Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

OK, that's more reasonable. Assuming that your team is in #8 (which means you won the match by some fluke), then you're between a rock and a hard place. See discussion of pick by #1. However, you aren't there, because you lost the match. So #1 picks someone else (not you). Not an issue anymore, is it? Except for the manner of losing, that is.

Aiming for biggest point differential? OK.

If every team in the top 8 declines, they have a good reason. Usually, that means that every team thinks they can do better with their own alliance. Implication is that #1 complements none of them, or is not good on the field.

Granted. However, it is the only way to be sure of the result. Maybe the E-stop and a 2vs3 will work instead, but that can be risky, especially this year with <G22>. Alliance E-stop, maybe.

Hmmm...on the surface, correct. I'm going to have to go deeper...

Remember what FIRST's goal is? Culture change. That's why the Winner and Finalist are not the top awards and the Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration are. In the FIRST Robotics Competition, the Winner/Finalist have value. But in FIRST's ultimate goal, they have little to no value. The competition is a means to an end, not the end. The competition draws students in. Because it is a competition, you need to have awards for competition, otherwise who cares? But the higher awards relate to the bigger picture.

Why are Championship Winners only given a one-time slot the next year at the Championships, but the Chairman's winners (who, for the most part, haven't won a championship) get a lifetime slot? Because the focus is not the competition. If it was, we could just as well do BattleBots or BEST or some other competition for the same result and less money. But because the focus isn't the competition, the end results are different and the awards are different.

This is why teams are told both that winning an event is important and that it isn't important, as near as I can determine.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Thats like slapping Dean Kamen in the face, lol.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Why is it not an option? Not showing up and guaranteeing a loss is mathematically superior to playing the match and risking a win. Rejecting it as an option makes you look like a hypocrite.

So if you can explain why "it is never, ever an option" to definitively reject a win, without simultaneously granting that game theory is not always the right guide, I'd appreciate the enlightenment.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I did read your post.

When the cost of an advantage is my honor, or the honor of my team, then the cost is far to high for me. This is part of what I meant about the cost of backroom dealings and throwing matches.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

If your alliance partners agree to you throwing the match, then how does it affect your honor? I'm not actually sure what you mean by honor, but I'm assuming its your reputation.

Also, how are these "backroom dealings" when you have openly discussed this with your alliance partners?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Guys I love a healthy discussion as much as the next guy (and I must say this is a very nice debate, no personal attacks, no overlyagressive behavior)...but as I read through all of these posts again, we are arguing over a scenario that is EXTREMELY far fetched in my opinion.

As cleared up already, chances of 7 straight declines?? 0... It just seems to me that this hypothetical scenario is a little out of whack and that this debate over tiny obscure details of a hypothetical scenario is getting nowhere.

If we want to turn the debate to "is intentionally losing matches ok and if so when?" I am all for it. Seems to me like this scenario is just not realistic.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Who cares? It's all luck anyway.
If you choose this strategy, good for you. If you don't, thats great too.
But remember, "live by the sword, die by the sword"

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Throwing a match for your own advantage, whether you can get your alliance partners approval or not, is dishonorable (IMHO).

Let me ask you this:
since you believe that throwing a match so that the #1 seed will pick you is OK (your gain), do you think throwing a match for $1000 (again your gain) would be acceptable? $5000? How about if you could get your alliance partners approval?

You see, here is what I mean about honor, because once you start down that slippery slope where do you stop. It is the the precident that you would be setting that is most disturbing.

And as far as Back room deals ... did you discuss this "deal" with all the other teams? Would you let everyone know that you are willing to throw a match just for your own gain?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

In my opinion, there's no reason you should ever go out and do anything less than your best. This competition is too unpredictable to do anything else. What's to say that if you don't end up seeded, that you won't be picked by a seeded team other than that #1 you so desire? Maybe the #2 or #3 wants you as their first-round pick? If you throw the match so you'll slip out of the top 8, and they see it, maybe they change their minds and don't pick you. You can talk all you want about one choice being mathematically superior, but all kinds of things happen in a real-life FIRST event that don't follow the best statistical choices. Just go out there and compete, and let things happen as they will. You'll feel better knowing that whatever happens, you did your best, and you did the right thing.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Trust me. This scenario has played out Numerous of times for us.
Within the last 2 years we have been 8th seed picker 3 times, and have been picked by 8th seed 2 other times.
However, If you look at us last year at the Championship event. We were 8th seed and after alliances were picked, we had an alliance that a lot of people thought would be able to take it all. We had some robot malfunctions int he finals, but we still put up the fight.
This goes to show that no matter what the situation, you never are a 0% chance to win because you are 8th seed. If you have good scouting data or know who you work well with then this should not be an issue.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Blake, I guess it's just like playing poker. Regardless of what odds one person thinks it will take to beat the other, the whole point become moot when we factor in human behavior. The scenario in which you so fervently argue for is one that is synonymous with a straight flush -- you may see it in person once in a lifetime and even then it is beatable.

So I'll bite and talk mathematics for a second. Assume a 64 robot pool and the top 24 make it to elims and we're ranked 8th. We need to make the decision to throw the match or not. The goal of throwing the match is to be picked by one of the top 2 seeds as the 2nd pick. Let's even say the other 2 bots will not be in the elims due to low ranking or they want to just be that nice, and agree so we're stuck with a 100% chance to lose the match. We also have to assume we've done no deal making for alliances with the top seeds...after all this is mathematical. So we'll deal with 62 bots in alliance selections.

