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

[ghostguy123]

Maybe this works. It probably wont, but whatever. I seriously did not want to have to quote something, but F it.

"The true odds are the actual probability for an event to happen".

Key word there is "actual". Guess what, when you manipulate the event (such as seeing more cards) you change the probability. In the card example you gave, all you are doing is introducing a new scenario each time you reveal a card.

But the event already happened. You already chose the card. How could pulling another card change the "actual probability" of an event that already occurred? Whether I pull a card from the 51 remaining, or from an entirely different deck, matters not at all in terms of what the card on the table is. It's already on the table.

Now, what pulling cards from the same deck does is give you more information about the card on the table. It's not the four of spades, it's not the eight of diamonds, and so on. It changes the calculation for the likelihood that the card on the table is an ace. But it doesn't change the "actual probability" of the event as it occurred.

How????? Because that is what "odds" are.

And by these statements, you clearly just do not understand odds, so why keep talking about it?

Are you serious?

 

[ghostguy123]

I feel bad for ghostguy123 because he keeps repeating the same stuff over and over, thinking no one understands it. Part of the problem is probably that he's using words like "factual," "variable," etc. in sloppily-defined ways. So let's see if both he and everyone else can agree that we all understand what he's trying to say:

A: The probability that a single card drawn off a deck of playing cards will be a King is 1/13. This is a "true" probability because it is based on characteristics inherent in the concept of a "deck of playing cards." There are 52 cards and 4 of them are Kings. Simple!

B: The probability that Peyton Manning will score more fantasy football points than Joe Flacco might be estimated to be X%, based on what we know about Peyton Manning, Joe Flacco, fantasy football scoring, etc. But whatever we determine X to be, it's not a "true" probability because there's nothing inherent in Manning or Flacco that dictates what X is; X is impossible to determine precisely because there are too many variables that impact X.

The probabilities determined in A and B are fundamentally different kinds of probability. The former is "real," "true," "actual," etc. and the latter is "fake," "perceived," etc.

Can we all agree that this is effectively what ghostguy has said 500 times (note: I'm not asking if we all agree that his point is correct, simply that we all agree this is the point he's trying to make)?

If so, can we all agree that ghostguy doesn't need to repeat it again?

Rather than giving up, I'd invite him to join everyone else in a more sophisticated discussion about the nature of probability. Are A and B fundamentally different "types" of probability, or do they differ only in their complexity and/or assumptions? I think this is the question some people have been trying to address, and it seems that ghostguy believes that his opinion is so obviously true that the only proof he needs is to just keep repeating it, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.

One is proven, one isn't. Once can be calculated with mathematical certainty (the odds of the outcome, not the outcome itself), one can't.

It doesn't need to get more sophisticated than that.

 

[ghostguy123]

I LIKE having discussions with people who disagree with me.

I like it so much that sometimes I take the opposite side of an argument just because it's a fun and interesting challenge, but more importantly, because it forces me to thoroughly vet my own position.

I realize ghostguy has been fielding questions from multiple people, challenging his points from multiple angles, and I'm sure that has contributed to his frustration, but just speaking for myself, I generally shared his position on tanking (that it's ok in certain situations but not others). I'm not sure, but I might even draw the line in the same place he did (that it's ok to tank if the only way you can make the playoffs is by tanking, and otherwise it's not ok).

But it's a very uncomfortable position, because I realize (and have admitted) that it's largely rooted in gut feeling and I haven't really provided a rational justification for drawing the line there. So most of my questions to ghostguy have been aimed at stripping away the nonsense to see if his position on tanking (i.e. my tentative position) was ultimately a consistent and justifiable one.

Why is tanking ok if it increases your chances at a championship from 0% to x%, but not ok if it increases your chances from x% to y%? Other than simply stating without proof things like, "they're not even remotely close," ghostguy has at times appealed to the notion that the 0% is "real" while x and y are "perceived." Well then, what exactly is the meaningful difference between them? And if they're truly different, of what relevance is the "real" vs. "perceived" distinction to the tanking decision? I'd find it genuinely interesting to hash that kind of stuff out if possible, but I feel like a lot of insightful comments and questions have recently been met with, basically, "they're just different and if you don't see that you're really dumb."

I am not, nor ever was, actually "frustrated". Typed text doesn't show my true emotions. Maybe some people it does, who knows.

And the tanking in the scenario to me was ok because it was your ONLY way to win. All the stats crap that came out after that, not even sure how it came out that I think it's ok because of "true odds". That had nothing to do with my stance of why tanking was ok. My stance, again, was that tanking was ok cause it was your ONLY chance to win. You can argue that means it is because the odds are zero. Whatever, that isnt my argument.

The tanking in the other scenarios isnt bad because the odds are not true. It's bad because tanking is bad...................................except when it's your only chance to win.

Tanking is bad in general. It is a very crappy thing to do. Problem is, when you have to lose in order to make the playoffs, you are no longer in a position of WANT you are in a position of NEED.

 

[CalBear]

Maybe this works. It probably wont, but whatever. I seriously did not want to have to quote something, but F it.

"The true odds are the actual probability for an event to happen".

Key word there is "actual". Guess what, when you manipulate the event (such as seeing more cards) you change the probability. In the card example you gave, all you are doing is introducing a new scenario each time you reveal a card.

