Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically

[DampRobot]

I would post this in You Make the Call, but it's less of a rules topic and more of a strategic/ethical topic.

Going into the last matches of SVR on Saturday, we were ranked 18th or so, and thought that we wouldn't be in a picking position come alliance selection. However, we thought we had a very good chance of being picked, as we had been approached by three separate teams about alliance selections.

We had won all our matches since losing our 2nd, 3rd and 4th (due to our shooter wheel untreading itself), and knew that if we played as well as we had been playing before, we stood a very good chance of beating 233 in our last match of the day, match 95. At that time, Pink was ranked second, but we knew that if we beat them as we were projected to, they would drop to 5th or 6th seed. However, if we didn't win, they would stay as 2nd seed.

If Pink was ranked 2nd in alliance selections, they would have been in a position to break up any potential alliances within the top few seeds, including any between 971 and 1662. Even if they didn't break up any alliances, as a fairly inconsistent team, they would have significantly weakened the 2nd alliance, and potentially opened up the finals for any even alliance that could shut down their partner. My team could have been on such an alliance, and had the potential to go to CMP in a wildcard slot (254-118 would have presumably still won, and opened up 2 slots for 2 finalist teams).

As coach, I was approached by another team's coach and begged to win the match. I was honest with him that I considered not playing to win. We later ended up beating Pink 80-58, to end the tournament 7-3-0 and Pink's 8-2-0. You can watch the match here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=wiA8ReC6L8U&feature=plpp&nomobile=1).

What should we have done? Should we have played to win, or should we have allowed 233 to win the match in order to break up and weaken alliances in eliminations?

[Kevin Leonard]

Never throw a match. Always play to win.

[Gregor]

Never throw a match. Always play to win.

That's the cliché answer. Please expand.

[Kpchem]

Never throw a match. Always play to win.

I agree, teams should always play to win. But the question here is what are you trying to win, individual matches or regionals? Based on the short scenario laid out here, it appears that by losing the match they would have been playing to win the regional, even if it meant losing the match.

[Gregor]

I agree, teams should always play to win. But the question here is what are you trying to win, individual matches or regionals? Based on the short scenario laid out here, it appears that by losing the match they would have been playing to win the regional, even if it meant losing the match.

And to further complicate things, they would have been playing for finals, for the wildcard, not actually winning.

[kjohnson]

Never throw a match. Always play to win.

What if the ranking system says not to? 2010 Curie Match 100 (http://youtu.be/m9EGAPBwgFU?t=4m12s)

[DampRobot]

What if the ranking system says not to? 2010 Curie Match 100 (http://youtu.be/m9EGAPBwgFU?t=4m12s)

Exactly. Was 6v0 playing to win the regional/division, or throwing a match?

[Kevin Leonard]

It's not about playing to win just for your team. It's about your team, your sponsors, your pride, but most of all- it's about your alliance partners. If you play half-heartedly or completely throw a match, you're hurting your alliance partners who want to win to improve their position, seeding, and to prove their robot's abilities.
In your story, your alliance partner wanted you to play to win- not doing so would be a disservice to them.

If both your partners agreed that losing the match was the best course of action for all three teams- then I suppose this might not apply.

[MrJohnston]

I seem to remember some badminton drama in the Olympics this past summer along exactly the same lines.... Go out and play to win every match - anything else is against the spirit of competition. If some loophole in the rules makes it advantageous to lose, then there is a fault in the rules that should be corrected for the following year...

[jdunston94]

What if the ranking system says not to? 2010 Curie Match 100 (http://youtu.be/m9EGAPBwgFU?t=4m12s)

what was the purpose of that match being thrown exactly?

[Kpchem]

what was the purpose of that match being thrown exactly?

In that match, you had three of the highest seeds in the division (111/469 vs. 1114). Had 1114 attempted to beat 111/469, they would have had an extremely hard time doing it and the close loss would have helped 111/469 a great deal in rankings, thereby hurting 1114's chances of being one of the top seeds. By playing against themselves, 1114 only hurt themselves a small amount in the rankings, instead of a great deal.

This was all due to the fact that seeding was solely based on the points scored in the match, and had nothing to do with the number of wins/losses you had.

[CalTran]

what was the purpose of that match being thrown exactly?

It was a very weird and complicated seeding system with losers getting some amount of qualification points based off of the winner's score. I don't remember the exact metric, but that was the basis of the idea.

At Razorback, our team was somewhat in the same predicament. We were, after 11 qualification matches, ranked 11th and would have had a good chance of being dropped into the 8th seed captain. As those who attended Razorback know, our ranking was sheer luck. Fielding a purely defensive robot, we would not have survived as the 8th seed captain. For our last qualification match, winning it would have solidified our ranking. Losing it would have dropped us just far enough that we would have to get drafted and not be advanced up into a captain slot. I briefly tossed the idea around of a strategic loss, but the idea did not go over so well with the team. We played our hardest in that match and ended up losing anyways.

Personal opinion? Gaming the system is indeed a legitimate strategy. There's two way to look at the competition. You can look at it match by match and win win win or you can look at the whole picture and pick strategic losses to bolster your standing elsewhere.

[FrankJ]

Interesting ethical dilemma. Worthy of discussion. Given the structure of the competition & other teams on your alliance, playing less than your best is at the very least against GP.

Another (hypothetical) scenario. Say the undefeated #1 seed is on your alliance. Another team comes to you & asks you to lose the match. Say it would make them move up in seeding. Maybe offers you an guaranteed pick to do so. Ethical?

[JohnSchneider]

The ability to fight for a finalist slot and get a wildcard have drastically altered the way teams think about eliminations in regionals, especially their last regional. Some teams may decide its more important to go to worlds than try to win the regional as a picked team.

I can only imagine what would have happened last year with the co-op points and levying to be a captain in the 2/3/6/7 bracket.

[VioletElizabeth]

Just FYI, in this particular case, it was moot, because the 2nd ranked team, 1868 (my team :D ) was also a weaker robot, (not hard, with all the incredible teams there) and broke up the other robots similarly to what 233 might have done anyways.

My 2¢: In defense of Thunder910, FIRST is not just a competition. It was set up for inspiration and to change the world. So playing the most honest way you can is entirely within that spirit, and will make you an inspiration in terms of the kind of team to look up to, even if not a regional winner--I hesitate to say winning robot, because in my opinion a robot that competently plays the game has already won against the challenges of build season and the game.

[Kevin Leonard]

Personal opinion? Gaming the system is indeed a legitimate strategy. There's two way to look at the competition. You can look at it match by match and win win win or you can look at the whole picture and pick strategic losses to bolster your standing elsewhere.

I disagree. Purposely throwing matches hurts your partners who expect you to perform your best.
If for some reason everyone on your alliance wants to throw the match (like 1114's Qual Match 100 2010), then go ahead.
But if I was on your alliance, and you purposely threw the match, I would be unhappy. Very unhappy.

[cmrnpizzo14]

That is a tough call to make. I agree with always play to win. It is your, and your competition's, obligation to try and win the match to the best of your abilities. If you aren't, why would you play the match? However, in this situation I believe that everyone should be trying to win the regional and the best way to do that is showcase the best abilities of your robot.

For example, if there is a robot that wants to showcase their defense before eliminations, they should play defense. If your shooter was your strength, you should shoot. At that stage in the competition, I believe that your focus shifts from being win qualifying matches to winning the regional.

Although Pink would have lost some seeding positions from the loss, that is honestly their fault (as heartless as it seems) for not putting themselves in a higher position or being a better robot. I think that you guys ultimately did the right thing by showcasing your shooter and hanger and winning the match.

[Anupam Goli]

What if the ranking system says not to? 2010 Curie Match 100 (http://youtu.be/m9EGAPBwgFU?t=4m12s)

This case is different. Everyone on the blue alliance was helped in rankings because of that 6 v 0 matchup. It's very hard to throw away a match unless your alliance partners are also helped by the match being thrown away. If you throw away a match for your own benefit over your alliance's benefit, then this becomes an issue.

[kjohnson]

This case is different. Everyone on the blue alliance was helped in rankings because of that 6 v 0 matchup. It's very hard to throw away a match unless your alliance partners are also helped by the match being thrown away. If you throw away a match for your own benefit over your alliance's benefit, then this becomes an issue.

You mean something like unbalancing the Coopertition Bridge (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104552) last year? This affected the rankings of all 6 teams, not just the winners or losers.

[EricH]

Another (hypothetical) scenario. Say the undefeated #1 seed is on your alliance. Another team comes to you & asks you to lose the match. Say it would make them move up in seeding. Maybe offers you an guaranteed pick to do so. Ethical?

Is it ethical to take a bribe? Because that's essentially what they're offering by offering to pick you, for sure, if you do lose the match.


Let me be quite honest: Whether it's winning the match or winning strategically, there is nothing against it in FRC rules. However, if you go into a match where you have to make that sort of choice, you darn well better make sure that your alliance partners are on board with the choice you make. If they are not on board, don't go that way. Broken trust takes years or longer to repair.

[Basel A]

Let me be quite honest: Whether it's winning the match or winning strategically, there is nothing against it in FRC rules. However, if you go into a match where you have to make that sort of choice, you darn well better make sure that your alliance partners are on board with the choice you make. If they are not on board, don't go that way. Broken trust takes years or longer to repair.

Yeah, I'm definitely on this boat. The alliance should agree on a strategy and each member of the alliance should stick to it (barring extraordinary circumstances, e.g. one team's robot dies). If you think that it's the best strategy in the situation and you can convince your partners that it's the best strategy (for all three teams) in the situation, then by all means do it.

[Peyton Yeung]

I forget what match it was on Newton last year but 2/3rds of an alliance were too low to be picking so they decided to try and triple balance on the co-op bridge to showcase their abilities. They didn't inform their 3rd alliance partner who was in the running to be a captain and when their balance didn't work it was the uninformed team that suffered.

[Lightfoot26]

Exactly. Was 6v0 playing to win the regional/division, or throwing a match?

1625 did the same in 2010 Qual 132 on Galileo.

[AmoryG]

It's unethical if throwing away a match hurts your alliance partners. If that's not reason enough to play to win then also consider other teams might not even want you as partners if they think you're not playing by the rules or the spirit of the game.

[DampRobot]

An added twist: Pink picked us first.

[Gregor]

I forget what match it was on Newton last year but 2/3rds of an alliance were too low to be picking so they decided to try and triple balance on the co-op bridge to showcase their abilities. They didn't inform their 3rd alliance partner who was in the running to be a captain and when their balance didn't work it was the uninformed team that suffered.

Newton Q89.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYzlay3nHI&list=PL6477E02861D91FA1&feature=player_detailpage#t=104s

[Chris is me]

In my opinion, throwing a match isn't ethical in FRC because you have alliance partners. By throwing a match, you harm your alliance partners' ranks. It's your duty in FRC to try as hard as possible to win for the sake of everyone on your alliance.

If this were 1v1, I might think differently about the situation. 2010 is an exception to the rule because "throwing the match" in that year resulted in the alliance as a whole gaining more seeding points.

[dellagd]

Newton Q89.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYzlay3nHI&list=PL6477E02861D91FA1&feature=player_detailpage#t=104s

Ive never seen that before and I can imagine some rule-savvy spectators were QUITE confused :P



Anyway, I dont believe there are many situations where people would legitimately want to throw a match in 2013. Even if one team wanted to throw a match, or two did, they owe it to their alliance partner to try. Fine, if all three want to throw it, I guess you're gonna throw it, but when that would actually happen I cant think of.

People should try their hardest to win, no taking bribes or anything like that. Honestly, if a team goes out of their way to ask you to throw a match in some "Promise" for a pick, I wouldn't trust them. If they ask you to throw a match to ascend (:D) their own rankings, do you really think that they are all that trustworthy to bank your own ranking on?

Ive seen teams betrayed in much lighter scenarios. What you do when it comes to alliance selection is up to you, pick whoever you want, because you earned that spot, you got that first, second, ect. pick and you can do whatever you want with it. Yeah, the ranking system doesnt do that good of a job assessing teams' worth, but hey, its what we've got. Purposely trying to earn a lower spot (with our current ranking systems where losing can never make you rank higher)... I wouldnt go for it.

[wesbass23]

As the drive coach on my team I have often thought about situations like this, though thankfully I have never been out in such a situation.

Thinking about it, I could never tell my drivers to lose a match, even if it opens up the possibility for winning big later in the day. It is not in the spirit of the game, not to mention it would mean letting down our alliance partners for that match.

I say you play to win, no matter the situation.

[Yipyapper]

As soon as I saw the thread, I immediately thought of 2012's Co-opertition™ thing.

[FIMAlumni]

I was the coach for a team that was ranked first an a competition last year with a very close second ranked team. During our last match we needed the win and the Co-Op points to grab the first seed. The other Alliance was going to forget about the coop bridge in an attempt to showcase a triple balance. Leaving us ranked second. We were lucky that the other alliance was 3 long robots and decided to Co-op instead.
A similar situation at the same competition, the number 2 team and a team ranked just out of the top 8, but a great pick where competing together late on Saturday. They refused to Co-op with the number 2 seed and explained to their partners why, who all refused to Co-op. After the match the team came up to me and said they don't expect us to pick them, but they would rather have us in the first seed.

[waialua359]

I was the coach for a team that was ranked first an a competition last year with a very close second ranked team. During our last match we needed the win and the Co-Op points to grab the first seed. The other Alliance was going to forget about the coop bridge in an attempt to showcase a triple balance. Leaving us ranked second. We were lucky that the other alliance was 3 long robots and decided to Co-op instead.
A similar situation at the same competition, the number 2 team and a team ranked just out of the top 8, but a great pick where competing together late on Saturday. They refused to Co-op with the number 2 seed and explained to their partners why, who all refused to Co-op. After the match the team came up to me and said they don't expect us to pick them, but they would rather have us in the first seed.

This is why I hate the Co-Op points from last season for 2 reasons.
1. We literally had to convince a team to co-op with us in order to rank #1, when at first they decided not to because others wanted another team to rank #1.
2. We had to keep playing 2 strategies within a match.....in trying to beat an opponent, then at the last moment try to balance with no more scoring.
We had a match at CMP where we went too late to the co-op bridge because we were soo caught up in scoring. This adds too much pressure to try to do the right thing in both situations.

[pandamonium]

This is a very interesting debate and I would like first to add a rule specifically and clearly stating that the act of throwing a match is unethical.
Another example of similar importance is how predictable alliance selections now are. At 10:00 on Saturday the top teams all sit in corners with each other and through the act of back door deals or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are pre arranged.

[jlmcmchl]

This is a very interesting debate and I would like first to add a rule specifically and clearly stating that the act of throwing a match is unethical.
Another example of similar importance is how predictable alliance selections now are. At 10:00 on Saturday the top teams all sit in corners with each other and through the act of back door deals or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are pre arranged.

I believe it is abandoning the idea of gracious professionalism, although I would not necessarily go and say that throwing a match is completely unethical. Given, if it's thrown solely for your own benefit, then it is unethical. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.

Honestly, I don't see this as a problem. Many teams network throughout competitions with other teams, and it's all to do with scouting and drive teams observing each other's performance. If you're a top team, then you want another top team on your alliance, plain and simple. We chose 1189, Gearheads at Livonia because we valued their performance, and we worked really well with them. It's not a back door deal at all, it's rather networking between teams. I've seen it done many times, whether it be students handing out pamphlets about their robot's performance, or drive teams talking to each other. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's rather teams trying to optimize their performance in eliminations through productive networking with other teams.

[efoote868]

My own personal opinion: whatever you end up deciding to do, you need to be open and honest with your alliance partners, and you should not attempt to harm their individual best efforts.

I'd hope you would never find yourself involved in that situation. As a rule, you should never ask someone to throw a match and put them in that situation. Seeding high because others volunteered to lose is against the spirit of competition.

There are years that break the mold and call for 6v0 strategies, in this case it isn't "throwing" a match because the entire alliance is involved.

[pfreivald]

My take on it is the same as it was in the 6v0 thread from 2010: If you might have to explain the politics of the situation to a sponsor or parent, you probably made the wrong choice.

[Chris is me]

This is a very interesting debate and I would like first to add a rule specifically and clearly stating that the act of throwing a match is unethical.
Another example of similar importance is how predictable alliance selections now are. At 10:00 on Saturday the top teams all sit in corners with each other and through the act of back door deals or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are pre arranged.

Oh come on. There is a big difference between talking to a partner once you have secured the first pick and "back door deals". There is no bribery, trickery, or even anything remotely unethical going on. All they are trying to figure out is who they want to pick round 2.

You see two teams talking to each other and "back door deals" is really the first thing that comes to mind? What crooked things are they even in a position to do?

I'm sorry that I kinda jumped on this comment, but every year I hear people talk about alliance selection like its some huge political struggle when it's really all just tactics.

[pfreivald]

I'm sorry that I kinda jumped on this comment, but every year I hear people talk about alliance selection like its some huge political struggle when it's really all just tactics.

Our team has been on the receiving end of a "if you throw the next match we'll pick you" request. I'd call that a "back door deal". (We declined.)

[Anupam Goli]

This is a very interesting debate and I would like first to add a rule specifically and clearly stating that the act of throwing a match is unethical.
Another example of similar importance is how predictable alliance selections now are. At 10:00 on Saturday the top teams all sit in corners with each other and through the act of back door deals or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are pre arranged.

Again, what about a wonky ranking system that doesn't use W/L record as a primary qualification? 6v0 in 2010 is clever match strategy that the entire alliance has to agree to participate in. I would rather have the effect of possible outcomes dictate the match strategy for any match. If 6v0 helps all members of my alliance, you bet I'm going to do it.

Also, how is finding the perfect partner for you alliance a "back door deal"? You better have a definite pick list and ask how your potential partner would feel about an alliance well before picking starts if you are a captain.

[Chris is me]

Our team has been on the receiving end of a "if you throw the next match we'll pick you" request. I'd call that a "back door deal". (We declined.)

Yup, that's super sketchy and should be frowned upon. What the poster said is that all teams in the top 8 go sit in corners and game the system somehow. I'd allege that teams asking others to throw matches is by no means the norm and certainly not something "everyone" is doing at 10 AM on Saturday.

[pfreivald]

Yup, that's super sketchy and should be frowned upon. What the poster said is that all teams in the top 8 go sit in corners and game the system somehow. I'd allege that teams asking others to throw matches is by no means the norm and certainly not something "everyone" is doing at 10 AM on Saturday.

Agreed on both counts.

[Anupam Goli]

Yup, that's super sketchy and should be frowned upon. What the poster said is that all teams in the top 8 go sit in corners and game the system somehow. I'd allege that teams asking others to throw matches is by no means the norm and certainly not something "everyone" is doing at 10 AM on Saturday.

Most likely what everyone is doing at 10 AM is trying to find their ideal partners and going over a picking strategy to break up any power alliances. On webcasts and in the stands, the alliance selections look like they are done on the spot, but behind each team number being called is hours of strategy, scouting, analysis, and talking with the team. You might call these alliances "pre-arranged", but if you don't want teams to talk with each other about alliance selections, Situations like Newton in 2006 and Northern Lights this year would not pop up and eliminations in those competitions would be less exciting. Alliance picking strategies win blue banners.

[Taylor]

My take on it is the same as it was in the 6v0 thread from 2010: If you might have to explain the politics of the situation to a sponsor or parent, you probably made the wrong choice.

What about explaining to your sponsors that you aren't able to promote and advertise them at the championship event because your team was fixated on one match and not the event as a whole?

In no way do I support unethical behavior. Just providing food for thought.

[Chris is me]

Most likely what everyone is doing at 10 AM is trying to find their ideal partners and going over a picking strategy to break up any power alliances. On webcasts and in the stands, the alliance selections look like they are done on the spot, but behind each team number being called is hours of strategy, scouting, analysis, and talking with the team. You might call these alliances "pre-arranged", but if you don't want teams to talk with each other about alliance selections, Situations like Newton in 2006 and Northern Lights this year would not pop up and eliminations in those competitions would be less exciting. Alliance picking strategies win blue banners.

I am also saying that teams do that... I'm not sure where we disagree? All I am saying is that teams talk once they know their fate. 2791 did this at WPI once the top seed was secured. We didn't ask anyone to throw any matches, and never have.

[rlowe61]

It's not about playing to win just for your team. It's about your team, your sponsors, your pride, but most of all- it's about your alliance partners. If you play half-heartedly or completely throw a match, you're hurting your alliance partners who want to win to improve their position, seeding, and to prove their robot's abilities.
In your story, your alliance partner wanted you to play to win- not doing so would be a disservice to them.

If both your partners agreed that losing the match was the best course of action for all three teams- then I suppose this might not apply.

Thunder910 States it best. If both partners agree, then great. You have to look at the overall alliance at the time, not just your individual team.

[Anupam Goli]

I am also saying that teams do that... I'm not sure where we disagree? All I am saying is that teams talk once they know their fate. 2791 did this at WPI once the top seed was secured. We didn't ask anyone to throw any matches, and never have.

I don't think we were disagreeing. I was just elaborating what actually happens at 10 AM isn't asking teams to throw away matches or back door deals. Sorry for the miscomm! ::ouch::

[Ivan Malik]

I highly suggest the you re-read his post. No where does it say "the top 8 teams" It says "the top teams." Which from 7 years of watching alliance selections and seeing this happen at almost every regional/district, participating in side conversations with other teams myself (not throwing matches or anything like that, but it could have looked like it, due to scheduling, to those not in on the conversation) I can say yeah this happens all the time. On top of that I know for a fact, from their own lips, that many well respected teams do some very VERY shading things during alliance selection that on no plane of thinking follow the tenets of GP or coopertition.

The post also doesn't explicitly refer to this as a "back door deal." That statement is followed by a "or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are prearranged." Hence foul play isn't necessarily what was meant.

As far as the OP: My personal opinion is that if you have to explain yourself to the community, then you are in the wrong. The community is the ultimate police of GP/coopertition. What strategies are acceptable are up to the group at-large. For instance I would say that "scorched earth" alliance selections are not in the spirit of coopertition, but they have been come to be accepted by the community.

[Anupam Goli]

As far as the OP: My personal opinion is that if you have to explain yourself to the community, then you are in the wrong. The community is the ultimate police of GP/coopertition. What strategies are acceptable are up to the group at-large. For instance I would say that "scorched earth" alliance selections are not in the spirit of coopertition, but they have been come to be accepted by the community.

But how does coopertition have anything to do with alliance selections? Coopertition is about helping other teams compete in the sense that if team xxxx has a robot that is down, powerhouse team yy helps xxxx repair that robot so they can get on the field for the next match. If you wanted coopertition to happen in alliance selections, then you'd have to forbid teams declining eachother too!

[Ivan Malik]

Coopertition is also about not hurting your opponents to win and wanting to play against them at their best.

Scorched earth can make it so no one is at their best but you. Declines are in there so that you have the option to decide whether it is in your best interest to compete with a team and to decide whether you are fighting fit (as it were) for elims. Scorched earth games this and uses the decline rules to hurt the declining team. Its all about the intent. It isn't measurable or provable to 100%, but it is recognizable. This is why it is covered by something soft like coopertition and not something hard like a rule.

Edit: I recognize that this is my own personal view and is not shared by the vast majority of FIRSTers.

[TheMadCADer]

It's not about playing to win just for your team. It's about your team, your sponsors, your pride, but most of all- it's about your alliance partners. If you play half-heartedly or completely throw a match, you're hurting your alliance partners who want to win to improve their position, seeding, and to prove their robot's abilities.
In your story, your alliance partner wanted you to play to win- not doing so would be a disservice to them.

If both your partners agreed that losing the match was the best course of action for all three teams- then I suppose this might not apply.

The thing is, you don't have to play half-heartedly or just sit there in order to lose the match. Just point your shooter at the other goal (especially if you can get some of their coloured discs and score them in their pyramid goal, that way they get 26 points each thanks to G17). That way you don't make yourselves or your sponsors look bad, it just makes it obvious that you want the other alliance to win. Get your alliance partners to help out, and they'll get an easy way to prove their abilities. You can probably put up a really high score together.

Obviously you should talk to your alliance partners about it, but even if they don't want you to, I don't see that as an issue. You shouldn't be obligated to win for some other team's sake, especially if it isn't in your own best interests. One thing I like to stress in the early stages of design is to never rely on your random alliance partners for anything. If they are only ranked high because of other teams helping them, then they probably shouldn't be ranked high. If they want to rank high, they should do it themselves. It gets completely different when there are two approximately equal teams on each alliance, and your behavior is basically choosing which will rank higher, but if it's just a couple teams that want to move up from 30th to 20th, I wouldn't hurt my own chances to help them, because it honestly wouldn't matter since they couldn't pick anyway. They should just focus on showing off.

I don't like to see teams making "pick deals" for losing matches, but rather I'd like to see this when there are two other teams that could seed first, and one is distinctly stronger than the other, and you are playing against that stronger team.

Imagine three teams, given numbers based on how many points they score. Team 200 scores 200 points each match, Team 150 scores 150 points, Team 80 scores 80, and every other team scores fewer than 80 points. You are on Team 150, and you already have a few losses with just one qualification match left, against Team 200, but you have better alliance partners and could win the match. Both Team 200 and Team 80 are undefeated, and Team 80 has already played all of their matches. If you win your last match, Team 80 is the #1 seed and picks Team 200. If Team 200 wins that match, they get the #1 seed and pick you, Team 150.

It should be obvious which situation gives you a better chance of winning, since no other robots can top Team 80, and you can't top Team 200. Also, this matches the expected outcome, where the best teams win the event. While we always want to see good competition, we also want to see the robots that are legitimately the best win the competition.

[Chris is me]

Obviously you should talk to your alliance partners about it, but even if they don't want you to, I don't see that as an issue. You shouldn't be obligated to win for some other team's sake, especially if it isn't in your own best interests.

This is just wrong. Those other teams on the field want to win the tournament just as much as you do, and it is absolutely unethical to sabotage your allies for your own selfish gain.

If they want to rank high, they should do it themselves.

Excuse me? You're saying if the teams that are with you want to rank high, they should do it without your help? You're saying a team should expect to be able to overcome a *partner intentionally playing against them* in order to get into the top 8? How could you possibly justify this ethically?

Imagine three teams, given numbers based on how many points they score. Team 200 scores 200 points each match, Team 150 scores 150 points, Team 80 scores 80, and every other team scores fewer than 80 points. You are on Team 150, and you already have a few losses with just one qualification match left, against Team 200, but you have better alliance partners and could win the match. Both Team 200 and Team 80 are undefeated, and Team 80 has already played all of their matches. If you win your last match, Team 80 is the #1 seed and picks Team 200. If Team 200 wins that match, they get the #1 seed and pick you, Team 150.

It should be obvious which situation gives you a better chance of winning, since no other robots can top Team 80, and you can't top Team 200. Also, this matches the expected outcome, where the best teams win the event. While we always want to see good competition, we also want to see the robots that are legitimately the best win the competition.

I think most of us can understand situations when there is an incentive to not win. It's not hard to think of them. And if you were playing one on one, an argument could be made that you should take the opportunity presented to you. But as long as you have alliance partners, you have absolutely no ethical leg to stand on. Those teams have a right to have their partners do everything they can to help them to win a match. And you can't just ignore their legitimate concerns because you are selfishly glued to your own goals.

[DjScribbles]

The thing is, you don't have to play half-heartedly or just sit there in order to lose the match. Just point your shooter at the other goal (especially if you can get some of their coloured discs and score them in their pyramid goal, that way they get 26 points each thanks to G17). That way you don't make yourselves or your sponsors look bad, it just makes it obvious that you want the other alliance to win. Get your alliance partners to help out, and they'll get an easy way to prove their abilities. You can probably put up a really high score together.

Obviously you should talk to your alliance partners about it, but even if they don't want you to, I don't see that as an issue. You shouldn't be obligated to win for some other team's sake, especially if it isn't in your own best interests. One thing I like to stress in the early stages of design is to never rely on your random alliance partners for anything. If they are only ranked high because of other teams helping them, then they probably shouldn't be ranked high. If they want to rank high, they should do it themselves. It gets completely different when there are two approximately equal teams on each alliance, and your behavior is basically choosing which will rank higher, but if it's just a couple teams that want to move up from 30th to 20th, I wouldn't hurt my own chances to help them, because it honestly wouldn't matter since they couldn't pick anyway. They should just focus on showing off.

I don't like to see teams making "pick deals" for losing matches, but rather I'd like to see this when there are two other teams that could seed first, and one is distinctly stronger than the other, and you are playing against that stronger team.

Imagine three teams, given numbers based on how many points they score. Team 200 scores 200 points each match, Team 150 scores 150 points, Team 80 scores 80, and every other team scores fewer than 80 points. You are on Team 150, and you already have a few losses with just one qualification match left, against Team 200, but you have better alliance partners and could win the match. Both Team 200 and Team 80 are undefeated, and Team 80 has already played all of their matches. If you win your last match, Team 80 is the #1 seed and picks Team 200. If Team 200 wins that match, they get the #1 seed and pick you, Team 150.

It should be obvious which situation gives you a better chance of winning, since no other robots can top Team 80, and you can't top Team 200. Also, this matches the expected outcome, where the best teams win the event. While we always want to see good competition, we also want to see the robots that are legitimately the best win the competition.

Let me lay out another situation. Our team was in a rather unique scenario at our St Joseph District (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2013misjo), we got to play king-makers in match 78 (the final quals match), where teams 2000 and 2959 were facing off as the undefeated 1st and 2nd seeded alliances (in the last match of the day no less). I wouldn't dare to figure out which of them was a better bot, they were both very good, and played a very similar game.

Our robot was a very attractive pick (3rd seed at the time) for either of the two amazing cycle runners, we had the only seven disk autonomous at the event, and considered ourselves to be likely for the first pick of either team.

I would be a liar if said we hadn't discussed the what-if's of throwing the match (although I wouldn't say we considered it seriously). If we chose to throw that match, we may have still won the event, but our friends on 2959 would have been the victim of something embarrassingly deceitful.

Even if we had been with another great robot in that final match instead of 2959, throwing the match would have had the same consequences for 2959, albeit less direct, and it still would have been wrong.

My personal opinion is, even when it IS worth it to throw the match, it isn't worth it. There is always the next event or the next year for winning, but you can't wipe away a seedy past as easily.

[pfreivald]

What about explaining to your sponsors that you aren't able to promote and advertise them at the championship event because your team was fixated on one match and not the event as a whole?

"We did our best" does not require explanation.

[EricLeifermann]

"We did our best" does not require explanation.

Not condoning or vilifying purposely losing, but if you don't do everything in your power to win then you didn't "do your best".

[Anupam Goli]

"We did our best" does not require explanation.

I don't support playing badly at your benefit and at the cost of your alliance partners, but in the case of 6v0:
Is it easier to show your sponsors a Blue banner showcasing a regional win that was the result of you seeding first due to a 6v0 match, or a finalist medal because you decided to not utilize the ranking system and play for the win in that one qualification match?

[dellagd]

I'm sorry that I kinda jumped on this comment, but every year I hear people talk about alliance selection like its some huge political struggle when it's really all just tactics.

+1 to that. There was a lot of that at Bridgewater last weekend.

[Lil' Lavery]

This is a very nuanced issue that has been discussed at length several times in the past. And each new game has its own complexities in gameplay and rankings that make for an interesting twist on the discussion.

Here's another thread from after 2011:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94916

While many will agree that throwing a match is undesirable, how to define "throwing a match" becomes unclear when actually examined. Should event strategy outrank match strategy? Does employing a sub-optimal match strategy count as throwing a match? Does avoiding strategic "dirty" play count as not employing the optimal match strategy?

[pfreivald]

Not condoning or vilifying purposely losing, but if you don't do everything in your power to win then you didn't "do your best".

I knew someone was going to say that. My point was that no sponsor in the world is going to see a team that tried their hardest to win every game, and then ask for an explanation.

[Lil' Lavery]

I knew someone was going to say that. My point was that no sponsor in the world is going to see a team that tried their hardest to win every game, and then ask for an explanation.

Why does trying your hardest to win every match outrank trying your hardest to win the event?

[Hoover]

Replying to DampRobot's first post of this thread. Which I have re-read.

I come away with a different logic on this now and hope not to over-Spock the issue. My level of strategy as a new coach is strictly match mode. But your thinking is a level above that which I will call tournament mode. This requires an order of magnitude higher level thinking, e.g. you must consider how many matches are left, who are all the members of your opponent alliance etc.

Is considering all these variables as a strategy and executing it precisely not a form of excellent gamesmanship? Better than just say... duh... win?

Now consider, what if a situation arose where the opposite alliance was trying to do the same thing. A sort of Nash equilibrium of losing if you will. It would be embarrassingly obvious if both teams didn't even try to score, but this is probably so rare it would never happen. Still please consider it.

Last question. Do you think this sort of thing ever happens in professional sports as a strategy? Are they bad for doing this or are they trying to do their best i.e. set up their seeds so they have a better shot at the ultimate win? Legal issues? Bookies?

If I get good answers and not just 'the rules say' or 'the spirit of', I promise to throw myself in the frying pan with you.

[Abhishek R]

Play to win match by match. This brings back memories of the Co-opertition Bridge...something that did not go over too well with us last year. In 2012 Lone Star, we went undefeated throughout all the qualifications and had the most autonomous but still ended up not being first seed thanks to us not getting the Co-op points.

Summary: Try to win every match.

[FrankJ]

Last question. Do you think this sort of thing ever happens in professional sports as a strategy? Are they bad for doing this or are they trying to do their best i.e. set up their seeds so they have a better shot at the ultimate win? Legal issues? Bookies?

Do you call pro wrestling a sport? :p

Comes up in boxing. And is frowned upon.

Late season pro football where a team might be resting key players. Still the team is trying to win as a whole.

Happened in baseball (Black Sox scandal)

[efoote868]

Last question. Do you think this sort of thing ever happens in professional sports as a strategy? Are they bad for doing this or are they trying to do their best i.e. set up their seeds so they have a better shot at the ultimate win? Legal issues? Bookies?

Thought I'd point out that this was an issue examined by the book Freakonomics with sumo wrestling. It was an interesting read, I'd recommend it.

[Alan Anderson]

Why does trying your hardest to win every match outrank trying your hardest to win the event?

I hate that question. It's a perfectly good question, but I hate it. I hate it because I can't answer it. I know that the right thing to do is to play your best to win the game in each match, but I can't manage to come up with an adequate explanation for why I know that. I hate having a firm opinion but being unable to justify it.

It leaves me in a situation where the best outcome is for the opposing sides to agree to disagree. I have no way to convince someone to change his or her mind. Rational discussion in favor of my position is not possible, and that makes me feel small.

I maintain hope that someone with more insight than I have will give a solid, well-based explanation for why it's best to play the game harder than you play the meta-game. In the meantime, I'll still listen to the people who believe that winning the tournament justifies strategies that go against winning each match.

[Hoover]

Thought I'd point out that this was an issue examined by the book Freakonomics with sumo wrestling. It was an interesting read, I'd recommend it.

I've watch the HBO special and it included the sumo wrestling. You gotta love how the math reveals what they do.

I professional sports I am talking about the otherwise undetectable throwing. Other than finding it via Freakonomics :) Not some of the dumb fighter *KO's* I've seen where you can't even call it acting.

Lets try to stay on the legal side just to avoid that issue. The player resting happens all the time so in the earlier post that is a good analogy that is presently done in <emphasis> professional </emphasis> sports.

Oooooo... have I stepped over the line by using the word professional? Lets do a word count on that word (or variants) in this forum :)

Listen, I'd be a nimrod if I didn't think this kind of behavior doesn't happen by people that make the big bucks to make it happen.

Legal? Done in a legal way. Right? Now were just doing politics.

[Hoover]

I hate that question. It's a perfectly good question, but I hate it. I hate it because I can't answer it. I know that the right thing to do is to play your best to win the game in each match, but I can't manage to come up with an adequate explanation for why I know that. I hate having a firm opinion but being unable to justify it.

Lil' Lavery don't beat yourself up because its a conundrum.

Extrapolating, I don't think my previous posts of someone else does it so that makes it ok isn't going to fly very far.

So let me say this. What I've seen in my short time of FRC is that everyone is being encouraged trying to do their best in every area. Emphasis on every area. Its like the Kingdom of Geekdom.

Take the strategist. If he/she can think at a high enough level to consider the individual matches as variables or 'playing pieces' if you will then they have mastered a higher form of strategy.

I have convinced myself that my political stand is that this form of strategy is then justified.

You may disagree with me politically. But if you do call me a liberal, not a communist :) There's a difference :)

[rick.oliver]

Why does trying your hardest to win every match outrank trying your hardest to win the event?

For me personally, at the end of the day I will sleep better if I try my hardest to win every match. It is part of the value system instilled in me. It allows me to reduce the complex equation to a simple choice. And I know that my grandmother would be proud of me.

[connor.worley]

The tournament is more than the sum of your matches. That's all I have to say.

[Rewat]

FIRST speaks of gracious professionalism in the sense of helping other teams when they need parts and help, but it also comes with good sportsmanship. I've always frowned on scoring points for opponents (when qualifying was based off of it, but now is not in Michigan) and losing just so that you don't mess up someone's plans of being the first pick or second etc. Top spots are earned by honest wins, it takes away from competitions when teams make dives.

[DampRobot]

It leaves me in a situation where the best outcome is for the opposing sides to agree to disagree. I have no way to convince someone to change his or her mind. Rational discussion in favor of my position is not possible, and that makes me feel small.

First, I'm sorry to have seized on this one section of your excellent post. I know you were taking about something different... But well the way your presented your ideas brought something to the surface that has been in the back of my head for a while.

I find it interesting that this is how all legitimate arguments seem to end on CD. Both sides come up with compelling arguments that nevertheless fail to convince the other side. The consensus always seems to be that everyone should believe what they're going to believe... Which is really no consensus at all.

Can't the FRC community ever decide on something important? Yes, thus is the internet, home of poor grammar and inflammatory arguments, but it always frustrated me how we can have these awesome discussions and never seem to get anywhere.

[Randomness]

First, I'm sorry to have seized on this one section of your excellent post. I know you were taking about something different... But well the way your presented your ideas brought something to the surface that has been in the back of my head for a while.

I find it interesting that this is how all legitimate arguments seem to end on CD. Both sides come up with compelling arguments that nevertheless fail to convince the other side. The consensus always seems to be that everyone should believe what they're going to believe... Which is really no consensus at all.

Can't the FRC community ever decide on something important? Yes, thus is the internet, home of poor grammar and inflammatory arguments, but it always frustrated me how we can have these awesome discussions and never seem to get anywhere.

Well you could say the exact same thing about politics, which I would say is a bit more important than FRC...

But back to the original question, I think that you can make a solid argument about why teams shouldn't throw matches: just go back to the point of FIRST. FIRST is about inspiring students and showing how awesome robotics is, and throwing matches accomplishes the opposite. So I don't think that teams should throw matches.

[Mastonevich]

3 vs 3 which results in an alliance selection process will always induce this conversation. The beauty of this is all of the life lessons learned with either of the options. The kids will have many of these same hard choices through out their lives.

[bduddy]

First, I'm sorry to have seized on this one section of your excellent post. I know you were taking about something different... But well the way your presented your ideas brought something to the surface that has been in the back of my head for a while.

I find it interesting that this is how all legitimate arguments seem to end on CD. Both sides come up with compelling arguments that nevertheless fail to convince the other side. The consensus always seems to be that everyone should believe what they're going to believe... Which is really no consensus at all.

