|
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote:
I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
Oh fuck, didn´t notice that, we need a skilled paint hero to portray this epicness in a image.
Where is lichter when you need him?
|
On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation.
And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon?
He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative.
Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition..
If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant.
Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree?
|
On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree?
No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is.
The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with.
Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless.
I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide.
|
The problem is that giving the person beating Revival $500 can still cause Revival to throw the game and split the money with the winner.
Fortunately, going to Blizzcon gives you $5000 minimum so I'm guessing Revival will play to win.
|
On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:
[quote]
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
[quote]
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
[quote]
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide.
That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady.
Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted.
Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious.
Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival.
What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves.
|
On October 31 2013 09:45 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide. That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady. Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted. Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious. Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival. What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves.
But now that we know that TaeJa is playing, if you want top 2, you need to beat one of the two koreans, and so you have to focus on him to beat him. Now you have to choose between focusing on Revival or focusing on TaeJa. Obviously you choose Revival.
So that won't change a thing?
So can we finally move on to more important matters, like the fact that Jon Snow fights for the king in the north?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2013 09:45 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide. That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady. Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted. Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious. Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival. What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves.
okay, say I hypothetically, as a nonplayer/spectator, dislike Taeja as a player and I offer $500 to the two out of jonsnow/revival/select who can knock him out. is that shady? i don't stand to gain anything, i just want my least favorite knocked out.
sure, it's unfair to taeja but if he gets knocked out because of other players he wouldn't deserve to win. just because i offer added incentive to other players to win against taeja does not mean that they will win if taeja is a skilled player.
|
Northern Ireland27284 Posts
It's a regular occurrence in 'real' sports, positive incentive for teams who hold your fate in their hands, but have nothing besides pride to play for.
|
Paying people to win games should be normal... The people who pay regularly are called team owners.
|
On October 31 2013 07:16 Darkhoarse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 07:12 shid0x wrote:On October 31 2013 07:11 Darkhoarse wrote:
Taeja is about to make the easiest 500 bucks of his life... if he plays from korea not so sure. Well won't Revival play from Korea as well? And WCS AM had that stupid rule where two players playing from KR still had to play on the NA server.
well it's not stupid, it's WCS AM you play on AM server...it's called WCS AM
|
United States23455 Posts
On October 31 2013 11:35 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 07:16 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 31 2013 07:12 shid0x wrote:On October 31 2013 07:11 Darkhoarse wrote:
Taeja is about to make the easiest 500 bucks of his life... if he plays from korea not so sure. Well won't Revival play from Korea as well? And WCS AM had that stupid rule where two players playing from KR still had to play on the NA server. well it's not stupid, it's WCS AM you play on AM server...it's called WCS AM
Welllll here's the thing though. I think it's more than fair to make a player playing from KR against someone in NA to play on the NA server, because as you say, it is WCS AM and they should play on that server. But if it is between two people in KR, the only thing playing on the NA server will do is make both players lag and just bring down the overall quality of the game.
|
Personally, I have no problems with this. Infact, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
While some people might think of it as akin to bribing, incentive to win is different from incentive to lose right?
We would've expect them as professionals to try their best to win in every game regardless of what's on the line anyway, but we know that's not realistic, so what's wrong with a little bonus?
I'm sure all of us want to see competitve games instead of meaningless friendlies. It could've been a smarter play to keep it under wraps, but there are pros to announcing it publicly I guess.
|
On October 31 2013 07:30 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote:
I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival? Oh fuck, didn´t notice that, we need a skilled paint hero to portray this epicness in a image. Where is lichter when you need him?
Revival is of course one of R'hllor 's Red Priests... reviving and stuff 
|
On October 31 2013 10:17 saltywet wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2013 09:45 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide. That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady. Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted. Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious. Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival. What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves. okay, say I hypothetically, as a nonplayer/spectator, dislike Taeja as a player and I offer $500 to the two out of jonsnow/revival/select who can knock him out. is that shady? i don't stand to gain anything, i just want my least favorite knocked out. sure, it's unfair to taeja but if he gets knocked out because of other players he wouldn't deserve to win. just because i offer added incentive to other players to win against taeja does not mean that they will win if taeja is a skilled player.
Money potentially affecting the outcome of a match is bad. It takes away from fair competition. I don't think we should want a scene where throwing money at matches can give you an edge. Yeah in your scenario they might still lose to TaeJa, or they might've beaten him regardless. The only thing we can be certain of is that they have more motivation to beat TaeJa because someone is throwing money around to influence them. How much $500 is worth to these guys is debatable and varies from person to person. However, if the offer is real, Naniwa certainly seems to be under the impression it'll make a difference.
