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

[Adam Harstad]

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.

I don't oppose it because it alters the balance of power, although I understand how the quote you are replying to could read that way. I oppose it because it alters the fundamental nature of the competition. Two teams enter the season with the assumption that they will have to compete for a playoff spot by facing 13 teams who are trying to win. Instead, one team has to face 13 teams trying to win, the other team has to face 12 teams trying to win and 1 team trying to lose. The nature of the competition has been altered, and the competitive landscape has shifted.

I don't oppose all things that alter the competitive landscape as a matter of course, but my default is to oppose them, and in order for me to overrule my default, there must be some net benefit to the league as a whole. Tanking provides no such net benefit.

As an example of a change to the competitive landscape that I would be in favor of... if the league's teams all unanimously approve of a rule change that goes into effect during the middle of the season, then that changes the nature of the competition, but also provides a net positive benefit for every team (or else the 12 teams wouldn't have unanimously approved it). So sure, in this case, feel free to alter the nature of the competition halfway through the year. And if the entire league votes to approve tanking (or if the entire league approves a voting system whereby rules can be created or changed without unanimous approval, and support for tanking meets the pre-decided level of approval), then sure, tank to your heart's content, and good on you for doing so.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

 

[richtown]

The guy in my league is not trying to lose. He is out of it and doesn't care that it effects me.

He had Terrell Pryor and Tolzien for QBs. And no one viable to play.

Should the commissioner place a player on his team for this final week?

He did and the opponent of that team is not happy.

Was it the right call?

 

[jackdubl]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

This goes right along with my answer that the fantasy gods don't like tanking. My assumptions have been wrong so often i.I gave up on this sort of predicting.

 

[CalBear]

The guy in my league is not trying to lose. He is out of it and doesn't care that it effects me.

He had Terrell Pryor and Tolzien for QBs. And no one viable to play.

Should the commissioner place a player on his team for this final week?

He did and the opponent of that team is not happy.

Was it the right call?

I don't think it's right for the commish to do that unless there's pretty strong precedent. Pryor even played this week.

 

[davearm]

The guy in my league is not trying to lose. He is out of it and doesn't care that it effects me.

He had Terrell Pryor and Tolzien for QBs. And no one viable to play.

Should the commissioner place a player on his team for this final week?

He did and the opponent of that team is not happy.

Was it the right call?

Some leagues lock rosters once a team is eliminated. If this is the rule in this league, then the guy's gotta make do with Pryor or Tolzien.

If rosters are not locked, then the guy should pick up a guy off the WW and start him, if he expects the WW guy will outscore Pryor and Tolzien.

The Commissioner had better not be in the business of picking players for other teams' rosters.

And shame on the guy for checking out once he was eliminated, if that is what has happened.

 

[ghostguy123]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

This goes right along with my answer that the fantasy gods don't like tanking. My assumptions have been wrong so often i.I gave up on this sort of predicting.

ANd pretty much the classic example of why tanking is bad, and talking about "improved odds" is pointless, because they are total made up odds.

Now, tanking when it is the only way your team can make the playoffs.............whole different story. The fantasy Gods can't really hurt you here, considering if you win the game you miss the playoffs. What are those Gods gonna do, bounce you week 1?? A playoff loss in the first round, as much as it sucks, is better than not making them at all.

 

[ghostguy123]

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?

Ummm, yes. But not nearly as much when it is fantasy football and everyone is playing to win in competitive leagues. I guess you would have to give me an example, and I would tell you what I think. Obviously not this tanking example since it has been beaten to death pretty much.

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

No, not what I am talking about at all. Not remotely at all. For one, this 5% thing is completely and totally made up odds. Let's clear that up.

And as I said 100 times, these two situations are not in the same ballpark. Tanking a game to "theoretically" improve you odds at the championship is not remottely the same as tanking a game when the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is by losing your game.

Do both improve your odds?? Yes, but that is only a very very small part of the bigger picture of what is happening when you can only make the playoffs with a loss.

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

Those odds you are referring to apply in theory. They are not real/actual odds.

In the instance of needing a loss to make the playoffs, those are no longer odds. It has become either a certainty you are in, or a certainto you are not.

Again, if you are of the position that tanking is bad in all cases, fine. I can completely see that side, I just disagree in this one and only situation.

I also disagree that this situation can be compared in the slightest to anything else you have discussed regarding odds of winning a title.

 

[ghostguy123]

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?

So you are basically saying if I played in a league that had no rules at all?? I have never played in a league with no rules.

Collusion is a whole different thing anyway, and obviously collusion is not good in any capacity. I wouldnt play in a league that didnt have rules against collusion.

 

[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?

Ummm, yes. But not nearly as much when it is fantasy football and everyone is playing to win in competitive leagues. I guess you would have to give me an example, and I would tell you what I think. Obviously not this tanking example since it has been beaten to death pretty much.

There's not really a range of difference between "legal" and "ethical" (i.e. the difference between legality and ethicality isn't "less" in fantasy football than it is in other walks of life).

You don't need an example, I'm asking if you understand the difference between those two concepts. When you (and others) make statements implying that something isn't unethical if it's not against the rules, it appears that you don't understand the difference.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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?

So you are basically saying if I played in a league that had no rules at all??

That's not at all what he said. Read it again.

Collusion is a whole different thing anyway, and obviously collusion is not good in any capacity.

That's not obvious, that's the kind of thing you need to demonstrate, it's what this discussion is all about. The anti-tanker could say with conviction, "Obviously tanking is not good in any capacity." But you don't agree with that, because you think tanking is ok in some situations.

I wouldnt play in a league that didnt have rules against collusion.

That doesn't seem relevant to the point. If you were in a league that didn't have rules explicitly forbidding collusion, would it be ethical to collude?

 

[davearm]

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.

