Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

[TheFish]

Scenario:

Current Rankings:

1. Team A
2. Team C
...
30. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

Match:
Team C and B vs. Team A in the last match of the day. Between A and C, whoever wins the match gets the Top-Seed.

If Team C and B win that last match, then Team C gets the Top-Seed, will then pick team A and lead to a division victory for them.

If Team A wins the last match, they get Top-Seed, will then pick Team B, leading to a division victory for both of them.



The question:
Is it appropriate for Team B to lose the match on purpose, knowing that it will greatly improve their chances of winning in the end?

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by TheFish

Scenario:

Current Rankings:

1. Team A
2. Team C
...
30. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

Match:
Team C and B vs. Team A in the last match of the day. Between A and C, whoever wins the match gets the Top-Seed.

If Team C and B win that last match, then Team C gets the Top-Seed, will then pick team A and lead to a division victory for them.

If Team A wins the last match, they get Top-Seed, will then pick Team B, leading to a division victory for both of them.



The question:
Is it appropriate for Team B to lose the match on purpose, knowing that it will greatly improve their chances of winning in the end?

It most certainly is not appropriate. It would be like telling a Quarterback to purposely lose a game so they could get a better draft pick. And besides, couldnt A just decline the offer from C, and then pick B next? And if C picked B, i would imagine thats still a good alliance.

[Alex.q]

Originally Posted by TheFish

1. Team A
2. Team C
...
30. Team B

Team A is the "best" robot in the division.
Team B is the 2nd best robot in the division.
Team C is the 3rd best robot in the division.

If team B is the 2nd best team in the division, why would they be ranked 30? I know the ranking system isn't perfect, but I would imagine that it is at least close. Unless Team B has been purposefully losing all their qualifying rounds in order to be picked by the top seed alliance, I can't imagine how this would happen.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Alex.q

If team B is the 2nd best team in the division, why would they be ranked 30? I know the ranking system isn't perfect, but I would imagine that it is at least close. Unless Team B has been purposefully losing all their qualifying rounds in order to be picked by the top seed alliance, I can't imagine how this would happen.

It's not. Rankings do not indicate robot strength very well.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's not. Rankings do not indicate robot strength very well.

I agree. It's not so much that rankings aren't accurate, but the sample size isn't big enough to yield a statistically accurate representation of the best robots. Teams only play 8 - 15 matches per regional (depending on the size). If they could play 80 matches or more, I think the ranking system would prove to be more accurate.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by sgreco

I agree. It's not so much that rankings aren't accurate, but the sample size isn't big enough to yield a statistically accurate representation of the best robots. Teams only play 8 - 15 matches per regional (depending on the size). If they could play 80 matches or more, I think the ranking system would prove to be more accurate.

You silly statisticians and your sample sizes everyone knows smaller sample sizes make it easier to fudge the data to prove your point

Ok, seriously though, the rankings are not a great indicator, but if the '2nd best robot' in the division is in 30th, they're either throwing matches, or having lots of problems, and I don't think they'd throw matches so I'd assume they're buggy and not pick them.

That said, I find it unethical in many ways to throw a match like that. It isn't fair to team C, or the third team on your alliance, most of all it isn't fair to your team. I don't know about your team, but my kids would be absolutely floored if we purposefully tanked a match as a 'strategy'. It's insulting. On top of that, it makes you look really bad, and probably means Team A wouldn't want you anyway. If you were to inform Team A ahead of time of your intention to go all Benedict Arnold on your alliance, they would (hopefully) find this unacceptable and not pick you, and if they agreed with you, its collusion, which is forbidden in the rules I believe.

Besides it being a horrible idea, it's just wrong, in my opinion.

Matt

[TheFish]

Originally Posted by Duke461

It most certainly is not appropriate. It would be like telling a Quarterback to purposely lose a game so they could get a better draft pick.

That's not the same. This is one year, one competition, one tournament. The goal is to do the best possible.
If you want to use a football example I would say it is: losing the last game of the season, because you know that your first-round matchup in the playoffs would be much easier if you won.

Originally Posted by Duke461

And besides, couldnt A just decline the offer from C, and then pick B next? And if C picked B, i would imagine thats still a good alliance.

A would not decline, because if they did, then B would pick C, screwing A over.
Instead, A would accept C's selection and B would lose the division.

Originally Posted by Alex.q

If team B is the 2nd best team in the division, why would they be ranked 30? I know the ranking system isn't perfect, but I would imagine that it is at least close. Unless Team B has been purposefully losing all their qualifying rounds in order to be picked by the top seed alliance, I can't imagine how this would happen.

The actual seed is irrelevant. Let's say Team B is ranked 10th?

