EPTHate it all you want, ban it all you want, but you can't prevent it.
Should "Deal Making" be illegal? - Page 38
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ghazwan
Netherlands444 Posts
Hate it all you want, ban it all you want, but you can't prevent it. | ||
|
MudkipSEA`
Singapore67 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:16 Arisen wrote: This happens in real sports all the time. Good thing real sports never got taken seriously, then there might be groups of people killing other people over something that happened in a match of two people trying to kick a ball into a net. Well, I don't know what kind of sports you watch. But the point is it is not accepted by the community is it? Tell me how would people feel if all Federer and Nadal decided to split their earnings of all the Grand Slam finals they attended. Would they have this epic rivalry? The point I'm trying to make here is that how can we, as a community accept that they make deals before the tournament. | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:26 [GiTM]-Ace wrote: b/c not everyone thinks that way. For a poker example , when I used to play tourneys I loved poker but I 100% wanted to win the money. After it taking so long and putting in hard work by the time I made it to final 2 there was no way I was splitting I wanted first I worked too hard for it. After a while though you might just be content with the money. All about the persons perspective at the time Exactly my point, the person who earned the money should get the money. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:26 Tektos wrote: Prize would imply the money they get. So they're deceiving fans when this headline comes out "(PROGAMER) WINS $1MILLION PRIZE" when in actuality he got less than half of that after any team cuts and the share he gave to 2nd place winner. jesus christ why would the fans care about how much first place win in a given tournament, are you serious right now | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:27 MudkipSEA` wrote: Well, I don't know what kind of sports you watch. But the point is it is not accepted by the community is it? Tell me how would people feel if all Federer and Nadal decided to split their earnings of all the Grand Slam finals they attended. Would they have this epic rivalry? The point I'm trying to make here is that how can we, as a community accept that they make deals before the tournament. they DEFINITELY would have this epic rivarly, their rivarly goes far beyond prize money | ||
|
TutsiRebel
United States172 Posts
| ||
|
price
United States297 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:10 ReignFayth wrote: I watch because there are good players playing and good casters casting and to cheer for my friends I am guessing that if this kind of thing upset enough fans that it affected sponsorships, or simply upset sponsors, then steps would be taken to prevent it (why would a sponsor want to put their brand's name on the line for a fixed match?). You really cannot enforce it without monitoring players' bank accounts, but if there is an appearance that the match was not "real" then sponsors could definitely get angry. Agreements suggest that the players will not play as hard (regardless of whether it's true or not). In my opinion, it's basically like betting against yourself to win (you are betting a share of your winnings that you will lose the match, e.g., Pete Rose). | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:28 Tektos wrote: Exactly my point, the person who earned the money should get the money. and he's free to then give money to his friend isn't he? | ||
|
Bubble-T
Australia105 Posts
| ||
|
Slix36
United Kingdom145 Posts
As for you people who think that it would mean boring games because there wouldn't much incentive, please note that it may be true that there may be less incentive greater monetary rewards have been proven on multiple occasions to produce worse results when it comes to activities that aren't rather easy on the brain. In reality anyone who is in it only for the fame/pride/fulfilment/fun is more likely to perform better than they would if they were playing for a greater monetary reward. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:29 ReignFayth wrote: they DEFINITELY would have this epic rivarly, their rivarly goes far beyond prize money You ever get to the point you feel like you are just banging your head against a brick wall? | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:29 price wrote: I am guessing that if this kind of thing upset enough fans that it affected sponsorships, or simply upset sponsors, then steps would be taken to prevent it (why would a sponsor want to put their brand's name on the line for a fixed match?). You really cannot enforce it without monitoring players' bank accounts, but if there is an appearance that the match was not "real" then sponsors could definitely get angry. Agreements suggest that the players will not play as hard (regardless of whether it's true or not). In my opinion, it's basically like betting against yourself to win (you are betting a share of your winnings that you will lose the match, e.g., Pete Rose). once again you are mixing up matchfixing and deal-making 2 distinct things, you need to learn to make the difference | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:31 Baarn wrote: You ever get to the point you feel like you are just banging your head against a brick wall? rofl xD | ||
|
kawaiiryuko
United States368 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:28 Tektos wrote: Exactly my point, the person who earned the money should get the money. Well, in poker, it is different. It is usually a table split based on chip counts (i.e.: if i've got 2/3rd of the chips, the winning split usually just goes 66/33). Further, head's up poker is pretty boring and repetitive. While I don't have /as/ much of a problem with people on the same team doing it (I just reason it as the prize money is going to the team, so it doesn't matter how the team splits it up), I think it is poor form to do it among competitors. | ||
|
DotADeMoN
United States517 Posts
| ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:30 ReignFayth wrote: and he's free to then give money to his friend isn't he? If it is agreed AFTER the tournament by all means yes! What a generous person. If they make an agreement BEFORE the games are played there is the possibility of it changing the matches, so no. | ||
|
rdj107
United States336 Posts
It also brings up the thoughts of outright game rigging. I'm aware nothing like that happened but the two aren't exactly miles apart when they are brought to attention in the way that just happened. | ||
|
price
United States297 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:31 ReignFayth wrote: once again you are mixing up matchfixing and deal-making 2 distinct things, you need to learn to make the difference The difference is in your mind, not in ours. To an outsider they look the same, but to the person making the deal they are different. Deal-making gives the appearance of matchfixing. That is the issue I see with it. | ||
|
Laevateinn
Norway115 Posts
| ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:33 price wrote: The difference is in your mind, not in ours. To an outsider they look the same, but to the person making the deal they are different. Deal-making gives the appearance of matchfixing. That is the issue I see with it. lol no it's clearly not only in my mind, just like 2+2=4 match fixing is when the winner is decided beforehand, the matches are rigged, deal making is really just someone giving money to someone else and nothing about the upcoming match has been decided they're still gonna play to the best of their ability | ||
| ||
