Perspective on 2 point conversions
Comments
-
Judgement: Good call.
-
@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.Baseman said:In zero words, or less, can somebody explain what this thread is about.
/thread -
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
-
It's sad to see how far Oregon has fallen.RaceBannon said: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
But not really. It gives me a raging dooger. -
More words but eloquently poasted.EsophagealFeces said:
@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.Baseman said:In zero words, or less, can somebody explain what this thread is about.
/thread -
Going for 2 point conversions is edgy, really connects with the inner city youth. It's a brilliant recruiting tool. This helps helfrich imo.
-
It's hard.Baseman said:
More words but eloquently poasted.EsophagealFeces said:
@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.Baseman said:In zero words, or less, can somebody explain what this thread is about.
/thread -
This thread sucks and your all fags.
-
-
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).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.
