|
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) |
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.
your skipping like a million premises here. once again All you've shown is that Someone knew San didn't have a chance to win the match. You haven't explained how that has to be matchfixing or how placing it on multiple site simultaneously indicates matchfixing. It might make it likely but then you're using inductive logic where your premise here is deductive.
Your argument states that It necessarily follows from your premises. I've shown a counterexample to one of your premises that in order to show your premise true has to be dealt with. until you remove/deal with the counterexample your conclusion isn't valid.
Im going to try stating this one more time as clear as I can.
You've shown that the bettor knew San couldn't win the game. I agree with you there
your making the assumption the only way San couldn't win the game is if he threw the game
I'm saying it's possible (not necessarily likely) that San couldn't win the game because he was not in a physical condition that allowed him to win the game.
you can't use a phrase like there is no other than conclusion unless you conclusions necessarily follow from your premises and your premises are true. I may have made an error earlier when I said your arguments were invalid. there valid but unsound since your premises are incorrect
|
On January 21 2015 16:29 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It went down to 1.2 only on Pinnacle, that's what so suspicious in a first place. 1.46 at Egamingbets, which is still rather low for a Proleague series. For example, Emotion had 1.46 vs Bly there after losing to Slivko first in Zotac (both matches Bo3), and only Life (vs Classic), Zest (vs Creator) and Flash (vs BBong) had 1.4 winning odds for a Proleague matches recently, 'cause all of them are household names.
@Karis, I didn't say the match was thrown by San. I think (with 90% certainty) that match was rigged, and San's career is finished simply because of the outrage. I heard somewhere he planned to go to the army, maybe it's the explanation, I dunno.
|
On January 21 2015 16:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +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. your skipping like a million premises here. once again All you've shown is that Someone knew San didn't have a chance to win the match. You haven't explained how that has to be matchfixing or how placing it on multiple site simultaneously indicates matchfixing. It might make it likely but then you're using inductive logic where your premise here is deductive. Your argument states that It necessarily follows from your premises. I've shown a counterexample to one of your premises that in order to show your premise true has to be dealt with. until you remove/deal with the counterexample your conclusion isn't valid.
The point is, at 5 to 1 there is no way it would be profitable unless you KNEW 100% San was going to lose.
These guys were throwing 10000's of dollars after a measly 20% return. Against LOSING it all.
No gambler chases a 20% return if the risk is not 0.
Finance, math. L2 <3
The only way for the risk to be 0, is if San is in on it.
That's the math, IMO.
I always liked San.
|
On January 21 2015 16:39 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 16:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: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. your skipping like a million premises here. once again All you've shown is that Someone knew San didn't have a chance to win the match. You haven't explained how that has to be matchfixing or how placing it on multiple site simultaneously indicates matchfixing. It might make it likely but then you're using inductive logic where your premise here is deductive. Your argument states that It necessarily follows from your premises. I've shown a counterexample to one of your premises that in order to show your premise true has to be dealt with. until you remove/deal with the counterexample your conclusion isn't valid. The point is, at 5 to 1 there is no way it would be profitable unless you KNEW 100% San was going to lose. These guys were throwing 10000's of dollars after a measly 20% return. Against LOSING it all. No gambler chases a 20% return if the risk is not 0. Finance, math. L2 <3 The only way for the risk to be 0, is if San is in on it. That's the math, IMO. I always liked San.
I'm agreeing that San couldn't win the game. I'm just saying that it is possible that he didn't intentionally threw it. that's the whole point of my argument
|
In my opinion I think the math talks for itself.
The main "problem" is that this insane amount of bets for Dark was going on on many sites which basically means that someone or as is more probable a large group of people knew San was going to lose.
Bets never reach this outlandish payout levels because you never really know how a game will go. Even if San was sick and had wrist issues no one would bet their whole bankaccount just based on that, I mean we've had plenty of players with wrist problems that hasn't ended in this mess.
The bottomline is that somehow someone knew that San would lose that game and who could know that but San? If San is in totally terrible condition and knows he will lose and tells his coach about that. Who would leak that information or try and use that information to bet tons of money against San? Somehow I have a hard time imagining this coming from the ST-Yoe organisation itself which means it has to have come from San himself.
If you were Sans friend and he told you he was in bad condition, would you call everyone you knew and promise them San wouldn't win and that they should earn a quick buck or two? No didn't think so neither would I, Sanhas to have leaked something more substantial. Even if he was not matchfixing on purpose he has obviously leaked more than he should in some way.
|
On January 21 2015 16:47 Shuffleblade wrote:
In my opinion I think the math talks for itself.
The main "problem" is that this insane amount of bets for Dark was going on on many sites which basically means that someone or as is more probable a large group of people knew San was going to lose.
Bets never reach this outlandish payout levels because you never really know how a game will go. Even if San was sick and had wrist issues no one would bet their whole bankaccount just based on that, I mean we've had plenty of players with wrist problems that hasn't ended in this mess.
The bottomline is that somehow someone knew that San would lose that game and who could know that but San? If San is in totally terrible condition and knows he will lose and tells his coach about that. Who would leak that information or try and use that information to bet tons of money against San? Somehow I have a hard time imagining this coming from the ST-Yoe organisation itself which means it has to have come from San himself.
If you were Sans friend and he told you he was in bad condition, would you call everyone you knew and promise them San wouldn't win and that they should earn a quick buck or two? No didn't think so neither would I, Sanhas to have leaked something more substantial. Even if he was not matchfixing on purpose he has obviously leaked more than he should in some way.
that's a pretty solid (albeit inductive) argument towards thinking it's match fixing. also I'm not saying it's not match fixing hell it could be 99 percent likely that it's match fixing (although I could argue about that based on what we're using for our sample size) I'm just saying it's not a valid sound argument to conclude that it was match fixing with the date we have
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
what kind of idiot match fixes, then bets in an anomalous and obvious way pushing the odds to suspicious territory only for such a tiny margin?
|
On January 21 2015 16:52 lichter wrote:
what kind of idiot match fixes, then bets in an anomalous and obvious way pushing the odds to suspicious territory only for such a tiny margin?
thats a good point. anyway at least in logic if you say something necessarily concludes it better be sound and valid or your using the wrong term (from a logic standpoint anyway).
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
being an idiot doesn't mean it wasn't match fixing. it totally could have been
person was still a giant idiot regardless because he could have made money by not being a moron
|
On January 21 2015 16:57 lichter wrote:
being an idiot doesn't mean it wasn't match fixing. it totally could have been
person was still a giant idiot regardless because he could have made money by not being a moron
noted and I made the change. Sorry I misread that. its midnight where I am and I'm exhausted. Now there's a position I completely agree with
|
On January 21 2015 16:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 16:47 Shuffleblade wrote:
In my opinion I think the math talks for itself.
The main "problem" is that this insane amount of bets for Dark was going on on many sites which basically means that someone or as is more probable a large group of people knew San was going to lose.
Bets never reach this outlandish payout levels because you never really know how a game will go. Even if San was sick and had wrist issues no one would bet their whole bankaccount just based on that, I mean we've had plenty of players with wrist problems that hasn't ended in this mess.
The bottomline is that somehow someone knew that San would lose that game and who could know that but San? If San is in totally terrible condition and knows he will lose and tells his coach about that. Who would leak that information or try and use that information to bet tons of money against San? Somehow I have a hard time imagining this coming from the ST-Yoe organisation itself which means it has to have come from San himself.
If you were Sans friend and he told you he was in bad condition, would you call everyone you knew and promise them San wouldn't win and that they should earn a quick buck or two? No didn't think so neither would I, Sanhas to have leaked something more substantial. Even if he was not matchfixing on purpose he has obviously leaked more than he should in some way. that's a pretty good argument towards thinking it's match fixing. also I'm not saying it's not match fixing hell it could be 99 percent likely that it's match fixing (although I could argue about that based on what we're using for our sample size) I'm just saying it's not a valid sound argument to conclude that it was match fixing.
