Intentionally Losing Matches

[SL8]

I would not see a problem with going ahead with the match. If the top teams are going to pick you, it's not going to be because you forfieted, and if you make the top 8, you still get to pick your alliance members.

Why is there another choice?

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by fredliu168

Ok clearly forfeiting the match and affecting your alliance partners is un-gp. What if, your alliance partners during the match is (following my previous example) 1114 and 217, and they were facing 3 robots that could not possibly beat them even 2v3.

What is the opinion on forfeiting the match now, considering the match will be a guarenteed victory anyways for your alliance partners.

Than why not go out and show them how good you are fist hand?
The bottom line is that you should never take the chances of being picked over doing your own picking.
You can't say for sure that you'd be picked in the 15th or 16th pick of the draft. If you did, start playing the lotto.

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by fredliu168

Ok clearly forfeiting the match and affecting your alliance partners is un-gp. What if, your alliance partners during the match is (following my previous example) 1114 and 217, and they were facing 3 robots that could not possibly beat them even 2v3.

What is the opinion on forfeiting the match now, considering the match will be a guarenteed victory anyways for your alliance partners.

this situation would make me want to do this more, here is my logic

+say 1114 picks 217 and 217 declines. (i know 1114's scouting system to understand that what im about to say goes totally against how it works) but which team would be fresh in their minds. plus if you do deserve to be picked, you will. if you truly complemented one of these two powerhouses, THIS MATCH would be your golden opportunity to prove it to them in their faces.

[Battering_Ram]

Un-GP

[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. 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. Lastly, being on the 8th alliance might not be so bad; sometimes having three decent robots can be better than two hotshots and one flake.

After this year, 766 is especially qualified to speak on this matter. At SVR, the 8th seeded alliance captain was having trouble choosing a team to pick, so we cheered for them to pick us, and they did. Sure, we had to face a tough set of top-ranked teams, but we gave them a good fight, and it was better than not being in the finals at all. Then, at Davis, we were seeded 7th and had been hovering around the 8th slot. We would have worried about how to pick a strong alliance with so many of the good robots ranked above us, but as it happened, one of those good robots picked us – the first pick of the first round, no less.

In summary, alliance pickings can be very difficult to predict, and sabotaging your score is probably more likely to harm you than help you, even in the described situation.

[Bharat Nain]

If you did that and if my team was in the top 8, I would blacklist your team because this kind of a strategy is neither gracious nor professional. A team should always play every match to win to the best of their ability. It is only fair to your alliance partners. If you needed one more win to be seed # 1 and your alliance partner racked up penalties on purpose, would you be happy? I'm gonna guess not. You will receive the same treatment you give and in these terms you will lose the respect and trust of any top 8 teams. This strategy would be frowned upon, at least by me.

[Cascade]

Sorry to whack you so hard, but your hypothetical is troublesome: doing less than your best is an unacceptable position to take in any situation. Assuming the 1 or 2 seed would pick you is a second mistake. The third mistake is assuming the 1 or 2 seed would pick your team after failing your alliance partners and figuring out your scheme. The fourth mistake is the legacy your team would be left with.

Do you think people would forget doing less than your best?

Always do your best. It is like honor: people remember you after your gone as having it or not. At the end of the day, team honor to do your best is what you are talking about.

Never quit, never give up, never say die!

[EricH]

If you go out there and intentionally lose a match by forfeit, then I know I probably wouldn't pick you. Even if you were 1114.

It's not fair to your partners.
It is a chance of "showing off" to higher-seeded teams that you just missed. I know in my scouting sheet, a zero doesn't help you at all.
It's not a sure thing.

So just get out there and play like there's no tomorrow.

[gblake]

My answer is rather different from the others - If necessary, in a post that I would need some time to compose, I think I can stand all of the opposing arguments on their heads; after making two statements.

The first statement is that you have to ask your allies. If they give you a green light, then you all (all three in FRC, or all two in FTC) show up on the field and use the match as a valuable practice match in which you all WIN the long term "game" (in the game theory sense) by scoring fewer points than your opponents do in this particular match.

The second statement (part A) is that you have to be in a situation where alliance captains are not allowed to pick each other as allies. I have seen this rule put into play in more than one OFF-season or local league event. I 110% realize that current FRC regionals and FTC championships allow alliance captains to pick other captains in the first round of picks. 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.

uring the match each member of the alliance can use the match to show their robot's best features to potential scouts, or to just have fun (maybe sub in the second string drive team).

The strategy can be both mathematically sound and I contend that asking your allies (and abiding by their wishes) 100% fulfills any GP obligations. So long as you correctly handle the social/scouting aspects of the situation off the field; a game theoretician would likely call you nuts to do anything other than attempt to lose the one match, when you are in the situation Fred described.

Blake
PS: Please give me 30 second head start before you release the hounds

[dtengineering]

The answer to this question really depends on what motivates one to take part in FRC. If you are motivated by the trophies, then sure, go ahead and throw the match. While you are at it, why not ignore all the other rules that are based upon sportsmanship and honesty? I mean, if winning is the motivation and you can win by being unsportsmanlike or dishonest or throwing matches... then go for it. Just don't expect to have a whole lot of fun with FIRST because FIRST isn't about the trophies, or even the robots. It is about the kids.

On the other hand, I do have to add a small caveat to the "always do your very best" in every match. It is often necessary to risk doing less than your best in a particular match to ensure that you do better in future matches or future years. Consider that you have tested, reliable auto code that gets 8 points all the time, but also new, un-tested auto code that might score 12 points... or might score 8 and a penalty. Or might just not work at all. You simply won't know which code is your best until it is too late.

Or consider that you have two drivers. One is definitely better than the other, but is graduating. The other is less experienced, but will be around next year. Do you pull the better driver to give the less experienced driver some experience that will make your team better next year? That would mean that you are playing at less than your peak ability, but is both justifiable, and sportsmanlike... so long as that is your motivation for changing drivers.

I'm not quite sure I buy the "ask your partners" approach... although it is by far more acceptable than just not showing up... simply because if "throwing the match" is something you don't think you should do, it doesn't suddenly make it right to do it just because your partners are on board. Conversely if you think throwing the match is the right thing to do, then you probably aren't too worried about your partners to begin with.

Jason

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by fredliu168

I found this reply completely irrelavent and rather insulting.

im taking your side on this issue, if people take this as a personal attack eventually this thread is going to be closed. which would be the 3rd this week, if im correct.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE if you have a personal issue with another member of CD. PM them and keep it out of the threads, these types of issues seem to drive threads out of control.

[fredliu168]

Asking alliance partners is an interesting concept.

Although I agree with the general thought, that not trying your best in all the matches would be setting a poor example to all the students and defeats the purpose of FIRST.

[Teched3]

Just my opinion, but in additon, with a no show, the losing alliance would post zero points, thus affecting the winning alliance's seeding based on the losers score. Highly unprofessional, and definitely ungracious.

[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?).

[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.

I've been doing these competitions for 8 years and I've realized some times you are on your game and sometimes you are not. There is a lot of luck and skill involved in winning one of these competitions, trying to finagle your way into a better position just seems against all the principles of FIRST doesn't it?