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 16:52 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) to harm a player's career.
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) to harm a player's career.
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) to harm a player's career.
On January 21 2015 17:13 Makro wrote: maybe it was the son of a chinese billionnaire that threw money for fun ?
who knows
multiple accounts though..
Imagine I max bet on a player with 1.6 odds. And then the money line moved, and his odds falled down to 1.35. Naturally, the max bet increases to compensate higher odds on the other side, but I can't place that increased max bet, because I already have one - I can only append the difference between current max bet and the one I placed earlier. These ammounts are insignificant in terms of moving the money line, so first of all I'd have to use several smurf accounts for that and second, I'd have to do it simultaneously if I want a bigger increase, basicly simulating the actions of 10+ betters by myself.
If you don't know the queueing theory, that's almost an impossible task to handle without being noticed. And the probability of doing this just for fun or without knowing the exact outcome is 1 out of 10 at the very-very best, 'cause it's obvious this scheme maximizes risks over profit.
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) to harm a player's career.
Here is the thread, this guy was basically contacting Pinnacle customer support before the match telling them something was off. He suggested they void the betting, but they only lowered the max betting limit.
that I did not know. weird. I assumed they had some sort of algorithm that automatically detected these things. in a way it kinda makes sense though because if a ton of people bet on someone and they lose then its obviously not matchfixing and the house makes a ton of money. Is this normal or not for online betting?
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) to harm a player's career.
they voided it before the games were played
They were voided after the games. Can follow a live play by play of the betting action here.
This smells like bullshit to be honest. There is only one guy "reporting" this and he had a direct hand in telling the company to cancel the bets. He also says it like it is fact, then later says "If I am wrong then I will apologize".
I can't believe how irresponsible this is. No evidence whatsoever, the guy claims San got paid to throw, no evidence, nothing, and already backpedaling.
On January 21 2015 17:42 Magnet wrote: This smells like bullshit to be honest. There is only one guy "reporting" this and he had a direct hand in telling the company to cancel the bets. He also says it like it is fact, then later says "If I am wrong then I will apologize".
I can't believe how irresponsible this is. No evidence whatsoever, the guy claims San got paid to throw, no evidence, nothing, and already backpedaling.
All the guy did was email pinnacle about the suspicious line movement but he has no influence on the outcome after that. Pinnacle comes to their own decision on their own.
On January 21 2015 17:42 Magnet wrote: This smells like bullshit to be honest. There is only one guy "reporting" this and he had a direct hand in telling the company to cancel the bets. He also says it like it is fact, then later says "If I am wrong then I will apologize".
I can't believe how irresponsible this is. No evidence whatsoever, the guy claims San got paid to throw, no evidence, nothing, and already backpedaling.
All the guy did was email pinnacle about the suspicious line movement but he has no influence on the outcome after that. Pinnacle comes to their own decision on their own.
yeah the betting lines the suspicious part and its pretty heavily indicating that something was going on(what we don't know)
On January 21 2015 16:39 dsousa wrote: 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.
This is getting really boring really fast... Here's the mod note for you:
"Please avoid making accusations against specific individuals unless you have substantial proof, or until further information is released. (0620 KST)"
You have no proof, we have no further information and thus please refrain from such accusations. You are making a fool out of yourself.
The "math" only shows that the betting pattern was highly irregular which was their reason for cancelling the bets. That's it, that's all the information we have.
To me Dark was highly favored in the match. To a point where I told a friend of mine to trade San on his FPL team away to get Dear instead. The guy on that other forums said that San was favored 60% which is absolutely BS and goes to show how little he understands. He even posted himself that the betting line for CJ vs. Prime was something like -400 in week 1 so strange odds are not that uncommon, right?
There is a lot that could cause strange line movements and I'd appreciate if we'd just leave it at that until further informations are available. If Pinnacle had any proof that it was matchfixing or insider informations they would've shared that information with us. Accusing someone of matchfixing on the base of those informations is... as if I were to tell everyone that you are a pedophile because I saw you browsing the interwebs late in the night which I think is suspicious. It doesn't work like that, you know? Not guilty until the evidence shows otherwise.
