What is the Word for Intentionally Losing? An In-Depth Guide for Sports Fans

As a lifelong gaming and stats geek, I‘ve seen competitors deliberately lose matches in about every sport and game you can imagine. While sometimes controversial, intentionally losing, often called "tanking" or "throwing" a game, can be strategically smart and part of seeking advantage within the rules. But it also raises ethical concerns, goes by many euphemisms, and challenges our expectation of maximum effort.

In this article, I‘ll use 20+ years of expertise in data analysis and passion for eSports, analytics, and poker to give you an insider‘s perspective on the murky world of tactical losing. I hope by the end, you‘ll understand why competitors sometimes choose to intentionally fail and the best ways fans and leagues can respond.

Defining the Nuances of Losing on Purpose

Losing deliberately is known by many slang terms, each with subtle distinctions in meaning:

Tanking – Obvious underperformance to lose matches in a longer competition like a season to gain future benefits like draft picks or easier matchups.

Example: NBA teams sometimes tank for better draft positions.

Throwing – Deliberately losing a specific match, often by intentionally playing below one‘s ability. Usually involves unfair coordination and collusion.

Example: When one boxer takes a dive in a fixed fight.

Sandbagging – Using intentional poor play to conceal one‘s genuine skill level and then surprise opponents later when true ability is revealed.

Example: A poker shark pretending to be unskilled early in a tournament.

Resting Players – Benchting key players to intentionally accept reduced chances of winning to avoid injury and fatigue.

Example: A football coach sitting starting quarterback before playoffs.

Taking a Dive – Deliberately losing a match in exchange for bribes without sport sanctioning. Most common in combat sports with gambling.

Example: A boxer allowing an opponent to knock them out in a rigged match.

No Effort to Win – A subtle euphemism referring to intentional underperformance within the letter of competition rules.

Example: A basketball team starting bench players to discreetly tank.

Now that we‘ve defined the key terminology, let‘s look at real-world examples of how and why losing on purpose happens across different sports and games.

Why Good Players Sometimes Want to Lose

Contrary to competitive spirit, there are several motivations that incentivize teams and players at all levels to intentionally underperform and surrender matches:

Financial Gain

Gamblers bribing athletes and colluding to fix matches has sadly tainted many sports. While rules strictly prohibit such corruption, the temptation of payouts leads some competitors to deliberately lose rather than play to their ability. This remains most prevalent in boxing and obscure lower-tier leagues with lower wages where match fixing can be concealed.

Historical Examples: The infamous 1919 Black Sox baseball scandal where players took bribes to throw the World Series.

Long-Term Strategic Advantage

In season-long competitions, losing matches strategically to gain future benefits like high draft picks, salary cap space, or favorable playoff matchups can maximize overall chances of later victory. This is common in American sports leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLS.

Example: The NBA‘s worst teams get the earliest picks in the entry draft, incentivizing weaker clubs to tank late-season games.

Table: NBA Draft Selection Order by Regular Season Record

Draft Order	Team Record
1st	Worst overall record
2nd	2nd worst overall record
3rd	3rd worst overall record
14th	Best non-playoff team
15th-30th	Eliminated playoff teams by reverse order of record

Avoiding Injury

Coaches often strategically rest star players during less important games to keep them healthy for playoffs or key matches late in a season. This intentional handicap can lead to losses but is seen as prudent management rather than improper losing.

Example: A football team sitting starting quarterback for last games before postseason to prevent injury.

Manipulating Brackets & Payouts

In individual competitions like tennis and poker, some competitors purposely underperform early on to be placed in easier brackets or payout structures for later rounds, allowing them to strategically reveal their full skills only when most advantageous. This sandbagging approach is encouraged by tournament rules in many cases.

Example: Poker players avoiding winning too much early so they can surprise weaker opponents later.

Concealing True Ability

Related to sandbagging, some players use early intentional poor play to make opponents underestimate their skills to gain an element of surprise later with their actual talent. This is especially common in matches with multiple contests like boxing rematches and video game series.

Example: A fighting game player losing initial matches with a character to lower expectations, then switching to their true main character for a comeback.

Now that you understand the main motivations behind tactical losing, let‘s explore some prominent examples across different professional sports.

Case Studies of Losing to Win in Pro Sports

NBA Teams Tanking for #1 Draft Picks

In the NBA, teams who miss the playoffs are entered into a draft lottery where the worst teams have the highest chances of getting the #1 draft pick, expected to be a franchise-changing rookie star. This incentivizes struggling clubs to tank late in lost seasons to boost their odds of drafting an elite young player.

For instance, in 2019, the New York Knicks blatantly lost 17 of their final 18 games to finish with the worst record in the NBA at 17-65. As a result, they had a 14% chance in the draft lottery of picking #1, compared to just a 3% chance had they won half those games. Though they didn‘t win the lottery, their increased odds directly resulted from shameless late-season tanking.

Table: Knicks‘ Results Before & After Likely Tanking Began

First 64 Games	Last 18 Games
13-51 (.203)	4-14 (.222)
Beat playoff teams like Utah, Boston	Lost 7 straight to non-playoff teams
Played stars 30+ minutes	Sat stars or played them <10 minutes

MLB Teams Benching Stars Before Playoffs

In Major League Baseball, it‘s common late in the season for non-contending clubs to rest veteran starting pitchers to protect their arms for the next season and give minor league prospects playtime. But contenders also often strategically rest aces before the playoffs to prevent injury and fatigue.

For example, in 2001 Seattle Mariners starter Jamie Moyer, at age 38, had the most wins in MLB at 20-6. But he was benched by coaches before the playoffs so he could start Game 1 of the ALDS series rested. As a result, Moyer didn‘t pitch for 22 days despite being the league‘s hottest pitcher. The Mariners lost four of their last six games without Moyer, but the strategic rest paid off as he won Game 1 en route to the team taking the playoff series.