First selections:
Chances we are NOT picked in the first 8 selections = (53/54)*(52/53)*(51/52)*(50/51)*(49/50)*(48/49)*(47/48)*(46/47) = 85.18%

Second selections:
Chances we are NOT picked in the first 6 selections = (45/46)*(44/45)*(43/44)*(42/43)*(41/42)*(40/41) = 86.96%

Chances we are not picked when we don't want to be: 86.96*85.18 = 74.07%

Now the chances we ARE picked by either of the remaining two alilances:
(1/40) + (1/39) = 5.06%

Chances that we are not picked when we want to be and are picked when we do want to be: 5.06% * 74.07% = 3.75%.

At the championships with an 86 robot pool, this percentage goes even lower. At least with an 8th seed you have a 100% chance of being in the elims.

=========

I wouldn't gamble the thousands of dollars & hours we put into these bots on 3.75% odds...I wouldn't even gamble a few bucks in poker on it. I'd hate to have to go back the company we work for and tell them we gambled with their sponsor money even though we had a 96% chance to be unsuccessful by making this decision.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Nor would I or anyone else who is thinking clearly, that is why I wrote into the scenario that the team in question would need to have done their homework well before stepping up to the starting line. I 100% violently agree that one does not ignore the "social" side of strategizing about elimination round alliances.

In the scenario I suggested, the #2 (not #1 as many people continue to mistakenly assume) captain and the team in question have already scouted each other and have agreed that allying in the eliminations is what they both want. Here is what I put into the scenario description "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."

The point behind illustrating that dropping out of the top 8 prevents the #1 captain from using a pseudo-invitation to spoil the #2 captains ability to pick you out of the #8 spot; was, and is, the point I am trying to make. Also, in some off-season events, rules that forbid alliance captains from picking one another can rear their heads. In these non-linear, ally-picking situations, unconventional strategies can become useful.

In the circumstance I described, unless the #2 captain is flat-out lying to us; we get to go back to the company we work for and tell them that we earned a really good chance that we would form an excellent alliance; and that it was accompnaied by a slim chance that we would instead be picked out of the pool by the #1 seed and thereby become part of what I trust would be an OK or good alliance.

I agree that one would not do this if their fate were governed solely by the probablities you listed for us.

Blake

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I'm trying to understand your point, but there's apparently something missing, extra, or out of order in this sentence. Would you like to rephrase it? As it stands, it's word salad.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

OK - Sorry about the salad.

In the scenario I outlined:

• The #2 captain wants to draft you.
• You want to be drafted by the #2 captain.

However

• The #1 captain is a wise and crafty person who will attempt to spoil the chance that you and #2 will become allied.
• The #1 captain doesn't want to ally with you (let's say #1 and you both have good ramp-only bots in a Rack-N-Roll tournament);

But

• There is a very good chance that if you are in the #8 captain's spot, they will gamble and offer you a bogus invitation in order to get you to decline and become unpickable by #2.

To dodge the #1 captain's expected bogus invitation, you choose to become a member of the non-captain pool, and if your allies support that decision, you play your last Qual match accordingly.

Everyone knows that if teams in the pool decline an invitation, they are out of the tournament. Consequently, no one gives an invitation to one of those teams if they aren't sincerely asking the team to become their ally. This fact becomes your friend.

• The #1 captain now sees that (because you are not the #8 captain) it is too risky to try break up your planned alliance with the #2 captain.
• The #1 captain does not give you a insincere invitation because it is no longer a good bet to expect you to decline.

So,

• You remain in the pool while the #1 captain makes their pick.
• Immediately after the #1 captain makes their pick, the #2 team (that scouted you and that you know truly wants you for an ally); gets to safely pick you out of the pool in the first round of the draft.

I hope this explanation clears things up - I know that sentence that gave you trouble sounded better in my head than it did in most readers'. I tried to bypass spelling all of this out, but I guess that wasn't such a good idea.

In a regulation FRC tournament, "the team" in question is trying to avoid an insincere invitation from the #1 captain. If the team is in the #8 spot, the #1 captain will bet on #8 (the team) declining, and will issue that invitation in order to deny the team and #2 a chance to ally. By avoiding being in the #8 spot, the team avoids the insincere invitation.

Blake

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

The sum of the arguments listed keep circumventing the fact that you have to make a decision to throw a match based upon what may or may not happen in the future. There are too many assumptions made and too many variables that are unaccounted for, such as logic. Let's re-examine our previous experiences shall we?

Case Study:
In 2007, I don't ever recall that there less than 3 good ring-placers in the top 8 at the beginning of alliance selections. If this were rack-n-roll, someone who was good at placing rings would have accepted the #1 seed's invitation, regardless of where your team fits into the "best alliance". Therefore there was no reason to throw a match to get out of the top 8.

I completely agree with Daniel_Lafleur in that there are greater costs in even asking this question.

It doesn't make sense to further this argument. 2008's game is dynamic enough that the constraints you've placed on your hypothetical scenario will simply never coexist in the FRC competition season. And before anyone says it, I'm pretty sure the GDC will make the games in the next few years just as flexible. Let's not get into offseason events either, as pure irony will rear its ugly face if we do.