We didnt use the SAT in my day & local Late 60s in the south
We took the ACT. I scored a 26 , avg.
Comment
Sekrah
SBR High Roller
10-27-09
240
#177
[quote=poker_dummy101;2574150]Punting was determined to give the Colts a 70% chance to win. If the Pats convert at 60% then it is better to punt.
Colts scoring 80% from the 30 is not likely though
If Pats convert 60% of the time and If Colts score 30% of the time after the punt, then the breakeven odds on the decision is if the Colts score from the NE 30 is 75% of the time.
I personally think the odds of Pats converting + Colts scoring after the punt are both higher than 60/30.
Advanced NFL Stats has the Colts winning only 49% of the time from the NE 28 when they took over. I think thats a little extreme considering the nature of the game at that point, but I read somewhere that Live Betting at one of the sites had the Colts -150 after the stop (60%). We are perhaps giving the Colts WAY too much credit for for scoring a TD which makes Belichick's decision even better.
Comment
FishFace5
SBR MVP
10-15-09
1768
#178
Giving the Colts WAY too much credit supports a punt donkey boy. Punt it and play defense. Your up 6. This is how you play football. Stick to math you duck.
Comment
donjuan
SBR MVP
08-29-07
3993
#179
Giving the Colts WAY too much credit supports a punt donkey boy. Punt it and play defense. Your up 6. This is how you play football. Stick to math you duck.
Sadly for you, correct decision making in football and many other facets of life relies on math.
Comment
poker_dummy101
Restricted User
11-03-08
6395
#180
sekrah,
i do appreciate your math in this thread and your reasoning.
Comment
OSUCOWBOYS
SBR High Roller
10-26-07
241
#181
Originally posted by Sekrah
Are you serious?! Is this a serious question?! Do you seriously think the defenses change on 4th and 2 anywhere between the redzones?
Stunned at the stupidity.
However it is vital to have such stupidity in a viable sports market. Be glad they are here.
Comment
stefan084
SBR MVP
07-21-09
1490
#182
Sekrah-not every situation in football fits neatly into a particular statistical trend. Your thinking is very rigid and basic. There are numerous other variables to consider. Aside from that you come off as a three year old throwing a fit with your argument. I wonder if you have ever played football in your life. I myself have played D1 football and have 2 degrees so yes I do have academic credentials. I assumed you had to just watch football and crunch numbers instead of actual play. In the future try not calling the target audience for your argument "retards" and maybe people will be more receptive to what you have to say---sincerely Fuk Off
Comment
Sekrah
SBR High Roller
10-27-09
240
#183
Originally posted by stefan084
Sekrah-not every situation in football fits neatly into a particular statistical trend. Your thinking is very rigid and basic. There are numerous other variables to consider. Aside from that you come off as a three year old throwing a fit with your argument. I wonder if you have ever played football in your life. I myself have played D1 football and have 2 degrees so yes I do have academic credentials. I assumed you had to just watch football and crunch numbers instead of actual play. In the future try not calling the target audience for your argument "retards" and maybe people will be more receptive to what you have to say---sincerely Fuk Off
Hey Geico, Please enlighten us with these numerous other variables to consider.
Comment
OSUCOWBOYS
SBR High Roller
10-26-07
241
#184
Originally posted by Mudcat
Sometimes guys like to play Devil's advocate and today that means defending Belichek's bonehead call.
The attempted mathematical defense of Belichek has more holes than Swiss cheese. I studied Calculus and Statistics at University of Toronto if my credentials are required to participate in this discussion.
Looking forward to this.
Comment
Dark Horse
SBR Posting Legend
12-14-05
13764
#185
The reason he went for it had nothing to do with math. If it was math, every coach would do it. Bellichick didn't want to give the ball back to the Colts zebras. Remember that the Colts had just scored a TD after a bogus pass interference call that put them from their own half deep into the red zone.
Comment
FishFace5
SBR MVP
10-15-09
1768
#186
Originally posted by donjuan
Sadly for you, correct decision making in football and many other facets of life relies on math.
OP, you can't really believe that anyone involved with making this decision on the field crunched any of these numbers you have provided before making the decision to go for it??? You have started up a nice debate. You have "created" some nice numbers to support your argument. It's still simply an opinion. I have a different one. Why does this make me stupid??? I'm starting to get annoyed.
Comment
Dark Horse
SBR Posting Legend
12-14-05
13764
#187
Originally posted by FishFace5
OP, you can't really believe that anyone involved with making this decision on the field crunched any of these numbers you have provided before making the decision to go for it??? You have started up a nice debate. You have "created" some nice numbers to support your argument. It's still simply an opinion. I have a different one. Why does this make me stupid??? I'm starting to get annoyed.