No, not what I am talking about at all. Not remotely at all. For one, this 5% thing is completely and totally made up odds. Let's clear that up.

And as I said 100 times, these two situations are not in the same ballpark. Tanking a game to "theoretically" improve you odds at the championship is not remottely the same as tanking a game when the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is by losing your game.

Do both improve your odds?? Yes, but that is only a very very small part of the bigger picture of what is happening when you can only make the playoffs with a loss.

You can deny it all you'd like, and say these two situations are not in the same ballpark another 100 times, but the implications of your position are exactly what I spelled out.

Does the mediocre team have the right to improve its championship odds? Yes, they're allowed to tank.

Does the stronger team have the right to improve its championship odds? No, they're not allowed to tank.

There's no escaping the fact that you're either penalizing the second team for being too strong, or rewarding the first team for being mediocre.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

This goes right along with my answer that the fantasy gods don't like tanking. My assumptions have been wrong so often i.I gave up on this sort of predicting.

ANd pretty much the classic example of why tanking is bad, and talking about "improved odds" is pointless, because they are total made up odds.

Now, tanking when it is the only way your team can make the playoffs.............whole different story. The fantasy Gods can't really hurt you here, considering if you win the game you miss the playoffs. What are those Gods gonna do, bounce you week 1?? A playoff loss in the first round, as much as it sucks, is better than not making them at all.

The concept of odds is not that anything is a sure thing. It's all shades of likelihood. You can tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30% and still lose. In fact, if you tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30%, you probably WILL still lose. That's what 30% odds mean- they mean you're more than twice as likely to lose as you are to win.

Someone could say to you "right now, instead of playing the games, I'm just going to roll a die and flip a coin. If the die comes up 5 or 6, you advance regardless of what the coin says. Alternately, if you tank this week, then if the coin comes up heads, you advance regardless of what the die says". Now, tanking improves your odds of advancing from 33% to 50%, but it's still entirely possible for the die to come up 5+ and the coin to come up tails, in which case you would have advanced if you hadn't tanked, but since you tanked you wound up going home. In fact, not only is it possible, there's a 1-in-6 chance that that's exactly what will happen. This does not mean that tanking didn't improve your odds. That'd be like saying "man, playing my pocket aces was a dumb thing to do because the other guy wound up hitting his inside straight draw on the river." You're going to go broke pretty quickly if you keep relying on outcome-centric thinking like that rather than evaluating the processes on their own merits.

The fact is that we can judge relative team quality, especially in extreme instances. The fact is that higher-quality teams tend to outscore lower-quality teams, so manipulating matchups to face a lower-quality team instead of a higher-quality team does improve your odds of advancing. It doesn't guarantee anything. I've mentioned a 5% improvement in championship odds, which means if you tanked in 20 leagues, you'd only win one more championship as a result of tanking.

There's no question that tanking can possibly improve championship odds. There's also no question that a 5% improvement is a 5% improvement, even if that same 5% looks a lot bigger when going from 0% to 5% than it does when going from 25% to 30%.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Those odds you are referring to apply in theory. They are not real/actual odds.

In the instance of needing a loss to make the playoffs, those are no longer odds. It has become either a certainty you are in, or a certainto you are not.

Again, if you are of the position that tanking is bad in all cases, fine. I can completely see that side, I just disagree in this one and only situation.

I also disagree that this situation can be compared in the slightest to anything else you have discussed regarding odds of winning a title.

All odds apply only in theory. There is no such thing as "real/actual odds", at least not in the manner that you're describing. Probability is a complete myth. At the moment I flip a coin, there's not a 50/50 chance of it coming up heads. Based on the direction and velocity of my flip, plus the ambient temperature and air resistance and wind speed and the condition of the surface on which it is landing and a million other variables, it is already predetermined whether the coin will come up heads or tails. If I flipped the same coin in EXACTLY the same way in EXACTLY the same circumstances, that coin would come up the same way every single time. In that respect, there's no probability involved- the manner in which I flipped the coin guaranteed the result. We use probability because we cannot measure and account for all of the variables. We know that, ex post, over a long enough timeline, we will approach a 50/50 distribution of heads and tails with a fair coin. We use that knowledge to estimate our odds of getting either result, ex ante, to be 50%. Those aren't real odds, though, they're estimates we use ahead of time to compensate for our imperfect knowledge.

Similarly, each team is going to score what it's going to score in week 14. Peyton Manning is not going to score more or less fantasy points based on whether you started him or benched him. Drew Brees won't score more points based on whether he's facing your team or someone else's team. That coin's already been flipped, we're just calling it in the air. The scores are predetermined independent of any decision that we make, and the best we can do is try to use our existing information to estimate what those scores might be, or "calculate the odds". The odds are entirely a human creation rather than an intrinsic part of the contest. In reality, the odds of you winning a week are either 100% or 0%- either you win or you don't. Over a long enough timeline, though, we should expect the number of wins to approach the number predicted by our calculated odds (provided we're calculating the odds well, of course). We're using that ex post knowledge to make ex ante predictions. That's why two different people might see the same contest and calculate different odds- they're using different heuristics, assigning different weights to variables, valuing different indicators. And in truth, neither oddsmaker is "right". All they can hope for is to achieve better ex post accuracy.

So yes, odds are a myth, but they're a myth in every other walk of life, and people don't seem to mind. Your odds in poker are all a myth- that next card already is what it is. You can calculate that there's a 19% chance that it'll get you the win, but the card is already set, so in reality there's either a 100% chance it gets you the win or a 0% chance it gets you the win. You don't hear poker players complaining about the odds being a myth every time they get a bad beat, though.

