Go to Post Analyze, adjust, anticipate. Don't panic. - PayneTrain [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-04-2012, 22:43
Ekcrbe's Avatar
Ekcrbe Ekcrbe is online now
When can I watch Einstein again?
AKA: Erik Boyle
FRC #4640 (Metallic Panthers)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 333
Ekcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond reputeEkcrbe has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

If I can bring us back to the general subject, I don't think there is any definite problem with the "scorched earth" strategy because of one main reason: Using such a strategy isn't entirely gaming the system, because one could argue--however improbably--that they actually wanted every single one of the teams that they picked, thereby making the scenario not a strategic event, but rather an honest execution of the alliance selection system.

I would also like to note that any indefinite problem--i.e. those (like a morality issue) that are much more subjective than, say, a rules violation--is hard to find because***, while GP does include something like helping to fix the robot of an opponent, I don't think it extends all the way out to letting them create an alliance that is more advantageous to them and less so to you, so I think the GP argument is invalid. In the end, there is a competition afoot during alliance selections, and everyone wants to put themselves in a position to win, so long as it does not unfairly hurt the other teams. Being blocked out of picking from in the top eight could be just as much of a part of a fair competition as getting stuck with a bad schedule during qualifications for the second seed.

***I want to say this very carefully and with the utmost respect for the spirit of GP and its use
  #62   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-04-2012, 12:14
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is offline
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 721
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR. View Post
I will preface this by saying I think trying to predict a situation that did not happen is very difficult if not impossible. But if 1771 had picked 111 and they had declined and then picked 1114 then who would 254 had picked? With 6 opportunities to pick within the top 8 I think it is likely that 111 would have been an alliance captain. Although I can't speak for 111 but if I was in their situation and 1771 had picked me then I would have declined because I would have the aspiration of winning my division and einstein not just making it as far as possible and I would not have had a favorable chance of beating a 254/1114 alliance that also picked a 3rd bot before I did. Furthermore in a very deep division I would have had a great opportunity to pick 2 very good bots from the 7 or 8 seed and form a very scary alliance like 217 did.

I would also like to add that my opinion/comments are in no way meant to offend anyone or criticize 1771 for picking 1114 in fact I commend them on seeding first in such a stacked division.
While I am not offended, I would like to point out that we were one of the better scoring robots in the division last year. We did have a very favorable schedule, and that helped us seed first, but we would not be considered a middle tier robot. We knew that we couldn't break up an alliance that would in all likelihood be the Einstein champions, but we chose the team that we thought gave us the best chance to go far. We didn't do as well in the eliminations as we had done the rest of the year, but sometimes things happen. For some reason, our mini bot, which had been perfect all year, failed every time during Elims.

We chose 1114 because we thought they would give us the best chance to win. We expected to face 254/111 in the finals, but thanks to 469 playing some stellar defense on 1114, and some less than stellar play on our part, we didn't make it that far. In the exact same circumstance, I would do the same thing again.
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509
  #63   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-04-2012, 12:27
AlecMataloni AlecMataloni is offline
Excellence is Bliss
FRC #0111 (WildStang)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Mount Prospect, IL
Posts: 269
AlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond reputeAlecMataloni has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR. View Post
I will preface this by saying I think trying to predict a situation that did not happen is very difficult if not impossible. But if 1771 had picked 111 and they had declined and then picked 1114 then who would 254 had picked?
254 likely would have picked 469, 40, or 2337, all solid picks that probably would have won them the division.
  #64   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-04-2012, 15:16
Raul's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Raul Raul is offline
Somewhat Useful Person
no team (Formerly - Wildstang)
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 599
Raul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesJames View Post
The beginning of the plan to split up the top 8 on Newton that year actually stemmed from the fact that we (176) talked to many of the high ranked teams before selections, and many of them said they would not accept our invitation to form an alliance anyway. We had a relatively "easy" match schedule, and truthfully did not deserve to be ranked #1 in such a stacked division. We then went to 111 (who was outside the top 8), and colluded on the strategy to break everyone else up before selecting them, to better our chances of winning in elims.
Actually, look at the records on FIRST under the archived results. We were #8 seed and were debating whether or not to decline. The rest is history - what Glenn said is accurate. There is no doubt that had you not followed our advise, we would have declined.

We did pretty well to get to the finals against a lot of very good alliances.

When I think back about this, I often feel bad for the other teams who were so good and whose chances at winning it all were "scorched", as someone put it. I am glad to hear that most on this thread support what we did as accepted strategy, but I have lots of friends on those teams and still feel bad about it. Would I do it again - yes, and I would still feel bad while doing it. I just hope no team is put in that position at STL.

Raul
__________________
Warning: this reply is just an approximation of what I meant to convey - engineers cannot possibly use just written words to express what they are thinking.
  #65   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-04-2012, 22:42
Paul Copioli's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero Woodie Flowers Award
Paul Copioli Paul Copioli is offline
President, VEX Robotics, Inc.
FRC #3310 (Black Hawk Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,392
Paul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Raul and I have a very similar mindset on this strategy.

The 2008 great lakes regional was a classic example of "make them all decline to get us in the finals" strategy.

Everyone knew 66 was going to pick us and we were at 13 or something like that. I went up to the mentors and students of 66 and said, "we will accept no matter what but please do the following so we can have a chance to make it to the finals" 66 was willing to do the "pick everyone" strategy and it worked.

We sat dead in 2 of the three matches in the finals due to the power distribution board that year (don't even get me started on that thing), but if not for that strategy I think we would have been out in the QC or sf.

As luck had it, 910 was available in the third round and played masterfully keeping both matches we were sitting dead ptty close.

I felt bad because a lot of my friends were on teams that we "scorched" but know they would have probably done the same.

Paul
__________________
In full disclosure I am the President of VEX Robotics, a division of Innovation First International.
  #66   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 01:13
Jeremy Germita's Avatar
Jeremy Germita Jeremy Germita is online now
Co-Advisor/Lead Engineering Mentor
AKA: wood is good. plastic is fantastic.
FRC #5012 (Gryffingear) / (Antelope Valley FIRST Teams)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 285
Jeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond reputeJeremy Germita has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Wright View Post
Didn't 3 pick 4, 4 declined and then 3 picked 2337 which I think was 6?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Sancheski View Post
3 picked 40 who was outside the top 8.
For what it's worth, 399 was the #3 Alliance captain on Galileo. We initially invited #4, 469, and they declined. After that, we invited #6, 2337, who also declined. And after that, we invited 40 who was 15th.
__________________
Drive Coach Team 5012 Gryffingear / Antelope Valley FIRST teams / EWCP - (2013 - Current)
Student / Driver / Programmer / CAD - FRC Team 399: Eagle Robotics / FTC Team 72: GarageBots - (2009 - 2013)
Los Angeles Region FTC FTA/CSA/Head Ref
[FF] FIRST Pick
2014 FTC Los Angeles Regional Compass Award Winner.

2017 - San Diego Regional / Sacramento Regional / Las Vegas Regional
2016 - Los Angeles Regional Creativity + Winners (1197, 987, 5012) / Las Vegas Regional Team Spirit + SF (5012, 5851, 5049) / Galileo Subdivision
2015 - Inland Empire QF (597, 5012, 4413) / Las Vegas Imagery + Winners (148, 987, 5012) / Newton Subdivision and World Champions (118, 1678, 1671, 5012)
2014 - Inland Empire Rookie All Star + Highest Rookie Seed + SF (2339, 1967, 5012) / Las Vegas Rookie All Star / Galileo Division Imagery
  #67   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 02:22
twetherbee twetherbee is offline
Mentor, Team 987
FRC #0987 (High Rollers)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 96
twetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud oftwetherbee has much to be proud of
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul View Post
Actually, look at the records on FIRST under the archived results. We were #8 seed and were debating whether or not to decline. The rest is history - what Glenn said is accurate. There is no doubt that had you not followed our advise, we would have declined.

We did pretty well to get to the finals against a lot of very good alliances.

