Read the link, then read my revision of the math. Look, an argument I support with numbers. Did I wrinkle your brain?
Royal Poker Blog: Belichick Was Correct
The linked post shows the calculation in favor of going for it as:
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP
I actually calc this as:
(0.75 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.65)) = 0.89 WP
based on the Pats 4th down conversion % against the Colts of 75% as told by ESPN and my own assessment of how likely the Colts are to score from the 28.
Additionally I'd say 30% chance that Colts make a TD after the punt is low. I'm not sure how low, but I am sure the Colts are at least 1 Standard deviation from the mean, so in the case of punting the Pats WP is probably more like .60 or .55.
That being said, if it works he's a genius, if it fails he's a goat.
GOAT Belicheat!

Royal Poker Blog: Belichick Was Correct
The linked post shows the calculation in favor of going for it as:
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP
I actually calc this as:
(0.75 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.65)) = 0.89 WP
based on the Pats 4th down conversion % against the Colts of 75% as told by ESPN and my own assessment of how likely the Colts are to score from the 28.
Additionally I'd say 30% chance that Colts make a TD after the punt is low. I'm not sure how low, but I am sure the Colts are at least 1 Standard deviation from the mean, so in the case of punting the Pats WP is probably more like .60 or .55.
That being said, if it works he's a genius, if it fails he's a goat.
GOAT Belicheat!

