[Rain Man]

Let's assume that we make 48 percent of 2-point conversions (league average - can't find the Chiefs' percentage) and 94 percent of extra points (Butker's historic average).

If you go for the 2-point play, there's a ...

48 percent chance that the bad guys will need 2 TDs and EPs and an FG to tie it. (And change 1 EP to a 2-point play to win it.)
52 percent chance that the bad guys will need 2 TDs, 1 EP and 1 2-point play to tie it. (And change 1 EP to a 2-point play to win it.)

If you go for the 1-point play, there's a

94 percent change that the bad guys will need 2 TDs and 2 2-point plays to tie it. (And another score to win it.)
6 percent chance that the bad guys will need will need 2 TDs, 1 EP and 1 2-point play to tie it. (And change 1 EP to a 2-point play to win it.)


By kicking it, you're massively decreasing the likelihood that 2 TDs, 1 EP and 1 2-point play will make a difference. You're requiring them to get 2 2-point plays after touchdowns, which in combination will happen only 23 percent of the time even if they get the touchdowns.

You're giving yourself a 48 percent chance of completely putting the game out of reach with a 3-score differential, but if they can score two touchdowns they now have a 45 percent chance of tying it up rather than 23 percent chance, and they could also go for the win in that case.

In summary, I guess it depends on how likely you think it is that they can score two touchdowns, because these tradeoffs are purely a matter of taste. Kicking it nearly guarantees a lot of difficulty, while going for 2 could effectively end the game but leaves a small window of opportunity for the bad guys.

I might change my vote to kicking it.