Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I have been thinking of this for a while, and I want to see the chiefdelphi perspective of this.

Consider this case:
Your team has a decent lapbot in a shallow field, and one qualification match left to compete in. If you win the next match, you are guarenteed to be the 8th alliance captain, but you would be facing a superalliance of 1114, 217, xxxx (clearly an exageration), which you could never beat no-matter who you selected.
If you were to intentionally forfeit the next qualification match by not showing up and not sending a representative from your team, you would be definitely outside of the alliance captain selections, and would likely be selected by the number 1 or 2 or 3 alliance (2nd pick) making it to the finals or possibly winning.

Do you think it is un-gp to not show up for a match intentionally and possibly affect your alliance at that qualification match. Note, this is different from coming onto the field and losing by driving clockwise the entire match.


DISCLAIMER: I in no way support this strategy. Please don't misinterpret this post as intent to use this strategy myself or for my team. This has not been done by any team I know, and is purely hypothetical.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I can not see how this is any way even sportsman like.
Seeing how your forfeiture affects your alliance partners , (negatively) I just wouldn't be able to not try.
I don't think team in case would like one of their alliance partners to forfiet for individual gain.
un-GP

Edit: I'm going to sleep on it.( How exactly to respond were this one of my alliance partners.)

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

1. It affects your partners, which is VERY un-GP.

2. Even if you lose, you may wind up in the top 8 due to intra-8 selections.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Such an action would be neither gracious nor professional. You would be hurting the other members of your alliance, and you would be doing less than your best on purpose. The answer should be obvious, and the question should not need to be asked.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Do you think the number 1, 2 or 3 alliance would select that team after such behavior?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Although I highly disagree with the posting of the question, I would like to point out that it was a hypothetical question and that he wanted answers from others on CD.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Things like this tend to get around, quickly! It is unlikely that many teams will look at this favorably but you never know it could happen. I certainly have seen a lot over the years.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I'd like to mention that I do not mentor or am not associated with a FRC team. I just wanted to see people's opinions on this matter.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Your role says that you are a mentor.:confused:
And you mentor 478.:confused:

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

It's a FTC team. And no, I am not intending to use this for FTC.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

So you're still a mentor right?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Yes I am.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

OK, I'm lucid again. Back to the topic.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Ok clearly forfeiting the match and affecting your alliance partners is un-gp. What if, your alliance partners during the match is (following my previous example) 1114 and 217, and they were facing 3 robots that could not possibly beat them even 2v3.

What is the opinion on forfeiting the match now, considering the match will be a guarenteed victory anyways for your alliance partners.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Murphy and his laws frown upon such scheming. The match where you no-show with 1114 and 217 is the match where 1114 catches the overpass and tips, somehow pinning down the two balls to prevent 217 from hurdling.

As Vanilla Ice put it, anything less than the best is a felony.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I would not see a problem with going ahead with the match. If the top teams are going to pick you, it's not going to be because you forfieted, and if you make the top 8, you still get to pick your alliance members.

Why is there another choice?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Than why not go out and show them how good you are fist hand?
The bottom line is that you should never take the chances of being picked over doing your own picking.
You can't say for sure that you'd be picked in the 15th or 16th pick of the draft. If you did, start playing the lotto.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

this situation would make me want to do this more, here is my logic

+say 1114 picks 217 and 217 declines. (i know 1114's scouting system to understand that what im about to say goes totally against how it works) but which team would be fresh in their minds. plus if you do deserve to be picked, you will. if you truly complemented one of these two powerhouses, THIS MATCH would be your golden opportunity to prove it to them in their faces.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

GP issues aside, I doubt this would be an effective strategy. Alliance picking is simply too unpredictable to make deliberately lowering your ranking worthwhile. Teams often intra-pick within the top 8, sometimes 3 or even 4 times, so a team ranked 9th, 10th, or 11th is generally more likely to end up in the 8th alliance captain's slot than the team ranked 8th at the start. Thus this strategy could easily be self-defeating. Also, sometimes the last qualifying match for a team can still be followed by 5 or more other matches in which they do not participate, which is more than enough time for the scores to shift and rankings to change, so it's unwise to base your strategy on exactly what your ranking was an hour before alliance pickings. And even if you could reliably "escape" the 8th-seeded slot, would you always want to? It's entirely possible that you could get picked yourself in the first round by one of the top 7 teams, in which case being 8th - and visible on the field - rather than 9th, and part of the big pool, might be desirable. Lastly, being on the 8th alliance might not be so bad; sometimes having three decent robots can be better than two hotshots and one flake.

After this year, 766 is especially qualified to speak on this matter. At SVR, the 8th seeded alliance captain was having trouble choosing a team to pick, so we cheered for them to pick us, and they did. Sure, we had to face a tough set of top-ranked teams, but we gave them a good fight, and it was better than not being in the finals at all. Then, at Davis, we were seeded 7th and had been hovering around the 8th slot. We would have worried about how to pick a strong alliance with so many of the good robots ranked above us, but as it happened, one of those good robots picked us – the first pick of the first round, no less.

In summary, alliance pickings can be very difficult to predict, and sabotaging your score is probably more likely to harm you than help you, even in the described situation.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

If you did that and if my team was in the top 8, I would blacklist your team because this kind of a strategy is neither gracious nor professional. A team should always play every match to win to the best of their ability. It is only fair to your alliance partners. If you needed one more win to be seed # 1 and your alliance partner racked up penalties on purpose, would you be happy? I'm gonna guess not. You will receive the same treatment you give and in these terms you will lose the respect and trust of any top 8 teams. This strategy would be frowned upon, at least by me.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Sorry to whack you so hard, but your hypothetical is troublesome: doing less than your best is an unacceptable position to take in any situation. Assuming the 1 or 2 seed would pick you is a second mistake. The third mistake is assuming the 1 or 2 seed would pick your team after failing your alliance partners and figuring out your scheme. The fourth mistake is the legacy your team would be left with.

Do you think people would forget doing less than your best?

Always do your best. It is like honor: people remember you after your gone as having it or not. At the end of the day, team honor to do your best is what you are talking about.

Never quit, never give up, never say die!

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

If you go out there and intentionally lose a match by forfeit, then I know I probably wouldn't pick you. Even if you were 1114.

It's not fair to your partners.
It is a chance of "showing off" to higher-seeded teams that you just missed. I know in my scouting sheet, a zero doesn't help you at all.
It's not a sure thing.

So just get out there and play like there's no tomorrow.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

My answer is rather different from the others - If necessary, in a post that I would need some time to compose, I think I can stand all of the opposing arguments on their heads; after making two statements.

The first statement is that you have to ask your allies. If they give you a green light, then you all (all three in FRC, or all two in FTC) show up on the field and use the match as a valuable practice match in which you all WIN the long term "game" (in the game theory sense) by scoring fewer points than your opponents do in this particular match.

The second statement (part A) is that you have to be in a situation where alliance captains are not allowed to pick each other as allies. I have seen this rule put into play in more than one OFF-season or local league event. I 110% realize that current FRC regionals and FTC championships allow alliance captains to pick other captains in the first round of picks. Also, (part B) if you are counting on being the second pick of a powerful alliance (and you are unable to decline other captains' invitations) then I agree that the risk of being picked by the "wrong" alliance makes the odds very tough to predict.

uring the match each member of the alliance can use the match to show their robot's best features to potential scouts, or to just have fun (maybe sub in the second string drive team).

The strategy can be both mathematically sound and I contend that asking your allies (and abiding by their wishes) 100% fulfills any GP obligations. So long as you correctly handle the social/scouting aspects of the situation off the field; a game theoretician would likely call you nuts to do anything other than attempt to lose the one match, when you are in the situation Fred described.

Blake
PS: Please give me 30 second head start before you release the hounds :)

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

The answer to this question really depends on what motivates one to take part in FRC. If you are motivated by the trophies, then sure, go ahead and throw the match. While you are at it, why not ignore all the other rules that are based upon sportsmanship and honesty? I mean, if winning is the motivation and you can win by being unsportsmanlike or dishonest or throwing matches... then go for it. Just don't expect to have a whole lot of fun with FIRST because FIRST isn't about the trophies, or even the robots. It is about the kids.

On the other hand, I do have to add a small caveat to the "always do your very best" in every match. It is often necessary to risk doing less than your best in a particular match to ensure that you do better in future matches or future years. Consider that you have tested, reliable auto code that gets 8 points all the time, but also new, un-tested auto code that might score 12 points... or might score 8 and a penalty. Or might just not work at all. You simply won't know which code is your best until it is too late.

Or consider that you have two drivers. One is definitely better than the other, but is graduating. The other is less experienced, but will be around next year. Do you pull the better driver to give the less experienced driver some experience that will make your team better next year? That would mean that you are playing at less than your peak ability, but is both justifiable, and sportsmanlike... so long as that is your motivation for changing drivers.

I'm not quite sure I buy the "ask your partners" approach... although it is by far more acceptable than just not showing up... simply because if "throwing the match" is something you don't think you should do, it doesn't suddenly make it right to do it just because your partners are on board. Conversely if you think throwing the match is the right thing to do, then you probably aren't too worried about your partners to begin with.

Jason

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

im taking your side on this issue, if people take this as a personal attack eventually this thread is going to be closed. which would be the 3rd this week, if im correct.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE if you have a personal issue with another member of CD. PM them and keep it out of the threads, these types of issues seem to drive threads out of control.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Asking alliance partners is an interesting concept.

Although I agree with the general thought, that not trying your best in all the matches would be setting a poor example to all the students and defeats the purpose of FIRST.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Just my opinion, but in additon, with a no show, the losing alliance would post zero points, thus affecting the winning alliance's seeding based on the losers score. Highly unprofessional, and definitely ungracious. :( :(

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

This whole throw the match idea leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Rather you have a green light or not from your partners, the pope, or even Woodie himself... you should be putting forth you best effort every time you enter the field.

Problem with thread like this one you've started... the fact that you even thought of such dirty tricks would have me and others wondering for a very long time if you and your team really tried your best in a losing match.
Its hard to have confidence in a alliance partner that thinks of such tricks to help their position. I know this thread will be in the be in the back of everyones mind when your team is in an alliance with them. It would be in mine.

Such things might happen in other sports... I really hope it never happens at FIRST (happy?).

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

FIRST is FIRST for a reason. We are supposed to hold ourselves to a better standard than all the other kinds of competitions. Woodie and Dean have preached GP for years, and for good reason.

Any kind of deal striking, or conspiracies in anything are normally frowned upon. In FIRST where we are "holding ourselves to a higher standard", how would it be any different, I think it is safe to say that most people would feel worse about the whole situation. Knowing that there are teams out there who care just about winning as opposed to having fun and getting a good experience.

I've been doing these competitions for 8 years and I've realized some times you are on your game and sometimes you are not. There is a lot of luck and skill involved in winning one of these competitions, trying to finagle your way into a better position just seems against all the principles of FIRST doesn't it?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Well, in my opinion, thinking and doing are two completely different things... Don't tell me you never thought of something that you know you would never do.
For example in this thread http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61542, someone thought of a strategy of intentionally flipping the robot over, but its purely hypothetical, and people treated it as such. I honestly can't see why this thread is any different.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between some of the “questionable” strategies teams use to enhance their position in the alliance selection process. Many teams have scored for their opponents in order to boost their own ranking points. In 2004, many teams sandbagged because their qualifying points came from twice their opponents score, provided they won the match. Many teams have selected teams within the top eight that they knew would turn them down in order to prevent them from accepting from another. It is often pointed out that shaving points and insincere invitations are valid (even clever) options since they are well within the rules. On the other hand, it appears that dumping a match is frowned upon.

I guess it depends upon how bad you want to win, and what you’re willing to do to get that hunk of plastic. I my opinion, if you choose a strategy that’s within the rules, then who are we to question your integrity? Let they who are without sin cast the first stone!

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

The highly negative response this thread has elicited is hilarious given that many elite (i.e. the ones we all strive to be) teams will actively score against themselves in years when the rules allow it so that they can have a higher RP.

Every time I see a team scoring on themselves, I think of it as being a fairly mean thing to do. They are essentially saying to the other alliance: "We feel that We have you beaten so badly, and are so confident that you lack scoring skill, that We're going to score for you". There aren't many other ways to interpret scoring on yourself. Sure, they're just trying to climb the rankings and it isn't anything personal, but it does send a message to the losing side. I wonder if that is why the last 2 years have had rules prohibiting teams from being able to score for their opponents.

Anyway, 1281 could have benefited (but obviously didn't) from this strategy at Waterloo this year. An effective lapbot, we ended up 8th alliance captain. Since Waterloo is a quite small regional, we might have been picked 2nd by a not-8th team and had a better run during eliminations than we did getting crushed under the wheels of the 1114/2056 juggernaut in quarterfinals.


I think a good way to make this (throwing games to avoid being a captain) strategy ineffective would be to allow teams to deny their alliance-captainship and just join the pool. I'm sure there are teams that would do it, hoping for a selection by a more powerful alliance. You throw away your guaranteed position in eliminations for a much lower probability of being selected by a better alliance.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

exactly.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

You may be thinking 2003 or earlier--in 2004, it was the losing score.

