You guys are allergic to math

[balbomb]

I still think you don't give him a short field early in the game. I like going for it on 4th, just not to that extreme even if the math favored it by only 1% against league history. Add Mahomes and the field position and it's a bad choice

You are just being limited by your own bias. It’s fine, it happens with a ton of new things that are unconventional. But you can’t just show incorrect math like you did in your first paragraph and then say I just don’t like giving him a short field. Sure that is not fun, but neither is punting and having him drive the length of the field. All you try to do is choose the most plus EV decision every time and clearly going for it isn’t even close

[balbomb]

Somewhere in the roots of this whole analytics argument is a reasonable estimate of the probability of success for a two point conversion.
I think JH and his analytics department have over estimated this success rate for his offense.
They need better two point plays and execution for the "analytics" argument to make sense.

They should definitely not have Hollywood on the field on two point conversions, too small to block, too small to throw a fade or back shoulder to, too small to make a high leaping grab in the back of the endzone… but there he was doing nothing and challenging no one in the JH/ Roman 2 point offense.

I talked about this in the other thread and it’s difficult for people to grasp, but going for two on the one yard line or every other situation we went for it on Sunday are so +ev that the play call doesn’t matter. There is never going to be a situation where it’s EV neutral to not run an nfl play on the one yard line for two points.

Now clearly could we argue they could run better plays to improve EV? Sure that’s a great argument to have, but the decision to go for it is so game theory optimal you could run the most hated least successful play in your playbook and it would still be better than kicking in all of the scenarios last Sunday.

[21xxxv]

I like the common sense analytic metric.

[BearArms]

You are just being limited by your own bias. It’s fine, it happens with a ton of new things that are unconventional. But you can’t just show incorrect math like you did in your first paragraph and then say I just don’t like giving him a short field. Sure that is not fun, but neither is punting and having him drive the length of the field. All you try to do is choose the most plus EV decision every time and clearly going for it isn’t even close

I still say the EV for Mahomes starting from the Ravens 38 is too high(is love to see someone do it) compared to the Ravens getting the first down at their own 40

[BcRaven]

I was told by Bc to stop by and receive lessons in remedial math. Where do we start?

LOL K C, you're taking this like a trooper Good man... Bc

[Paintballguy]

I talked about this in the other thread and it’s difficult for people to grasp, but going for two on the one yard line or every other situation we went for it on Sunday are so +ev that the play call doesn’t matter. There is never going to be a situation where it’s EV neutral to not run an nfl play on the one yard line for two points.

Now clearly could we argue they could run better plays to improve EV? Sure that’s a great argument to have, but the decision to go for it is so game theory optimal you could run the most hated least successful play in your playbook and it would still be better than kicking in all of the scenarios last Sunday.

People are too focused on the results instead of the +ev calls.

It’s all about giving yourself the best possible odds of success. Making +EV calls will not always result in success but it will always put you in a better chance to win than consistently making -EV calls.

I feel like if you’ve seriously played poker or even black jack, it’s very easy to grasp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The Excellector]

I talked about this in the other thread and it’s difficult for people to grasp, but going for two on the one yard line or every other situation we went for it on Sunday are so +ev that the play call doesn’t matter. There is never going to be a situation where it’s EV neutral to not run an nfl play on the one yard line for two points.

Now clearly could we argue they could run better plays to improve EV? Sure that’s a great argument to have, but the decision to go for it is so game theory optimal you could run the most hated least successful play in your playbook and it would still be better than kicking in all of the scenarios last Sunday.

When you start talking in absolutes, that's where you get in trouble. Because the play calls have a huge impact on the decision itself.

[balbomb]

When you start talking in absolutes, that's where you get in trouble. Because the play calls have a huge impact on the decision itself.

Typically you are right about absolutes, but in this case math allows me the honor. There is simply not one play call in any nfl playbook that will result in negative EV in this position. There are plenty of reasons we can all give that would increase the EV further, but they are all going to show profit.

[BearArms]

[QUOTE=Paintballguy;1747282]People are too focused on the results instead of the +ev calls.

It’s all about giving yourself the best possible odds of success. Making +EV calls will not always result in success but it will always put you in a better chance to win than consistently making -EV calls.

I feel like if you’ve seriously played poker or even black jack, it’s very easy to grasp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUO
Poker is a perfect example of why there are other variables that can affect your decision, not just straight EV.
The numbers say you go all in at the River, but, the player still in against you is showing a tell that means he has a strong possibility of a stronger hand

The tell has nothing to do with Pokers EV. Playing the player is equally important

[BigPlayReceiver]

I like the common sense analytic metric.

We're all quite comfortable with the familiar, and almost never with the misunderstood.

[Kyle Cactus]

Typically you are right about absolutes, but in this case math allows me the honor. There is simply not one play call in any nfl playbook that will result in negative EV in this position. There are plenty of reasons we can all give that would increase the EV further, but they are all going to show profit.

QB Kneel?

[Kyle Cactus]

Poker is a perfect example of why there are other variables that can affect your decision, not just straight EV.
The numbers say you go all in at the River, but, the player still in against you is showing a tell that means he has a strong possibility of a stronger hand

The tell has nothing to do with Pokers EV. Playing the player is equally important

That's a great example, but I still take some issue with it. I think humans are susceptible to overestimating their ability to "play the player". I bet most would be better off strictly playing the EV than trying to judge for themselves when they are correctly reading their opponent.