78 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

BTW, no one decision or one play is a reason a football game is won or lost.

 

But again, when you are a team struggling to overcome any mistake and you are playing close games, taking points off the board and giving the team points greatly hurts your chances of winning.

[SportsGuy]

Also...Mackus..I don't look at being a slave to numbers as necessarily a bad thing. End of the day, if the numbers say the odds are in your favor, then it's hard to say you made a wrong decision.

I just think that gam situations, how you are playing, who you are playing, etc...hold more weight than the odds in some cases.

[mweb08]

I'm still not sure how the game situation dictated that 3 points would be enough and there wasn't much point in trying for 7. But I guess I lack those physic powers. And Nickle, what are these situations where you should fold aces pre-flop?

[Pedro Cerrano]

It's like poker. You know sometimes it's correct to fold Aces preflop. You know you always have the best odds of winning a hand preflop but there are situations where it is correct to fold them preflop.

You can sit at my table any day lol. You literally can't have a better starting hand.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Agreed with Chris - Thanks for bringing the numbers to the debate, Mackus - very informative and interesting. Weber deserves some credit too as he was on top of the 4th down numbers early on in this too.

 

Anywho, after thinking about it more, I still don't think it was the right decision to go for it on 4th & goal last week. The numbers are the numbers, but in a 16-game season, with a very limited sample, the numbers won't necessarily balance out (or have the chance to). Also, end of the day, it's about what our chances were of converting, not what the league's numbers are. Bottom line - we had next to no chance at converting, because we knew we were running (so did Green Bay), we weren't running for squat, and it just wasn't going to happen.

 

So I guess, as DJ astutely pointed out last week, I'm more not for the tactic in this case than the strategy. He's right. Going for it there isn't indefensible by any stretch - that play call - and that's what matters here, IMHO - is not defensible.

[Matt]

No offense, but calling it inarguably the right decision means I would never hire you as an NFL HC. You're being a slave to the numbers.

 

 

It's like poker. You know sometimes it's correct to fold Aces preflop. You know you always have the best odds of winning a hand preflop but there are situations where it is correct to fold them preflop. The analogy isn't really comparable  but it's the first example I could think of where doing something that statistically is right isn't always the best real word decision.

What?

[Mike in STL]

The only time I'm folding Aces pre flop is if it were the very first hand in the main event. Not wasting 10k on the first hand of a week long tournament. Since ill never be there, I'll never have to worry about folding aces preflop.

[bnickle]

The aces comment. A few things

 

A. You are playing in a satellite tourney, meaning a certain number of people from the tourney move on to a bigger tourney. Say you are 2nd in chip count and they take the top 3 of 9 at a table. If it's relatively late with a bunch of shorter stacks around and a player in front of you that has a threatening stack size moves all in(whether close to yours or say the guy who has more than you) you're supposed to fold. The object is to move on to the next tournament.It doesn't matter if you finish 1st,2nd, or 3rd. Just move on. SO you don't take that risk of getting sucked out on. You conserve your stack. This is universally considered the right move to fold aces.

 

 

B.  Now,  lets say you are playing in a reg tournament. It's early, you still have a lot of play left, you have an above average stack and for some reason you have 4 or 5 people move all in in front of you. Yes, you still have the single highest odds of the 5 people with your aces but collectively your % is relatively low depending on exactly what they have. No matter what they have you're still collectively under 50% to win. Now, yes the reward is that if your aces hold up you get a huge amount of chips and that's a factor that makes it a real decision. It makes it conceivable to go ahead and push all in.  Some would still push and it isn't necessarily  a bad decision. However, there are other factors. Remember, its early in the tournament. You still have a lot of play left. Lets say you have been at the table long enough to know you are playing with a bunch of people that are bad. You feel like it isn't necessary to take that risk because over the course of the rest of the day you feel like you can outplay the rest of the people at the table. This would be a scenario where folding with the plans of building up a stack by outplaying inferior players and getting your money all in with higher % odds.

 

 

The B scenario above is probably more comparable to the decision to go for it on 4th down. Yes, there is an argument to be made for both sides. You take in the % but you also take in real world situations. In my case in B scenario there is a very good chance I fold because of the real world scenario. I feel like I don't need to take the risk even though I know I still have the best odds of winning a huge pot. I feel like I can keep my above average stack and find a better spot to beat up on inferior opponents. In the game, yes I factor in what you think the % are of making it, the difference between 3 points and 7, but I ultimately conclude that the game appears that it'll be tight enough that 3 points is crucial and I'm not going to take the risk. Both take in the decision makers feel for the situation and some forethought that go beyond the pure numbers.

[PD24]

No offense, but calling it inarguably the right decision means I would never hire you as an NFL HC. You're being a slave to the numbers.