As for your contention that in this specific instance, tanking is about the CERTAINTY of making the playoffs or the CERTAINTY of missing the playoffs... that's the bias I'm talking about where people prefer changes in odds that result in either 0% or 100% as an endpoint (i.e. they're biased towards certainty). Again, this is a bias. It might seem like a meaningful distinction to you, but what is the point of fantasy leagues? Is it making the playoffs? Is it staving off elimination as long as is humanly possible? Or is the point to win championships? Because assuming the latter, making the playoffs is just another arbitrary step towards that goal. Getting eliminated in week 13 is no different than getting eliminated in week 14 or week 15. So the CERTAINTY of making it to week 14 is pretty irrelevant when the goal is to get a win in week 16. A 5% increase in your chances of winning week 16 is a 5% increase, regardless of the form it takes.

 

[hines]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

This goes right along with my answer that the fantasy gods don't like tanking. My assumptions have been wrong so often i.I gave up on this sort of predicting.

ANd pretty much the classic example of why tanking is bad, and talking about "improved odds" is pointless, because they are total made up odds.

Now, tanking when it is the only way your team can make the playoffs.............whole different story. The fantasy Gods can't really hurt you here, considering if you win the game you miss the playoffs. What are those Gods gonna do, bounce you week 1?? A playoff loss in the first round, as much as it sucks, is better than not making them at all.

The concept of odds is not that anything is a sure thing. It's all shades of likelihood. You can tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30% and still lose. In fact, if you tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30%, you probably WILL still lose. That's what 30% odds mean- they mean you're more than twice as likely to lose as you are to win.

Someone could say to you "right now, instead of playing the games, I'm just going to roll a die and flip a coin. If the die comes up 5 or 6, you advance regardless of what the coin says. Alternately, if you tank this week, then if the coin comes up heads, you advance regardless of what the die says". Now, tanking improves your odds of advancing from 33% to 50%, but it's still entirely possible for the die to come up 5+ and the coin to come up tails, in which case you would have advanced if you hadn't tanked, but since you tanked you wound up going home. In fact, not only is it possible, there's a 1-in-6 chance that that's exactly what will happen. This does not mean that tanking didn't improve your odds. That'd be like saying "man, playing my pocket aces was a dumb thing to do because the other guy wound up hitting his inside straight draw on the river." You're going to go broke pretty quickly if you keep relying on outcome-centric thinking like that rather than evaluating the processes on their own merits.

The fact is that we can judge relative team quality, especially in extreme instances. The fact is that higher-quality teams tend to outscore lower-quality teams, so manipulating matchups to face a lower-quality team instead of a higher-quality team does improve your odds of advancing. It doesn't guarantee anything. I've mentioned a 5% improvement in championship odds, which means if you tanked in 20 leagues, you'd only win one more championship as a result of tanking.

There's no question that tanking can possibly improve championship odds. There's also no question that a 5% improvement is a 5% improvement, even if that same 5% looks a lot bigger when going from 0% to 5% than it does when going from 25% to 30%.

tl:dr, tanking can improve your odds a little bit

 

[ghostguy123]

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?

Ummm, yes. But not nearly as much when it is fantasy football and everyone is playing to win in competitive leagues. I guess you would have to give me an example, and I would tell you what I think. Obviously not this tanking example since it has been beaten to death pretty much.

There's not really a range of difference between "legal" and "ethical" (i.e. the difference between legality and ethicality isn't "less" in fantasy football than it is in other walks of life).

You don't need an example, I'm asking if you understand the difference between those two concepts. When you (and others) make statements implying that something isn't unethical if it's not against the rules, it appears that you don't understand the difference.

I would say its more than I likely disagree whether something might be ethical or not in the context if fantasy football, and probably many other games involving competition.

I mean, you make it sound like it would be unethical for a WR to know he didn't make the catch, but pretend that he did. Is that what you are saying?? THAT is unethical??

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

No, not what I am talking about at all. Not remotely at all. For one, this 5% thing is completely and totally made up odds. Let's clear that up.

And as I said 100 times, these two situations are not in the same ballpark. Tanking a game to "theoretically" improve you odds at the championship is not remottely the same as tanking a game when the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is by losing your game.

Do both improve your odds?? Yes, but that is only a very very small part of the bigger picture of what is happening when you can only make the playoffs with a loss.

You can deny it all you'd like, and say these two situations are not in the same ballpark another 100 times, but the implications of your position are exactly what I spelled out.

Does the mediocre team have the right to improve its championship odds? Yes, they're allowed to tank.

Does the stronger team have the right to improve its championship odds? No, they're not allowed to tank.

There's no escaping the fact that you're either penalizing the second team for being too strong, or rewarding the first team for being mediocre.

Considering the odds for that strong team improving its chances are totally perceived, and are not remotely close to being actual odds, then yes, huge difference.

This isn't a casino with actual odds. However, it is a certainty where odds do not apply when a team must lose in order to make the playoffs.

 

[ghostguy123]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

This goes right along with my answer that the fantasy gods don't like tanking. My assumptions have been wrong so often i.I gave up on this sort of predicting.

ANd pretty much the classic example of why tanking is bad, and talking about "improved odds" is pointless, because they are total made up odds.

Now, tanking when it is the only way your team can make the playoffs.............whole different story. The fantasy Gods can't really hurt you here, considering if you win the game you miss the playoffs. What are those Gods gonna do, bounce you week 1?? A playoff loss in the first round, as much as it sucks, is better than not making them at all.

The concept of odds is not that anything is a sure thing. It's all shades of likelihood. You can tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30% and still lose. In fact, if you tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30%, you probably WILL still lose. That's what 30% odds mean- they mean you're more than twice as likely to lose as you are to win.

