|
On September 02 2011 08:41 MrPello wrote: If you actually want a debate about something don't make the most biased OP-post ever. Feels more like your trying to get the mob together for a lynching.
it's not that biased. the OP poster has the right to have an opinion of his own and the right to express it.
|
Holy shit, I typed my post and was going to submit as the page refreshed itself. I would do it again tho.
So, imagine you are a finalist of an SC2 tourney. You are offered a 'deal' (which is soft match fixing btw) and also considering playing fair. Denote A - winner's prize, B - loser's one, A + B = P - total final prize pool. So, you are considering a lottery (yeah, economists call it so) and would play fair if:
qA + (1-q)B > xP, where q is your probability to win (those who are interested may find a precise and robust measure) and x is a share of P you are promised (leave out taxes, probability your competitor will not give you his share, etc).
qA + (1-q)B > xA + xB (q-x)A + (1-q-x)B > 0
Thus, what can we see here.
1. Practice more, increase your probability to win (q) to have more chances in the finals - a straightforward way to boost competition (have to examine risk aversity issues here tho)
2. Make the difference between A and B bigger. If B -> 0+, (q-x) A > 0 iff q>x (assuming A > 0, which is trivial ^^). Assuming that players agree to split prizes equally, ie x = 0.5, one will always play fair if it's not a coinflip, ie he considers his probability to win above 0.5. If he considers his q < 0.5, and this information is common, his opponent will play fair and play to win.
All in all, increase the payouts for 1st places to 50-70% of the event prize pools, and fixing will be dealt with. Make them play!
P.S. Recall last IEM payout structure: 1st - 6500, 2nd - 3300, 1st prize being around 30% of the pool. Don't want to point fingers, but you can come to Blizzard EU invitation, play 2 games with a hangover, get your 1000 and go chat with the fans the whole weekend. This is not the way competition works, it's + Show Spoiler +a fucking disgrace, like Didier Drogba used to say socialism.
|
On September 02 2011 08:41 Mig wrote: When you sign up to play in that tournament you should know what you are agreeing to and abide by the rules .
If there aren't any rules regarding deal making then there shouldn't be any issue. I don't think anyone is arguing that players should make deals when the tournament rules explicitly forbid it.
|
I almost did this in a $4500 tournament I was in for a different game with the other player, we were the only two contenders at the end, we talked about it and agreed that winner would get $2500 of it and loser $2000 but later decided to cancel the deal since it was too hard to ensure the other person would keep his word as he was in Europe and I was in U.S. (we had never met, only played online).
P.S. I won so good choice by me!
|
Well someone just felt like making another thread to vent anger...
|
On September 02 2011 08:44 damngringo wrote: Holy shit, I typed my post and was going to submit as the page refreshed itself. I would do it again tho.
So, imagine you are a finalist of an SC2 tourney. You are offered a 'deal' (which is soft match fixing btw) and also considering playing fair. Denote A - winner's prize, B - loser's one, A + B = P - total final prize pool. So, you are considering a lottery (yeah, economists call it so) and would play fair if:
qA + (1-q)B > xP, where q is your probability to win (those who are interested may find a precise and robust measure) and x is a share of P you are promised (leave out taxes, probability your competitor will not give you his share, etc).
qA + (1-q)B > xA + xB (q-x)A + (1-q-x)B > 0
Thus, what can we see here.
1. Practice more, increase your probability to win (q) to have more chances in the finals - a straightforward way to boost competition (have to examine risk aversity issues here tho)
2. Make the difference between A and B bigger. If B -> 0+, (q-x) A > 0 iff q>x (assuming A > 0, which is trivial ^^). Assuming that players agree to split prizes equally, ie x = 0.5, one will always play fair if it's not a coinflip, ie he considers his probability to win above 0.5. If he considers his q < 0.5, and this information is common, his opponent will play fair and play to win.
All in all, increase the payouts for 1st places to 50-70% of the event prize pools, and fixing will be dealt with. Make them play!
