I don't think it's a formula. I think that the three outcomes aren't compared to each other, but to historical outcomes. They posted three outcomes that showed: 1. Historically, a team that has the ball, up by 5, with a 4th and 1 with two minutes left, wins the game 94% of the time. 2. Then, they are saying, historically, a team up by 8, playing defense, with two minutes left, wins the game 94% of the time as well. 3. Third, a team up by 5, playing defense, with two minutes left, wins the game 79% of the time. Not sure if field position plays into it. It's a statement about each situation against historical averages. I think it's a little dishonest of them to say that the percentage drops by 15% if they do one action over the other. It took the "Stopped" outcome, and assumed that Seattle had the ball with two minutes left and a 5pt deficit, then says, in that situation, the Vikings had a 79% chance of winning the game. Using historical outcomes to predict future. If I flip a coin 8 times, and it comes up heads every time, the chance of the next flip is still 50/50, even if I think tails are "due." The first 8 flips have nothing to do with the ninth. Let's face it, probability aside, the Vikings chances of winning dropped from 79% to 0.0% when they missed on the 4th and 1. Probability doesn't take into account that it's still the Vikings.