Someone could say to you "right now, instead of playing the games, I'm just going to roll a die and flip a coin. If the die comes up 5 or 6, you advance regardless of what the coin says. Alternately, if you tank this week, then if the coin comes up heads, you advance regardless of what the die says". Now, tanking improves your odds of advancing from 33% to 50%, but it's still entirely possible for the die to come up 5+ and the coin to come up tails, in which case you would have advanced if you hadn't tanked, but since you tanked you wound up going home. In fact, not only is it possible, there's a 1-in-6 chance that that's exactly what will happen. This does not mean that tanking didn't improve your odds. That'd be like saying "man, playing my pocket aces was a dumb thing to do because the other guy wound up hitting his inside straight draw on the river." You're going to go broke pretty quickly if you keep relying on outcome-centric thinking like that rather than evaluating the processes on their own merits.

The fact is that we can judge relative team quality, especially in extreme instances. The fact is that higher-quality teams tend to outscore lower-quality teams, so manipulating matchups to face a lower-quality team instead of a higher-quality team does improve your odds of advancing. It doesn't guarantee anything. I've mentioned a 5% improvement in championship odds, which means if you tanked in 20 leagues, you'd only win one more championship as a result of tanking.

There's no question that tanking can possibly improve championship odds. There's also no question that a 5% improvement is a 5% improvement, even if that same 5% looks a lot bigger when going from 0% to 5% than it does when going from 25% to 30%.

Unfortunately you have zero way of proving there is a 5% improvment, since that is a completely made up number to begin with.

 

[CalBear]

Based on the direction and velocity of my flip, plus the ambient temperature and air resistance and wind speed and the condition of the surface on which it is landing and a million other variables, it is already predetermined whether the coin will come up heads or tails. If I flipped the same coin in EXACTLY the same way in EXACTLY the same circumstances, that coin would come up the same way every single time

To be pedantic, the result of a coin flip is influenced by quantum-level events which may be truly random.

 

[ghostguy123]

So yeah, the goal is to win a championship. Can you do that if you purposely win and miss the playoffs?

There is one instance out of a billion scenarios where I say tanking is not only ok, but a must, and a smart move. This scenario is so far removed from all the others that most of what some of you are arguing does not factor in for me.

The example of no actual odds or whateber made so sense, because in the case of tanking to make the playoffs, you KNOW the outcome before the games are even played. In your other example, you do not. Pretty huge difference there.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There's not really a range of difference between "legal" and "ethical" (i.e. the difference between legality and ethicality isn't "less" in fantasy football than it is in other walks of life).

You don't need an example, I'm asking if you understand the difference between those two concepts. When you (and others) make statements implying that something isn't unethical if it's not against the rules, it appears that you don't understand the difference.

I would say its more than I likely disagree whether something might be ethical or not in the context if fantasy football, and probably many other games involving competition.

That doesn't answer the question I asked you.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

in the case of tanking to make the playoffs, you KNOW the outcome before the games are even played. In your other example, you do not. Pretty huge difference there.

As for your contention that in this specific instance, tanking is about the CERTAINTY of making the playoffs or the CERTAINTY of missing the playoffs... that's the bias I'm talking about where people prefer changes in odds that result in either 0% or 100% as an endpoint (i.e. they're biased towards certainty). Again, this is a bias.

Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won (and probably deserved to win) a Nobel prize in economics, is a book well worth reading; I just finished it. Its subject is how the human mind works and, in particular, why we make the predictable mistakes that we do make.

The central insight is that we act as if we had two different mechanisms for making sense of the world around us and deciding what to do. System 1—intuition broadly defined—works automatically and very quickly to recognize a voice over the phone, tell whether a stranger's face is expressing anger, generate conclusions on a wide range of subjects. System 2—conscious thought—takes the conclusions generated by System 1 and either accepts them or rejects them in favor of its own conclusions, generated much more slowly and with greater effort. Attention is a limited resource, so using System 2 to do all the work is not a practical option.

System 1 achieves its speed by applying simple decision rules. Its view of probability, for instance, functions largely by classifying gambles into three categories—impossible, possible, or certain. One result is that an increase in probability within the middle category, say from 50% to 60%, appears less significant than an increase of the same size from 0% to 10% or from 90% to 100%.

That simple fact provides a solution to a very old problem in economics, the lottery-insurance puzzle. If someone is risk averse, he buys insurance, reducing, at some cost, the uncertainty of his future. If someone is risk preferring, he buys lottery tickets, increasing, at some cost, the uncertainty of his future. Why do some people do both?

Kahneman's answer is that insuring against your house burning down converts a very unattractive outcome (your house burns down and you are much worse off as a result) from probability 1% to probability 0%, a small gain in probability but a large gain in category (from possible to impossible). Buying a lottery ticket converts a very attractive outcome (you get a million dollars) from probability 0% to probability .001%, a small gain in probability but a large gain in category (from impossible to possible). Both changes are more attractive, as viewed by System 1, than they would be as viewed by a rational gambler.

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/12/thinking-fast-and-slow.html

 

[ghostguy123]

There's not really a range of difference between "legal" and "ethical" (i.e. the difference between legality and ethicality isn't "less" in fantasy football than it is in other walks of life).

You don't need an example, I'm asking if you understand the difference between those two concepts. When you (and others) make statements implying that something isn't unethical if it's not against the rules, it appears that you don't understand the difference.

I would say its more than I likely disagree whether something might be ethical or not in the context if fantasy football, and probably many other games involving competition.

That doesn't answer the question I asked you.

Do I understand the difference?? Sure. Do you understand that just because you say something is unethical does not make it so?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do I understand the difference?? Sure.

Then why did you say, "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."

Do you understand that just because you say something is unethical does not make it so?

Of course. Have I said anything that would make you believe otherwise?

 

[ghostguy123]

Do I understand the difference?? Sure.

Then why did you say, "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."

Do you understand that just because you say something is unethical does not make it so?

Of course. Have I said anything that would make you believe otherwise?

Probably because I don't agree that some things should be classified as unethical, while some other people so. Got it?

 

[Hoss Style]

Just an update to this thread. I was a proponent of throwing a game if it means giving you a better shot at a title. That's your goal, and you have every right to put your team in the best position to win.

