|
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 22 2015 18:06 OtherWorld wrote:
Since the Solar case has been brought up quite a lot, I think it is important to note that it happened during a small foreign tournament, so obviously KeSPA players playing these tournaments get offered to throw the games because they're so much favored that you can gain a good amount on money by betting on their foreigner opponents.
This is incorrect line of thought. I know it may sound like it makes sense, but actually matchfixing happens often the other way around, the party that is expected to lose gets paid to lose.
There is huge amount of misinformation about betting in this thread that people spread out and it derails this entire conversation.
|
Its very obvious that almost noone here has any knowledge about line movements and betting patters.
The argument that it was "someone betting on the inside info" is very weak. If you had any expirience with the line movements you would understand why.
In short, a situation where it was just someone knowing about San's wrist issues and betting based on that would have very different betting pattern, different line move. Valuables would be different, math would be different.
If you would just have the information about San's health issues that would give Dark an edge, its still not nearly enough to justify such a heavy line movement with huge bets from multiple accounts. After all, we are talking about BO1 PvZ here, wrist issues or not.
Despite that, the bettor just kept "dumping" money on Dark as long as it was possible, as much as it was possible.
He did not even care about the offered odds. When you dont care about the odds and yet keep betting, it moves out of a realm of "inside info".
When the numbers suggest it was a throw, the game itself looks like a throw, then its probably a throw.
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty"
|
On January 22 2015 18:20 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:06 OtherWorld wrote:
Since the Solar case has been brought up quite a lot, I think it is important to note that it happened during a small foreign tournament, so obviously KeSPA players playing these tournaments get offered to throw the games because they're so much favored that you can gain a good amount on money by betting on their foreigner opponents.
This is incorrect line of thought. I know it may sound like it makes sense, but actually matchfixing happens often the other way around, the party that is expected to lose gets paid to lose. There is huge amount of misinformation about betting in this thread that people spread out and it derails this entire conversation.
But in the Solar case it happened this way, since Solar was favored...
|
On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty"
This argument does not work because it was just one match and I am sure we have had bigger upsets before.
|
On January 22 2015 18:34 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:20 Jarree wrote:On January 22 2015 18:06 OtherWorld wrote:
Since the Solar case has been brought up quite a lot, I think it is important to note that it happened during a small foreign tournament, so obviously KeSPA players playing these tournaments get offered to throw the games because they're so much favored that you can gain a good amount on money by betting on their foreigner opponents.
This is incorrect line of thought. I know it may sound like it makes sense, but actually matchfixing happens often the other way around, the party that is expected to lose gets paid to lose. There is huge amount of misinformation about betting in this thread that people spread out and it derails this entire conversation. But in the Solar case it happened this way, since Solar was favored...
Sure, but you can't draw any logic from that incident or make generalizations like "obviously", since it doesn't follow the matchfixing logic.
|
On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty"
You make this analogy after telling everyone they have no idea how betting works. As you yourself pointed out, this was a single game, not "5 hands in a row".
This is more like...two guys are playing a game of StarCraft 2 within a team match and there's a website that offers bets on the games, but someone or some people kept betting on one player no matter how the odds changed, then one guy betting on the other player thought it was weird and complained to the company, which agreed and canceled the bet, then that guy accuses the underdog of taking a dive and lots of people either agree or disagree with that.
Sound a little closer?
|
On January 22 2015 18:40 swissman777 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty" This argument does not work because it was just one match and I am sure we have had bigger upsets before.
Way to completely miss the point. I cant believe someone is that 'special' to argue "5 hands does not equal 1 game"
|
On January 22 2015 18:44 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:34 OtherWorld wrote:On January 22 2015 18:20 Jarree wrote:On January 22 2015 18:06 OtherWorld wrote:
Since the Solar case has been brought up quite a lot, I think it is important to note that it happened during a small foreign tournament, so obviously KeSPA players playing these tournaments get offered to throw the games because they're so much favored that you can gain a good amount on money by betting on their foreigner opponents.
This is incorrect line of thought. I know it may sound like it makes sense, but actually matchfixing happens often the other way around, the party that is expected to lose gets paid to lose. There is huge amount of misinformation about betting in this thread that people spread out and it derails this entire conversation. But in the Solar case it happened this way, since Solar was favored... Sure, but you can't draw any logic from that incident or make generalizations like "obviously", since it doesn't follow the matchfixing logic.
Hmm yeah, I might have expressed myself in a bad way. What I meant was that what has been brought often is "remember Solar? KeSPA said KeSPA players often get these kind of offers.", which to me means that KeSPA meant when playing foreign tournaments, not when playing PL/GSL like here with the San case.
(on a side note though, can I have a source/example of the expected loser being paid to lose?)
|
@swissman & @coverpunch.
He meant that it is extremely unlikely event, which suggests rigged game, but cannot be proven. So the other guy can claim "innocent until proven guilty". It had nothing to do with starcraft ffs or the match itself. Jesus. This is what people have been trying to explain in this thread for god knows how many pages. It's about the betting patterns, not whether San missed a forcefield or not.
He is absolutely correct (edit: in my opinion, I'm not a god though so I can be wrong) that information about injuries etc cannot change betting lines that much. What would you guess is a probability of proxy gates winning a match? 25%? 20%? Worst build in the game that someone with one arm can do. I'm sure injured San could do it easily. Yet someone is dumping huge amounts of money that San has worse odds than that in bo1. It is extremely unlikely, like 5 straight flushes in a row, that information about wrist injuries being leaked caused betting lines to shift that much.
Is that what you tried to say, Emofin?
|
On January 22 2015 18:44 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty" You make this analogy after telling everyone they have no idea how betting works. As you yourself pointed out, this was a single game, not "5 hands in a row". This is more like...two guys are playing a game of StarCraft 2 within a team match and there's a website that offers bets on the games, but someone or some people kept betting on one player no matter how the odds changed, then one guy betting on the other player thought it was weird and complained to the company, which agreed and canceled the bet, then that guy accuses the underdog of taking a dive and lots of people either agree or disagree with that. Sound a little closer?
No.
Seems like you was displeased with this analogy because "5 is no 1! A-aha! Gotcha!" ... Really?
The "sample size" is not important here, the math is, the betting is.
Ignoring the fact that Pinnacle voided a bet first time in the sc2 betting history (5 years or so, not sure) is not very wise. If you want to hide your head in sand and believe that "San the Man would not do it, no way, he is a honest hardworking person" - its your choice, keep being naive.
Basically there is 3 possibilies of what happened :
A) Match fixing
B) Someone betting on the inside info
C) Nothing happened - it was all legit / "maybe some drunk rich kid betting for lulz xDDD"/ "rofl some bookie dont want to pay up xDDD"
If you think that C) is anything more than 0.001% - its not even worth to be arguing with you.
So we are left with A) or B), and i already explained in the post above why the probability of B) if way lower compared to A), i would give it something like 5% chance against 95%, and its being generous.
P.S. Adding salt to the wound, the game itself looked, indeed, a bit weird. Once again, without the betting behind it, it would mean nothing. Because we've all seen way more silly losses.
But its the case of the conditional probability. When its established that there is something shady going on based on numbers, the fact that the game looks like a throw only makes the case stronger.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 22 2015 19:05 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:44 coverpunch wrote:On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty" You make this analogy after telling everyone they have no idea how betting works. As you yourself pointed out, this was a single game, not "5 hands in a row". This is more like...two guys are playing a game of StarCraft 2 within a team match and there's a website that offers bets on the games, but someone or some people kept betting on one player no matter how the odds changed, then one guy betting on the other player thought it was weird and complained to the company, which agreed and canceled the bet, then that guy accuses the underdog of taking a dive and lots of people either agree or disagree with that. Sound a little closer? No. Seems like you was displeased with this analogy because "5 is no 1! A-aha! Gotcha!" ... Really? The "sample size" is not important here, the math is, the betting is. Ignoring the fact that Pinnacle voided a bet first time in the sc2 betting history (5 years or so, not sure) is not very wise. If you want to hide your head in sand and believe that "San the Man would not do it, no way, he is a honest hardworking person" - its your choice, keep being naive. Basically there is 3 possibilies of what happened : A) Match fixing B) Someone betting on the inside info C) Nothing happened - it was all legit / "maybe some drunk rich kid betting for lulz xDDD"/ "rofl some bookie dont want to pay up xDDD" If you think that C) is anything more than 0.001% - its not even worth to be arguing with you. So we are left with A) or B), and i already explained in the post above why the probability of B) if way lower compared to A), i would give it something like 5% chance against 95%, and its being generous.