Exactly. If football was only math, DJ would win every single one of his bets.
But don't try telling him that. Mathematical waste of time.
Comment
coldhardfacts
SBR Wise Guy
10-19-07
717
#188
[QUOTE=Sekrah;2574231]
Originally posted by poker_dummy101
Punting was determined to give the Colts a 70% chance to win. If the Pats convert at 60% then it is better to punt.
If Pats convert 60% of the time and If Colts score 30% of the time after the punt, then the breakeven odds on the decision is if the Colts score from the NE 30 is 75% of the time.
I personally think the odds of Pats converting + Colts scoring after the punt are both higher than 60/30.
Advanced NFL Stats has the Colts winning only 49% of the time from the NE 28 when they took over. I think thats a little extreme considering the nature of the game at that point, but I read somewhere that Live Betting at one of the sites had the Colts -150 after the stop (60%). We are perhaps giving the Colts WAY too much credit for for scoring a TD which makes Belichick's decision even better.
True. The only error in your original argument was that Belichick should have instructed his team to let the Colts score immediately. I take it that you are now willing to retract that.
Comment
Snowball
BARRELED IN @ SBR!
11-15-09
30057
#189
math doesn't win football games.
Comment
OSUCOWBOYS
SBR High Roller
10-26-07
241
#190
Originally posted by Snowball
math doesn't win football games.
It does win money though.
Comment
Sekrah
SBR High Roller
10-27-09
240
#191
Originally posted by FishFace5
OP, you can't really believe that anyone involved with making this decision on the field crunched any of these numbers you have provided before making the decision to go for it??? You have started up a nice debate. You have "created" some nice numbers to support your argument. It's still simply an opinion. I have a different one. Why does this make me stupid??? I'm starting to get annoyed.
On a team's own half of the field, going for it is better on average as long as there are less than about 4 yards to go for a first down, Romer found. After midfield, teams should generally be even more aggressive, he said.
Yet on the 1,100 fourth downs where Romer found it would be best to go for it, teams kicked 992 times.
It wasn't a complicated decision. It wouldn't take a math savvy person more than 1 second to figure out.
Comment
Sekrah
SBR High Roller
10-27-09
240
#192
[quote=coldhardfacts;2574494]
Originally posted by Sekrah
True. The only error in your original argument was that Belichick should have instructed his team to let the Colts score immediately. I take it that you are now willing to retract that.
No, I'm not willing to retract that. I stand by that statement. It all comes to how likely you think you are to stop them. If Colts score 66.7% of the time from the 28, you let them score. I would hammer Pats +250 or higher with the ball down 1, with 1:50 to go. I think they get the FG more than 1/3 of the tim there.
Comment
poker_dummy101
Restricted User
11-03-08
6395
#193
nvm
Comment
Sekrah
SBR High Roller
10-27-09
240
#194
Originally posted by OSUCOWBOYS
It does win money though.
Outside of having inside information on the games, it's the only way to win money long-term betting sports.
Comment
OSUCOWBOYS
SBR High Roller
10-26-07
241
#195
Originally posted by Sekrah
Outside of having inside information on the games, it's the only way to win money long-term betting sports.
I couldn't agree more. Either you get info that no one else can get, ie BW, or you beat the market by being ahead of it using math. The days of "gut handicapping" ended a decade ago.
Comment
yisman
SBR Aristocracy
09-01-08
75682
#196
durito, I think a 670 is respectable as far as the math SAT goes.
[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]
Comment
pavyracer
SBR Aristocracy
04-12-07
82839
#197
Don't get me wrong I like math but I don't believe in statistics determining the outcome of a game.
Comment
uhuhahah
SBR Wise Guy
10-06-09
588
#198
You guys are so silly.
Bill + Brady = super.
NE could put 70 points on board but $$$$ slow them down and made them lose.
Comment
tacomax
SBR Hall of Famer
08-10-05
9619
#199
Originally posted by pavyracer
Don't get me wrong I like math but I don't believe in statistics determining the outcome of a game.
Why not? It's no different (assuming your model is accurate) than statistics determining the outcome of a fair dice roll. Say you were offered +105 for a 5/6 or -105 for 1/2/3/4. You bet for 1/2/3/4 but the roll gives a 5 - were you wrong to use your statistical knowledge in this game?
Now back to the game. Say that you had the perfect predictive model (I'm not suggesting that was the case last night) which told you that punting gave you a 45% chance of winning and not punting gave you a 55% chance of winning - which would be the smart move?
