EPTShould "Deal Making" be illegal? - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
| ||
|
Naughty
United States114 Posts
Thats rather dull logic as most any competitor will still want to win, if not only just to prove there worth. Even more so when there is more on the line than just the prize money, winning a major event could potentially effect there salary and give there carrier far more options for future development. All I can see these agreements doing is allowing players not be completely broke if they place second place, If anything I blame the top heavy prize structure of these tournaments for the players feeling such deals are there best option. | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:46 ReignFayth wrote: 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... I assumed there were rules against it, if the tournament organizer decided not to include any rules disallowing it then I have no ethical problems with players chopping the money. And obviously even if there was a rule against it you couldn't prevent people from chopping. But just because you can't prevent it doesn't mean it would be right for people to break the rules of the tourney they chose to sign up for. | ||
|
-KarakStarcraft-
United States258 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:57 Whitewing wrote: Prove it. That's why verbal contracts are basically worthless, unless you can prove the conversation happened and took place, you can't win in a court of law. I think you neither understand contract law nor the standard deal-making process very well. Verbal contracts are far from worthless. | ||
|
FlyingSheeps
Canada204 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:59 Jakkerr wrote: Off course both guys are wrong here, you might have misunderstood me. They are both to be blamed for this and shouldn't have done it. But if you make such arrangements you have to split the money. I do agree that they shouldn't have paid out the money at all but the tournament organizers probably didn't know about this. seeing how what they did isn't illegal, they would be sued for withholding the money. | ||
|
Kieofire
United States1809 Posts
On September 02 2011 09:01 Karak wrote: I think you neither understand contract law nor the standard deal-making process very well. Verbal contracts are far from worthless. Actually they are worthless, that is like a football player verbally committing to a college and instead goes to a different college. | ||
|
HoldenR
Netherlands256 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:57 Fiddel wrote: To any people who don't have a problem with price splitting: Would you have a problem if tournaments from now on would have 2 winners (those that win the semis), same prize money for both of them, same medal or cup for both of them, same honor? Just play the 'finals' as a friendly match? Why would you even watch? Because, and you can decide for yourself if this sounds selfish, I do not give a goddamn about the money these players make. Not only is your analogy pants-on-head retarded, being that they don't GET the same medal, cup or honor, the winner still gets the best of it, but why does money matter to you if the game is good? Are the code S finals the best games you've ever seen because they have such high prize pools? Because to me, almost every code S final has been awful time and time again, being a complete joke of a competition where one guy just got stomped. But there have been games that were played for no prize money at all, simply at the early stages of a tournament, that blew me away and I would love to watch 10 more of that type, rather than 100 games where each player had the chance to earn 100k per win and everytime it was like watching a grandmaster player take on a bronze leaguer who had a 50% handicap. The quality of games should be your main, and only, concern as a spectator. You have a right to complain if it's affected(in the relevant case for this thread, it was), but if you see amazing games, why does it bother you if two friends split the winning? Are you that bitter and childish? | ||
|
-KarakStarcraft-
United States258 Posts
On September 02 2011 09:02 Kieofire wrote: Actually they are worthless, that is like a football player verbally committing to a college and instead goes to a different college. You have no idea what you are talking about. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:57 HoldenR wrote: Fenix is wrong for not Splitting? So you think TT1 completely throwing the fucking game and going 1 base carrier/mothership isn't the exact same as match fixing? That is the literal definition of throwing a game, really: performing so far below your skill level that you are guaranteed to lose in order to make money on a previously agreed arrangement. I don't care if people make these arrangements but if it affects performance, whether it's agreed upon or not, they need to be banned from tournaments for a very, very long time, just like those involved in the matchmaking scandal in BW were. It IS matchmaking when it decides the outcome. The money should be withheld from the both of them. It's a weird predicament. You got one guy backing out of a shady dealing by going back on his word. It's like "two wrongs make a right"? I don't think so. | ||
|
dragoonier
Germany154 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:57 Fiddel wrote: To any people who don't have a problem with price splitting: Would you have a problem if tournaments from now on would have 2 winners (those that win the semis), same prize money for both of them, same medal or cup for both of them, same honor? Just play the 'finals' as a friendly match? Why would you even watch? Splitting the money or giving odds is only to reduce the variance. With the huge disparity between first and second place in most tournaments everyone who thinks he is very close in skill with his opponent would be stupid not to make a deal. It should have nothing to do with the quality of the games, so I don't understand your argument. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11904 Posts
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! 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 Sadly, your analysis does not seem to produce any useful information. Making the difference between A and B bigger has no effect, since as long as A>B the better player should statistically never want to split even, no matter how large the difference between the two is. However, the main problem here is that the two players will not play a sufficient amount of matches to yield statistic results. Thus, there is a large amount of randomness involved in the final result. With tournament winnings being one of the main income sources for Pros, you actually get the exact opposite effect, and the natural desire for stability means that the larger the difference between A and B, the larger the incentive to make deals to lower this difference and as a result gain increased stability in your income. | ||
|
KoiKe-
Canada24 Posts
If they split the cash prize there won't be any stress they will maybe try more fency strats but still give 100% for the first place. I didn't watch tournament finals that was disapointing... Beside gsl. Nestea vs inca with the roach/ling all-in got pissed that i stayed up until 5am to watch this. Beside that they were all entertaining and high on emotion. It's in no point match fixing they agree to split but they don't decide who will win. The best player will finish first but both will receive same amoubt of money no problem with that. | ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
| ||
|
Kieofire
United States1809 Posts
On September 02 2011 09:03 Karak wrote: You have no idea what you are talking about. Oh? How is that? Because somebody verbally commits to something doesn't really mean they have to do it. | ||
|
bokchoi
Korea (South)9498 Posts
| ||
|
crojar
United States59 Posts
Chopping is not wrong in any way. To stop this from being a huge deal you could chop some but not all of the prize pool. Leave some to be played for. Seriously though, not chopping is really dumb in some cases imo. And there is no legal or ethical reason to not chop. | ||
|
MannerMan
371 Posts
The ethics are a lot less important than what is done as a result. | ||
|
itsben
435 Posts
On September 02 2011 09:02 Kieofire wrote: Actually they are worthless, that is like a football player verbally committing to a college and instead goes to a different college. Well in the case of TT1 and Fenix, there might be some proof of it occuring. Such as TT1 saying he pmed Xeris about it after it happened (the pm could have a date of when it happened), the fact that TT1 "threw his match" and they were team mates at the time which means more likely than not i would imagine they would split. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 08:57 Fiddel wrote: To any people who don't have a problem with price splitting: Would you have a problem if tournaments from now on would have 2 winners (those that win the semis), same prize money for both of them, same medal or cup for both of them, same honor? Just play the 'finals' as a friendly match? Why would you even watch? sure I would have a problem if it was the same medal same cup same honor same everything but this isn't the issue here, at all I dunno why the hell you bring this up it's only about the prize money, nothing else | ||
|
HoldenR
Netherlands256 Posts
On September 02 2011 09:00 ReignFayth wrote: how anyone can mix up match fixing and deal making completely baffles me How a "pro" can defend the concept of throwing games completely baffles me. You are extremely biased as a player. It is up to the spectators to decide whether this is matchmaking or not, not you. And let's face it, considering TT1 threw the game, it meets the very definition of matchmaking in this case. I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. This is obviously a case of blatant match fixing. Deal with it. | ||
| ||
