During their segment with Hub, Parkins asked him about going for 2 vs. kicking the extra point. Parkins did the calculus and it shows that over time you're better off going to 2. Hub said there is more to consider than just the math, such as situation. If you go for 2 one or more times and make it each time in a game in which you end up winning by 17 but go for 2 one or more times in a game you lose by 1 point it doesn't help you very much.

After the segment and Hub was off the phone Parkins did his uh, huh-huh, if you don't care about the math, and probability, I guess you're not interested in having a discussion about it...

I am usually not opposed to people being a douche to Hub, but that's not what he said. He said context is important as well.

Yeah down one after a td and going for two with no time on the clock end of game?

Obviously the math dictates that if you can make the 2-pt conv at least 50% of the time, it's better in the long run. But individual games are not the long run. If Hub was simply saying the situation may call for going for the PAT instead of 2, he's absolutely correct. I can't believe Parkins, Mr. Gambler, would dispute that.

Is this show preempted for preseason Illini basketball?

Obviously the math dictates that if you can make the 2-pt conv at least 50% of the time, it's better in the long run. But individual games are not the long run. If Hub was simply saying the situation may call for going for the PAT instead of 2, he's absolutely correct. I can't believe Parkins, Mr. Gambler, would dispute that.

In general I support going for 2 unless you're down 6 and you score a touchdown.

After the segment and Hub was off the phone Parkins did his uh, huh-huh, if you don't care about the math, and probability, I guess you're not interested in having a discussion about it...

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, you should never go for 2 if you are up 3,8,16,24. Other than that I understand the thought process.

Yeah down one after a td and going for two with no time on the clock end of game?

this reminds me of the time i was drunk and stupid and thought i could make money playing red/black on roulette.... if i lose i just double my bet... if i lose that i double my bet... well eventually the odds say your going to run in to a streak where the "double amount" is more than the money you have on hand.

tl;dr... just kick the damn extra point you horizontal running game hipster douche

After the segment and Hub was off the phone Parkins did his uh, huh-huh, if you don't care about the math, and probability, I guess you're not interested in having a discussion about it...

There should never be an extra point kicked in the first three quarters again unless there was a penalty that moved the offense back.

Obviously the math dictates that if you can make the 2-pt conv at least 50% of the time, it's better in the long run. But individual games are not the long run. If Hub was simply saying the situation may call for going for the PAT instead of 2, he's absolutely correct. I can't believe Parkins, Mr. Gambler, would dispute that.

Scoring a touchdown when down 7 is the most interesting question, IMHO -- if you can force OT with a successful PAT, or win with a 2 pt conversion, what is the strategy? I think it comes down to if you think you are better than your opponent (meaning, you really think so, not just the BS you are spewing to everyone who asks.) If you are better, then you should be fine with OT. If you think you are worse, then you try for 2 to win it.

Isn't the old adage "win at home, tie on the road"?