To me this looks like you folks want to ruin the career of someone just for the fun of creating drama which is vile as fuck. And that swoop dude is the worst of the bunch, jumping from line movements to accusing someone of matchfixing on twitter. Just disgusting behavior...
edit: Here's the original quote from the swoop guy on that poker forum before he jumped to accusations on twitter:
Yeah originally it was at like 300 when it started a huge climb after opening small. It could be some massive whale who just thinks San will lose but it's incredibly suspicious. Then again so was CJ going from -400 to -200 vs Prime, going down 1-2 then coming back to win 3-2 and hold anyway in week 1
So this guy just_mo with total 21 posts in TL, never posted a single post outside this thread, all of a sudden is very active in this thread.
- Telling everyone is naive and has no clues about the world of sport betting. - Clearly knows nothing about SC2 at all in his posts. Mentioning San 'clearly crushed' Dark in their last meeting (FYI just_mo, its an online qualifier). - Telling everyone to trust an online gambling site with words such as 'most respected entity', 'most reputable bookies' etc - Finally telling everyone load up Pinnacles a few times a day.
Why don't you admit to everyone that you are an agent working for Pinnacle? and that this whole charade, all this free publicity is just to advertise the betting company? maybe you or your friend offered 2k to Solar?
Who knows maybe your own company was the one placing the bets on Dark to rig the odds. Claiming something funny going on, then start posting on TL and reddit, next thing happen everyone in SC2 community knows Pinnacle. Hhmm I wonder that maybe a good way for free publicity.
And to you use your words if it comes down to Pinnacle's ('the most respectable sport betting bookies') or San's word, a 24 years old progamer who spends 12 hours a day practicing, earning close to 6 figure or more a year risking his entire career for a mere $2k ? I choose San's word any day.
Jeez just_mo you must be thinking that people here are so easily manipulated.
On January 21 2015 17:42 Magnet wrote: This smells like bullshit to be honest. There is only one guy "reporting" this and he had a direct hand in telling the company to cancel the bets. He also says it like it is fact, then later says "If I am wrong then I will apologize".
I can't believe how irresponsible this is. No evidence whatsoever, the guy claims San got paid to throw, no evidence, nothing, and already backpedaling.
All the guy did was email pinnacle about the suspicious line movement but he has no influence on the outcome after that. Pinnacle comes to their own decision on their own.
Still, suggesting how the company should do business and then "report" a match fix later is very, very irresponsible and shady. None of this adds up, and the guy is all over the situation with nothing more than saying the betting lines were weird in a heavily underdeveloped betting market. If you are making accusations like this, it's because you're absolutely sure. You don't say "Sorry San if I am wrong" two posts after you claim it's all for sure match fixing. It's just a dumb move.
If you are really concerned about the betting lines, report it anonymously and wait for things to resolve itself. But with how hard this guy is trying to throw himself out there by linking Artosis, Tasteless (when they have nothing to do with this at all) when it comes to serious allegations is like... okay. Doesn't make sense. Why would he even care in the first place and tag people that aren't even involved, but are noteworthy in the community?
On January 21 2015 16:39 dsousa wrote: 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.
This is getting really boring really fast... Here's the mod note for you:
"Please avoid making accusations against specific individuals unless you have substantial proof, or until further information is released. (0620 KST)"
You have no proof, we have no further information and thus please refrain from such accusations. You are making a fool out of yourself.
The "math" only shows that the betting pattern was highly irregular which was their reason for cancelling the bets. That's it, that's all the information we have.
To me Dark was highly favored in the match. To a point where I told a friend of mine to trade San on his FPL team away to get Dear instead. The guy on that other forums said that San was favored 60% which is absolutely BS and goes to show how little he understands. He even posted himself that the betting line for CJ vs. Prime was something like -400 in week 1 so strange odds are not that uncommon, right?
