wow -- opening safety
Quote: kewljyes, I realize that. But it is almost never done that way. When a team is trailing by 15 and scores a TD, they always go for 1, leaving the two point conversion for the final score. That keeps it a one score game. So to go for the 2 point conversion when you are still 4 scores out is very bizarre.
I've seen it the other way too. 36-6 would make it a 5 score game as well. Shrug. Maybe the plan was to score 8 points a TD and only need 5 TDs to win the game :)
Quote: WizardWhat can I say? Three Super Bowl safties in a row, and 4 out of the last six Super Bowls. Not to mention the two-point conversion. It was definitely an awful game for me.
Since the Laiki Bank failure in Cyprus I've been on a downhill slide. I was hoping 2014 would be my comeback year, but that safety, the whole game, was a very awful beginning for the year.
If you see me with a coin cup and cardboard sign on the bridge between the New York New York and Excalibur, please throw in some small change.
Meanwhile, I'm going to be licking my wounds for a while and not posting much. Try to behave yourselves until I'm back on my feet.
I can identify with the wizard
and it re-inforces in my mind why I feel gambling is a loners game.
Ever go gambling with a friend that has a small bankroll. Then you lose 2-3k, and on the hour ride home the guy who had 100 dollars to play with regales you with his great luck and recounts every single winning hand at BJ where he ended up with a 45 dollar profit,or he crys about a roll at craps that gave him a 43 dollar loss for the day. You want to say...hey just shut the f..k up....but you politely listen, or just try to block him out.
Wizard is too polite to say "shut up"......ao I can see him blocking us out by looking away for a few days. Many of us has been through this....at least I have.
Quote: kewljyes, I realize that. But it is almost never done that way. When a team is trailing by 15 and scores a TD, they always go for 1, leaving the two point conversion for the final score. That keeps it a one score game. So to go for the 2 point conversion when you are still 4 scores out is very bizarre.
my guess is ths....at that point they didnt think they could keep seattle scoreless the rest of the game. So maybe holding seattle to a fieldgoal might be a better goal. If thats the case they were in the.."we have to score as many points as there is available to us" I agree with that.
Hopefully You're re-evaluating the worthiness of this bet or how much you're betting if it's affecting you this way. Regular reason stats don't translate it seems like comparing a fight to knockout with a fight to the death and expecting moves to be the same.Quote: WizardWhat can I say? Three Super Bowl safties in a row, and 4 out of the last six Super Bowls. Not to mention the two-point conversion. It was definitely an awful game for me.
Since the Laiki Bank failure in Cyprus I've been on a downhill slide. I was hoping 2014 would be my comeback year, but that safety, the whole game, was a very awful beginning for the year.
If you see me with a coin cup and cardboard sign on the bridge between the New York New York and Excalibur, please throw in some small change.
Meanwhile, I'm going to be licking my wounds for a while and not posting much. Try to behave yourselves until I'm back on my feet.
Quote: corvetteracingOn to Sochi
Over/Under on terrorist attacks?
Quote: thecesspitI'd be very very surprised...I doubt a highly paid center would have put up enough to throw a safety. He'd need a perfect set of circumstances to have it happen that he can make a bad snap hat would cause a safety.
Maybe that particular play is a bad example, but in general, I've seen some really weird stuff during games. Like a great free throw shooter missing a couple free throws with seconds left in the game (which prevented his team from covering the spread). Or even yesterday's 2-point conversion. It may not be as widespread as drugs, but I'm sure there are a decent number of guys who have others bet on games for them.
Quote: kewljyes, I realize that. But it is almost never done that way. When a team is trailing by 15 and scores a TD, they always go for 1, leaving the two point conversion for the final score. That keeps it a one score game. So to go for the 2 point conversion when you are still 4 scores out is very bizarre.
The TD + 2 effectively negated the Safety and two FG's in that regard, now you're back to a four TD game. Seattle's D may not be as keyed in on that play given that they are up by 4+ TD's and Denver still has only the most minute possibility of coming back. With all due respect, it seems like the fundamentally correct call to me.
I think your example is a little different because the defense is going to be pretty determined to stop that either way, and Field Goals are still relevant, or could be. Denver had reached the point in that game where kicking a field goal would no longer be material.
Quote: thecesspit36-8 makes it a 4TD game
36-7 makes it a 5 score game.
Dick Vermeil developed a two point conversion chart back in the seventies that is used by most everyone today. It just goes to 20 points.
http://theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart.aspx
Quote: thecesspit36-8 makes it a 4TD game
36-7 makes it a 5 score game.
This has to be the reason they went for two.
Quote: mickeycrimmThis has to be the reason they went for two.
No. I didn't even understand that statement when thecesspit said it. 36-7 is 29 points, that is 4 TDs and one two point conversion. That is still a 4 score game. They don't count 2 point conversions as a separate score, when they say it is a x score game. a 23-15 game is called a one score game. One td and two point conversion.
