A10 Tournament Predictions
- Thread starter SpiderFan
- Start date
Fan 2011 maybe you can help me with this. I've always heard this as well (hard to beat a team 3 straight times) but wondered how true this statement is. I've always thought more along the lines of if you beat a team twice you have their number and will more often than not beat them the third time. Any statistics out there on third games that prove or disprove this theory?
I think you are correct. More often than not the team that won the first two times wins again.
A 72% win chance is very high in college basketball. Anyway, we have closer to a 65% chance to win, it doesn't matter that we already played Fordham twice.
Yeah, I'd take a 7-in-10 chance in college basketball every night. That said, I am very worried about this game because I think we were incredibly fortunate to beat Fordham last time and really only beat them the first time because of Wood's insane day. Let's hope the rest has been a good thing for us, everyone is healthy and we figure out a way to get a few defensive rebounds.
I do wonder what it means by similar matchups. Simply all 2-0 games heading into a third game? or 2 teams that are close in some rating?
If UNC played BC 3 times this season, 3-0 would not be surprising. If UNC played UVA 3 times this season, 3-0 by either team might be less likely.
I am sure the theory comes from the idea that a team that loses will attempt to adjust so they don't lose the next time. 3 games gives you 2 chances to adjust. Whether you will or not or whether it helps, is an entirely different question.
Playing the first two games does not effect the outcome of the third in any appreciable way. It doesn't matter if it was a sweep or split, the third game is not affected by the first two. The outcome of the first two games can tell you who is more likely the better team and therefore who is more likely to win the third.
So are you saying that coaches should not or do not adjust their strategy? or that no adjustment can be made that is large enough to be significant?
Of course coaches can adjust their strategy. Both coaches can. In the end it tends to even out. If there is any effect I would venture to guess that repeated games favor the the team that won the first two matchups even more since they tend to have better coaches who would tend to make better adjustments.
Last edited:
All I know is that if you would have bet against us all year according to the Vegas line for our games, you probably would be a very happy person today. In that light, I'll take Fordham and the 30% odds for teams not winning the 3rd game.
Betting against your team is a win-win. You either win money or the team you root for wins the game. However I am starting to feel like some posters are rooting against our team. That is just how I feel.
For that to be true, you would have to know that the two teams are exactly evenly matched and have the same odds of winning. Since this is not flipping pennies, the first two games will not "effect" game 3, but do help indicate the outcome of game 3.
Sorry, I just pulled out part of the overall quote, which was addressing some specific "third-time" matchup in that article. So yeah, it refers to any third matchup in which one team had won the first two.
Game 1: Team A has a 70% chance to win, but loses
Game 2: Team A still has a 70% chance to win, and wins
Game 3: Team A still has a 70% chance to win.
Even if Team A happened to lose the first 2 games (~10% chance) they would still have a 70% chance to win game 3. If team A won the first two games they would still have a 70% chance in game 3. The outcome of the first two doesn't matter. It is very likely that the team that wins the first two matchups is the better team and therefore is more likely to win the third matchup.
Last edited:
I want to apologize if I sound snarky. I really hope things change so everyone will stop being snippy to each other. Snippy & Snarky.
But I do want to be clear, I was necessarily espousing the theory just hypothesizing the origin. It may simplistic and anecdotal.
But I think some may see a strategy similar to rock-paper-scissors.
If you lose the first time to paper as rock. Next time you may assume paper and try scissors. If you still lose, you will at least have more data into your opponent's mindset in preparation for round 3.
But both parties gain additional information each game. It is not only the loser who can adjust their strategy, and there is no reason to believe the loser would make better adjustments than the winner in following games.
Last edited:
By the way my last post should have been wasn't espousing not was. That was a typo.
Both can adjust, however people assume that there is likely to be greater adjustment to a losing strategy than a winning strategy.
If your opponent makes a move, then you make a move and win. When your opponent makes the same move, you are likely to as well.
If your opponent makes a move, then you make a move and lose. When your opponent makes the same move, you are likely to make a different move. That is the theory, a simplistic and perhaps incorrect one.
I thought it was still Rock-Paper-Scissors...That's Tic-Tac-Toe right?
That really does open up our side of the bracket for us.
38% chance to beat Dayton.
14% chance to make it to the finals.
5% chance to win the championship.
Similar threads
