Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Sporting Events Discussion centered around sporting events.

View Poll Results: Do you AGREE with Belichick's 4th down attempt?
Yes 344 64.06%
No 193 35.94%
Voters: 537. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-27-2009, 04:31 PM   #1076
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Segal's Dad View Post
sure it's been said, but it doesn't surprise me that the majority of 2p2'ers agree with the call being that this is a website that is centered around poker and other casino games.

Don't you leave yourself more outs by punting the football.

Going for it = 1 out with 1 card to come

Punting = at least 6 outs with 1 card to come
Going for it on 4th down is like flipping. If they miss it, they are most certainly going to lose. If they make it, they will certainly win. Flipping is fine if you think you are going to have a disadvantage otherwise. However, Pats would have been heavy favorites to stop Colts from driving the length of the field for a TD, and that is why this is a bad move.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 04:54 PM   #1077
willie24
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

so you think the colts score from the 30 100% of the time but score from their own 35 less than 50% of the time? hmmm
willie24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 10:12 PM   #1078
Steven Segal's Dad
old hand
 
Steven Segal's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Location:Location
Posts: 1,320
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp View Post
You should apologize to everyone for this.
Hey I get my gamble on like everyone else, but uhhh...I'm all about having more outs, ya know?


Poker Player's Analysis > Rocket Scientist's Analysis of this 4th and 1 dilemma
Steven Segal's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 10:21 PM   #1079
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by willie24 View Post
so you think the colts score from the 30 100% of the time but score from their own 35 less than 50% of the time? hmmm
That analysis cracks me up. Most people who say punt claim Peyton will drive it in for a TD an overwhelming % of the time from the 30 yet for some reason this doesn't apply if you punt and he has to go 30-40 more yards on top of that. Of course their logic is that Peyton scored on the drive in the game so the odds are 100% from there but the Colts only score say 35% from some other distance. Que?
vixticator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 10:25 PM   #1080
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

tAaZoIT says to choose arguments with idiots
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 10:47 PM   #1081
Shoe
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,874
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

I love how so many people act like they have the divine answer to this question based on stats provided by some randomNFLsite.com like their stats are the sole authority that analyzed this situation perfectly.
Shoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:35 PM   #1082
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe View Post
I love how so many people act like they have the divine answer to this question based on stats provided by some randomNFLsite.com like their stats are the sole authority that analyzed this situation perfectly.
A long history of failure continues. Are you really arguing a Phone Booth-esque position?
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:41 PM   #1083
Shoe
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,874
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp View Post
A long history of failure continues. Are you really arguing a Phone Booth-esque position?
A long history of insulting based on false assumptions continues.
Shoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:43 PM   #1084
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe View Post
A long history of insulting based on false assumptions continues.
I think you pretty well humiliated yourself the last time you spoke of Bayesian probability in a thread like this, but far be it from me to deprive a man of the rope with which to hang himself.

So... What are you using to substantiate your opinion?
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:44 PM   #1085
Shoe
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,874
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp View Post
I think you pretty well humiliated yourself the last time you spoke of Bayesian probability in a thread like this, but far be it from me to deprive a man of the rope with which to hang himself.

So... What are you using to substantiate your opinion?
A lot of big words?
Shoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:48 PM   #1086
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe View Post
A lot of big words?
I'm sure tuq will get confused here at some point and ban me for trolling.

But really man?
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:49 PM   #1087
Shoe
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,874
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp View Post
I think you pretty well humiliated yourself the last time you spoke of Bayesian probability in a thread like this, but far be it from me to deprive a man of the rope with which to hang himself.

So... What are you using to substantiate your opinion?
To elaborate, I don't know nor care what this post means, although if I researched it I know the concepts would be completely elementary to me. All I was referring to was I have seen over 30 different sources quoted as the absolute truth since this play happened, and there are way too many variables involved for all of them to be accurate, or even for any single source to be completely correct.
Shoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 11:54 PM   #1088
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

The language was pretty rudimentary sans one word, which you should be familiar with considering the fact you ridiculed my probabilities previously, while also being absurdly incorrect.

But back to the topic at hand. Are you saying that the decision isn't correct and it could possibly be correct to punt... Or are you saying that the probabilities are not exact?

Both are loltarded for opposite reasons, though equally obvious.
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 12:05 AM   #1089
Shoe
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,874
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp View Post
The language was pretty rudimentary sans one word, which you should be familiar with considering the fact you ridiculed my probabilities previously, while also being absurdly incorrect.