I agree its not conclusive unless we know a lot more about he number of bets made and amount of money being bet. If we know those two things, no doubt some of these guys on here got a formula to tell us just how unlucky San was.
|
On January 21 2015 16:52 lichter wrote:
what kind of idiot match fixes, then bets in an anomalous and obvious way pushing the odds to suspicious territory only for such a tiny margin?
It's a double edged argument, honestly.
There's a saying, for example, if criminals were smarter, there would be less crimes. If one doesn't do betting on a regular basis, he might not know the basics of probability theory, or he could be arrogant, you know.
|
On January 21 2015 16:59 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 16:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On January 21 2015 16:47 Shuffleblade wrote:
In my opinion I think the math talks for itself.
The main "problem" is that this insane amount of bets for Dark was going on on many sites which basically means that someone or as is more probable a large group of people knew San was going to lose.
Bets never reach this outlandish payout levels because you never really know how a game will go. Even if San was sick and had wrist issues no one would bet their whole bankaccount just based on that, I mean we've had plenty of players with wrist problems that hasn't ended in this mess.
The bottomline is that somehow someone knew that San would lose that game and who could know that but San? If San is in totally terrible condition and knows he will lose and tells his coach about that. Who would leak that information or try and use that information to bet tons of money against San? Somehow I have a hard time imagining this coming from the ST-Yoe organisation itself which means it has to have come from San himself.
If you were Sans friend and he told you he was in bad condition, would you call everyone you knew and promise them San wouldn't win and that they should earn a quick buck or two? No didn't think so neither would I, Sanhas to have leaked something more substantial. Even if he was not matchfixing on purpose he has obviously leaked more than he should in some way. that's a pretty good argument towards thinking it's match fixing. also I'm not saying it's not match fixing hell it could be 99 percent likely that it's match fixing (although I could argue about that based on what we're using for our sample size) I'm just saying it's not a valid sound argument to conclude that it was match fixing. I agree its not conclusive unless we know a lot more about he number of bets made and amount of money being bet. If we know those two things, no doubt some of these guys on here got a formula to tell us just how unlucky San was.
yeah. and regardless either someone did fix matches or someone leaked how bad shape san was, which is worse than can be gained from 1 hospital visited and reduced practice time which means someone with intimate knowledge had to tell them which I'm pretty sure might still be illegal (I know it's illegal in trading on wall street). i guess now we just wait for either more news about the betting or news on the extent of San's injuries at which point we can all argue about that. xD
although there is close to a 0.0000001 chance we have the next Timothy dexter making horrible horrible decisions and making money. http://framerate.blog.com/2006/12/05/timothy-dexter-americas-luckiest-idiot. apparently you can make money shipping coal to newcastle and mittens and hotpans to the west indies. and then go insane pretend you wife is a ghost and write illiterate memoirs.(although thats not in the article I linked.)
but yeah math definately indicates theres something wrong that needs to be investigated.
|
On January 21 2015 14:38 Captain Peabody wrote:
"Math," or rather statistics, just says that this betting distribution is anomalous or improbable up to a certain arbitary mathematical threshhold of significance. By its very nature, its probalistic, not certain. Does this indicate that something more or less unusual happened with the betting on this match? Yes, that's what the math says. Does this tell us that the actual bets made were definitely shady or unfair or illegal or whatever? No, of course not. But very improbable betting patterns correlate with bad betting practices, so naturally Pinnacle's going to keep a close eye on them. When the improbability hits a certain threshhold and/or matches certain profiles to a certain degree of fit, Pinnacle plays on the safe side and cancels the bets. Pinnacle's a big company, so no doubt their threshhold is carefully determined so as to protect their own interests to the maximum degree possible...whatever that means exactly.
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. This.
'Math' alone cannot provide conclusive evidence. It's a húge tell, and this result probably (probably, because i don't know the premises of Pinnacle's calculations) is enough to do some serious investigations by whoever. Point is that you will need to connect player performance with the highly improbable bets. Pinnacle probably was right in cancelling the match, because they only have the math to rely on, and they'd be fools to neglect it out of some naivety. This fact does not say that anyone has cheated or matchfixed, it only says that the result is highly unlikely.
