logic and the threepeat

[HoosierCowboy]

okay, I've posted this before but not on its own thread, so here goes. The Gambler's Fallacy or the fallacy of Maturity of Chances (or several other names) is the wrong thinking that if you flip a coin and tails comes up more times than it should, then heads is more likely to come up next. The truth is that each toss is independent of others; every toss has the same odds of being heads or tails. So, just because we've beaten the Eagles twice does not effect the outcome of this meeting.

In fact it helps our chances. An analogy: if I run the mile under 6 minutes, then I run it again under 6 minutes, then I run it again with the goal of running it under 6 minutes, the odds are I'll do it again. We have certainly demonstrated the ability to beat the Eagles and all things being equal (breaks, bounces, refs, etc.) it is logical to think we will do it again.

and after the Cowboys beat them a third time, they should force Donny McMuffin to do his little dance at the fifty yard line for the players and fans to see

 

[MapleLeaf]

...logic to sports. That's why we watch.

What makes it so entertaining is every so often the completely unexpected happens that stuns fandom.

You have to love it and our chances of running the head to head table with the Eagles.

 

[Joe Realist]

Here is hoping the Cowboys win the toss, drive down the field and score the first TD ofthe game.

 

[Zman5]

Here is hoping the Cowboys win the toss, drive down the field and score the first TD ofthe game.

Or they win the toss, Bueler gets a touch back and the Eagirls go 3 and out.

 

[rwilliamsfan]

Was going to start the same thread. Our history this season indicates we simply have a higher probability of beating them. Granted the sample size is terribly small and thus conclusions are somewhat dubious.

 

[DallasKnight]

I would actually prefer to lose the toss and make the E-gals go 3 and out. No better way to demoralize them right off the bat.

 

[HoosierCowboy]

...logic to sports. That's why we watch.

What makes it so entertaining is every so often the completely unexpected happens that stuns fandom.

You have to love it and our chances of running the head to head table with the Eagles.

I know, chaos theory applies (there are too many variables to accurately predict what will happen) but I'm merely answering those that act like we have a lesser chance of winning because we won the forst two--that's absurd.

and I was pre-playing the game in my head as i drove cross country on Christmas vacation and had was very close to prodicting the outcome. I had us up 17-0 and winning 31-10 with Jones and Barber running the ball well and the defense manhandling the Eagles (though knocking the dancing McNabb out of the game did not happen as i visualized)

 

[peplaw06]

Just ask yourself, would you rather be in our position -- 2-0 with a home game -- or their position -- 0-2 and having to come here again on a short week after being shutout?

But the statistics and odds of it are interesting. Something like 12 out of 19 times teams with the chance to beat another 3 times in a season have been successful.

It reminds me of an argument I used to have regarding the Deal or No Deal game show... You pick one out of 32 cases (or whatever number it is) at the beginning of the game. You have a 3% chance of picking the one with a million dollars. Then you start eliminating cases. The odds of you having picked a million dollars don't go up just because there are fewer cases as you go. You don't get to repick your case.

I hated that show BTW.

 

[bracey]

Good points. Other than winning home field advantage, the two wins don't give us a better chance of winning Saturday though. They are mostly independent events and 2 games (and really a 16 game season) is way too small of a sample size to know which team is better. The 6 minute mile is also a bad analogy. There isn't much luck involved in running a mile in 6 minutes. There's a ton of luck in winning an individual football game.

 

[Idgit]

Just ask yourself, would you rather be in our position -- 2-0 with a home game -- or their position -- 0-2 and having to come here again on a short week after being shutout?

But the statistics and odds of it are interesting. Something like 12 out of 19 times teams with the chance to beat another 3 times in a season have been successful.

On the other hand, just 5 of the 13 teams who won a regular season final game and played the same team in the playoffs the next week were able to beat that team a second time.

 

[bracey]

On the other hand, just 5 of the 13 teams who won a regular season final game and played the same team in the playoffs the next week were able to beat that team a second time.

What about home and away? Doesn't really matter though. That's way too small of a sample size to think that 38% means anything. We can probably find some relevant stat that will tell us anything we want to believe about who's going to win.

 

[Dough Boy]

okay, I've posted this before but not on its own thread, so here goes. The Gambler's Fallacy or the fallacy of Maturity of Chances (or several other names) is the wrong thinking that if you flip a coin and tails comes up more times than it should, then heads is more likely to come up next. The truth is that each toss is independent of others; every toss has the same odds of being heads or tails. So, just because we've beaten the Eagles twice does not effect the outcome of this meeting.

In fact it helps our chances. An analogy: if I run the mile under 6 minutes, then I run it again under 6 minutes, then I run it again with the goal of running it under 6 minutes, the odds are I'll do it again. We have certainly demonstrated the ability to beat the Eagles and all things being equal (breaks, bounces, refs, etc.) it is logical to think we will do it again.

and after the Cowboys beat them a third time, they should force Donny McMuffin to do his little dance at the fifty yard line for the players and fans to see

Love the use of the gambler's fallacy, but its used wrong here. Unlike the flip of a coin (which truly are independent events) we should expect that certain variables will not remain constant i.e. the events are not independent but rather dependent on the previous outcome. For instance, I much like Tony Romo, expect the Eagles to blitz more. I expect the Boyz to run more screens and draws. With changing variables, you can not use this theory, but I do believe that the better team will be the one that can adapt to the new information presented. Much like Darwinism, survival of the fittest.

 

[Dough Boy]

If two teams are evenly matched, and they play three times, there is a far greater chance that the series will end 2-1, regardless of how the games are won. The problem with this game, I do not believe that the Eagles and Cowboys are evenly matched.

Its the old saying, styles make fights or there are certain horses for certain courses. What the Eagles do well, is live of the big play. What Dallas does better is eliminate the big play. The Eagles were so good for so long because of its Def not McNabb or the Off. Def wins in the playoffs. Philly's D is banged up, missing players and in general is not the same D we remember two or three seasons ago.

Dallas D on the other hand is much better than Philly's D. Dallas is more consistent in stopping the Big Play. Which really hurts Philly, because McNabb is not an accurate QB. I think its hard for Reid to come up with a game plan that has McNabb consistently going on 15 play drives over 80 yards to score. Its never been McNabb's strong suit. McNabb is at his best win Philly's D creates turnovers and gives him a short field and multiple extra snaps.

Romo, right before our eyes, has learned how to matriculate the ball down the field without the use of the big play. Garret, has learned to run the ball, to keep Dallas ahead of the chains. There is no blitz that can stop a well executed 3 step drop when you only need 5 or fewer yards. Romo can now make that throw all day to Crayton, Witten our Austin. McNabb is 50/50 on that throw and he can only go consistently to Celek as Maclin is too inconsistent and Jax is too small to take the constant pounding.

Styles make fights and Dallas has the better match up this time around. Sorry for the long ramble.

 

[Idgit]

What about home and away? Doesn't really matter though. That's way too small of a sample size to think that 38% means anything. We can probably find some relevant stat that will tell us anything we want to believe about who's going to win.

Yeah, it wasn't good data. No mention of how many of those 13 included changes of venue, or what the home/away splits were. The sample's so small, it could easily include several games where a team sandbagged week one in order to have an advantage for week two. Interesting to keep in mind, though.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I just found out that the mailman at the job is an Eagles fan.

He sees me, he sees my hat and says "you are going down?"

I said what are you a Giants fan? He says, no Eagles?

I said how are you going to beat us scoring ZERO points.

No xmas bonus for him next year. :laugh2:



We can beat them. We just have to out will them again. Jenkins will make a big play on McNabb's attempt at a big play to DeShean