In week 13 I actually did this to keep another team out of the playoffs. If I had won, the other team would simply need to win to make it. If I threw the game, that team would need to win and have a couple other teams lose to make it.

I threw it...and they made it in anyway. But because I changed the seedings, they were my opponent in week 14 instead of the cupcake I wanted to face.

Turns out they put up a dud and the "cupcake" would have waxed me this week. I know nobody cares about individual situations, but it taught me that what I THINK is best for my team could change in a moment's notice. Reggie Bush slipping in the snow, a low hit to Gronkowski, or a number of other things and my strategy looks pretty silly. While things worked out this week, it had nothing to do with my strategy and everything to do with luck. Maybe throwing games isn't the best strategy.

I still think you should do what you feel gets you closer to a title, but maybe it's best not to put too much weight into who you think is the best opponent. Focus on your team and set the best lineup you can. I'm not abandoning the concept of throwing a game, but I am rethinking it. Maybe the "reward" you think you're getting isn't much of a reward.

This goes right along with my answer that the fantasy gods don't like tanking. My assumptions have been wrong so often i.I gave up on this sort of predicting.

ANd pretty much the classic example of why tanking is bad, and talking about "improved odds" is pointless, because they are total made up odds.

Now, tanking when it is the only way your team can make the playoffs.............whole different story. The fantasy Gods can't really hurt you here, considering if you win the game you miss the playoffs. What are those Gods gonna do, bounce you week 1?? A playoff loss in the first round, as much as it sucks, is better than not making them at all.

The concept of odds is not that anything is a sure thing. It's all shades of likelihood. You can tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30% and still lose. In fact, if you tank to improve your odds from 25% to 30%, you probably WILL still lose. That's what 30% odds mean- they mean you're more than twice as likely to lose as you are to win.

Someone could say to you "right now, instead of playing the games, I'm just going to roll a die and flip a coin. If the die comes up 5 or 6, you advance regardless of what the coin says. Alternately, if you tank this week, then if the coin comes up heads, you advance regardless of what the die says". Now, tanking improves your odds of advancing from 33% to 50%, but it's still entirely possible for the die to come up 5+ and the coin to come up tails, in which case you would have advanced if you hadn't tanked, but since you tanked you wound up going home. In fact, not only is it possible, there's a 1-in-6 chance that that's exactly what will happen. This does not mean that tanking didn't improve your odds. That'd be like saying "man, playing my pocket aces was a dumb thing to do because the other guy wound up hitting his inside straight draw on the river." You're going to go broke pretty quickly if you keep relying on outcome-centric thinking like that rather than evaluating the processes on their own merits.

The fact is that we can judge relative team quality, especially in extreme instances. The fact is that higher-quality teams tend to outscore lower-quality teams, so manipulating matchups to face a lower-quality team instead of a higher-quality team does improve your odds of advancing. It doesn't guarantee anything. I've mentioned a 5% improvement in championship odds, which means if you tanked in 20 leagues, you'd only win one more championship as a result of tanking.

There's no question that tanking can possibly improve championship odds. There's also no question that a 5% improvement is a 5% improvement, even if that same 5% looks a lot bigger when going from 0% to 5% than it does when going from 25% to 30%.

tl:dr, tanking can improve your odds a little bit

Whew. That settles it. Glad you stopped by.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do I understand the difference?? Sure.

Then why did you say, "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."

Do you understand that just because you say something is unethical does not make it so?

Of course. Have I said anything that would make you believe otherwise?

Probably because I don't agree that some things should be classified as unethical, while some other people so. Got it?

I already knew that. I'm asking why you implied that tanking is not unethical because it's within the rules. I don't think it's a particularly difficult question, but you've managed to find five different ways of not answering it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Do I understand the difference?? Sure.

Then why did you say, "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."

Do you understand that just because you say something is unethical does not make it so?

Of course. Have I said anything that would make you believe otherwise?

Probably because I don't agree that some things should be classified as unethical, while some other people so. Got it?

I already knew that. I'm asking why you implied that tanking is not unethical because it's within the rules. I don't think it's a particularly difficult question, but you've managed to find five different ways of not answering it.

Because I don't think tanking is unethical in this one and ONLY circumstance when a win gets you eliminated while a loss gets you a playoff berth.

Tanking IS unethical..............just not in that scenario. I can't really explain it much more to you than simply saying I think tanking is not unethical when you HAVE to lose to make the playoffs.

I have already said that 50 times in other posts, so I suppose I was trying to answer what I thought you were asking me, because I have already said this multiple times. It really doesn't have some 500 page answer, it's very simple why I find tanking to be acceptable in that one and only situation.

There are many, many other examples of specific behaviors that would be considered unethical in one situation, while not unethical in another. This fits right in with that. I am not about to sit here and give you 500 examples of what I mean. It's very simple.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I have already said that 50 times in other posts, so I suppose I was trying to answer what I thought you were asking me, because I have already said this multiple times.

Right, I already knew all this.

It really doesn't have some 500 page answer, it's very simple why I find tanking to be acceptable in that one and only situation.

That's not the question I'm asking you.

But it's ok, at this point I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you said this:

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.

you actually meant something different. It's been clear what your position on this issue is, so there's no need to repeat it for a 51st time. I just don't know how to reconcile your position with this quoted statement, other than to assume that you didn't actually mean what it sounds like you're saying here.

 

[ghostguy123]

In this quote "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".

Hard for me not to think by your responses that you reading into that far too much, and far too incorrectly.

Saying "some things" should have cleared it up that I was only talking about...................SOME things, and not making a blanket statement that it is impossible for something to be unethical if it is not against the rules. Not really sure that I am trying to reconcile anything, nor that I need to.

