Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Playing to win is the "easy" choice, and it might even be the right one.

Well, it's the simple choice, anyway. Simple and easy aren't the same thing!

[karomata]

Only in FIRST can thowing matches be strategically gainful, sometime it can be worth it to throw a match. It all depends on how you want to play the game, if you want to be ethical and moral, following the core values of gracious professionalism and other various beliefs common in FIRST. Or you can be the diehard win all the matches teams, who will be 1st seed in champs after going 32-0-0 all season, then will pick an indestructible alliance and will win it all with great success and fludity based around complex strategies that always win but may not be moral at times. Or you can be both. You can do very well and still be moral and ethical. A great example of this is 1114. They are graciously professional on and off the field, and have pursued all the FIRST core values while being very successful and have helped other team reach their level while helping themselves reach success.

Although FIRST would like to see all the teams competing compete morally, they cannot stop the competitive fighting spirit many of us possess, and it drives many people to success in their own way.

This brings up a famous quote in my mind, I have absolutely no idea who first said it, probably somebody before recorded history, but its meaning still holds today:

"It's not about if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."


However you choose to play the game, good luck to all teams that are still competing!

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Last question. Do you think this sort of thing ever happens in professional sports as a strategy? Are they bad for doing this or are they trying to do their best i.e. set up their seeds so they have a better shot at the ultimate win? Legal issues? Bookies?

Originally Posted by karomata

Only in FIRST can thowing matches be strategically gainful, sometime it can be worth it to throw a match. It all depends on how you want to play the game, if you want to be ethical and moral, following the core values of gracious professionalism and other various beliefs common in FIRST.

This discussion happens in professional sports all the time - especially those that have a draft (hey - FRC has a draft!) It's rather common for pro teams to (be rumored to) give less than 100% in games at the end of the season in order to gain a favorable lottery pick in the next draft. Sacrifice the present to secure the future.

Another example - the onslaught of fouling that happens in the last few minutes of practically all close basketball games, at any level. It's considered good strategy to act in a way that is against the rules of the game, hoping your opponent doesn't take full advantage of your penalty.

Intentional walks in baseball. Intentional grounding in football. Playing the metagame is universal.

Is your priority bringing a pretty banner home to your sponsors, teammates, administrators - or is it to win a single match with two teams you may have barely known before the event started?

Are these tactics moral? Ethical? That's debatable.
Are these tactics strategic and smart? Absolutely.

If FRC is going to emulate the sports world, then these gray areas will exist. The question becomes: Do we play smart, or do we play clean - at an event called The Superbowl Of Smarts? (keeping in mind the true values are not absolute, but rather points on a shifting spectrum)

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Do we play smart, or do we play clean - at an event called The Superbowl Of Smarts?

Well, given your signature, what do you think?

Is playing clean more important to transforming the culture than playing "smart"? There are lots of "smart" business people out there who crush, swindle, and leverage their way to the top of the market. There are teams that cheat their way to championships (Bill Bellichek, anyone?)

I don't think it's even arguable that we want to model ethical behavior. I want to do it as a mentor. I want us to do it as a team. I want FIRST to do it as an organization -- and by and large they manage to succeed.

If there's a "gray area", that's an opportunity to choose to do the right thing -- and an opportunity to teach students and mentors alike that if there is any question on whether or not an action is the right thing, to choose not to do it.

There is no smart/ethical dichotomy here, because if the action isn't ethical--or is even arguably unethical--then it isn't smart in the long run. Not if what we're actually trying to do is transform the culture.

[Rewat]

posted by Taylor
Quote:Intentional walks in baseball. Intentional grounding in football. Playing the metagame is universal.

These strategies are part of a series of downs and pitches in an inning, not the whole game, the intentional walk sets up a double play and keeps the batter from hitting a home run the intentional grounding is to keep from getting sacked for a loss. In sports the more wins you have the higher seeding. Which gives you an advantage in the final game of the season (ie. superbowl, world series etc). You made the point about fouling in basketball, that is the example that might fit FIRST best. I have told my alliance to take a 3 point penalty if the out come is greater (ie. we gain points in a match or keep another team from scoring) but not to throw away a match just for seeding purposes. So comparing sports to FIRST only hurts the argument to take a dive in a match because in sports the object is to win every game.

