13 coaches online • Server time: 07:44
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 20:03 Reply with quote Back to top

licker, I just finished a Brawl finale where I elected to kick first, pelf vs helf.

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3924994

Key factors:

1. I have a ottd player that hit paydirt on their end of half attempt
2. I had a bench and could take a foul or two or dish one or two out, which I did.
3. His team has better defensive tools than I do by a fair margin. I didn't want to get in a scoring race where nobody plays defense and we just trade scores because I feel odds are I would have a greater chance of fail along the way. I feel that if I had received and gone for the 2 turn score he could have picked up the pace and had me playing on my heels - the way it played out the prerogative was his for pace and it played into my team strengths and against my weaknesses.
4. I was able to play a stall offense with a 1-1 tie that had some peril only ever allowed a 1d6 on the BC across 8 turns. Even though I didn't set pace initially, I was in control of the game after tying it up.
Harad



Joined: May 11, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 20:11 Reply with quote Back to top

I suspect you are trolling me because I get what you are saying and the points I am making are not that hard to understand. But it's ok. I have some time.

1-0 or 0-0 all else equal. It depends how long there is to go, matchup etc. If you don't agree, set up 10 games against a strong coach with a strong bash team whilst you are elves. Start 5 at 0-0 kicking and 5 at 1-0 up with 6 turns of the first half to go. I know when I do this that I do better in the first case.

Giggle fun that you even ask why it's rare to concede more than 16 blitzes and the los blocks (make trolling attempts more subtle). Here we do have data: the best agile team coaches almost never achieve this.

The meaningfulness of the blocks doesn't change. Here you are willingly forgetting the earlier discussion that it isn't the argument that the damage is changing (it does a bit as discussed previously) but whether you are better equipped to deal with it on offence or defence.

'Wiggly analysis' is saying that the answer can depend on factors, some of them not absolute. This is the nature of game theory. Sorry you'll have to engage in some if you want to maximise your performance.

The hard data only answers the question you set it. The data may show you win more when kicking but that would prove nothing as there are too many other factors. Maybe only poor coaches win more or maybe only certain races etc. I am a scientist by upbringing so love data but also recognise its limitations.

Your record shows that you are easily smart enough to understand these points. As I said, you may disagree with them and that's totally fine with me. Life is too short to convince others of sound logic and some things are just opinion. If there really is something you don't understand (as opposed to disagree with) I can try again but I would need convincing on why my current explanations are not clear.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 20:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Harad wrote:
I suspect you are trolling me because I get what you are saying and the points I am making are not that hard to understand. But it's ok. I have some time.


Not trolling at all. I think you are presenting points not based in logic.

Harad wrote:
1-0 or 0-0 all else equal.


Yes, all else equal? What else could it be? That's the question as it is stated. Not a zillion 'what ifs' which can be argued either way.

Harad wrote:
It depends how long there is to go, matchup etc. If you don't agree, set up 10 games against a strong coach with a strong bash team whilst you are elves. Start 5 at 0-0 kicking and 5 at 1-0 up with 6 turns of the first half to go. I know when I do this that I do better in the first case.


Now you throw out the 'what ifs'. Are you the one trolling? The question is so simple, why not just answer it as it is asked instead of trying to apply what are essentially meaningless what ifs. Because it's trivial to make whatever what ifs we like to support either side of this question. Which is why I'm not interested in accepting or discussing them.

Harad wrote:
Giggle fun that you even ask why it's rare to concede more than 16 blitzes and the los blocks (make trolling attempts more subtle). Here we do have data: the best agile team coaches almost never achieve this.


Huh? Again, this is almost meaningless. If you score in 2 turns, you can always set it up so that you only face one blitz (again, short of you failing some action, but that's another what if that always cuts both ways).

So the question, again, is this. You are playing a team which can easily score in two turns. If you receive and just score in 2 turns, you have faced exactly one blitz. You are ahead 1-0. You still have a full team (less one blitz).

Why is that worse than kicking and taking 4 blocks immediately (unless you set up back which I don't think anyone is advocating). It's a simple question. Would you rather defend 1-0 with 11 or 0-0 with 11?

Harad wrote:
The meaningfulness of the blocks doesn't change. Here you are willingly forgetting the earlier discussion that it isn't the argument that the damage is changing (it does a bit as discussed previously) but whether you are better equipped to deal with it on offence or defence.


Again, on offense you only have to take one blitz! Then you are exactly as equipped to deal with it as if you had chosen to kick. The difference is quite literally one blitz vs. 4 blocks.

Harad wrote:
'Wiggly analysis' is saying that the answer can depend on factors, some of them not absolute. This is the nature of game theory. Sorry you'll have to engage in some if you want to maximise your performance.


Wiggly analysis is saying that 'coach skill' makes certain strategies better than others. That's simply nonsense in my opinion.

Harad wrote:
The hard data only answers the question you set it. The data may show you win more when kicking but that would prove nothing as there are too many other factors. Maybe only poor coaches win more or maybe only certain races etc. I am a scientist by upbringing so love data but also recognise its limitations.


Then slice the data to suit whatever misconception you think I'm including. But actually if the data shows that one strategy is better than the other, then yep, that strategy is BETTER than the other.

Harad wrote:
Your record shows that you are easily smart enough to understand these points. As I said, you may disagree with them and that's totally fine with me. Life is too short to convince others of sound logic and some things are just opinion. If there really is something you don't understand (as opposed to disagree with) I can try again but I would need convincing on why my current explanations are not clear.


Explanations are not clear because they are not answering the question.
Harad



Joined: May 11, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 20:57 Reply with quote Back to top

I give up. I have some good reasons to believe my ability to determine good logic is strong and I even have some experiences that I am ok at helping others to understand. I can't do better than this without putting in more energy than this warrants. Sorry you don't understand.

If you want to pm me one question at a time I may be able to spare the energy to answer them.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 21:36 Reply with quote Back to top

What I don't understand is why you won't answer the question as it is posed.

The logic seems to be 'I'm better off defending with 11'.

Well that makes sense, I mean you're better off kicking or receiving with 11.

However, the question isn't simply 'better off defending with 11', it's are you more likely to win (or not lose) if you are defending with 11 up 1-0 vs. defending with 11 tied 0-0.

I'm really not sure why answering that specific question is proving so difficult for people.

What we get is a bunch of 'it's easier to defend with 11 and then get the ball'. Well sure, but that's still not actually addressing the question.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 22:10 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:
licker, I just finished a Brawl finale where I elected to kick first, pelf vs helf.

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3924994

Key factors:

1. I have a ottd player that hit paydirt on their end of half attempt
2. I had a bench and could take a foul or two or dish one or two out, which I did.
3. His team has better defensive tools than I do by a fair margin. I didn't want to get in a scoring race where nobody plays defense and we just trade scores because I feel odds are I would have a greater chance of fail along the way. I feel that if I had received and gone for the 2 turn score he could have picked up the pace and had me playing on my heels - the way it played out the prerogative was his for pace and it played into my team strengths and against my weaknesses.
4. I was able to play a stall offense with a 1-1 tie that had some peril only ever allowed a 1d6 on the BC across 8 turns. Even though I didn't set pace initially, I was in control of the game after tying it up.


Meant to reply earlier, but this is the one exception I think I agree with. A natural (or easy) one turner with a bench.

So really all your points after #1 don't really matter Wink

Still, as you note you were not able to run a 'perfect' stall in the 2nd half either.

I wonder if you would have felt differently had you scored quickly, seen him equalize and then you can still use your one turner in either half to take the lead.

That's why receiving in the 2nd half can be risky (when facing a one turner) unless you also have the ability to remove so much of their team that the one turn attempt becomes difficult.

But, yes, we are engaging in another 'what if' discussion. I appreciate that there can be many different variables for any match. Still (one turner aside) I do not find any logic in kicking anymore.

You always want to be ahead 1-0, so you should take the option that gives you the best chance for that. Not getting the ball first, AND taking the brunt of the first blocking exchange does not seem to increase your likelihood of being ahead at any point in the game.
Harad



Joined: May 11, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 22:14 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:
What I don't understand is why you won't answer the question as it is posed.

The logic seems to be 'I'm better off defending with 11'.

Well that makes sense, I mean you're better off kicking or receiving with 11.

However, the question isn't simply 'better off defending with 11', it's are you more likely to win (or not lose) if you are defending with 11 up 1-0 vs. defending with 11 tied 0-0.

I'm really not sure why answering that specific question is proving so difficult for people.

What we get is a bunch of 'it's easier to defend with 11 and then get the ball'. Well sure, but that's still not actually addressing the question.


I answered it. You will say I answered that I am better off defending with 11. If you read it carefully you will see that this was not my only answer.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2017 - 22:45 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:
mrt1212 wrote:
licker, I just finished a Brawl finale where I elected to kick first, pelf vs helf.

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3924994

Key factors:

1. I have a ottd player that hit paydirt on their end of half attempt
2. I had a bench and could take a foul or two or dish one or two out, which I did.
3. His team has better defensive tools than I do by a fair margin. I didn't want to get in a scoring race where nobody plays defense and we just trade scores because I feel odds are I would have a greater chance of fail along the way. I feel that if I had received and gone for the 2 turn score he could have picked up the pace and had me playing on my heels - the way it played out the prerogative was his for pace and it played into my team strengths and against my weaknesses.
4. I was able to play a stall offense with a 1-1 tie that had some peril only ever allowed a 1d6 on the BC across 8 turns. Even though I didn't set pace initially, I was in control of the game after tying it up.


Meant to reply earlier, but this is the one exception I think I agree with. A natural (or easy) one turner with a bench.

So really all your points after #1 don't really matter Wink

Still, as you note you were not able to run a 'perfect' stall in the 2nd half either.

I wonder if you would have felt differently had you scored quickly, seen him equalize and then you can still use your one turner in either half to take the lead.

That's why receiving in the 2nd half can be risky (when facing a one turner) unless you also have the ability to remove so much of their team that the one turn attempt becomes difficult.

But, yes, we are engaging in another 'what if' discussion. I appreciate that there can be many different variables for any match. Still (one turner aside) I do not find any logic in kicking anymore.

You always want to be ahead 1-0, so you should take the option that gives you the best chance for that. Not getting the ball first, AND taking the brunt of the first blocking exchange does not seem to increase your likelihood of being ahead at any point in the game.


I tell you how I react most the time if I do a 2 turn score and have a ottder in the tank - Okay, what are my defensive options now? As good as that team is at scoring it's not very good at much else. I don't think I could have stopped a score or forced an earlier score given my options.

I took the risk of exposing bodies to play a slow paced game where I didn't have to do much after the 5th turn of the game other than keep the ball away from him and score as late as possible. It made the game easier for me to process.

You probably never overthink or get too cute on offense, do you? Wink
MrLadybug



Joined: Nov 27, 2016

Post   Posted: Aug 16, 2017 - 11:21 Reply with quote Back to top

Licker says: If you really want to play defense, why not score quickly in offense and play defense as you want?

From my newbie pro elf perspective, my team have two strengths:
-ability to score relatively easy with not full team
-ability to score in 2 turns


Which for me translates into following scenarios:
-receive, score quickly, then got punched in 1st half, and then punched again in 2nd half.
Which means stronger scoring potential, but weaker defensive potential.

-kick, got punched, either fully defend or re-score after losing 0-1(if I score on 8, there is no punching back). In 2nd half I can score, to either lead 1-0 or 2-1, and if previous half went terribly, it's 1-1 now.
Which means stronger defensive potential, but weaker scoring potential.

Since pro elves lack more in defensive play than in scoring play, I think kick is more helpful for me than receive.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 16, 2017 - 13:51 Reply with quote Back to top

- receive: stall as long as you can and score on turn 8 if possible, if you stay back in your half of the pitch for some turns before advancing the amount of blocks suffered is reduced;
- kick: hope for a Blitz! event or a Pitch Invasion and try to snatch the ball (Kick skill helps), if this fails, stay back and avoid contact to reduce the amount of blocks suffered, then in the last turns of the opponent's drive try to pressure a lot, (Leap/Diving Tackle help); if your opponent manages to score, then try to score a 1TTD.
mrbibitte3



Joined: Mar 28, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 16, 2017 - 14:35 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:

How is it differently meaningful if you lose those players kicking? Since you will take more blocks kicking than receiving? I'm still asking you the same question and I don't see that you are answering it. Would you rather defend with 11 up 1-0 or tied 0-0? Strip out all your 'what ifs' and just answer that question first.


Well, Harad kind of answered it indirectly.

It's better to defend 0-0 in the first half (and, if all goes wrong, have two KO returns and receive the kick on second half to play for a tie) than to defend 1-0 in the middle of the first half knowing your opponent has the time to counter score you twice (once first half, once again at the beginning of the second half) and let him have two KO returns and the opportunity to play, at worse, for a tie.
garyt1



Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 16, 2017 - 18:12 Reply with quote Back to top

I think part of it is pyschology in that people think they can get 1-1 first half when they kick. Then stall out the 2nd half for a win. But if they receive first half and stall it out 1-0 the opponent may be inclined to only try for the draw 2nd half and attempt to stall it out themselves rather than score quickly like they may have done if they did first offence. So 1-1 finish more likely.
Perhaps some people feel the pressure to get a score on the board when they receive first?

_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.”
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 16, 2017 - 23:16 Reply with quote Back to top

Licker is a charlatan.

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3925275

Hey licker, this is what happens when you receive first automatically without thinking.

I received first, didn't score a TD and got permed to hell. Your advice is as useful as it is flexible.
DrPoods



Joined: Nov 14, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 17, 2017 - 08:08 Reply with quote Back to top

It doesn't really matter in the end. I'll just blame mrt1212 anyways.

Tend to kick with Lizards though.

_________________
"Gallifrey falls no more"
Do your part! Join the Adoption Agency NOW!
Naama



Joined: Jun 12, 2004

Post   Posted: Aug 17, 2017 - 12:59 Reply with quote Back to top

In a perfect game i'd kick every turn
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic