Don’t Leave Early -- You Might Miss Something

So today we’re all remembering Steve Harvey’s Miss Universe faux pas from a little over a year ago. I suppose that’s where all of this stuff started.

We must have reached a point in our shared cultural history where we were all getting a little too comfortable with the idea that “it’s all been done” or we’ve “seen it all before.” Like lifetime poker players who’ve been one-outed on the river enough times to be numb to it, we were all lulled into thinking we could safely shut the teevee off before the end and not miss anything.

Just off the top of my head here, I’m thinking back to that absurd second-round game in last year’s NCAA playoffs between Texas A&M and Northern Iowa, the one in which the Aggies were down 12 with just 44 seconds left in regulation and somehow managed to tie the sucker -- without even calling a timeout (!) -- and win in double-OT.

You have to think a few folks shut the set off before the conclusion of that one.

Sports provided a couple more similarly preposterous finishes last year, highlighted by the Cleveland Cavaliers overcoming a 3-1 deficit in the NBA finals to defeat the seemingly unbeatable Golden State Warriors. Then came the Chicago Cubs similarly coming back from 3-1 down (and from a 108-year title drought) to beat the Cleveland Indians, although not until after the Indians stunningly scored three runs late to tie things up (with an apocalyptic-seeming rain delay prior to extra innings adding further to the delirium).

Then came election night, another stunner for many that seemed to take a crazy turn mid-evening when all of the projections suddenly swung the other way. And of course that completely loopy 25-point comeback engineered by the New England Patriots against the Atlanta Falcons to win Super Bowl 51 is still fresh in everyone’s minds, a game that absolutely no one other than perhaps the Pats thought could possibly play out the way it did.

Vera and I watched the beginning of the Oscars last night, but didn’t bother to stick it out until the end. We hadn’t seen most of the movies. Indeed, we probably only go to the theater about once every other month or so, if that.

Whenever Vera and I do go to the movies, we have a routine where we always stay through the end credits, which invariably makes us the last two people to exit the place. Not sure why we do that, to be honest, although by doing so we necessarily catch any of those funny little post-credits like Ferris Bueller telling the audience to leave or the rider still waiting in Ted Striker’s cab in Airplane!

We were curious to see how the Oscars started, then, but not engaged enough to stick with it. Vera did, however, ask me to DVR the rest before we gave up. I didn’t ask to add the extension when recording, and while I haven’t checked it yet I’m sure I didn’t get the ending as I understand it ran quite late.

I’ve heard about it though, of course, and watched a clip this morning of the remarkable gaffe that saw the wrong film named as best picture, and multiple acceptance speeches being given before the correction came. Seemed fitting, I guess, after more than a year’s worth of such improbable twist-endings.

Hang around poker tournaments enough and you see examples of players all in and at risk leaving the table before the last card is dealt, sometimes when they are still drawing live. Every once in a while -- I’ve seen it happen maybe three or four times -- the departing player’s unlikely runner-runner actually comes, leading to the player having to be recalled to the table by staff or a friendly opponent.

After all of these head-spinning conclusions, gotta think people are going to stop being in such a hurry to get to the exits. Now everyone is going to start sticking around past the end.

For an explanation of all this that is fun -- or frightening, depending on your point of view -- check out Adam Gopnik’s piece for The New Yorker today, “Did the Oscars Just Prove That We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?”

Image: “ P1080262,” Jon Seidman. CC BY 2.0.

The Patriots Are the Pick

I’m no fan of the New England Patriots. Now that I think about it, I have probably rooted against them in every Super Bowl they’ve ever played.

I suppose I was neutral on them up until 2004 when the Pats defeated my Carolina Panthers in that wild Super Bowl 38. Carolina lost 32-29 after a crazy fourth quarter that saw the Panthers score three touchdowns, New England two, and the Pats hit a game-winning FG at the end.

That was New England’s second title in three years, so it was easy to root against them thereafter as they dominated season after season. It has never come close to rising to Duke-level dislike (deep and unchangeable in this Tar Heel), but it’s been a pretty consistent feeling of antagonism toward the team for me nonetheless.

That said, I have one rule in Pigskin Pick’em I’ve (almost) unerringly followed for years. I always pick New England. No matter what.

Last night Vera and I attended a fun Super Bowl viewing party, and just about everyone there was on the Atlanta Falcons side, too. Here in North Carolina most were either Washington Redskins fans or Atlanta fans growing up, as they were the teams always featured on regional coverage here up until the Panthers franchise debuted in 1995. Not too hard, then, for many around these parts to be leaning Atlanta’s way last night.

It was pretty festive up through the middle of the third quarter as Atlanta surprisingly built that 28-3 lead. The largest comeback ever in 50 previous Super Bowl had been just 10 points, so a 25-point lead seemed more than insurmountable.

Actually the party remained fun during the Patriots comeback. Everyone wanted Atlanta to win, but it wasn’t like we were Falcons diehards. The fact that the game got closer as the night wore on ensured the game remained the focus of everyone’s attention the entire way.

If you watched, you saw how it all went wrong for Atlanta. You may not understand it, but you saw it.

Bill Barnwell breaks it down step-by-step this morning in an article titled “Anatomy of a Miracle” over on ESPN. It was way more nutty than that Panthers-Pats finish 13 years ago. It was also much more improbable than the New York Giants’ unlikely win over New England in SB 42, or the Seattle Seahawks’ surprise gift to the Pats two years ago at the end of SB 49.

It was a bit like watching a player with a 10-to-1 chip lead heads-up lose flip after flip to let victory slip away. There were several bad-luck plays for Atlanta, the incredible catch (and release and catch) an inch above the turf by the Patriots’ Julian Edelman on that tipped ball during the game-tying drive late in the fourth quarter the most memorable example. There were so many if-they-just-get-this-one-it’s-over plays in there, it was kind of like watching queen-six beating ace-ten over and over.

But you’d have to mix in some self-inflicted wounds from Atlanta, too -- a costly turnover, very bad clock management (multiple fourth-quarter snaps with 15-20 seconds on the play clock), and blowing through what turned out to be needed timeouts spring to mind.

Some questionable play calls in key spots do as well, most glaringly when up 28-20 with just under four minutes left and looking at a second-and-11 on the Pat’s 23-yard line. Atlanta went high-risk with a pass play, got sacked, then after another pass play ended with a holding penalty they were out of FG range, having to punt to New England (who still had their two timeouts) with three-and-a-half minutes to go.

There’s no denying New England couldn’t have climbed back out of such a historically deep hole without some help from Atlanta. Nor could they do it without the “cards” falling their way, too. Before overtime began, someone at the party correctly predicted New England would win the coin toss and march down the field for a winning TD, and indeed, things bounced the Pats way again and he was proven correct.

That said, the Pats were relentless from the midpoint of the third quarter onward -- like an almost flawless, “optimal” poker player who never seems to choose incorrectly. And when he does perhaps do something uncharacteristically risky (e.g., the pass into double coverage resulting in Edelman’s spectacular grab), it still works out for him.

Am seeing this morning a best-to-worst ranking of the 51 Super Bowls already putting last night’s at the top of the list. I’d charge recency bias, but sheesh... a 25-point comeback? A team down 19 to start the fourth somehow pulling it out? That stands out.

I’m still no fan of the Patriots. And I’ll still root against them. But I’m not picking against them any time soon.

Finishing First

Everyone was ganging up on 2016 as the year concluded, what with all of the bad news punctuating seemingly every week of the calendar year.

For your humble scribbler, the year seemed to involve an inordinate number of second-place finishes. My Carolina Panthers came up short in the Super Bowl in February, then my UNC Tar Heels also took runner-up in the NCAA finals in April. Then in May I finished second in a poker tournament in Monte Carlo, and came here to whimper a little at having come so close to winning only to have it snatched away.

The presidential election in November was hardly considered a victory here on the farm either, I’ll confess. It was right after that I remember messaging a friend and after listing all of the second-place finishes making a stubborn proclamation: “I am winning the gotdamn Pigskin Pick’em and that’s all there is to it.”

I was referring to the Pauly’s Pub football pool, of course, which I wrote about a bit during the course of the NFL season here although not as much as I have in past years. This was the eighth year running I’ve participated. I won it once before (in 2011), and this year managed to get off to a fast start to tie for the lead in Week 2, then take the lead all by myself in Week 3. By November I had built up a long streak as the frontrunner, and would remain in the top spot into the final weeks.

My largest lead over the chase pack was five games -- six, in fact, for a brief period halfway through one Sunday’s games -- but it had been reduced to just one game heading into Week 16. I was a bit of a basket case, I’ll admit, worrying that I was sadly, slowly careening toward yet another second-place showing.

Week 16 saw games happening all over the place as the NFL scheduled things around (and on) Christmas (which was a Sunday). I believe games took place on four different days that week. I enjoyed some great fortune in three games that mattered a lot, as in each I’d gone one way and my trailing opponent(s) went the other.

The first was the Atlanta-Carolina game where I took the Falcons, others took the Panthers, and Atlanta won easily. Then came the Cincinnati-Houston game the night of Christmas Eve. I had the Texans, my nearest foe had the Bengals, and while Houston led 12-10 in the final minute Cincy was driving for what seemed a certain winning field goal. With seconds left, Bengals kicker Randy Bullock tried a 43-yard field goal that somehow went wide right, and Houston won.

Then on Christmas Day I’d taken Pittsburgh over Baltimore (whom my closest challenger took), and after a crazy back-and-forth game the Steelers got a go-ahead TD with just over a minute left to win 31-27. I was up four games heading into the final week, a relatively comfortable place to be.

For Week 17 all 16 games were played on Sunday, and after making my picks I realized I could very well have it all locked up by mid-afternoon. But it didn’t go so easily.

Up four versus three opponents tied for second, two of them gained two games on me in the early afternoon games, cutting my lead to two. In the late afternoon games one of those two and I made identical picks for all six of them, which meant I’d automatically clinched beating that player as there was only the single night game left.

With the other opponent we’d picked five games the same, only differing in one -- the New York Giants (whom he picked) at Washington (whom I’d picked). The Redskins were playing to earn a playoff spot while the Giants had nothing to play for at all, having already clinched a seed that wouldn’t change with a win. But NY played their starters throughout, Washington struggled mightily, and the Giants won the game.

Now with only the Green Bay at Detroit night game left to go -- the 256th of 256 regular season games -- I had a one-game lead. And I had a strong suspicion my opponent was going to go with the underdog Lions in an effort to close the gap.

I was facing an interesting “game theory”-type situation, I realized. And I had about an hour before the kickoff to ponder it.

I had already chosen Green Bay, but could change my pick if I wished. That said, I had imposed on myself a strict “no-change” policy according to which I never changed a pick once I had entered it. I estimated the likelihood my opponent was taking the Lions to be at least 75%, perhaps even higher. If he did and I switched to Detroit, I’d clinch the title as soon as the game kicked off. But if I stuck with Green Bay and he took Detroit, I’d have to sweat one last game.

I decided not to change my pick, and when the game began I saw indeed he’d taken Detroit. Then the Lions led for the first half, and I was filled with misgivings for having let a superstition of sorts overrule my rational analysis of the situation. Green Bay stormed back in the second half, though, with Aaron Rodgers leading the Packers to three TDs in four drives to build a two-touchdown lead. I don’t think I finally exhaled, though, until after Green Bay covered up the onside kick at the very end after Detroit had made it 31-24.

I couldn’t help but laugh, thinking how I’d spent 10-plus hours during the first day of 2017 fretting about the pool, thinking all along how if things had gone just slightly differently I might’ve clinched things during the early afternoon and avoided all the stress.

Today the trophy arrived, which turned out to be a shiny bit of fun amid a dreary day in which a newly-inaugurated president is going on about “America First,” seemingly unable to understand the difference between national pride and jingoism. (Not to mention unaware -- or perhaps not -- of the term’s history and less than appealing connotations.)

In any case, I’ll say it was fun to be first nearly all year, and even more so to end up on top -- a nice finish to start a new year.

Teamwork

Watched the first half and part of the third quarter of that sad Carolina Panthers game last night versus the Seattle Seahawks. Carolina beat Seattle twice last year, including in the playoffs, but injuries and other roster changes have left the team a shadow of last year’s self, unable to compete with a quality opponent such as Seattle.

Team games like football, basketball, hockey, and soccer are endlessly curious in the way they challenge individuals to communicate with one another in a variety of ways. I’m referring not just to verbal communication, but also to what might be called “complementary physical action” that enables players to gain an advantage over opponents by their positioning, passing, and collective attempts to score. You know, teamwork.

Baseball demonstrates the same kind of communication, though often the relationship between, say, all nine players on the defensive side is less overt, with the communication more often occurring between pairs or groups of three. Meanwhile any given football play (for example) has all 11 on either side being forced to work together constantly, which is a lot harder than it looks sometimes.

As a result, whenever a given line-up endures turnover thanks to injuries or other changes in personnel, that presents a new test for those who remain. The coaches who manage them exert an important influence over how well the new groups of individuals interact, but so, too, do the players bring more or less ability in this regard. That is to say, over and above their individual talents, each has a certain skill set evoking that category by which many of us were evaluated starting back in grammar school -- “works well with others.”

The Panthers aren’t working so well with one another, leaving them 4-8 at present when they were a gaudy 12-0 at this point a year ago. And it seems clear enough that all the individual parts aren’t nearly as in harmony as before -- the “teamwork” thing isn’t working.

Football is like poker insofar as skill matters but luck likewise affects results. Take forced fumbles, for instance. Last year opponents fumbled 24 times against the Panthers during the regular season (1.5 times per game), and Carolina recovered 15 of them (62.5%). This year Carolina has caused 13 fumbles (just over one per game), but have only recovered five of them (about 38%).

Being able to force fumbles at a higher clip would suggest greater team defense (skill), but recovering them more often involves a combination of skill (being faster to the ball) and luck (being in an advantageous position when the ball pops out).

But truthfully, that hard-to-measure skill of “team chemistry” is more important than a few balls bouncing the wrong way. Being able to jump higher, run faster, and outmaneuver opponents physically is important, but being able to work together has an even greater influence on a team’s results.

Image: Seattle Seahawks Russell Wilson..., Jack Kurzenknabe, public domain.

Risk Versus Reward

I continue to lead in my Pigskin Pick’em pool, which means I’m necessarily locked in and following closely just about every NFL game each week. I’d be watching and checking scores anyway, but my motive for doing so has increased considerably thanks to the pool standings.

Amid all those missed extra points yesterday (which created a few interesting spots, strategy-wise), there were a few instances of coaches faced with key fourth-down decisions late in games. A couple stood out, both involving teams that were ahead and looking at a fourth-and-short with just a few minutes left.

One came late afternoon when the Los Angeles Rams were up 10-0 against the Miami Dolphins with six minutes and 45 seconds remaining. The Rams had a fourth-and-1 at the Miami 30-yard-line, and rather than go for it decided to try a 48-yard field goal that like those PATs ended up a miss (hitting the left upright).

Miami subsequently marched down the field to score a touchdown in less than three minutes, held the Rams to a three-and-out and got the ball back, then took just a minute-and-a-half to mount another TD drive to win 14-10. Rams coach Jeff Fisher was maligned somewhat afterwards for not going for the first down rather than try to stretch the lead from 10 to 13 -- certainly more so than would have been the case if L.A. had managed to hang on to win.

Another instance came in the night game between Washington and Green Bay. In that one the Redskins were up 29-24 and in fact there was exactly the same amount of time left -- six minutes and 45 seconds. In Washington’s case, they were on their own 41-yard line and facing a fourth-and-1. They decided to go for it, got a couple of yards and the first down via a quarterback sneak, then went on to score a TD themselves and more or less seal the game.

Of course, in the latter situation Green Bay’s offense was proving hard to stop for Washington (they’d scored TDs their last two possessions), so the desire to retain possession was higher there than was the case in the Rams-Dolphins game where Miami hadn’t scored a point in any of their 11 possessions. In any case, Washington coach Jay Gruden earned accolades for what was deemed a gutsy decision to go for it on fourth in that spot, although again it’s easy to imagine the decision being judged differently had it not worked out the way it did.

“Gruden was feeling risky all night,” writes ESPN, alluding both to the fourth-down try and Washington having gone for two-point conversions twice earlier (failing both times).

Meanwhile many noted the very conservative game plan followed by the Rams who had rookie QB Jared Goff making his NFL debut, with Fisher’s decision to try that field goal earning some censure for being too risk-averse. “Los Angeles could have won that game if Jeff Fisher was less conservative on fourth down late in the game,” concludes RamsWire, articulating a thought shared by many.

Neither of these fourth-and-1 decisions were unambiguous in terms of their reward. That is to say, making the first down didn’t guarantee victories, although certainly would meaningfully improve the team’s chance of winning the game. The risk each presented wasn’t cut-and-dry, either, although it appeared Washington faced a greater one with a smaller lead and worse field position.

I saw a stat not long ago stating that over the last 20 years nearly half of all NFL games ended up being “one score” games decided by seven points or less. Games finishing with margins of eight points up to 16 are also often still in doubt by the middle of the fourth quarter, which means the majority of NFL games present situations in which teams that are ahead face similar challenges to weigh risk versus reward when it comes to clock management and possession.

Like a player with a final table chip lead, such teams and coaches still often have to continue to take risks in order to increase their chances of winning. In other words, they usually can’t just “fold” their way to the win.

My frontrunner status in the pool is causing me to identify somewhat with this position. And the example presented by these coaches and their disparate ways of handling the endgame is making me recognize I shouldn’t become too conservative with picks going forward, since being overly risk-averse may lessen my chance at the reward of winning the sucker.

Photo: Advanced Football Analytics.

WPT Success for Sexton

“I work much too hard for every Panther win.”

That’s what I texted a friend late last night after Carolina hung on to beat New Orleans 23-20.

Was kind of a familiar story with the Panthers starting strong and continuing to maintain a big lead through three quarters, entering the fourth up 23-3. Then the offense just shut down altogether, having three straight three-and-outs to give the Saints the ball back over and over, enabling them to climb back into the sucker.

Thankfully Carolina was able to convert on a third down late -- the team’s only first down the entire fourth quarter -- to milk just enough time to make it difficult (though not impossible) for New Orleans to mount one last drive to attempt a tying field goal. The Saints came up short, and the Panthers eked out the win.

Meanwhile starting in the afternoon I had dialed up the streaming coverage of the World Poker Tour Montreal final table at the Playground Poker Club, following along with a lot of the poker world to see if WPT host Mike Sexton -- who brought the chip lead to the six-handed final table -- might win his first WPT title.

We all know Sexton pretty well by now, of course, given that the WPT is in its 15th season and he’s been there from the very start. He played a fairly prominent role during the poker “boom” of the 2000s (to which the WPT shows contributed significantly). And over the years just about everyone who has been around the poker world has gotten to know him in some capacity, his unofficial status as “Ambassador of Poker” being well confirmed.

I have covered Sexton in a number of tournaments over the years, of course. Also had the chance to help report on a few WPT events as well -- including at the Playground Poker Club -- at which I’ve gotten to chat with him about his years living in North Carolina and playing in underground games before moving out to Vegas. Not too long ago I read and reviewed his new autobiography, titled Life’s a Gamble, which filled in further gaps about his interesting life (and the history of the WPT).

By the time the game ended it was down to heads-up between Benny Chen and Sexton, with Chen enjoying the chip lead to begin their duel. I’d noticed a few hands go by in which Chen seemed to be running especially well connecting with boards, and his lead increased as a result.

Looking back through the WPT live updates, I see that Sexton nearly pulled even in an early hand between the pair, but Chen pushed back out ahead and maintained the lead over the first several dozen hands the pair played. At one point Chen had 17.775 million to Sexton’s 1.675 million, a better than 10-to-1 chip advantage. That’s an even bigger edge, percentage-wise, than the lead the Panthers had entering the fourth.

Sexton doubled once with Q-10 versus Chen’s 9-4-suited and chipped back a bit. But then Sexton fell back and found himself all in and at risk again, this time in a bad spot with A-4 versus Chen’s A-Q-suited. Fortunately for Sexton a four came among the community cards and he survived, and after 90 hands they were still going at it.

I ended up hitting the sack some time after that as they’d end up playing almost a couple of hours more. Sexton would double up two more times -- once with pocket kings, another time coming from behind with J-10 versus A-8 -- finally wrestling the chip lead away from Chen. It was just two hands later Chen would shove with K-J, Sexton snap-called with pocket queens, and the big pair held to give Sexton the title.

They played 158 hands of heads-up, and Chen had the chip lead for 156 of those hands. In other words, it played out not unlike some of these NFL games where one team is ahead for 59-plus minutes only for the other team to pull it out in the end -- as almost happened to the Panthers.

Kind of neat to see Sexton get this one. He’s been playing WPT events since the sixth season, and had made a couple of WPT final tables before. Easy to understand Chen’s disappointment, though, having had to endure the big comeback during which he had Sexton on the ropes for much of the endgame (not to mention everyone pulling for his opponent).

That’s the way these games go, where it’s often the case you have to work hard for these wins.

Image: “Mike Sexton | WPT Five Diamond (S13),” World Poker Tour. CC BY-NC 2.0.

Upside Down, Unexpectedly

Poker steels a person to handle the unexpected.

Those who’ve played the game even for a short while -- and who’ve paid attention enough to absorb some of the odds and probabilities and learn what is likely and what is not -- become accustomed to surprises. You know, kings cracking aces, the occasional one- or two-outer showing up on the river, or various runner-runner revelations that can make improbable winners of all-but-certain losers.

Of course, even when in possession of this knowledge, we still experience a certain level of surprise when such things happen. If we’re human, that is. Experiencing such emotion is part of what helps keep the game interesting to a lot of us. After all, in our “normal,” day-to-day lives, we rarely experience surprises, and indeed often try to map out our activities so as to avoid them.

Regardless of who you supported, the result of last night’s presidential election was more than likely not what you expected to happen.

Watching the coverage play out starting during the early evening when the first polls closed on the east coast, all the reporting emphasized the high likelihood of Hillary Clinton winning. In fact more than one outlet used a poker metaphor to describe Donald Trump’s needing to win several states in which Clinton was favored, saying his position was like “drawing to an inside straight.”

A couple of hours in, though, just after nine o’clock ET when another round of states’ polls closed and more projections and calls were delivered, the situation suddenly swung the other way. For Trump supporters, it was a delirously exciting 20-25 minutes or so; for those backing Clinton, it was a nightmarish sequence, occurring rapidly enough to make it hard to grasp fully the implications of what was happening.

The betting markets were slightly ahead of the game with their numbers last night. My friend Rich Ryan was tweeting out Pinnacle’s lines on a regular basis all night. Actually he’d been doing it for a week, with “HRC” the big favorite, climbing as high as -780 as things got going last night. In the space of an hour that figure dropped to -124, then after lingering there a while the sucker flipped to show “Trump/Other” at -122. An hour later Trump was up as high as Clinton had been, and by shortly after 11 p.m. here it already seemed all but certain there was no way Trump would lose.

I had CNN on, and sure enough Jake Tapper was revisiting that poker analogy not long after the flip had occurred. Recalling the earlier reference to Trump’s seemingly slim chances, he noted how the situation had been changed to Clinton being the one drawing not just to an inside straight, but to an inside straight flush, suggesting the need for a one-outer rather than a four-outer. (Am still hunting down the exact quote -- when I find it I’ll include it here.)

I was mentioning yesterday Nate Silver’s much-cited election forecast. He’d famously predicted 49 of 50 states plus D.C. correctly eight years ago, then got all 50 of them right along with D.C. in 2012. This time he (or his models) whiffed on five key states -- Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- all of which he had going Clinton’s way, and all of which Trump won.

Signing off from the coverage over on FiveThirtyEight last night, Silver actually wrote he wasn’t surprised by the outcome given that the polling had indicating the possibility of a competitive race. But he also admitted that “in a broader sense... it’s the most shocking political development of my lifetime.”

Yesterday I also brought up the analogy of picking NFL games, bringing up again that Pigskin Pick’em contest I’ve enjoyed over the last several years. Sometimes when writing about the contest I’ve alluded to those “Win Probability” graphs and how wild they sometimes appear in games that end with unlikely finishes where one team snatches victory away from the other following a final, surprising twist (or two or three).

The graph tracking last night’s developments was similarly dizzying. Just below is the one from The New York Times, which is pretty much identical to the ones created by other outlets overnight:

The reasons both for Trump’s win and for the failure of so many to see it coming are going to be discussed for some time. I have my own ideas, though don’t necessarily want to try to sort them out here just yet.

When a poker hand or football game gets all twisted around at the end, it’s usually easy enough to isolate the card(s) or play(s) that caused the outcome. This one is a lot more complicated, though still can be explained.

All of that effort will have the effect of lessening the shock of experiencing that head-spinning half-hour last night. When the blue and red graph lines unexpectedly dived upon one another, crossing paths in a sudden rush that literally turned the story they were telling upside down.

I mean, really... whatta river.

Image: “Election 2016” (adapted), DonkeyHotey. CC BY 2.0.

On Being “In Play”

Happy Election Day, all.

I voted this morning. I would have tried voting early, but I was on the road -- to Malta, then to New Jersey -- for pretty much the entire time early voting was available for me.

I arrived at the nearby church that functions as my polling station right at 6:30 a.m. so as to avoid any long lines later today. The place was already packed, and in fact it was hard finding a place to park. But the whole process only took about a half-hour to get through, and now I’m back on the farm where I’ll be tuning in tonight with everyone else to see how it all goes.

North Carolina is a “battleground state” this year, with enough electoral votes to matter and genuine uncertainty over whether it’ll be tipping toward Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I noticed yesterday Nate Silver had placed NC on a “Tier 1” line with Florida as a key indicator of how things are ultimately going to go.

Eight years ago the state barely chose Obama, while Romney won by a wider margin in the last election. The polls having been suggesting Hillary wins NC by a smidgen this time, but it’s truly up in the air at the moment. (Bill Clinton lost NC by small margins in both ’92 and ’96.)

It’s curious to be voting in a state that is “in play” like this, given how most elections that hasn’t really been the case. It reminds me a little of the Pigskin Pick’em game that has been increasingly distracting me every week since I’ve been out front in the sucker since Week 2.

Every week’s slate of NFL games contains many games that essentially aren’t significant since practically the entire pool picks the same way. Such was true, for instance, with last night’s Buffalo-Seattle game in which almost everyone took the Seahawks (and won, although it was a close one).

Meanwhile other games last weekend were most definitely “in play” -- e.g., Philadelphia-NY Giants, Carolina-Los Angeles, and Denver-Oakland, which in each case saw about half the pool go one way and half the other. Those outcomes therefore meant something, affecting the pool standings, while the unanimous (or near-unanimous) games did not.

Of course, what I’m describing is all a matter of perception. It’s like when we talk about a poker hand and after fourth street brings an apparent “blank” we cheerfully say “the turn changed nothing.”

But almost always the turn is not wholly insignificant (except in those relatively rare instances when a player is already drawing dead after the flop). It moves the game forward another betting round, having meaning even if it doesn’t change who is ahead in the hand.

So, too, do these games (or states) that aren’t “in play” still significant to the overall contest. (In fact, who’s to say, really, which states are and are not, until later tonight?)

In any event, regardless how the election turns out, things have certainly changed here in the U.S. and will continue to do so going forward. After the last year-and-a-half, it feels like practically everything is “in play” now.

Fumbles That Hit You Right in the Feelings

Football season is in high gear, even if my Carolina Panthers are off to a woeful start.

Yesterday’s game versus the Atlanta Falcons was especially distressing, given how evident it was from the very beginning the defense wasn’t going to be able to stop Atlanta’s passing game. Reigning MVP Cam Newton going out in the second half after suffering a concussion just made things less pleasant.

The Panthers losing presents a specific problem for me in my Pigskin Pick’em pool (where we pick games straight up, not versus the spread), as I dislike picking against them. That bias wasn’t so much of an issue last year when they went 15-1, but it’s already earned me three “X” marks this year.

Otherwise I’ve done well so far with my picks, although yesterday got me thinking once more about the relative pain and pleasure that comes from various outcomes.

My buddy Robert Woolley, a.k.a. the “Poker Grump,” wrote a nice article for PokerNews recently titled “Mountains, Swinging, and the Fear of Loss in Poker” in which he shares some research regarding the way losing can hurt more than winning can feel good.

According to findings of the economist Robert cites in the article, the “loss aversion” ratio for most people is “in the range of 1.5 to 2.5.” In other words, for many it is somewhere either above or below being twice as painful to lose than it is pleasurable to win.

It was early in the NFL season last year I shared a hastily-created “pleasure-pain index” for Pigskin Pick’em, something I was reminded of by Robert’s article as well as by some of the results from yesterday. The index goes as follows:

most pain: making non-consensus choice (usually an underdog), being wrong

least pain: making consensus choice (usually a favorite), being wrong

least pleasure: making consensus choice (usually a favorite), being right

most pleasure: making non-consensus choice (usually an underdog), being right

After three weeks of following a relatively conservative path with my picks, I broke out of that yesterday somewhat by choosing a few unpopular dogs such as Jacksonville (who won) and the LOLJets (who lost). Those picks ended up evening out for the most part, although one game in particular -- San Diego’s miserable give-away of its game versus New Orleans -- got me thinking the index isn’t accounting for another factor significantly affecting the pleasure-pain measurement.

I picked San Diego over Indianapolis in Week 3, a game in which the Chargers had a 22-20 lead and a 2nd-and-3 at midfield with less than three minutes left, but couldn’t make a first down and lost the lead on a long TD.

The Chargers then got the ball back down four and promptly fumbled, then after getting it back one last time with almost no time left fumbled again. Indy won 26-22, with San Diego having gone from an 80.6% “win probability” (as ESPN is now measuring) with two minutes left to losing.

Despite the pain caused by that failed pick, I chose San Diego again yesterday in their home game against New Orleans, and with just under seven minutes left the Chargers were up 34-21 with possession of the football. Win probability? 98.5%. But they fumbled, and the Saints got a quick TD. Then they fumbled again, New Orleans got seven more, and the Chargers lost 35-34.

I didn’t actually see either game, save the last desperate minute yesterday when San Diego got the ball back one last time and lost 12 yards, then threw a pick. Reading box scores and play-by-play rundowns of the ends of these two games, the fumbles seem almost purposeful -- the surest way to lose the games. Bill Barnwell of ESPN even tweeted yesterday how San Diego was “trying so hard to lose this game,” and while I don’t actually think they were, it’s uncanny how efficiently they managed to let slip away an all-but-certain victory.

I’m realizing the pain is heightened when being on the wrong side of these games, and is much greater than the pleasure of winning them, in my experience. I’m referring to games in which as a person trying to predict winners the game concludes in such a way that you cannot help but view yourself as being either “lucky” or “unlucky” when choosing either side -- you know, games decided by unlikely late turnovers, odd or incorrect calls by referees, missed field goals, and the like.

I certainly like winning such games, but when that happens I can’t say I feel as though I’ve “earned” the check mark like I do when teams demonstrate less equivocally that I’ve chosen the right side (such as when I picked the Steelers last night and they crushed Kansas City 43-14). Meanwhile losing them feels especially bad, and even today I keep looking back and thinking how “undeserving” I am to have been rudely delivered that red “X” in the Chargers-Saints game.

Each of the four categories above, then, could be split into four more subcategories -- the “lucky” win, the “non-lucky” win, the “non-lucky” loss, and the “unlucky” loss -- with the relative pain-pleasure calibrated for each outcome. Hmm... this is getting complicated. I may have to create a table or graph to represent it all.

Silly stuff, I know. But the curious part of it is how what I’m describing is precisely the opposite of what happens (to me) in poker, where losing because of bad luck doesn’t hurt much at all, but losing because of my own poor decisions hurts significantly. Similarly, winning by getting lucky doesn’t bring as much pleasure as winning because of smart, skillful play.

Will keep monitoring it all. And we’ll see if I can ever bring myself to picking the Chargers again -- or perhaps if I can start picking against the Panthers -- and what sort of pain and/or pleasure those picks will produce.

Image: “fumble!” (adapted), Paul L Dineen. CC BY 2.0.

Football, Finally

I’ve been guilty more than once here over the last couple of months of grumbling about the relative paucity of televised sports entertainment. It’s my own fault, really. Imprisoned by my own tastes.

Sometimes the whining has come under the heading of pining for more poker on the teevee -- such as during the WSOP Main Event (which still hasn’t begun to be aired on ESPN and won’t start until Sunday). Definitely feel like there’s a valley here in the summer that poker could fill for a certain segment of sports watchers.

I realize there are sports to watch during the couple of months that follow the NBA finals. It’s not that I don’t enjoy watching the occasional tennis match, fourth round of a golf tournament, soccer match, or baseball game. Or even (this year) the panoply of Olympic sports from last month, which I spent some hours enjoying during the first week at least before taking off for Barcelona halfway through the sucker.

But for me the most enjoyable sport to watch on television is football, and I mean professional football. College is an okay diversion, but it ain’t nearly as engaging to me as the pro game.

This year begins uniquely for a Panthers fan like myself, given how Carolina gets to play in tonight’s Thursday kickoff game in a Super Bowl rematch versus the Denver Broncos. It’s not an ideal spot to begin a season -- on the road, on a short week, and versus an above average opponent. But it’ll give us all an early idea how bullish we should be on the team this time around.

Tonight’ll mark the first of 256 attempts at picking winners again as well as I jump back into another Pigskin Pick’em campaign. Hard to have much perspective with tonight’s pick, as we’re pretty well overwhelmed with unreasonable optimism regarding the Panthers around these parts. No Peyton for the Broncos (and an untested fellow in his place behind center) is encouraging many to go with Carolina as well, although I don’t necessarily think the QB situation will hurt Denver all that much.

Ah well... no more fussing over it. Time to make a pick. The second-guessing is just hours away!

Image: “Pigskin,” Eric Kilby. CC BY-SA 2.0.

Preseason Football is Like Play Money Poker

That NFL Hall of Fame Game was canceled last Sunday because of some sort of field-painting snafu, thereby delaying the start of the preseason by a few days. Such teasing perhaps increased the anticipation slightly prior to last night’s games, although truthfully the whole NFL preseason is pretty much a tease, if you think about it.

As the Carolina Panthers lined up to begin their initial preseason game last night versus the Baltimore Ravens, I was slightly excited to turn away from the Olympics for a bit and finally -- finally -- dial up the sport I enjoy watching the most. But it only took a series or two (and the subbing out of the starters) to remember these games aren’t quite “real” football. (Crazy to think how tickets for these games cost the same as regular season ones.)

In fact, it only took me until the start of the second quarter before I was already flipping back over to swimming and gymnastics.

Found myself thinking a little of play money poker games -- pretty much the only kind I play anymore online, and only rarely at that. There’s always a small little feeling of excitement when sitting down, kind of a very, very faint echo of the feeling from years ago when playing real money games. But it goes away quickly, and it’s hard to maintain focus and/or enthusiasm thereafter.

I do want to restart my play money “Home Games” on PokerStars at some point, which in way work to create a kind of interest and competitiveness that can be fun. I’ll try to get motivated in that direction sooner than later.

Meanwhile we can wait out these tedious preseason contests until September 8 when my Panthers get another crack at Denver in the season opener. The real opener, that is.

Image: “100% Genuine Fake Shop. Lol!” (adapted), Graham Hills. CC BY 2.0.

The Asynchronous Audience

Over the last few days I’ve gradually been listening to the final PokerNews Podcast of the 2016 World Series of Poker (episode #406) -- of the summer portion of the WSOP, anyway. Kind of just the way things worked out in terms of my listening opportunities, although there wasn’t such an urgency to listen right away as there was with earlier episodes since this one recapped the action as it concluded on that final day when the Main Event played down from 27 to nine.

That’s where the Main Event will remain, of course, for approximately 100 more days until the “November Nine” (which starts at the end of October) finally gets going.

There are a lot of good interviews in this episode -- the ones with Gordon Vayo, Cliff Josephy, and Griffin Benger stand out as especially interesting. Again, I’ve said it before (and recently), but Remko Rinkema is terrific with these.

Along the way Remko and Donnie Peters talk through that last day, recounting highlights and big hands. Which is how most of us will be experiencing that day (and the couple preceding it) once ESPN begins airing its coverage -- not until Sunday, September 11, actually.

In other words, the WSOP shows won’t begin on ESPN until after the NFL has already begun, as the network is obviously once more using poker as a kind of “counterprogramming” to football. Doesn’t matter too much, though, as I imagine many will go the DVR route, watch “on demand” via the WatchESPN app, or view the episodes online in some other fashion when and where they wish. Kind of like the way I’m listening to the PNPod.

If you think about it, those of us who like to follow the WSOP Main Event now experience this particular tournament very much like other “series” people watch on demand -- i.e., dramas, comedies, etc. That delivery method also creates conditions for the same sort of “asynchronous” dialogue about the tournament we often have online via various social media outlets and discussion forums.

All of which means our talk about the tournament so far has been necessarily scattered and strung out. Even when the episodes start airing seven weeks from now, they’ll only serve as vague points of reference for the discussion as it goes forward -- apart, perhaps, from a big hand or two (such as Benger’s aces-over-kings ouster of the talkative William Kassouf in 17th) which might get us all on the same page for a brief moment.

Not saying this is good or bad, just different from most major poker tournaments and sporting events that are covered live (or essentially live), and perhaps more like other facets of entertainment culture that are not collectively experienced at once. At least the final table will give us a chance to witness and respond to the WSOP Main Event as a group.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about the WSOP Main Event, well, go right ahead. We’ll catch up eventually.

Image: “Scattered Time,” dommylive. CC BY 2.0.

Recency Bias in Politics and Poker

Was sitting here this evening with the teevee on hearing the talking heads reacting to early results of the New Hampshire primaries. Most polls had Donald Trump winning big on the Republicans’ side and Bernie Sanders similarly coming out on top for the Democrats, and that is just how things have played out.

Many of the commentators nonetheless seem to be expressing some amazement at the twin triumphs of Trump and Sanders. To be fair, they’re prefacing such comments with statements about how a few months ago it would seem unlikely that either of the two “outsider” candidates (a term that somewhat differently applies to each) would not just win in NH but by large margins. Even so, most seem to be influenced more by the fact that neither won in Iowa (although both nearly did), thus making the overwhelming wins in NH seem more dramatic by contrast.

Now I’m watching the speeches of the winners and other candidates. Man, they are going on and on. Couldn’t just say “nh” in NH, and move on, I guess.

(By the way, I’m assuming someone has already conceived of an op-ed comparing Donald Trump and Cam Newton and how each handles winning and losing, probably mapping those responses onto some conclusion about the relative maturity level of the culture as a whole.)

Thinking ahead, what happened tonight will surely inordinately affect the response on February 20 when the next round of voting occurs with the South Carolina primary and caucuses in Nevada and Washington state. The focus on what just happened is partly influenced by the 24-hour news “cycle” (which isn’t really even a “cycle” anymore but rather a kind of perpetuum mobile running without interruption). But it’s also, I think, just “part of the game.”

Many poker players are well aware of the idea of “recency bias” and that tendency to think things in the recent past are reliable indicators of what is about to happen next. And the fact is, those indicators often are fairly reliable, but not always -- another reason for the resulting bias.

Trying to pick winners each week during the NFL season highlights the problems that can arise from a too great reliance on recent events. Heck, the huge point spread in favor of the Panthers in Super Bowl 50 and all of the betting on Carolina -- more than 70% of the bets leading into Sunday, I read -- exemplified recency bias especially well, as everyone was influenced by their trouncing of Arizona in the NFC Championship.

The presidential race will continue to experience turbulence for the next few weeks, I imagine, but by the end of March more than half the delegates will have been determined for each party, thus making what happened most recently relatively less influential.

But what just happened will still affect responses to what happens next, as it always does.

Image: “New Hampshire Primary - Illustration,” DonkeyHotey. CC BY 2.0.

Denver’s Hand Holds Up

Well, obviously I did something wrong yesterday.

With just under 11 minutes left in the third quarter of Super Bowl 50, the Carolina Panthers’ opening drive of the second half stalled on the 26-yard-line of the Denver Broncos. Facing fourth-and-11, the Panthers attempted a field goal which would cut the Denver lead to three.

It had been an ugly first half for the Panthers, with a couple of fumbles including one converted into a touchdown by the Broncos. But they were only down six, thanks in large part to the Carolina defense having mostly stifled Denver throughout the first two quarters. And a made FG here would mark a good start to what Panthers’ fans hoped would be a better second half.

Alas, Graham Gano’s 44-yard attempt stayed right, then at the last moment struck the upright and bounced away for a miss. It turned out to be an especially appropriate symbol for the entire game for Carolina. A bit of bad luck, though if skill had prevailed luck didn’t necessarily have to matter as much.

The missed FG that hits an upright always seems like a lucky (or unlucky) play. Sometimes the ball still caroms through after hitting the upright, if the end-over-end turning ball happens to catch it in a favorable way. Other times it doesn’t. Then again, if the ball had been kicked even just a little closer to the center of the uprights, the ball’s spin or that fateful breath of wind wouldn’t have made any difference.

On Denver’s subsequent drive, they converted a field goal to make it 16-7. Then the Panthers drove 52 yards in four plays, and on the fifth Cam Newton overthrew a receiver and Denver safety T.J. Ward intercepted the ball. Ward ran a couple of steps then fumbled, and ball bounced crazily toward the Panthers’ end zone before being covered by Ward’s teammate, Danny Trevathan (his second fumble recovery of the game).

Again, it seemed like an unlucky bounce that prevented Carolina from scooping up the loose ball around the Denver 5. But of course, the fumble doesn’t happen without the interception preceding it. Then we went to another interminable-seeming commercial break. (Let me tell you, when your team is losing in the Super Bowl, the commercials aren’t nearly as fun.)

Luck mattered in the game, and we can put under the same heading some of the penalties handed out and calls made as representing judgments by others outside of the players’ control. It felt like Carolina was picking up big hands over and again but somehow failing to scoop any decent-sized pots with them. But as second half wound down it didn’t feel like Denver had gotten lucky to win. They’d earned it, just as much as Carolina earned the loss.

Then again, it could have been my fault. I mean, I did what I could, including holding my lucky Panther, Sweetie, for much of the second half (against her wishes, mind you). I guess some Denver fan must’ve done me one better, holding on a little tighter, much like the Denver players did a better job holding on to the ball.

And as a result, the Broncos’ (better) hand held up.

Staying Put for the Super Bowl

I remember some twenty-plus years ago living in Chapel Hill and going to graduate school. After getting an undergraduate degree there I continued on for the M.A., then would make a change for the doctorate afterwards (going to Indiana). Several years later I would return to my home state of North Carolina to live and teach.

In other words I’d been a lifelong Tarheel fan by the time the ’93-’94 season came around. The team’s run to a championship that year remains vivid in my memory, something I wrote a little about over on Ocelot Sports a couple of years ago and also chatted with Dr. Pauly about on a podcast we did for the 20th anniversary of the final game between UNC and Michigan.

One part of that memory that stands out was the way my friends not only found it necessary to watch all of the tournament games at the same place (one friend’s apartment), but for all of us to sit in the same seats as well as the Heels kept winning each game.

I recall more and more people joining us as they proceeded through the tournament, with about 20 crammed in the small living room for the final. But the core group all kept our same seats so as not to disturb the spell of Carolina’s streak. As my buddy the host explained, “You can’t prove it doesn’t have an effect.”

At the time I vaguely thought about the logic class I’d taken as an undergrad and phrases like “proving a negative” and “proof of impossibility” and “correlation does not imply causation.” I played cards occasionally then, but this was before I’d get heavily into poker and the study of the game, and so I don’t think I knew about the “gambler’s fallacy” then, or I’d have probably thought of that, too.

My buddy Bob (a.k.a. the “Poker Grump”) who regularly writes strategy articles for PokerNews has written smartly about the latter. In “What is the ‘Gambler’s Fallacy’ and How Does It Apply to Poker?” he explains how it works, starting with the example of a roulette player allowing the phenomenon of a ball landing on red nine straight times influence him to think that has something to do with what will happen on spin number ten.

Superstitions among sports fans aren’t quite the same thing, although they share a common lack of rationality. A poll conducted by Associated Press-Ipsos several years ago found that a little more than 20% of sports fans “say they do things in an attempt to bring good luck to their favorite team or avoid jinxing them.”

The Super Bowl is Sunday, and Vera and I have already been invited to a couple of viewing parties. As readers of the blog surely have picked up on by now, I have a rooting interest in the game, one that matches where I was with the Heels back in the spring of 1994. In this case my fandom has also been building for decades and through a long, exciting season’s worth of games, most of which have gone my team’s way.