But the event already happened. You already chose the card. How could pulling another card change the "actual probability" of an event that already occurred? Whether I pull a card from the 51 remaining, or from an entirely different deck, matters not at all in terms of what the card on the table is. It's already on the table.

Now, what pulling cards from the same deck does is give you more information about the card on the table. It's not the four of spades, it's not the eight of diamonds, and so on. It changes the calculation for the likelihood that the card on the table is an ace. But it doesn't change the "actual probability" of the event as it occurred.

How????? Because that is what "odds" are.

And by these statements, you clearly just do not understand odds, so why keep talking about it?

Are you serious?

I understand odds perfectly well. What I don't understand is this concept you've made up of "actual probability of an event." The actual probability of an event--whether it will happen or not--can't be changed after the fact. Either it happened or it didn't. You can get more information about what happened by turning the card over, or pulling another card from the deck, but you can't change the event.

(If you want to get technical, for quantum-level events the two probabilities both exist as overlapping waveforms until you look at the result. But card games probably don't count.)

I also don't understand why I'm bothering.

 

[davearm]

The tanking in the other scenarios isnt bad because the odds are not true. It's bad because tanking is bad...................................except when it's your only chance to win.

Tanking is bad in general. It is a very crappy thing to do. Problem is, when you have to lose in order to make the playoffs, you are no longer in a position of WANT you are in a position of NEED.

Tanking doesn't stop being bad when it's your only chance to win.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe this works. It probably wont, but whatever. I seriously did not want to have to quote something, but F it.

"The true odds are the actual probability for an event to happen".

Key word there is "actual". Guess what, when you manipulate the event (such as seeing more cards) you change the probability. In the card example you gave, all you are doing is introducing a new scenario each time you reveal a card.

But the event already happened. You already chose the card. How could pulling another card change the "actual probability" of an event that already occurred? Whether I pull a card from the 51 remaining, or from an entirely different deck, matters not at all in terms of what the card on the table is. It's already on the table.

Now, what pulling cards from the same deck does is give you more information about the card on the table. It's not the four of spades, it's not the eight of diamonds, and so on. It changes the calculation for the likelihood that the card on the table is an ace. But it doesn't change the "actual probability" of the event as it occurred.

How????? Because that is what "odds" are.

And by these statements, you clearly just do not understand odds, so why keep talking about it?

Are you serious?

I understand odds perfectly well. What I don't understand is this concept you've made up of "actual probability of an event." The actual probability of an event--whether it will happen or not--can't be changed after the fact. Either it happened or it didn't. You can get more information about what happened by turning the card over, or pulling another card from the deck, but you can't change the event.

(If you want to get technical, for quantum-level events the two probabilities both exist as overlapping waveforms until you look at the result. But card games probably don't count.)

I also don't understand why I'm bothering.

Then we are arguing two different things completely, so no wonder why this went nowhere.

 

[ghostguy123]

The tanking in the other scenarios isnt bad because the odds are not true. It's bad because tanking is bad...................................except when it's your only chance to win.

Tanking is bad in general. It is a very crappy thing to do. Problem is, when you have to lose in order to make the playoffs, you are no longer in a position of WANT you are in a position of NEED.

Tanking doesn't stop being bad when it's your only chance to win.

That is your opinion, hence the purpose of the discussion of tanking with this one specific example.

I disagree with your opinion.

 

[CalBear]

Getting out of the silly probability discussion and back to the ethics discussion:

Tosh Lupoi was a recruiter and defensive line coach at Cal. He was accused, with some justification, of telling his linemen to fake injuries to slow down Oregon's offense. Later, he left Cal for Washington with two weeks to go in the recruiting season, and got two of the star players he'd been trying to get to come to Cal to go to Washington instead.

Those things may not have been against the rules, but they were unethical. And once someone is willing to behave unethically because he thinks he can get away with it, it's not far from there to clear rules violations. I said at the time that Cal was probably better off without Lupoi, because his it seemed like someone who behaved that way was a recruiting violation waiting to happen.

And now he's under investigation for recruiting violations, and I'm sure he's going to get busted for it.

You'll never regret doing the right thing.

 

[ghostguy123]

And to add a bit to what I said a few posts ago. FOrget probability, obviously that convo is a goner.

Another way to see it is "want" vs "need".

When you tank because it is your only way to win, you NEED to tank to win.

When you tank to change your playoff seed, you WANT to tank to win, but you don't NEED to tank to win.

Now, I have stated that I think tanking is acceptable in this situation because it is your only chance to win. My argument ends there. I honestly think that is the only reason I need to be ok with tanking in that situation. However, some of you asked why, and for me to support my stance. Really though, I have absolutely no idea how to support that stance. Does it need supporting? If it is your only chance to win, I view that is support enough.

If you still think tanking in 100% of cases is bad, so be it, we just disagree on that.

The spirit of the game is to win. Not just each game, but win in general like making the playoffs and winning championships. When this can only be done by losing one specific game due to a crazy circumstance, I am fine with it. If the spirit of the game is to win, why on earth would you be trying to lose?? Meaning, why are you trying to end your season by trying to win one specific game, when the bigger picture is to make the playoffs and win the title?

 

[davearm]

The tanking in the other scenarios isnt bad because the odds are not true. It's bad because tanking is bad...................................except when it's your only chance to win.

Tanking is bad in general. It is a very crappy thing to do. Problem is, when you have to lose in order to make the playoffs, you are no longer in a position of WANT you are in a position of NEED.

Tanking doesn't stop being bad when it's your only chance to win.

That is your opinion, hence the purpose of the discussion of tanking with this one specific example.

I disagree with your opinion.

What, specifically, is it about tanking that makes you label it as bad, and a very crappy thing to do? Honestly, stop and think about it for a minute.

Does that quality magically go away in the one situation where you think tanking is OK? Nope. It doesn't. It's still there.

 

[ghostguy123]

Getting out of the silly probability discussion and back to the ethics discussion:

Tosh Lupoi was a recruiter and defensive line coach at Cal. He was accused, with some justification, of telling his linemen to fake injuries to slow down Oregon's offense. Later, he left Cal for Washington with two weeks to go in the recruiting season, and got two of the star players he'd been trying to get to come to Cal to go to Washington instead.

Those things may not have been against the rules, but they were unethical. And once someone is willing to behave unethically because he thinks he can get away with it, it's not far from there to clear rules violations. I said at the time that Cal was probably better off without Lupoi, because his it seemed like someone who behaved that way was a recruiting violation waiting to happen.

And now he's under investigation for recruiting violations, and I'm sure he's going to get busted for it.

You'll never regret doing the right thing.

Doing unethical things is wrong.

I am saying that tanking when it is your only chance to win is NOT unethical.

Tanking is wrong, unless you are put in a position where it is your only chance to win.

Many things that are considered unethical, given certain cirumstance, can be viewed as no longer being unethical.

Is lying unethical?? I would assume you say yes.

Is lying unethical in this scenario....a burglar is in your house with a gun, and he is a know baby killer. YOu have a newborn sleeping upstairs. He asks you if there are any babies in the house and you lie and say no.

Yeah, crazy example, but just an example of something that was unethical, but now became NOT unethical.

 

[ghostguy123]

What, specifically, is it about tanking that makes you label it as bad, and a very crappy thing to do? Honestly, stop and think about it for a minute.

Does that quality magically go away in the one situation where you think tanking is OK? Nope. It doesn't. It's still there.

Yes, it goes away.

In all other examples of tanking there is some ulterior motive. Either to get a better pick, to manipulate the playoffs seeds, to knock someone out of the playoffs on purpose becaue you either dont like them or think their team threatens yours more than another teams, or something else.

I don't see that being remotely similar to tanking when it is your only chance to win. ONLY chance.

 

[davearm]

What, specifically, is it about tanking that makes you label it as bad, and a very crappy thing to do? Honestly, stop and think about it for a minute.

Does that quality magically go away in the one situation where you think tanking is OK? Nope. It doesn't. It's still there.

Yes, it goes away.

In all other examples of tanking there is some ulterior motive. Either to get a better pick, to manipulate the playoffs seeds, to knock someone out of the playoffs on purpose becaue you either dont like them or think their team threatens yours more than another teams, or something else.

I don't see that being remotely similar to tanking when it is your only chance to win. ONLY chance.

If you tank because it is your only shot at the playoffs, you're hurting one or more other team. You're definitely hurting the team whose playoff spot you took, and the ramifications could conceivably impact other teams as well.

Presumably, hurting other teams was the biggest reason tanking was bad in the first place. That component surely has not gone away.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you tank because it is your only shot at the playoffs, you're hurting one or more other team. You're definitely hurting the team whose playoff spot you took, and the ramifications could conceivably impact other teams as well.

Presumably, hurting other teams was the biggest reason tanking was bad in the first place. That component surely has not gone away.

Yes you are hurting another team, but you are doing it because you HAVE to. That is far different than doing it for some other reason.

 

[ghostguy123]

I understand why some people think it is unethical, which is why if you think tanking is bad in every possible scenario, I will just agree to disagree.

But since we are on a discussion forum, what the hell, why not discuss.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In all other examples of tanking there is some ulterior motive. Either to get a better pick, to manipulate the playoffs seeds, to knock someone out of the playoffs on purpose becaue you either dont like them or think their team threatens yours more than another teams, or something else.

Something else, like... to make the playoffs? How is "tanking to make the playoffs" so vastly different than "tanking to get a better draft pick?" Why is one an "ulterior motive" but the other is so noble a goal that it turns an otherwise unethical act into an ethical one?

 

[ghostguy123]

In all other examples of tanking there is some ulterior motive. Either to get a better pick, to manipulate the playoffs seeds, to knock someone out of the playoffs on purpose becaue you either dont like them or think their team threatens yours more than another teams, or something else.

Something else, like... to make the playoffs? How is "tanking to make the playoffs" so vastly different than "tanking to get a better draft pick?" Why is one an "ulterior motive" but the other is so noble a goal that it turns an otherwise unethical act into an ethical one?

Because you play to win, and it's your only chance to win. ONLY chance.

Tanking to get a better pick might help you but it is not your ONLY chance to win.

Again, see my lying example where an unethical act became an ethical one.

 

[davearm]

I understand why some people think it is unethical, which is why if you think tanking is bad in every possible scenario, I will just agree to disagree.

But since we are on a discussion forum, what the hell, why not discuss.

Well at least you see now that the negative externalities haven't conveniently vanished.

Personally I have a hard time saying tanking is OK in some situations but not in others. It seems intellectually and logically inconsistent. I particularly take exception to the fact that it creates a situation where a marginal team that's barely playoff worthy can tank to improve its chances of winning a championship (up from no chance to a small chance), but a much stronger team that's clinched can't also tank to improve its chances of winning a championship.

 

[davearm]

In all other examples of tanking there is some ulterior motive. Either to get a better pick, to manipulate the playoffs seeds, to knock someone out of the playoffs on purpose becaue you either dont like them or think their team threatens yours more than another teams, or something else.

Something else, like... to make the playoffs? How is "tanking to make the playoffs" so vastly different than "tanking to get a better draft pick?" Why is one an "ulterior motive" but the other is so noble a goal that it turns an otherwise unethical act into an ethical one?

Because you play to win, and it's your only chance to win. ONLY chance.

Tanking to get a better pick might help you but it is not your ONLY chance to win.

Again, see my lying example where an unethical act became an ethical one.

If you play to win, then you also have to allow the other guy to tank to secure a bye, or tank to secure a more favorable matchup. They get to play to win too.

 

[ghostguy123]

I understand why some people think it is unethical, which is why if you think tanking is bad in every possible scenario, I will just agree to disagree.

But since we are on a discussion forum, what the hell, why not discuss.

Well at least you see now that the negative externalities haven't conveniently vanished.

Personally I have a hard time saying tanking is OK in some situations but not in others. It seems intellectually and logically inconsistent. I particularly take exception to the fact that it creates a situation where a marginal team that's barely playoff worthy can tank to improve its chances of winning a championship (up from no chance to a small chance), but a much stronger team that's clinched can't also tank to improve its chances of winning a championship.

If you are saying that the same action can not be both ethical and unethical under different cirumstances, then we have something else we disagree on.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you play to win, then you also have to allow the other guy to tank to secure a bye, or tank to secure a more favorable matchup. They get to play to win too.

They already have a chance to win, you wont.

Still waiting for you to answer regarding things that can be ethical or unethical depending on the cirumstances. Are you saying this isn't possible??

 

[ghostguy123]

If you play to win, then you also have to allow the other guy to tank to secure a bye, or tank to secure a more favorable matchup. They get to play to win too.

And again, you are saying this because you view both scenarios to be the same. I do not.

 

[davearm]

I understand why some people think it is unethical, which is why if you think tanking is bad in every possible scenario, I will just agree to disagree.

But since we are on a discussion forum, what the hell, why not discuss.

Well at least you see now that the negative externalities haven't conveniently vanished.

Personally I have a hard time saying tanking is OK in some situations but not in others. It seems intellectually and logically inconsistent. I particularly take exception to the fact that it creates a situation where a marginal team that's barely playoff worthy can tank to improve its chances of winning a championship (up from no chance to a small chance), but a much stronger team that's clinched can't also tank to improve its chances of winning a championship.

If you are saying that the same action can not be both ethical and unethical under different cirumstances, then we have something else we disagree on.

It's splitting hairs, but I would say such an action remains unethical in all circumstances, but may be justified in some. The nature of its ethical-ness isn't changing.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's splitting hairs, but I would say such an action remains unethical in all circumstances, but may be justified in some. The nature of its ethical-ness isn't changing.

Justified as in..............no longer unethical. Correct. Which is how I view this scenario.

 

[davearm]

If you play to win, then you also have to allow the other guy to tank to secure a bye, or tank to secure a more favorable matchup. They get to play to win too.

They already have a chance to win, you wont.

Still waiting for you to answer regarding things that can be ethical or unethical depending on the cirumstances. Are you saying this isn't possible??

Typing and thinking as fast as I can here bud. Relax, we'll get through this

 

[Ernol]

In the anomaly situation I described above, I chose not to tank. Still, as a prominent high stakes redraft and dynasty player posted on another message board “It's not tanking to gain an advantage later, it's tanking TO WIN NOW. That seems different to me.”

The way I see it, winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs (i.e., you’re out, finished, done). Losing the game means you “win” (i.e., you made the playoffs, the #1 goal for every team). It is tanking to win now, not to gain an advantage later. I don't find that to be unethical or against the spirit of competitive fantasy football absent a rule against it.

This is different than the scenario of tanking to get a different opponent. You are not avoiding an imminent loss (e.g., not making the playoffs), you are setting up perhaps an advantage later. In the process, you are selecting your opponent and selecting which of two third party teams makes the playoffs and which of the two goes home (which doesn't seem right, to me). Seems to me that being able to choose one team over another (e.g., one that happens to be a friend), also creates the potential for collusion (or the appearance of collusion) in the guise of setting up the “better” matchup.

Tanking for a better draft slot is also different as it is tanking to gain an advantage later, not a situation where you are avoiding an imminent knock out loss by “winning”. That seems different to me as well.

 

[ghostguy123]

Careful big E, your excellent description of "win now" might get viewed as "only", which become a scenario of percentages, which system 1 won't differentiate from tanking to alter you perception of your chances, which means your thoughts are illogical and unethical.

But good post. Very similar to when I said any other reason to tank is some unethical ulterior motive.