I'm sure we could argue all week over the nuances or errors in model X or model Y but one thing is for sure. It was a marginal call at best, it might have been a coin flip call at worst but for anyone to say that it's one of the worst calls they've ever seen gives a strong case that the title of this thread is true.
Originally posted by pags11
SBR would never get rid of me...ever...
Originally posted by BuddyBear
I'd probably most likely chose Pags to jack off too.
Originally posted by curious
taco is not a troll, he is a bubonic plague bacteria.
Comment
pavyracer
SBR Aristocracy
04-12-07
82839
#200
I could see it in his eyes. He was cocky and wanted to prove everyone he is the best by calling a stupid play and winning the game by doing it. What he did was the equivalent of scoring an own goal in soccer by heading the ball into his own net trying to clear it out of danger. Bold call but dumb play at the end.
Comment
MrMonkey
SBR MVP
11-09-08
2278
#201
Originally posted by pavyracer
I could see it in his eyes. He was cocky and wanted to prove everyone he is the best by calling a stupid play and winning the game by doing it. What he did was the equivalent of scoring an own goal in soccer by heading the ball into his own net trying to clear it out of danger. Bold call but dumb play at the end.
All-time great coach who seems like not too nice of a person! Pavy, I guess next week all the coaches will be going for it on 4th and ? inside the 30 yard line? Can't argue with math!
Comment
Scorpion
SBR Hall of Famer
09-04-05
7797
#202
Originally posted by tacomax
Now back to the game. Say that you had the perfect predictive model (I'm not suggesting that was the case last night) which told you that punting gave you a 45% chance of winning and not punting gave you a 55% chance of winning - which would be the smart move?
.
Stats compiled against shit teams mean nothing, especially when you are playing the best team in football.
Ok, so he fukked up and did not make it, if he thought the Colts offense was soooo awesome why not just let them score from 30 yards? Dont tackle the guy, then at least you have some time to get a good drive and kick the game winning FG
Belichick fukked up big time last time, he wasted all his timeouts for nothing
Comment
yisman
SBR Aristocracy
09-01-08
75682
#203
Originally posted by tacomax
I'm sure we could argue all week over the nuances or errors in model X or model Y but one thing is for sure. It was a marginal call at best, it might have been a coin flip call at worst but for anyone to say that it's one of the worst calls they've ever seen gives a strong case that the title of this thread is true.
Agreed.
I won't knock him for the decision he made, and I wouldn't knock him had he decided to punt. It was a close call.
[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]
Comment
pavyracer
SBR Aristocracy
04-12-07
82839
#204
The math people Mr.Monkey are the same ones who said betting the -500 Patriots ML on Superbowl vs the Giants was a value play because the probability of a 18-0 team going 18-1 at the superbowl was 0.01%.
Comment
yisman
SBR Aristocracy
09-01-08
75682
#205
Originally posted by pavyracer
The math people Mr.Monkey are the same ones who said betting the -500 Patriots ML on Superbowl vs the Giants was a value play because the probability of a 18-0 team going 18-1 at the superbowl was 0.01%.
Nope.
[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]
Comment
greatrace
SBR Rookie
01-03-09
43
#206
Originally posted by tacomax
Why not? It's no different (assuming your model is accurate) than statistics determining the outcome of a fair dice roll. Say you were offered +105 for a 5/6 or -105 for 1/2/3/4. You bet for 1/2/3/4 but the roll gives a 5 - were you wrong to use your statistical knowledge in this game?
I'm with you to a point. I'm a huge mathematics and statistics fan, however, this isn't rolling a dice, or flipping a coin. Its sport.
Statistics has a place to a point. We all know that we can find statistics to help us prove anything.
Is it really useful to find statistics that say the Patriots can convert on 75% of 3rd or 4th down and 2 or 3. (side point - 3rd down and 2 30 seconds before was nearly picked off and returned for a TD) Where are these statistics from? Who was on these teams? There are different players on the field! Stats from 3 or 4 years ago aren't much good when the teams are different.
If bellicheck was concerned with statistics then he would have gone for it on two 4 and 2/ 4 and 3 situations earlier in the game.
Statistics - between the two teams the last 4 winners (i think) have now come from behind. If he beleived that then shouldn't he have wanted to be behind coming into the fourth quarter instead of up?
It wasn't a statistically based call. It was arrogance and a gut feel he had. Right call or wrong call? It was a call, probably neither wrong nor right.
Comment
greatrace
SBR Rookie
01-03-09
43
#207
Originally posted by MrMonkey
I guess next week all the coaches will be going for it on 4th and ? inside the 30 yard line? Can't argue with math!
Too close to call.
