Throw my game to change playoff teams? (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

For the benefit of others, would you be willing to post your league's anti tanking rule and the associated penalties for breaking the rule?

Here are the ones I found quickly... the language of some of them is sloppy, but the nice thing about having the rule and a commish with the authority to enforce it is that the amount of weaseling is negligible:

Tanking, incomplete lineups, or other actions against the league's best interest won't be tolerated and may result in a score adjustment subsequently. (IIRC there's more to this one, but I didn't see it at a glance.

Each week, all teams MUST submit a complete roster, with their best players. A league vote may or may not be needed to determine tanking. This cannot be tolerated and we must protect the integrity of the league. You may be asked to leave the league if you do not submit your best lineup weekly.

Tanking is a serious threat to the integrity of the league. [snip]

Owners have a great deal of freedom to submit lineups they are comfortable with; they can take chances and start players they are comfortable with. This rule is not to make sure that you start your best players but that you keep the league competitive. Owners that break these rules are brought in front of the Commish, or a League Vote who can enforce a penalty from 15 bid dollars to a penalty of 1 draft position on the next 1st round pick that they own. If this violation happens more than once in the season, the owner will be removed from the league.

Tanking, in any form, will not be tolerated in this league. If an owner is accused of not submitting its best lineup, the commissioner and conference chairmen will confer and make a ruling. If an owner is guilty of tanking, he will be removed from the league immediately.

 

[Amused to Death]

For the benefit of others, would you be willing to post your league's anti tanking rule and the associated penalties for breaking the rule?

Here are the ones I found quickly... the language of some of them is sloppy, but the nice thing about having the rule and a commish with the authority to enforce it is that the amount of weaseling is negligible:

<snipped multiple rules>

Seem very reasonable and leaves little gray area for interpretation. It seems anyone tanking would deserve repercussions.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

For the benefit of others, would you be willing to post your league's anti tanking rule and the associated penalties for breaking the rule?

Here are the ones I found quickly... the language of some of them is sloppy, but the nice thing about having the rule and a commish with the authority to enforce it is that the amount of weaseling is negligible:

Tanking, incomplete lineups, or other actions against the league's best interest won't be tolerated and may result in a score adjustment subsequently. (IIRC there's more to this one, but I didn't see it at a glance.

Each week, all teams MUST submit a complete roster, with their best players. A league vote may or may not be needed to determine tanking. This cannot be tolerated and we must protect the integrity of the league. You may be asked to leave the league if you do not submit your best lineup weekly.

Tanking is a serious threat to the integrity of the league. [snip]Owners have a great deal of freedom to submit lineups they are comfortable with; they can take chances and start players they are comfortable with. This rule is not to make sure that you start your best players but that you keep the league competitive. Owners that break these rules are brought in front of the Commish, or a League Vote who can enforce a penalty from 15 bid dollars to a penalty of 1 draft position on the next 1st round pick that they own. If this violation happens more than once in the season, the owner will be removed from the league.

Tanking, in any form, will not be tolerated in this league. If an owner is accused of not submitting its best lineup, the commissioner and conference chairmen will confer and make a ruling. If an owner is guilty of tanking, he will be removed from the league immediately.

Thx wcrob. We've struggled to find a solid, impactful anti tanking rule in my league. But we really want to clean it up this year, for a variety of reasons. That said, we've tried variants on what you posted earlier in league history, and frankly we found them too ambiguous. Who defines "best players" for example? One guy started Joe Flacco over Brees last week. People were up in arms....and then Flacco out scored Brees.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

LOL. I used to tell colleagues,.....if ever challenged in a meeting, just use the word "stochastic" and all opposition will melt away.

 

[TheStig]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.You're the smartest guy I know so this will be cake for you.

You are already 2-0 on the internet right now.

I'm not even going to state what the probability is of it happening. I just figure you're smart enough to tell me what it will be. I really want to know.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Tanking, in any form, will not be tolerated in this league. If an owner is accused of not submitting its best lineup, the commissioner and conference chairmen will confer and make a ruling. If an owner is guilty of tanking, he will be removed from the league immediately.

Thx wcrob. We've struggled to find a solid, impactful anti tanking rule in my league. But we really want to clean it up this year, for a variety of reasons. That said, we've tried variants on what you posted earlier in league history, and frankly we found them too ambiguous. Who defines "best players" for example? One guy started Joe Flacco over Brees last week. People were up in arms....and then Flacco out scored Brees.

I like that last one. It leaves it up to the league to bring an instance to the Commish who then reviews it. And the Commish should talk to the player to get his reasoning as well. Flacco over Brees isn't going to get anyone in trouble though (Brees was playing in Seattle).

Really though, the best thing about having a rule against it and a Commish that everyone trusts to enforce it wisely/maturely is that people mostly just don't do stupid ####.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Each week, all teams MUST submit a complete roster, with their best players. ... You may be asked to leave the league if you do not submit your best lineup weekly.

This rule is not to make sure that you start your best players

Tanking, in any form, will not be tolerated in this league. If an owner is accused of not submitting its best lineup

I applaud attempting to address this kind of thing ahead of time with rules, but I don't get having 4+ different sections of your rulebook redundantly addressing the same topic and managing to not really remain internally consistent. Are owners obligated to start their best lineup or not? If they don't submit their best lineup (whatever that means), what are the repercussions?

may result in a score adjustment subsequently

Owners that break these rules are brought in front of the Commish, or a League Vote who can enforce a penalty from 15 bid dollars to a penalty of 1 draft position on the next 1st round pick that they own.

You may be asked to leave the league

If this violation happens more than once in the season, the owner will be removed from the league.

If an owner is guilty of tanking, he will be removed from the league immediately.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

 

[TheStig]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

I honestly don't think you understand basic logic.

 

[TheStig]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

I honestly don't think you understand basic logic.

I have asked to be taught, why the insult?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me.

Teach you what? "Statistics?"

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Each week, all teams MUST submit a complete roster, with their best players. ... You may be asked to leave the league if you do not submit your best lineup weekly.