I’ve watched all of those games this year from the couch here -- from the same side, actually, where I’m sitting and typing this post.

I’m thinking it might be nice just to stay at home on the farm on Sunday.

On the Square

My Pop gave me a call about a week-and-a-half ago. He had a question for me. Having retired, he’s living down in Florida now in a pretty great community where he’s spending a lot of his time fishing, playing golf, playing music (he’s a guitar player), and having fun.

A Super Bowl gathering is being planned there where he’s living, and the organizers of it had an idea to raise a little bit of money for use in future activities. They’re going to do a “Super Bowl Squares” pool, and while he had an idea what that was about, he was wondering if I could describe to him what it involved.

I was able to explain it to him fairly well, noting how I remembered at last year’s PokerStars Caribbean Adventure a game had been organized during the playoff games one weekend. You probably know how the game works, too.

A 10 x 10 grid is created with the rows and columns each numbered 0 through 9. Players contribute whatever the entry fee is to the pool, then put their name or initials in one of the squares. Each side goes with one of the teams, so, say, the rows are the Panthers and the columns are the Broncos (as above).

Then at the end of each quarter, whatever the score is determines who wins that quarter’s worth of the cabbage. Say the first quarter ends with the score 13-7 in favor of Carolina -- that would mean whoever had the square in row 3, column 7 would win the quarter (the last digit in each team’s score). Same happens at end of second, third, and fourth quarters, too, with the pool divided up among the four winners.

Unfortunately for him there’s no choosing squares -- they’ll just draw ’em out of hat -- otherwise there would be some strategy involved. Upon learning how the game worked, he noted how it’d be great to draw 0/0, then for the game to go to overtime as a scoreless tie, thus giving that square all four quarters. I noted how there ain’t gonna be a scoreless tie on Sunday, but he knew that already.

Curious, I looked around a little and found an article on The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective website offering “The Optimal Strategy for Playing Squares.” Of course, these were the guys who also published something last July suggesting the Miami Dolphins would be making the Super Bowl this year (and giving the Carolina Panthers a 22% chance of making the playoffs, ranking them 22nd out of 30 in the NFL), so I suppose we should take this squares advice with a grain of salt.

Even if the game won’t be a scoreless tie after four quarters, the 0/0 square is actually one of the best squares to get (unsurprisingly). 0/3, 0/4, 0/7, 3/0, 3/3, 3/4, 3/7, 4/0, 4/3, 4/4, 4/7, 7/0, 7/3, 7/4, and 7/7 are also good ones. Meanwhile pretty much any square with a 2 or a 5 in it is terrible to get, with the ones with a 1, 6, 8, or 9 also pretty bad -- no shocker there for those who know how scoring typically goes in NFL games. That said, the new 33-yard extra point increasing the chance of a miss (and perhaps encouraging teams to go for two) may affect things a bit this year.

The Harvard article actually factors in the favorite-versus-underdog variable to create its chart, although I think that’s probably more fiddling than you’d really need to think about when picking a square (if allowed to pick your own). Even so, for them the 7/0 square in which the 7 is the favorite side is worth about twice what the 0/7 square would be, so perhaps it is something to consider.

Would taking the faves/dogs distinction into account be how the sharps play squares?

Image: PrintYourBrackets.com.

Panthers Keep Pounding

Eight days ago I sat on my couch to watch the Carolina Panthers’ first playoff game, a division round matchup versus the Seattle Seahawks. Like all Panthers fans, I greatly enjoyed the first half during which our team dominated while storming out to a 31-0 lead.

At the half I moved to a new location. We had a visitor and while Vera entertained I parked it in a different room to watch the second half. Needless to say, things weren’t as comfortable in that environment as I watched Seattle come all of the way back to make it 31-24, with the Panthers having to recover an onside kick attempt by the Seahawks at the end to seal the win.

The comeback inspired a strategy article for PokerNews, titled “Football, Poker, and the Challenge of Trying to Keep a Big Lead.” It’s a theme I’ve written about before in various places -- that is, the strange discomfort experienced by some players when playing “from the front.”

Carolina obviously adopted a highly conservative strategy on both sides of the ball during that second half, going with run plays and low-risk passes on offense while mostly sticking to preventing long pass plays on defense while allowing short-to-medium gains that helped Seattle put together drive after drive.

In yesterday’s conference championship game, Carolina found itself in a similar spot by the half, up 24-7 and fairly dominating the Arizona Cardinals (surprisingly, I thought, given how evenly matched the teams appeared to have been). The second half then saw the Panthers adopt a different approach and remain more aggressive both offensively and defensively, and the result was another almost identical half, score-wise, as the final ended up 49-15.

I also adopted a different strategy yesterday, remaining right there on the couch from start to finish with no dramatic moves to watch from different locations. Like the Panthers, I decided to stick with what was working. Was a hugely satisfying game for Panthers fans, of course, and a nice finish to a home season that saw them win all 10 of their games at Bank of America Stadium.

Two whole weeks, now, to do whatever I have to do before Super Bowl L -- or, rather, Super Bowl 50 (as no one seems to want to hang that “L” on the sucker). Two weeks until I get right back on the couch again and stay put.

Photo: “Panthers iPhone Wallpaper,” Shea Huening (adapted). CC BY-ND 2.0.

Best of Luck to Everyone

The Panthers are in the NFC Championship game this Sunday, and I can hardly bear making myself even think about it.

I’ve been a fan since the first year of the franchise, and can safely say my rooting interest in the Panthers has been greater than for any other pro team in my lifetime. In other words, it is impossible for me to be at all objective about the team and/or what might happen on Sunday in their game versus the Cardinals.

I think it’s fair, though, to suggest both games Sunday will feature evenly matched teams, and whoever happens to win the games will then be evenly-matched in Super Bowl 50 two weeks later.

Both games feature the top two teams in each conference, with the No. 1-seeded Denver Broncos hosting the No. 2-seeded New England Patriots in the early game, then the top-seeded Panthers hosting the second-seeded Arizona Cardinals in the nightcap. Both games have had lines of around three points favoring the home teams, which is generally the number of points allotted for home-field advantage, meaning the sportsbooks are essentially calling the matchups even.

You can reasonably argue in favor of one team or another on Sunday, but I think most rational-thinking people would admit that with the match-ups this close (on paper, anyway), it’s hard to guess what might happen. Even rabid fans of one of the teams involved (like me) have to admit as much. A couple of coin tosses.

It makes me think a little of the situation that often arises in certain tournaments such as the $25K High Roller I helped cover at the conclusion the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure. The players making it to the final table are all so skilled, you have to call the match-ups essentially even. With four left (for instance) a person certainly could have argued in favor of Nick Maimone, Sean Winter, Dario Sammartino, or Josh Beckley being the best of those remaining. But the skill distinction was so small between them (in my view), it was mostly negligible.

Somewhat ironically, then, luck matters more in these spots. How the cards are dealt matters more when everyone knows equally well how to play them. Maimone rivered a straight flush to beat Beckley’s turned ace-high flush, and Beckley was eliminated in fourth. Sammartino’s king-ten couldn’t outrace Winter’s pocket sevens, and he was out in third. After a heads-up deal, Maimone got dealt better cards than Winter did, and Maimone eventually prevailed.

“Good thing we made the deal,” said Winter at one point, noting how Maimone had won several pots in a row. “Nah, I’m just picking up hands,” Maimone insisted, and I don’t doubt that he was right.

With both games so even this weekend, both will probably hinge on a turnover or key play -- likely something that can be classified as lucky -- to determine the outcomes. It could go otherwise, of course, and we might see two blowouts. Even so, luck will play a role.