Then again, stats and ethics should just get thrown out of the discussion, and maybe we just use right and wrong. I do not think tanking is
wrong in that situation.

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

 

[Adam Harstad]

In the anomaly situation I described above, I chose not to tank. Still, as a prominent high stakes redraft and dynasty player posted on another message board “It's not tanking to gain an advantage later, it's tanking TO WIN NOW. That seems different to me.”

The way I see it, winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs (i.e., you’re out, finished, done). Losing the game means you “win” (i.e., you made the playoffs, the #1 goal for every team). It is tanking to win now, not to gain an advantage later. I don't find that to be unethical or against the spirit of competitive fantasy football absent a rule against it.

This is different than the scenario of tanking to get a different opponent. You are not avoiding an imminent loss (e.g., not making the playoffs), you are setting up perhaps an advantage later. In the process, you are selecting your opponent and selecting which of two third party teams makes the playoffs and which of the two goes home (which doesn't seem right, to me). Seems to me that being able to choose one team over another (e.g., one that happens to be a friend), also creates the potential for collusion (or the appearance of collusion) in the guise of setting up the “better” matchup.

Tanking for a better draft slot is also different as it is tanking to gain an advantage later, not a situation where you are avoiding an imminent knock out loss by “winning”. That seems different to me as well.

I'm curious why you opted not to tank when faced with that situation.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Careful big E, your excellent description of "win now" might get viewed as "only", which become a scenario of percentages, which system 1 won't differentiate from tanking to alter you perception of your chances, which means your thoughts are illogical and unethical.

But good post. Very similar to when I said any other reason to tank is some unethical ulterior motive.

Then again, stats and ethics should just get thrown out of the discussion, and maybe we just use right and wrong. I do not think tanking is

wrong in that situation.

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

You really feel that making the playoffs is the primary goal in fantasy football? It's not just the first step towards the primary goal? I've never heard anyone say that before.

If you were in 1,000 leagues, and you could choose between making the playoffs in 500 of them but not winning a single championship, or only making the playoffs in 450 of them but winning 300 championships, would you choose the former? I'm just really curious why simply making the playoffs would be considered the #1 goal in any season.

I mean, I can see the argument that consistently making the playoffs is a better indicator of skill than inconsistently winning the championship, but that doesn't mean that making the playoffs is the goal. Pulling off an audacious bluff is a better indicator of skill in poker than winning a massive pile of money after going all-in pre-flop, but I'm pretty sure the #1 goal in poker is still winning massive piles of money and not being a great bluffer. Being a great bluffer might help you achieve that ultimate goal, but it is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. Similarly, making the playoffs is a means to an end (in this case, a championship), and not an end unto itself.

 

[Warrior]

Maybe this works. It probably wont, but whatever. I seriously did not want to have to quote something, but F it.

"The true odds are the actual probability for an event to happen".

Key word there is "actual". Guess what, when you manipulate the event (such as seeing more cards) you change the probability. In the card example you gave, all you are doing is introducing a new scenario each time you reveal a card.

But the event already happened. You already chose the card. How could pulling another card change the "actual probability" of an event that already occurred? Whether I pull a card from the 51 remaining, or from an entirely different deck, matters not at all in terms of what the card on the table is. It's already on the table.

Now, what pulling cards from the same deck does is give you more information about the card on the table. It's not the four of spades, it's not the eight of diamonds, and so on. It changes the calculation for the likelihood that the card on the table is an ace. But it doesn't change the "actual probability" of the event as it occurred.

How????? Because that is what "odds" are.

And by these statements, you clearly just do not understand odds, so why keep talking about it?

Are you serious?

I understand odds perfectly well. What I don't understand is this concept you've made up of "actual probability of an event." The actual probability of an event--whether it will happen or not--can't be changed after the fact. Either it happened or it didn't. You can get more information about what happened by turning the card over, or pulling another card from the deck, but you can't change the event.

(If you want to get technical, for quantum-level events the two probabilities both exist as overlapping waveforms until you look at the result. But card games probably don't count.)

I also don't understand why I'm bothering.

Are we seriously arguing whether or not Schrodinger's Cat is dead on a fantasy football forum?

 

[Warrior]

Careful big E, your excellent description of "win now" might get viewed as "only", which become a scenario of percentages, which system 1 won't differentiate from tanking to alter you perception of your chances, which means your thoughts are illogical and unethical.

But good post. Very similar to when I said any other reason to tank is some unethical ulterior motive.

Then again, stats and ethics should just get thrown out of the discussion, and maybe we just use right and wrong. I do not think tanking is

wrong in that situation.

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

You really feel that making the playoffs is the primary goal in fantasy football? It's not just the first step towards the primary goal? I've never heard anyone say that before.

If you were in 1,000 leagues, and you could choose between making the playoffs in 500 of them but not winning a single championship, or only making the playoffs in 450 of them but winning 300 championships, would you choose the former? I'm just really curious why simply making the playoffs would be considered the #1 goal in any season.

I mean, I can see the argument that consistently making the playoffs is a better indicator of skill than inconsistently winning the championship, but that doesn't mean that making the playoffs is the goal. Pulling off an audacious bluff is a better indicator of skill in poker than winning a massive pile of money after going all-in pre-flop, but I'm pretty sure the #1 goal in poker is still winning massive piles of money and not being a great bluffer. Being a great bluffer might help you achieve that ultimate goal, but it is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. Similarly, making the playoffs is a means to an end (in this case, a championship), and not an end unto itself.

I see what he's saying here and how the "end game" is making the playoffs. I feel the same way. The sample set within the playoffs is so small that there's no use in stressing out about the results, assuming you're ffootball over a period of many years. Once in the playoffs, I sit back, relax, and leave the rest up to chance.

That's basically how I treat my leagues. I fight and claw throughout the regular season with my goal being to make it into the playoffs. I made the playoffs in 7 of my 8 competitive $ leageus this season. After that point, there's not much for me to stress about. It's one and done and there's a lot of luck that goes into a single week's matchup. A kicker could easily knock me out of the playoffs, that's just how it goes with H2H. So I only stress about the regular season and making sure that I give my team a shot at the title. Once the playoffs start, I watch the coins flip and don't feel too bad if they land in the other team's favor. In the end, over the long run, I'll win most of my playoff games because my teams are generally better than my opponents.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Careful big E, your excellent description of "win now" might get viewed as "only", which become a scenario of percentages, which system 1 won't differentiate from tanking to alter you perception of your chances, which means your thoughts are illogical and unethical.

But good post. Very similar to when I said any other reason to tank is some unethical ulterior motive.

Then again, stats and ethics should just get thrown out of the discussion, and maybe we just use right and wrong. I do not think tanking is

wrong in that situation.

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

You really feel that making the playoffs is the primary goal in fantasy football? It's not just the first step towards the primary goal? I've never heard anyone say that before.

If you were in 1,000 leagues, and you could choose between making the playoffs in 500 of them but not winning a single championship, or only making the playoffs in 450 of them but winning 300 championships, would you choose the former? I'm just really curious why simply making the playoffs would be considered the #1 goal in any season.

I mean, I can see the argument that consistently making the playoffs is a better indicator of skill than inconsistently winning the championship, but that doesn't mean that making the playoffs is the goal. Pulling off an audacious bluff is a better indicator of skill in poker than winning a massive pile of money after going all-in pre-flop, but I'm pretty sure the #1 goal in poker is still winning massive piles of money and not being a great bluffer. Being a great bluffer might help you achieve that ultimate goal, but it is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. Similarly, making the playoffs is a means to an end (in this case, a championship), and not an end unto itself.

I think he's trying to say that your "end game" is making the playoffs. After that point, the sample set within the playoffs is so small that you can just sit back, relax, and leave the rest up to chance.

That's basically how I treat my leagues. I fight and claw throughout the regular season with my goal being to make it into the playoffs. I made the playoffs in 7 of my 8 competitive $ leageus this season. After that point, there's not much for me to stress about. It's one and done and there's a lot of luck that goes into a single week's matchup. A kicker could easily knock me out of the playoffs, that's just how it goes with H2H. So I only stress about the regular season and making sure that I give my team a shot at the title. Once the playoffs start, I watch the coins flip and don't feel too bad if they land in the other team's favor. In the end, over the long run, I'll win most of my playoff games because my teams are generally better than my opponents.

Right, which is why I understand people who think making the playoffs is the best measure of owner skill. Still, at the end of the day, the goal is to win a championship, right? If you asked anyone before the season "in your wildest dreams, what do you most want to happen this year", how many people would say "I want to win a championship", vs. how many would say "I want to make the playoffs"?

 

[ghostguy123]

I'm curious why you opted not to tank when faced with that situation.

I can only guess he didn't tank because at the time it probably wasn't something that had been thought about or discussed much.

 

[ghostguy123]

Careful big E, your excellent description of "win now" might get viewed as "only", which become a scenario of percentages, which system 1 won't differentiate from tanking to alter you perception of your chances, which means your thoughts are illogical and unethical.

But good post. Very similar to when I said any other reason to tank is some unethical ulterior motive.

Then again, stats and ethics should just get thrown out of the discussion, and maybe we just use right and wrong. I do not think tanking is

wrong in that situation.

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

You really feel that making the playoffs is the primary goal in fantasy football? It's not just the first step towards the primary goal? I've never heard anyone say that before.

If you were in 1,000 leagues, and you could choose between making the playoffs in 500 of them but not winning a single championship, or only making the playoffs in 450 of them but winning 300 championships, would you choose the former? I'm just really curious why simply making the playoffs would be considered the #1 goal in any season.

I mean, I can see the argument that consistently making the playoffs is a better indicator of skill than inconsistently winning the championship, but that doesn't mean that making the playoffs is the goal. Pulling off an audacious bluff is a better indicator of skill in poker than winning a massive pile of money after going all-in pre-flop, but I'm pretty sure the #1 goal in poker is still winning massive piles of money and not being a great bluffer. Being a great bluffer might help you achieve that ultimate goal, but it is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. Similarly, making the playoffs is a means to an end (in this case, a championship), and not an end unto itself.

Kind of a dumb question with a pretty obvious answer. Unfortunately, I am not a sooth sayer and can't see the future.

I never said I expect anyone to adopt this thought process. Hell, I don't even adopt this thought process in all my leagues.