It's not the satisfying answer to the Great Belichick Debate, which has seen him declared by most observers to be either an infallible genius or overzealous tinkerer, but it's the most accurate one.
Did he make the right decision?
Too close to call.
No matter how we fiddle with or adjust the probabilities to account for the game situation and the quality of the two offenses and defenses, it's difficult to find a dramatic difference between the choices of going for it or punting.
Take the first option -- the one Bill Belichick chose. Teams attempting to convert a fourth-and-2 have successfully done so at a 48.6 percent rate this season, well down from 62.3 percent last season. The "true" likelihood of such a play being converted by an average team in an average situation is closer to that latter figure, based on historical data.
Of course, the phrase "average team in an average situation" simply does not apply here. The Patriots don't have an average offense, they have the league's best DVOA; the Colts' defense ranks sixth. Although the Patriots had failed to convert in two of their three previous third-and-2 situations (including the one directly preceding the decision to go for it), their chances of making it in this situation were greater than the average team's.
On the other hand, the probability has to be adjusted for the situation. Robert Mathis had been abusing right tackle Nick Kaczur all night, meaning Brady wouldn't have time for the combination of Randy Moss and Wes Welker to run anything resembling an intricate route pattern. Dwight Freeney lurked on the other side. Furthermore, the probability of a team going for it on fourth down might very well be artificially high because of selection bias -- teams are far more inclined to go for it on fourth down against the Lions or the Rams than against the Vikings or Ravens.
Throw all these numbers into a big soup, stir them however you'd like and you'll end up with an expected conversion rate of about 60 percent. It might be 63, it might be 57; truthfully, it's not going to be enough to change our analysis.
The Colts won't score every time they get the ball on the opposition's 29-yard line, but they will score most of the time. Toss in momentum and the quality of the Colts' offense versus the Patriots' secondary, and you can estimate, say, an 85 percent chance of the Colts scoring in that situation. That makes Belichick's decision to go for it a little stronger, upping the Patriots' chances of winning by going for it to maybe 66 percent.
Then, it comes down to punting and where Manning gets the ball, which requires even more theoretical assumptions. Chris Hanson has a 39.6-yard net average, but the game was in a dome, and the Colts don't have great return units. If we just assume a 40-yard kick, the Colts get the ball on their 32-yard line with two minutes to go and one timeout. If you believe that the Colts had a 34 percent chance or better of scoring a touchdown in that situation (100 percent minus the 66 percent chance we mentioned a moment ago), Belichick was wrong. If you think the odds are worse than 34 percent, Belichick was right.
If you disagree with the expected percentages of conversion above, Mike Harris of Football Outsiders has developed a nifty calculator that lets you plug in your own averages and figure out whether Belichick made the right call by those figures. You can find that calculator here.
The key factor that the cacophony of responses seems to be missing is that you can't judge Belichick's decision by the fact that it didn't work. As we've mentioned more than once in these pages, you cannot judge decisions by their outcome. You have to consider the process that goes into them, and then decide whether they're right or wrong at the moment they're made.
Think back to another controversial Belichick decision made in the heat of a prime-time game -- his decision to take a safety on purpose down one point during the fourth quarter of a Monday night game against the Broncos. Of course, the Patriots ended up getting the ball back and won the game. Belichick took virtually no flak after the game for his unconventional choice and was instead hailed as an aggressive, brilliant game manager.
If Kevin Faulk had stumbled 2 feet forward, Belichick would be spoken about in those glowing tones today by virtually everyone now lining up to criticize him. That doesn't make his decision correct or incorrect, any more so than Faulk's coming up short does. If Belichick's decision was wrong, it was wrong from the moment the play call went to Tom Brady. And with everything we know about the situation, it's impossible to say whether that was truly the case.
[quote=jjgold;5683305]I win again like usual
[/quote]
[quote=Whippit;7921056]miami won't lose a single eastern conference game through end of season[/quote]
Comment
feltball
SBR High Roller
09-07-08
106
#209
Lot of dummies outed in this thread. Math = Logic. Posters != Logic.
Comment
kp126
Restricted User
10-05-09
498
#210
a few points... obviously all these percentages and numbers dont mean much because as a bettor I usually look at all the numbers i can but they usually dont tell the story of the game. The idea of going for it on 4th down is not horrible because you can win the game right there but knowing that you must stop an offense that knows it is about to lose unless it goes 30 yards is something you must take into account. For anyone that says he didnt trust his d, he trusted them more than you probably think. He went for it on his own 28 knowing that if he didnt get it then his defense will have to come up big. Im pretty sure you have to trust your defense if you go for it.
You can argue this either way and their will never be a correct answer... this thread might go into a massive post count