Now, thank you for looking up that chart, created by Dick Vermeil that almost every coach still uses today. That was the basis of my earlier point. There is no spot on the chart for what you do when you are 36 points behind. At 36 points behind, you just concentrate on scoring a few TD to the point that the chart even comes into play. Hey maybe John Fox has a different chart than every other coach. lol
Quote: kewljNo. I didn't even understand that statement when thecesspit said it. 36-7 is 29 points, that is 4 TDs and one two point conversion. That is still a 4 score game. They don't count 2 point conversions as a separate score, when they say it is a x score game. a 23-15 game is called a one score game. One td and two point conversion.
Now, thank you for looking up that chart, created by Dick Vermeil that almost every coach still uses today. That was the basis of my earlier point. There is no spot on the chart for what you do when you are 36 points behind. At 36 points behind, you just concentrate on scoring a few TD to the point that the chart even comes into play. Hey maybe John Fox has a different chart than every other coach. lol
being down by 30 with less than half the game to play, against a stout defense, against an offense that may socre 1 or 2 fieldgoals at least since you havent been able to stop them.........why not go for as many points as you can get while you have the opportunity.
who cares what happens when the score is 15-0. This is the last game of the year and you are down 30 with a quarter and a halft to go......why not go for as much as you can while you have the opportunity. There is no president for someone coming back from more than 10 in a superbowl. Never happened once.
So I guess its ok to improvise a little when you are down 30. And the decision not to go for 2 pt looks bad if deatle scores 3 points the rest of the game...which was very likely.
Quote: Beethoven9thMaybe that particular play is a bad example, but in general, I've seen some really weird stuff during games. Like a great free throw shooter missing a couple free throws with seconds left in the game (which prevented his team from covering the spread). Or even yesterday's 2-point conversion. It may not be as widespread as drugs, but I'm sure there are a decent number of guys who have others bet on games for them.
I can see that happening in college hoops. Kids trying to make some money on the side. Seeing the schools and coach make millions from their effort....the "wheres mine" attitude might rear its head in some college games.
With these props.....I think I read somewhere there is a max allowed. Like some college games say "limited" at william hill where you can only be 500 max.
If unlimited or substantial money was allowed...there are rops that people could make money for their friends and family who bet
length of star spangled banner over/under
or
which would be more lebron james points/rebounds/ assists or manning pass attempts.....you dont think if lebron wanted he could score 45 and get a total of 15 rebounds/assists.
or
how many times will they show archie manning....over under.....couldnt a director put a million on that bet and direct camera shots of archie
I dont think that the casino will put themselves in a position where the intentional actions of one person could cripple them
I believe there may be a limit.
and the limit in my guess generates so little money that a professional athelete might not be interested
Justa guess
Quote: kewljYou guys endermike and LarryS seem to be making up rules as you go along. There is a chart, as mickycrimm, pointed out that is used by almost all pro and college coaches as to when to go for 2 points. And it is also common practice that you don't even use the chart until the 4th quarter or maybe very late 3rd quarter with a minute or two left. The common wisdom is that if you start going for 2 point conversions earlier than that you end up "chasing" those points for the rest of the game when you don't make them. This is how 99.99% of pro and college coaches operate. It also is how John Fox has always operated during his long coaching career. That is what makes what they did so unusual. I mean, I really don't care. Didn't effect me. But I think if I had wagered the no 2 point wager, assuming that the coaches would play it by the book as they do every other game and lost when someone went for 2 while trailing by 36, I would have felt some sort of conspiracy.
that funny. The "chart" is not handed down by moses. Screw the chart when you are down 30 points in a superbowl where no one has ever come back from more than a 10 p[oint deficit.
Screw "the chart" when you have been near the endzone only once in 2 and a half quarters.
Screw "the chart" when the other team is scoring at will and u need as many points as possible the rest of the game
I admire coach for not hiding behind "the chart"...that doesnt even go up to 30 points leads.
basically saying that if you are behind by 30points with less than a half to go, against the leagues number one defense.......you are on your own.
So Fox decided to get as many points as was available to him each trip down the field....he said "f;;k" the chart...DESPERATE TIMES DEMAND DESPERATE MEASURES.....thinking outside the box.....good for him
Really?
Quote: kewljYou guys endermike and LarryS seem to be making up rules as you go along. There is a chart, as mickycrimm, pointed out that is used by almost all pro and college coaches as to when to go for 2 points.
Right, and there's a reason it doesn't cover the scenario where you're down by 36 at the end of the 3rd just before you've just scored your first touchdown. If Seattle doesn't score in the 4th then Denver still needs either 29 or 28, and Denver hadn't put up that many points in a quarter all season (except when they started the quarter with the ball on the one yard line). Because Denver was out of the game at that point, the 2-point conversion may merely have been about running another offensive play.