Can't the FRC community ever decide on something important? Yes, thus is the internet, home of poor grammar and inflammatory arguments, but it always frustrated me how we can have these awesome discussions and never seem to get anywhere.Thank you for posting this! Every time I read a serious discussion on this site, I always get a... weird feeling. Yes, I know this is the Internet, but it always feels to be like discussions here are far less... I don't know, productive than they should be, or something.
Some people bring up good points and have them ignored, while others make useless troll posts and get 10 replies. The same topics get brought up over, and over, and over again, with no one ever changing their mind, no new perspectives ever being brought forward, and the whole thing often ending badly. People's reputations go up and down based on whether they have the "right" or the "wrong" opinion or on "witty" one-liners, not based on the quality of their posts. And most topics end up in arguments over semantics or attacking/defending particular teams or people, rather than actually important issues. I don't know if it's the format, or the reputation system, or the moderation, or just how attached all of us are to FIRST and what we're talking about, but there's just something... weird going on here. Or maybe it's just me?

[pfreivald]

Why does trying your hardest to win every match outrank trying your hardest to win the event?

Because trying your hardest to win every match requires no explanation to mom or sponsor or student.

Because the object of each match is to win.

Because it doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Because gaming the ranking/alliance selection system puts a negative impact on *someone* (say, the teams that won't rank as high because you decided to throw a match, whether they were in that match or not) that playing to win every time doesn't. (Yes, I know, this means that other other teams won't rank as high... but as long as everyone's playing to win every match, that's okay.)

[DampRobot]

Because I was the one in the situation, I think I should take a moment to explain the rational behind my decision.

The probably most important factor in my choice was that it would be hard to explain throwing the match. I still believe throwing the match might have been the right strategic choice, but making that decision would mean mentors getting on my tail and my teammates questioning me. Both would be bad for the team, and be painful for me to go through personally. Because other people wouldn't feel "right" about it, I would get a lot of flak about it, deserved or not.

Secondly, it would hurt us, and cause us to lose a match (duh). I knew that other teams considered us a threat, but I didn't know how much of a threat they considered us. I wasn't willing to drop us from, say, first pick on the fifth alliance to second pick on the seventh alliance because we needed to lose to gain a "strategic" advantage in elims. The risk wasn't really worth it. And also, it felt so good to be finally winning with a good robot that at that point that I wasn't willing to lose a match. Winning is fun, and losing would feel bad. And let me tell you, beating the legendary Pink, a NASA team, felt awesome.

Lastly, I knew that friends on other teams had a good opinion of our team up until that point, and I wanted to keep it. Michael Corsetto, your opinion means a lot to me, and I wouldn't want to slight you after all the support you've given to me and my team. Fairly or unfairly, if word got out that we threw the match, we would be looked down upon by the community, which might cause us not to be picked at all. Another case of "it wasn't worth the risk."

I usually try to make big decisions by considering if I would regret my choice later or not. In some ways, I've failed my own test. I still wonder if letting Pink seed second would have somehow opened up a slot for us in finals through the funky strategies of alliance selection, and Champs. On the other hand, I'm sure I would wonder what would have happened if I hadn't thrown the match had I made that choice.

In short, the best of all worlds is not to find yourself in this situation. Playing to win is the "easy" choice, and it might even be the right one. I'm not ready to condemn throwing matches as wrong in all situations though, even when it hurts alliance partners. Maybe in the situation I was in, it wasn't right to throw the match, but I'm not willing to say that the time will never come.

[pfreivald]

Playing to win is the "easy" choice, and it might even be the right one.

Well, it's the simple choice, anyway. Simple and easy aren't the same thing! :)

[karomata]

Only in FIRST can thowing matches be strategically gainful, sometime it can be worth it to throw a match. It all depends on how you want to play the game, if you want to be ethical and moral, following the core values of gracious professionalism and other various beliefs common in FIRST. Or you can be the diehard win all the matches teams, who will be 1st seed in champs after going 32-0-0 all season, then will pick an indestructible alliance and will win it all with great success and fludity based around complex strategies that always win but may not be moral at times. Or you can be both. You can do very well and still be moral and ethical. A great example of this is 1114. They are graciously professional on and off the field, and have pursued all the FIRST core values while being very successful and have helped other team reach their level while helping themselves reach success.

Although FIRST would like to see all the teams competing compete morally, they cannot stop the competitive fighting spirit many of us possess, and it drives many people to success in their own way.

This brings up a famous quote in my mind, I have absolutely no idea who first said it, probably somebody before recorded history, but its meaning still holds today:

"It's not about if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."


However you choose to play the game, good luck to all teams that are still competing!:)

[Taylor]

Last question. Do you think this sort of thing ever happens in professional sports as a strategy? Are they bad for doing this or are they trying to do their best i.e. set up their seeds so they have a better shot at the ultimate win? Legal issues? Bookies?
Only in FIRST can thowing matches be strategically gainful, sometime it can be worth it to throw a match. It all depends on how you want to play the game, if you want to be ethical and moral, following the core values of gracious professionalism and other various beliefs common in FIRST.

This discussion happens in professional sports all the time - especially those that have a draft (hey - FRC has a draft!) It's rather common for pro teams to (be rumored to) give less than 100% in games at the end of the season in order to gain a favorable lottery pick in the next draft. Sacrifice the present to secure the future.

Another example - the onslaught of fouling that happens in the last few minutes of practically all close basketball games, at any level. It's considered good strategy to act in a way that is against the rules of the game, hoping your opponent doesn't take full advantage of your penalty.

Intentional walks in baseball. Intentional grounding in football. Playing the metagame is universal.

Is your priority bringing a pretty banner home to your sponsors, teammates, administrators - or is it to win a single match with two teams you may have barely known before the event started?

Are these tactics moral? Ethical? That's debatable.
Are these tactics strategic and smart? Absolutely.

If FRC is going to emulate the sports world, then these gray areas will exist. The question becomes: Do we play smart, or do we play clean - at an event called The Superbowl Of Smarts? (keeping in mind the true values are not absolute, but rather points on a shifting spectrum)

[pfreivald]

Do we play smart, or do we play clean - at an event called The Superbowl Of Smarts?

Well, given your signature, what do you think?

Is playing clean more important to transforming the culture than playing "smart"? There are lots of "smart" business people out there who crush, swindle, and leverage their way to the top of the market. There are teams that cheat their way to championships (Bill Bellichek, anyone?)

I don't think it's even arguable that we want to model ethical behavior. I want to do it as a mentor. I want us to do it as a team. I want FIRST to do it as an organization -- and by and large they manage to succeed.

If there's a "gray area", that's an opportunity to choose to do the right thing -- and an opportunity to teach students and mentors alike that if there is any question on whether or not an action is the right thing, to choose not to do it.

There is no smart/ethical dichotomy here, because if the action isn't ethical--or is even arguably unethical--then it isn't smart in the long run. Not if what we're actually trying to do is transform the culture.

[Rewat]

posted by Taylor
Quote:Intentional walks in baseball. Intentional grounding in football. Playing the metagame is universal.

These strategies are part of a series of downs and pitches in an inning, not the whole game, the intentional walk sets up a double play and keeps the batter from hitting a home run the intentional grounding is to keep from getting sacked for a loss. In sports the more wins you have the higher seeding. Which gives you an advantage in the final game of the season (ie. superbowl, world series etc). You made the point about fouling in basketball, that is the example that might fit FIRST best. I have told my alliance to take a 3 point penalty if the out come is greater (ie. we gain points in a match or keep another team from scoring) but not to throw away a match just for seeding purposes. So comparing sports to FIRST only hurts the argument to take a dive in a match because in sports the object is to win every game.

[Taylor]

They were all examples of intentionally doing something against the rules/being penalized with a greater goal in mind. Which rings true with the FIRST analogy.
As far as winning every game goes - what about teams that intentionally tank games at the season's end in order to gain the dream quarterback or point guard in the next year's draft, setting themselves up for success in the future? What about teams that rest players at the end of the season to avoid injury - often at the expense of individual games?

