| 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) | ||
|
Ketch
Netherlands7285 Posts
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 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9392 Posts
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? There are smart criminals and dumb criminals. Smart criminals know how to not caught. Dumb criminals do not. It makes sense to expect that both types exist in the matchfixing world. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
bigger organizations with better reputations (than pinnacle) had acted very bad in the past. | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
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? I've been in the gaming industry for a long time and I've seen so moronic chipdumping etc happen it's not even funny. Like 0% chance they would go through automatic detections. People just are dumb/greedy. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
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? A good question. It is conceivable, for instance, that no match-fixing took place, but word got out anyway, and betting was 'manipulated'. How does one then distinguish between rumor and reality? Can a definitive set of relations between betting patterns and performance be established with a sample size of... one? I doubt it. 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? | ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
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 Greed is a powerfull thing. Espessially when you are not risking anything because you know the outcome of the match. Also, remember what i've said, pinnacle never voided sc2 bets before during the span of 4 years, so in the mind of the criminal, what never happened before should probably never happen this time, therefore there is no need to be "safe" about it, just bet bet bet. 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? You are so wrong and clueless. If you think there is "little behind it", then you are not really worth being argued with. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
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. Read more of the thread, particularly the statement at the end of the OP. Pinnacle have nothing to gain from this. The fact is that the bet looks suspicious, this does not guarantee match-fixing, but at least something (even if that something is some random person betting $50k on Dark because he wanted a thrill). | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
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. 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. An investigation at this point would just be a waste of time, little more than asking San if he did it and he'll deny it again. What more do you want? It would be pretty inappropriate and upsetting if Kespa decided to take his computer and look through his internet search history or go through his bank and credit card accounts to look for evidence of impropriety. But this was pretty dumb betting, indicative of someone greedy. The good (?) news is these individuals will probably try again and everyone will be eyeing bets with San a lot more carefully. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
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. Sorry, I don't mean to start an argument, but can you explain why this is so unlikely for someone without any experience in betting? For me, again without any experience, it felt kindof reasonable that in the thousand of sc2 games played, there would be "some drunk rich kid betting for lulz xDDD" in one of the games. It maybe didn't feel super likely, but I'd hesitate to discard such an event in so many sc2 games when so much is on the line for the player. So well, if you can explain what you base the "below 0.001%", I'd certainly be happy. | ||
|
Whoranzone
Germany330 Posts
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. 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. Also no one refuted he's having health issues yet. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12221 Posts
| ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
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. 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. " Also no one refuted he's having health issues yet. 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. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
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. I cannot possibly be the first person in your life to ever tell you that you're really bad at making analogies. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On January 22 2015 21:24 OtherWorld wrote: GG guys, supposed match-fixing now > NaNiwa article concerning drama level Bad drama vs fun drama  | ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
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. Coming from you, i'd take it as a huge compliment. I dont want my analogies to be good from your point of view | ||
|
Whoranzone
Germany330 Posts
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. I don't care about your opinion. There is no proof as far as the game itself is concerned that there was a throw. There are health issues. At this point I'd guess some entity wants to to take a dump on someone's reputation for the lulz they just have to take a couple bets. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9392 Posts
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. No in this case, there is the following "evidence": We know the suspect was in the specific location where the crime was undertaken + he has a motive + noone else was in that location. Thus, during the investigation we would like to look at surveilance cameras and talk with related people that can bring us closer to the truth. Imagine you look at a murder scene, and you have this suspect who says "i didn't do it". Since you don't have any witnesses, you therefore suggest that no further investigation is made and just leave the case there..... That's obviously reverse logic, as you undertake an investigation in order to find witnesses. 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 Nah it's comparing apples to oranges, but I can understand why the analogy is confusing you here. I would just have left at it as a super fishy event without any poker examples. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
GuMiho vs Cham
ByuN vs TriGGeR
Cosmonarchy
TriGGeR vs YoungYakov
YoungYakov vs HonMonO
HonMonO vs TriGGeR
Maestros of the Game
Solar vs Bunny
Clem vs Rogue
[BSL 2025] Weekly
OSC
RSL Revival
Cure vs Bunny
Creator vs Zoun
Maestros of the Game
Maru vs Lambo
herO vs ShoWTimE
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