Probability of winning is not the only consideration when playing against a teammate in the Finals. Otherwise, good analysis?
|
On September 02 2011 08:41 Mig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 08:31 ReignFayth wrote: I don't think the fact that poker players are buying in changes much at the end of the line, poker player can usually afford losing a buy in, but the difference between 1st and 2nd place is usually a lot more significant than the actual buy in obviously....
to me it's the same, you just wanna reduce variance because the money matters to you in the end, doesn't mean you stop being competitive The difference is it isn't the players right to adjust the prize pool in something like sc2. The sponsors provide all the money and they set up the rules. Then they advertise the tournament for people to watch. Subverting what the sponsors/tournament organizers want and misleading the audience is wrong. Even in televised poker tournaments there are often rules about not making deals at final tables because they don't want the competition to be messed up for TV. When you sign up to play in that tournament you should know what you are agreeing to and abide by the rules . there are no such rules mig though, they implemented it in a few poker tourneys on TV, but thus far in SC2 it's all up to the players
and really how can you prevent that?
nobody's really gonna notice anyway.... some people have families, I'm guessing you don't yet, but at some point you might start making deals, you won't want to jeopardize any kind of financial security just to please the fans (who wouldn't really be displeased if not told anyway) or to feel some kind of adrenaline during the match...
|
On September 02 2011 08:41 Mig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 08:31 ReignFayth wrote: I don't think the fact that poker players are buying in changes much at the end of the line, poker player can usually afford losing a buy in, but the difference between 1st and 2nd place is usually a lot more significant than the actual buy in obviously....
to me it's the same, you just wanna reduce variance because the money matters to you in the end, doesn't mean you stop being competitive The difference is it isn't the players right to adjust the prize pool in something like sc2. The sponsors provide all the money and they set up the rules. Then they advertise the tournament for people to watch. Subverting what the sponsors/tournament organizers want and misleading the audience is wrong. Even in televised poker tournaments there are often rules about not making deals at final tables because they don't want the competition to be messed up for TV. When you sign up to play in that tournament you should know what you are agreeing to and abide by the rules .
Ok fine. So after one of us win and the money becomes ours instead of the sponsors, why don't we decide to split it a little more evenly. It's our money now. We can do whatever we want to with it.
|
On September 02 2011 08:36 piknic wrote: This is just a clear reminder that sc2 hasn't matured enough to be considered a real sport that can be analogous to real spectator sports. Instead I guess it still remains a legitimate way of making money for players who can compete. I think that's okay when you look at it in that perspective. I guess being elitist about "100% pure as much competitiveness as possible" is at the current moment an unfair (to the pros) ideal. I guess sacrifices need to made to keep the game alive.
Further, it will always become obvious who is really just "in it for the money" over other players and they should be judged on an individual basis based on personal opinion.
No one ever said sc2 is mature as a sport, in fact in a real sport league, the winning prize pool never mattered.
They don't care about the prize because it not significant enough and they make a living off salaries, not prize winnings, if anything the prize is just a bonus for them.
But in esports, the salaries are just not enough so players have to have tournament winnings to make a living.
In my eye, relying on prize winnings is not a sustainable model at all. Yet there are just not enough money flowing into the industry so these kind of stuff will continue to happen regardless.
|
On September 02 2011 08:41 Mig wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 08:31 ReignFayth wrote: I don't think the fact that poker players are buying in changes much at the end of the line, poker player can usually afford losing a buy in, but the difference between 1st and 2nd place is usually a lot more significant than the actual buy in obviously....
to me it's the same, you just wanna reduce variance because the money matters to you in the end, doesn't mean you stop being competitive The difference is it isn't the players right to adjust the prize pool in something like sc2. The sponsors provide all the money and they set up the rules. Then they advertise the tournament for people to watch. Subverting what the sponsors/tournament organizers want and misleading the audience is wrong. Even in televised poker tournaments there are often rules about not making deals at final tables because they don't want the competition to be messed up for TV. When you sign up to play in that tournament you should know what you are agreeing to and abide by the rules .
There is no legal way to stop people for making those types of deals personal between themselves, seeing how once the prize money is given out they can give it or spend it on whatever they wish, you can though issues hush orders the transactions of money.
You can prevent people for making deals at the tournament itself as it can be seen as a type of match fixing, If anything this doesn't not make it illegal it simply lesses the public knowledge of these type of personal agreement between players and friends.
|
On September 02 2011 08:43 Kaitlin wrote: If players truly felt there was nothing wrong with this, they would be out in the open about it. However, they aren't. They hide it.
I can't seem to find MLG (just an example) tournament rules, but I wouldn't be surprised if agreements to split prize pool can result in forfeiture of the prize money, if caught. Don't be so quick to think it can't ever be discovered, as you have corporate sponsors paying for an "honest" competition. If there are credible allegations of "deal making", such wire transfers could be investigated, and if substantiated, both players would very likely forfeit (pay back) all winnings, and also possibly owe more. You guys may think it's not a big deal, but tournament sponsors think otherwise. They don't necessarily hide it because they think it's wrong, they could just be hiding it because they think others will think that it's wrong and don't want to get trouble from them. Not that I'm saying that's necessarily the case, but it's certainly a possibility. If no one cared about this, do you think any of the pros would too?
|
To people saying that sc2 tournament prizes should be treated differently than poker tournament prizes, there really is no reason. Every player has a certain EV going into a tournament depending on their skill level and the source of the prize money has nothing to do with that.
Making deals is also a skill in itself just because you need to judge talent in order to make a deal that's good for yourself. Nobody in their right mind will make a 50/50 deal with someone of less talent than themselves.
That brings us to another point: dealmaking should have absolutely no impact on the spectators or the skill level being displayed in the game. 50% of whatever you win is still a lot of money riding on sc2 matches. Also, you have to be the best player you can be to negotiate the best deal you can make. The top-heaviness of prize payouts are simply absurd for the number of pros competing and I think any pro who doesn't make some kind of deal to even out their variance is a fool.
Oh yeah, and any rule against it is completely unenforceable, so there's that.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
While I understand the financial aspect of it, no progamer in the world can sit there and tell me agreeing to split the prize before a final doesn't affect how you approach or play the series. You might think like you're still playing exactly the same way you would've done without the deal, but the human mind doesn't work that way. The split second decisions, choosing risky builds/tactics, and many other things simply cannot be unaffected because the extra tension and motivation is no longer there. You might say 'well, it takes away the nerves so both players will perform better!', and while there may be some truth to that, the whole point of a tournament is to find out which one performs better under critical pressure. Doesn't it kind of make a tournament pointless, if the main incentive to win is no longer there? Worst of all, if the spectators find out before or after that some kind of a deal took place, a huge chunk of the enjoyment is taken away, and many will be deeply be offended. I really can't see why something like this should be tolerated.
|
Tournaments shouldn't have such a large discrepancy between 1st and 2nd place prize money.
If 1st place is $100,000 and second place is $20,000 of course both players aren't going to want to have a 50% chance of getting 1/6th of the available money. Whereas if the prize pools were $75,000 and $45,000 the lower difference between the amounts leads to less need for the players to make these prior agreements.
Deal making shouldn't be allowed and should be looked down upon.
|
Promising to split the money if u both get in the finals isn't illegal. They both got to that final on their own strength without any shady things. Whether it's a good way to act like this or not is very questionable tho.
on the Fenix/TT1 case: Promises were made, Fenix is wrong for not splitting. There's nothing that can be done about it tho. How much money are we talking about anyway? It doesn't sound like a big lan.
|
On September 02 2011 08:49 Jakkerr wrote: Promising to split the money if u both get in the finals isn't illegal. They both got to that final on their own strength without any shady things. Whether it's a good way to act like this or not is very questionable tho.
on the Fenix/TT1 case: Promises were made, Fenix is wrong for not splitting. There's nothing that can be done about it tho. How much money are we talking about anyway? It doesn't sound like a big lan. 1st was 10k, 2nd was 5k. Fenix withheld 2.5k if the split was 50/50.
Which brings up another point. Don't split 50/50. 55/45 is the smartest way to split, especially if the two at the top are of a similar skill level.
|
Tektos, look at my post above. If the finals is not a coinflip, and one player is definitely stronger even marginally, larger 1st prize payout would be an incentive in itself to reject the deal.
|
Of course chopping the pot is fine, the argument about someone pissing away a match because they had no immediate monetary gain is a secondary and ungovernable one that touches things like players playing on tilt (*gasp* not playing to their potential!). Whether or not vomiting all over the tournament organizers and fan base due to character flaws is a completely separate issue.
|
I don't think it is that big a deal to be honest. So long as one player isn't throwing the match then I think it is actually better overall for eSports if things aren't so top heavy.
It isn't prize pool sharing (or, random guy a giving random guy b money) it is match throwing that bothers me. Just make sure both players are playing to win and are using competitive strategies.
I also don't think you guys should hate on TT1, for all you know he wanted to catch his opponent of guard with his 1base Carriers.
|
I don't really mind to be honest, I don't care if people continue to do this.
As long as there is no match fixing going on, I don't think it hurts anybody. It's just splitting your good fortune with a teammate/friend. Nobody would flip out if the winner split the reward afterwards if it wasn't agreed on before. The only thing the agreement does is make the players more comfortable, resulting in fewer stress-choke scenarios, and reduces inter-team tension.
As long as I don't know about it, it actually seems like a good thing.
|
|
|
|