Chief Delphi - Picking Teams

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Picking Teams (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66889)

Re: Picking Teams

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macdaddy549 (Post 735899)

My answer to this is to not allow to pick within the top 8. I've seen too manytimes supper alliances created. Lets try evening the playing field in the elimination matches and we'll see more interesting matches. No mercie killings. Try it for one year and seen how it works.

In 2001 there was autopairing (example: seed 1 automatically is paired with seed 5), and then teams could choose who they wanted.

There were questions of whether or not teams would throw matches back then to get into a better position to be picked. Can you imagine how often this could potentially happen if you weren't allowed to pick among the top 8?

Re: Picking Teams

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtengineering (Post 735845)

The #1 seed has the right to invite any team that they wish to form an alliance to form an alliance.

Asking a team to form an alliance solely to prevent them from being selected by another team is not GP. Not because it is not gracious... but because it is not professional. You should only ask a team to join you if you think that will enhance your chances of winning the event.

You should only ever ask teams to form an alliance if you truly wish to form an alliance with them. After all, that team that initially said "No" might just change their minds and you'll be stuck with them.

So let's quit looking at the "gracious" and start looking at the "professional". Is it GP for the top seed to invite any team that they wish to join them, if they believe that will improve their odds of winning the regional, regardless of whether that team "wants" to? Absolutely... that is why top seed is valuable. But to ask a team that won't make your alliance a strong one, just so they won't ally with someone else? That's just silly.

If you are top seed, always pick your number one pick, regardless of what they have told you. If they decline... that is their choice... but you should always make your best choice first. Anything else cannot be GP as it is not professional.

Jason

Jason,

You and I usually see eye to eye on most topics, but here I must disagree with you.

The object of the alliance selection of the game is to form an alliance that will win the regional. You can do this one of 2 ways:
1> Form the strongest alliance at the regional
2> weaken any possible threat to your strongest alliance.

As such, reducing your potential rivals strength is a good, and professional strategy. As a matter of fact to intentionally not do your best (IE possibly break up a potentially better alliance, having the option to do so) would be unprofessional ... IMHO.

Re: Picking Teams

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur (Post 736033)

I think we both agree that the concept of "gracious" in making this decision is not particuarly relevant. Top seed has earned top pick, and is to use it to the best advantage of their team and alliance. Thus it is the "professional" aspect that matters.

From my perspective, I would be very hesitant to choose a team with which I did not wish to be allied, even if I expected them to decline the invitiation. This is a risk/reward decision... is the risk of them accepting worth the reward of them declining and thus forfeiting other inviations. My sense is most often not... but I can see where you are coming from in saying sometimes yes.

Fortunately, however, when we finally get into such a position, the decision will be up to the students. I think they might be somewhat less risk-averse than I.

Jason

Re: Picking Teams

I think the solution to this "dilemma" is to simply have a good pick list.

I know the way we pick works around our pick list (makes sense, eh?). All the deliberations and discussions of whether or not we can win with a team, or whether or not we can work with a team happens long before Saturday afternoon when the alliance selections occur.

On Friday night we have an extensive meeting to determine our list, and after watching a significant portion of matches on Saturday, we update the list appropriately and get it down to 24 teams in the order we want to pick them. Each team going down the list is the next best (best defined to be whatever we feel is important to helping us win the regional) team available. Whether we are ranked first or fifth, we go down our list.

If the list is structured properly there is no concern about which alliance to break up. The team that we feel has the best shot at helping us win gets picked first. Therefore, we are not worried about whether the next alliance down is going to pair up with a superpower and defeat us, because if we felt we were able to have a better shot with any other team, then we would have chosen that other team. If we are declined, we simply move down the list.

The list also answers the question of when to decline (although there is a little bit more guesswork involved at times). If the team that picks us sits lower on the list than other teams available, and we feel that we have the opportunity to pair up with a higher team on the list, it becomes an easy decision to decline. Obviously, there lies some guesswork in the process the lower we fall in the selection process, but there is no one to fault for this uncertainty than ourselves - if we had finished higher, we would have had a better chance of ending up with the teams we wanted to work with.

I think the important thing to note when picking teams is that it shouldn't be about making snap judgments. There is plenty of time prior to the alliance selection process to make decisions on the teams with whom you can win, whom you regard as the best. Taking advantage of this time greatly simplifies this "debate" at hand.

On a bit of a side note, I generally don't like this whole business of applying an "un-GP" tag to anything in the alliance selection process. In terms of what happens on the field (booing occurs off the field), I don't think anything in the process is "un-GP," just strategic maneuvers that people don't like very much - often because they are very good ideas.