but I'd bet even money that Tebow goes 50% or better in 2 pt conversions for his career in the NFL.

[mathdotcom]

pro gambler lol, that always ends well

save the part where you tell me how many hundreds of thousands of dollars youre up

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/players-ta...romos-pic.html

[Sunde91]

Going for 2 with 2 minutes left in the 3rd isn't the right call but going for it with 10 minutes left in the 4th is the right call, oh my. "Dont until you absolutely have to" = useless arbitrary talking point regurgitated without thought. It can't be defined. Justify going for 2 early in the 4th but not late in the 3rd. They still didn't "have to" with 10 minutes left in the game

An assumption needed to be made that BOTH teams would score additional TDs after the TD late in the 3rd, which is completely ridiculous

-No more TDs, opponent FG makes a 4 pt game = you're fuked out of an otherwise FG game for not going for 2
-No more scores = you lose by 1 pt instead of OT

-Failed 2 pt late in 3rd, opponent scores a TD = 9 pt game
-Failed 2 pt late in 4th = 2 pt game = exact same difference than failing in the 3rd EXCEPT the assumption that additional TDs would be scored in 17 minutes had to play out before that scenario to come into play. Doesnt play out = fuked as said above
-Successful 2 pt late in 3rd, opponent scores a TD, 7 pt game, you score a TD+1, tie = same result as converting early in 4th

[mathdotcom]

Conventional wisdom in so many sports is just outright wrong. It's not even a question of opinion. Let's break it down again.

The choice is to go for it (option A) or not to go for it (option B). Let's consider the 3 main cases of what could happen.

Case 1: Vikings score another TD
Option A: If you miss the 2 pt conversion, you are down 9. You will need to score twice.
Option B: You are down 8. You will have to try for a 2 pt conversion now anyways. If you do not succeed then you are down by 2, and will still have to score a second time.

The outcomes are equivalent. You will have to go for a 2 pter in either case. There is no difference between them.

The next two cases show that going for it immediately is strictly better.

Case 2: Vikings score a FG:
Option A: If you missed the 2 pt conversion then you are now down 5.
Option B: You are now down by 4.

Either way you need a TD. However if you converted the 2pter you only need a FG to tie it up.

Case 3: Vikings don't score again:
Option A: If you don't convert the 2pter, then you lose the game by 2.
Option B: You definitely lose the game by 1.

There is no ******* difference between losing by 1 or 2. However if you convert the 2 pter you're going to OT.

Unless you morons are counting on a safety, there is no discussion here. There is no trade-off. Even if the success rate of 2 pt conversions is only 10%, it is still the right call.

I bet some of you guys in the thread even have a business degrees, a law degree, or even both and yet you still can't figure this out. This is why you will always be barreled in instead of being big time like mathy and eating Thanksgiving turkey in Panama with bookmakers.

-mathy

[jjgold]

Conventional wisdom in so many sports is just outright wrong. It's not even a question of opinion. Let's break it down again.

The choice is to go for it (option A) or not to go for it (option B). Let's consider the 3 main cases of what could happen.

Case 1: Vikings score another TD
Option A: If you miss the 2 pt conversion, you are down 9. You will need to score twice.
Option B: You are down 8. You will have to try for a 2 pt conversion now anyways. If you do not succeed then you are down by 2, and will still have to score a second time.

The outcomes are equivalent. You will have to go for a 2 pter in either case. There is no difference between them.

The next two cases show that going for it immediately is strictly better.

Case 2: Vikings score a FG:
Option A: If you missed the 2 pt conversion then you are now down 5.
Option B: You are now down by 4.

Either way you need a TD. However if you converted the 2pter you only need a FG to tie it up.

Case 3: Vikings don't score again:
Option A: If you don't convert the 2pter, then you lose the game by 2.
Option B: You definitely lose the game by 1.

There is no ******* difference between losing by 1 or 2. However if you convert the 2 pter you're going to OT.

Unless you morons are counting on a safety, there is no discussion here. There is no trade-off. Even if the success rate of 2 pt conversions is only 10%, it is still the right call.

I bet some of you guys in the thread even have a business degrees, a law degree, or even both and yet you still can't figure this out. This is why you will always be barreled in instead of being big time like mathy and eating Thanksgiving turkey in Panama with bookmakers.

-mathy

Thread over

[ronald]

The real answer to the question is this: A coach will never get fired for not going for 2pts early in the game. However, a coach WILL get fired for gambling on 4th down and/or going for 2pts early in the game. So whether or not it makes mathematical sense in any given game is irrelevant. The odds are better for a coach to KEEP HIS JOB if he doesn't think too far outside the box. The brilliant calls of going for it on fourth down are always overshadowed by the 4th down gambles that don't pay off.