+ Show Spoiler +Nice edit, I was about to report you^^
Now 5% chances, or even 1 or 2%, are small but not impossible. Thus "the math", "the betting", as you say, is not enough to prove San guilty of match-fixing. It is enough to void the bets because something fishy happened, OK. But the fact that the probability of match-fixing is, according to you, of 95% or higher, does not mean that San is guilty, period. There's a reason we do complete elections and don't just use polls to chose political leaders.
|
On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:Its very obvious that almost noone here has any knowledge about line movements and betting patters.
Indeed, that's why better explanation are needed
On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
The argument that it was "someone betting on the inside info" is very weak. If you had any expirience with the line movements you would understand why.
In short, a situation where it was just someone knowing about San's wrist issues and betting based on that would have very different betting pattern, different line move. Valuables would be different, math would be different.
If you would just have the information about San's health issues that would give Dark an edge, its still not nearly enough to justify such a heavy line movement with huge bets from multiple accounts. After all, we are talking about BO1 PvZ here, wrist issues or not.
Despite that, the bettor just kept "dumping" money on Dark as long as it was possible, as much as it was possible.
He did not even care about the offered odds. When you dont care about the odds and yet keep betting, it moves out of a realm of "inside info".
When the numbers suggest it was a throw, the game itself looks like a throw, then its probably a throw.
I don't know shit about betting, but SwoopAE said " the first 600 dollars bet on a match may move the line a few points, but had I bet 600 dollars just before the line was suspended it may or may not have moved the line from say 1.20 to 1.21.)"
and then
"To move the line to 1.20ish, an absolute minimum of decent five figures would have to have come in on Dark and potentially six figures."
and we have also the line itself :
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/40/sports-betting/esport-betting-1497866/index14.html
okay then if I mix in the first point it means 600 => 0.01 so to get from 1.5 to 1.25 where it roughly ends it means you would have need like 15 000 $ which is a lot but not really a "decent five figures" nor a potentially six figure"
so yes we're noob, but you don't provide the most important info either, and this important info are the volume of the bets, the number of people betting and the amount of money that was actually bet in the end. Only Pinnacle knows this and only them can thus discard the inside info scenario.
Please ELI5 : if someone has inside info and decides to bet say a total 20 000 $ at 1.25 or even 1.2 he will get a 5-4 k $ benefit, how this would be totally off the line? Or 20 people betting 1000 $ each?
Plus if his bet is the one moving the line, he/they may have bet when it was at 1.5 for a benefit of 10-8 k $
IN particular, if this info has leaked on some underground social network of betors wouldn't there be a possibility of a mass reaction by a number of people big enough to explain the line's movement.
I'm not saying you're wrong it's just that the point of "the line doesn't match the inside info scenario" in kinda obscure for me and I would love to have it explained...
On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty"
I don't play poker either, but royal flush probablity is like 1.5 x10 E-6 right? so your example is about a probality in the 10E-30 range, which is less than picking any star in the whole universe and this star being our sun. (well... roughly... we can't say how many stars there is the universe, but there are like 234 10E9 stars in hte milky way and maybe like 130 10E9 galaxies in the known universe according to the last surveys)
Are you sure this example can be related to the porbably of the match not being thrown by San?
|
I'm not saying you're wrong it's just that the point of "the line doesn't match the inside info scenario" in kinda obscure for me and I would love to have it explained...
Because not practicing well for one week cannot justify Dark as an 80% favourite. Its an information that could turn Dark from like a 55% to 60% favourite at most.