This rule is not to make sure that you start your best players

Tanking, in any form, will not be tolerated in this league. If an owner is accused of not submitting its best lineup

I applaud attempting to address this kind of thing ahead of time with rules, but I don't get having 4+ different sections of your rulebook redundantly addressing the same topic and managing to not really remain internally consistent. Are owners obligated to start their best lineup or not? If they don't submit their best lineup (whatever that means), what are the repercussions?

may result in a score adjustment subsequently

Owners that break these rules are brought in front of the Commish, or a League Vote who can enforce a penalty from 15 bid dollars to a penalty of 1 draft position on the next 1st round pick that they own.

You may be asked to leave the league

If this violation happens more than once in the season, the owner will be removed from the league.

If an owner is guilty of tanking, he will be removed from the league immediately.

Yeah, I wasn't going to get into it, because I always enjoy perusing other leagues' rules. But he rules wcrob posted are very loose and at the same time overlapping. Even his response to me misses the nuance of this topic. If owners get to challenge every Brees vs Flacco decision, then how many lineups do you have to 2nd guess each week? (Assuming you have some desire to display consistency in application of the rule book)

 

[TheStig]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me.

Teach you what? "Statistics?"

That would be a start, sure, but I'm sure you have more to offer, I mean I've seen your signatures, you are clearly respected and wise.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

I honestly don't think you understand basic logic.

I have asked to be taught, why the insult?

I'll offer up a quote from a t-shirt I just bought: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

Nothing in this thread indicates that you have the capacity to learn advanced concepts.

 

[TheStig]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

I honestly don't think you understand basic logic.

I have asked to be taught, why the insult?

I'll offer up a quote from a t-shirt I just bought: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

Nothing in this thread indicates that you have the capacity to learn advanced concepts.

In your words, this would indicate exactly what about me then?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I applaud attempting to address this kind of thing ahead of time with rules, but I don't get having 4+ different sections of your rulebook redundantly addressing the same topic and managing to not really remain internally consistent. Are owners obligated to start their best lineup or not? If they don't submit their best lineup (whatever that means), what are the repercussions?

Those are from different leagues I'm in.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Those are from different leagues I'm in.

That makes a lot more sense. :beer:

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

I honestly don't think you understand basic logic.

I have asked to be taught, why the insult?

I'll offer up a quote from a t-shirt I just bought: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

Nothing in this thread indicates that you have the capacity to learn advanced concepts.

In your words, this would indicate exactly what about me then?

If you are as smart as you think, it should be easy to fill in the gap. If not, then the shirt applies perfectly.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess if the FACT that winning knocks you out while losing get you in.............is looked upon as being the same as losing a game on purpose to alter yours or someone elses playoff positioning when you are already either certain to be in the playoffs or certain to be out of the playoffs.............................then I suppose I have nothing to add.

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Those are from different leagues I'm in.

That makes a lot more sense. :beer:

It makes sense, but none of those rules are even remotely tight enough to work for my league. They resemble Pamela Anderson level tightness.

 

[TheStig]

It's as if Stig thinks that by simply using the word "statistics" his posts will start to make sense. It usually helps to actually know what you're talking about.

Then calculate the probability of your scenario playing out within 100 randomly made schedules of 10 team 13 game seasons.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd realize why that question doesn't even make sense.

Then teach me. Please, please. Explain it to me. Don't let me walk the internet ignorantly anymore.Drop the pretentiousness, I'm of an open mind. I am humbled by you.

I honestly don't think you understand basic logic.

I have asked to be taught, why the insult?

I'll offer up a quote from a t-shirt I just bought: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

Nothing in this thread indicates that you have the capacity to learn advanced concepts.

In your words, this would indicate exactly what about me then?

If you are as smart as you think, it should be easy to fill in the gap. If not, then the shirt applies perfectly.

I guess I need it spelled out more clearly. What exactly does the shirt say or imply about me?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Is Stig just a return of Hucks?

 

[TheStig]

Is Stig just a return of Hucks?

And that means? I get the sense that there is something about me that you are trying to explain or describe, but I'm not clear what it is.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Is Stig just a return of Hucks?

And that means?

That you are a top secret genius

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Those are from different leagues I'm in.

That makes a lot more sense. :beer:

It makes sense, but none of those rules are even remotely tight enough to work for my league. They resemble Pamela Anderson level tightness.

All you really need is a simple rule and a Commish with good judgment.

 

[TheStig]

Is Stig just a return of Hucks?

And that means?

That you are a top secret genius

It doesn't seem that at all, are you sure it isn't something else? I mean, I'm sure you are man enough to not mince words.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

The basic idea of both scenarios is to increase your chances of winning a championship, no?

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

With some qualifications, I feel much the same way as you do. But let's just be honest with ourselves and everyone else, this is a mostly subjective distinction. This isn't a fact-based, well-reasoned argument. You and I both think that it would be ok to "tank" if it's the only way you could make the playoffs, and not ok to "tank" in many other situations. That's fine, but all the capital letters and elongated ellipses in the world won't make it much more than an opinion. Trying to make it more than that is where everyone keeps going wrong.

 

[TheStig]

Nobody in this forum has demonstrated enough social graces or even basic enough manners to have their opinion on either side if of a ethical debate to be taken seriously. Myself included.

Whoever "wins" this debate is truly The Lord of the Flies.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Nobody in this forum has demonstrated enough social graces or even basic enough manners to have their opinion on either side if of a ethical debate to be taken seriously. Myself included.

Whoever "wins" this debate is truly The Lord of the Flies.

One of the best posts in the entire thread.

 

[ghostguy123]

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

The basic idea of both scenarios is to increase your chances of winning a championship, no?

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

With some qualifications, I feel much the same way as you do. But let's just be honest with ourselves and everyone else, this is a mostly subjective distinction. This isn't a fact-based, well-reasoned argument. You and I both think that it would be ok to "tank" if it's the only way you could make the playoffs, and not ok to "tank" in many other situations. That's fine, but all the capital letters and elongated ellipses in the world won't make it much more than an opinion. Trying to make it more than that is where everyone keeps going wrong.

Regarding the part I bolded, actually no, I view that is a minor similarity, and a fallout from the basic premise. I do not see "odds of winning a championship when you are already a playoff team" to be remotely the same as "if you win you are out of the playoffs, and if you lose you are in the playoffs".

