There’s no probability model that would make sense for me personally. But then again i am not completely in tuned with everything in up-to-date tech wise.
For me its like probability playing cards. Just because I’m a 60/40 favorite in a particular spot doesn’t mean it makes sense for me to “go for it.” Because the result of that particular spot can end your tournament. No probability (not very accurately anyway) can predict what my opponent is going to do or what kind of day they are having (ability wise, mentality, or strategic). I’ll find a better probability spot to decide my “game.”
None of that has anything to do with going for it on 4th down. If he really did “got for it for the sake of being risky,” he would do it from our own side of the field in the middle of the 2nd quarter, or at other random times in the game. But he doesn’t, because the numbers don’t say he should.
The offense starts slow in half of the games putting it behind the 8 ball. It finishes slow in the other half. Going for it on 4th down because you have faith in your offense that is seriously inconsistent might not be best of odds. Faith is not science.
Look it’s his identity. He’s likely not change it. But the results speak for themselves so far.
We didn’t need a blocked FG to win though. That’s the whole reason he went for it. Because no matter what the Packers did on that short field, the game was still going to be in our hands with the ball afterwards.
I doubt that haha…but anything is possible! I’m not going to gamble in a tournament until i have to. Now if i think the field or this particular opponent is so good that 60/40 sounds like a good opportunity, I might take it. But I don’t need to gamble on those odds to make a run or win it.
Same thing goes for football. Its why you don’t see a team go for it as often in the 1st half in their own territory on 4th and inches. Probability says you will get it, but its not necessary to win that game.
Read my other post. Pick the FG or any one of another miscues. The Lions should have destroyed GB yesterday considering they had a mash unit out there. Everybody is blaming the defense for two seasons now. The defense holds the Pack to 17 points yesterday. Our inconsistent offense can’t somehow close out a game with multiple opportunities on a day where the D does their job. Some of them fourth down failures. Why are we even talking about 4th downs to begin with. The overall weekly “product” they put on the field up to now is not even playoff caliber ball.
I always play what I think are the odds. Of course in poker you don’t have all the info, but for instance in Blackjack… always double down against a 5/6 if I’m 11 or lower, always split aces, etc… Personally I always hit a 16 against a face card too, but I know that one’s more of a toss-up. But whatever I decide to do with those 50/50 calls, I try and do the same thing every time.
But yeah, if it’s 60/40 in my favor I’m going for it every single time. Process, not results.
When you put all your money in skilled players and don’t have contingency to spend money on your OL or plan for succession when players get injured then that’s your fault as a GM/coach too. You chose the situation you put your team in. Other teams have injuries as well. And GB had a ton of them yesterday. But we could barely beat them.
The lions spent a ton on those players so now they’re going to have to make a choice on how to pay La Porta this year or let him walk too. They’ve largely not addressed the defense issues with draft either.
I think a lot of coaches might love to have our skill players. I wonder what they might be able to do with them. Just a thought. How many teams do you know have all our skill players and a pro bowler in rags playing on their OL? Yet somehow some other team has one the SB the last 4 years.
Blackjack is by the book no matter what. There is no player element to factor in. Tournament poker is more like a football game in a sense that every decision matters towards the final result. If you played a 3 day poker tournament taking every 60/40 shot when it presented itself you would never win and would almost certainly be a losing player.
So you understand i get you and I’m on the same page. You want to flip a coin for $100 10 times and all i had to do was win 4 of those, I’m doing it every time. Or 10 numbers in a hat and i get 6 to your 4, same thing. That’s basically BJ. But poker and sports have other elements that as far as i know, can’t be measured accurately with probability alone. So a 60/40 shot doesn’t sound as appealing in those circumstances.
I really like most of your post, but probably disagree with this point
I think that philosophically the Lions treat every possession as if they have all four downs to work with, which reduces the pressure to convert 3rd downs. If it’s 3rd and 7 you can happily draw up a play that will get 5-10 yards most times, knowing that anything in that range keeps you alive
Well you can never truly know if it’s 60/40, but I would still go for it every single time tournament or not if I BELIEVED it to be 60/40. Yeah, you’re gonna lose 40% of those, but you’re gonna lose most tournaments anyway. The young turks that run roughshod over the tourney circuit nowadays are very aggressive.