[Taylor]

They were all examples of intentionally doing something against the rules/being penalized with a greater goal in mind. Which rings true with the FIRST analogy.
As far as winning every game goes - what about teams that intentionally tank games at the season's end in order to gain the dream quarterback or point guard in the next year's draft, setting themselves up for success in the future? What about teams that rest players at the end of the season to avoid injury - often at the expense of individual games?

[Hoover]

I like the candor of this thread and I applaud the community of discussing it in a rational way.

Some final observances. The thread was spawned as an allocation of something not done. What if on the other hand you had done it, would you have said so? Still I admire your honesty.

I had said earlier I see it as part of the political spectrum. But I did not say whether, if the opportunity came, would I do it? I don't have the brass to do this and I don't blame anyone who can't; it requires some fortitude.

In the professional world, and the world in general, this sort of behavior has one added component. Secrecy. If this is done, it is not admitted to. We didn't expect to see 10 posts of 'oh, I've done that' did we? That is one obvious absence in the discussion.

Also, of late, I noticed point spread forecasting is becoming a science. If I see you are favored by 40 and you losing by 20 on the board, I am going to start noticing who is not shooting, who is not making their climb etc. What this says is this sort of thing is going to become more obvious just by looking at a smart phone app. Be careful.

Competition on the field should not affect friendship in the pits. This sort of strategy can have undesired side effects. Suppose you get to your ultimate goal and your robot breaks. You need a part but none are offered. You get a substitute but they don't have the power to win the final.

BTW, whats wrong with the silver? Anyone? We got the semi-finals once. We then lost our bracket in two straight. After that we were all slapping hands, grinning ear to ear. Pats on back. Huge amount of fun. After losing? In what other sport do you see that kind of behavior?

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Some final observances. The thread was spawned as an allocation of something not done. What if on the other hand you had done it, would you have said so? Still I admire your honesty.

...

BTW, whats wrong with the silver? Anyone? We got the semi-finals once. We then lost our bracket in two straight. After that we were all slapping hands, grinning ear to ear. Pats on back. Huge amount of fun. After losing? In what other sport do you see that kind of behavior?

Hoover brings up a very important point. Would anyone ever be brave enough to publicly wise up to throwing a match to gain a strategic advantage? (Honestly, I thought saying that I considered it at all would bring the trolls out of the woodwork...)

And nothing's wrong with silver. Nothing's wrong with only moving a single match, if that's your definition of success. I think most people would agree that it's important to try your hardest to do your best, which may just be a blue banner. It's the difficulty of reconciling "trying your hardest" and "doing your best" in all their different forms that turns this into a real debate.

[TheMadCADer]

One thing I ask you all to think about is your definition of "winning" a match. Strictly speaking, winning is having more points after 2:15, but in FIRST it's about much more than just that brief moment. If you could have come away from that match with a better outcome, but didn't, did you really win? If you get one more tally in the loss column, but benefit more than you would have from a win, did you really lose that match?

I do not see a moral conundrum in scoring for the other alliance in a match. I would even posit that you might as well consider yourself to be on the other alliance so long as you benefit more when they win. An alliance is simply a group of individuals working together towards a common goal. In this case, you're simply wearing the wrong colour, nothing more. The side of the field you start on is simply random, but the true alliances develop as the day goes on. Your 'partners' shouldn't require you to play against yourself, just as you shouldn't require them to play against themselves. There's no sneaking, hiding, or lies when you actively score in the 'wrong' goal. Your strategy is out in the open for all to see.

As a quick aside: would you ever agree to tie with the other alliance? Can you think of situations where this would be advantageous for both sides?

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

As a quick aside: would you ever agree to tie with the other alliance? Can you think of situations where this would be advantageous for both sides?

That would have been fun in 2012.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Hoover brings up a very important point. Would anyone ever be brave enough to publicly wise up to throwing a match to gain a strategic advantage? (Honestly, I thought saying that I considered it at all would bring the trolls out of the woodwork...)

