Get out your pitchforks boys, you ain't gonna like this. It's actually good arguments. We probably got lucky last year, unlucky in the losses to Brady because that motherfucker is the luckiest person alive.
Nobody ever talks about how the other teams had a lot of luck go there way during the games as well. Why? Because ultimately there are a lot of lucky bounces in every game. The team that can take advantage of the luck they get are the better teams.
While I enjoyed the video I'd suggest that the calculations/numbers are off.
How can he use total possessions but base everything else (missed kicks, defense dropped INT, WR dropped pass and such) on snaps?
In the video it talks about how many "possessions" each team gets a game. The guy said each team has about 11-12 possessions a game so he rounded it to a total of 25 possessions a game. I'd argue that with football you should use SNAPS not possessions. An average NFL game has a total of about 126 total snaps which is WAY more than the 25 number he talks about.
Put 126 into the calculations instead of 25 and all of those graphs and charts seem like every team has basically the same amount of luck or Bad luck. [Reply]
Online is full of multitabling pros who are making very good calculating decisions. Much less fish as well.
Live is full of plumbers, ditch diggers, wealth managers, drunk guys who have no sound strategy. Luck plays a big factor in both but if your winrate per table live is 10-15x higher than an online game then your variance will be lower and in turn the probability of you winning a given session increases.
If my winrate at a live 5/10 game was the same as an online 5/10 game where I could also play 8 tables, I could probably be a billionaire by the time I died.
I've seen WAY more wildcards in online games.
And that's not to say that all of them are - there are absolutely pros online. But it only takes 1 or 2 guys at a table to screw up any sort of dynamic (I've been in rooms where a pro gets pissed and leaves because no amount of 'calculating' will save you when you have a lunatic in there).
I've always found live games to give 'truer' outcomes because you're less likely to have that 1 or 2 people at the table who are playing with their hair on fire. And there are still plenty of those even at 5/10 games.
I never played much beyond the 5/10 games. I suspect at 10/25 you've weeded out most of those really nutty players. Certainly anything beyond that you will have. But it's been my experience that there are still a TON of erratic players all the way up to 5/10 games. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Luck is a part of life but you got to take advantage of it. Most teams and people don't, Chiefs do.
Yep. Living here in the Bay Area during the 1980s I watched most of the niners games during their dynasty. I couldn't believe how often every "tipped" pass on either side of the ball would magically always fall into niners hands. Every fumble seemed to kick up high as a niners player running full speed didnt even have to dive to the ground to recover it. And it always seemed they got the crucial call at the crucial time.
Good teams draw good luck......and create their own good luck [Reply]
[QUOTE=BWillie;17484815]Get out your pitchforks boys, you ain't gonna like this. It's actually good arguments. We probably got lucky last year, unlucky in the losses to Brady because that mother****er is the luckiest person alive.
We won SB58 by just about the absolute slimmest of margins. I won't even begin to think or say it was luck that got us the win, but boy oh boy, if we don't make every yard and every play we did in all phases of the game, we lose that Super Bowl. And that's what makes it probably one of the best championship games we've seen in a LONG time. The game was THAT close. [Reply]
Total luck that the blocker on the 9ers punt return had the awareness of a tent spike and let the football hit his foot. Also total luck that their returner had the wise idea to pick the ball up instead of falling on it.
I guess the Chiefs are lucky that the 49ers players are dumber and worse at football. [Reply]
I wanted this video to be compelling, but it wasn't. They repeatedly cite missed field goals and made field goals as some of their main examples of "luck". If that's the case I can see why the Chiefs, with an all-time great kicker, are considered lucky. They also act like a fumble recovery is random and has no correlation to the awareness/reaction time of the players. And dropping passes and INTs? That's also all luck.
I believe there is plenty of luck in sports. I do agree that the limited number of posessions in football mean that one funny bounce of the ball can be massive. Whereas in basketball you get way more possessions and opportunities to overcome. That was probably their best point. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Womble:
We won last year's Super Bowl having gone through objectively the toughest gauntlet of any Super Bowl winning team in the modern era:
Interesting concept and not a bad video... but, overall seems half-baked (and he even said so at the end, since he's not tracking terrible officiating calls and coin flips, etc.).
I think at one point he even excused the block EP in the SB as luck even after saying he didn't count blocked kicks.
He talks a good game, but seems like he's currently counting things that aren't 100% lucky (maybe a defense is good at recovering fumbles because they're always around the ball) while not counting things that are pure luck (how could you not count coin flips).
This is Luck Alpha, would be interested in knowing what it looks like when it's a finished project. [Reply]