But back to the topic at hand. Are you saying that the decision isn't correct and it could possibly be correct to punt... Or are you saying that the probabilities are not exact?

Both are loltarded for opposite reasons, though equally obvious.
I don't remember ever ridiculing your probabilities, but give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

I don't have an opinion on the play right now, I just came in to comment at how LOL it is that people are so ready to quote sources from some random.com as absolute fact without doing any research themselves. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing this, I've just seen so many different sources thrown out by so many different people, that's all I meant.
Shoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 12:09 AM   #1090
Etats360
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Etats360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,758
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

I haven't read this whole thread. but you guys DO realize that most sportscasters just mindlessly read whatever is on the teleprompter, right? That just because someone says they don't agree with Belichick doesn't necessarily mean they actually don't agree with it?
Etats360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 12:11 AM   #1091
Dudd
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: pm karak w/ ffb questions
Posts: 54,252
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Come on, you don't really expect me to believe that Trent Dilfer can read that smoothly without stuttering?
Dudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 02:00 AM   #1092
Thremp
banned
 
Thremp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I lurve bewbs
Posts: 36,452
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe View Post
I don't remember ever ridiculing your probabilities, but give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=4394

When you spout off all the obvious trollz and outright lies that you do... I can understand how its difficult to keep track of what you say.

Quote:
I don't have an opinion on the play right now, I just came in to comment at how LOL it is that people are so ready to quote sources from some random.com as absolute fact without doing any research themselves. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing this, I've just seen so many different sources thrown out by so many different people, that's all I meant.
So you really don't know if its absolute fact or not, nor are you able to form an opinion of such research. Instead you seem to suggest that it cannot be correct purely because its from a website. Furthermore, you state that no one is actually doing this... so wtf are you actually posting about?

Need more rope?
Thremp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 03:03 AM   #1093
willie24
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

the formula that tells us whether or not the decision was correct is simple, obvious and indisputable. there is no need to quote any website.

the probabilities we plug into the formula are high-liklihood-of-error estimates. there are many variables and any one guess by anyone or any website could be significantly wrong. however, there is no reasonable set of estimates i have seen or can imagine that would lead to the conclusion that punting is correct. there is that much room for error.

in fact, most of the estimates given by those who favor punting suggest that going for it is correct by a long ways.
willie24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 03:12 AM   #1094
willie24
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,565
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

and besides, even if the actual probabilities were so drastically different from the norm that punting was correct, in order to criticize BB we have to assume that he should have known that.

how can we possibly know that they were that far off the norm and assume that BB should have known this when we ourselves admit such a high liklihood of error?

when you criticize him you either a) are saying that you knew something BB didn't know about the pats situation being drastically different from similar historical situations or b)you make no sense.

i'm pretty sure most of the TV idiots fall under b. i would respect you more if you tried to argue a, despite it seeming incredibly far-fetched.

Last edited by willie24; 11-28-2009 at 03:27 AM.
willie24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2009, 11:30 PM   #1095
RonMexico
Pooh-Bah
 
RonMexico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,323
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

I hate beating a dead horse, but one thing that was incorrectly addressed repeatedly was the handling of the play between 3rd and 4th down. Belichick clearly states that they already made the decision to go on 4th, but that a "miscommunication" resulted in the punt team starting onto the field, which subsequently caused the offense to run off the field. I interpret this as "somebody ****ed up and assumed we were punting."

See 7:10 in this interview.
RonMexico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2009, 03:38 AM   #1096
ArcticKnight
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ArcticKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Overthinkingville
Posts: 19,544
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Dwans Son View Post
Going for it on 4th down is like flipping. If they miss it, they are most certainly going to lose. If they make it, they will certainly win. Flipping is fine if you think you are going to have a disadvantage otherwise. However, Pats would have been heavy favorites to stop Colts from driving the length of the field for a TD, and that is why this is a bad move.
A coinflip? How about this. You and I have a gunfight. We each shoot one bullet at a time, and if we hit, it is fatal. We take turns until one of us is dead.

I'll give you way better than coin-flip odds. My accuracy is only 45%, and yours is 60%. You have way better odds.