Where did you find that at 151 to 1Quote: aluisioI had it as the first scoring play of the game... 151:1 for $10
LOL
Quote: kewljYou guys endermike and LarryS seem to be making up rules as you go along. There is a chart, as mickycrimm, pointed out that is used by almost all pro and college coaches as to when to go for 2 points. And it is also common practice that you don't even use the chart until the 4th quarter or maybe very late 3rd quarter with a minute or two left. The common wisdom is that if you start going for 2 point conversions earlier than that you end up "chasing" those points for the rest of the game when you don't make them. This is how 99.99% of pro and college coaches operate. It also is how John Fox has always operated during his long coaching career. That is what makes what they did so unusual. I mean, I really don't care. Didn't effect me. But I think if I had wagered the no 2 point wager, assuming that the coaches would play it by the book as they do every other game and lost when someone went for 2 while trailing by 36, I would have felt some sort of conspiracy.
I didn't say that the dinosaurs who coach the game make optimal decisions. In fact, it is well known that coaches often make sub-optimal decisions, most notably when deciding to go for it on 4th down.
I said (and stand by) the fact that cutting edge thinking is to go for it earlier such that you don't find yourself down two with second to go suddenly need an onside kick. If you desire I can provide math backing up this discourse.
There is no advantage to putting off losing until later. Make choices to help oneself win the game, not delay losing.
Since we have to deposit cash from credit cards and pay 7% taxes upfront it always blows AP. I usually bet small amounts in huge payouts even though they are sucker bets.
Quote: thecesspitMoreoever... conspiracy? Someone called down and said 'hey John, I know your losing the SB, but there's 500 hundred grand for you if you go for 2 points, if you get in the endzone'?
Really?
Why not go for two? They needed every point they could get! That was one of Fox's better decisions in the whole game, not that that is actually saying much during that travesty of a game.
Quote: ChozenfrozenWhy not go for two? They needed every point they could get! That was one of Fox's better decisions in the whole game, not that that is actually saying much during that travesty of a game.
Exactly. No conspiracy at all.
Quote: SOOPOOPerhaps the center had a few hundred thousand on 'yes, safety' ?
except it could have just as easily been a touchdown rather than a fieldgoal.
Quote: BeardgoatExcept it wasn't a field goal, it was a safety Larry
very astute
however most people with a mind would understand that someone woulnt put a ton of money on a bet like that and leave it to chance that a touchdown would be scored instead of a safety. Or at least he would have snaped the ball out of the endzone to insure it was a safety.
hence....the way he snapped it....in the field of play...where a touchdwn could have been scored if seattle fell on the ball.......seems to indicate he didnt do it on purpose to win on a safety bet.
I have no problem laying it out for you....some folks need some extra help connecting the dots.
Quote: BuzzardLarry ......... DUMB .......Larry
That comes nowhere near qualifying as meaningful counter-argument. I've let the barbs between the two of you go a little bit, to this point, only because there has been meaningful counterargument mixed in with same.
Quote: Mission146That comes nowhere near qualifying as meaningful counter-argument. I've let the barbs between the two of you go a little bit, to this point, only because there has been meaningful counterargument mixed in with same.
Can I invoke the Lou Costello ruling on this occasion? I meant no disrespect. But Bud Abbott never had such a smooth delivery as a straight man. Also as a point of future reference, had I used IGNORANT instead of DUMB, would that have been a better choice ?
Just asking, since you mentioned counter-argument. I have always differentiated between ignorance and stupidity, You may respond in a PM . if you prefer.
Quote: BuzzardCan I invoke the Lou Costello ruling on this occasion? I meant no disrespect. But Bud Abbott never had such a smooth delivery as a straight man. Also as a point of future reference, had I used IGNORANT instead of DUMB, would that have been a better choice ?
Just asking, since you mentioned counter-argument. I have always differentiated between ignorance and stupidity, You may respond in a PM . if you prefer.
you may use "ignorant" also. A post that just calls me "dumb" "stupid" or "ignorant" is great for my ego. It tells me I made point that has no cogent counter debate....by the poster. The poster is out of gas, devoid of a logical retort.
Fine with me.....heck.....its great for my ego to win a debate hands down, or to make a point that has no alternative.
it happens alot on the patrick board. I was used to it. If you cant make a cogent point...then attack the poster.
most people see through it.......i repeat most.....not all
Quote: endermikeI didn't say that the dinosaurs who coach the game make optimal decisions. In fact, it is well known that coaches often make sub-optimal decisions, most notably when deciding to go for it on 4th down.
I said (and stand by) the fact that cutting edge thinking is to go for it earlier such that you don't find yourself down two with second to go suddenly need an onside kick. If you desire I can provide math backing up this discourse.
There is no advantage to putting off losing until later. Make choices to help oneself win the game, not delay losing.
Yes, that's the right thinking, try to win the game. Need the points, get 'em with only two yards needed.
What is lost in this is the punt decision. I don't care if it's 4th and 10 at the 40-this is the Super Bowl, got to go for it. Admittedly there wasn't much offense to that point to inspire confidence, but can't just give up in the first half! Get beat worse? Well, 46-8 or 50-8 not much different from 43-8...