The distinction I draw between sitting out a match and alliance selection trickery is that sitting out a match actively hurts teams who you're allied with, while alliance selection strategies are still legal strategies taken against opponents. Granted, you're making them your opponents with an alliance offer you know they'll decline, but going in with the plan that they're going to be your opponents one way or the other makes it (in my mind) a moot point.

Perhaps that's just where I draw my line in search of said lump of plastic, though; your mileage may vary.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

This type of situation is fairly rare, but it does bring up an interesting tangent:

Often times I hear people complain that the top seeds can pick each other, often with the complaint that "it's not fair".

Consider how often a top seeded team picks another seeded team, it usually happens several times a regional. If top seeds were not allowed to pick other seeded teams, there would be several teams at every regional that would be faced with the choice of lose their last match and ally with a top team, or win and go it on their own.

That's a big reason why I like the rules as they are now.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Ive noticed that a match loss can drop you 10 places so i dont think it would be that ineffective.

A lapbot being picked first? Has that happened before?

I think getting picked by an alliance of two hurdlers is better than having to pick two hurdlers although if there are two hurdlers still left that wont be a problem because of the wheel.

I really do believe in GP and everything Woodie and Dean speak about. This year being my first year playing an actual role on my team (Director of Strategy) I have learned that much of the Alliance selections is about deal striking and conspiracies. The worst part about this is that I see the mentors doing the deal striking. I have never seen or heard of this kind of deal striking being frowned upon.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

This is really a horrible thing to do. And if you are that good of a lapbot and you aren't in the top 8 most likely you wouldn't be picked by the 1,2,3rd alliance. You would most likely be picked by the 8th or 7th alliance captains. If you are that concerned about getting picked by someone why not get into the top 8 so that they have the oppurtunity to pick you. I am sure it has happened, will continue to happen, and I don't know if you can stop it. That does not however mean it is right and it is pretty horrible for someone to do it.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I much like nearly every one else am against throwing a match.

In support of all of the FIRST is way to unpredictable quotes let me share a story.

In Boston in 2006 233 and 121 were far and away the dominant robots, with one match left to play 121 was ranked first followed by 233, they had to face each other in their final matches. My team, ranked in the 30's had a broken hopper and an unreliable shooter however we knew that by playing defense we could shut down nearly any one, we were paired with 233. The team had joked the night before that throwing the last game may be good for us, it would seed 121, our mentor team 1st. When it came game time and the alliances matched up our scouting told us that 233's alliance should easily win, if we played defense on 121 they couldn't beat us. We all went out and played hard, in the end our wheel snapped in the first 30 seconds, and 233's drive chain fell off, we had 2 inoperable robots and 121 won what was still a fairly close match. I don't know if you can call 2 robots breaking good luck but 121 picked 233 then us, inpressed atleast in part by our last round of disabled defense, for the finals and we won the regional.

Long story short playing hard and impressing teams is way more valuable that trying to play god with the rankings.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

We believe it happened to us at Nationals last year! We were 5-1 and paired with a team from a state where their sister school was our opponents. Their sister schools record was one win better than our alliance partner. One of our students said he overheard them talking backstage about our strategy for the match. I refused to believe until they self destructed during the match and single handedly lost it for us. At least five other teams came to our pit after the match and said they felt they threw the match and had never seen them play so bad. I still wanted to believe it didn't happen until alliance time when their sister school as one of the top captains picked them as their first partner. Too many coincidences for me! It really left a sour taste in my mouth as the loss dropped us out of contention. I'm hoping we don't see such behavior this year as it affects the alliance, especially if you're in contention for a captain spot. How is that GP by any measure??

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I would never try to use this strategy, I'd much rather be the number 8 alliance and try to beat the number 1 in a blaze of glory. It's understandable why some would do this and I have no doubt that someone has used this strategy. Should My team and I ever be in the position of picking and something like this is brought to my attention I would most likely say no but, on the other hand I would also have to have proof. Because something like this would be a big allegation to make and I would also like to see proof. I've speculated before that some top tier teams have thrown matches so that they can be more easily picked by a high seed.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Don't leave your alliance partners hanging. I think we all have had an alliance partner not show once or twice and we know how badly it can hurt. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Guys, in Cleveland we were in qualifications and we ended up 8 -0 - 1
Guess what the 1 was. Our teammate didn't show up for the match. We had
to play 2 against 3.

