Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Its a good question.

One thing that you could do is first talk to the top seeds and see if they even consider picking you, and still do your best in the next match regardless of you being 8th seed. If you truly are the next best bot then you will be picked by them accordingly. Its true that sometimes even I don't want to be the eight seed captain or in the 8th alliance, but like a lot people said, anything can happen.

Awesome hypothetical question by the way. I've always wondered how people felt about this.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

HOW CAN YOU EVEN PROPOSE AN IDEA LIKE THIS?

Winning has never been the primary goal of FIRST. NEVER.
First is about getting students interested in science and engineering, and teaching them the life skills, technical and otherwise, that will help them go far.

From the first site, GP is defined as "Gracious Professionalism is part of the ethos of FIRST. It's a way of doing things that encourages high-quality work, emphasizes the value of others, and respects individuals and the community."

I cannot stand seeing a team or individual take a "win at any cost" stance at a FIRST event. It makes me sick.

Un-GP by a light-year!

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Dude, he didn't propose anything. He asked a question. Re-read the first posts please.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Ahem, getting back on topic:

I don't think it's a valid strategy, because part of your reasoning is flawed: Just because you're 8th seed does not exclude the 1/2/3 seeds from picking you - right? So, then what does it matter whether you're 8th or 13th?

All the other things said aside, there's a logical flaw in the premise.

Don

PS: Wow, this thread has legs! 50 posts in a short time.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

The reasoning is if you have a pure lapbot, chances are you won't be selected as a first round pick, since many teams prefer hurdlers (obviously there are many exceptions to this). As we go further along the serpentine draft to around the 10th-16th pick, the number of hurdlers may run out and teams select lapbots.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Folks,

I assert that the notion that the only way to "do your best" during the field competition part of a FIRST FRC tournament, is to blindly employ strategies aimed at scoring as many points as possible in each match, is not mathematically sound.

If I am right and if scoring as much as possible isn't a mathematically sound path to teams' desired end states, it would appear to me that we clever folks trying to inspire a true appreciation for science would be forced to examine alternative strategies and correctly employ the alternatives in appropriate situations.

I am using the term "strategy" in the sense of "a set of rules that are designed to maximize the likelihood of some desired outcome in a game, and that govern a players' actions in that game".

For the field competition portion of an FRC tournament, I think that most people have the same desired outcome: Being a member of the Winning Alliance. I am going to assume that outcome is nearly universally what the participants desire.

Game Theoretical analysis of many types of games shows that strategies which might at first seem counter-intuitive are actually the "best" strategies. Perhaps the situation we are discussing is one of those instances when a counter-intuitive move is the right move (akin to sacrificing a chess piece to obtain a better board position, and thereby improving your long-haul chances having the TOTAL game turn out successfully).

In the situation Fred described (plus a couple of additions)

• You are about to play the very last Qual match of the tournament.
• The #1 and #2 seeds are already locked up.
• You are confident that the # 1 captain (expecting 7 "declines") is going to pseudo-invite all of the lower 7 captains in order to prevent them from allying with each other.
• You are confident that the #2 through #7 captains will decline the pseudo offers from the #1 captain.
• You wish to ally with the # 2 captain and they wish to pick you. You and they believe that paired together, you will be the foundation of the best alliance in the elimination rounds.
• If your Qual match alliance outscores the opposing alliance, you will become an alliance captain. If you don't, you won't be one of the original 8 alliance captains.

AND

• You ask your allies if they care whether they outscore your opponents or not. They do not care and are willing to help you avoid becoming a captain because they understand that you wish to avoid a pseudo-offer from the #1 captain. Additionally, perhaps they wish to avoid unnecessary wear and tear on their machines and don't care what the score of the match turns out to be. Instead, because the match is very largely irrelevant to them, and because it is very important to you, they want to graciously support their ally, i.e. you.

In order to "do your best" at attaining the outcome you, and just about everyone else, has been pursuing (on the field) (becoming a member of the winning alliance), please tell me why you would attempt to outscore your opponents, become the 8th seed, and thereby be unable to form what you believe is the strongest alliance possible for the elimination rounds.