I supposed it should have brought out trolls. Maybe they are busy in another thread.

If you really wanted to influence the score in this way, legitimately, the best way to do it is to rest your best driver. Our team wanted it to be that we left every participant drive if he/she wanted to. Considering all the work they did before, why not let them have some fun. When we did this sometimes our score suffered considerably.

For those who say how can you win doing that? What if having fun is more important than winning to us? What side of morals are we on?

To the question, did this hurt the other members of our alliance? The stark answer is yes it could. We did try to chose matches where we knew before hand we were obviously out matched, but that wasn't our highest priority.

And nothing's wrong with silver. Nothing's wrong with only moving a single match, if that's your definition of success. I think most people would agree that it's important to try your hardest to do your best, which may just be a blue banner. It's the difficulty of reconciling "trying your hardest" and "doing your best" in all their different forms that turns this into a real debate.

For us, what we liked is to be able to play. In our last venue we were not selected into quarter-finals. What hurt most is that we couldn't continue playing. You can drive a robot around a gymnasium all you want, but you can't replace the visceral experience of the matches.

[Mr. Van]

I find this discussion very interesting...

In 2003 (Stack Attack), there was a strategy of agreeing with your opponents to not knock each other's stacks down. If both alliances agreed, then the scores for each alliance were much higher and both alliances rose in the rankings, regardless of a win or loss. Since the wining ranking points were three times the loosing score, and the loosing ranking points were the score of the winning alliance, this making this sort of agreement could be very beneficial to all teams in the match.

This strategy was designed into the game that year - at least members of the GDC said that they knew about it as a possibility and wanted to see how teams would deal with the situation. Even though it didn't involve any "throwing" of the match (each team did their best to achieve the highest score), it was roundly criticized as collusion and at subsequent events teams proudly posted signs in their pit saying that they would not form any "agreements".

I find it very interesting that there seem to be a good number of people who feel that "playing the tournament" may be more important than "playing the match" and that throwing a match might be a valid and acceptable strategy, while a decade ago, there was nearly universal opposition to the Sack Attack agreement.

For me, the answer is simple: Play to win every match. There is a chance that one of the teams on the alliance will be attending their only regional. They may have been struggling the entire season. They may be winless at that point in the competition. For them, just having one good match might make their season. To do anything other than playing to your best ability is doing them (and your opponents) a disservice.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
Team 599

[Tow]

Actually it depends on your robot, because if your robot is not very efficient doing the scouting of the teams you are going with and against to see what is the best for you. If your robot is good enough you probably won't need it but is better. (It will get you more points)

[ewcr]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Because trying your hardest to win every match requires no explanation to mom or sponsor or student.

Because the object of each match is to win.

Because it doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Because gaming the ranking/alliance selection system puts a negative impact on *someone* (say, the teams that won't rank as high because you decided to throw a match, whether they were in that match or not) that playing to win every time doesn't. (Yes, I know, this means that other other teams won't rank as high... but as long as everyone's playing to win every match, that's okay.)

How do I explain to my mom, who happens to be the head mentor for my team, or my sponsors who have supported me for 4 years that i didn't get a good alliance in finals so i couldn't get to state or worlds because I attempted to win, even though in winning i lost the regional or district causing our season, the last season for the team due to a lack of students to be over.

Is it not the object of every tournament to win also? Why does a lower level of competition outway the overall higher level?

Losing the final match of my senior left a pretty awful taste in my mouth.

[FIMAlumni]

Kinda on the same topic. At a competition my team was attending there were 4 dominate robots at the event. We were ranked first, another was ranked 2, and the other 2 were out of the top 8. We concluded that the best robot that fit out strategy was out of the top 8, but also we would have to face a very tough alliance in the finals as the number 2 seed would pick the other dominate robot. I considered picking the slightly weaker second seed in order to split up the other two dominate robots (who would join the second and third alliance). Was I picking to create the best alliance? no. Was I picking to win the event? yes. Unfortunately the second seed did not want to play with us anyway so we ended up the highest ranked by our scouting anyway.