There is nothing more lonely than that big piece of empty carpetin your alliance line up:eek:

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

We were offered a 'deal' by a drive team in a regional about 4 years ago.
If we would make sure they won the last match (we were opponents), they promised to pick us as their first selection. Winning the match would have made them for sure the #1 seed.

We declined, and played the match the best we could. I cannot remember if we won or lost the match. Our team even agreed that if they were to select us in the draft, that we would decline, even if that meant we would not play.

Our view of that team was completely chenged based on their "offer", even if it only reflected the view of a few on the drive team.

Your reputation as a team will live on, long after the memory of a match won or lost.

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything".

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Well said Chris. We have to live with our choices. Your team chose from
the good side and gave the good fight. Win or lose you are heroes in my
book now and forever. Dean was worried about the intensity of competition
and apparently saw less then GP behavior and talked about it at the NY
Regional. Lets all remember its just a game and inside we are all the
precious Geeks that make this country run and we have the best FUN!:)

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.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Its a valid "tactics" not a strategy but its very Un-GP

Its valid because its a good idea, but theres lots of good ideas that break or bend the rules to work.

But its non-graciously professional, so you may not be solicited by that number 2 alliance, and you would have a hard time convincing kids to do it.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Blake, you and I have been at odds about this before. Using your "brainpower" to do things correctly from the start will always trump trying to squeeze the system for what it's worth. "Optimising" also has the underlying assumption that you already have some measure of reliable success. Throwing a match hardly shows success, and I'd even venture to say that it'd backfire if the #1 seed recognises that it was your team that caused the alliance to lose. Mathematical analysis will always have the inherent flaw that it cannot predict human behavior.

I'd like to point out that Blake's posts here are NOT 1885's strategic, practical, or otherwise viewpoint(s). Our viewpoint has always been to do the best with the bot we have in its current state, regardless of where it would put us in rankings. I know and believe this because I've been the driver coach for the last 2 years.

If a hypothetical team has the opportunity to be in the top 8 yet has not done the legwork to scout other teams that have the chance to topple the #1 seed, then that hypothetical team deserves the fate it gets. Case Study: Newton 2007 Seed #8 -- they did their scouting and we all see where that got them.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Just because you /can/, doesn't mean you /should/. Optimize numbers, not people.

Also, let's not forget that the goal to be on the winning alliance is (or ought to be) a distant sub-bullet underneath the broader goal "to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders".

The way the tournament is structured is simply a mechanism, not the real goal.

The game is simply a mechanism, not the real goal.

The robot is simply a mechanism, not the real goal.

FIRST itself is simply a mechanism, not the real goal.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

This is a competition, and the goal of a competition is to win. however, it is what we do to accomplish that goal that shows the measure of the person.

While the strategy of throwing a match may be successful ... in the long run it may cost far more than you realize. Consider what you are teaching your students, that it is OK to hurt your allies if you can gain a little (possible) advantage for yourself. To me that sounds a bit too Machiavellian for me ... especially in a program that is supposed to be trying to change the culture.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Mathematics and in particular the ability to estimate the effect one's current actions have on ones progress in each match and in the tournament are obviously technical skills.

It is probably pretty fair to assume that the game designers intend for teams to compete in a tournmant conssisting of multiple matches and make the best showing of all their technological skills throughout the entire duration of the tournament.

I presume that they would frown upon only viewing each match in isolation, because that would mean that the teams were disregarding important information.

It's that simple.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Why is it important to try to maximize your score in every match? I'm serious. Why?

And please point out the flaw in the scenario. Which of the statements I made to describe it is wrong/flawed?

Thanks,
Blake

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Please read what I wrote - I specifically said consult your allies - explain your desire and ONLY if they support it, do you and your allies choose to score fewer points than your opponents.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

slightly off topic, but I love this clean discussion.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Already covered in the scenario I described to create a solid foundation for the discussion.

Already made clear in a previous message I posted. I suppose it is wise to repeat that info again here: 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.


Already covered in the scenario I described to create a solid foundation for the discussion.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

See the 1vs3 thread for what else I have to say.

Remember, the #2 alliance wants you, BUT they can get you if you are in the top 8! The only way they can't get you is if #1 picks you, or they pick someone else as their first pick.

For Blake: The situation as originally described is that it's your last match and you want to throw it to get out of the top 8 (or rather not enter it). The question as given is whether or not this is GP. You are on a completely different topic.

