How Belichick, Brady, Manning, some math & a ball made me lose a religion

[FlashLackey]

I also cant buy that. Do you think these numbers you keep referring to are new? Do you think throughout the history of football, nobody has realized that your odds are better if you go for it on 4th and short instead of punting it? All these years of coaches scared of failing...nah...it's just because they know football and they know that you dont go for it when you dont absolutely need to, like 4th and short on your end with a lead.

You're not taking into account the particulars of the situation. Most of the time, it's not a good idea to go for it on fourth down because converting doesn't mean that you win the game. The amount of time-outs remaining, time left on the clock, score and field position affect what decision is best. It only becomes worth it to go for it in a small sub-set of fourth down situations. It's hyperbole to suggest that it's wrong to go for it in some cases because it's right [to punt] in most other cases.

Also, going back to poker. Playing the odds works better against better players. Playing your odds against a bunch of suckers pushing chips all over is going to get you busted out early. You have it backwards. Against below average players, you play the player not the odds. Against very good players, you play the odds.

I will beat odds-only players almost every time. I don't consider that beating a good player. They are average.

A good player knows how to veil and switch their patterns while also reading yours. That means that they sometimes make moves outside of the odds when they have a good read.

A crappy player who just throws chips around will lose more often than not (in the long run or tournament play, not just a single hand) to a disciplined, tight player. A lot of players try to play tight but panic too early and switch to risky behavior and thus lose to overly aggressive players. That's what keeps them in business.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue to argue with you because it's pointless. I know the odds say it's better, I get that. I'm just saying that I have the history of football on my side of the argument and you saying that they dont do it because they're scared of failing and perception is something i dont buy. Too may coaches throughout too many years.

Belichick's recent decision and Chris Peterson's are part of that history. So, you can only be referring to a selected history. Or, perhaps a statistical average.

As the article I posted explains, the evidence is there. Some choose to dismiss it out of hand. Others factor it in, regardless of presumption.

So is it safe to say you're more likely to convert on 4th and 2 than gain ground while debating FL?

If you're wrong, yes.