American Sports Thread

[David McKeown]

That the ref didn't give him a chance to change his call and flipped it the second time too quick. Also that "it's unfortunate it comes down to that."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000624046/article/aaron-rodgers-unhappy-about-coin-flip-gaffe

To be fair to Rogers. He seems like a very smart guy and pointed out that he would have changed his call if given the opportunity solely because the ref had turned the coin over on the second flip before flipping. I wonder if he was changing his call knowing that the ref changing what was on top before the flip switched the odds as to what the result would be.

[Clov]

That the ref didn't give him a chance to change his call and flipped it the second time too quick. Also that "it's unfortunate it comes down to that."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000624046/article/aaron-rodgers-unhappy-about-coin-flip-gaffe

To be fair to Rogers. He seems like a very smart guy and pointed out that he would have changed his call if given the opportunity solely because the ref had turned the coin over on the second flip before flipping. I wonder if he was changing his call knowing that the ref changing what was on top before the flip switched the odds as to what the result would be.

Interestingly, people who switch in situations like this tend to experience more regret when they subsequently lose the toss. If you want to minimize how bad you will feel at losing you should stick with your original call. Which is what most people tend to do.

[AZOffaly]

That the ref didn't give him a chance to change his call and flipped it the second time too quick. Also that "it's unfortunate it comes down to that."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000624046/article/aaron-rodgers-unhappy-about-coin-flip-gaffe

To be fair to Rogers. He seems like a very smart guy and pointed out that he would have changed his call if given the opportunity solely because the ref had turned the coin over on the second flip before flipping. I wonder if he was changing his call knowing that the ref changing what was on top before the flip switched the odds as to what the result would be.

That seems statistically unlikely

[David McKeown]

That the ref didn't give him a chance to change his call and flipped it the second time too quick. Also that "it's unfortunate it comes down to that."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000624046/article/aaron-rodgers-unhappy-about-coin-flip-gaffe

It's not their is a statistical bias towards what is on top when a coin is flipped and caught and turned over and Vice verse when it is not turned over. Rodgers made reference to only wanted to change his mind because the ref changed what was on top. It wouldn't surprise me if he was aware of the statistical bias which would just show the mans attention to detail
To be fair to Rogers. He seems like a very smart guy and pointed out that he would have changed his call if given the opportunity solely because the ref had turned the coin over on the second flip before flipping. I wonder if he was changing his call knowing that the ref changing what was on top before the flip switched the odds as to what the result would be.

That seems statistically unlikely

[gallsman]

There is the tiniest statistical bias - as little as makes no matter at all.

[David McKeown]

There is the tiniest statistical bias - as little as makes no matter at all.

It's nearly 2%. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers (or the packers organisation) knew about that and try to exploit that advantage

[AZOffaly]

There is the tiniest statistical bias - as little as makes no matter at all.

It's nearly 2%. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers (or the packers organisation) knew about that and try to exploit that advantage

Ah here David. Come on. And if the ref had allowed him recall and won, the Cardinals would have been shafted as the NFL said the coin does not have to flip. It is stupid to make the statement that it came down to that. As I said before, it came down to not covering the best wide receiver on the field, and then allowing him to run 60 yards with the ball.

[gallsman]

There is the tiniest statistical bias - as little as makes no matter at all.

It's nearly 2%. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers (or the packers organisation) knew about that and try to exploit that advantage

It's less than 1%, and is only valid for a situation where the coin is flipped multiple times.

[heganboy]

ok - can someone tell me what you are saying is a statistical bias?

[gallsman]

ok - can someone tell me what you are saying is a statistical bias?

That if you randomly flip a coin, it is biased in favour of the side facing up at the time of the toss.

[David McKeown]

There is the tiniest statistical bias - as little as makes no matter at all.

It's nearly 2%. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers (or the packers organisation) knew about that and try to exploit that advantage

It's less than 1%, and is only valid for a situation where the coin is flipped multiple times.

Does it not result in a nearly 51 to 49 bias. Regardless of the exact figures I'd love to know if Rogers/packers had researched and looked for that little edge

[AZOffaly]

There is the tiniest statistical bias - as little as makes no matter at all.

It's nearly 2%. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers (or the packers organisation) knew about that and try to exploit that advantage

It's less than 1%, and is only valid for a situation where the coin is flipped multiple times.

Does it not result in a nearly 51 to 49 bias. Regardless of the exact figures I'd love to know if Rogers/packers had researched and looked for that little edge

Which they would *not* have been entitled to, as there is no onus for the coin to flip at all.

[Clov]

Here's a link to a study which attempted to test the coin toss hypothesis.

https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Real-World/coin_tosses.html

Think the jury is still out on whether the effect is there. But i like David's broad point, that you should call the same side that is showing as there is zero cost in doing so even if there is no benefit.

[AZOffaly]

I still think it's ultra lame to say it came down to that. It didn't.

[Clov]

I still think it's ultra lame to say it came down to that. It didn't.

Of course, though i didn't take that to be David's point (though he might want to correct me on that).

I