Morrow and Sjow Matchfixing? - Page 24

On December 22 2010 19:02 ParasitJonte wrote:
You have to reduce it to the situation they were imagining.

They were thinking that the only 2 good players capable of winning would be themself. Therefore you can skip the whole tournament thing. Just think of it as 18 1v1s where the prize pool is not static. More wins for one player means more prizes.

Now, they calculated that their expected value would be maximized if one of them won 11 games and they shared the prizes. Probably because neither of them is confident that they can win more than ~65% of the games against the other player.

In that situation it only makes sense to cooperate. Doing anything else is stupid. This should be plain for all to see.

What are they going to do now? Well, now only one person will be playing. So, given that there were only 2 persons capable of winning in the first place, there are now 18 1v1s where one person has automatically forfeited. And they will share the prize money; except now they won't get the second place prizes.

Is that any more morally correct or is it the same thing with just fewer winnings?

Honestly, I do think they're both idiots for talking about it, while livestreaming no less lol. But it's the rational thing to do. It's hard to blame them.

On December 22 2010 19:00 MythicalMage wrote:

I ask myself that every day, and I think you should too. =] Plus I wouldn't call this cheating. It's like "Hey friend have a new computer."If they were already in the finals anyway, and didn't cheat to get there. . .I don't see the issue. It's Sjow's choice, and if he willingly gives it up, who cares?

My ONLY complaint is that they took away some good games from the viewers. It'd be better if they played and then one of them stepped down afterwards or something.

On December 22 2010 19:16 decemberscalm wrote:
Read the thread, there are no viewers.

On December 22 2010 19:13 domovoi wrote:

Not this tournament, no. Because now, the odds they pay out the higher prize has increased since SjoW isn't participating. They're still colluding to maximize the prize pool, but I guess now people don't really mind.

On December 22 2010 19:20 Askesis wrote:


Because the prize is not Sjow's to give Morrow! JHave you even read the thread or know how the prizes are structured?

If it was something like "first prize wins $1000 and second wins $500", and the players agreed to split it $750 each, then whatever.

However, the tournament is not structured like that. The 6k computer is only given to a player if he pulls the incredible feat of winning 11 of 18 tournaments. There is a huge chance that nobody will get that prize. Sjow and Morrow tried to work together to ensure that they won the prize by forfeiting/throwing the finals to guarantee that one of them will hit the required (and very hard to legitimately get) 11 wins, instead of actually competing, where both of them might win some, but not the 11 required to get the big prize. They are taking a prize that is designed not to be won (because taking 11 of 18 tournaments legitimately is very difficult), and trying to work together to make sure that they win it. That's cheating.

On December 22 2010 19:19 MiraMax wrote:


This is getting more and more comical!? Now you bring in utility theory? Are you aware that two risk averse players always maximize their risk adjusted utility in case of a 50:50 win scenario, even if the prize pool is static?
Sure it is more fair if one of them steps back from the tournament, if he never intended to win it, but only to make his partner win in the first place. Like this he gives the chance to a player who actually wants to compete. I would have preferred if they had both participated and tried their best, to see who actually wins. But this seems just asked too much, right?

Here's what they should do now. Both should enter the tournaments, playing as hard as they can. If after 16 games they are 8-8, then one should just drop out.

On December 22 2010 19:24 blackh3d wrote:
Have they cheated? No.

It's like saying "I'm going to steal from you" when I have not clearly committed the act.

So does that make me a thief just because I say it?

I don't see why the allegations thrown against them when they've allegedly discussed it but have yet to act on it.

If you have proof that they've done it, then by all means, call them matchfixers. but if no crime has been done, you can't simply go around claiming they're matchfixing.

On December 22 2010 19:24 Telcontar wrote:

Doesn't make it any less unprofessional. Should athletes and sports teams be allowed to fix matches if there are no spectators (i.e football teams playing behind closed doors as punishment)?

On December 22 2010 19:21 joban wrote:
Speaking of tournament systems that set up and even potentially reward unethical play, is anyone else worried about the GSL format as well?

The fact that there are teams like oGs that have multiple players in each group during the group stages could pose a problem. Hypothetically if there are 2 oGs players in one group and one player has already clinched qualification for the next round- don't you think the guy who clinched would give his teammate a free win when they played? I don't know if precautions have already been instated to prevent this, but that could be bad, in my opinion

On December 22 2010 14:57 ShootingStars wrote:
your point? if you arent the better player it doesnt matter really =/
if you want to stop them from match fixing, go to the tournament and beat them so they cant fix the final
matchfixing is FINE. it doesnt affect you... they ARE top players.

On December 22 2010 19:29 TotalBiscuit wrote:


Wait, what the fuck? You best be trolling.

On December 22 2010 19:11 domovoi wrote:

Strictly prohibited not because it hurts other players but because it increases the house's risk of payouts. But if a site doesn't have a rule against it, I don't see it as immoral to do it.

On December 22 2010 19:18 domovoi wrote:
Here's what they should do now. Both should enter the tournaments, playing as hard as they can. If after 16 games they are 8-8, then one should just drop out.

On December 22 2010 19:29 Telcontar wrote:

Of course everyone knows they haven't actually done anything because the tournament hasn't happened yet!

However there is the matter of 'intent'. If you caught olympic athletes talking to each other about doping or fixing results before the games, should everyone just not make a big deal because it hasn't happened yet? The fact that they're even considering and planning it brings the tournament and the whole sport into disrepute.