This is for dynasty of course. My goal isnt to make the playoffs. My goal isnt to win the title. My goal is to make the playoffs every year.

Back to the actual issue at hand instead of these thought processes of goals that nobody will agree on, if my goal is to make the playoffs every year, and that goal is about to be shattered, I am going to do what I can in order to not let that happen. If it means tanking to make the playoffs, thats the course of action (barring strict rules against it of course).

And based on everything else I have said about it, and also what Ernol and his buddy said about it, that is more than enough reason for me to view tanking as acceptable there.

 

[ghostguy123]

Right, which is why I understand people who think making the playoffs is the best measure of owner skill. Still, at the end of the day, the goal is to win a championship, right? If you asked anyone before the season "in your wildest dreams, what do you most want to happen this year", how many people would say "I want to win a championship", vs. how many would say "I want to make the playoffs"?

Week 1 my goal is to make the playoffs.

When I am actually in the playoffs, my goal is to win the championship.

They are two different seasons. Regular, and post. You can't win the title in the regular season, and you can't win the title unless you make the playoffs.

And if some ridiculous and almost unheard of situation presents itself where you HAVE to lose one game to make the playoffs, then (barring that specific rule against it of course) not only would i tank, I would expect anyone else in that situation to tank, and I feel there is nothing at all wrong with it. In any other situation I can think of, it's a no no, because in no other situation would tanking provide you with your ONLY chance to win.

But Adam, even based on your "my goal is to win the championship".............how can you win the championship if you purposely knock yourself out of the playoffs by winning one game due to a crazy circumstance??

 

[Ernol]

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

Sorry, winning a championship vs making the playoffs was not a distinction I was intending to make. I was intending to compare winning a Week 13 game vs making or not making the playoffs. Making the playoffs in that comparison is the real goal of each player, not winning that last game. The debate on winning a championship vs making the playoffs is a different topic entirely.

 

[davearm]

Kind of a dumb question with a pretty obvious answer. Unfortunately, I am not a sooth sayer and can't see the future.

I never said I expect anyone to adopt this thought process. Hell, I don't even adopt this thought process in all my leagues.

This is for dynasty of course. My goal isnt to make the playoffs. My goal isnt to win the title. My goal is to make the playoffs every year.

Back to the actual issue at hand instead of these thought processes of goals that nobody will agree on, if my goal is to make the playoffs every year, and that goal is about to be shattered, I am going to do what I can in order to not let that happen. If it means tanking to make the playoffs, thats the course of action (barring strict rules against it of course).

And based on everything else I have said about it, and also what Ernol and his buddy said about it, that is more than enough reason for me to view tanking as acceptable there.

If you missed the playoffs last year, would you tank if it was your only chance to make this year's playoffs?

Your goal of making the playoffs every year has already been shattered..

 

[ghostguy123]

Also something you mentioned. The #1 goal is to make the playoffs. I agree that is the #1 goal, not winning a championship. It's a concept that you and I have discussed before, and hopefully don't have to discuss too much here. If someone disagrees and says no, their number 1 goal is to win the title, I will just concede now and agree to disagree on that philosophy, otherwise I feel another stats discussion coming on. We don't want that, do we?

Sorry, winning a championship vs making the playoffs was not a distinction I was intending to make. I was intending to compare winning a Week 13 game vs making or not making the playoffs. Making the playoffs in that comparison is the real goal of each player, not winning that last game. The debate on winning a championship vs making the playoffs is a different topic entirely.

#1 goal as in #1 regular season goal. I know what you mean though. Really the idea of it doesn't even need to be discussed for the purposes of tanking in week 13 if it's the only way you can advance.

As for playoffs vs title. One has to come first. I guess I set more attainable goals than most, and then set a new goal after attaining the first goal.

But as for the #1 goal being to win the title, well, good luck doing that when a win in week 13 kills that dream.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you missed the playoffs last year, would you tank if it was your only chance to make this year's playoffs?

Your goal of making the playoffs every year has already been shattered..

Huh?? yes. The goal is still the same. Make the playoffs every year (did I reallly need to use the phrase "moving forward"?? Just figured that was understood)

I mean, you are obviously just using idiotic questions and comments at this point on just about everything. Give it up. You dont like tanking in any situation. We got it. Maybe provide a reason why instead of stupid posts like this.

Not to mention, does a yearly goal not have any distinction froma dynasty goal?? Lord

 

[Ernol]

In the anomaly situation I described above, I chose not to tank. Still, as a prominent high stakes redraft and dynasty player posted on another message board “It's not tanking to gain an advantage later, it's tanking TO WIN NOW. That seems different to me.”

The way I see it, winning the game knocks you out of the playoffs (i.e., you’re out, finished, done). Losing the game means you “win” (i.e., you made the playoffs, the #1 goal for every team). It is tanking to win now, not to gain an advantage later. I don't find that to be unethical or against the spirit of competitive fantasy football absent a rule against it.

This is different than the scenario of tanking to get a different opponent. You are not avoiding an imminent loss (e.g., not making the playoffs), you are setting up perhaps an advantage later. In the process, you are selecting your opponent and selecting which of two third party teams makes the playoffs and which of the two goes home (which doesn't seem right, to me). Seems to me that being able to choose one team over another (e.g., one that happens to be a friend), also creates the potential for collusion (or the appearance of collusion) in the guise of setting up the “better” matchup.

