Intentionally Losing Matches

[EricH]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

That's reasonable.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.