Winning a Match vs. Winning Strategically

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Personal opinion? Gaming the system is indeed a legitimate strategy. There's two way to look at the competition. You can look at it match by match and win win win or you can look at the whole picture and pick strategic losses to bolster your standing elsewhere.

I disagree. Purposely throwing matches hurts your partners who expect you to perform your best.
If for some reason everyone on your alliance wants to throw the match (like 1114's Qual Match 100 2010), then go ahead.
But if I was on your alliance, and you purposely threw the match, I would be unhappy. Very unhappy.

[cmrnpizzo14]

That is a tough call to make. I agree with always play to win. It is your, and your competition's, obligation to try and win the match to the best of your abilities. If you aren't, why would you play the match? However, in this situation I believe that everyone should be trying to win the regional and the best way to do that is showcase the best abilities of your robot.

For example, if there is a robot that wants to showcase their defense before eliminations, they should play defense. If your shooter was your strength, you should shoot. At that stage in the competition, I believe that your focus shifts from being win qualifying matches to winning the regional.

Although Pink would have lost some seeding positions from the loss, that is honestly their fault (as heartless as it seems) for not putting themselves in a higher position or being a better robot. I think that you guys ultimately did the right thing by showcasing your shooter and hanger and winning the match.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by nukemknight

What if the ranking system says not to? 2010 Curie Match 100

This case is different. Everyone on the blue alliance was helped in rankings because of that 6 v 0 matchup. It's very hard to throw away a match unless your alliance partners are also helped by the match being thrown away. If you throw away a match for your own benefit over your alliance's benefit, then this becomes an issue.

[kjohnson]

Originally Posted by Wing

This case is different. Everyone on the blue alliance was helped in rankings because of that 6 v 0 matchup. It's very hard to throw away a match unless your alliance partners are also helped by the match being thrown away. If you throw away a match for your own benefit over your alliance's benefit, then this becomes an issue.

You mean something like unbalancing the Coopertition Bridge last year? This affected the rankings of all 6 teams, not just the winners or losers.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Another (hypothetical) scenario. Say the undefeated #1 seed is on your alliance. Another team comes to you & asks you to lose the match. Say it would make them move up in seeding. Maybe offers you an guaranteed pick to do so. Ethical?

Is it ethical to take a bribe? Because that's essentially what they're offering by offering to pick you, for sure, if you do lose the match.


Let me be quite honest: Whether it's winning the match or winning strategically, there is nothing against it in FRC rules. However, if you go into a match where you have to make that sort of choice, you darn well better make sure that your alliance partners are on board with the choice you make. If they are not on board, don't go that way. Broken trust takes years or longer to repair.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by EricH

Let me be quite honest: Whether it's winning the match or winning strategically, there is nothing against it in FRC rules. However, if you go into a match where you have to make that sort of choice, you darn well better make sure that your alliance partners are on board with the choice you make. If they are not on board, don't go that way. Broken trust takes years or longer to repair.

Yeah, I'm definitely on this boat. The alliance should agree on a strategy and each member of the alliance should stick to it (barring extraordinary circumstances, e.g. one team's robot dies). If you think that it's the best strategy in the situation and you can convince your partners that it's the best strategy (for all three teams) in the situation, then by all means do it.

[Peyton Yeung]

I forget what match it was on Newton last year but 2/3rds of an alliance were too low to be picking so they decided to try and triple balance on the co-op bridge to showcase their abilities. They didn't inform their 3rd alliance partner who was in the running to be a captain and when their balance didn't work it was the uninformed team that suffered.

[Lightfoot26]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Exactly. Was 6v0 playing to win the regional/division, or throwing a match?

1625 did the same in 2010 Qual 132 on Galileo.

[AmoryG]

It's unethical if throwing away a match hurts your alliance partners. If that's not reason enough to play to win then also consider other teams might not even want you as partners if they think you're not playing by the rules or the spirit of the game.

[DampRobot]

An added twist: Pink picked us first.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Tubatroopa

I forget what match it was on Newton last year but 2/3rds of an alliance were too low to be picking so they decided to try and triple balance on the co-op bridge to showcase their abilities. They didn't inform their 3rd alliance partner who was in the running to be a captain and when their balance didn't work it was the uninformed team that suffered.

Newton Q89.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYzl...ailpage#t=104s

[Chris is me]

In my opinion, throwing a match isn't ethical in FRC because you have alliance partners. By throwing a match, you harm your alliance partners' ranks. It's your duty in FRC to try as hard as possible to win for the sake of everyone on your alliance.

If this were 1v1, I might think differently about the situation. 2010 is an exception to the rule because "throwing the match" in that year resulted in the alliance as a whole gaining more seeding points.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Newton Q89.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYzl...ailpage#t=104s

Ive never seen that before and I can imagine some rule-savvy spectators were QUITE confused



Anyway, I dont believe there are many situations where people would legitimately want to throw a match in 2013. Even if one team wanted to throw a match, or two did, they owe it to their alliance partner to try. Fine, if all three want to throw it, I guess you're gonna throw it, but when that would actually happen I cant think of.

People should try their hardest to win, no taking bribes or anything like that. Honestly, if a team goes out of their way to ask you to throw a match in some "Promise" for a pick, I wouldn't trust them. If they ask you to throw a match to ascend () their own rankings, do you really think that they are all that trustworthy to bank your own ranking on?

Ive seen teams betrayed in much lighter scenarios. What you do when it comes to alliance selection is up to you, pick whoever you want, because you earned that spot, you got that first, second, ect. pick and you can do whatever you want with it. Yeah, the ranking system doesnt do that good of a job assessing teams' worth, but hey, its what we've got. Purposely trying to earn a lower spot (with our current ranking systems where losing can never make you rank higher)... I wouldnt go for it.

[wesbass23]

As the drive coach on my team I have often thought about situations like this, though thankfully I have never been out in such a situation.

Thinking about it, I could never tell my drivers to lose a match, even if it opens up the possibility for winning big later in the day. It is not in the spirit of the game, not to mention it would mean letting down our alliance partners for that match.

I say you play to win, no matter the situation.

[Yipyapper]

As soon as I saw the thread, I immediately thought of 2012's Co-opertition™ thing.