Picking to win Einstein vs your field
 

Let's say you're an alliance captain in championships and it's alliance selection time. What do you guys think about picking robots that can win your field compared to picking robots to win Einstein? You could pick reliable robots that you are confident will be good enough to best anyone on your field, or you could pick robots who have the potential to score more points but are unreliable. For example a consistent cycler compared to a full court shooter or a 30pt-50pt climber that's unreliable, that only worked on the practice field, or just took a fall their last match and present a risk.

I believe both are valid strategies, what do you guys think?

Re: Picking to win Einstein vs your field
 

You have to get to Einstein before you can win it.

my 2 cents, Bryan

One has to win their field first to get to Einstein.

Re: Picking to win Einstein vs your field
 

Versatility is king. To win it all you must be able to react to every strategy accordingly. Chances are you'll see them all on your way there anyways.

Re: Picking to win Einstein vs your field
 

I think this is valid, but I think the assumption is that any "risky" picks have the potential to win the field. I really think that this depends on where you're seeded. Another alumnus and I were chatting on Friday night about alliance selections, and something that came up was (I'm paraphrasing, here) 'If you're a #1 seed, you need to pick like a 3- or 4-seed.' Making picks isn't always cut and dry, certainly. Often, as a #1 seed, it's far easier to make that first pick than if you're the 3rd or 4th captain. Sometimes taking a calculated risk can work out spectacularly, but brings with it the possibility of falling flat.

I don't think there's a definitive answer to this question. It's rather context based. And sometimes teams must even take a calculated risk just to win their division in the first place.

That's exactly the assumption I'm making. The risks picks would be robots that could be amazing, more valuable than the reliable picks, IF they work. To me it seem like a classic low risk low reward, high risk high reward scenario.

Well "low" is a bit of a relative term :)

Re: Picking to win Einstein vs your field
 

If you're going to be up against, let's say, the first seeded alliance and suppose this alliance is comprised of good and reliable robots, and are the favorites to win the division. If you pick reliable robots who are however not as effective as the number one seeded powerhouse alliance, then it's a lose-lose situation, no? So you would probably want to pick the robots who at their best can beat these powerhouses. In either case, you need to win your division first anyway, and you will probably meet a variety of strategies in your division anyway.