When I think back about this, I often feel bad for the other teams who were so good and whose chances at winning it all were "scorched", as someone put it. I am glad to hear that most on this thread support what we did as accepted strategy, but I have lots of friends on those teams and still feel bad about it. Would I do it again - yes, and I would still feel bad while doing it. I just hope no team is put in that position at STL.

Raul
As one of the teams affected by 176/111's stragety in 2006, I will say we were certainly disappointed that the "scorched earth" plan was put into place, but it is still one of the best strategic moves I've witnessed firsthand in my years as a FIRST mentor and I've always had a lot of respect for Raul and Co. for pulling it off. It got them to the Newton Finals, so I would say it was a success. We would have done the same thing and still would.

Newton was so stacked in 2006 that we still ended up with a great alliance with 1503 and 1718 and nearly knocked off 25/968/195's alliance in the semi's.

If only we would have won Qual Match 40....shoulda, woulda, coulda. Watching 229 fire ball after ball into the goal still haunts my dreams.......(101 to 92. Who scored 92 in qualifications and LOST a match that year?)

I agree with Raul that I hope it doesn't happen in STL this year, too. The Co-op bridge has certainly been the wildcard this year....
  #68   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:17
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,151
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli View Post
...The 2008 great lakes regional was a classic example of "make them all decline to get us in the finals" strategy.
...
As one of the teams on the receiving end, you basically go through the stages of grief (DABDA).
I remember 66 coming to the pits and asking us if we would be interested in forming an alliance. We respectfully told them we would prefer to form our own alliance.
When they then selected us, we declined and went through disbelief/denial that we were picked above 217.
Then, it clicked what was happening, and there was Anger.
Bargaining is basically making your picks and thinking you stand a good chance at making it to the finals.
Depression occurs when you get knocked out in the QF or SF.
Acceptance comes when looking back, and understanding the reasoning that goes into the maneuver.
Most folks/teams go through this cycle when their dream of winning the event gets shattered by scorched earth. Many go through it in the timetable I stated above. Some folks are still in the Anger phase 5 years later (which is pretty unhealthy).

When executing a strategy like this understand that it will upset many (at least temporarily). Most will forgive. Few will forget. Some may never get over it. If you feel the need to be liked by everyone, you will likely regret implementing a strategy of this nature.
  #69   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:24
dodar's Avatar
dodar dodar is offline
Registered User
FRC #1592 (Bionic Tigers)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 2,928
dodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Our team was left with this same dilemna in 2008 on Curie. Somehow we ended up seeding #1 and we had quite a few teams come up to us and told us not to pick them; some even being teams that didnt even win the right to.(they werent in the top 8-10) We sat there for atleast half of the time between our last match and alliance selection arguing if we should split up each alliance by just going down the team list till we go to the team we wanted.

Time ran out and we just decided to pick the team we wanted first. Looking back at it, I think we could have done better by splitting up everyone but I dont think we could have been a better alliance than what we sent to Einstein from Curie that year.
__________________
1592(Student and Mentor) 2007-Present

Blue Banners: 2008 Colorado, 2012 Orlando, 2012 South Florida, 2014 Orlando, 2015 Buckeye

Mechanical Engineering - University of Central Florida(Class of 2016)
  #70   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:35
JABot67 JABot67 is offline
Unregistered User
AKA: John Bottenberg
FRC #2930 (Sonic Squirrels)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 328
JABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

I don't understand why people get mad over "scorched earth". The only reason I would get mad is if there was a specific team I wanted to pair up with. BUT the good thing about scorched earth is that NONE of the other really really good teams have really really good partners either. In fact, if I am outside the top 2 seeds and I know that the top seeds are not going to pick me, I absolutely want scorched earth to happen. I want a non-power to seed first and split everyone up.

67 would have been a goner in 2008 GLR if 66 hadn't seeded first and broken up alliances such as 217+33, 217+27, 27+33 and the like. Instead the "scorched earth" policy made for some of the most exciting elimination matches I've ever seen because all 8 alliances were solid contenders.

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon!
__________________
John Bottenberg - University of Michigan '14 - Microsoft
FLL Team "Dark Matter": 2003-2005
Robofest Team "Dark Matter": 2005-2008
Team 67 Programmer: 2007-2010
Team 3322 Programming Mentor: 2012-2014
Team 2930 Engineering Mentor: 2015-????
  #71   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:36
Jared Russell's Avatar
Jared Russell Jared Russell is offline
Taking a year (mostly) off
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs), FRC #0341 (Miss Daisy)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,080
Jared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond reputeJared Russell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Ross View Post
The manual prefaces the the backup teams as being "eligible". Presumably, a team that declines is not eligible to be a backup robot.
Just for clarity, I have submitted a request for clarification on this matter to the FRC Q&A. We'll see if it gets answered in time...
  #72   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:45
Anupam Goli's Avatar
Anupam Goli Anupam Goli is offline
PCH Q&A co-founder/Scouting Mentor
AKA: noops
FRC #1648 (G3 Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 1,242
Anupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JABot67 View Post
I don't understand why people get mad over "scorched earth". The only reason I would get mad is if there was a specific team I wanted to pair up with. BUT the good thing about scorched earth is that NONE of the other really really good teams have really really good partners either. In fact, if I am outside the top 2 seeds and I know that the top seeds are not going to pick me, I absolutely want scorched earth to happen. I want a non-power to seed first and split everyone up.

67 would have been a goner in 2008 GLR if 66 hadn't seeded first and broken up alliances such as 217+33, 217+27, 27+33 and the like. Instead the "scorched earth" policy made for some of the most exciting elimination matches I've ever seen because all 8 alliances were solid contenders.

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon!
I've never been part of a Scorched Earth play, but i've witnessed it, and is it exciting! It's much better to see from a spectator's point of view than one alliance blowing everyone away. It's part of the magic that is FRC. If I were in a "scorched Earth" play and on the receiving end, I would probably be more excited than angry, just because of the intense action that I would encounter. It's a strategic challenge now, every alliance is about even, and the ones with better strategy and execution will win.
__________________
Team 1002: 2008-2012
Team 1648: 2012-2016
Georgia Tech Class of 2016
  #73   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:48
dodar's Avatar
dodar dodar is offline
Registered User
FRC #1592 (Bionic Tigers)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 2,928
dodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond reputedodar has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

I would actually more say that I would be anxious more than any other feeling; because if 1-8 have teams that you thought would end up as the 1-4 alliances but now you have a killer every round, that would make me anxious to see who really makes it more than angry, sad, or happy.
__________________
1592(Student and Mentor) 2007-Present

Blue Banners: 2008 Colorado, 2012 Orlando, 2012 South Florida, 2014 Orlando, 2015 Buckeye

Mechanical Engineering - University of Central Florida(Class of 2016)
  #74   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 09:58
rick.oliver's Avatar
rick.oliver rick.oliver is offline
Mentor - Retired
AKA: Pap
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Liberty Township, OH
Posts: 248
rick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

I understand and agree with the strategy. I don't think that anybody should feel bad about trying to create the best alliance they can and doing it in a way that creates the best chance for their alliance to advance.
  #75   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-04-2012, 10:17
JB987 JB987 is online now
Registered User
AKA: Joe Barry
FRC #0987 (HIGH ROLLERS)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: May 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: LAS VEGAS
Posts: 1,176
JB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond reputeJB987 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disrupting Alliances

[quote=

What's wrong with "scorched earth"? It's a great strategy in my opinion, and I want to see it MORE often at the Championships. All of you naysayers that would hate to see it, well all I can say is this: If it happens you can be sad, but I will sit back and get some quality entertainment out of my Saturday afternoon![/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with this strategy as I have stated earlier but the resulting parity and exciting matches are more likely to be found at the Division level than at Einstein under this scenario if all divisions didn't do likewise...I still contend that the odds would favor the division(s) that managed to avoid "scorching earth". Could a number 8 seed win it all? The 2007 Championship banner in our shop shows it's possible but living in Vegas shapes one's betting behavior
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:38.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi