4 ms·

This is purely the fault of the organizers. If losing provides an advantage to the losing team, the tournament rules are broken. There should never be a need fo

by tghw 14y ago

This is purely the fault of the organizers. If losing provides an advantage to the losing team, the tournament rules are broken. There should never be a need for such a rule.

revelation 14y ago
Yes, the tournament rules are broken. But you can't make the claim that the players were being completely rational per game theory.
- tghw 14y ago
  What do you mean? They clearly saw an advantage in losing, per the structure of the tournament.
  - 3JPLW 14y ago
    The structure of the tournament also precludes throwing matches. Thus, they were not being true to the (mathematically) ideal rational player - they were violating a constraint of the tournament in their attempt to maximize another advantage.
    - irollboozers 14y ago
      I think this means the tournament was poorly designed.
      - 3JPLW 14y ago
        And I certainly don't disagree. I was simply clarifying how the players weren't being completely rational game theorists. If the tournament is viewed as immutable (as it should be by the players) then the players misjudged, misunderstood, or completely ignored the possibility of disqualification.
        irollboozers 14y ago
        That's why there's conflict. The 'moral' rules of fair play were not consistently enforced (information withheld), or you could just say not even consistently prioritized (likelihood of getting caught varied).
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    Well clearly it didn't work out. What do you mean? I mean, this outcome was obvious so why would a perfect game theorist make such a bumbled performance?
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
I just call BS on that. Any reasonable players that understood rules and spirit of the Olympics would not have put on such a sham performance. I find it only excusable if the players were from some dictatorial country where poor medal performing athletes are tortured or shamed for life, other than that, they should have known better. It was just ridiculous and childish.
eta_carinae 14y ago
It's a tough call. On one end of the spectrum, you have a 100% direct elimination system. No cheating there (you lose, you're out) but you don't get a good feel for who is really the best since so few games are happening (log2(n)). Somebody can win just because they had an easy draw, even when you try to be smart with how you pepper seeds. On the other end of the spectrum, you can do a 100% pool system: everybody plays against everybody else. The winner is very likely to be the best of all, but it's obviously an organizational nightmare that would take forever to complete (n! games). Again, here, there is zero incentive to lose. This is why most professional tournaments operate with a mix of these two: a set of small pools first that leads into a direct elimination system. The trick is to implement the transition so that you always want to win all your pool games. Seeds are supposed to take care of this problem, but it's not a guarantee.

by tghw 14y ago

This is purely the fault of the organizers. If losing provides an advantage to the losing team, the tournament rules are broken. There should never be a need for such a rule.

revelation 14y ago

Yes, the tournament rules are broken. But you can't make the claim that the players were being completely rational per game theory.

tghw 14y ago
What do you mean? They clearly saw an advantage in losing, per the structure of the tournament.
- 3JPLW 14y ago
  The structure of the tournament also precludes throwing matches. Thus, they were not being true to the (mathematically) ideal rational player - they were violating a constraint of the tournament in their attempt to maximize another advantage.
  - irollboozers 14y ago
    I think this means the tournament was poorly designed.
    - 3JPLW 14y ago
      And I certainly don't disagree. I was simply clarifying how the players weren't being completely rational game theorists. If the tournament is viewed as immutable (as it should be by the players) then the players misjudged, misunderstood, or completely ignored the possibility of disqualification.
      - irollboozers 14y ago
        That's why there's conflict. The 'moral' rules of fair play were not consistently enforced (information withheld), or you could just say not even consistently prioritized (likelihood of getting caught varied).
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  Well clearly it didn't work out. What do you mean? I mean, this outcome was obvious so why would a perfect game theorist make such a bumbled performance?

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

I just call BS on that. Any reasonable players that understood rules and spirit of the Olympics would not have put on such a sham performance. I find it only excusable if the players were from some dictatorial country where poor medal performing athletes are tortured or shamed for life, other than that, they should have known better. It was just ridiculous and childish.

eta_carinae 14y ago

It's a tough call. On one end of the spectrum, you have a 100% direct elimination system. No cheating there (you lose, you're out) but you don't get a good feel for who is really the best since so few games are happening (log2(n)). Somebody can win just because they had an easy draw, even when you try to be smart with how you pepper seeds. On the other end of the spectrum, you can do a 100% pool system: everybody plays against everybody else. The winner is very likely to be the best of all, but it's obviously an organizational nightmare that would take forever to complete (n! games). Again, here, there is zero incentive to lose. This is why most professional tournaments operate with a mix of these two: a set of small pools first that leads into a direct elimination system. The trick is to implement the transition so that you always want to win all your pool games. Seeds are supposed to take care of this problem, but it's not a guarantee.