 

 

It's like poker. You know sometimes it's correct to fold Aces preflop. You know you always have the best odds of winning a hand preflop but there are situations where it is correct to fold them preflop. The analogy isn't really comparable  but it's the first example I could think of where doing something that statistically is right isn't always the best real word decision.

 

There's never a situation where you should fold pocket aces pre flop. Don't even try to argue me on that! 

[PD24]

Sorry Brandon. I didn't see your post explaining the 2 situations. Situation 1 I agree with but that is just a result of the tournament structure and at that point it isn't really poker strategy per-se, it's tournament strategy. That's a big difference.

And in your second scenario, one would never fold that in a cash game, which is what I would call real poker, even though I like playing tournaments better because it benefits my patience. But if you are at a table of 9 with 9 people all in and you have AA, obviously you are more likely to lose the hand than win, but you absolutely 100% push in 100% of the time. That's not an argument and if you disagree with that you shouldn't play poker and you're invited over to my house anytime. I'll send a limousine to get you and I'll have it catered  

 

And even in a reg tournament, unless it's late in the game and you are worried about payouts or making final table, you have to push with the aces. Trust me, I'm conservative and I can't stand getting sucked out on so I'm someone who would probably WANT to fold them, but there's no point in playing poker if you're going to play like that. 

[bnickle]

Sorry Brandon. I didn't see your post explaining the 2 situations. Situation 1 I agree with but that is just a result of the tournament structure and at that point it isn't really poker strategy per-se, it's tournament strategy. That's a big difference.

And in your second scenario, one would never fold that in a cash game, which is what I would call real poker, even though I like playing tournaments better because it benefits my patience. But if you are at a table of 9 with 9 people all in and you have AA, obviously you are more likely to lose the hand than win, but you absolutely 100% push in 100% of the time. That's not an argument and if you disagree with that you shouldn't play poker and you're invited over to my house anytime. I'll send a limousine to get you and I'll have it catered

 

And even in a reg tournament, unless it's late in the game and you are worried about payouts or making final table, you have to push with the aces. Trust me, I'm conservative and I can't stand getting sucked out on so I'm someone who would probably WANT to fold them, but there's no point in playing poker if you're going to play like that. 

I understand how poker is played. Was just making the point that there are rare scenarios, circumstances where folding aces is correct or defensible.

[PD24]

I understand how poker is played. Was just making the point that there are rare scenarios, circumstances where folding aces is correct or defensible.

 

I know you do. Sorry if that came across as arrogant! 

[mweb08]

The aces comment. A few things
 
A. You are playing in a satellite tourney, meaning a certain number of people from the tourney move on to a bigger tourney. Say you are 2nd in chip count and they take the top 3 of 9 at a table. If it's relatively late with a bunch of shorter stacks around and a player in front of you that has a threatening stack size moves all in(whether close to yours or say the guy who has more than you) you're supposed to fold. The object is to move on to the next tournament.It doesn't matter if you finish 1st,2nd, or 3rd. Just move on. SO you don't take that risk of getting sucked out on. You conserve your stack. This is universally considered the right move to fold aces.
 
 
B.  Now,  lets say you are playing in a reg tournament. It's early, you still have a lot of play left, you have an above average stack and for some reason you have 4 or 5 people move all in in front of you. Yes, you still have the single highest odds of the 5 people with your aces but collectively your % is relatively low depending on exactly what they have. No matter what they have you're still collectively under 50% to win. Now, yes the reward is that if your aces hold up you get a huge amount of chips and that's a factor that makes it a real decision. It makes it conceivable to go ahead and push all in.  Some would still push and it isn't necessarily  a bad decision. However, there are other factors. Remember, its early in the tournament. You still have a lot of play left. Lets say you have been at the table long enough to know you are playing with a bunch of people that are bad. You feel like it isn't necessary to take that risk because over the course of the rest of the day you feel like you can outplay the rest of the people at the table. This would be a scenario where folding with the plans of building up a stack by outplaying inferior players and getting your money all in with higher % odds.
 
 
The B scenario above is probably more comparable to the decision to go for it on 4th down. Yes, there is an argument to be made for both sides. You take in the % but you also take in real world situations. In my case in B scenario there is a very good chance I fold because of the real world scenario. I feel like I don't need to take the risk even though I know I still have the best odds of winning a huge pot. I feel like I can keep my above average stack and find a better spot to beat up on inferior opponents. In the game, yes I factor in what you think the % are of making it, the difference between 3 points and 7, but I ultimately conclude that the game appears that it'll be tight enough that 3 points is crucial and I'm not going to take the risk. Both take in the decision makers feel for the situation and some forethought that go beyond the pure numbers.

And those folds are based on numbers/odds. So that's not exactly a great example of going against the numbers.

[bnickle]

And those folds are based on numbers/odds. So that's not exactly a great example of going against the numbers.

