Lose on purpose?

[stevewin]

8 hours ago, Simon said:

 

Yeah, if it was against an AFC team, I'd say no way; but against teh NFC, you have to think about it.

This is the correct response - it's all about improving your chances to make the playoffs

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, QLBillsFan said:

I’ll jump in and try to debate this with respect. Who do the Bills need to prove they can win with a TO? Why would any team want to do that? The odds ultimately can catch up with the Bills even when they are trying to not turn the ball over. The odds are the same for not purposely trying to turn it over. It won’t lessen the odds in future games. 

You’re mixing up the two main components here but thanks for not being nasty.  Remember when the Bills kept winning blowouts and hadn’t won a close game in a while?  The press and a lot of people on this board said that meant they would automatically lose a close game.  Not true but it kept being said.  Now there is growing noise about the Bills needing to have turnovers on their side.  It’s all noise and they should nip it in the bud before it becomes an even bigger distraction.

 

With the odds being we will lose it anyway, I’m not sure why people are talking about friggin coins.  That would matter if the Bills only won when they defer but it doesn’t matter because their is no way to control the coin flip.  I don’t think NE even tried that back in their glorious cheating days.

[RiotAct]

9 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

2 reasons for include both proving we can win games even when we have more turnovers and also every week we don’t lose the turnover battle increases the odds that the following week we will.  It would be far better to have that happen now than against a team like KC.

You should become a professional gambler!

[27yankees]

Wow, in my short period here, this post is about the dumbest, most negative minded ever. Folks talking about losing, Y'all must be some kind of bored. Hey, it's beautiful outside, go play at the park and clear yourselves of speaking about losing. Get your floats ready for a frozen February parade down main street.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, 27yankees said:

Wow, in my short period here, this post is about the dumbest, most negative minded ever. Folks talking about losing, Y'all must be some kind of bored. Hey, it's beautiful outside, go play at the park and clear yourselves of speaking about losing. Get your floats ready for a frozen February parade down main street.

 

You just wait! We aim for shock and awe, with a hint of despair.

 

Not everyone is born with this skill set, but a few decades of Bills fandom can do incredible things! 

[Urban Achievers]

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, The Red King said:

Actual math statistics, from a college course...

 

...what are the odds of getting a 'heads' on a coin?  50%.  Now, lets say you flip a coin three times and manage to get 'heads' three times.  What are the odds you get 'heads' again?  50%.  Because the prior flips that already occured have no bearing at all on the next flip.

 

So no, we do not need to lose the turnover battle on purpose to raise the odds against doing so later.

1.  You don’t “manage” to get heads the first 3 times, it just happens unless you’re rigging it.  It happens 12.5% of the time.  The real odds are 6.25% to get heads four times in a row.  You 4th flip BY ITSELF has a 50% chance to be heads, sure.  But getting 4 in a row does not.  Everyone is pretending to not know what happened the first three times but if we already know that.  We know what the odds of 26 in a row are and they are not good.  We’d need a time machine to pretend we don’t know.

 

2. Coins are not part of this anyway.

 

3. Take the emotion of rooting for the Bills out of it and just use the statistics.  Here is a good example:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-almost-everyone-gets-the-monty-hall-probability-puzzle-wrong/#:~:text=Most people think it doesn,the time if you stay.

[Freak-O]

First of all, losing the turnover battle deliberately once the game is already won proves nothing. Secondly, the risk of losing the turnover battle does not increase for every game the streak continues. It’s not a deck of cards with a finite number of wins and losses. 
 

I sincerely hope the OP is very young.

[LarryMadman]

This has L A M P post written all over it, good lord!

[boater]

The Sabres deliberately tanked games to try and draft Connor McDavid. Deliberate losing introduced a cancer into the locker room that they still haven't shaken off 10 years later.

