Red Advantage ?

[KTorak]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

At the FLR, one side could see the real time score, and the other couldn't..

Not sure who gets the advantage on that one.

At GLR, they has a nice Plasma screen TV on the floor by the Scoring Table so that the red alliance could see the scores and stuff.

[Dan Petrovic]

That's like saying there's a higher chance to get heads when flipping a coin than tails.

Honestly, how many teams that you saw were able to pick up the vision tetra?

[irishninja]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

that would have been the blue alliance seeing the real time scoring. interesting, i haven't thought of that yet.

Although at Hartford they set up a TV at the red alliance so if needed they could also see.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

Wearing red apparently gives male athletes a slight competitive edge in both team and individual sports, two British anthropologists conclude in a study published today in the journal Nature. Blue was one of the colours of the losers in their research.

Did British anthropologists also conclude that bright red coats give you an advantage in war?

I agree that there was a slight red advantage for last years game, Triple Play. The red tetras were easier to see. The field was asymmetric (regards to Human/Auto loading) so our autonomous was more consistent from the Red side.

The only things red or blue this year is the bike flags, the ramps and the trim around the goals. This shouldn't provide a significant visibility advantage.

If anything I would say that red has a very odd disadvantage. Red seems to go on offense almost every time there is a autonomous tie. I know it is supposed to be random, but it seems that blue rarely loses this random selection. Maybe I am just not remembering blue because they're blue.

Did anyone else notice this?

[irishninja]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

I think this assumption is just a feeble human mind trying to find some sort of correlation in truly random events, like saying your iPod is playing favorites while on shuffle mode.

Actually it does.

[irishninja]

Sorry, I just saw the year 2006, on the day and assumed it was recent. I apologize for bringing back old threads.

[Viper37]

Originally Posted by Simon Strauss

that makes sense since red is a warm color(see i payed attention in art class) it stands out more than blue

Indeed, blue is the least visable color on the spectrum I believe.

Why they use it for "high end" car headlights, I have no idea.

[ahecht]

Yes, it is true, your eyes suck at blue. Just see this website.

Originally Posted by Viper37

Indeed, blue is the least visable color on the spectrum I believe.

Why they use it for "high end" car headlights, I have no idea.

HID headlights are actually white, not blue. There are two reasons for the misconception that they are blue:

a) Incandescent headlights (like all incandescent lights) are very yellow, so white HID lights look blue by comparison. Anyone who has ever taken a picture indoors with a camera lacking auto-white balance has seen this effect first hand.

b) HID headlights, like all headlights, are designed not to shine into the eyes of oncoming drivers though a series of reflectors and light blocking surfaces. Due to chromatic aberration, when the lights are viewed from off center (as you would always view them unless they are shining right on you), these refletors and blocking surfaces make the light appear bluish.

[deshirider430]

how about if you superimpose it to past years to see if there is a true advantage.

[jgannon]

My apologies for digging up a really old thread, but I just saw this article... maybe there's more to the red alliance advantage than we previously thought.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Btower

In the elimination rounds (QF,SF,F) the scoring system places the higher seed alliance in the Red Zone, so one should expect better results. In fact, if the results were equal between Red and Blue (50/50), then the Blue End would have an advantage.

Yeah, if you're talking specifically about finals, then I would point you to this too. Qualifications should be more or less 50/50.

[EHaskins]

For anyone interested, here are some stats I generated using the TBA API.

