While studying for a Game Theory exam I found an example that contradicts our offense

Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by GatorEcon, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. GatorEcon
    Offline

    GatorEcon Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +9
  2. Jonas
    Online

    Jonas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +530
    Really one of the fundamental aspects of Boise St's offense is calculated aggression that is justified through game theory.
  3. socalg8r
    Offline

    socalg8r Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +7
    Fantastic post.
  4. gatorr4life
    Offline

    gatorr4life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,734
    Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
  5. gatorr4life
    Offline

    gatorr4life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,538
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,734
    After further inspection, I've come to the conclusion you're one smart sob.
  6. WeWinWeEat
    Online

    WeWinWeEat Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +29
    Your theory suggests every player is capable of doing his job. Have you adjusted for our OL? Or picked up a football ever? Just ribbing ya. Fun post. Muschamp should play more video games. It might help.
  7. gatorbogey
    Offline

    gatorbogey Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,130
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    s. e. florida
    Ratings Received:
    +24
    I would say that you also need to factor in down and distance. we definitely need to pass more on first down. after that, this theory might actually support our offense - that is, the defense might be guessing pass, but we run instead.
  8. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,139
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,704
    Assuming you were going to use this game as a basis for mix of play calling, you'd have to adjust the variables to account for our issues pass blocking.

    So the pass numbers would be skewed to a higher negative number when the defense guesses pass, than the positive number when the defense guesses run... for their simplistic example, it might be (-10,5) instead of (-5,5).

    Which in turn would lead you to pass less often, but hopefully in situations the defense expects you to run.
  9. G8R92
    Offline

    G8R92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +527
    Did a hair dresser write this crap?
  10. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,139
    Likes Received:
    2,370
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,704
    My hair dresser has a son playing ball, and she's insulted by that remark. :joecool:
  11. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Game theory heavily weighs risk aversion, which is applicable here in that there are technically only two plays.

    The problem with employing game theory on a single action is it ignores down and distance and assumes a *win* on gained versus lost yards. Risk aversion is a variable on both sides dependent on those many ancillary variables (they included *star* versus *regular* running back here as their only real variable).

    For instance, if I'm in 3rd and 25 5 times in the game and I gain 50 yards by running it (10 yards each time), this is counted as a game theory *win* versus passing it (given risk aversion and probability), but I still end up punting the ball.
  12. MaceoP
    Offline

    MaceoP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +304
    2nd paragraph, 1st line

    "Suppose that my team, which is on offense, has an equally effective running and passing game."

    Obviously, we have been having major problems in protection on passing plays, for the last couple of years. IMO, that supposition throws out the rest of the example.

    If and that's a big IF, we could pass-block, only then could we really find out what kind of passing game we have.
  13. trufloridagator
    Offline

    trufloridagator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +30
    It's hard to measure, but we could just take a logical approach to calling plays that gives us the most EV while increasing future EV where possible. Risk is already factored in. You don't have to break it down, but just analyze at the surface. What we are doing now is fine in many spots, but first and second down are a problem. It's like the coaches don't believe we can complete 15-30 yard throws on first down.

    Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry
  14. maxgator
    Online

    maxgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +380
    That was an absurdly simple analogy to football. I wouldn't go basing a decision on whether to pass more on that. lol.
  15. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    At its core Game Theory is extremely simple. But it can be effectively applied to any sport with two or more competitors. But this basically treats a single play as a "game," which is why it isn't particularly applicable to full game strategy.
  16. maxgator
    Online

    maxgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +380
    I understand game theory. I'm basically referring to the expected outcomes and their derivation than anything else. Choosing 5 yards and 10 yards as expected outcomes generates the desired result.
  17. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Yeah, absolutely, there's a ton of arbitrary data in there. But you can only work on arbitrary data or averaged data.
  18. qwghlmgator
    Offline

    qwghlmgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +169
    While superficially ture, this is a highly reductive view of game theory. Game theory does not provide pat answers like "run less."

    What makes Game theory (notice the word "theory" there) potentially powerful (and practically impossible to fully utilize in this sort of context) is the inherent fact that in any "game" the effective rules change after every "turn" - with the iterative effect of a dynamically changing model. In other words, if the OPs link is correct and a stud RB causes you to run less but throw more successfully, the defense will respond to that combination of tendency and success and perhaps sub a safety for a linebacker. This will cause you to make a different decision based on different inputs. For instance, you would probably run your stud RB more. But this would cause the defense to restrategize based on your increased running. Etc.

    While this give-and-take will theoretically establish some equilibrium, it will be a dynamic equilibrium. Hence, it will provide little explanatory or predictive power. That is it might provide you with insight into how people behave in game-like situations, but will do almost nothing to tell you what you "should" do in any game situation. Keep in mind, chess computers like "Deep Blue" do not use game theory - they use a library of possible board arrangements and associated nested probablilities (as well as famous gambits, etc.). :hairy:
  19. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Well that was sort of my point - each (and any) play is treated here as a vacuous event. That isn't helpful in determining strategy.
  20. StonewallJawkson
    Offline

    StonewallJawkson Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +12
    What I got from the article is that we must have a very, very good passing offense because we use it so little!
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page