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.
Also seeing duck fans using the "we were 3 point underdogs and lost by 3 on the road" faggotry that we saw here last year with the "Vegas had us at 5 wins" bullshit
Also seeing duck fans using the "we were 3 point underdogs and lost by 3 on the road" faggotry that we saw here last year with the "Vegas had us at 5 wins" bullshit
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.
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.
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).
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
Comments
/thread
But not really. It gives me a raging dooger.