This debate is pretty useless anyway. It's not even a question of whether tanking is bad or not. Some people think tanking is bad in 100% of all curcumstances. I think it is bad in all but one very specific situation. I am more than happy to agree to disagree there. I think it's bad in all but one case, while some (probably most) disagree. So be it. I won't argue against you on that.

What I will argue up and down is that it is viewed to be remotely the same to tank for any purpose other than it being your ONLY chance to make the playoffs.

And the statement (paraphrasing) that "tanking in both instances increases your odds of winning a championship, so it's the same" just does not work. While that is theoretically a true statement, it is only a very small part of the bigger picture.

And for the love of god, I am not going into that bigger picture for the 100th time.

If you think tanking is bad (or unethical) in 100% of cases, cool. I just disagree there regarding one very specific situation, and really dont care to debate against your stance.

But to say tanking in this exact scenario is no different than tanking to theoretically increase your odds by manipulating the playoff seeds........well, sorry, but it's not remotely close.

And as I said before, just because a specific behavior/action is unethical in one instance does not make it unethical in all instances, depending on the situation.

 

[davearm]

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.

No, not what I am talking about at all. Not remotely at all. For one, this 5% thing is completely and totally made up odds. Let's clear that up.

And as I said 100 times, these two situations are not in the same ballpark. Tanking a game to "theoretically" improve you odds at the championship is not remottely the same as tanking a game when the ONLY way you can make the playoffs is by losing your game.

Do both improve your odds?? Yes, but that is only a very very small part of the bigger picture of what is happening when you can only make the playoffs with a loss.

You can deny it all you'd like, and say these two situations are not in the same ballpark another 100 times, but the implications of your position are exactly what I spelled out.

Does the mediocre team have the right to improve its championship odds? Yes, they're allowed to tank.

Does the stronger team have the right to improve its championship odds? No, they're not allowed to tank.

There's no escaping the fact that you're either penalizing the second team for being too strong, or rewarding the first team for being mediocre.

Considering the odds for that strong team improving its chances are totally perceived, and are not remotely close to being actual odds, then yes, huge difference.

This isn't a casino with actual odds. However, it is a certainty where odds do not apply when a team must lose in order to make the playoffs.

There is no difference in the "realness" or "actualness" of the odds in the two situations. Just because they're not easily measured above 0% doesn't make them any less real.

In reality, what we're talking about here are various points on a continuum from 0% to 100%. The strong playoff team is operating in a range of, say, 15% to 25% (don't get hung up on the actual numbers, they're not important). The weaker team is operating in a range of, say, 0% to 10%.

You seem to be OK with tanking to avoid the 0% case simply because the 0% case is absolute and easily measured. That's not a rational or defensible position, if you apply the "System 2—conscious thought" method highlighted above. You seem to be unwilling to step away from what was characterized as "System 1" thinking:

System 1 achieves its speed by applying simple decision rules. Its view of probability, for instance, functions largely by classifying gambles into three categories—impossible, possible, or certain. One result is that an increase in probability within the middle category, say from 50% to 60%, appears less significant than an increase of the same size from 0% to 10% or from 90% to 100%.

 

[davearm]

Unfortunately you have zero way of proving there is a 5% improvment, since that is a completely made up number to begin with.

The actual magnitude of the change is irrelevant. The pertinent question is whether a change of any magnitude is allowable.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In this quote "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".

Hard for me not to think by your responses that you reading into that far too much, and far too incorrectly.

Well, I'm reading exactly what you wrote. I was simply trying to clarify that what you wrote isn't really what you meant. Because, in reality, you do buy the concept that some things can be considered unethical even if they're not against the rules (even though you said you don't buy that at all). And in reality, you don't subscribe to the belief implied by the tautological, "If you play by the rules, then you are playing by the rules," even though that's what you said.

It's not even a question of whether tanking is bad or not. Some people think tanking is bad in 100% of all curcumstances. I think it is bad in all but one very specific situation.

Well, then it is a question of whether tanking is "bad" or not, right? That's what this whole thread is about. Is tanking bad? Some people think it's always bad, some people think it's only bad sometimes, some people think it's never bad...

If you think tanking is bad (or unethical) in 100% of cases, cool. I just disagree there regarding one very specific situation, and really dont care to debate against your stance.

You probably have me confused with someone else. That's not my stance.

But to say tanking in this exact scenario is no different than tanking to theoretically increase your odds by manipulating the playoff seeds........well, sorry, but it's not remotely close.

Just because you keep repeating the same thing, doesn't suddenly make it become true. To say that "tanking to try to get into the playoffs" and "tanking to try to get a better playoff matchup" are "not remotely close" is silly. They're very close. That doesn't necessarily mean they're identical, but repeatedly and hyperbolically proclaiming that they're "not remotely close" doesn't prove anything and just weakens your argument.

If you want to convince someone that they're meaningfully different, you'd need to provide some kind of rational justification. Others have pointed out that you could be falling prey to a cognitive bias, whereby you think the difference between 0 and 10 is bigger than the difference between 50 and 60. If you think they're mistaken, demonstrate why, don't just keep repeating the same opinion over and over.

 

[McGarnicle]

Decided to throw my game this week, started Peyton and Demaryius.

 

[ghostguy123]

Unfortunately you have zero way of proving there is a 5% improvment, since that is a completely made up number to begin with.

The actual magnitude of the change is irrelevant. The pertinent question is whether a change of any magnitude is allowable.

Right. And I feel it is allowable if it avoids the absolute certainty of 0% chance of making the playoffs if you win the game.

And for the sake of your argument in the other post, I fully recognize the improvment from 0% to 10% is the same increase as from 90% to 100%. Unfortunately that is flawed for this particular argument, since you are talking about preceived odds of a title, while this example is talking about one specific example in the final week of the regular season where the odds are now concrete, completely measurable, and undeniable. Whereas the odds of trying to improve you title odds when you have already clinched a playoff spot and perceived, and only perceived.