Collusion Scandals in Esports

Unlike traditional sports, esports teams are often owned by the same parent organizations and players on one team may stream matches involving competitors, creating conflicts of interest. As a result, collusive throwing – where teams or players intentionally lose to benefit their organization or friends on other teams – has arisen as a problem.

In DotA 2 for example, team Solo was caught intentionally losing a match where they bet against themselves, earning $322 in skins by throwing. Valve banned the players involved from future events, stripped their prior tournament wins, and began monitoring bets to stop further collusion. While rare in tier 1 events, match fixing remains an ongoing concern, showing intentional losing for financial gain affects even elite pro video gaming.

Rules Against Throwing Games & Penalties

Most professional league rules explicitly prohibit any form of match fixing, point shaving, or intentionally losing for financial motives without severe penalties:

• Permanent lifetime ban from the sport – Pete Rose infamously received a lifetime ban from MLB baseball after betting on games he was involved in.

• Stripping of draft picks and titles – The NBA forced owner Donald Sterling to sell the Clippers while taking away draft picks after racist comments. The NCAA "death penalty" erased SMU football‘s 1987 season for corruption.

• Financial fines – The NFL fined teams and coaches hundreds of thousands of dollars for resting too many starters in the same games.

• Jail time – Sporting match fixers found guilty of fraud can serve years in prison. Boxer Floyd Mayweather‘s uncle Roger was jailed for taking bribes to fix fights.

However, strategically tanking over a season remains difficult to conclusively distinguish from normal poor play. Unless brazenly transparent, intentionally losing within the letter of competition guidelines escapes harsh punishment. Match fixing for profit remains scandalous, but tactical losing for draft picks draws only fan scorn.

Ethical Debates Around Throwing Games

Opinions on the ethics of intentionally losing vary across different sports and contexts:

• Some see it as violating competitiveness and unfair to paying fans, risking lasting damage to a sport‘s integrity if taken too far. Outright match fixing for financial gain is universally despised.

• However, cases like resting veteran players judiciously to prevent injury or non-contending teams giving prospects playtime in meaningless late-season games are commonly accepted as prudent strategy, not unethical losing per se.

• Similarly, sandbagging early in a poker tournament or concealing your best strategies in early rounds of a fighting game series are seen as smart playing within the rules to maximize your overall expected outcome.

• While fans and the public lament obvious tanking, insiders often accept it as a necessary evil allowing terrible teams to eventually rebuild rather than remain stuck in mediocrity.

• Some argue tanking creates needed parity between small and large market teams, allowing rebuilding clubs a path to eventually contend again. The alternative is a lack of parity and predictable dominance by rich franchises that already win consistently.

In essence, intentionally losing with sufficient justification and within rules is often begrudgingly accepted, but seen as contradictory to a sport‘s competitive spirit. Outright cheating solely for profit remains universally condemned while tactical losing for future advantage draws much more nuanced debate.

The Tricky Psychology of Throwing Games

Deliberately losing challenges innate competitiveness and will to win instilled in all elite athletes and professionals. Some techniques competitors use to overcome subconscious resistance and force themselves to subtly underperform include:

• Focusing intensely on avoiding injury rather than victory during matches that have been designated as losses for strategic tanking purposes.

• Using losses as practice – viewing doomed matches where they must lose as opportunities to work on weaknesses and experiment rather than playing to full ability.

• Visualizing benefits of strategic defeat – associating intentionally losing a small battle with winning the larger war.

• Making victory seem impossible – downplaying chances of winning to avoid wasted effort and fatigue attempting to overachieve in games designated for intentional losing.

However, even subtle intentional underperformance provokes guilt, frustration, and a feeling of dishonoring the sport among dedicated competitors. And coaches asking star players to sit out risk resentment and rebellion from frustrated stars.

Identifying Tanking as a Fan

As a spectator, clear hallmarks that indicate a team or player isn‘t giving maximum effort include:

• Star players sitting out games with unexplained vague injuries often aimed at keeping them fresh rather than reflecting any real medical condition.

• Surrendering early leads by going scoreless for long periods or allowing unanswered runs late in apparent lack of effort.

• Bench players, unknown rookies, and end of rotation guys playing far more minutes than the team‘s established stars and veteran starters.

• Lackadaisical effort, low energy, going through the motions style of play compared to more motivated opponents.

• Trading away proven veteran talent for future draft picks rather than playing to win now.

Of course, true underperformance due to injury and plain bad luck can‘t easily be distinguished from intentional tanking. But seeing the patterns above consistently over a full season strongly suggests a team prioritizing future assets over current victory.

Key Takeaways on Intentionally Losing

Through 20+ years obsessing over stats and analytics across many sports and games, I‘ve gained insights about tactical losing that can be applied in all competitive spheres:

• Many terms like sandbagging, taking a dive, and tanking refer to forms of intentionally losing for various strategic motivations.

• Throwing matches solely for financial gain breaks rules and provokes penalties, but tactical losing for future advantage often escapes punishment.

• Fans dislike obvious tanking but accept prudent rest to protect players from injury as fair play.

• The psychology of intentional losing runs counter to competitive spirit, requiring mental tricks to overcome instinct to win at all costs.

• Patterns like benching stars, surrendering leads, and trading veterans signal a team de-emphasizing current wins.

While on the surface unsporting, intentionally losing has a complicated but legitimate role in many games and leagues. I hope this insider‘s perspective on tanking and throwing matches helps you make sense of this surprisingly deep phenomenon as both a competitor and spectator!

Let me know if you have any other questions!