| |
BGonline.org Forums
Zeus question
Posted By: Steve Mellen In Response To: Zeus question (Gregg Cattanach)
Date: Monday, 5 December 2011, at 10:18 p.m.
As an additional point, while the chances of NY scoring twice in the remaining time are very low, they are not zero. And those chances go up by some amount if NY knows for a fact that it will need two scores.
To spell it out, the situation here is analogous to the situation where a team trailing by 15 scores - should they go for 2 now or wait until they score again? The difference is that GB is choosing not between trying now and trying later, but between trying now and letting NY try later - which makes a difference since the chance of success is not exactly 50%. But the two scenarios belong to the same species.
Here's how we can relate this question to game theory in general. If you try the 2-point attempt sooner, then both sides gain information, compared to the state of uncertainty they would be in if you left the decision to the end. Maybe the point is debatable, but I think information generally favors the trailing team, because they have more options available to them and the other team is basically reacting to what they do.
Another analogy that may help clarify: most people feel that it's an advantage to bat last in baseball, because you can go into the bottom of the ninth knowing exactly how many runs you need to manufacture. Now, there are things the defensive team can do as well with the benefit of that knowledge; for example, with a two-run lead you don't care at all about letting the first run in. So the information is useful to both sides, but overall I think people are right that it benefits the offense more. My theory is that information benefits the trailing team in football, for much the same reason.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.