I am not sure why some of you think I perceive a jump from 0-10 or 90-100 as different from 50-60 as far are odds. I don't, and nothing I have stated suggests I do. If I said something that makes you think that, my apologies for not explaining it enough I guess (though pretty sure I have) regarding perceived odds and actual odds related to one specific example of fantasy football and making the playoffs. At this point, we are arguing two very different things (though some of you do not see it that way), and that generally doesn't go anywhere in a debate.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, I'm reading exactly what you wrote. I was simply trying to clarify that what you wrote isn't really what you meant. Because, in reality, you do buy the concept that some things can be considered unethical even if they're not against the rules (even though you said you don't buy that at all). And in reality, you don't subscribe to the belief implied by the tautological, "If you play by the rules, then you are playing by the rules," even though that's what you said.

For "some" things. I already said this. I never in any way said I buy that ALL things within the rules would be ethical.

I definitely stand by "if you are playing by the rules, then you are playing by the rules", but I simply didn't write a 3000 word essay to exaplain it fully, and figured by mentioning "some things" I could get by. Some things within the rules that people view as unethical, I don't. Some things within the rules that people view as unethical, I agree. Scrap that exact quote you keep referencing from the records. Moving on.

 

[ghostguy123]

But to say tanking in this exact scenario is no different than tanking to theoretically increase your odds by manipulating the playoff seeds........well, sorry, but it's not remotely close.

Just because you keep repeating the same thing, doesn't suddenly make it become true. To say that "tanking to try to get into the playoffs" and "tanking to try to get a better playoff matchup" are "not remotely close" is silly. They're very close. That doesn't necessarily mean they're identical, but repeatedly and hyperbolically proclaiming that they're "not remotely close" doesn't prove anything and just weakens your argument.

If you want to convince someone that they're meaningfully different, you'd need to provide some kind of rational justification. Others have pointed out that you could be falling prey to a cognitive bias, whereby you think the difference between 0 and 10 is bigger than the difference between 50 and 60. If you think they're mistaken, demonstrate why, don't just keep repeating the same opinion over and over.

It's more like this, maybe this helps. Because I definitely agree with the 5% is 5% is 5% thing when talking about odds in general (just not in this situation).

Increasing your odds from 0% to ANYTHING (whether it is 1% or 99%), to me, is a completely different concept than increasing your odds from any number above zero to any other number up to 100%.

The goal is to win, correct? You can not win if you do not make the playoffs, which is why in this one and only instance I view tanking as the right thing to do.

In the other examples the goal is also to win, but your goal of tanking to manipulate playoff seeds is to improve you odds of winning.

So I do not see "doing the only thing available to get your team in the playoffs to give you a chance to win" as being remotely the same as "tanking to manipulate your perceived odds when you are already a playoff team".

If you just had 10 injuries and the worst team ever heading into week 13, and a loss get's you into the playoffs improving your odds (if you lose) from 0% to 0.0001%, I find that to be far more significant than any increase in odds that can be had from manipulating your seed when you are already a playoff team.

I just don't find the two scenarios to be anywhere near the same as some of you seem to.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's not even a question of whether tanking is bad or not. Some people think tanking is bad in 100% of all curcumstances. I think it is bad in all but one very specific situation.

Well, then it is a question of whether tanking is "bad" or not, right? That's what this whole thread is about. Is tanking bad? Some people think it's always bad, some people think it's only bad sometimes, some people think it's never bad...

No, it is not a question of "is tanking bad or not".

You have to add to that question. The question is "is tanking bad in this exact scenario".

If a thread was started and the question was "Is tanking bad?", and nobody ever brought up this exact scenario, the overwhelming majority are going to say it is bad. If you did a poll, the percentage would be huge in favor of saying tanking is bad.

If you did a poll asking whether tanking is bad in this exact scenario, then I would guess some of the people who voted YES to the question above ( I would, and you would), would vote NO to the second question (I would, you would, or might at least based on what you have said previously).

And yes I realize that just because I keep saying the two things are not the same does not make it so..........but it also doesn't make it some when people say they are. Hence, discussion ensues.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess another way to look at it, added to the above, is this:

The main goal is to win. This can't happen if you miss the playoffs.

The secondary goal is to improve your chances of winning.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Increasing your odds from 0% to ANYTHING (whether it is 1% or 99%), to me, is a completely different concept than increasing your odds from any number above zero to any other number up to 100%.

improving your odds (if you lose) from 0% to 0.0001%, I find that to be far more significant than any increase in odds that can be had from manipulating your seed when you are already a playoff team.

That's irrational. That's what everyone keeps trying to explain to you.

 

[ghostguy123]

Increasing your odds from 0% to ANYTHING (whether it is 1% or 99%), to me, is a completely different concept than increasing your odds from any number above zero to any other number up to 100%.

improving your odds (if you lose) from 0% to 0.0001%, I find that to be far more significant than any increase in odds that can be had from manipulating your seed when you are already a playoff team.

That's irrational. That's what everyone keeps trying to explain to you.

You do realize that you have said you agree with tanking in this scenario (at least at first you did). So I guess I will ask you then. WHY? If this concept is not part of it, then what is your rationale?

And the quote you just referenced, this is fantasy football specific. I am not referring to all odds in all situations. I am referring to fantasy football, this exact scenario, and how I view it in relation to the concept of tanking when it is the only way to make the playoffs.

But I am not so sure it is irrational to view the idea of "having any chance at all" to "improving your odds" as having a significant difference in this situation, and this situation only.

I also don't think that article you keep referencing is specific enough to fantasy football and this specific situation for you to keep referencing it over and over. This tanking issue in this example is NOT only about just odds. It goes above and beyond that.