That's why the 95%/5% probability of this being match-fixed versus insideknowledge seems pretty fair.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
I don't play poker either, but royal flush probablity is like 1.5 x10 E-6 right? so your example is about a probality in the 10E-30 range, which is less than picking any star in the whole universe and this star being our sun. (well... roughly... we can't say how many stars there is the universe, but there are like 234 10E9 stars in hte milky way and maybe like 130 10E9 galaxies in the known universe according to the last surveys)
Are you sure this example can be related to the porbably of the match not being thrown by San?
yes, I especially likes the part where he insists that people can't do math because they contest that analogy
"orders of magnitude, how do they work"
|
On January 22 2015 19:14 Gwavajuice wrote:
Okay then if I mix in the first point it means 600 => 0.01 so to get from 1.5 to 1.25 where it roughly ends it means you would have need like 15 000 $ which is a lot but not really a "decent five figures" nor a potentially six figure"
Some things to note here :
1. The line stabilized @~1.8 for Dark for a decent period of time (55.55% fav). So it really went from 1.8 to ~1.25, not from just from 1.5 to 1.25. Everybody was already very suspicious when it came all the way to 1.5. And it was not nearly the end of it.
2. It only "stopped" there because after that suspicous activity, pinnacle lowered the max bet amount from 1000 to 100 (10x). And obviously because the match was started at some point. If the betting limit would remain the same, there is a strong possibility it would move the line even further.
Now, moving to the "it was the inside info" argument. I think giving it 5% is being REALLY generous. Just think about it all a little bit. You are suggesting that :
Either San or someone close to him "leaked" the info that San is not in the top shape.
How exactly do you imagine it? There was no info at all availible to the public. So how exacly did it play out?
Someone hearing that San's "went to the hospital" / "does not practice much", and it suddenly conviences him that betting tens of thousands of dollars on Dark is a "sure thing"?
How is that info nearly enough to invoke that kind of confidence?
How come that the info was leaked exactly to some person who happens to have a lot of money to bet, and interested in e-sport betting in the first place?
Its just does not add up to make a convincing case at all, in my opinion.
Once again, do not forget that pinnacle has the fraud prevention team whos job includes to distinguish cases of match fixing, from just someone betting with the edge. Most likely it not only includes the line movement and patterns, but also the direction of the money, multiaccounting, and other factors.
If you add all of the above, the 5% chance is becoming to look really, really, REALLY generous.
|
On January 22 2015 19:05 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 18:44 coverpunch wrote:On January 22 2015 18:29 EmoFin wrote:
You play cards with someone and he beats you 5 hands in a row with a royal flush - sure, its possible he is just "getting lucky", but lets face it, the deck is rigged.
... And yet, your opponent calmy proclaims "Innocent until proven guilty" You make this analogy after telling everyone they have no idea how betting works. As you yourself pointed out, this was a single game, not "5 hands in a row". This is more like...two guys are playing a game of StarCraft 2 within a team match and there's a website that offers bets on the games, but someone or some people kept betting on one player no matter how the odds changed, then one guy betting on the other player thought it was weird and complained to the company, which agreed and canceled the bet, then that guy accuses the underdog of taking a dive and lots of people either agree or disagree with that. Sound a little closer? No. Seems like you was displeased with this analogy because "5 is no 1! A-aha! Gotcha!" ... Really? The "sample size" is not important here, the math is, the betting is. Ignoring the fact that Pinnacle voided a bet first time in the sc2 betting history (5 years or so, not sure) is not very wise. If you want to hide your head in sand and believe that "San the Man would not do it, no way, he is a honest hardworking person" - its your choice, keep being naive. Basically there is 3 possibilies of what happened : A) Match fixing B) Someone betting on the inside info C) Nothing happened - it was all legit / "maybe some drunk rich kid betting for lulz xDDD"/ "rofl some bookie dont want to pay up xDDD" If you think that C) is anything more than 0.001% - its not even worth to be arguing with you. So we are left with A) or B), and i already explained in the post above why the probability of B) if way lower compared to A), i would give it something like 5% chance against 95%, and its being generous. P.S. Adding salt to the wound, the game itself looked, indeed, a bit weird. Once again, without the betting behind it, it would mean nothing. Because we've all seen way more silly losses. But its the case of the conditional probability. When its established that there is something shady going on based on numbers, the fact that the game looks like a throw only makes the case stronger.
As other posters are also noting, I'm objecting to the analogy because of its hyperbolic nature and the implications that you're mixing Pinnacle's role in this with Kespa's and by extension, San's.
The betting line here was 5-1 at its most extreme, nowhere near the equivalent to winning a single royal flush hand, much less five in a row. And I think it was fine for Pinnacle to shut down the bet after Swoopae complained about seeing unusual movement.
