Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Hoping to put an article up this week (still need to write about that Scotties final), but needless to say there is an argument.
On second look, Mike missed the shot. The way they were playing it, was really only for two but at this point 2 or 3 or 4 is essentially the same result, a win (99.1% WE).
The argument is Mike's confidence in making that angle runback versus the draw, and only he has that sense of his probability of each shot. It was full four foot on a specific path, only he knows how comfortable he felt at that moment on that call. Let's say it was 90%. Straight runbacks are around 85%, in Mike's case possibly higher. As you move towards an angle versus straight back, your odds are reduced (there's a CWM article on this here
Quickly, at draw 90%
WE = .9 x .94 = .846
He's ok to try the runback 100% of the time, it's roughly a wash if he misses every time.
If the draw is 95%
WE = .95 x .94 = .894
Assuming no chance at steal of 2, Mike needs to make the raise for 2 pts only 35% of the time to be equal to the draw.
If the draw is 100%, he needs to make the raise 65% of the time. Having re-watched the shot, I think Mike usually makes that raise at least 60%, if not higher, and the draw is no gimme. hence, an argument.
Last edited by milobloom on 03-12-17 at 11:54AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged