When Tampering w/ a Titan of Probabilities; The Bill Comes Due, Always | Bills @ Titans MNF

[phillycavsfan]

I suggest you read properly.

The fact you keep going on about what happens in overtime actually adds weight to my argument.

It's not my fault you keep repeating the same mistake.

BTW, let's just say Allen gets the first down but not a touchdown there. Buffalo would call a timeout ASAP, so you'd still have 8-10 seconds left and no timeouts. That would still give Allen 1 shot to score a quick passing TD and still end the game without giving the ball back. If that fails, then we finally kick the FG.

I do not, under any circumstances, want to give the ball back to Tennessee, and a coin flip at the start of overtime is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets. That is where you and I differ. They scored on 6 straight possessions before that 4th down. Henry only gets stronger as a game progresses. Tannenhill and AJ Brown were killing the Buffalo secondary.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It's not my fault you keep repeating the same mistake.

It's your fault you're unwilling to use basic reading comprehension, because if you did, you'd realize I've debunked your position.

BTW, let's just say Allen gets the first down but not a touchdown there. Buffalo would call a timeout ASAP, so you'd still have 8-10 seconds left and no timeouts. That would still give Allen 1 shot to score a quick passing TD and still end the game without giving the ball back. If that fails, then we finally kick the FG.

Here's the problem with this:

Bills were unlikely to score a touchdown on that drive (again, mathematically, and in terms of real play; they're one of the worst redzone teams this season and they completed under 50% of their redzone opportunities in this game).

Therefore, the most likely outcome of that drive was going to be a field goal opportunity. So, because the most likely outcome of that drive was a field goal opportunity, you take that opportunity at its highest probability. Most-likely outcome + highest probability = taking the field goal on that play. Opting to go for the first down, and taking the field goal a couple plays later is the lowest probability of the most-likely outcome. As you witnessed, they went for the first down and didn't make it; going for the first down and making it was never guaranteed. Taking the field goal on that play was guaranteed though.

In the most-likely outcome [taking a field goal, on whichever play], the game still goes to overtime. This is why you harping on about overtime doesn't matter in this equation, because the most-likely outcome is always going to end in the Bills needing to take a field goal.

Here's the three scenarios from which we're arguing from:

You arguing for them going for the first down is putting faith in the least-likely outcome (which is scoring a touchdown)
You arguing for them going for the first down is putting faith in the most-likely outcome with the lowest probability (getting a field goal a couple plays later)
Me arguing for them going for the field goal on that play is putting faith in the most-likely outcome at its highest probability.

This is why I'm of the belief that going for the first down was the wrong option, because it had the worst odds of them winning the game.

 

[chkmeout]

FOH with the stats bullshyt, people...

You hit that FG and battle it out in overtime.

Bills QB almost got his back broken on the play before...

Bills coach just gave up and tried to mask it with a "gutsy" call

 

[ghostwriterx]

The problem with this is, despite the conversion probability being 75%, they don't score any points by simply making the first down. It all resets, and they essentially have 1-2 plays left before they have to take the field goal.

75% probability of making the first down
98% probability of making the FG on that play

30% probability of making the first down, and then scoring a TD on the following 1-2 plays.

Because even if they ended up making the first down, the higher probability outcome on the next play would be them not getting a touchdown, and then having to settle for a FG, anyway. Basically, they risked a 75% play to end up doing the same action [kicking a FG] that they could've done on the initial play. Why would you take that risk? It's simply not worth it. You simulate that drive, and the majority of the time it's going to result in a field goal opportunity, whether it be on the initial 4th down play, or two plays later when time runs out.

You're 100% guaranteed a field-goal opportunity on that play, whereas going for the 1st down only gives you a 75% of having that same field-goal opportunity.

Lol what are you talking about? The Bills kicking a fg after converting is ALREADY accounted for in those percentages. That's why they're not 75% to win.

Not to mention, the Bills had redzone difficulties all game (completing less than 50% of their opportunities), and the Titans were giving them nothing up the middle. By the drive-percentage probabilities AND how the game was flowing for them, the right call was to take the field goal on that play.

And there's this too:

This is even more reason to try and give yourself an opportunity to win in regulation. With everything equal you're 42% to win in OT, and that percentage goes down significantly given our ineffieciency in the red zone and our defense turning into a sieve in the 2nd half.

The field goal draws the game level; the field goal is actual points. Simply picking up that first down doesn't equate to points; the first down isn't actual points. It would be entirely different if that half-a-yard was all they needed to score points. This is why I say, the most likely outcome of that drive was going to end up in a field goal opportunity, whether that be on the initial play, or if they did pick up that half-a-yard, needing to take the field goal two plays later.

