Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Perspective on 2 point conversions

2»

Comments

  • doogvilledoogville Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 1,207 Swaye's Wigwam
    Judgement: Good call.
  • BasemanBaseman Member Posts: 12,365

    Baseman said:

    In zero words, or less, can somebody explain what this thread is about.

    @RaceBannon was making fun of quooks, then @Tequilla made one of his usual shitpoasts, then @BallSacked swooped in to the rescue and non-consensually peed in @Tequilla's butt.


    /thread
    More words but eloquently poasted.
  • phineasphineas Member Posts: 4,732
    edited September 2016
    Going for 2 point conversions is edgy, really connects with the inner city youth. It's a brilliant recruiting tool. This helps helfrich imo.
  • EsophagealFecesEsophagealFeces Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,030 Swaye's Wigwam
    Baseman said:

    Baseman said:

    In zero words, or less, can somebody explain what this thread is about.

    @RaceBannon was making fun of quooks, then @Tequilla made one of his usual shitpoasts, then @BallSacked swooped in to the rescue and non-consensually peed in @Tequilla's butt.


    /thread
    More words but eloquently poasted.
    It's hard.
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,208 Founders Club
    This thread sucks and your all fags.
  • ToiletSeatToiletSeat Member Posts: 150

    It's sad to see how far Oregon has fallen.

    All the way to 2-1.

  • TTJTTJ Member Posts: 4,798
    Tequilla said:

    Classic case of misunderstanding statistics and game theory that has had me laughing at Oregon for years.

    After their first TD, they almost always go for 2. I get what they are trying to do in that they are trying (by succeeding) to get their opponent off of what it is that they are trying to do.

    But the problem in how game theory is applied in situations like going for 2 points or how poker players leverage it in coin flip situations when their tournament life is over if they lose is that they fail to factor in the fact that even though they may be a 53% favorite (for example) to succeed in the situation, the risk to losing is often far greater than the benefits of winning.

    Once Oregon gets its advantage, there is no benefit for them to continue to press their luck. By going for 2 after the 2nd TD, Oregon risked the benefit that they had achieved. There is not a significant difference for them to have 15 or 16 points at that point.

    I'm a firm believer that generally speaking early in the game you take all the points that you can get and start pressing later as needed.

    What game theory can't explain is the demoralizing difference between falling behind early 8-0 vs 7-0. That's a bodyblow, and it's worth the risk (when you're as good at two-pointers as Oregon has been). But you are correct that, after going up 8-0 early, it's fucktarded to continue going for two (if you don't need to).
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,761 Founders Club
    Call me a Doog, but seeing the arrogant two point strategy blow up in their faces was glorious.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,883
    You can talk about this new age game theory horseshit all you want, chaos theory is what pulled the bitches back in my day.

    image
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,448 Founders Club
    TTJ said:

    Tequilla said:

    Classic case of misunderstanding statistics and game theory that has had me laughing at Oregon for years.

    After their first TD, they almost always go for 2. I get what they are trying to do in that they are trying (by succeeding) to get their opponent off of what it is that they are trying to do.

    But the problem in how game theory is applied in situations like going for 2 points or how poker players leverage it in coin flip situations when their tournament life is over if they lose is that they fail to factor in the fact that even though they may be a 53% favorite (for example) to succeed in the situation, the risk to losing is often far greater than the benefits of winning.

    Once Oregon gets its advantage, there is no benefit for them to continue to press their luck. By going for 2 after the 2nd TD, Oregon risked the benefit that they had achieved. There is not a significant difference for them to have 15 or 16 points at that point.

    I'm a firm believer that generally speaking early in the game you take all the points that you can get and start pressing later as needed.

    What game theory can't explain is the demoralizing difference between falling behind early 8-0 vs 7-0. That's a bodyblow, and it's worth the risk (when you're as good at two-pointers as Oregon has been). But you are correct that, after going up 8-0 early, it's fucktarded to continue going for two (if you don't need to).
    You could set your watch to the Huskies being completely shocked and unprepared for Oregon to go for 2 on their first touchdown
Sign In or Register to comment.