I'm still working this out myself, if I was certain there wouldn't be a point in debating it. But it feels extra scummy when you make money off of the matches. At that point you're throwing money at a match in the hopes of upping your chances to win more money yourself.
In the end, if they can't beat him, they can't beat him. Playing devils advocate for a moment though:
(Boring reasoning about why it's statistically reasonable to only focus on playing against Revival and not giving much care to the other match ups)
+ Show Spoiler +
If the bracket has Jon and Select on one and Revival and TaeJa on the other side. Jon and Select have some interest in beating each other, but only because it guarantees they'll get a shot at Revival. The loser of Jon vs Select only gets a shot if TaeJa beats Revival, or if they proceed to beat TaeJa and the winner of the Jon vs Select match beats Revival. They could also just say fuck all the other match ups and only focus on playing Revival.
Only if they lost every match and Revival won every match or vice versa would they not get a chance at the bounty. Statistically, if all players were even, they'd only have a.. (0.5^3)*2, 1 in 4 chance of not getting a shot at the bounty anyway. If one doesn't, the other player is guaranteed to.
If they're on opposite sides of the bracket, one player is obviously guaranteed to get a shot at Revival and could only focus on that match up and the other will have to take his chances (I think 50-50 he'll get to face him? didn't do the math).
These players now have a $500 motive to only focus on Revival until there's nothing more they can do to prepare. Whomever plays him first, if they win vs Revival will have a $500 motive to throw their next match in the hopes of getting to play Revival again.
Now I don't think these players are particularly likely to go after the money more than the average person. How likely you think this is depends on how trusting you are in the good and honest nature of other people. But I think some people would argue that every player has his price, and it's only a question of whether the bounty is big enough. Thankfully, I'm pretty trusting, if I weren't, I'd be very concerned. Placing a bounty on a specific player is definitely dodgy.
It would've been better to offer money to the first and second place of the group, regardless of who those players are and who they beat. Then still an argument could be made "why should Revivals group have added incentives to make it tougher, when Naniwa's wcs run had people playing who didn't have much to gain".
Side-note: I highly doubt Naniwa actually thought this all through when he made the tweet. Even if it's a legitimate offer, I doubt he even realized that what he was doing was rather shady.
On October 31 2013 10:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's a regular occurrence in 'real' sports, positive incentive for teams who hold your fate in their hands, but have nothing besides pride to play for.
No it's absolutely not! In soccer teams often spare players or at times field complete B teams when they're guaranteed qualification. That's why you always want to play the toughest team in the champions league group last, because odds are, if they're already through, you'll have an easier time.
If what you're saying happened in "real" sports, that would only be one step away from extorting teams when you hold their fate in your hands.
You might see practices like this in poker tournaments or the like, but I don't know if we should depend on poker players for our moral compass. ;p
|
On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 10:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's a regular occurrence in 'real' sports, positive incentive for teams who hold your fate in their hands, but have nothing besides pride to play for. No it's absolutely not! In soccer teams often spare players or at times field complete B teams when they're guaranteed qualification. That's why you always want to play the toughest team in the champions league group last, because odds are, if they're already through, you'll have an easier time. If what you're saying happened in "real" sports, that would only be one step away from extorting teams when you hold their fate in your hands. You might see practices like this in poker tournaments or the like, but I don't know if we should depend on poker players for our moral compass. ;p
You do know that it is very common in football/soccer for example where for example Barcelona or Real Madrid would pay out a bonus to a winning team benefiting them at the end of the season in a game where they themselves didn't play. I think this is what he meant.
Read http://afootballreport.com/post/32196649220/why-suitcases-should-be-left-on-the-plane which has more information on this.
|
On October 31 2013 09:11 Prillan wrote:
Fortunately, going to Blizzcon gives you $5000 minimum so I'm guessing Revival will play to win.
If Revival wins this group, going to BlizzCon gives you $0 minimum if you're NaNiwa/Revival. ^_^
|
On October 31 2013 17:19 Elite_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:11 Prillan wrote:
Fortunately, going to Blizzcon gives you $5000 minimum so I'm guessing Revival will play to win. If Revival wins this group, going to BlizzCon gives you $0 minimum if you're NaNiwa/Revival. ^_^
Yeah, I know. I meant that I guess Revival will take the chance of winning since he probably expects him to win against Naniwa.
|
fuck prize-pools! sc2 matches should be a duel to the death. then people will have ultimate motivation every time.
|
This is awesome, go Naniwa.
And lol at whoever has a problem with this.
|
On October 31 2013 09:11 Prillan wrote:
The problem is that giving the person beating Revival $500 can still cause Revival to throw the game and split the money with the winner.
Fortunately, going to Blizzcon gives you $5000 minimum so I'm guessing Revival will play to win.
I guess we should just scrap monetary prizes all together then, since this applies to almost every professionally played game then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
