The math behind going for 2 when down by 14 late in game and scoring a TD.

[Moogy]

He's obviously talking about it happening when the dealer had a 7+ showing.

Holy crap, I totally misread that article ... I blame it on the bad cold I'm battling, or the sun was in my eyes, or something ... yeah, it says "dealer's face card," not a 3 ... wow. My bad.

 

[kgilbert78]

My favorite is still the “it’s really hard to beat a team 3 times in a season”.

You know what’s even harder? Beating a team that already beat you twice.

Nova did it in 85

 

[Midnighter]

A lot of people freaked out a few years ago when Doug Pederson started doing this. Now, it's becoming more common as coaches accept it (TB did it on Saturday), but I still see folks protesting. I heard a good explanation of the math today that hopefully makes more sense.

First, it's only valid if your team is able to get a 2nd TD without the other team scoring, so that is the assumed scenario. Also, for simplification purposes, assume that an XP is 100% probability and 2Pt conv is 50% (both are slightly less but that isn't too critical). Also must assume that winning in OT is close to 50%, so this may not be applicable if your team is a heavy favorite.

Option 1: Kick the 2 XPs, go to OT. Probably of winning = 50%

Option 2: Go for 2 on the first TD. There is a 50% chance that you win the game right then and there (remember, we assumed that you will score again and kick an XP).
If you miss it, you still have a 50% chance to make the 2Pt conv on the second TD and then a 50% chance to win in OT. The probably of this scenario playing out is 50% (that you miss the 1st 2pt conv) X 50% (that you make the 2nd 2pt conv) X 50% (that you win in OT) = 12.5%.

Going for 2pt conversion leading to a total probability of winning the game = 50% (make the 1st 2pt conv) + 12.5% (miss 1st 2pt conv, but make 2nd and win in OT) = 62.5%

Seems like a hell of a lot of assumptions to make this a ‘no brainer’ precisely because of the things a scenario or formula can’t quantify, and those are momentum swings and psychological impact of failing.

How do you guarantee the other team won’t score? You have to assume in a game you are losing by two TD’s that at a minimum, the other team has shown it can score. And if it’s late? You basically do what you can to win; I’d like to see some numbers/probability on going for two after scoring your first TD in an away game where you’re favored by a single digit.

 

[NewEra 2014]

Old post, but I'll respond ... the thing there is that Norv was making the correct move, and the "Hopper" fellow is a mathematical idiot. You never hit a 16 when the dealer is showing 3. It's not even a close decision. If you were at a table filled with non-mouth-breathers and a guy like Hopper pulled up and started hitting 16 on a dealer 3, he'd get run off in short order.

You are so smart. Still an ahole, but really smart.

 

[PSUSignore]

Old post, but I'll respond ... the thing there is that Norv was making the correct move, and the "Hopper" fellow is a mathematical idiot. You never hit a 16 when the dealer is showing 3. It's not even a close decision. If you were at a table filled with non-mouth-breathers and a guy like Hopper pulled up and started hitting 16 on a dealer 3, he'd get run off in short order.

The article says he stayed on 16 vs. a dealer's face card which is the wrong move, supposed to hit there. Also you are incorrect, you'd hit a soft 16 against a dealer's 3.

 

[Moogy]

The article says he stayed on 16 vs. a dealer's face card which is the wrong move, supposed to hit there. Also you are incorrect, you'd hit a soft 16 against a dealer's 3.

I already posted that I misread the article … and if they were talking about a soft hand, it’d state as such.

 

[Grant Green]

Seems like a hell of a lot of assumptions to make this a ‘no brainer’ precisely because of the things a scenario or formula can’t quantify, and those are momentum swings and psychological impact of failing.

How do you guarantee the other team won’t score? You have to assume in a game you are losing by two TD’s that at a minimum, the other team has shown it can score. And if it’s late? You basically do what you can to win; I’d like to see some numbers/probability on going for two after scoring your first TD in an away game where you’re favored by a single digit.

First, you should read through this thread as responses by Erial and myself will cover some of these.

On momentum, you are assuming this is a one way street - what if your team goes for 2 and misses, they will lose momentum. Well, what if they make it? Doesn't that give them more momentum? This impact cancels out. Also, if your team is down 2 TDs late in the game and you just drove to get one of them, does missing the 2 point really have that much impact to the team psyche? You still have a chance to tie the game with an 8 point play! Plenty of incentive.

You ask, what if the other team scores? Meaningless. If you had gone for the traditional extra point instead of going for 2 and the other team scores then it didn't matter if you went for 2 or 1. The parameters of this scenarios is that your team will be able to score 2 more TDs without the other team scoring, so a score by the other team is not even part of this scenario anyway.

What are the other assumptions? The math is really simple as I have shown. It shows an edge of 62.5% to win the game by going for 2 as opposed to a 50% chance by going for 1. Yes, the math is simplified on purpose so these numbers are not precise. However, 12.5% is an ENORMOUS statistical edge (this is what I think most people are missing). All factors discussed throughout this thread can make subtle differences to the percentages, but none are enough to overcome a 12.5% edge. None.

One last word. There were 2 NFL games last year where this strategy was successful and the team won. One was the GB Packers who made the playoffs by one game.

 

[PSUJam]