[Hoover]

I like the candor of this thread and I applaud the community of discussing it in a rational way.

Some final observances. The thread was spawned as an allocation of something not done. What if on the other hand you had done it, would you have said so? Still I admire your honesty.

I had said earlier I see it as part of the political spectrum. But I did not say whether, if the opportunity came, would I do it? I don't have the brass to do this and I don't blame anyone who can't; it requires some fortitude.

In the professional world, and the world in general, this sort of behavior has one added component. Secrecy. If this is done, it is not admitted to. We didn't expect to see 10 posts of 'oh, I've done that' did we? That is one obvious absence in the discussion.

Also, of late, I noticed point spread forecasting is becoming a science. If I see you are favored by 40 and you losing by 20 on the board, I am going to start noticing who is not shooting, who is not making their climb etc. What this says is this sort of thing is going to become more obvious just by looking at a smart phone app. Be careful.

Competition on the field should not affect friendship in the pits. This sort of strategy can have undesired side effects. Suppose you get to your ultimate goal and your robot breaks. You need a part but none are offered. You get a substitute but they don't have the power to win the final.

BTW, whats wrong with the silver? Anyone? We got the semi-finals once. We then lost our bracket in two straight. After that we were all slapping hands, grinning ear to ear. Pats on back. Huge amount of fun. After losing? In what other sport do you see that kind of behavior?

[DampRobot]

Some final observances. The thread was spawned as an allocation of something not done. What if on the other hand you had done it, would you have said so? Still I admire your honesty.

...

BTW, whats wrong with the silver? Anyone? We got the semi-finals once. We then lost our bracket in two straight. After that we were all slapping hands, grinning ear to ear. Pats on back. Huge amount of fun. After losing? In what other sport do you see that kind of behavior?

Hoover brings up a very important point. Would anyone ever be brave enough to publicly wise up to throwing a match to gain a strategic advantage? (Honestly, I thought saying that I considered it at all would bring the trolls out of the woodwork...)

And nothing's wrong with silver. Nothing's wrong with only moving a single match, if that's your definition of success. I think most people would agree that it's important to try your hardest to do your best, which may just be a blue banner. It's the difficulty of reconciling "trying your hardest" and "doing your best" in all their different forms that turns this into a real debate.

[TheMadCADer]

One thing I ask you all to think about is your definition of "winning" a match. Strictly speaking, winning is having more points after 2:15, but in FIRST it's about much more than just that brief moment. If you could have come away from that match with a better outcome, but didn't, did you really win? If you get one more tally in the loss column, but benefit more than you would have from a win, did you really lose that match?

I do not see a moral conundrum in scoring for the other alliance in a match. I would even posit that you might as well consider yourself to be on the other alliance so long as you benefit more when they win. An alliance is simply a group of individuals working together towards a common goal. In this case, you're simply wearing the wrong colour, nothing more. The side of the field you start on is simply random, but the true alliances develop as the day goes on. Your 'partners' shouldn't require you to play against yourself, just as you shouldn't require them to play against themselves. There's no sneaking, hiding, or lies when you actively score in the 'wrong' goal. Your strategy is out in the open for all to see.

As a quick aside: would you ever agree to tie with the other alliance? Can you think of situations where this would be advantageous for both sides?

[Taylor]

As a quick aside: would you ever agree to tie with the other alliance? Can you think of situations where this would be advantageous for both sides?

That would have been fun in 2012.

[Hoover]

Hoover brings up a very important point. Would anyone ever be brave enough to publicly wise up to throwing a match to gain a strategic advantage? (Honestly, I thought saying that I considered it at all would bring the trolls out of the woodwork...)

I supposed it should have brought out trolls. Maybe they are busy in another thread.

If you really wanted to influence the score in this way, legitimately, the best way to do it is to rest your best driver. Our team wanted it to be that we left every participant drive if he/she wanted to. Considering all the work they did before, why not let them have some fun. When we did this sometimes our score suffered considerably.

For those who say how can you win doing that? What if having fun is more important than winning to us? What side of morals are we on?

To the question, did this hurt the other members of our alliance? The stark answer is yes it could. We did try to chose matches where we knew before hand we were obviously out matched, but that wasn't our highest priority.

And nothing's wrong with silver. Nothing's wrong with only moving a single match, if that's your definition of success. I think most people would agree that it's important to try your hardest to do your best, which may just be a blue banner. It's the difficulty of reconciling "trying your hardest" and "doing your best" in all their different forms that turns this into a real debate.

For us, what we liked is to be able to play. In our last venue we were not selected into quarter-finals. What hurt most is that we couldn't continue playing. You can drive a robot around a gymnasium all you want, but you can't replace the visceral experience of the matches.

[Mr. Van]

I find this discussion very interesting...

In 2003 (Stack Attack), there was a strategy of agreeing with your opponents to not knock each other's stacks down. If both alliances agreed, then the scores for each alliance were much higher and both alliances rose in the rankings, regardless of a win or loss. Since the wining ranking points were three times the loosing score, and the loosing ranking points were the score of the winning alliance, this making this sort of agreement could be very beneficial to all teams in the match.

This strategy was designed into the game that year - at least members of the GDC said that they knew about it as a possibility and wanted to see how teams would deal with the situation. Even though it didn't involve any "throwing" of the match (each team did their best to achieve the highest score), it was roundly criticized as collusion and at subsequent events teams proudly posted signs in their pit saying that they would not form any "agreements".

I find it very interesting that there seem to be a good number of people who feel that "playing the tournament" may be more important than "playing the match" and that throwing a match might be a valid and acceptable strategy, while a decade ago, there was nearly universal opposition to the Sack Attack agreement.

For me, the answer is simple: Play to win every match. There is a chance that one of the teams on the alliance will be attending their only regional. They may have been struggling the entire season. They may be winless at that point in the competition. For them, just having one good match might make their season. To do anything other than playing to your best ability is doing them (and your opponents) a disservice.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
Team 599

[Tow]

Actually it depends on your robot, because if your robot is not very efficient doing the scouting of the teams you are going with and against to see what is the best for you. If your robot is good enough you probably won't need it but is better. (It will get you more points)

[ewcr]

Because trying your hardest to win every match requires no explanation to mom or sponsor or student.

Because the object of each match is to win.

Because it doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Because gaming the ranking/alliance selection system puts a negative impact on *someone* (say, the teams that won't rank as high because you decided to throw a match, whether they were in that match or not) that playing to win every time doesn't. (Yes, I know, this means that other other teams won't rank as high... but as long as everyone's playing to win every match, that's okay.)

How do I explain to my mom, who happens to be the head mentor for my team, or my sponsors who have supported me for 4 years that i didn't get a good alliance in finals so i couldn't get to state or worlds because I attempted to win, even though in winning i lost the regional or district causing our season, the last season for the team due to a lack of students to be over.

Is it not the object of every tournament to win also? Why does a lower level of competition outway the overall higher level?

Losing the final match of my senior left a pretty awful taste in my mouth.

[FIMAlumni]

Kinda on the same topic. At a competition my team was attending there were 4 dominate robots at the event. We were ranked first, another was ranked 2, and the other 2 were out of the top 8. We concluded that the best robot that fit out strategy was out of the top 8, but also we would have to face a very tough alliance in the finals as the number 2 seed would pick the other dominate robot. I considered picking the slightly weaker second seed in order to split up the other two dominate robots (who would join the second and third alliance). Was I picking to create the best alliance? no. Was I picking to win the event? yes. Unfortunately the second seed did not want to play with us anyway so we ended up the highest ranked by our scouting anyway.

[pfreivald]

Losing the final match of my senior left a pretty awful taste in my mouth.

How very sad.

[karomata]

This is a very interesting debate and I would like first to add a rule specifically and clearly stating that the act of throwing a match is unethical.
Another example of similar importance is how predictable alliance selections now are. At 10:00 on Saturday the top teams all sit in corners with each other and through the act of back door deals or whatever you would like to call them many alliances are pre arranged.

This is commonly because many better teams hope to do well in eliminations, and typically when winging alliance selections can tend to fall way out of hand. Unless your 2056 and 1114, then it is assumed before the regional that you will work together (and probably win).

[rick.oliver]

In the context of the seeding system in place this year and the scenario described in the original post, I maintain, as I stated in my initial post that for me personally the choice is clear - I play to win every match.

When the seeding criteria create the motivation to score for your opponent in certain situations; then, I also have no problem. Aim High was a good example of that scenario.

When the seeding criteria create the motivation to cooperate with opponents to control the outcome of the match and it is in everyone's best interest to play, for example 6v0, well I would not criticize teams for pursuing that strategy. It never came up for me that year; if approached by all five other teams, I probably would have cooperated and still slept well that night :rolleyes:

I could imagine a scenario where losing their last match would put a team in a better position for alliance selection without impacting the ranking of alliance partners or opponents. If I were clever enough to recognize it in the first place, I want to believe that I would not support such strategy by our team. I hope that we would play to win. That would be a personal choice based on my value system. I also would not criticize another who made a different choice. While I would strongly lobby against it, if that was the consensus of my team, I could support it. Under no circumstances would I accept a "bribe" as it were to throw a match.

[Bill_B]

This is all further complicated by the onset of the district systems and point values for the placings at district events. In the later Quals, some teams will be looking at possibly their last chances to get points for DCMPs. If a single team's performance were so significant as to be able to control the outcome of one match, they would risk additional loss of reputation by their sub-par performance. I don't recall why it's called sand-bagging, but I think the NHRA has rules about dragster running times that deal with too large a variation.

[rick.oliver]

The best way to ensure that each team plays to win every match is to ensure that the seeding system rewards that behavior. Qualifying points based on wins and ties with tie breaker points based on a team's own alliance performance (not the opposing one's) should do that.

This is the system in place for this year. The remaining incentive which may influence behavior is the draft process. In my opinion, drafting 1 to 8 in both rounds would remove any incentive for a team to "throw" a match.

Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match.

[bduddy]

The best way to ensure that each team plays to win every match is to ensure that the seeding system rewards that behavior. Qualifying points based on wins and ties with tie breaker points based on a team's own alliance performance (not the opposing one's) should do that.

This is the system in place for this year. The remaining incentive which may influence behavior is the draft process. In my opinion, drafting 1 to 8 in both rounds would remove any incentive for a team to "throw" a match.

Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match.I don't think many teams throw matches because of the "snake" drafting system - in any case, this would probably not be a good idea because, year after year, higher seeds still win more often anyway. What I see discussed much more often is the manipulation of matches to ensure that a certain team is or is not ranked highly, to try to ensure a given result in the first round of alliance selection, and I don't see how going to a 1-8, 1-8 system would change that. I do agree that the "simpler" ranking system this year has removed the incentive for the 6v0, etc., and I'm all for that.

[AllenGregoryIV]

The best way to ensure that each team plays to win every match is to ensure that the seeding system rewards that behavior. Qualifying points based on wins and ties with tie breaker points based on a team's own alliance performance (not the opposing one's) should do that.

This is the system in place for this year. The remaining incentive which may influence behavior is the draft process. In my opinion, drafting 1 to 8 in both rounds would remove any incentive for a team to "throw" a match.

Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match.

If the wildcard still exists then there is a very big incentive for a team to try to be an alliance captain on the opposite side of the bracket from the Wildcard generating alliances (often the #1 seed/alliance). Several times this season it has been beneficial for our team to lose. I tell my drivers to never throw a match but you can tell they have no incentive to win (we still won nearly all those matches).

[rick.oliver]

I don't think many teams throw matches because of the "snake" drafting system - in any case, this would probably not be a good idea because, year after year, higher seeds still win more often anyway. What I see discussed much more often is the manipulation of matches to ensure that a certain team is or is not ranked highly, to try to ensure a given result in the first round of alliance selection, and I don't see how going to a 1-8, 1-8 system would change that. I do agree that the "simpler" ranking system this year has removed the incentive for the 6v0, etc., and I'm all for that.

I agree that the serpentine draft is likely not much of a factor in a decision to throw a match. There are certainly folks who do not like it for other reasons ... for another thread.

The manipulation of matches to influence the ranking of a specific team crosses the ethical line for me.

[Chris is me]

Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match.

The big one you can never get rid of is when you're playing the #1 seed, you're the second best robot at the event, and you have a better alliance. There's no way to prevent that kind of match throwing, since there will always be an incentive to keep a better team #1 seed if you are the guaranteed first pick.

[rick.oliver]

The big one you can never get rid of is when you're playing the #1 seed, you're the second best robot at the event, and you have a better alliance. There's no way to prevent that kind of match throwing, since there will always be an incentive to keep a better team #1 seed if you are the guaranteed first pick.

Assuming that you are not already the #2 seed, yes I see your point.

[rick.oliver]

If the wildcard still exists then there is a very big incentive for a team to try to be an alliance captain on the opposite side of the bracket from the Wildcard generating alliances (often the #1 seed/alliance). Several times this season it has been beneficial for our team to lose. I tell my drivers to never throw a match but you can tell they have no incentive to win (we still won nearly all those matches).

I stand corrected. Twice ... :yikes:

[DampRobot]

Under these circumstances, I cannot think of an ethical (or even gray area) which would justify a team "throwing" a match.

If your goal was to win the tournament, and loosing a match made it easier, I think that would certainly qualify as a grey area. It would be especially grey if your alliances agreed it was in their best interest to lose the match too.

I'm not sure if you read my first post on this thread or not, but essentially our motivation for loosing the match would be to keep a very inconsistent robot very high in the seedlings in order to break up and to weaken elimination alliances.

[rick.oliver]

If your goal was to win the tournament, and loosing a match made it easier, I think that would certainly qualify as a grey area. It would be especially grey if your alliances agreed it was in their best interest to lose the match too.

I'm not sure if you read my first post on this thread or not, but essentially our motivation for loosing the match would be to keep a very inconsistent robot very high in the seedlings in order to break up and to weaken elimination alliances.

I did read your original post and read it over again before I posted that comment. As pointed out by others, I agree that late in the Qualification Rounds there may be circumstances which would cause a team to consider the consequences of losing versus winning a match.

I appreciate your transparency in sharing your situation and thought process. I also commend you for making the correct choice, in my opinion.

As I stated in my earlier post, I would strongly argue against ever throwing a match, regardless of the situation, based on my personal value system.

While I would support a team consensus (large majority) decision; i.e., I was unable to persuade them otherwise, I would be looking for a new team. I think that the example of the Olympic competition sited in an earlier post correctly illustrates the accepted view that such behavior is unethical and to be discouraged.

[Hjelstrom]

I did read your original post and read it over again before I posted that comment. As pointed out by others, I agree that late in the Qualification Rounds there may be circumstances which would cause a team to consider the consequences of losing versus winning a match.

I appreciate your transparency in sharing your situation and thought process. I also commend you for making the correct choice, in my opinion.

As I stated in my earlier post, I would strongly argue against ever throwing a match, regardless of the situation, based on my personal value system.

While I would support a team consensus (large majority) decision; i.e., I was unable to persuade them otherwise, I would be looking for a new team. I think that the example of the Olympic competition sited in an earlier post correctly illustrates the accepted view that such behavior is unethical and to be discouraged.

I agree, kudos to the poster making the right decision. In my opinion it is never reasonable to throw a match. Play your best every match, play to win. Your team should value its integrity over "strategically winning".

[Racer26]

If the wildcard still exists then there is a very big incentive for a team to try to be an alliance captain on the opposite side of the bracket from the Wildcard generating alliances (often the #1 seed/alliance). Several times this season it has been beneficial for our team to lose. I tell my drivers to never throw a match but you can tell they have no incentive to win (we still won nearly all those matches).

We saw this a bunch of times in Canada this season. Teams declining the #4 and #5 alliance captains, preferring to captain their own alliance from the #6 or #7 spot (because the winner of #4/#5 faces the winner of #1/#8 in semis). To earn the wildcard you had to make it to finals. Going through 1114/2056 to get there from the #4/#5 is extremely difficult. Going through the #2 or #3 alliance (or both) to get there is still difficult, but less so.