|
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 21:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
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 player was in the specific locaiton where the crime was undertaken + he has a motive. Thus, during the investigation we will need to look for witnesses in order to seek more evidence. Imagine you look at a murder scene, you have this suspect who says "i didn't do it", but no witnesses, and therefore you will suggest that no further evidence is undertaken. That's reverse logic, as you undertake an investation in order to find witnesses.
Uh, yeah, hence saying Pinnacle should be requested to provide more specifics about who made the bets. The bettors are the ones you need to find, not San.
If it turns out San knows (or is) the bettor, then you have something to investigate and I'd be all for going after him to figure out how deep this goes and what happened. But you have to admit that if he does not, then he isn't involved and he's cut loose from this. Asking San about people he might not know and about activities he says he knows nothing about is useless, and it's abusive unless we have some reason to believe that he might be lying, which we do not.
|
Uh, yeah, hence saying Pinnacle should be requested to provide more specifics about who made the bets. The bettors are the ones you need to find, not San.
Sure, during an investigation but they are not required to release that to the public atm.
Asking San about people he might not know and about activities he says he knows nothing about is useless, and it's abusive unless we have some reason to believe that he might be lying, which we do not
Asking the same question over and over to San is indeed useless, but I think you have the wrong impression of what actually will happen during this investigation
|
On January 22 2015 10:00 Wuster wrote:
Well, there's one case in WCS EU of attempted match fixing that got two players banned from the current season. During WoL there was an actual thrown game on ESV weekly that got two players suspended for several months. Last year in WCS AM there was the big stink about 'did Axion Crank throw a match so Axiom Alicia could advance?' that got a big public response from TotalBiscuit and Crank that I'm still not sure I buy. So that's 3 scandals in 3 different regions about fixing games.
Oh look it's this shit again. If he was going to throw a game he'd do it in a less obvious way. If you don't believe that that's really not a concern, there's nothing that will convince you.
|
On January 22 2015 21:47 Hider wrote:
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.
It's not confusing at all. It's just exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous.
|
On January 22 2015 21:55 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Uh, yeah, hence saying Pinnacle should be requested to provide more specifics about who made the bets. The bettors are the ones you need to find, not San. Sure, during an investatigation, but they are not required to release that to the public atm. Show nested quote +
Asking San about people he might not know and about activities he says he knows nothing about is useless, and it's abusive unless we have some reason to believe that he might be lying, which we do not
I think you have the wrong impression of what actually will happen during this investagation.
Okay, so why don't you tell me what will happen during an investigation?
Also, I know this is petty, but you've tried spelling "investigation" three times in your last two posts and all of them were different and incorrect (EDIT: you got it right two times in the same post too!). I get that nobody's perfect, but...c'mon man.
|
On January 22 2015 21:18 Cascade wrote:
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.
Good question.
Short answer : its all about the conditional probability of an event. I imagine that fraud prevention team looks at something like this :
P(A|B) = ?
As Probability of the "A" (rich kid yolo betting for lulz") _given_ "B" (facts that we know).
And "B" consists of
1) Line movement. What kind of line movement is expected from a random yolo bet? How does it differs from a movement in the fixed match? Did the bettor care about the odds? Did he not? Were the bets made during a small timeframe, or kept coming until the start of the match?
2) Were bets coming from one account, or from multiple accounts?
3) Account betting history. If thats indeed a case of a "rich kid", his betting history should be able to confirm it. A clean, new account, or the one who only made 10-20$ bets prior to betting 20k+ on a match would look a bit suspicious, i imagine.
Thats the basic things i think they were looking at. In addition to that, i can speculate they were also looking at :
4) Deposit history. Huge chunk of money being deposited "just in time" for that game only is telling
5) Account ip location
6) Connection between multiple accounts, connection between deposits
And the last thing would be:
7) The match itself, the quality of San's play.
So in the end, if more and more things point out to the match being fixed, the probability of it being just some random nigerian prince betting on dark (because he fancied his name or something) becomes lower and lower.
From the outsiders point of view, that random event is rare, but somewhat possible. But not to someone's who's job is to detect fraud and fixed matches, and who can read the needed valuables and 'connect dots', so to speak.
|
On January 22 2015 21:43 Whoranzone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You dont seem to realize that the game itself it the last thing that needed to be looked at, in these situations. And there is a good reason for it. If it was not the case and the match itself was used as main source of evidence, it would be a complete disaster.
Starting with the huge amount of falsely accused players (how often does twitch chat/casual bettors call for '322'?)
And ending with a heaven for the criminals (the only thing you need to worry about is for game looking 'legit')
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.
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"
Yeah, ok. A multimillion dollar company wants to dump on San's reputation for lulz, while voiding the bets on the starcraft match for the first time in 5 years, to avoid paying a tiny amount of money that they can wipe they asses with.
That sounds much more probable than the match being fixed. At least to this forum.
|
It sounds to me like the most plausible explanation is that somebody knew about San's recent health problems and decided to cash in on it.
|
On January 22 2015 22:32 c0ldfusion wrote:
It sounds to me like the most plausible explanation is that somebody knew about San's recent health problems and decided to cash in on it.
If his health problems were really really severe there was no way he would have played the match in the first place. He actually says the following:
My play was poor because I haven't been able to practice much lately, as my wrist and shoulders haven't been feeling good
This indicates he was somewhat fine during the match, but he just had not practiced well up to the game. However, there is no way a bad week of practice can explain San being this big of an underdog. This type of information may have been able to move the line from 1.8 to 1.7 or w/e, but anyone who has experience with Sc2 and probabilities will understand that one bad week of practice cannot explain these betting patterns.
Most likely, this is what your heart wants you to believe, but your brain will tell you a different story.
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.
It's the easiest thing in the world to lose a game on purpose without there being evidence. With your type of logic, every single game in Sc2 could in reality be matchfixed, but you would keep denying it because there wasn't any evidence in the game.
|
On January 22 2015 22:37 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 22:32 c0ldfusion wrote:
It sounds to me like the most plausible explanation is that somebody knew about San's recent health problems and decided to cash in on it. If his health problems were really really severe there was no way he would have played the match in the first place. He actually says the following: Show nested quote +My play was poor because I haven't been able to practice much lately, as my wrist and shoulders haven't been feeling good This indicates he was somewhat fine during the match, but he just had not practiced well up to the game. However, there is no way a bad week of practice can explain San being this big of an underdog. This type of information may have beel able to move the line from 1.8 to 1.7 or w/e, but anyone who has experience with Sc2 and probabilities will understand that one bad week of practice isn't that significant. Most likely, this is what your heart wants you to believe, but your brain will tell you a different story.
At least it doesnt turn you into Gold error maker. Scouting Probe, MSC, go 2 base attack, dont wall off your natural completly with a pilon, warp stalker and not sentry when the roach attack the walling zelot... There were so much things you can either call wired mistake. But some werent just wired San like mistakes: I mean, warping a stalker instead of a sentry directly in front of the runby-roaches? and the location of that warp in? He had the gas for the sentry, it could FF and his army would be there in time. This didnt looked as a mistake for me, because i never have seen a protoss like this "oh shit, runby squad attacks zelot in wall, lets warp 2 stalkers." They allways warp one sentry and San does this to. You dont forgett these things when you are out of practice for some days.
|
On January 22 2015 22:32 c0ldfusion wrote:
It sounds to me like the most plausible explanation is that somebody knew about San's recent health problems and decided to cash in on it.
Whats the probability that some random person knewing about San's health problems also :
1) Betting on e-sports
2) Having tons of money to bet, on multiple accounts
3) Converted that information to a 100% confidence to bet as much as possible on Dark instead of just betting a substantial amount when the odds were good (1.8-1.5), and stopping there? *
Not that high, in my opinion.
*Imagine being super close irl friend with San, one day he mentions "oh man, my wrists really hurt, i think i am going to lose tomorrow". Ok, thats a very good info, but is it enough to dump tens thousands of dollars on Dark, without even caring about the odds at all?
|
On January 22 2015 22:44 Clonester wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 22:37 Hider wrote:On January 22 2015 22:32 c0ldfusion wrote:
It sounds to me like the most plausible explanation is that somebody knew about San's recent health problems and decided to cash in on it. If his health problems were really really severe there was no way he would have played the match in the first place. He actually says the following: My play was poor because I haven't been able to practice much lately, as my wrist and shoulders haven't been feeling good This indicates he was somewhat fine during the match, but he just had not practiced well up to the game. However, there is no way a bad week of practice can explain San being this big of an underdog. This type of information may have beel able to move the line from 1.8 to 1.7 or w/e, but anyone who has experience with Sc2 and probabilities will understand that one bad week of practice isn't that significant. Most likely, this is what your heart wants you to believe, but your brain will tell you a different story. At least it doesnt turn you into Gold error maker. Scouting Probe, MSC, go 2 base attack, dont wall off your natural completly with a pilon, warp stalker and not sentry when the roach attack the walling zelot... There were so much things you can either call wired mistake. But some werent just wired San like mistakes: I mean, warping a stalker instead of a sentry directly in front of the runby-roaches? and the location of that warp in? He had the gas for the sentry, it could FF and his army would be there in time. This didnt looked as a mistake for me, because i never have seen a protoss like this "oh shit, runby squad attacks zelot in wall, lets warp 2 stalkers." They allways warp one sentry and San does this to. You dont forgett these things when you are out of practice for some days.
One thing that I don't understand in the game is the aggressive forward blink around 13 min mark I think. Any experienced PvZ player would know that this trade is unncesary, and the Hydras were offcreep and they weren't even trying to escape. He could just have keped blink microing his Stalker back and blinked forward when the zerg wanted to retreat.
But still, mistakes can be made and those I rather look for different evidence during an investigation, but the game in itself certainly didn't reduce the suspection.
|
On January 22 2015 21:31 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 21:17 Gnosis wrote: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. 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.
You aren't making a very good argument. Using your example (because I did not link my rumor scenario to San's condition), someone acting on the 'rumor of San's condition' is quite a different thing from San (a) 'leaking' his condition (because that is the only way we can know anything about San?), or (b) San throwing the match for some other reason. Perhaps we have (a1): someone other than San 'leaked' his condition (because such things cannot be gleaned through observering his play, right?). In this case there is the potential for match-fixing, but not becaues Dark or San purposefully threw the game. It would therefore be inappropriate to place the blame on either player, or to accuse either player, without substantial evidence. Which is true regardless: the fact that we are speculating is demonstrative of the lack of proof other than betting patterns.
By 'substantial evidence' I mean more than numbers which appear to be indicative of 'X'. That is all these numbers are: indicative. Why they are indicative, and what they are indicating, is the important question. As far as Pinnacle is concerned: there were strange betting patterns, which they take as indicative of suspicious activity. But of what kind? Who knows... So let's point the finger at San (derp)? Is there a witness to a conversation? Or maybe screenshots of in game text? Or... No? That's a problem.
Your analogy, like your argument, is not very good. We do not have 'all the evidence' to say one way or the other if any match-fixing happened, or if it did who is responsible for it (really? suspicion of match-fixing is on par with murder?). I bring up sample size because we are talking about one game. Do you know for a fact that San was godlike in every game prior to this one? Maybe that he was very good, or just good, or competent, or 'X', to such a degree that his performance was noticeably deviant, or subtly deviant, from his typical play? Well if you do, let's see your analysis.
Until more supporting evidence is provided, there's not enough to say anything either way, other than that there was a 'suspicious' betting pattern. And even here, 'suspicious' is not necessarily tied to cheating.
|
But of what kind? Who knows... So let's point the finger at San (derp)? Is there a witness to a conversation? Or maybe screenshots of in game text? Or... No? That's a problem.
But San is basically the only one who can guarantee the loss, so if you were a matchfixer you would contact him. If you were betting an inside information, you really wouldn't be betting that much on such thin odds, which makes that event super unlikely.
|
On January 22 2015 22:56 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +But of what kind? Who knows... So let's point the finger at San (derp)? Is there a witness to a conversation? Or maybe screenshots of in game text? Or... No? That's a problem. But San is basically the only one who can guarantee the loss, so if you were a matchfixer you would contact him. If you were betting an inside information, you really wouldn't be betting that much on such thin odds, which makes that event super unlikely.
A public accusation is a far cry from privately contacting him. San didn't merely have suspicion cast upon him: he was outright accused of match-fixing, on grounds that I don't find very convincing given the gravity of the accusation. Show me more evidence and I'll change my mind.
|
On January 22 2015 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
Perhaps we have (a1): someone other than San 'leaked' his condition (because such things cannot be gleaned through observering his play, right?). In this case there is the potential for match-fixing, but not becaues Dark or San purposefully threw the game.
Already addressed. But once again, look at the possibilities
A) Someone leaked his condition to a 3rd party who are just happens to have huge amounts of money to bet, and also that info is somehow enough to convince them that San's chances are close to 0%
B) Someone offered X amount of money to San to throw the game, and acted accordingly after.
You take A over B, i will gladly take B over A
By 'substantial evidence' I mean more than numbers which appear to be indicative of 'X'. That is all these numbers are: indicative. Why they are indicative, and what they are indicating, is the important question. As far as Pinnacle is concerned: there were strange betting patterns, which they take as indicative of suspicious activity. But of what kind? Who knows...
I've already mentioned the more factors, other than betting patterns that could indicate the strong possibility of a fix. The fact that pinnacle's fraud team voided this match only, over 5 years of offering sc2 lines, is very telling. It suggest that evidence they have is pretty strong, they would not act just on the "hunch" here.
But it seems that you wont agree with that. "Its only numbers" etc. Suit yourself.
I bring up sample size because we are talking about one game. Do you know for a fact that San was godlike in every game prior to this one? Maybe that he was very good, or just good, or competent, or 'X', to such a degree that his performance was noticeably deviant, or subtly deviant, from his typical play? Well if you do, let's see your analysis.
Missing the point once again(nice). The quality of San's play and his past performance is the least important thing here.
Your claim was that "sample size is 1 game". I would say that since pinnacle was founded in 1998, their fraud prevention team accumulated enough of a sample size and expirience, to distinguish between a rigged match, and someone just having an extra information that gives them an edge.
|
On January 22 2015 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
Is there a witness to a conversation? Or maybe screenshots of in game text? Or... No? That's a problem.
Well i am glad that you are not in charge of any team that is responsible for preventing fraud.
You are asking for some unrealistic level of evidence that will be missing in 99.9% of match-fixing cases.
A screenshot of San's skype saying "yes, i will throw"? Someone hearing that San agreed to throw the match during the convo in the dark alley?
Are you really expecting this sort of evidence before "chaging your mind" about match being fixed?
Damn, its on the same level as the other guy in this thread claiming that "San said he didnt throw" should be enough to "close the case"
|
On January 22 2015 23:17 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
Perhaps we have (a1): someone other than San 'leaked' his condition (because such things cannot be gleaned through observering his play, right?). In this case there is the potential for match-fixing, but not becaues Dark or San purposefully threw the game.
Already addressed. But once again, look at the possibilities A) Someone leaked his condition to a 3rd party who are just happens to have huge amounts of money to bet, and also that info is somewhat enough to convince them that San's chances are close to 0% B) Someone offered X amount of money to San to throw the game, and acted accordingly after. You take A over B, i will gladly take B over A Show nested quote +
By 'substantial evidence' I mean more than numbers which appear to be indicative of 'X'. That is all these numbers are: indicative. Why they are indicative, and what they are indicating, is the important question. As far as Pinnacle is concerned: there were strange betting patterns, which they take as indicative of suspicious activity. But of what kind? Who knows...
I've already mentioned the more factors, other than betting patterns that could indicate the strong possibility of a fix. The fact that pinnacle's fraud team voided this match, over 5 years of offering sc2 lines, is very telling. It suggest that evidence they have is pretty strong, they would not act just on the "hunch" here. But it seems that you wont agree with that. "Its only numbers" etc. Suit yourself. Show nested quote +
I bring up sample size because we are talking about one game. Do you know for a fact that San was godlike in every game prior to this one? Maybe that he was very good, or just good, or competent, or 'X', to such a degree that his performance was noticeably deviant, or subtly deviant, from his typical play? Well if you do, let's see your analysis.
Missing the point once again(nice). The quality of San's play and his past performance is the least important thing here. Your claim was that "sample size is 1 game". I would say that since pinnacle was founded in 1998, their fraud prevention team accumulated enough of a sample size and expirience, to distinguish between a rigged match, and someone just having an extra information that gives them an edge.
If you do not have enough evidence to refute alternative explanations (and you don't, save your opinion, because you haven't provided any), then you do not have enough evidence to definitively maintain your own. What you have is circumstantial speculation at best, and it isn't that strong even when considered cumulatively. There is no strong tie linking either player to the betting that took place, and without that it is improper to publicly accuse either of wrong doing (investigations tend to imply the accusation, hence 'publicly'). You seem to think I'm missing the point, but it's this that you don't seem to comprehend. If betting is 'A' and the game between Dark and San 'C', then you lack 'B' that connects them.
I'll wait for when more evidence is announced. Until then, nothing useful is going to come out of speculation like this (since you yourself have apparently not bothered to review San's recent match history for suspicious play).
|
On January 22 2015 23:23 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2015 22:53 Gnosis wrote:
Is there a witness to a conversation? Or maybe screenshots of in game text? Or... No? That's a problem.
Well i am glad that you are not in charge of any team that is responsible for preventing fraud. You are asking for some unrealistic level of evidence that will be missing in 99.9% of match-fixing cases. A screenshot of San's skype saying "yes, i will throw"? Someone hearing that San agreed to throw the match during the convo in the dark alley? Are you really expecting this sort of evidence before "chaging your mind" about match being fixed? Damn, its on the same level as the other guy in this thread claiming that "San said he didnt throw" should be enough to "close the case"
You seem to be a San anti-fan. Youre going on and on about alleged matchfixing and tell everyone who want to wait for more proof that theyre an idiot. Just wait for more information to come and dont be a dick.
|
On January 22 2015 23:17 EmoFin wrote:
Your claim was that "sample size is 1 game". I would say that since pinnacle was founded in 1998, their fraud prevention team accumulated enough of a sample size and expirience, to distinguish between a rigged match, and someone just having an extra information that gives them an edge.
Honestly, how much do you know about Pinnacle's fraud prevention team or betting fraud prevention in general?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