If you offer an alternative strategy and back it up with testable propositions, please do so in the neutral language of science and math. I have to admit that I get just a little bit annoyed at pejorative terms like "throw the match". I get especially annoyed when, in the scenario being discussed, the alternative appears to be choosing to "throw the tournament".

If outscoring your opponents in one particular match means you reduce your chances of winning the tournament; and doing the opposite increases your chances of winning the tournament; and if your allies are willing to support either option; then from a game theory perspective, the choice seems clear. Don't purposefully do badly in the total tournament

Blake
PS: If it is wrong, as some seem to have suggested, for a team to aspire to using their analytical and mechanical skills to earn that piece of plastic, then I submit that all teams in the tournament should stop doing the "wrong" thing; and should instead make every match into a pro-wrestling style exhibition for the benefit of the audience.

Please don't explicitly or implicitly denigrate the possibility that a team (supported by their allies) might actually take the time to think backwards from their desired end goal to their situation in a particular match, discover that a low score improves their odds of reaching their desired end-goal, and then act on that conclusion.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Don - In the scenario I outlined in the post before this one, do you still see a flawed premise?

Blake

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Would you prefer to throw the tournament?

Obviously then, if it is horrible to try to win the field competition part of a tournament, all teams should stop trying to win.

Somewhere along the line I got the impression that using brain power well and celebrating the skillful use of science and mathematics was part of that higher standard. I guess I was wrong about that.
You are right, we should stop keeping score during matches and play them only for fun and for the benefit of the audience. We should stop using success in the tournament as a way to recognize teams that have worked hard to understand fully how the tournament system works and how to use a well-designed and built robot to maximize their chances of being in the winning alliance.
See above - Also, since when did meticulous analysis of the mathematics and social interactions of a tournament become known as "finagling"? In my math, science and engineering studies it has been known as "optimizing".

Then I think you agree with sometimes letting your opponents outscore you. Isn't that required if you are putting forth your true best effort toward obtaining your end-goal (which is the end-goal of pretty much everyone)? I believe that in the scenario we are discussing, the best effort is the one that is the result of taking the time to carefully and rigorously analyze the expected value of each of your options, and then choosing to carry out the option that both maximizes your chance of reaching your end goal and is supported by your alliance-mates.

"dirty tricks" - Please - I think not.
Would you rather ally with a team that didn't think clearly enough to realize the consequences of their actions? I'll bet you that a team that wasn't aware of the ramifications of the situation we are discussing would be prone to overlooking similarly subtle strategic options on the field during matches. That would make me nervous.

So you hope teams don't analyze their strategic options completely and/or if they do you hope that they pick a second-best strategy? That seems odd.

Some people are motivated to take part in the field competitions of FIRST because it gives them a chance to out-think their opponents. They see the tournament as a battle of wits as much as a battle of engineering. They cooperate like crazy off the field and they compete like crazy on the field. For some bizarre reason, they expect to be congratulated (perhaps by occasionally earning a trophy) when they think clearly, and they successfully work well within the system, to maximize their chances of earning the title of winning alliance. The rules of FIRST tournaments are not the same as are used in many other tournaments/sports. The strategy Fred brought up is a well-thought out response to the rules that do govern FIRST tournaments.


Don't even get me started on the assertions about sportsmanship and honesty.... Grrrr.

Hmmm, so it is OK to underperform now in order to increase your chances of doing well next year, but it is not OK to underperform now to in order to increase your chances of doing well 30 minutes from now? How odd.

Once again, if the likely alternative is "throwing the tournament"; I would think that letting your opponent outscore you in a match when your allies support that strategy would be the correct thing to do.

Blake
PS: Remember, these are my personal opinions. I enjoy assisting several teams near my home and their members all have widely varying responses to this question. Plus, I think it is a very nice topic for a challenging debate. Intense, non-personal debate is healthy.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

What was Dean worried about?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I can see one flawed premise. If the #1 seed is so horrible that no one wants to ally with them, your team as #8 captain will have the opportunity to beat them in the quarterfinals. Then you would be coming up against a weakened #4 or #5 alliance in the semis (since neither one of them would have the ability to pick one of the top 8). With good selections due to the serpentine draft, the #8 alliance could go a long way in the elims.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I can't follow the "logic" which leads you to ask this.

The choice is between two things. First is playing your best in a match, where winning will earn your team an alliance captainship. Second is intentionally losing a match (or not even showing up), which will guarantee that your team is not an alliance captain.

If your goal is to win the tournament, you obviously need to play in the elimination rounds. Only by winning the match in question can you be certain of doing that. If you aren't in a position to choose your partners, you are at the mercy of the alliance selection process. You're counting on being lucky enough to be picked in the second round by a high-seeded team. Any number of things can trip up that "strategy".

Don't forget the high probability that your actions will mark you as unprofessional and thus unworthy of being picked at all.

This isn't a competition to see who can best manipulate the odds according to game theory. This is a competition to see who can be the best team, with a secondary competition to see who can best play the game. Throwing a match is not playing the game.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I personally would not want to rely on our final standing. I would still push my team to give it their all even with monumental odds against them. We got picked for an alliance at VCU this year even though we went 0-8 in the qualification matches and were in last place. The alliance that picked us wanted us for our autonomous (at least 3 lines every match) and our ball placing/removing ability. Unfortunately our bad luck followed us there and we were knocked out in two matches.

So I guess my personal point is, if you have that ability to get that #8 seed by winning, don't throw the match intentionally. Plus, if someone saw what you did because of who you were up against, they might not look too favorably towards you.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Some good many years ago in the world of baseball a batter tapped the pitched ball out to the right side field.

The fielder then throws the ball to 1st to tag the runner out.

But.... The hitter ran to third, then to second, then first and home. The confused fielders then start throwing the ball around trying to catch this clown.

Turns out the rule at the time said the runner much touch all bases but never addressed the order of touching them. The intent had always been 1,2,3, home but it was unwritten.

I don't know if this story is completely true or what game it was, but it illustrates the gap between the intentions of a game designer and the rules that are written.

It is probably a pretty fair to assume that the game designers intend for everyone to compete in every match and make the best showing of their technological skills, not their superior application of game theory.

It's that simple. You do not have to go any further back than the discussion on the IR hybrid mode implementation to see the direction the GDC is working in.

Going with Chris on this one.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

First of all here, you took many of my statements and turned them around. I no where EVER said that we should "stop keeping score" to play them for fun. The things we learn in FIRST are NOT just science and engineering. We are SUPPOSED to be learning how to be better people while learning all kinds of skills.

I am all for winning a tournament, believe me, I've done it, it is awesome. However, why would you not play your best every single match? Deal-striking happens all the time in government/politics...and ALL of those people are just SOOO well liked <\sarcasm>

We are trying to change the world with FIRST, make the world a better place. Where winning is STILL CELEBRATED, but the real fun is in learning and just being there for "the ride".


I understand the point you are trying to make by saying that you are applying "analysis" to try and win the tournament. But given that this scenario is flawed to begin with, and you are not gaining much of an advantage to do so, it seems to me that guaranteeing yourself a spot in the finals and making it to the top 8 is a good accomplishment.

It appears however, we are not on the same page. It's been said forever, "winning isn't everythign", and thats because it isn't.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I'll say something my mentor said...
We were ranked like 13th and people started suggested that we started making the games more marginal so that we would get more Ranking Points. Our mentor said that we would not do that. We would go out there, play our best, and be hoped to be picked by a good alliance.

This is not nice and you'd have to think about the other alliances.And what if 1114 and 217 don't pick you....

Now i quote my coaches....

"You never wanna walk away with any regrets, you always say that you did your best and that there was no way you could've done any better"

So, whoever this Chris man be....

Karma to ya.