Intentionally Losing Matches

[fredliu168]

Originally Posted by Protronie

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?).

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.

[Jack Jones]

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!

[Bongle]

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.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

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!

exactly.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

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!

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.

[Joe Ross]

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.

[jayjaywalker3]

Originally Posted by octothorpe

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.

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

Originally Posted by octothorpe

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.

A lapbot being picked first? Has that happened before?

Originally Posted by 1885.Blake

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

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.

trying to finagle your way into a better position just seems against all the principles of FIRST doesn't it?

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.

[Danny McC]

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.

[JamesBrown]

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.

[Lavapicker]

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??

[thefro526]

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.

[Cooley744]

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.

[adman]

Originally Posted by Cooley744

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.

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

[Chris Fultz]

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".

[adman]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

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".

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!