As for the 2nd thing you said, the idea of tanking is subjective of course, but in the sense that your team would miss the playoffs for sure if you win your game, and get in if you lose..........there is nothing subjective about that. The only argument there is whether or not you would agree that it would be ok to tank if losing your game was the ONLY way you can make the playoffs. I think in that scenario, and that scenario only, losing on purpose is fine. If people disagree, I completely see your argument. I just happen to be on the other side of the fence in THAT scenario.

 

[davearm]

Nobody in this forum has demonstrated enough social graces or even basic enough manners to have their opinion on either side if of a ethical debate to be taken seriously. Myself included.

Whoever "wins" this debate is truly The Lord of the Flies.

I think this means my question about the NFL's playoff race isn't getting answered.:sadpanda:

 

[Adam Harstad]

Any argument against tanking -- such as yours -- that centers around ethics or sportsmanship or fair play is inherently flawed, because there is no clear consensus on the matter.

There's rarely clear consensus on ethical issues, because lots of people are unethical.

People that are unethical do things they know are wrong. They're not people that disagree about what is and isn't wrong.

Not really. Ethics are hard, and take up a really surprising amount of mental processing power. Honestly, it's pretty inefficient to seriously contemplate the ramifications of every ethical quandary you will be faced with, which is why there are so few people in the world who would describe themselves as honest-to-goodness ethicists. Most of us get by on handy rules of thumbs and heuristics that serve as accurate shortcuts in 99% of the situations we're going to encounter. The problem is that those heuristics break down along the long tail of the distribution. A heuristic that says "I play to win a championship, so doing not-against-the-rules things that help me make the playoffs is ethical" will serve you well 99% of the time. And then you'll come to the rare situation where you need a loss to get in and the heuristic breaks down.

I would say that in most situations, the majority of people are neither ethical nor unethical. They're... we need a word for indifferent to ethical considerations, sort of an ethical equivalent to "amoral".

 

[Adam Harstad]

I guess if the FACT that winning knocks you out while losing get you in.............is looked upon as being the same as losing a game on purpose to alter yours or someone elses playoff positioning when you are already either certain to be in the playoffs or certain to be out of the playoffs.............................then I suppose I have nothing to add.

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

The goal of the season isn't to make the playoffs, though, is it? It's to win a championship. Now, obviously you have to make the playoffs to win a championship, but simply making the playoffs is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end, and that end is a championship.

Now, I wrote last week about calculating playoff odds. Using a simple Fermi estimate, I found that the odds of a specific worst playoff team in a typical 6-team playoff walking away with the trophy were about 5-6%. Not great, but better than 0%, for sure. So, tanking in this case would increase that team's chances of winning a championship by 5%. Not great at all, but 5% is 5%.

At the same time, depending on the relative quality of the teams involved, tanking to get a favorable playoff matchup could easily increase championship odds by more than 5%. Again, not great, but just like in the first scenario, 5% is 5%. So why is it acceptable to increase your odds by 5% (by tanking to make the playoffs), but not to increase them by 5% (by avoiding a tough first-round matchup)? 5% is 5% is 5%.

It certainly seems like the two are different, because in one situation you're moving from 0% to 5% while in another you might be moving from 15% to 20%. The mind has a very strong bias towards certainty, so it sees a small increase as being much, much more significant if the alternative is 0% (or, alternately, if the small increase leads to an ending probability of 100%). Experimental results have shown that when investing money, if given a chance to mitigate risk, people would rather take an investment with 5% risk and drop it down to 0% than take an investment with 50% risk and drop it down to 30%, despite the latter adjustment leading to a substantially better expected payout. To be clear, this is a cognitive bias, it's a failure in our mental subroutines. There's no practical difference between one 5% change and another. So, from that standpoint, if an owner is justified in tanking to improve his playoff odds by 5% (from 0% to 5%), then he's justified to do it to improve his odds by 5% (from 15% to 20%). 5% is 5% is 5%.

Some in this thread have decried the inflexibility of the anti-tanking crowd and the unwillingness to acknowledge gray areas, but personally, I think this is just consistency. The "tanking is never acceptable" crowd seems like the only group in this thread that isn't groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior. I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements. For all the faults people find in my position, "constantly shifting", "nebulous", and "difficult to define" certainly aren't among them. Intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team. This does not change based on how good the end result is.

Now, I'm not totally inflexible. If all parties agree ahead of time that tanking is fine, then tanking is fine. Anything that is explicitly supported is obviously not implicitly denied. Also, this thread has made it clear to me that I have a blind spot for "Fantasy Football Exclusively As Gambling Device", where the sole point of the league for all involved is to maximize the individual payout. I've never played in a league like that, and we're all slaves to our own experiences, so my natural default tends to ignore the possibility that such leagues might exist. In a hypothetical league of that nature, and provided all participants know where things stand, then I'm much more sympathetic to the "everything not explicitly denied is therefore implicitly allowed" mindset. If the only goal is to maximize expected payouts, then anything that maximizes expected payouts is fair game. Of course, going along with that, I'd also think that collusion and promises of pot-sharing would also be 100% fair game in those leagues, provided they were not explicitly banned in the rules. And even if they were explicitly banned, if someone were clever enough to figure out a loophole, then good on them.

In the overwhelming majority of situations, though, I'm going to stick with "Tanking = always bad". Tanking is a net negative from the league's standpoint. It alters the competitive landscape and imposes negative externalities with no positive externalities to offset. A league where no one ever tanks is on the whole better than a league where people sometimes tank, and it is therefore in everyone's own enlightened self-interest to discourage the practice wherever possible, even in specific situations where doing so imposes a real-world cost (such as missing the playoffs, or getting a worse draft pick, or drawing a tougher round 1 matchup). I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, or that everyone who disagrees is unethical or a bad person. This is a forum for sharing opinions and beliefs, and that's all I'm doing. Tanking = always bad, in all situations, no matter how much you stand to gain from it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Any argument against tanking -- such as yours -- that centers around ethics or sportsmanship or fair play is inherently flawed, because there is no clear consensus on the matter.

There's rarely clear consensus on ethical issues, because lots of people are unethical.

People that are unethical do things they know are wrong. They're not people that disagree about what is and isn't wrong.

