Pinnacle voids Dark vs. San bets due to match manipulation…

Can someone explain me, or was it already explained, why the betting line would be so obvious if "the bad guys" wanted to cheat the betting system? They should expect Pinnacle to detect it with this betting strategy, or not?

On January 22 2015 20:55 Ketch wrote:
Can someone explain me, or was it already explained, why the betting line would be so obvious if "the bad guys" wanted to cheat the betting system? They should expect Pinnacle to detect it with this betting strategy, or not?

On January 22 2015 11:45 hansonslee wrote:But how he arrives his conclusion is where things get really hairy. Sure, the numbers indicate that the betting has been heavily manipulated. That's great (for analysis sake, of course). But the next question is what is the cause for this?

On January 22 2015 20:55 Ketch wrote:
Can someone explain me, or was it already explained, why the betting line would be so obvious if "the bad guys" wanted to cheat the betting system? They should expect Pinnacle to detect it with this betting strategy, or not?

In other news, a Dutch study today revealed that most suspicious betting activities in football (soccer) are detected with matches in upper leagues and also that 90% is betting on total goals or goal difference. Also most of the suspicious bets are upfront and not live.
Link

On January 22 2015 21:06 Gnosis wrote:


Never mind that (a) no substantial proof has been provided: no recorded conversation(s), no witnesses, etc.; (b) numbers require interpretation, which is inherently problematic; (c) anyone familiar with Dark and San would not have been surprised that Dark took the matches. This is a serious accusation with little behind it.

Or is Charlie Eppes working for / with Pinnacle?

On January 22 2015 21:03 xuanzue wrote:
I like the pattern of posters claiming the total superior authority of pinnacle are accounts with less than 10 posts.

bigger organizations with better reputations (than pinnacle) had acted very bad in the past.

On January 22 2015 20:40 Hider wrote:


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.



This is the most serious thing you get here before we can define something as being "proof".



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.

On January 22 2015 21:08 EmoFin wrote:You are so wrong and clueless. If you think there is "little behind it", then you are not really worth being argued with.

On January 22 2015 19:05 EmoFin wrote:
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.

On January 22 2015 20:40 Hider wrote:
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.

On January 22 2015 21:17 Gnosis wrote:


An assertion and an ad hominem.

Come up with something in addition to numbers and I'll consider the accusation to have more weight than I presently consider it to have. I provided one possible circumstance (rumor) under which betting could be manipulated without wrong doing on the part of either player, and I'm not going to be convinced by name calling or (attempted) marginalizing.

Also no one refuted he's having health issues yet.

On January 22 2015 21:31 EmoFin wrote:



I've already discussed the realistic probability of the "rumor of the San's condition leaked and someone acted on it".

Plus the fact that you assumed that the "sample size is 1 game" for no reason at all doesnt help here.

Its so incredibly silly i cant even fully comprehend it. Its like when the police investigates someone's death and all the evidence ponint out to murder, and suddenly someone jumps in and goes

"Now, hold it you guys! Can a definitive set of relations between a murder and suicide be established with a sample size of... one? I doubt it. "



Because there is nothing to refute, since it does not cancel the accusation or make the matchfixing any less probable. Arguably, someone with health issues has a higher chance to accept the offer to throw the match, in my opinion.

On January 22 2015 21:24 OtherWorld wrote:
GG guys, supposed match-fixing now > NaNiwa article concerning drama level

On January 22 2015 21:38 coverpunch wrote:


I cannot possibly be the first person in your life to ever tell you that you're really bad at making analogies.

On January 22 2015 21:08 EmoFin wrote:
Because there is nothing to refute, since it does not cancel the accusation or make the matchfixing any less probable. Arguably, someone with health issues has a higher chance to accept the offer to throw the match, in my opinion.

Well, the police don't investigate if there's nothing more than circumstantial evidence, especially if there weren't any victims. Which there weren't here because Pinnacle canceled the bets.

I'd still contest the argument of five royal flushs in a row being somewhere equivalent to the line movement regardless of how many new accounts pop up with their overarching wisdom