With the described situation, 1) it doesn't matter unless you can't pick within the top 8 (which is not currently the case), and 2) throwing the match does nothing except make enemies. You don't advance in rank, true. However, because it is your last match (and therefore, presumably, most of the teams are either done or mostly done), you can't fall very far. Probably not even out of the top 15, ALL of whom can move up. So you might not be around.

The situation described is a case where it won't help you, period. It will probably hurt you.

One more point: numbers are NOT definitive. There were once two teams that a particular picking team rated approximately equally. When representatives from the team went around to one of the teams, they got nothing. Nobody talked to them. They went to the other pit and got the opposite response. That alliance went out and beat the other team in two matches.

The point? You are dealing with PEOPLE, not computers. People have long memories...feelings...attitudes...that sort of thing. By presenting the attitude that you don't care about your partners and how they feel (even if you talk to them, they may feel hurt), you probably will incite some feelings of annoyance. Those people who have those feelings will remember what happened, and may hold a grudge for some time. This hurts your team in the future.

Numbers are all well and good, but they only tell part of the story.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

This is a very good point. Guys, while speculating about this is fun keep in mind that not every one gets that this concept is outrageous. Teams threw matches this year and then said that they were malfunctioning so no one else would pick them. It's a strategy that is despicable but some people care about winning more then gracious proffesionalism.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

In the scenario I carefully described, I said that the #1 team intends to use their position to go down the line giving pseudo invitations to the other captains. This is not all that far-fetched. I think that this sort of thing happens reasonably often when highly seeded captains are worried about alliances between other captains. I postulated that the #1 captain would do exactly what you said (and if I didn't make it clear earlier, the presumption is that you and the #1 seed do not make a good alliance because of different approaches to playing the game or because of overlapping capabilities, or because your team colors clash, or...).

I didn't say it is the team's last qual match. I said that it is the last Qual match of the tournament.

I don't think that I am far from a discussion of GP. If a strategy is sound and is supported by allies, then I have a hunch that the strategy is neither ungracious nor unprofessional. I also think that it satisfies the oft stated goal of competing like crazy.

See above, the #1 captain plans to be a spoiler if this team is in the top 8.In my scenario I said the match is the last match of the Quals. There are no more qual matches for any team afterwards.#2 gets to pick an ally (the team in question) before moving up would have an effect on the strategy.See above, I think we disagree about the statements preceding this oneThe team I described is the sort of team that consults with its allies before a match and doesn't try an unusual strategy without support from those allies. I think that they are more like the second team you describe above.I described ONLY using the strategy if the team received active support from their allies.I presume that the allies would only actively support the strategy if they agreed with it and that if they agreed with it they would have positive memories of the team that they supported.OK

Even though I disagree with Eric about some things above, - He is the most recent person to come the closest to giving the one actual reason I would agree with for not doing this. That reason is this:

"Other teams will not understand the logic behind the actions of the three allied teams and will (irrationally in my opinion - but that doesn't matter much - Logic has a hard time removing an idea that didn't spring from logic in the first place) look down upon the team(s) that purposefully score low in a match."

Even though my green dots have perversely gotten more numerous rather than shrinking because of this thread (go figure - I expected to see them disappear in a twinkling of the eye). I do see that many people would not give a team AND their allies the benefit of the doubt if that trio scored low on purpose. Apparently, without seeking out the reason for the team's actions, some folks (not necessarily anyone who posted in this thread, but some folks) might brand them with a scarlet "S" for being scalawags and scoundrels.

That might cause trouble in the future that might outweigh any improvement in the expected outcome of the tournament in which the incident occurred.

Blake;)
[EDIT]
PS: Kudos to Alan Anderson for hitting this paricular nail (that even if what the hypothetical team did was the 100% right thing to do, that might not equate to the team having post-tournament, long-term success because of how other people judge their actions) on the head in a PM he sent to me while I was typing the pre-edit version of this post. At least he and I agree about something ;) :)
[/EDIT]

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

I'm pretty sure that what I am talking about is using your brainpower at every step of the way, so I guess we agree about that.
In the scenario I outlined, the team in question wishes to ally with the #2 seed and the #2 seed wishes to ally with them. Without any loss of generality one can assume that both of those teams have discussed the strategy and see merit in it. The goal of the strategy is to prevent the #1 seed from using FIRST's drafting rules (or some off-season events' rules) to deny #2 and the team in question the opportunity to ally.

Also, in the scenario I outlined, the one team does not cause the alliance to lose. The allied trio of teams all agree with and actively support using the strategy. If they don't then it doesn't get used. I tried to make that clear when I described the scenario. Then it is a good thing that employing this strategy does not depend on human behavior, except for the one possiblity that the #1 seed will pick the team in question, from the pool, with their first pick. Otherwise, the #2 and this team get to form the alliance they think will win the tournament.

Blake

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Blake, in case you didn't notice, I did say the ORIGINAL situation. Hence the "completely different topic". I was not referring to your situation.

Your situation is a little far-fetched. Half the time, the #1 seed won't employ it at all; in fact, very few will. When it does occur intentionally, it is targeted at teams known to want to ally to create a formidable alliance. I'm not saying it won't happen; in fact, it might forseeably happen. The odds of it happening at full extent intentionally before the GDC figures up a stop for it are slim to none, but still, it may happen, at which point there will be massive complaints, and the GDC will say "It's legal by this year's rules" and possibly go figure up a solution.

I'm reviewing your original post. There are some things that don't sound right... Care to give a reason for the math? You know, not everyone plays that way. There are teams that make a living playing defense the right way. I don't care about the math behind this; I'm more of a tactician. "The best defense is a good offense", yes...but the defense is there to protect the offense's gains.

You might be right...but the better strategy teams already look at alternatives.

That's not strategy. That's tournament rules. There's a difference. Strategy is more of "What can we do, without breaking the rules, to win (or whatever it is the objective is)" at its highest level. Lower down, it's called tactics.

That's reasonable.

Interesting--but I see your point. Such situations are rare, however. And you MUST weigh ALL the risks and benefits of such a move beforehand. If you're doing it to get your opponent's rook and you sacrifice your queen, is it worth it? Opponent's queen for a bishop? Queen for queen? It's not always the right move--consider the options first.

Odds of there ever being 7 declines: 0. Unless the team is SOO bad that they shouldn't be #1. That almost never happens. Also, you would need to ask all or almost all of those captains what their plans were. You won't get a straight answer for all of them, I guarantee it.OK. But, if those teams are even thinking of elims and aren't in the top 8, they won't go along. You'd need fairly bad robots in the bottom of the field--or robots who all do the dominant strategy of the regional and not very well. I'm not saying it won't happen, but the odds are slim.Simple. Do the math, based on human relations, for the strategy. It won't happen. If it was sure to happen, I might use it.
Listen, science and math includes psychology, does it not? Psychology deals with human nature, does it not? Human nature says your situation won't happen for quite a while yet, if ever. You only have two alternatives--full bore playing or not even showing up (the only way to guarantee the match outcome is in your "favor"--see the thread about 0vs2 match and who won).

From a game theory perspective, yes, from a math perspective, yes, from human nature--nope.


It is not wrong. However, not all teams use them in this way. Some teams just go out there to win every match. And, pro-style wrestling is to real wrestling as Battlebots is to FIRST.

IF they do, then they better make sure that they actually reach it...and hope that #1 doesn't pick them.

Here is where your entire situation falls apart. Suppose that #1 picks all down the top 8 and they all decline. They look back at their list. They ask for YOUR team. Do you a) decline or b) accept, now knowing that you only have one possible chance at the eliminations? I will almost guarantee you--teams that have a working robot and no travel plans that interfere will ALWAYS accept if they are not in the top 9-10.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

OK - SorryOK - Let's say that they don't go down the entire list, and instead they only give a pseudo-offer to the team in question (in the #8 spot in this alternative scenario), knowing that the team in question will not accept (they would make a lousy alliance because their robots just don't go together well).You are right - I was sloppy - How about replacing that "score the most points" statement with one about "maximizing the result of subtracting the opposing alliance's score from your alliance's score".Not in the articles and texts I read, but that is a quibble.I didn't say that the #1 is bad. I said that the #2 and the team in question both believe that they are the best combination to create.Not showing up is in Fred's original hypothetical scenario; but it is never, ever an option in my hypothetical scenario.I agree. That is why I wanted to remind everyone that you can not both tell teams not to worry about earning the Winning Alliance title, and at the same time surround it and those who win it with as much attention as they receive. Either it has non-zero value comensurate with its prominent, central place in FRC Regional and Championship Tournaments, or it doesn't. Once that debate is put to bed, one can move on to the ethics/GP question.Yep - In my reply to JesseK I acknowledged that being picked from the pool by the #1 in the first round is possible and would prevent an alliance between #2 and the team in question.See immediately above. We agree about that. The team in question would be briefly disappointed that they don't get to ally with #2. They will then turn their full attention to helping #1 beat #2 and the rest of the alliances.