This is why it made the most sense to take the the field goal on that play because that opportunity was a 100% given, whereas they only had a 75%< probability of getting that field goal opportunity again. Why risk that, when they were most likely going to take a field goal, eventually?

It made the most mathematical sense to pull the trigger on the field goal on that play.

Now, in terms of the context of how the game was going, and how the Bills had been performing in the redzone this season, that too indicated that taking the field goal on that play was the right move. The Bills are one of the worse redzone teams this season and they completed less than 50% of their redzone opportunities in this game. Basically, they were unlikely to score a touchdown on that drive, which again, means they would've still ended up taking the field goal a couple plays later.

In terms of the most-likely result of the drive:

100% field goal opportunity on that play
75%< field goal opportunity a couple plays later.

It's a no-brainer.

So all of a sudden you don't under the concept of expected value? Going for it on 4th down there has an expected value HIGHER than 3 points. Which is why the winning percentage is so much higher than kicking it and going to OT. You're also making a mistake in your assumptions on possible outcomes of going for it. It's not first down or turn it over on downs, it's first down, TD or turn it over on downs.


The math isn't close on this, you're really just incapable of ever acknowleging your wrong. Cognitive Dissonance is amazing.

 

[NerdNash]

You play to win the game

 

[Trav]

Not to mention, the Bills had redzone difficulties all game (completing less than 50% of their opportunities), and the Titans were giving them nothing up the middle. By the drive-percentage probabilities AND how the game was flowing for them, the right call was to take the field goal on that play.

And there's this too:

Lotta facts up in here

 

[broller]

And making that first down doesn't win the game. Or do you seem to think getting the first down wins the game?

I wish y'all nxggas would stop it with this nonsense. Stop trying to project your lack of inability to see the entire picture onto me.

This is because you're not interpreting my post properly.

What happens in overtime is inconsequential. The most-likely outcome of that drive is a field goal opportunity, because all things considered, the Bills would've unlikely scored a touchdown. Which means, the Bills were most-likely going to come to a dead-end of needing to take a field goal on that drive, which means, they're still going to have to go to overtime, regardless.

This is why because the most-likely scenario was going to lead to a field-goal opportunity, you take that opportunity when it's at its highest probability, which was the initial play, because that opportunity was 100% guaranteed. Going for the first down on that play takes that 100% field goal opportunity away and the probability drops down to 75%>.

You simulate that drive 10x and the Bills score a touchdown around about three times (that's being generous given their lack of redzone success this season and in that game), and those aren't great enough odds when you're given a 100% opportunity of a field goal. 10 out of 10 times you'll be given a field goal opportunity in this simulation, but the probability either gets taken away completely if you don't make the first down (75% chance), or if you do make the first down it decreases with every down. Going for the first down was an unnecessary risk when they were most-likely going to need to take a field goal eventually.

How many other ways do I need to explain this before it's understood?

Lol at saying what happens in overtime is inconsequential. nikka, teams are trying to win games. The fukk you mean "what happens in overtime is inconsequential"?

The fact is by going for it, the Bills increased their likelihood of getting a chance to win the game and not have to rely on luck ie. A coin toss going their way.

 

[broller]

Lol what are you talking about? The Bills kicking a fg after converting is ALREADY accounted for in those percentages. That's why they're not 75% to win.



This is even more reason to try and give yourself an opportunity to win in regulation. With everything equal you're 42% to win in OT, and that percentage goes down significantly given our ineffieciency in the red zone and our defense turning into a sieve in the 2nd half.


So all of a sudden you don't under the concept of expected value? Going for it on 4th down there has an expected value HIGHER than 3 points. Which is why the winning percentage is so much higher than kicking it and going to OT. You're also making a mistake in your assumptions on possible outcomes of going for it. It's not first down or turn it over on downs, it's first down, TD or turn it over on downs.


The math isn't close on this, you're really just incapable of ever acknowleging your wrong. Cognitive Dissonance is amazing.

Facts. That cat is a fool.

 

[ghostwriterx]

Facts. That cat is a fool.

He negged me and everything.

 

[broller]

He negged me and everything.

childish

 

[Trav]

 

[broller]

Well this time in the same situation the Bills kicked and then went into OT and lost to a colder offense than Tennessee's

 

[SwizzLake]

Well this time in the same situation the Bills kicked and then went into OT and lost to a colder offense than Tennessee's

They should have tried to go for that 4th down and goal to win it...sometimes you have to play aggressive like that.

 

[broller]

They should have tried to go for that 4th down and goal to win it...sometimes you have to play aggressive like that.

I agree. Cacs like @Gil Scott-Heroin think otherwise though