I’m reminded of those two earlier playoff games, the one ending on a couple of flukey penalties and a field goal to win (Pittsburgh at Cincinnati), the other ending on a missed 27-yard field goal that would have changed the outcome (Seattle at Minnesota).

I’m thinking as well of an interview I heard this week with Green Bay Packers injured receiver Jordy Nelson. He was asked about the Packers’ having successfully completed multiple “Hail Mary” passes this season, including two in short succession at the end of regulation in that wild finish versus Arizona last Sunday.

“What do the Packers know that other teams don’t know about Hail Mary passes?” went the question (I’m paraphrasing). Nelson had a great answer.

“They’re all luck.”

Photo: “www.Army.mil,” The U.S. Army. CC BY 2.0.

Play the Cards You’re Dealt

The advice to “play the cards you’re dealt” is one of those many poker clichés you’ll hear come up in non-poker contexts. In fact, now that I think about it, you probably hear the phrase uttered more often away from the poker table than at it.

After all, it seems kind of superfluous to remind each other while at the table you have to play the cards the dealer delivers to you. But in other situations, that recommendation to be realistic (or content) about what you can accomplish with whatever resources you have is perhaps better served by the poker metaphor.

The phrase occurred to me today while reading about the Philadelphia Eagles letting go of Chip Kelly just a game shy of the end of his third season with the club. The article I was reading appears on the ESPN site and is called “Why the Chip Kelly experiment didn’t work.” That title highlights the way the head coach who eventually also became the team’s general manager (and thus controlled personnel) has always been regarded as a kind of iconoclast who deliberately deviates from usual strategies when it came to managing and coaching NFL teams.

I remember writing a blog post here discussing Kelly way back at the very beginning of his tenure with the Eagles, one in which I was complaining about my Carolina Panthers’ conservative play-calling and drawing a contrast between them and Kelly’s team. Kelly had brought his no-huddle hurry-up offense from college to the pros, winning his first game in splashy fashion and making teams like Carolina suddenly seem sluggish and unimaginative. (Funny now, of course, to think of how differently the next three years would go for both clubs.)

Going without a huddle was just the most conspicuous of many against-the-grain methods Kelly tried to employ at Philadelphia, and the ESPN article breaks down in detail other aspects of his “system” and why it ultimately didn’t produce overwhelming success. (It didn’t exactly fail, either, as Kelly went 26-21 during his almost three years at the helm.)

Some of the other areas in which Kelly didn’t necessarily play “by the book” (or tried to write his own) had to do with reducing the number and complexity of offensive plays, introducing different practice schedules and routines, involving a “sports science program” to help with conditioning, and “an enormous emphasis on measurables” when it came to filling out a roster. That latter point somewhat curiously refers to the physical size of players (“Cornerbacks had to be a certain height. Defensive lineman had to have the proper arm length.”), and not to the statistics produced on the field.

All of it suggests a kind of stubbornness that saw Kelly trying to make certain players fit into predetermined roles and “schemes.” “The word Kelly constantly harped on was execution,” goes the article. “But players are not robots.... When players fail to execute, it ultimately means they are not good enough or the coaches are not doing their jobs.”

I’m sure this summary simplifies what actually happened when it came to game-plan creation and calling plays. But the impression remains that Kelly had ideas about what a winning strategy was -- a theory -- that when put into practice failed to realize the goals of that strategy at least in part because of the personnel Kelly had. And after he became GM, he assumed responsibility for that, too, and thus a certain measure of culpability when the players he’d chosen failed to execute the plans he’d made for them.

The poker equivalent would seem to be a player having certain ideas about, say, position and stack sizes, yet not appreciating the importance of the cards, too. That is to say, a player who didn’t necessarily agree with the idea that you should “play the cards you’re dealt,” choosing instead to play the same way regardless of his hand. Which can work sometimes, but sometimes does not.

As GM Kelly could to a certain extent choose the “cards” he could then play, but only according to the limitations of current player availability and salary considerations. It does seem clear, though, that he sometimes found himself playing his “cards” in unusual ways, a consequence of his “system” or method of playing that didn’t necessarily appreciate the limitations of his “hand.”

Whatever the case, the Eagles finally decided they had one Chip too many.

Panthers Playing the Big Stack

I’ve was in the Charlotte airport a couple of times near the end of November. It’s my home airport, and one of my favorites thanks to a variety of reasons. Of course even if it didn’t have all the amenities and weren’t as easy in which to get around, I’d probably like it on some level simply because it’s home.

When you go home, there’s a kind of comfort that comes with the familiar. Many will be reminded of just this feeling over the next few days while reuniting with family and friends for the holidays. I’ll admit after traveling abroad I like hearing English again, and hearing it spoken by some in that Southern accent I’ve been listening to for the majority of my life to this point.

One thing I noticed when hearing those voices these last couple of times through CTL was a lot of talk about the Carolina Panthers. They were 10-0 on my way out, thumped Dallas on Thanksgiving, and so were 11-0 on my return. Now they’re 14-0 -- only the fourth team in NFL history ever to go so deep into a season without a loss. And the Panther talk is getting even louder.

Now people are starting to talk about the team outside of western North Carolina, too, not least because of that crazy New York Giants game last Sunday. Between the Giants huge comeback, the fantastic finish in which Carolina snatched away the win, and the Odell Beckham-Josh Norman sideshow it was quite a spectacle on its own, never mind the context of the Panthers trying to stay undefeated adding an extra layer of drama.

Besides the prospect of going 16-0, there’s still something on the line this Sunday when the Panthers go to Atlanta, as they haven’t quite locked up home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Some of the talk, though, has already turned toward the question of whether or not the team should rest starters heading into the playoffs.

While obviously an injury to a key player at this point would be a gut-punch, I’m hopeful Carolina will be playing to win not just against Atlanta but when they travel back home to play Tampa Bay in the regular season finale.

I remember being disappointed back in ’09 when Indianapolis got to 14-0 then rested starters during the season’s final two games, losing both. Not that I was a Colts fan (although I did live in Indiana for several years and rooted for them then), but it just seemed a bummer of a way to punctuate what was otherwise a very special season. (The Colts made the Super Bowl that year where they lost to New Orleans.)

“Our approach these last 14 games is going to be the approach that we’re going to have these next two,” says tight end Greg Olsen in a soundbite ESPN is running. He’s echoing what everyone else is saying, too, although it remains to be seen how exactly the Panthers proceed.

I’m reminded a little of that situation in poker of accumulating a big stack -- whether in a tournament or a cash game -- then having the urge to tighten up or even leave the game (if it’s cash) in order to preserve what you’ve got. I addressed this phenomenon, something I confess to be a leak of sorts in my own play, in a strategy article for PokerNews a couple of weeks back titled “Leaving to Lock Up a Win? Don’t Get Up from a Good Game.”

In football we often see a manifestation of the same principle within an individual game -- the so-called “prevent defense” designed to take away long passes, but give up short ones so as to force a trailing team to use clock while trying to catch up. “It prevents teams from winning,” goes the clichéd joke regarding the prevent defense. So, too, does the suddenly tight-playing big stack sometimes find it difficult to avoid losing chips after gearing down.

The Panthers will be big favorites in these last two regular season games versus losing teams. The playoffs will be different, though, with a number of opponents within Carolina’s conference at least the Panthers’ equal if not better, even if they’ve dropped some games along the way this year.

It’s a nice problem to have, being the big stack (so to speak) and having all the options available from which to choose. Hoping the Panthers play it well and don’t start feeling too comfortable, kind of like we feel after coming home.