Partially. Not completely. The first example, if you get a player heads up against you preflop with aces you are at least an 78% favorite against every other hand. Clearly the right decision statistically speaking is to push all in. Its the scenario that makes it the wrong decision to go all in.

 

 

The second scenario is certainly more about the odds. Yes, while having the best hand your still less than 50% to win against 4 or 5 players and again there is a real debate on it. The "feel"  or intangible part comes in with the evaluation of the other players at the table and whether or not you think you are better off not taking the risk.

 

 

Poker is so much about the numbers or odds. It's always going to be a factor for a good poker player. There are obviously other factors like instinct, feel, and situational awareness.

[mweb08]

Partially. Not completely. The first example, if you get a player heads up against you preflop with aces you are at least an 78% favorite against every other hand. Clearly the right decision statistically speaking is to push all in. Its the scenario that makes it the wrong decision to go all in.

 

 

The second scenario is certainly more about the odds. Yes, while having the best hand your still less than 50% to win against 4 or 5 players and again there is a real debate on it. The "feel"  or intangible part comes in with the evaluation of the other players at the table and whether or not you think you are better off not taking the risk.

 

 

Poker is so much about the numbers or odds. It's always going to be a factor for a good poker player. There are obviously other factors like instinct, feel, and situational awareness.

 

The first example is like if you're 4th and goal from the 1, up 6, with not much time left in the game. At that point, even with the numbers saying you're on average going to come away with more points going for it, it makes more sense to make it a 2 score game.

[bnickle]

The first example is like if you're 4th and goal from the 1, up 6, with not much time left in the game. At that point, even with the numbers saying you're on average going to come away with more points going for it, it makes more sense to make it a 2 score game.

The first thing I said was it wasn't an ideal analogy. I don't think your analogy is great either but then again the whole situation is in a lot of ways apples to oranges. Again, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind where when the stats heavily say you should do something that there can be other factors that come into play and can/should change your mind.

 

 

 

BTW...and this isn't necessarily directed at you but I think that a random playcall there was under 50% to succeed. Sure, we could have called a better play but it just felt like GB wasgoing to stop us more times than not no matter what the call was there.

[Mackus]

BTW...and this isn't necessarily directed at you but I think that a random playcall there was under 50% to succeed. Sure, we could have called a better play but it just felt like GB wasgoing to stop us more times than not no matter what the call was there.

 

Your numbers probably aren't too far off, though I don't think it's reasonable to suggest they were more than a few ticks under 50% (not that you're necessarily doing that).  2-point conversions are successful ~48% of the time.  Going from the 1 instead of the 2 should increase those odds, though I don't know exactly how much (found an ESPN article saying teams are 46/110 in recent years, which is 42%, which is surprising, though I don't know if they eliminated things that should be eliminated, like fake or busted FGs).  4th and short in general (specifically excluding goal-to-go situations for some reason) are successful about 63% of the time. 

 

The breakeven point where it makes sense statistically would be 43% (3/7), ignoring the chances of a botched FG or PAT.  Plus, even if you fail, you're more likely to get the ball back and score yourself on the next possession if the opponent starts on their own 1 compared to their own 20, so the true net break even percentage is likely even lower than that.  That 42% number over recent years makes it pretty much a tossup, the odds aren't really for or against you, but rather even.  It's like calling heads or tails on a coin toss.

 

If you think the odds of converting are higher than 42% (and I do as well as do think they were in that GB game situation), then save for rare circumstances, like late in a game where adding 3 guaranteed points takes it from a 1 to 2 possession game (or cuts it from a 2 to 1), or perhaps late in a first half where the silver lining of failing wouldn't be as beneficial, I think it makes plenty sense to be going for it on 4th and goal from the 1 instead of kicking it.

 

http://www.advancedn...or-2-point.html

http://www.sportsone...ticle/62665328/

[mweb08]

The first example is like if you're 4th and goal from the 1, up 6, with not much time left in the game. At that point, even with the numbers saying you're on average going to come away with more points going for it, it makes more sense to make it a 2 score game.

The first thing I said was it wasn't an ideal analogy. I don't think your analogy is great either but then again the whole situation is in a lot of ways apples to oranges. Again, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind where when the stats heavily say you should do something that there can be other factors that come into play and can/should change your mind.
 
 
 
BTW...and this isn't necessarily directed at you but I think that a random playcall there was under 50% to succeed. Sure, we could have called a better play but it just felt like GB wasgoing to stop us more times than not no matter what the call was there.

If you look at the links I posted in the other thread about going for it on 4th down, especially the calculator, you don't need to get the TD that close to half of the time for it to be mathematically a smart decision, when factoring in the opponents resulting field position.

[bnickle]

I don't disagree with either of you that statistically it was very reasonable to go for it on 4th. I can't say it was "correct"to go for it because I don't think it was the correct decision, but I understand that there is more than enough reason to support the decision.