Also, if the math is conclusive, you could ruin someone's carreer by creating very unusual betting patterns, knowing that pinnacle will cancel the bet anyway (so you lose no money) and the target will never be able to do anything about it. This will create absurd situations in court.
|
maybe it was the son of a chinese billionnaire that threw money for fun ?
who knows
|
On January 21 2015 17:13 Makro wrote:
maybe it was the son of a chinese billionnaire that threw money for fun ?
who knows
If i was a rich guy, and a bit of a shitcunt, i'd probably throw large random bets on things to see if the websites deemed them fishy enough to have the market killed.
For Science!
|
On January 21 2015 17:04 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 14:38 Captain Peabody wrote:
"Math," or rather statistics, just says that this betting distribution is anomalous or improbable up to a certain arbitary mathematical threshhold of significance. By its very nature, its probalistic, not certain. Does this indicate that something more or less unusual happened with the betting on this match? Yes, that's what the math says. Does this tell us that the actual bets made were definitely shady or unfair or illegal or whatever? No, of course not. But very improbable betting patterns correlate with bad betting practices, so naturally Pinnacle's going to keep a close eye on them. When the improbability hits a certain threshhold and/or matches certain profiles to a certain degree of fit, Pinnacle plays on the safe side and cancels the bets. Pinnacle's a big company, so no doubt their threshhold is carefully determined so as to protect their own interests to the maximum degree possible...whatever that means exactly.
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. This. 'Math' alone cannot provide conclusive evidence. It's a húge tell, and this result probably (probably, because i don't know the premises of Pinnacle's calculations) is enough to do some serious investigations by whoever. Point is that you will need to connect player performance with the highly improbable bets. Pinnacle probably was right in cancelling the match, because they only have the math to rely on, and they'd be fools to neglect it out of some naivety. This fact does not say that anyone has cheated or matchfixed, it only says that the result is highly unlikely. Also, if the math is conclusive, you could ruin someone's carreer by creating very unusual betting patterns, knowing that pinnacle will cancel the bet anyway (so you lose no money) and the target will never be able to do anything about it. This will create absurd situations in court.
It's possible, but it would also be absurdly risky behaviour as the money required to shift the line is not insignificant and you wouldn't have control over the result if your intention was to ruin someone's career.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On January 21 2015 17:01 ForTehDarkseid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 16:52 lichter wrote:
what kind of idiot match fixes, then bets in an anomalous and obvious way pushing the odds to suspicious territory only for such a tiny margin? It's a double edged argument, honestly. There's a saying, for example, if criminals were smarter, there would be less crimes. If one doesn't do betting on a regular basis, he might not know the basics of probability theory, or he could be arrogant, you know.
or he was a genius (or not stupid, at least) and knew pinnacle would suspend betting eventually, so max betting 100x had 0% risk of losing
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote:
So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behavior This last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board 
I bet most people have never heard the phrase "null hypothesis" or "statistically significant".
|
On January 21 2015 17:19 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 17:01 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On January 21 2015 16:52 lichter wrote:
what kind of idiot match fixes, then bets in an anomalous and obvious way pushing the odds to suspicious territory only for such a tiny margin? It's a double edged argument, honestly. There's a saying, for example, if criminals were smarter, there would be less crimes. If one doesn't do betting on a regular basis, he might not know the basics of probability theory, or he could be arrogant, you know. or he was a genius (or not stupid, at least) and knew pinnacle would suspend betting eventually, so max betting 100x had 0% risk of losing
This isn't really what you two were discussing, but, it wasn't clear to me from the info available: Did they (Pinnacle) void betting before or after the game was played? If the betting is only being voided upon the result confirming the suspicious betting, then it's not really a viable option (unless you're really super rich and give zero fucks about the money you'd be risking without being sure of the result) to harm a player's career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
