Just as in the previous thread, simply saying "X player did Y" without significant evidence will not be tolerated. Unless you can provide factual basis for your claims, do not accuse anyone of anything.
Any accusations that Pinnacle isn't legitimate or attempted to scam people, or that Kespa is involved in matchfixing will be moderated SEVERELY.
On January 23 2015 02:50 NeThZOR wrote: People favouring Dark is barely evidence for matchfixing.
I can't believe that is all they have. They are not giving a lot of specifics, but I'm sure plenty of matches have had unlikely favorites or people with insight in the scene creating relatively large bets. Yet this is the first time they voided a match for anything like this, so it must be something more even if they are not telling.
Odds are set so Pinnacle do not lose whatever the outcome of the match, and in the big picture a small damage to their reputation is far greater than any potential financial gain from voiding a match. A lot of people seem to have some conspiracy that Pinnacle just doesn't want to pay out, but in reality they would actually gain money from leaving all bets valid and in any case a single esports match is not worth risking your brand over even if that was the case.
What could they possibly have? They are a betting website not private investigators. To get confirmation Kespa will probably have to investigate.
They have millions of datapoints of what betting behavior looks like. If suddenly this one match in a rather standard league, between ordinary players show very abnormal, never seen before patterns, then something is up.
I'm not saying it should be enough to take any kind of action against players or teams, for that data needs to be released and confirmed by several parties of course. But I'm saying they have no motivation to do this if they didn't strongly believe it, and they have the capability to detect fraud with high probability.
As a long time semi-pro (i.e. I could make a living off it but I don't) sports bettor (15+ years), I just wanted to chime in that Pinnacle is, well, the pinnacle of online sportsbooks. They have some of the "sharpest" lines that many smaller books and local bookies copy (via API), they have some of the largest limits, they rarely limit long term winning bettors and they actually pay out without hassle unlike 90% of online sportsbooks. If Pinnacle states that they see something strange in the betting patterns, they should be taken at their word since they don't exhibit the shady behavior that other books do.
From the odds history, it looks like someone/some group tried to manipulate the line by placing a bunch of smaller amount wagers on the early line, with lower limits to alter the odds in their favor and then hammered/bought back the improved odds to profit once the limits increased. For esports, which is a small, illiquid market, huge, sudden moves that are highly coordinated are very rare especially on SC2 matches. You will see huge line moves though - ex,: current SKT1 vs IM LoL line has moved quite a bit since the opener and in fact so much that if you had wagered on SKT1 early there is a very simple 3.5% arbitrage opportunity so big line moves do happen, but I imagine the suddenness and the amount of money flagged the match. Really straight forward.
That said ...
Rare/Anomaly != Matchfixing. Pinnacle did the right thing to investigate and should be applauded for taking action pre-match as opposed to post-match where more scammy books would have freerolled the match and then cancelled winning bets and kept the losing bets. It's generally very easy to detect these sort of anomalies from the bookmaker's side so I wouldn't rush to the "you can make numbers do anything" rationale because Pinnacle is in a position to easily detect such strange betting patterns, but this doesn't even mean that the players themselves are involved in any way. More investigation is needed.
On January 23 2015 02:50 NeThZOR wrote: People favouring Dark is barely evidence for matchfixing.
You can't dismiss someone putting ~$50k on Dark as 'people favouring Dark'. The fact is something very abnormal happened, nobody knows exactly what happened, but some events are clearly more likely than others. I'm so sad because I've been a San fan ever since the very first GSL where he played an awesome game vs Inca on Delta Quadrant .
So someone with a lot of money is betting on the stronger player to win , is that not normal ? What are we debating actually that people with a lot of money don't have knowledge in starcraft or they don't have friends that do ?
On January 23 2015 03:12 TheDwf wrote: What I find really funny is how most of the questions are 2 to 3 times longer than the answers.
I can field this one.
Since the interview was done via email, we opted to provide as much context in our questions as possible.
That is the only reason the questions are longer than the answers.
This being said, some of the information they are choosing not to provide is specifically in reference to their anti-fraud practices. They chose to divulge nothing which is something they need to do.
On January 23 2015 02:50 NeThZOR wrote: People favouring Dark is barely evidence for matchfixing.