Based on the fact they finished last in their own division last year. Based on the fact that they look only slightly better than last year at this time when they had a whole year to get better and the level of their current competition. As I said you have the rest of the season to see what they make of it. But I was literally having this same conversation last year with people on the forum who were so confident the problems would be fixed next week and then the week after that and then and then.
Let me put it back to you. Do you think the Lions are a playoff caliber team right now? If the season ended right now would they go far in the playoffs? How can you be so certain. On your vibes?
Tournament play has also moved away from Freezeout to now unlimited entry to inflate prizepools. There are benefits to playing “reckless” early as you can get eliminated 10 times and continue to re-enter. If you have a crazy bankroll this is beneficial as you are likely to run up a stack so big that it allows you to lose and not be KOed later. But that aggressive style changes after this period in a tournament ends. In fact, i bet it has become infinitely more rare for players to become winning players. The unlimited entry makes the guys who do it constantly only appear successful. As they do not track entries as more than singular. 60 entries in a 10 tournament span and you better have phenomenal results to stay in the black.
60/40 is not a great spot in tournament poker. A good player is not taking every 60/40 spot to its conclusion. It’s a losing proposition in a game of endurance/last man standing.
It has nothing to do with the tech. It has everything to do with “expected value,” and the more times you play the more the results match the probabilities.
Okay, here’s an example: the Monty Hall game. You are presented with 3 doors, one of which has been chosen at random to have a great prize behind it, and the other two have nothing. You pick a door. Monty Hall, the host, then opens one of the remaining doors, revealing a big pile of nothing. He then gives you the choice: Do you want to switch doors?
From an expected value perspective, there’s definitely a “correct” decision to make here, even though 1 out of 3 times you’ll end up with nothing. Play the game 9 times, you win 6 times. But most people only get to play once.
In this situation, you have no other information to go on, so you should always make the “correct” choice according to probability.
But what if there is more information at your disposal?
If no probability can predict the impact of the situation at the time, how do you choose? If you’re saying, “just choose conservatively,” you’re still making a choice that may not be the correct choice, because, as you say, you can’t predict what your opponent is going to do.
If, on the other hand, you do have a reasonable understanding of the situation (say by playing the game professionally for years, then coaching the game professionally for years), you take that understanding and assign a probability to it. You calculate. The head coach is in a much better position to evaluate “the flow” than any fan or announcer.
If you have respect for you opponent, you play to keep them from having their own choices to make. If you don’t respect your opponent, you let them have a go at it.
Likewise, if you have faith in yourself, you play to maximize your choices; there’s a reason why kicking is called the “mincing 'fraidy cat” move.
So there’s a method that Campbell is using, rooted in his experience – so it’s baked into his subconscious. He viscerally understands that the team with the ball is in control of the game. He’s seen too many games end where he didn’t get a chance to prevail, because his team didn’t get the ball back. This informs his decision tree. If you keep the ball, you win the game. If you lose the ball, you lose the game. This is why his philosophy is based on offense, on maintaining possession, and on going up by two scores given the choice.
Ha, well fair enough. It’s been a long time since I played any tourney poker, but I’m still taking 60/40 odds as often as possible. If I was on the bubble I might pass, and granted as the tourney goes on the juice isn’t as worth the squeeze as it is early in tourneys once you’re in the money. But I’m still taking them 95+% of the time.
First, I said it immediately after it happened, so I didn’t wait for Monday to Qb coach.
Second, if I was conflating results with decision, then I’d be saying I was wrong because Dan’s decision still resulted in a victory, so clearly I am wrong. I am saying that Dan got the right result in spite of his decision, not because of it.
I totally understand the semantics of probability. The Monty Hall game is like playing BJ…theres 100% one smart way to play that. I get that all the way.
But in football the more information at your disposal part i just can’t get behind from a mathmatical standpoint. There’s too many factors to take into account for me to base in game decisions off of probability. How far back are you going here to include past data? The game changes constantly and frequently. What was once popular or true 10 or even 5 years prior is no longer the case.
Probability is a tool. But it wouldn’t make my decisions when coaching in a game. Like going for 2 on the first touchdown down 14. Like i get it, but I’m not doing it. That 2% leaning it towards being the right probability decision is dumb to me. The players still have to execute. And even if they do your opponent can still do something to take that away. Sports aren’t like playing Blackjack where there is a sure fire right decision based on probability.
