EPTIn any event, even if something fishy is going on (which it may not be), it seems more likely that it has to do with inside information about San's condition rather than actual match-fixing. But whatever.
Pinnacle voids Dark vs. San bets due to match manipulation…
| 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) | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3128 Posts
In any event, even if something fishy is going on (which it may not be), it seems more likely that it has to do with inside information about San's condition rather than actual match-fixing. But whatever. | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
| ||
|
braller
96 Posts
On January 21 2015 13:50 Cricketer12 wrote: its this simple, this is a case of an almost certain statistical anomaly, the likelyhood that San/Dark are involved in match fixing is slim to none, and continuing to discuss the matter is only a waste of time. Due to the immensity of the allegations of match-fixing, unless immense amounts of evidence are presented to the community, our best course of action is to assume that this was just a weird happening. San's loss isnt even *that* unbelivable, blink fuckups happen all the time, i doubt he was throwing the game. Why makes you so certain that this a statistical anomaly and that neither of the two players are involved in match-fixing? There are a lot of people talking about "jumping to conclusions," but it seems like those defending San are doing so to an even greater extent. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3128 Posts
On the plus side, though, the BW match-fixing scandal did give me my greatest level of e-fame so far with my "progamer match-fixing conversations." So who knows, maybe it wouldn't be so bad | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On January 21 2015 13:52 pure.Wasted wrote: I stand before you an enlightened man. Hehe, no need to thank me  But in all seriousness, my English isn't good enough to explain the math behind it, since I've studied it all including terms etc on Finnish. | ||
|
00Visor
4337 Posts
Doesnt't outright mean that it was matchfixing. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
On January 21 2015 14:46 Makro wrote: now this is a legit drama Still less than Naniwa thread  | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 21 2015 13:42 pure.Wasted wrote: But just because they seem like illogical bets to the average person doesn't really mean they are. I mean, maybe San always loses horribly when there's a full moon out, and only one person in the universe has picked up on this fact. How does the system handle something like that? I'll try to give a probably very bad explanation why. The way betting works is it starts with odds and/or a line and as bets come in it moves to a point where it stabilizes with bets on either side. what happened here was that Dark was a small favorite a lot of bets were placed on him so he moved to have much higher odds(which means your payout for him winning is lower.) What then happened that was unusual was even more large bets were placed on dark pushing the line to such a point where it became so bad that practically no one would think would bet on dark but large bets kept coming in to him. Think about it how many people would realistically bet hundreds of dollars on Dark at 3-1 odds if they didn't know anything. and the line kept going past that to where that Dark was a 5-1 favorite which meant for every dollar bet you'd only be getting 1.2 dollars in return. The max bet for it was only 250 dollars so it meant the bets had to be in installments and each bet was at worse odds than the last. Would you throw thousands of dollars on Dark at 3-1 odds or worse?People generally don't bet on odds this high because the return is so low compared to the risk. It's pretty established that in all betting lines don't move so much from where they started unless something is going on. Basically there's probably at least a 99 percent chance that the betting wasn't legitimate. this was better explained earlier in the thread but I hopes it clarifies a bit. Normally in a bet votes for san would have come in to stabalize it because people would see him at terrible odds and figure they have a chance to make some money but the amount that went in for San was still miniscule compared to the amount for Dark. so to summarize. Unussually high amount of money involved+all on the same team/player even at ridiculous odds basically equals something fishy. It's like an american football line that starts with a 7 point spread and ends with a 21 point spread. Betting lines just don't move that much normally without new information. sorry if this is completely terrible. I tried to avoid using statistics and keep it as non math as it could | ||
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
| ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
That's what the guys in the better thread were saying before the match. They were saying San at +350 was the bet of the century, and it went to +500. This is how crazy the odds were when the match started. 100 bet on Dark yielded 120, 100 bet on San would yield 500. Dark gave a potential 20% return, San gave a 500% return.... yet people were still betting on Dark. San being sick does not explain that. He'd have to be nearly dead to get that bad of odds. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 21 2015 15:12 dsousa wrote: Inside information does not explain San vs Dark being 5 to 1 odds. Just because San was sick, or not practicing, that doesn't get the odds to >80% for Dark to win. That's what the guys in the better thread were saying before the match. They were saying San at +350 was the bet of the century, and it went to +500. This is how crazy the odds were when the match started. 100 bet on Dark yielded 120, 100 bet on San would yield 500. Dark gave a potential 20% return, San gave a 500% return.... yet people were still betting on Dark. San being sick does not explain that. He'd have to be nearly dead to get that bad of odds. well to be fair to San I think it was wrist and shoulder problems not being sick and he was A: very beat up. B:had just been in the hospital. and C: not practicing. I don't know if it should be that high but It doesn't seem overly ridiculous to me expecially for a game like starcraft which is so mechanical. | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On January 21 2015 10:08 Dracover wrote: 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 that's not how it works. Once the princess got pregnant, it was already determined if it's a boy or a girl. The information just leaked out. So the nurse for example knew 100% sure it was a boy. But a game of starcraft isn't done until the match is over, health problems or not. Bets kept going in despite terrible odds, so someone knew San is going to lose. It wasn't just one huge bet that offset the odds. If someone is not familiar with betting and/or statistics, let's make an even more exaggerated example: Some pro plays against another pro and they are considered about even. Information leaks that pro1 is having health problems. You are "sure" pro2 is going to win. You see on the betting site 1,01 for pro2 to win. Every 100$ you invest you win 1$ or lose 100$. Suddenly you're not that "sure" anymore? But if you're the nurse that saw the bloodtests/ultrasounds/whatever, you'd take those odds of the baby being a boy. Hey free money. It doesn't prove matchfixing of course. That guy who made the bets just thought matchfixing was going on. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 21 2015 15:23 Jarree wrote: No that's not how it works. Once the princess got pregnant, it was already determined if it's a boy or a girl. The information just leaked out. So the nurse for example knew 100% sure it was a boy. But a game of starcraft isn't done until the match is over, health problems or not. Bets kept going in despite terrible odds, so someone knew San is going to lose. It wasn't just one huge bet that offset the odds. If someone is not familiar with betting and/or statistics, let's make an even more exaggerated example: Some pro plays against another pro and they are considered about even. Information leaks that pro1 is having health problems. You are "sure" pro2 is going to win. You see on the betting site 1,01 for pro2 to win. Every 100$ you invest you win 1$ or lose 100$. Suddenly you're not that "sure" anymore? But if you're the nurse that saw the bloodtests/ultrasounds/whatever, you'd take that bet. Hey free money. It doesn't prove matchfixing of course. That guy who made the bets just thought matchfixing was going on. It's possible San's injuries are worse then people think it is and there wasn't time to replace him in the line up. and somone found out he literally couldn't play starcraft especially against one of the best proleague players. | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On January 21 2015 15:28 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: It's possible San's injuries are worse then people think it is and there wasn't time to replace him in the line up. and somone found out he literally couldn't play starcraft especially against one of the best proleague players. I don't buy it, not with those odds. Highly unlikely, which in statistic-language means impossible. One explanation could be some random gambler who has never bet on esports-matches before and just started pouring money in without giving a shit. But how probable is that, I don't know Kev. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 21 2015 15:32 Jarree wrote: I don't buy it, not with those odds. Highly unlikely, which in statistic-language means impossible. One explanation could be some random gambler who has never bet on esports-matches before and just started pouring money in without giving a shit. But how probable is that, I don't know Kev. I don't completely agree with you. You've established that it's almost statistically certain that the bettor knew San was going to lose. I'm not arguing with you there. But you're then concluding that the only way that could have happened was for San to throw the game. I think since san has health problems and went to the hospital and can't practice it's more likely to be that and he literally could not play starcraft and decided it would be better to try to all in then forfeit a game in proleague. I guess we'll just have to disagree there, at least until more information about the extent of his injuries. to be fair you know more about betting than I do but I think its unfair to compare normal sports with Starcraft 2. In a normal sport if your injured to a point where you can't help your team you normally withdraw. But with proleague San playing didn't hurt his team at all. It's possible San was playing terrible and had an almost 0 percent chance of beating dark due to his injuries (which I admit are still undetermined at this time). but still him witha 1% chance of winning increases his teams chances of winning instead of a forfeit. Also in normal sports injuries are known before hand especially if their serious. So yes in normal sports this line would be absolutely abusurd and guarantee fixing possibly because there's no way someone with no chance to contribute due to injury is playing, and tennis players and golf players in individual sports know better than to put their bodies through the full thing for no reason since its so grueling and probably risks long term harm. But in San's case he sat down at a computer and played a 20 minute game of starcraft and him just being in the booth increased his teams chance of winning. Plus I'm pretty sure Kespa isn't very lenient on allowing substitutions. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
On January 21 2015 15:32 Jarree wrote: One explanation could be some random gambler who has never bet on esports-matches before and just started pouring money in without giving a shit. But how probable is that, I don't know Kev. As a applied math bachelor, I think with 90% certainty match was fixed. San's career is basically finished either way. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 21 2015 16:10 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Dark's odds felt to 1.2 on every esports betting site simultaneuosly. As a applied math bachelor, I think with 90% certainty match was fixed. San's career is basically finished either way. eh all I see from that was that whoever got the information spread it among sites or to others. as I've posted in my previous posts I still don't think this shows any more than San had no chance to win. Still don't see how you get to he threw the match from there as I've explained in the previous post your skipping a premise what we know is that the bettor knew San couldn't win the game. from that we automatically know San couldn't win the game your assuming the only way San can't win the game is if he intentionally throws the match. I'm saying that it's possible San couldn't physically win because of his condition and I've explained why he still played despite that. Unless you can disprove my claim your claim that the only way for it to be matchfixing has not been shown to be true now its possible that San's health reccords are released tomorrow at which my points may become wrong but with the information we have now it still stands | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
So well, I understand that pinnacle cancels the bets, but I don't think that this betting pattern in a single game is enough to start accusing San of match-fixing. I mean, as long as we are talking stats, there is a huge multiple hypothesis-testing correcting that should be going on here. There are thousands (?) of sc2 games that people bet on, and maybe it is not that strange that one of them get hit by some event that shows the same patterns as match-fixing. We don't know, right, so we should stay alert for more signs of this, and retract bets, fine, but definitely not start accusing Sen unless more evidnece appears. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
When a huge batch of max bets placed on 1.4- odds on different sites simultaneously, there is no other conclusion other that the match is rigged. One crazy rich dude, two, four, I can get on, but by the looks of things there were 20+ of them at the exact same short period of time. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On January 21 2015 16:27 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @Karis, it's not about so called 'handycap" inside information. When a huge batch of max bets placed on 1.4- odds on different sites simultaneously, there is no other conclusion other that the match is rigged. Was it multiple sites? or only Pinnacle? | ||
| ||