Originally Posted by All matches

2004
Blue Average:69.6590909090909
Red Average:71.4204545454545

Blue Min:5
Red Min:5

Red Max:190
Blue Max:190

2005
Blue Average:33.9661016949153
Red Average:36.9830508474576

Blue Min:0
Red Min:1

Red Max:86
Blue Max:86

2006
Blue Average:43.3081861958266
Red Average:43.8491171749599

Blue Min:0
Red Min:0

Red Max:136
Blue Max:136

2007
Blue Average:29.8349141245834
Red Average:46.0876698282492

Blue Min:-1
Red Min:-1

Red Max:2280
Blue Max:2280

2008
Blue Average:41.5774916547449
Red Average:44.5660467334287

Blue Min:-1
Red Min:-1

Red Max:150
Blue Max:150

Originally Posted by Qualifications

2004
Blue Average:68.8392857142857
Red Average:62.0535714285714

Blue Min:10
Red Min:5

Red Max:160
Blue Max:160

2005
Blue Average:33.9661016949153
Red Average:36.9830508474576

Blue Min:0
Red Min:1

Red Max:86
Blue Max:86

2006
Blue Average:43.1911262798635
Red Average:42.9027303754266

Blue Min:0
Red Min:0

Red Max:136
Blue Max:136

2007
Blue Average:28.4380113278792
Red Average:45.5478288231592

Blue Min:-1
Red Min:-1

Red Max:2280
Blue Max:2280

2008
Blue Average:38.9359086918349
Red Average:38.6508633304068

Blue Min:-1
Red Min:-1

Red Max:148
Blue Max:148

Originally Posted by Non-qualifications

2004
Blue Average:71.09375
Red Average:87.8125

Blue Min:15
Red Min:15

Red Max:190
Blue Max:190

2005
No data
2006
Blue Average:45.1621621621622
Red Average:58.8378378378378

Blue Min:12
Red Min:12

Red Max:113
Blue Max:113

2007
Blue Average:35.9751037344398
Red Average:48.4605809128631

Blue Min:-1
Red Min:-1

Red Max:316
Blue Max:316

2008
Blue Average:53.1943371943372
Red Average:70.5791505791506

Blue Min:0
Red Min:0

Red Max:150
Blue Max:150

EDIT: Just a disclaimer, this is not my data. It is from TBA, and I made no attempts to sanitize it before processing.

EDIT: The blue min/max have been corrected.

[Ian Curtis]

What happened in 2007?!

Originally Posted by 2007 Qualifiers

Blue Average:28.4380113278792
Red Average:45.5478288231592

Obviously, the exponential nature of the game might throw throw some monkey wrenches into the statistics (My experience with statistics consists largely of hitting the 1-var stats button on my Ti-84) but still, that's a huge difference! Assuming TBA has the correct numbers, is there anything that could account for that? Personally, I thought the 2007 Red Ringers were much more annoying to look at than the blue ones. This is very, very interesting.

Also, I might add it's wicked, wicked, cool to see the average scores for nearly all of my years in FIRST. A+ work!

[StevenB]

Originally Posted by jgannon

My apologies for digging up a really old thread, but I just saw this article... maybe there's more to the red alliance advantage than we previously thought.

I haven't played UT, but I'm guessing that if you're the red team, you'll be shooting at blue opponents. Perhaps it's completely a psychological thing (as the article suggests) and has nothing to do with vision.

Originally Posted by iCurtis

What happened in 2007?!

My thought exactly! My first thought was that some of the eliminations tended to be blowouts with exponentially high scores for the red alliance. But the stats for the qualifiers seems to eliminate that theory. Weird.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by StevenB

I haven't played UT, but I'm guessing that if you're the red team, you'll be shooting at blue opponents. Perhaps it's completely a psychological thing (as the article suggests) and has nothing to do with vision.


My thought exactly! My first thought was that some of the eliminations tended to be blowouts with exponentially high scores for the red alliance. But the stats for the qualifiers seems to eliminate that theory. Weird.

I just had a thought. What about the Algorithm of Doom?

IIRC correctly it broke teams into 3 tiers, and selected one from each, selecting similar ones each time because it wanted even spacing, right? It seems like that could be a source of this discrepency, but I don't remember the Algorithm of Doom taking color into account...

Hmmm... I can't do any of this fancy statistics stuff, but perhaps someone else can. At the BAE GSR in 2007, 1276 played on the blue and red alliance an equal number of times (4 and 4) while 1519 played 6 on blue and only 2 on red. 133 played on red 7 times, and blue on 2. 126 was also 6 and 3. I'd be interested to see how this played out across a larger data set, and also to see how much times team spend on either side of the field in every year. Hmmm...