But the argument about odds applies only to Pinnacle. Whether San is involved and Kespa should do something about it is a totally separate issue, and I don't think activity on a betting site, unprecedented or not, has much bearing on that, at least with the facts we have so far.
I've said this repeatedly, but I don't think a Kespa investigation is warranted or appropriate unless there's something directly linking San to the bet. There's just no chance they'll find anything, especially since San already denied involvement, and its most likely result is to break San mentally, which would be incredibly tragic if he didn't actually do anything wrong and gets what, a personal internet apology from Swoopae? Thanks but no thanks.
If I wanted to pressure an organization, it would be to ask Pinnacle for more details of the unusual bets. If they involved someone that couldn't possibly know San or anyone on ST-Yoe, there's nothing to talk about any more.
It's not that I think San is innocent or incapable of cheating, it's that I don't know for sure but neither do you. Conditional probability doesn't change that.
|
On January 22 2015 19:51 coverpunch wrote:
As other posters are also noting, I'm objecting to the analogy because of its hyperbolic nature and the implications that you're mixing Pinnacle's role in this with Kespa's and by extension, San's.
The betting line here was 5-1 at its most extreme, nowhere near the equivalent to winning a single royal flush hand, much less five in a row.
I simply cant believe that you've managed to draw any links between line being 5-1 to a chance of a line movement being legit?
How should i explain it in the even more simplier terms - Dark was betted on "to the ground", money was kept thrown on him all the way, as much as possible, as long as possible. 1.8? Take my money 1.6.. 1.7.. TAKE IT 1.5..1.4..1.3.. TAKE it all i dont care, i am betting more. 1.25.. TAKE IT ALL, I BET MY HOUSE..*bet limits lowered* *match starts*
But the argument about odds applies only to Pinnacle. Whether San is involved and Kespa should do something about it is a totally separate issue
Not its not. Its the issue of the match being legit or fixed, and you can hide your head in the sand all you want, believing that San's involment in not linked with the presented facts in any way. But thats the path of ignorance and wishful thinking.
“Here our books are filled with numbers. We prefer the stories they tell.” - Iron Bank
I've said this repeatedly, but I don't think a Kespa investigation is warranted or appropriate unless there's something directly linking San to the bet. There's just no chance they'll find anything, especially since San already denied involvement, and its most likely result is to break San mentally, which would be incredibly tragic if he didn't actually do anything wrong and gets what, a personal internet apology from Swoopae? Thanks but no thanks.
At any other forum, i would assume you are trolling. You are basicly suggesting that noone should care about the matchfixing and avoid any investigation unless a player would bet against himself under his own name or so? Are you serious?
Given the facts and the probablities, the full investigation should be launched. Denying the investigation because "It could upset San" is laughable.
|
I know you're just being a jerk about this but I'll explain it to you.
I never said the line movement looked legit. In fact, I said quite the opposite in saying I thought it was okay for Pinnacle to shut down the betting because the movement looked unusual. But the unusual movement is not so extreme as you're saying, certainly nothing like your original analogy.
And I'm somewhere between the two extremes you're presenting of suggesting no one should care about matchfixing and avoiding any investigation unless a player bets on his own account. I think Kespa needs something more solid before starting an investigation. San already said he had nothing to do with this and played badly but didn't dive. What do you want them to do, torture and waterboard San until he confesses that he did it?
|
The betting line here was 5-1 at its most extreme, nowhere near the equivalent to winning a single royal flush hand, much less five in a row. And I think it was fine for Pinnacle to shut down the bet after Swoopae complained about seeing unusual movement.
Your confusing two things here. The dicussion on probability here is related to whether San was involved in matchfixing which has nothing to do with the how big of an underdog he was. The Royal-flush is just an example of an event that is extremely rare, which isn't uncomparable to how the betting lines moved here.
I think Kespa needs something more solid before starting an investigation.
This is the most serious thing you get here before we can define something as being "proof".
San already said he had nothing to do with this and played badly but didn't dive.
So if someone is accused of a crime and there are lots of reasons to expect he did indeed to the crime, but we still need clear-cut evidence, you would - in the role of a police detective - not investigate any further as long as he just said he was innocent?
You gotta be kidding me here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