There is a lot that could cause strange line movements and I'd appreciate if we'd just leave it at that until further informations are available. If Pinnacle had any proof that it was matchfixing or insider informations they would've shared that information with us. Accusing someone of matchfixing on the base of those informations is... as if I were to tell everyone that you are a pedophile because I saw you browsing the interwebs late in the night which I think is suspicious. It doesn't work like that, you know? Not guilty until the evidence shows otherwise.
To me this looks like you folks want to ruin the career of someone just for the fun of creating drama which is vile as fuck. And that swoop dude is the worst of the bunch, jumping from line movements to accusing someone of matchfixing on twitter. Just disgusting behavior...
he's not really accusing him of matchfixing just saying somehow the bettor knew san had basically no chance of winning. which from a betting standpoint makes sense if your betting on someone at 5-1 odds
On January 21 2015 17:42 Magnet wrote: This smells like bullshit to be honest. There is only one guy "reporting" this and he had a direct hand in telling the company to cancel the bets. He also says it like it is fact, then later says "If I am wrong then I will apologize".
I can't believe how irresponsible this is. No evidence whatsoever, the guy claims San got paid to throw, no evidence, nothing, and already backpedaling.
All the guy did was email pinnacle about the suspicious line movement but he has no influence on the outcome after that. Pinnacle comes to their own decision on their own.
Still, suggesting how the company should do business and then "report" a match fix later is very, very irresponsible and shady. None of this adds up, and the guy is all over the situation with nothing more than saying the betting lines were weird in a heavily underdeveloped betting market. If you are making accusations like this, it's because you're absolutely sure. You don't say "Sorry San if I am wrong" two posts after you claim it's all for sure match fixing. It's just a dumb move.
If you are really concerned about the betting lines, report it anonymously and wait for things to resolve itself. But with how hard this guy is trying to throw himself out there by linking Artosis, Tasteless etc when it comes to serious allegations is like... okay. Doesn't make sense. Why would he even care in the first place and report it to people that aren't even involved, but are noteworthy in the community?
to be fair I don't know the guy but if you're a professional or any kind of gambler and you bet on something and you think it's fixed you probably do everything you can to get your money back. and its not like they shut down betting because he told them to. they looked at the data and agreed.
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.
But why is Dark versus San at 1.20 strange and Life vs Classic at 1.40 is not? Their skill level is much closer!
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.
But why is Dark versus San at 1.20 strange but Life vs Classic at 1.40 is not? Their skill level is much closer!
I don't know but I'd guess it's where they started. Usually bets start off at least somewhat close to where the line was and move a little bit before stabalizing. The line on Dark moved like crazy and didn't stabilize even when it was getting to extreme points. maybe someone more familiar with gambling can give you a better answer though
On January 21 2015 17:57 magicmUnky wrote: With respect to the betting situation; it wasn't just one big bet, it was a large number of very, very large bets (5 figures).
they were all at the betting limit though so we don't know if its one person on multiple accounts or multiple people. although if they were places simulteanously they were probably multiple.
anyway I really really need to go to bed so night. I'll check in the morning to see if there's any new info
On January 21 2015 17:57 magicmUnky wrote: With respect to the betting situation; it wasn't just one big bet, it was a large number of very, very large bets (5 figures).
From what I've gathered the sum of all the bets was around 5 digits in order to move the line that much, not that there was a large amount of 5 digit bets. That's a huge difference when trying to determine what caused this behavior.
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.
But why is Dark versus San at 1.20 strange and Life vs Classic at 1.40 is not? Their skill level is much closer!
because the majority of betters don't do thorough research before placing a bet, lol.
in one of the first lectures I had last term, the speaker said something along the lines of "the weakest point in an argument is wherever someone says 'clearly' or 'obviously'" was not expecting it to be so relevant here
pinnacle voiding the bet is entirely fair let a proper investigation (kespa) handle the task of finding evidence (or lack thereof)? things make sense in the world?
EPT