 

[ghostguy123]

And who is "everyone"?? So far I have seen less than a handful of people that seem to think that is an irrational idea.

It may also just help a bit if you read what I write and just assume I am ONLY talking about this specific example of tanking, considering that is the topic. I am not generalizing things, so if I say something that sounds that way, it isn't.

 

[davearm]

Unfortunately you have zero way of proving there is a 5% improvment, since that is a completely made up number to begin with.

The actual magnitude of the change is irrelevant. The pertinent question is whether a change of any magnitude is allowable.

Right. And I feel it is allowable if it avoids the absolute certainty of 0% chance of making the playoffs if you win the game.

And for the sake of your argument in the other post, I fully recognize the improvment from 0% to 10% is the same increase as from 90% to 100%. Unfortunately that is flawed for this particular argument, since you are talking about preceived odds of a title, while this example is talking about one specific example in the final week of the regular season where the odds are now concrete, completely measurable, and undeniable. Whereas the odds of trying to improve you title odds when you have already clinched a playoff spot and perceived, and only perceived.

I am not sure why some of you think I perceive a jump from 0-10 or 90-100 as different from 50-60 as far are odds. I don't, and nothing I have stated suggests I do. If I said something that makes you think that, my apologies for not explaining it enough I guess (though pretty sure I have) regarding perceived odds and actual odds related to one specific example of fantasy football and making the playoffs. At this point, we are arguing two very different things (though some of you do not see it that way), and that generally doesn't go anywhere in a debate.

Your distinction between "perceived" odds and "actual" odds is nonsense. Odds are odds. They don't come in different flavors.

 

[davearm]

I guess another way to look at it, added to the above, is this:

The main goal is to win. This can't happen if you miss the playoffs.

The secondary goal is to improve your chances of winning.

Those are the same goal. The main goal is to win, so you make decisions that improve your chances.Curious, did you read the article from post #724? Your position here illustrates perfectly the "System 1" thinking the author debunked.

 

[ghostguy123]

Your distinction between "perceived" odds and "actual" odds is nonsense. Odds are odds. They don't come in different flavors.

Not even sure odds are necessary in this discussion. When the question to me is "why do you think tanking is allowed in this situation", my answer, and really all I think is necessary to answer that question, is the fact that a loss is the only way you can get into the playoffs. I have made attempts to add to that, but I don't thing it needs anything added. It is a very special circumstance, and for every reason imaginable I think tanking is fine in that one and only example. But really, it doesn't need any other explanation other than that.

Now, as for your comment, talk about nonsense. Actual odds are, well, actual odds. If you flip a coin, it has a 50-50 shot at heads, and a 50-50 shot at tails. 50% is a concrete and undeniable number.

When you tank to try and manipulate the playoffs seeds to improve your chances, there are no real/actual odds you can put on that. It's a guess. It's your own personal vision of your chances, as in, perceived.

There actually is a pretty distinct difference between legitimate odds and something like fantasy football that has no actual odds that are based on anything other than personal opinion.

The only ACTUAL odds that have been discussed in this is the fact that winning the game 100% knocks you out of the playoffs, while losing the game 100% gets you into the playoffs. Those are actual and undeniable numbers based on fact, not perception. Again, this is just a small part of why I think tanking is fine in this case while it's not in those other cases where people are trying to manipulate things when they are already in the playoffs.

And for whoever asked earlier if it is unfair that one person gets to tank to improve their chances while one person can not, no, I don't think it is unfair at all, not in this one super rare example/exception. I am in the camp that thinks tanking is bad in every case possible except one.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess another way to look at it, added to the above, is this:

The main goal is to win. This can't happen if you miss the playoffs.

The secondary goal is to improve your chances of winning.

Those are the same goal. The main goal is to win, so you make decisions that improve your chances.Curious, did you read the article from post #724? Your position here illustrates perfectly the "System 1" thinking the author debunked.

No, it doesn't. While related, that article does not represent made up odds. It is talking about true/actual odds.

And while both of those goal are closely related, neither can be achieved without actually being in the playoffs, and in this special scenario, there is only one way to get there, lose. I feel that is perfectly acceptible when it is the only way into the playoffs. The goal in this case is to make the playoffs, which can only happen one way.

If a team is already a playoff team, their goal is to improve their chances, not to make the playoffs since they are already in the playoffs.

I don't know what else to tell you. I view this particular scenario to be FAR different than people trying to manipulate playoff seeds, or even to lose on purpose to try and get one team in and knock another team out. I view it to be very far from any other tanking scenario that I have ever seen.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess another way to look at it, added to the above, is this:

The main goal is to win. This can't happen if you miss the playoffs.

The secondary goal is to improve your chances of winning.

Those are the same goal. The main goal is to win, so you make decisions that improve your chances.Curious, did you read the article from post #724? Your position here illustrates perfectly the "System 1" thinking the author debunked.

Oh, but I did mention I see a HUGE difference when going from 0% odds up to any other number pertaining to this example of fantasy football in the context of tanking.

That article is a good article and makes a lot of sense. It just doesn't apply accurately to fantasy football specifically related to this example IMO.

I view this scenario as a completely different idea than any other purpose to tank a game. The numbers are only a small part of it, but the idea/fact that losing is the only way to make the playoffs is enough for me to be fine with tanking a game.

But I guess I will ask you also. Do you think tanking is acceptable in this example, or any other example? Is so, or if not, why?

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

Ah just caught this, not 100% sure, but seems you are against tanking in all cases??

Though I don't agree with what you said here. I don't think it is rewarding a team for being mediocre, considering the team that needs to tank to make the playoffs had scored more points than the other team, but was unlucky and had a worse record, so they are actually stronger than the team you said was being penalized for being too strong.

Keep in mind here, I believe the team needing to tank to get in is like the 4th, maybe 5th, highest scoring team? So a mediocre team is definitely not being rewarded.