[Sunde91]

Coughlin would rather be down 2 than 3 late in the 3rd Q
Garrett would rather be up 5 than 6 early 4th Q
Whistenhunt would rather be up 2 than 3 early 4th Q with an amazing veteran QB like Skelton

amazing how brainwashed these clowns are

[Sunde91]

Utah State would rather by up 13 than 14 with 4 minutes left in the 3rd Q. Now they are going to give the ball back to Ohio with 3 minutes left in the 4th only up 6 instead of 7 to potentially lose by 1 instead of going to OT

but remember, only go for two when you have to

[rm18]

theoretically it is a little easier in the 4th quarter to make it because it is easier to run but still bad move by Denver

[Sunde91]

these coaches are the definition of sheep

[Sunde91]

we gamblers will show the football world the light

these coaches are 100% without clue

Utah State loses by 1 point cause the sheep coach got scared and thought being up 12 or 13 was hugely significant late in the 3rd Q while foregoing the 2 pt try for a 14 pt lead

[BettingWizard]

and if they don't get the 2, they are up 12

then if ohio scores 7, only up 5. A FG by Utah State then makes it 8, still a one possession game




there's a reason the charts exist

[HoulihansTX]

They are football coaches not graduates of fifth grade math

[mlfan]

Conventional wisdom in so many sports is just outright wrong. It's not even a question of opinion. Let's break it down again.

The choice is to go for it (option A) or not to go for it (option B). Let's consider the 3 main cases of what could happen.

Case 1: Vikings score another TD
Option A: If you miss the 2 pt conversion, you are down 9. You will need to score twice.
Option B: You are down 8. You will have to try for a 2 pt conversion now anyways. If you do not succeed then you are down by 2, and will still have to score a second time.

The outcomes are equivalent. You will have to go for a 2 pter in either case. There is no difference between them.

The next two cases show that going for it immediately is strictly better.

Case 2: Vikings score a FG:
Option A: If you missed the 2 pt conversion then you are now down 5.
Option B: You are now down by 4.

Either way you need a TD. However if you converted the 2pter you only need a FG to tie it up.

Case 3: Vikings don't score again:
Option A: If you don't convert the 2pter, then you lose the game by 2.
Option B: You definitely lose the game by 1.

There is no ******* difference between losing by 1 or 2. However if you convert the 2 pter you're going to OT.

Unless you morons are counting on a safety, there is no discussion here. There is no trade-off. Even if the success rate of 2 pt conversions is only 10%, it is still the right call.

I bet some of you guys in the thread even have a business degrees, a law degree, or even both and yet you still can't figure this out. This is why you will always be barreled in instead of being big time like mathy and eating Thanksgiving turkey in Panama with bookmakers.

-mathy

These are not the only scenarios remaining...

if vikings score 2 field goals then denver is behind 7 or 8. And if 2 point conversion is 10%, then denver isn't likely tying the game up with a touchdown.

vikings could score 3 field goals and be up 10 or 11. 10 is a touchdown and a field goal. 11 and denver needs to convert a 2 pointer with the field goal.

vikings score field goal, denver gets touchdown, vikings score a field goal....so it'll be tie or vikings up 1.

In the 3rd quarter, a lot of different scoring plays can still play out in the 4th. If both teams are not moving the chains well then there'll be less scoring chances and those 3 scenarios will play out more frequently. Which is why you go for a low percentage 2 pointer late in the 4th. Because each team will likely get 1 possession. And your opponent will either score a td/field goal/ or do nothing.

[Sunde91]

Raiders would rather be up 13 than 14 with 7 minutes in the 4th. Now a 6 point game. Never go for it until you have to

[mathdotcom]

jjgold declared THREAD OVER

when this happens it is really over

[MonkeyF0cker]

Raiders would rather be up 13 than 14 with 7 minutes in the 4th. Now a 6 point game. Never go for it until you have to

I don't see the issue. 1.5 points is MEANINGLESS. Remember?

monkeydik thanks for the insight

problem is the 1500 limit, so say I want more. also a fukin clown to fret over 1.5 meaningless points on a points bet

this bet is dumb as shit and id like to wager against it with goat

lol monkeydik +1.5 is an important number? gonna worry about that for a points bet when the principal is picking the SU winner? youre a fuking clown sir

monkeydik is another loser sitting in the dark so he comes to troll sbr with wise ass garbage. look everyone admire his witty posts

monkeydik youre an uptight twat and I can tell by your laughable posting style taking yourself so serious with flawless grammar trying so hard to be a witty smart ass, but you fail cause your shit is predictable and not amusing at all

[mathdotcom]

Even V Tech coach had the balls to go for 2 when score was 17-15. Easiest decision in football.