 

Deliberately fumbling or losing is heresy and would scuttle the 2025 season.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

32 minutes ago, Freak-O said:

First of all, losing the turnover battle deliberately once the game is already won proves nothing. Secondly, the risk of losing the turnover battle does not increase for every game the streak continues. It’s not a deck of cards with a finite number of wins and losses. 
 

I sincerely hope the OP is very young.

This is from a “college” in Canada so take it with a quarry of salt but for all intensive purposes that “finite” number of wins and losses is not really finite.  Coins are a bad example but a deck of cards is way off.

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/did-you-know-infographics/there-are-more-ways-arrange-deck-cards-there-are-atoms-earth

[4merper4mer]

17 minutes ago, boater said:

The Sabres deliberately tanked games to try and draft Connor McDavid. Deliberate losing introduced a cancer into the locker room that they still haven't shaken off 10 years later.

 

Deliberately fumbling or losing is heresy and would scuttle the 2025 season.

 

 

The NFL doesn’t have a lottery and I’m not talking about losing the game.  I’m talking about setting us up to win more.  But I agree about Eichole.

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

10 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I’m not talking about losing the game and no opponent should be taken for granted but….

 

If the game is in hand and there haven’t been any turnovers, should the Bills lose a fumble on purpose to end their streak of games not losing the turnover battle?  To me, yes.  Why:

 

1 reason against is it would be nice to keep the streak.

 

2 reasons for include both proving we can win games even when we have more turnovers and also every week we don’t lose the turnover battle increases the odds that the following week we will.  It would be far better to have that happen now than against a team like KC.

And to think you’ve interacted 21.6 thousand times in these forums … 

[Bills aPHILLYate]

18 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

1.  You don’t “manage” to get heads the first 3 times, it just happens unless you’re rigging it.  It happens 12.5% of the time.  The real odds are 6.25% to get heads four times in a row.  You 4th flip BY ITSELF has a 50% chance to be heads, sure.  But getting 4 in a row does not.  Everyone is pretending to not know what happened the first three times but if we already know that.  We know what the odds of 26 in a row are and they are not good.  We’d need a time machine to pretend we don’t know.

 

2. Coins are not part of this anyway.

 

 

I believe the premise is flawed due to conflating PROBABILITY and ODDS. 

 

The ODDS will always be the same of winning or losing the turnover margin (50/50). This can only be factored in once a turnover is committed. It's irrelevant if no turnovers occur.

 

The PROBABILITY of winning or losing the turnover margin has a slew of variables attached to it. First being that a turnover is committed. You cannot assign a predetermined percentage.

 

Your example seems like we've flipped a coin, let it hit the ground and it has landed heads 25 times consecutively...

So now on the 26th flip we'll catch the coin, see if it happens to land heads, then flip it to tails.

 

Thank you because this gave me something to occupy my time until the early game starts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain_Quint]

Our first look at Crayonz...

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Bills aPHILLYate said:

 

I believe the premise is flawed due to conflating PROBABILITY and ODDS. 

 

The ODDS will always be the same of winning or losing the turnover margin (50/50). This can only be factored in once a turnover is committed. It's irrelevant if no turnovers occur.

 

The PROBABILITY of winning or losing the turnover margin has a slew of variables attached to it. First being that a turnover is committed. You cannot assign a predetermined percentage.

 

Your example seems like we've flipped a coin, let it hit the ground and it has landed heads 25 times consecutively...

So now on the 26th flip we'll catch the coin, see if it happens to land heads, then flip it to tails.

 

Thank you because this gave me something to occupy my time until the early game starts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike a coin, you can tie the turnover battle.  So win or tie is a 2/3 proposition where losing is 1/3.  

[strive_for_five_guy]

3 hours ago, Sojourner said:

What ever happened to that poster?

He’s now a former performer.

[nuklz2594]

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

11 hours ago, Big Turk said:

This might be the dumbest post I've ever read on here and that says a lot.

 

I'd put it 2nd behind: 

 

Losing non conference games helps you in playoff seedings!

[transient]

 

Go BILLS!!!