Not really. Ethics are hard, and take up a really surprising amount of mental processing power. Honestly, it's pretty inefficient to seriously contemplate the ramifications of every ethical quandary you will be faced with, which is why there are so few people in the world who would describe themselves as honest-to-goodness ethicists. Most of us get by on handy rules of thumbs and heuristics that serve as accurate shortcuts in 99% of the situations we're going to encounter. The problem is that those heuristics break down along the long tail of the distribution. A heuristic that says "I play to win a championship, so doing not-against-the-rules things that help me make the playoffs is ethical" will serve you well 99% of the time. And then you'll come to the rare situation where you need a loss to get in and the heuristic breaks down.

I would say that in most situations, the majority of people are neither ethical nor unethical. They're... we need a word for indifferent to ethical considerations, sort of an ethical equivalent to "amoral".

Then the game of fantasy football itself is unethical for putting you in that position in the first place.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess if the FACT that winning knocks you out while losing get you in.............is looked upon as being the same as losing a game on purpose to alter yours or someone elses playoff positioning when you are already either certain to be in the playoffs or certain to be out of the playoffs.............................then I suppose I have nothing to add.

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

The goal of the season isn't to make the playoffs, though, is it? It's to win a championship. Now, obviously you have to make the playoffs to win a championship, but simply making the playoffs is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end, and that end is a championship.

Now, I wrote last week about calculating playoff odds. Using a simple Fermi estimate, I found that the odds of a specific worst playoff team in a typical 6-team playoff walking away with the trophy were about 5-6%. Not great, but better than 0%, for sure. So, tanking in this case would increase that team's chances of winning a championship by 5%. Not great at all, but 5% is 5%.

At the same time, depending on the relative quality of the teams involved, tanking to get a favorable playoff matchup could easily increase championship odds by more than 5%. Again, not great, but just like in the first scenario, 5% is 5%. So why is it acceptable to increase your odds by 5% (by tanking to make the playoffs), but not to increase them by 5% (by avoiding a tough first-round matchup)? 5% is 5% is 5%.

It certainly seems like the two are different, because in one situation you're moving from 0% to 5% while in another you might be moving from 15% to 20%. The mind has a very strong bias towards certainty, so it sees a small increase as being much, much more significant if the alternative is 0% (or, alternately, if the small increase leads to an ending probability of 100%). Experimental results have shown that when investing money, if given a chance to mitigate risk, people would rather take an investment with 5% risk and drop it down to 0% than take an investment with 50% risk and drop it down to 30%, despite the latter adjustment leading to a substantially better expected payout. To be clear, this is a cognitive bias, it's a failure in our mental subroutines. There's no practical difference between one 5% change and another. So, from that standpoint, if an owner is justified in tanking to improve his playoff odds by 5% (from 0% to 5%), then he's justified to do it to improve his odds by 5% (from 15% to 20%). 5% is 5% is 5%.

Some in this thread have decried the inflexibility of the anti-tanking crowd and the unwillingness to acknowledge gray areas, but personally, I think this is just consistency. The "tanking is never acceptable" crowd seems like the only group in this thread that isn't groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior. I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements. For all the faults people find in my position, "constantly shifting", "nebulous", and "difficult to define" certainly aren't among them. Intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team. This does not change based on how good the end result is.

Now, I'm not totally inflexible. If all parties agree ahead of time that tanking is fine, then tanking is fine. Anything that is explicitly supported is obviously not implicitly denied. Also, this thread has made it clear to me that I have a blind spot for "Fantasy Football Exclusively As Gambling Device", where the sole point of the league for all involved is to maximize the individual payout. I've never played in a league like that, and we're all slaves to our own experiences, so my natural default tends to ignore the possibility that such leagues might exist. In a hypothetical league of that nature, and provided all participants know where things stand, then I'm much more sympathetic to the "everything not explicitly denied is therefore implicitly allowed" mindset. If the only goal is to maximize expected payouts, then anything that maximizes expected payouts is fair game. Of course, going along with that, I'd also think that collusion and promises of pot-sharing would also be 100% fair game in those leagues, provided they were not explicitly banned in the rules. And even if they were explicitly banned, if someone were clever enough to figure out a loophole, then good on them.

In the overwhelming majority of situations, though, I'm going to stick with "Tanking = always bad". Tanking is a net negative from the league's standpoint. It alters the competitive landscape and imposes negative externalities with no positive externalities to offset. A league where no one ever tanks is on the whole better than a league where people sometimes tank, and it is therefore in everyone's own enlightened self-interest to discourage the practice wherever possible, even in specific situations where doing so imposes a real-world cost (such as missing the playoffs, or getting a worse draft pick, or drawing a tougher round 1 matchup). I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, or that everyone who disagrees is unethical or a bad person. This is a forum for sharing opinions and beliefs, and that's all I'm doing. Tanking = always bad, in all situations, no matter how much you stand to gain from it.

The odds to win...........................and getting the chance to even have those odds apply. .....................are two VERY different things.

You keep saying over and over that "both change your odds of winning a championship" or whatever. You are very much generalizing it when you should not be. It's NOT the same.

And you can't just say "intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team", because these two situations are so very, very different.

The odds of winning a championship are a byproduct of getting into the playoffs in the first place. One has a gray area, one (losing when it is the only way you can make the playoffs) does not.

Once you get into the playoffs........................let me repeat this again............ONCE YOU GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS...........THEN the odds apply.

I am not even going to bother talking about the odds of a championship, because the scenario where losing is the only way you can get into the playoffs is a much bigger picture than simply trying to improve your odds of winning a title.

Again, this is a super rare thing. I have never seen it and probably never will in any of my leagues in my lifetime. But, if it happens, I will 100% tank in that exact scenario if it is the absolute only way my team can make the playoffs, and I will happily expect anyone else in my league in that exact position to do the same.

If I happen to be the team getting knocked out of the playoffs because of it, so be it. I won't be upset one tiny bit about other than just generally being upset I missed the playoffs.

Hell, the only tanking rules I have ever seen in the several years and several dynasty league I play in are rules against tanking for better draft picks. I have never see a rule saying that you can't tank if it gets you into the playoffs, while a win knocks you out.

 

[ghostguy123]

BUt since it was mentioned...............a league where "anything goes" regarding tanking would be interesting. No collusion or roster dumping or any of that crap, but no rules against doing anything and everything to improve your chances of winning........................interesting.