Tanking for a better draft slot is also different as it is tanking to gain an advantage later, not a situation where you are avoiding an imminent knock out loss by “winning”. That seems different to me as well.

I'm curious why you opted not to tank when faced with that situation.

Oh, I thought about it and could see it coming the last few weeks. At the end of the day, while not unethical in my mind, I would have felt bad if the other guy missed the playoffs because of some flukey situation totally under my own control (i.e., tanking to make the playoffs).

Turns out, I'd be leading in a 4-team 3-week points playoff for the championship (for $1,500) and #4 overall in an exciting 48-team 3-week playoff for the $5,000 grand prize…had I made the playoffs. :( At least I am leading the 96-team consolation playoffs for for a free entry next year worth $299 (yippee!).

 

[davearm]

If you missed the playoffs last year, would you tank if it was your only chance to make this year's playoffs?

Your goal of making the playoffs every year has already been shattered..

Huh?? yes. The goal is still the same. Make the playoffs every year (did I reallly need to use the phrase "moving forward"?? Just figured that was understood)

It was understood until you said "My goal isnt to make the playoffs" Then it was less understood.

Your goal really is to make the playoffs, I think.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you missed the playoffs last year, would you tank if it was your only chance to make this year's playoffs?

Your goal of making the playoffs every year has already been shattered..

Huh?? yes. The goal is still the same. Make the playoffs every year (did I reallly need to use the phrase "moving forward"?? Just figured that was understood)

It was understood until you said "My goal isnt to make the playoffs" Then it was less understood.

Your goal really is to make the playoffs, I think.

I am quite sure if you actually highlighted the entire thing I said, it would be understood by anyone else (but you) that the part you bolded simply was not the completed sentence of what my goal is.

At some point here, can you please please PLEASE say something useful to try an make some sort of point?

 

[ghostguy123]

Shoot me now. My regular season goal is to make the playoffs. I go into the season thinking playoffs, not championship. I must me on crack.

Quick everyone, show of hands.............how many of you have won a title without making the playoffs??

 

[Bamac]

Hypo:

You're in a league with a $5K buy in, and your only chance to make the playoffs is to lose W13. Do you tank? Is it ethical? (No rule on the subject is in the bylaws.)

ETA: I'm addressing this question mostly to the anti-tanking crowd.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yep, and I don't think its unethical.

 

[ghostguy123]

And as for your hypo:

Even if there WAS a rule that said "Tanking is not allowed"

I would still tank, and while I was doing it I would tell the commish I was tanking and explain why, and leave that up to a commissioner's ruling.

As I said before in other posts, I have never seen a no tanking rule say anything that talks about tanking to win (as in, advance)

 

[Bamac]

And as for your hypo:

Even if there WAS a rule that said "Tanking is not allowed"

I would still tank, and while I was doing it I would tell the commish I was tanking and explain why, and leave that up to a commissioner's ruling.

As I said before in other posts, I have never seen a no tanking rule say anything that talks about tanking to win (as in, advance)

What if the rule said "intentionally losing a game is not allowed under any circumstances"?By the way, before you call me an ignorant MORON, know that I'm trying to present a principled justification for tanking in some cases.

 

[ghostguy123]

And as for your hypo:

Even if there WAS a rule that said "Tanking is not allowed"

I would still tank, and while I was doing it I would tell the commish I was tanking and explain why, and leave that up to a commissioner's ruling.

As I said before in other posts, I have never seen a no tanking rule say anything that talks about tanking to win (as in, advance)

What if the rule said "intentionally losing a game is not allowed under any circumstances"?By the way, before you call me an ignorant MORON, know that I'm trying to present a principled justification for tanking in some cases.

Why would I call you an igorant moron for asking perfectly good hypothetica questions??

If the rule said this, I would STILL go to the commish and explain the scenario. If he says I cant tank, then I cant tank. Even though the rule said under any circumstances, I would assume this particul circumstance was not something to be anticipated. Might cause a rule change.

I know I would spend more time on my other leagues though, so would I be putting out the best possible lineup?? Maybe, maybe not. It would still be a competitive lineup, but sometimes I do a lot of research on a guy to see if I should go with a sleeper. I doubt I would do that in that situation.

I woud also tell this to the commish, and whatever team woud benefit from me winning the game is welcome to tell me to make any linuep changes. This actually ahppens in FFPC losers brackets when you have control over other people's draft picks.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Why would I call you an igorant moron for asking perfectly good hypothetica questions??

Perhaps because you pretty much did that multiple times earlier in the thread?

 

[davearm]

Perhaps because I just asked a perfectly good hypothetical question in response to the following statement:

My goal isnt to make the playoffs. My goal isnt to win the title. My goal is to make the playoffs every year.

Seemed reasonable to me to try and sort out what you meant there by using a hypothetical. But we know what happened next, now don't we? Your failure to communicate effectively quickly became my problem, followed by a string of ad hominem attacks.

My favorite was this one:

I mean, you are obviously just using idiotic questions and comments at this point on just about everything. Give it up. You dont like tanking in any situation. We got it. Maybe provide a reason why instead of stupid posts like this.

It's my favorite because I'm in favor of allowing tanking in basically all situations.