Blake

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.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Remember inter-alliance selection-there is no guarantee at all that you would be selected by one of the top 3 or even the top 8, and after a display like that either might be doubtful. There have been other discussions about this, and this is where the inter-alliance selection rule looks really, really useful. Play to win-even if you do end up 8, you'll probably get picked higher anyway if you're worth it.

EDIT: Somehow I failed to notice that this thread was up to 6 pages! In the latest situation proposed, no, I don't think you can rule out losing on purpose. It sucks, but without imposing a more convoluted alliance picking system or losing the basic protection on sandbagging this one offers, there's not much you can do.

Note that, in my opinion, there is nothing ungracious or unprofessional about doing anything you can within the rules to win the competition-UNLESS it affects your alliance partners. If a team wishing to throw a match didn't have (freely given) permission, I hope they would do the right thing, because in that case, losing is not the right thing.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Well said, Daniel exactly the point; right on! At the risk of having another post deleted for being out of line on this subject, if we are at the point in this country that a person does not know what honor is, we have bigger problems than arguing a game strategy.

So, let’s really get down to it: if a team is willing to throw a match, even with the blessing of its alliance partners, is the next question what else would a team or alliance be willing to do to gain an advantage and win? If the answer is yes, how about going to another team’s pit and pop an airline or unplug a cable from their controller when they are not looking? How about the intentional act of accumulating penalties to lose? What if your alliance partners said NO; do you throw the match anyway?

You see the question really becomes, if you are willing to throw a match for a gain, I presume, you are willing to do more, much more to dishonor your good name and good name of your team. Few things are worth dishonor, not even a robotics competition.

Good grief and good night

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

The question here is what is honorable. I'm inclined to agree on the slippery slope, but you're off topic.

The topic here is discussing a scenario with "questionable" honor. We've almost settled that it won't happen for quite a while (odds); now, what to do in that scenario, should it happen? What is the GP, honorable, etc., solution?

And for me, it's drive-it-like-you-stole-it, if-we-lose-it-isn't-intentional, rock-their-socks-off playing and hope #1 doesn't pick you. (There are ways to keep them from doing so, but those don't always work. Namely, talk to them pre-selection. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires.) Anything less would be at the very least unprofessional. Would I throw a match? Not if I knew, unless winning was my ultimate goal and I couldn't see anything else.

If it tarnishes my honor, all I have to say is, I'm not going there.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Eric,

I might agree with you about being off point. Or am I off point because the senario is ugly? However, is not the greater point the limit: where is the limit a person or team is not willing to go? If they have a limit, I am confused why one place we can venture but another we can not? How does this get rationalized that one is okay but another is not?

I am with you on your last point: If it tarnishes my honor, all I have to say is, I'm not going there.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Losing a match on purpose strikes me as being like clog-dancing Dance Dance Revolution. I mean, you could do it, but why would you abandon all self-esteem this way?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

You're switching to honor. However, that is right about what should happen around now.

The limit? When honor is compromised. I'm not going to try sabotage/early bird/bribery, etc., because every single one of those is dishonorable.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

Eric,

I agree with you, but you are the wrong person to answer this. You have honor; your limit is you don’t go there at all.

What about people that will go there? In that case, I am on point and would love to hear a person rationalize why throwing a match is okay but some other form of dishonor, in this case sabotage in a pit, is not okay. I know that is extreme and uncomfortable but sure draws a very clear line we should consider, no?

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

In that case I guess being the number one alliance and breaking up the top 8 is definitely dishonorable. Then point shaving is dishonorable. And why can teams have extra resources? Is it dishonorable for teams to have extra money to purchase extra materials? Also, extra regionals are dishonorable because they give teams another chance to win? [/sarcasm]

Why is throwing a match dishonorable while all the above points are not.

Clearly everyone has a line. In terms of honor, I view it the same way I view gracious professionalism. Everyone has their own definition.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

How am I the wrong person? I'm simply providing one viewpoint.

Someone else's honor might require them to do the above acts...I'm just not that person.

Re: Intentionally Losing Matches
 

You're equating all forms of dishonour? What of the petty thief who abhors child molesters? Doing one dishonourable thing doesn't automatically mean that you condone them all.