I get to go first........... you still like your 60% versus my 45%?
ArcticKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2009, 09:30 AM   #1097
Salva135
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Salva135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,045
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

To me, the problem with using percentages in these situations to identify an optimal outcome is that in football, sample sizes are too small for coaches to utilize these decisions often enough to prove themselves as "long term" winners. You only play 16 games a season in the NFL, and each game is crucial. This call came as a result of a perfect storm of conditions - a game on the line against a long-time rival, a HoF opposing QB who has eaten up your defense in the 4th qtr, and a head coach with arguably the most job stability in the league and hence the leeway to try something like that.

To anyone saying this was a watershed moment in enlightening coaches on 4th down strategy, you won't see any change in coache's strategy in the NFL, at least anytime soon. We won't see a playcall like that again for a while.
Salva135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2009, 12:50 PM   #1098
RacersEdge
banned
 
RacersEdge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bluff City
Posts: 14,289
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salva135 View Post
To me, the problem with using percentages in these situations to identify an optimal outcome is that in football, sample sizes are too small for coaches to utilize these decisions often enough to prove themselves as "long term" winners. You only play 16 games a season in the NFL, and each game is crucial.
But they are using percentages in their head anyway - they just aren't calculating them right.

And the only people they would "look better" to by using the wrong percentages are people who also use the wrong percentages.
RacersEdge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 03:42 PM   #1099
Phone Booth
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,366
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudd View Post
Hmm, except for the length, sounds like Gladwell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vhawk01 View Post
lol thats exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus View Post
I think Phone Booth needs to read "Fooled by Randomness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by vhawk01 View Post
Man, thats a MUCH better comparison than Gladwell, thats EXACTLY who PB reminds me of. In basically every way.
It's hilarious that I'm being compared to best-selling authors as some kind of an insult. Either way, I think his point was that Taleb's book contradicts what I was saying. Our viewpoints couldn't be further apart. Taleb is always talking about how everyone is doing it all wrong - I'm talking about how everyone is doing it all right. He's generally right when he's talking about the unknowability of things, but appears completely oblivious about the fact that decisions have to be made. Taleb largely bases his arguments on the fact that people say stupid stuff. And on tasks that our intuition isn't trained for, we do stupid stuff. But human competence can't be judged by human communication alone. There's no reason for our beliefs or statements to be correct - what does correctness even mean? - they merely need to facilitate advantageous behavior. Nor can human competence be judged by our incompetence at tasks that we haven't learned how to perform.

It's interesting, then, that most of you are jeering at the "incorrectness" of journalists, casual fans, etc, as though that is the criteria by which human communication is judged, yet when questioned, are willing to acknowledge that you don't care about correctness - what matters to you are whether people are being nice to you, whether people are framing things in ways you can understand (willie25), whether engaging in this particular conversation is EV (Thremp), whether the conversation is entertaining - in short, the metrics by which conventional sports bar talk is largely superior to the sports statnerd analysis you worship. When outnerded, you're just as likely as the sports bar drunk to want to change the context away from discussion about correctness.

Thremp - because he's so transparently self-conscious - demonstrates this well. When he notices people who are wrong in ways that enable him to tell them how wrong they are (so that he can pwn or whatever), the argument is about correctness. When this isn't possible, either due to his limited rhetorical skills, poor initial argument, etc (he enjoys "pwning" far too much for this to ever be a matter of motivation), he whines about everything else, as though the correctness of his statement is immaterial at this point. If I'm wrong about this, what explains the harshness on Steven Segal's Dad and Shoe?
Phone Booth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 04:03 PM   #1100
Phone Booth
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,366
Re: Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vhawk01 View Post
I think it would end up about 1400 pages, would delineate a bunch of trivially true things that no one (not even VanVeen or PB) adhere to rigorously, and would be justified with some handwaving and a paucity of the data required to bridge the gap from coffee-shop conjecture to real-world, life applicability.
I agree that most things I write here are trivially true - it's just that a lot of people are emotionally averse to them. This is true of nearly any wisdom - it's obvious if you look at it from the right angle or its applicability in situations that don't involve your emotions. The rest of what you wrote is garbled nonsense - it doesn't make any sense to adhere rigorously to statements (statements are not rules or methodologies; strict adherence makes you dogmatic) and trivially true things are trivially true because they don't need much justification. Calling someone's arguments both trivially true and insufficiently justified is like calling a girl a fat, anorexic twig.
Phone Booth is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive