[hrothgar]

For any of you who follow the sportsman-like dumping arguments on various bridge lists, the following article might be of interest:

http://www.mattglassman.com/?p=2675 makes a cogent argument why

(A) The Patriots should have let the Giants score on the final possession
(B) The Giants really didn't want to score that touchdown

For those of you who don't follow the sportsman-like dumping argument, it boils down to the following:

Let's assume you're competing in a major event where a round robin is used to select participants in a KO...
You are comfortably in the lead (100% chance to qualify)
Should you be penalized for throwing matches to weak teams to improve their chance at advancing to the KO, there by diluting the strength of the field in later rounds?

[aguahombre]

What was the spread? I lose interest every year when the Raiders bomb out, and don't know the betting line; but there could be repercussions from failure to do one's best in those final seconds of the game.

[billw55]

About the superbowl .. I think scoring the TD is the right thing to do. You just never know what can go wrong on a field goal, we have seen these things happen, a bad snap or hold, blocked, etc. Think Tony Romo. In addition the TD takes the FG option away from the Patriots.

About the bridge RR/KO, dumping in any situation would feel wrong to me. Aside from that, I don't really think there is much to be gained anyway. We are going to face the good teams eventually. If we are cruising with a top 3 or so qualifying spot, how threatened do we really feel by the 8th place team as compared to 10th or 12th? And if the KO seedings are based on the RR standings, we would probably damage ourselves by dumping.

I say no dumping no way.

[Phil]

Allowing the Giants to score has little to do with (un)sportsman-like dumping. In every example of dumping I have seen it involves losing a game (match) to gain an advantage later on.

Here, the Patriots want the Giants to score so the Giants can answer with a TD of their own - with maximum amount of time to do it. Giving up a touchdown is a tactical intra-game move and the opportunity is created because of the 1) clock, and 2) scoring increments. You do not see these situations in baseball (no clock), or in soccer or hockey (goals count the same). You do see a team gladly give up a free throw in basketball or a field goal (where a three pointer would lose). In golf, the smart ones do it right when they have a significant lead going into the last hole and play ultra-conservatively, knowing a win by one counts the same as a win by 3. Reckless players like this may earn a place in history, but not for getting their name on the Claret Jug.

The Giants should have realized that a field goal is just as valuable as a touchdown for a win, but that strategy carries with it its own risks:

1) choking kicker (does the author really believe that a kicker has a 99.4% success rate when it matters most? Did he watch a single bowl game this year? RememberNorwood (granted Norwood missed a 47 yard attempt, not a 24 yarder)?)

2) turnover due to a bad snap

3) allowing the Pats to score a field goal and still win

However, overall it seems like the best strategy. I also agree with the 'conventional coaching wisdom' comment, although judging from the post-game comments, this appears to be a tactical error, instead of "well I wanted to run out the clock and kick a field goal, but I didn't have the stones to back up my judgment".

If the Pats had won, then this decision would be discussed for years.

[glen]

The Pats did not use an optimal approach, which was let him score while attempting to force a fumble.

As well Gisele has never heard of the "double pass" (in football, not bridge), where Tom could have f'ing passed the ball, and then caught it later.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-06, 11:26, said:

What was the spread?

Why is Asian handicapping so popular in American football? It seems to allow only the size of the start to reflect the perceived skill difference between the teams. But strategies may vary when there is a large score difference -- for instance playing more/less defensively or giving the younger/greener players on the team get some experience. So I don't think that giving a start of some number of points is a sensible betting strategy, in general.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 12:42, said:

Why is Asian handicapping so popular in American football? It seems to allow only the size of the start to reflect the perceived skill difference between the teams. But strategies may vary when there is a large score difference -- for instance playing more/less defensively or giving the younger/greener players on the team get some experience. So I don't think that giving a start of some number of points is a sensible betting strategy, in general.

What you think about betting strategies might not have much to do with the consequences to a player or a coach if it is perceived that he did something with the intent to influence the final margin of victory or loss because the spread exists.

I was not in any way accusing anyone of doing that, merely bringing up that a team's performance and its on-field descisions might be scrutinized if they in-fact do affect the spread.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2012-February-06, 11:55, said:

Allowing the Giants to score has little to do with (un)sportsman-like dumping. In every example of dumping I have seen it involves losing a game (match) to gain an advantage later on.

More broadly, it involves taking an action which is suboptimal locally but optimal globally.

In this case, the Pats increased their chance of winning, but they screwed up the spread...
Then again, given that they were +3 to begin with, I'm not sure how many people this impacted.

[nigel_k]

Phil, on 2012-February-06, 11:55, said:

Allowing the Giants to score has little to do with (un)sportsman-like dumping. In every example of dumping I have seen it involves losing a game (match) to gain an advantage later on.

I agree. Not scoring the touchdown is nothing like losing deliberately to a weak team in a round robin. It is closer to not cashing a winner so you won't be squeezed later, which I believe most people regard as completely ethically unquestionable,.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 12:42, said:

Why is Asian handicapping so popular in American football? It seems to allow only the size of the start to reflect the perceived skill difference between the teams. But strategies may vary when there is a large score difference -- for instance playing more/less defensively or giving the younger/greener players on the team get some experience. So I don't think that giving a start of some number of points is a sensible betting strategy, in general.

I suspect it is this way because this generates the most action for the casino or bookmaker, while more or less guaranteeing them risk-free profit.

By the way, the point spread has nothing to do with the relative skill of the teams, or strategies, or predicted outcomes. The sole purpose of the spread is to get equal amounts bet on both teams. This way, the winners and losers cancel out, and the bookmaker collects his percentage (typically 10%).

[goodwinsr]

[never mind]

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2012-February-06, 14:50, said:

I suspect it is this way because this generates the most action for the casino or bookmaker, while more or less guaranteeing them risk-free profit.

By the way, the point spread has nothing to do with the relative skill of the teams, or strategies, or predicted outcomes. The sole purpose of the spread is to get equal amounts bet on both teams. This way, the winners and losers cancel out, and the bookmaker collects his percentage (typically 10%).

Could you or someone else explain this more fully? I do not see how Asian [edit; handicapping in general, which I thought was called Asian hcping) handicapping generates a more balanced book than ordinary methods (the former is rarely used here, and the big bookmaking firms seem to be riding out the recession remarkably well...)

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 15:57, said:

Could you or someone else explain this more fully?

I've got this one in a private conversation...

[aguahombre]

I am not sure what "ordinary methods" are. But, The money line ---although handicapping the two teams because you can win more by betting on a dog which beats the favorite --- does not generate the kind of action that a spread will. Many bettors know deep down that their favorite team will not win, no matter if they get 1.8 to one on their money or not.

But, they will bet that their team --- an underdog by a whole touchdown --- can come closer than that. This gave birth to "shaving": a situation where someone on the team which is assured of winning will do something to ensure that they don't win by as much as expected. They don't dump the game, but they make good money for their co-conspirators.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-06, 16:49, said:

I am not sure what "ordinary methods" are. But, The money line ---although handicapping the two teams because you can win more by betting on a dog which beats the favorite --- does not generate the kind of action that a spread will.

Where I live handicapping is rare, but there is enough action to allow a large number of bookmaking firms of various sizes to do a lot of business. So I am not convinced that handicapping is more attractive for either the bookmakers or the punters. Perhaps it just depends on what you are used to.

But what you are saying makes sense if people tend to "bet with their hearts" and not with their heads.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 17:46, said:

But what you are saying makes sense if people tend to "bet with their hearts" and not with their heads.

Not really betting with their hearts, but taking team loyalty into account. As a Mets/Islanders/Knicks/Giants fan, I don't bet against my teams. But, I won't bet on my teams either, unless the point spread makes it a reasonable bet.

[mgoetze]

I don't know much about American Football, but it seems to me it would be a better game if the rules were changed to make time play less of a factor, e.g. by only running the clock when the ball is in play as in ice hockey. Sending a 12th man onto the field just to shave 8 seconds off the remaining 17 is pretty ridiculous - Law 72B1 should apply.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 17:46, said:

Where I live handicapping is rare, but there is enough action to allow a large number of bookmaking firms of various sizes to do a lot of business. So I am not convinced that handicapping is more attractive for either the bookmakers or the punters. Perhaps it just depends on what you are used to.

But what you are saying makes sense if people tend to "bet with their hearts" and not with their heads.

I think this is a big part of it - bettor psychology.

A shrewd bettor can use this to their own advantage. Keep a lookout for those situations where the line appears irrational, which will usually be due to large national fan support for a particular team, or a media-fed perception of inevitability. There was a time when one could make a living just betting against Notre Dame.

[/hijack]

[mgoetze]

Also, from my very uninitiated point of view, I have to agree with the commentator (on the blog entry) who mentioned that the Giants defense had the Pats very much under control. Jason Pierre-Paul could have won the MVP award if anyone had asked me (which they shouldn't).

[billw55]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-06, 19:59, said:

Also, from my very uninitiated point of view, I have to agree with the commentator (on the blog entry) who mentioned that the Giants defense had the Pats very much under control. Jason Pierre-Paul could have won the MVP award if anyone had asked me (which they shouldn't).

For sure the MVP should go to the defense. You look at who you are playing against, then look at the final score and see the 17 there, and you know this game was really won by the defense.