What I want to know is: is it appropriate to lose on purpose, if it will ensure a victory in the end.

[eyu100]

Well, you can lose a match without making it obvious that you're throwing it - have your robot "break" (like by secretly deleting the code) and have your human player throw badly. Obviously, you shouldn't do this.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by TheFish

That's not the same. This is one year, one competition, one tournament. The goal is to do the best possible.
If you want to use a football example I would say it is: losing the last game of the season, because you know that your first-round matchup in the playoffs would be much easier if you won.

You're right, this is not the same, it's not about the competition, it's about inspiration, and changing the world, and showing kids there are better ways to be happy and successful than football and doing things like this. What's inspiring about making a fool out of yourself to win a plastic trophy and a blue banner?

I've been on winning teams before, it feels great, but at the end of the day my life had been improved by the whole season, not the banner, and I know I would have hated it if we won by working the system. I propose that winning is this manner is more detrimental than losing fairly, even losing horribly, but fairly.

Originally Posted by TheFish

A would not decline, because if they did, then B would pick C, screwing A over.
Instead, A would accept C's selection and B would lose the division.

If B is in 30th, the odds are slim they'll even have a chance to pick C.

Originally Posted by TheFish

The actual seed is irrelevant. Let's say Team B is ranked 10th?

What I want to know is: is it appropriate to lose on purpose, if it will ensure a victory in the end.

What does a victory mean? A plastic trophy and a blue banner? Or improving the lives of the students involved? Winning a tournament at the expense of integrity, as mentioned before, is not going to do anything towards improving a students life, or their opportunities, or their own morals. As much as high school students like to disagree, they're still being molded and growing, and learning to win by cheating (and that's what this is) is a terrible lesson.

I've got a box (literally, a box in my closet) of gold medals, would you like them? They seem to mean a lot more to you than myself. Last time I took them out was because I needed to squish a bug on my wall.

People (myself included) are making a ridiculous point out of highlighting the logical flaw of B being a 30th seed as a mild rejection of your idea I believe. I obviously can't speak for them personally, but I do believe the intent was to politely dissuade the idea. If I'm correct, that should give you a pretty clear indication what the opinion is of this strategy.

Matt

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Duke461

It most certainly is not appropriate. It would be like telling a Quarterback to purposely lose a game so they could get a better draft pick. And besides, couldnt A just decline the offer from C, and then pick B next? And if C picked B, i would imagine thats still a good alliance.

Except the latter happens all the time. "Tanking" is a common occasion in professional sports. From the general manager and owner on down through the players.

I'm in no way saying that it's a positive thing for FIRST (nor am I condemning it with this post), but if you're going to attempt to use a sports analogy, at least use one that doesn't counteract your point.

[santosh]

This sounds terrible, but you gotta do what is best for your team.

Can it be considered non GP? idk. If I were presented with this opportunity, I would definitely consider it...

Let the red dots rain.

[thefro526]

This situation isn't all that cut and dry. I'm not advocating tanking or throwing of matches, but I know there are a few really good teams sitting outside of the top 8 on their respective divisions.

Thinking about it from those teams perspectives, I know I'd seriously be considering doing something that's not "right" in hopes of making it to Einstein...

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by santosh

This sounds terrible, but you gotta do what is best for your team.

Can it be considered non GP? idk. If I were presented with this opportunity, I would definitely consider it...

Let the red dots rain.

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team?

Matt

EDIT: I am really disappointed in the way "mentors" are discussing the trade off of ethics vs glory. This is a sad time for FIRST.

[santosh]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

In what way is cheating (albeit subtlety) considered what is best for a team?

Matt

EDIT: I am really disappointed in the way "mentors" are discussing the trade off of ethics vs glory. This is a sad time for FIRST.

In what way do you mean you are disappointed. If I had to throw a match to win a world championship, I would highly consider it. I am looking out for my kids.
If I know that I am a part of an awesome team, should I not do what is in the best interest of my team? Should I not consider the option at the very least?

The purpose of the competition aspect of FIRST is to win. Trust me, off the field and for the most part on the field, I am gonna be the most GP person you can meet.

[Joe G.]

I consider my alliance partners my teammates. When we are behind the glass, we must act as such. Sabatoge within any type of team is frowned upon, and just because an alliance will only last 2 minutes, it doesn't make it any less of a team.

If I was team B, I would see this match as an opportunity to work with team C, show them your robot's abilities, and give them firsthand knowledge about your drive team. If team B is so good, maybe team C will pick them after this...

Play your hardest at all times. It makes the competition a challenge, and it makes the competition fair. And it gives you a chance to showcase the hard work you did on your robot.

Hard work that, as I've discussed before at length, is where the competition really takes place, not in shady, manipulative tactics.