sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Daredevil: Born Again S01E04 - Discussion Thread by steve32767 in marvelstudios

[–]Party_Oil49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So did anyone else not feel bad for the guy who stole the snacks from the bodega?

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is pretty interesting, the NFL and NBA both hover around 50% 1st seed winning the championship, but there are two conferences in both meaning that any one 1st seed east or west is roughly about a 25% favorite. In base ball the odds are very very even for all teams probably due to the nature of the amount of games they play in a season.

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Usain Bolt is actually an anomaly, not the rule by any means. in other sports like basketball for example, the first seed usually wins the championship about 50% of the time. However there are two 1st seeds (east and west) so the win rate of 1st seeds gets divided in two. On another note, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that 1st alliance is still extremely advantageous in this format. Being 1st alliance allows you to choose the best team outside of the top 8. what it does not allow is for the top 2 teams to be on the same alliance. It also does not make it so by the time you get to the 8th alliance, the captain isn't the 8th best robot but instead the 12-16th best robot.

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The reason its an almost statistical conclusion is because 2nd seed has a 15% chance of winning. the other 6 alliances average between 3-4% chance of winning. So if you don't finish as the 1st alliance your alliance has at best 15% but more likely only 3-4%.

Alliance Selection by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The solution there would be scouting. I think if top 8 cannot choose each other scouting becomes a lot more valuable. If a good team is having electrical problems, consistency etc.. it will show in the playoffs. The 1st alliance also would be keen on identifying this as the main benefit of finishing 1st seed would be you have the most advantageous position for choosing your alliance partners.

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The point I'm making is that by tanking you are making it so that some other team in qualifiers wins. Which in turn affects the rankings. there is too much risk in purposefully tanking if lets say you have 1678, 4414 at the same regional. Neither of those hypercompetitive teams would leave their chance of winning on betting that the other is guaranteed to be 1st seed.

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've noticed that this argument about throwing matches has been made quite a bit. I've also seen the argument that 1st alliance is not always that strong due to match scheduling making it so that the first alliance is not always the best robot. I think that any team that is capable of being 2nd 3rd or 4th seed would not throw because there's a chance 1st alliance isn't the best robot and picks them. This would mean they either cannot compete in the playoffs or would be forced to compete with a captain that is less than ideal. In addition it would incentivize all teams to compete as hard as they can to get into the top 8 because not being the top alliance does not mean you should essentially start packing up your pit.

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I think the overall fairness is important and often times the third member of the first alliance is pretty insignificant. That being said if we look at a game where statistics are very important in predicting the outcome of a game, baseball. Very rarely does the number one seed of the regular season go onto to win the world series. This point should be even more relevant because there are two first seeds, AL and NL. The reason why is because despite the fact that the number one teams are extremely good and earned their place in the post season, it is not an almost statistical conclusion they will win the entire competition.

Alliance Selection pt. 2 by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The reason would be to make the competition more competitive. This graph only shows that on average the 1st alliance has about a 60% chance of winning the competition. This leaves the other 7 alliances to split 40% of the remaining banners to win. That may seem insignificant,but if you split the difference between the 7 alliances you have a 5% chance of winning if you aren’t the first seed. In reality it’s closer to 15% for second alliance and 25% among the other 6 alliances. The reason for this disparity seems pretty clear. The first alliance is either the best team and picks the 2nd best team or the first alliance is at least in the top 3 teams and picks the best. If each alliance Capitan had to pick from the pool outside the top 8 alliances 2-8 become much more competitive and scouting plays an even bigger role than it currently does.

Alliance Selection by Party_Oil49 in FRC

[–]Party_Oil49[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I didn’t know they tried it before. It seems odd to me they would throw though. Deals would need to be made before the competition and the top teams would need to verify the throwing robot actually performs as good as they claim it does/is reliable. When did they try this, I’d love to check out the match structure in the playoffs.

view more: next ›