Also, it was also mentioned that even though some things are technically not against the rules, they could be considered unethical. I don't buy that at all. If you play by the rules, then you are playing by the rules. Hence, competing.

FF is a game. A game you are trying to win. Now, obviously FF has a lot of rules in place to keep people from being total D-bags about it, but tanking when it is your only chance to make the playoffs is the only very rare exception where "doing what's best for your team" is absolutely not unethical at all. It's simply the smart move with the 100% qualification that your team's fate 100% depends on the outcome of that one game.....in which case, you do what is best for your team no matter what in THAT scenario, and that scenario only.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This thread has devolved quite a bit so hopefully I can add a bit of humor to it...

As I mentioned previously in this thread one of my leaguemates needed me to win for him to get in. I had been teasing him all week I was going to tank. Saying I would rather face the other team in the playoffs rather than him so strategically it made sense for me to tank. As of 6:30pm on thursday I still had my crappy lineup in and had numerous people benched. I start MJD and Andre johnson. So at 6:30 on thursday I get a text from my league mate that says "if I lose and miss the playoffs because you started that crap ### lineup, I will be pissed for weeks".

Now I never had any intention of tanking, I had just enjoyed messing with him. So i decided to really mess with him. I reply to his text and tell him I am at the gym and wont be home before the 7pm lock time(there is no 7pm lock time). I ask him to change the lineup for me. Give him my username and a fake password. His internet takes a crap at his house, which of course I have nothing to do with but really adds to it. He is frantic. Texting me like crazy, getting very worked up. His internet finally starts working and he tries the username and password I gave him. It of course doesnt work. I tell him he must have spelled it wrong or maybe I am remembering the username wrong. My username is a randomly assigned username so it has my name and like 6 digits after it. I tell him to try my email then. He asks for my email. I explain I used my personal. He doesnt know my personal email.

Long story short I drag this on until it is after 7pm and he now thinks my ####ty lineup is locked. He is freaking out at me. I had been sitting in front of a computer the whole time and then change my lineup and tell him to look again.

His emotions during all of this though are exactly why I would never tank in a league with people I know. I dont have a problem with it, but understand the way others will always feel about it. It is an emotional issue.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

even though some things are technically not against the rules, they could be considered unethical. I don't buy that at all.

Do you not believe there's a difference between legality and ethicality?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements.

No, I'd just add that I don't think that's really a recent development in my stance, I feel like I've acknowledged that all along, at least implicitly. There are some situations where I'd probably be ok with it, and others where I probably wouldn't, but I don't think I've ever really claimed to know precisely where that line is. I think that's a more reasonable position than one where tanking is never ok under any circumstances - just because it's not so easy to define the line, doesn't mean we should assume the stance that no such line exists.

 

[davearm]

I guess if the FACT that winning knocks you out while losing get you in.............is looked upon as being the same as losing a game on purpose to alter yours or someone elses playoff positioning when you are already either certain to be in the playoffs or certain to be out of the playoffs.............................then I suppose I have nothing to add.

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

The goal of the season isn't to make the playoffs, though, is it? It's to win a championship. Now, obviously you have to make the playoffs to win a championship, but simply making the playoffs is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end, and that end is a championship.

Now, I wrote last week about calculating playoff odds. Using a simple Fermi estimate, I found that the odds of a specific worst playoff team in a typical 6-team playoff walking away with the trophy were about 5-6%. Not great, but better than 0%, for sure. So, tanking in this case would increase that team's chances of winning a championship by 5%. Not great at all, but 5% is 5%.

At the same time, depending on the relative quality of the teams involved, tanking to get a favorable playoff matchup could easily increase championship odds by more than 5%. Again, not great, but just like in the first scenario, 5% is 5%. So why is it acceptable to increase your odds by 5% (by tanking to make the playoffs), but not to increase them by 5% (by avoiding a tough first-round matchup)? 5% is 5% is 5%.

It certainly seems like the two are different, because in one situation you're moving from 0% to 5% while in another you might be moving from 15% to 20%. The mind has a very strong bias towards certainty, so it sees a small increase as being much, much more significant if the alternative is 0% (or, alternately, if the small increase leads to an ending probability of 100%). Experimental results have shown that when investing money, if given a chance to mitigate risk, people would rather take an investment with 5% risk and drop it down to 0% than take an investment with 50% risk and drop it down to 30%, despite the latter adjustment leading to a substantially better expected payout. To be clear, this is a cognitive bias, it's a failure in our mental subroutines. There's no practical difference between one 5% change and another. So, from that standpoint, if an owner is justified in tanking to improve his playoff odds by 5% (from 0% to 5%), then he's justified to do it to improve his odds by 5% (from 15% to 20%). 5% is 5% is 5%.

Some in this thread have decried the inflexibility of the anti-tanking crowd and the unwillingness to acknowledge gray areas, but personally, I think this is just consistency. The "tanking is never acceptable" crowd seems like the only group in this thread that isn't groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior. I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements. For all the faults people find in my position, "constantly shifting", "nebulous", and "difficult to define" certainly aren't among them. Intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team. This does not change based on how good the end result is.

Now, I'm not totally inflexible. If all parties agree ahead of time that tanking is fine, then tanking is fine. Anything that is explicitly supported is obviously not implicitly denied. Also, this thread has made it clear to me that I have a blind spot for "Fantasy Football Exclusively As Gambling Device", where the sole point of the league for all involved is to maximize the individual payout. I've never played in a league like that, and we're all slaves to our own experiences, so my natural default tends to ignore the possibility that such leagues might exist. In a hypothetical league of that nature, and provided all participants know where things stand, then I'm much more sympathetic to the "everything not explicitly denied is therefore implicitly allowed" mindset. If the only goal is to maximize expected payouts, then anything that maximizes expected payouts is fair game. Of course, going along with that, I'd also think that collusion and promises of pot-sharing would also be 100% fair game in those leagues, provided they were not explicitly banned in the rules. And even if they were explicitly banned, if someone were clever enough to figure out a loophole, then good on them.

In the overwhelming majority of situations, though, I'm going to stick with "Tanking = always bad". Tanking is a net negative from the league's standpoint. It alters the competitive landscape and imposes negative externalities with no positive externalities to offset. A league where no one ever tanks is on the whole better than a league where people sometimes tank, and it is therefore in everyone's own enlightened self-interest to discourage the practice wherever possible, even in specific situations where doing so imposes a real-world cost (such as missing the playoffs, or getting a worse draft pick, or drawing a tougher round 1 matchup). I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, or that everyone who disagrees is unethical or a bad person. This is a forum for sharing opinions and beliefs, and that's all I'm doing. Tanking = always bad, in all situations, no matter how much you stand to gain from it.

The odds to win...........................and getting the chance to even have those odds apply. .....................are two VERY different things.

You keep saying over and over that "both change your odds of winning a championship" or whatever. You are very much generalizing it when you should not be. It's NOT the same.

And you can't just say "intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team", because these two situations are so very, very different.

The odds of winning a championship are a byproduct of getting into the playoffs in the first place. One has a gray area, one (losing when it is the only way you can make the playoffs) does not.

Once you get into the playoffs........................let me repeat this again............ONCE YOU GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS...........THEN the odds apply.

I am not even going to bother talking about the odds of a championship, because the scenario where losing is the only way you can get into the playoffs is a much bigger picture than simply trying to improve your odds of winning a title.

Again, this is a super rare thing. I have never seen it and probably never will in any of my leagues in my lifetime. But, if it happens, I will 100% tank in that exact scenario if it is the absolute only way my team can make the playoffs, and I will happily expect anyone else in my league in that exact position to do the same.

If I happen to be the team getting knocked out of the playoffs because of it, so be it. I won't be upset one tiny bit about other than just generally being upset I missed the playoffs.

Hell, the only tanking rules I have ever seen in the several years and several dynasty league I play in are rules against tanking for better draft picks. I have never see a rule saying that you can't tank if it gets you into the playoffs, while a win knocks you out.

As Adam pointed out, 5% is 5% is 5%.

Your position here dictates that a mediocre team has the right to improve its championship odds by that 5%, as long as the starting point is 0%.

Meanwhile a strong team does not have that same right to an additional 5%, because the starting point is not 0%.

Depending on which perspective you prefer, you're either penalizing the second team for being too strong, or rewarding the first team for being mediocre.

 

[davearm]

I guess if the FACT that winning knocks you out while losing get you in.............is looked upon as being the same as losing a game on purpose to alter yours or someone elses playoff positioning when you are already either certain to be in the playoffs or certain to be out of the playoffs.............................then I suppose I have nothing to add.

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

The goal of the season isn't to make the playoffs, though, is it? It's to win a championship. Now, obviously you have to make the playoffs to win a championship, but simply making the playoffs is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end, and that end is a championship.

Now, I wrote last week about calculating playoff odds. Using a simple Fermi estimate, I found that the odds of a specific worst playoff team in a typical 6-team playoff walking away with the trophy were about 5-6%. Not great, but better than 0%, for sure. So, tanking in this case would increase that team's chances of winning a championship by 5%. Not great at all, but 5% is 5%.

At the same time, depending on the relative quality of the teams involved, tanking to get a favorable playoff matchup could easily increase championship odds by more than 5%. Again, not great, but just like in the first scenario, 5% is 5%. So why is it acceptable to increase your odds by 5% (by tanking to make the playoffs), but not to increase them by 5% (by avoiding a tough first-round matchup)? 5% is 5% is 5%.

It certainly seems like the two are different, because in one situation you're moving from 0% to 5% while in another you might be moving from 15% to 20%. The mind has a very strong bias towards certainty, so it sees a small increase as being much, much more significant if the alternative is 0% (or, alternately, if the small increase leads to an ending probability of 100%). Experimental results have shown that when investing money, if given a chance to mitigate risk, people would rather take an investment with 5% risk and drop it down to 0% than take an investment with 50% risk and drop it down to 30%, despite the latter adjustment leading to a substantially better expected payout. To be clear, this is a cognitive bias, it's a failure in our mental subroutines. There's no practical difference between one 5% change and another. So, from that standpoint, if an owner is justified in tanking to improve his playoff odds by 5% (from 0% to 5%), then he's justified to do it to improve his odds by 5% (from 15% to 20%). 5% is 5% is 5%.

Some in this thread have decried the inflexibility of the anti-tanking crowd and the unwillingness to acknowledge gray areas, but personally, I think this is just consistency. The "tanking is never acceptable" crowd seems like the only group in this thread that isn't groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior. I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements. For all the faults people find in my position, "constantly shifting", "nebulous", and "difficult to define" certainly aren't among them. Intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team. This does not change based on how good the end result is.

Now, I'm not totally inflexible. If all parties agree ahead of time that tanking is fine, then tanking is fine. Anything that is explicitly supported is obviously not implicitly denied. Also, this thread has made it clear to me that I have a blind spot for "Fantasy Football Exclusively As Gambling Device", where the sole point of the league for all involved is to maximize the individual payout. I've never played in a league like that, and we're all slaves to our own experiences, so my natural default tends to ignore the possibility that such leagues might exist. In a hypothetical league of that nature, and provided all participants know where things stand, then I'm much more sympathetic to the "everything not explicitly denied is therefore implicitly allowed" mindset. If the only goal is to maximize expected payouts, then anything that maximizes expected payouts is fair game. Of course, going along with that, I'd also think that collusion and promises of pot-sharing would also be 100% fair game in those leagues, provided they were not explicitly banned in the rules. And even if they were explicitly banned, if someone were clever enough to figure out a loophole, then good on them.

In the overwhelming majority of situations, though, I'm going to stick with "Tanking = always bad". Tanking is a net negative from the league's standpoint. It alters the competitive landscape and imposes negative externalities with no positive externalities to offset. A league where no one ever tanks is on the whole better than a league where people sometimes tank, and it is therefore in everyone's own enlightened self-interest to discourage the practice wherever possible, even in specific situations where doing so imposes a real-world cost (such as missing the playoffs, or getting a worse draft pick, or drawing a tougher round 1 matchup). I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, or that everyone who disagrees is unethical or a bad person. This is a forum for sharing opinions and beliefs, and that's all I'm doing. Tanking = always bad, in all situations, no matter how much you stand to gain from it.

Good post Adam.

Bingo on "5% is 5% is 5%".

As for "groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior", I don't feel that applies to many pro-tankers. The premise is, any strategy that helps me win the championship is fair game, UNLESS the league has voiced its collective disapproval of that strategy by prohibiting it in the rulebook.

As for "It alters the competitive landscape and imposes negative externalities with no positive externalities to offset." The competitive balance piece of that is not a convincing argument. Lots of totally acceptable strategies alter the competitive landscape. That's not a prima facie argument against tanking. The negative externalities piece is legit, although my personal opinion is it's being overstated. That said, the extent to which tanking generates negative externalities is totally subjective and will vary from person to person and league to league.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

As for "groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior", I don't feel that applies to many pro-tankers. The premise is, any strategy that helps me win the championship is fair game, UNLESS the league has voiced its collective disapproval of that strategy by prohibiting it in the rulebook.

As a "pro-tanker" in this debate (though I dislike that term), I wouldn't agree with that premise. I realize several "pro-tankers" have argued that anything not explicitly prohibited by the rules is fair game. I think it's been demonstrated that they're wrong, since clearly the rules don't cover every possible action, and yet some of those actions probably wouldn't fly in their leagues despite not being expressly forbidden. I don't think any strategy is fair game, so long as it hasn't been prohibited in the rule book. I just happen to think that in certain circumstances (e.g. a loss gets you into the playoffs and a win knocks you out) it's perfectly reasonable to consider tanking.

I don't think the boundaries are constantly shifting, they're just not well-defined. That's not ideal, but it's not totally unacceptable. There are lots of things in fantasy football that are sometimes hard to codify precisely into a rulebook. What is tanking? If I left my RB1 spot open this week, is that tanking? What if I started Evan Royster as my RB1? What if I started Toby Gerhart? What if I started Reggie Bush? What is collusion? What kind of trade(s) should be vetoed? How many kickers can I add and subsequently drop in a single week? Can I draft a team full of players who are all on bye week 12? What if I'm out of playoff contention by week 12, am I obligated to make a bunch of free agent moves to field a team that week?

In many instances like these we accept that the rules will not (and often cannot) adequately cover everything ahead of time. That doesn't mean everything must therefore be allowed.

 

[davearm]

As for "groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior", I don't feel that applies to many pro-tankers. The premise is, any strategy that helps me win the championship is fair game, UNLESS the league has voiced its collective disapproval of that strategy by prohibiting it in the rulebook.

As a "pro-tanker" in this debate (though I dislike that term), I wouldn't agree with that premise. I realize several "pro-tankers" have argued that anything not explicitly prohibited by the rules is fair game. I think it's been demonstrated that they're wrong, since clearly the rules don't cover every possible action, and yet some of those actions probably wouldn't fly in their leagues despite not being expressly forbidden. I don't think any strategy is fair game, so long as it hasn't been prohibited in the rule book. I just happen to think that in certain circumstances (e.g. a loss gets you into the playoffs and a win knocks you out) it's perfectly reasonable to consider tanking.

I don't think the boundaries are constantly shifting, they're just not well-defined. That's not ideal, but it's not totally unacceptable. There are lots of things in fantasy football that are sometimes hard to codify precisely into a rulebook. What is tanking? If I left my RB1 spot open this week, is that tanking? What if I started Evan Royster as my RB1? What if I started Toby Gerhart? What if I started Reggie Bush? What is collusion? What kind of trade(s) should be vetoed? How many kickers can I add and subsequently drop in a single week? Can I draft a team full of players who are all on bye week 12? What if I'm out of playoff contention by week 12, am I obligated to make a bunch of free agent moves to field a team that week?

In many instances like these we accept that the rules will not (and often cannot) adequately cover everything ahead of time. That doesn't mean everything must therefore be allowed.

I guess I should have been clearer. Anything that falls in a gray area is fair game, unless the rulebook states otherwise. Things not in a gray area, by definition, are self-explanatory.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Then the game of fantasy football itself is unethical for putting you in that position in the first place.

I'm not sure whether this is facetious or not, but on the off chance you're serious, games are neither ethical or unethical, since they lack agency or the capacity for reason.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I guess if the FACT that winning knocks you out while losing get you in.............is looked upon as being the same as losing a game on purpose to alter yours or someone elses playoff positioning when you are already either certain to be in the playoffs or certain to be out of the playoffs.............................then I suppose I have nothing to add.

Cause frankly, those two scenarios may have a couple similarities, but the basic idea of those two scenarios is INCREDIBLY different.

Now if you are saying that you should never tank under any circumstance no matter what, great. I can respect that. I just don't agree if and only if the scenario presents itself where the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is to lose your game.

The goal of the season isn't to make the playoffs, though, is it? It's to win a championship. Now, obviously you have to make the playoffs to win a championship, but simply making the playoffs is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end, and that end is a championship.

Now, I wrote last week about calculating playoff odds. Using a simple Fermi estimate, I found that the odds of a specific worst playoff team in a typical 6-team playoff walking away with the trophy were about 5-6%. Not great, but better than 0%, for sure. So, tanking in this case would increase that team's chances of winning a championship by 5%. Not great at all, but 5% is 5%.

At the same time, depending on the relative quality of the teams involved, tanking to get a favorable playoff matchup could easily increase championship odds by more than 5%. Again, not great, but just like in the first scenario, 5% is 5%. So why is it acceptable to increase your odds by 5% (by tanking to make the playoffs), but not to increase them by 5% (by avoiding a tough first-round matchup)? 5% is 5% is 5%.

It certainly seems like the two are different, because in one situation you're moving from 0% to 5% while in another you might be moving from 15% to 20%. The mind has a very strong bias towards certainty, so it sees a small increase as being much, much more significant if the alternative is 0% (or, alternately, if the small increase leads to an ending probability of 100%). Experimental results have shown that when investing money, if given a chance to mitigate risk, people would rather take an investment with 5% risk and drop it down to 0% than take an investment with 50% risk and drop it down to 30%, despite the latter adjustment leading to a substantially better expected payout. To be clear, this is a cognitive bias, it's a failure in our mental subroutines. There's no practical difference between one 5% change and another. So, from that standpoint, if an owner is justified in tanking to improve his playoff odds by 5% (from 0% to 5%), then he's justified to do it to improve his odds by 5% (from 15% to 20%). 5% is 5% is 5%.

Some in this thread have decried the inflexibility of the anti-tanking crowd and the unwillingness to acknowledge gray areas, but personally, I think this is just consistency. The "tanking is never acceptable" crowd seems like the only group in this thread that isn't groping to define nebulous and constantly-shifting boundaries of acceptable behavior. I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements. For all the faults people find in my position, "constantly shifting", "nebulous", and "difficult to define" certainly aren't among them. Intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team. This does not change based on how good the end result is.

Now, I'm not totally inflexible. If all parties agree ahead of time that tanking is fine, then tanking is fine. Anything that is explicitly supported is obviously not implicitly denied. Also, this thread has made it clear to me that I have a blind spot for "Fantasy Football Exclusively As Gambling Device", where the sole point of the league for all involved is to maximize the individual payout. I've never played in a league like that, and we're all slaves to our own experiences, so my natural default tends to ignore the possibility that such leagues might exist. In a hypothetical league of that nature, and provided all participants know where things stand, then I'm much more sympathetic to the "everything not explicitly denied is therefore implicitly allowed" mindset. If the only goal is to maximize expected payouts, then anything that maximizes expected payouts is fair game. Of course, going along with that, I'd also think that collusion and promises of pot-sharing would also be 100% fair game in those leagues, provided they were not explicitly banned in the rules. And even if they were explicitly banned, if someone were clever enough to figure out a loophole, then good on them.

In the overwhelming majority of situations, though, I'm going to stick with "Tanking = always bad". Tanking is a net negative from the league's standpoint. It alters the competitive landscape and imposes negative externalities with no positive externalities to offset. A league where no one ever tanks is on the whole better than a league where people sometimes tank, and it is therefore in everyone's own enlightened self-interest to discourage the practice wherever possible, even in specific situations where doing so imposes a real-world cost (such as missing the playoffs, or getting a worse draft pick, or drawing a tougher round 1 matchup). I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, or that everyone who disagrees is unethical or a bad person. This is a forum for sharing opinions and beliefs, and that's all I'm doing. Tanking = always bad, in all situations, no matter how much you stand to gain from it.

The odds to win...........................and getting the chance to even have those odds apply. .....................are two VERY different things.

You keep saying over and over that "both change your odds of winning a championship" or whatever. You are very much generalizing it when you should not be. It's NOT the same.

And you can't just say "intentionally losing a game is bad, even if the end result is good for your team", because these two situations are so very, very different.

The odds of winning a championship are a byproduct of getting into the playoffs in the first place. One has a gray area, one (losing when it is the only way you can make the playoffs) does not.

Once you get into the playoffs........................let me repeat this again............ONCE YOU GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS...........THEN the odds apply.

I am not even going to bother talking about the odds of a championship, because the scenario where losing is the only way you can get into the playoffs is a much bigger picture than simply trying to improve your odds of winning a title.

Again, this is a super rare thing. I have never seen it and probably never will in any of my leagues in my lifetime. But, if it happens, I will 100% tank in that exact scenario if it is the absolute only way my team can make the playoffs, and I will happily expect anyone else in my league in that exact position to do the same.

If I happen to be the team getting knocked out of the playoffs because of it, so be it. I won't be upset one tiny bit about other than just generally being upset I missed the playoffs.

Hell, the only tanking rules I have ever seen in the several years and several dynasty league I play in are rules against tanking for better draft picks. I have never see a rule saying that you can't tank if it gets you into the playoffs, while a win knocks you out.

Saying it and then repeating it in ALL CAPS doesn't make it so. You can't say that the odds of winning a championship are like some magical switch that only apply during the playoffs. Those odds apply all season long. Prior to the draft, my odds of winning are 1/12th. During the draft, I draft players based on how much I believe they increase those odds. During the regular season, I'm trying to win games in an effort to increase my odds. I'm trying to get that first round bye not because I think fantasy football is boring and I'd like to have a week off from it, but because it nearly doubles my odds of getting a title. If championship odds didn't apply before the playoffs started, then nobody on the planet would want a first-round bye, because it means you actually have FEWER fantasy football games (and fantasy football games are generally enjoyable, or else they wouldn't be playing fantasy football).

My own selfish interest at any given point in fantasy football is increasing my championship odds. In certain situations, though, I will be called to act against my own best interests and instead act in accordance with the best interests of the league. I do so with an understanding that others will likewise do so, and the league will be better for all involved as a result. This is "enlightened self-interest". I act contrary to my own best interests when I refuse to tank for a better draft pick. I act contrary to my own best interests when I refuse to tank for a more favorable matchup. I act contrary to my own best interests when I refuse to tank to make the playoffs in the first place. As a result of this, and of my leaguemates doing the same, I get to participate in a league where no one tanks and everyone is better off.

 

[squistion]

Then the game of fantasy football itself is unethical for putting you in that position in the first place.

I'm not sure whether this is facetious or not, but on the off chance you're serious, games are neither ethical or unethical, since they lack agency or the capacity for reason.

Three-card Monte?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Also, it was also mentioned that even though some things are technically not against the rules, they could be considered unethical. I don't buy that at all. If you play by the rules, then you are playing by the rules. Hence, competing.

If you played in a league where collusion was not explicitly against the rules, would you consider it ethical to collude?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think IE has acknowledged that in recent posts, intimating that he has no clear boundary for when tanking crosses from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", no red line or logically consistent guideline for determining when it's okay and when it's not. IE, as always, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting your recent statements.

No, I'd just add that I don't think that's really a recent development in my stance, I feel like I've acknowledged that all along, at least implicitly. There are some situations where I'd probably be ok with it, and others where I probably wouldn't, but I don't think I've ever really claimed to know precisely where that line is. I think that's a more reasonable position than one where tanking is never ok under any circumstances - just because it's not so easy to define the line, doesn't mean we should assume the stance that no such line exists.

I didn't mean to imply that it was a recent development, only that recent posts had supported my assumption.

I agree that "it's hard and we might not be 100% consistent" is no reason not to do something. I don't oppose all tanking because the position is easier to defend in an intellectually consistent manner. I oppose all tanking because I believe it produces negative externalities for the entire league without any positive offsets, and therefore every instance of tanking makes the league as a whole worse off on the net. The fact that it's easy to defend in an intellectually consistent manner is simply a bonus.