| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Matchfixing is a very serious offence and accusations of matchfixing should not be made lightly. Please avoid making accusations against specific individuals unless you have substantial proof, or until further information is released. (0620 KST) | ||
|
KingAlphard
Italy1705 Posts
A mothership core is only 100/100. He was going all in, so he didn't need the photon overcharge. If you rebuild it immediately, by the time you're on the other side of the map, you will have barely enough energy for a recall/time warp. Time warp isn't that strong anymore, and if you're going all in, you can't just recall out anyway. It was a weird mistake but not such a game-changing one. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 21 2015 08:53 rikapi wrote: I'm slightly confused by all of this. Does this mean a few rich guys can intentionally sabotage/jeopardize the career of a player they don't like by suddenly placing huge bets on that player's matches that sets of "weird shenanigans" alarms at betting websites, and then crying it was all because the match got fixed? Only if they win... | ||
|
dyDrawer
Canada438 Posts
And if they're not gonna do that, they should shut the f@#$ up and give those people their winnings. Accusing some one of a very serious offense without providing substantiation is akin to libel, and this is what Pinnacle is doing right now. I'm not saying they should release everything to the public, but if voiding all bets is the extent of their actions, then Pinnacle's credibility really becomes quite questionable. | ||
|
will216
United States185 Posts
| ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On January 21 2015 09:21 coverpunch wrote: Sounds like exactly what was in the OP and from other facts coming out. The odds get tilted heavily in favor of one player, then a few people make huge bets on the other player and win. EDIT: tl;dr The red flags seem to just come from bettors "winning too much". You have it completely backwards. People make a lot of bets on one player, much more than expected. Then the odds tilt heavily in favor of the other player to encourage betting on both sides (this is how bookies make money, the losing bets cover the winning payout). People keep betting on the same player despite terrible odds (5-1 means you risk $100 to win $20 for those that don't know), now something starts to look fishy. Especially if you you believe the twitter guy that it was 5 figure bets coming in. | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On January 21 2015 09:21 coverpunch wrote: Sounds like exactly what was in the OP and from other facts coming out. The odds get tilted heavily in favor of one player, then a few people make huge bets on the other player and win. EDIT: tl;dr The red flags seem to just come from bettors "winning too much". Nothing in the OP or the statement from Pinnacle says multiple matches, it's even specific to one match. Please refer me to the other facts to the contrary. As you seem to be concluding, I agree that one should exercise a healthy dose of skepticism when evaluating the effectiveness of any anti-fraud algorithm that is fighting "perceived match-fixing", as Pinnacle put it. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 21 2015 09:01 BuddhaMonk wrote: What's the source on suspicious patterns for multiple matches? Oh, it's just an observation by someone in this thread, I forgot who. He said that there have been more suspicious things happening lately. It's obviously not proof, but tbh when I followed cycling there were some people on forums that could always tell if someone was cheating just based on suspicious patterns, with near perfect accuracy in retrospect, so I believe in such observations. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 21 2015 09:37 Wuster wrote: You have it completely backwards. People make a lot of bets on one player, much more than expected. Then the odds tilt heavily in favor of the other player to encourage betting on both sides (this is how bookies make money, the losing bets cover the winning payout). People keep betting on the same player despite terrible odds (5-1 means you risk $100 to win $20 for those that don't know), now something starts to look fishy. Especially if you you believe the twitter guy that it was 5 figure bets coming in. Ah, you're right. Corrections and retractions. Looks like someone bet big on Dark and moved the line, and someone who bet on San believing it looked like a good bet complained to the company. | ||
|
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
E.g. Prior to the birth of Prince Williams baby, a betting agency in UK canceled bets on the sex of the child. There was an unusual bet on him being male. Now what probably happened was maybe a nurse or someone saw the ultrasound and decided to make large bets but it means the bet is now manipulated and can't go ahead. Similarly for all we know, someone found out San's wrist and shoulder was injured and therefore put some huge bet on Dark. Yes the betting was manipulated, but that doesn't San and/or Dark was involved or that anything illegal was done. From my reading of their statement, they have not said they believe something illegal has happened at all. So can we stop jumping to conclusions. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:08 Dracover wrote: I'm not sure why everyone is reading "maniuplated" to mean match fixing. A bet can be manipulated for non-illegal reasons. E.g. Prior to the birth of Prince Williams baby, a betting agency in UK canceled bets on the sex of the child. There was an unusual bet on him being male. Now what probably happened was maybe a nurse or someone saw the ultrasound and decided to make large bets but it means the bet is now manipulated and can't go ahead. Similarly for all we know, someone found out San's wrist and shoulder was injured and therefore put some huge bet on Dark. Yes the betting was manipulated, but that doesn't San and/or Dark was involved or that anything illegal was done. From my reading of their statement, they have not said they believe something illegal has happened at all. So can we stop jumping to conclusions. No, get your torch and rake. We can't be happy until we rid this scourge by burning someone's house down. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:14 coverpunch wrote: No, get your torch and rake. We can't be happy until we rid this scourge by burning someone's house down. lol | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44930 Posts
Has Dark responded? Can we get his response in the OP whenever it becomes available? I'm really, really hoping that the "evidence" is crap. | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
As for Pinnacles credibility. It isn't in question. There is strong circumstantial evidence, there absolutely has to be, this is small fry for Pinnacle. Why everyone is so quick to dismiss it and believe the best before "evidence" comes in after what we have witnessed before in BW I have no idea. Again: This is NOTHING for pinnacle, the whole esports market is nothing to them. And you have to jump through a lot of hoops to explain the circumstantial evidence away. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I feel bad for San, especially after reading his Twitter comment in the OP. Basically apologizing because he feels like he played so badly that everyone assumes there's a scandal going on x.x Has Dark responded? Can we get his response in the OP whenever it becomes available? I'm really, really hoping that the "evidence" is crap. I think KeSPA keeps much tighter reigns on their teams' social media, he likely has been told not to respond publicly. Probably better stance all round. | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
| ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:42 _SpiRaL_ wrote: I am also amazed at so many people thinking Pinnacle did anything shady here or "shouldn't throw accusations around!". You people obviously don't bet, its 100% industry standard practice. That seems logical. What percentage of these cases are "false postives" or not proved? Does Pinnacle have to explain themselves further to anyone? What about the people who legitimately bet on Dark? | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:44 dsousa wrote: That seems logical. What percentage of these cases are "false postives" or not proved? Does Pinnacle have to explain themselves further to anyone? What about the people who legitimately bet on Dark? No one knows. No. They get refunded. Bets are void. Buuut what we do know is an extremely reputable betting site, voided a bet due to suspicious activity which made them think it was not a fair match. That is strong circumstantial evidence. Not enough to "convict" anyone unfortunately and nothing more will likely come of it, but basically I just wanted to tell people that you should not dismiss it as not true immediately. instead your alarms should be sounding loudly. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:59 dsousa wrote: Could the replay of the match provide conclusive evidence? playing like crap isn't evidence San didn't even play that bad | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
If so is this common practice? Does this mean that IF san would have won nothing would have happened? | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
SKillous vs goblin
Spirit vs GgMaChine
ByuN vs MaxPax
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