You can't dismiss someone putting ~$50k on Dark as 'people favouring Dark'. The fact is something very abnormal happened, nobody knows exactly what happened, but some events are clearly more likely than others. I'm so sad because I've been a San fan ever since the very first GSL where he played an awesome game vs Inca on Delta Quadrant .
So someone with a lot of money is betting on the stronger player to win , is that not normal ? What are we debating actually that people with a lot of money don't have knowledge in starcraft or they don't have friends that do ?
Because that guy with a lot of money kept betting even though odds he got kept getting smaller and smaller. It's not like somebody just decided "I put 50k$ (or any other number) on X player with these 1,65 odds", more like he kept going until it went all the way down to 1,2 until the betting was stopped by Pinnacle. So they rich guy did these numerous 1k$-100$ bets not giving a shit about the odds he was getting. That's the key thing. People bet 100k$ on super bowl, there's nothing abnormal about that.
Now, nothing proves the players (sc2 players) did anything wrong. There are other explanations. But it seems majority of the people on this site seem to think information leaking about San's injuries being a perfect explanation for shifting lines, when infact it is extremely unlikely, which surprisingly even the Pinnacle guy stated.
If I had to pull other explanations than match-fixing (and more likely than leaking information about injuries), they would include things like someone hacked a highroller's Pinnacle account and placed those bets, aka intentitionally tried to lose, so he could win on his own account betting the opposite. That's way more plausible.
On January 23 2015 02:38 Blargh wrote: They didn't provide much... At least we know it's 100% based off of their "algorithm".
This wasn't some automated process that voided the bets. The algorithm alerted them to suspicious activity, and then humans reviewed it and agreed that it was suspicious and that led to the later action that was taken. You don't get to write this off as some rogue computer process that could have happened in error.
Pretty sad society we live in where the initial reaction by so many is to slander a complete stranger before the facts even begin to emerge. Shows the intellect level of those who automatically infer that San must be guilty simply because the betting lines are suspicious. Never thought to think that programmers are people too, with actual personal lives and hardships. And that simply telling someone close about an unknown health issue could lead to a chain in which someone thousands of miles away smartly tries to capitalize by placing large sums of $ on an upcoming match with their new-found knowledge. Thinking all that through is probably much harder than rushing online and grabbing your pitchforks.
And aside from the humanistic standpoint, from a logical one it makes zero sense for San to have taken a bribe to throw the match. You really think in this day and age after the BW experiences, that a well-known programmer already earning solid coin is going to take a payoff to lose a match in PL (the most talented and intensely monitored/scrutinized in the world) that they weren't even favored to win anyway? This has to be perhaps the worst possible venue for someone looking to cheat. Doesn't add up for me.
After watching the replay, at no point did I feel San threatened the integrity of the game with his performance. He looked like someone who was mentally and physically exhausted and off his game. If you are as talented as they are on such a closely watched stage, it hardly seems prudent to 'intentionally' lose your scouting probe off the top and your MC against a lone queen a short time later. Those are the least subtle ways possible and practically asking to be red-flagged. The suspicious blink-forward didn't seem terrible to me and the fight was a very close one that San appeared to be winning before his slight overestimation. Taking a 3rd instead of going all-in with his timing is pretty standard too. These players as amazing as they are, make mistakes and bad decisions all the time just like us lesser beings.
The interesting(and most worrisome) thing about this betting pattern is that it started out just slighly skewered in Darks favor and then made the natural transition of leveling out. Then it turns back towards favoring Dark, this is suspicious. If Dark was such a heavy favorite why wasn't he that from the start? What did people learn that made them so very sure that Dark would win?
On January 23 2015 02:51 Beyond Magic wrote: Guess anyone who was aware of San's state could have made those bets.
The thing is, just knowing about san's current condition wouldn't be enough for me to bet that confidently on Dark for that amount and those odds. Let's say MVP was playing someone slightly favoured and you knew his wrists were fucked and he hadn't practiced in a month. Even knowing that I wouldn't tell all my relatives and friends to bet on his opponent with almost 100% confidence in a bo1.
That's why I don't really buy the insider information about san's condition to be the reason for those bets because even if I had that info, I wouldn't be almost 100% confident san was going to lose just because of that. Unless san was losing his playing arm, just being in bad form and not practicing for a bit doesn't give me almost 100% confidence san would lose a bo1.
On January 23 2015 02:50 NeThZOR wrote: People favouring Dark is barely evidence for matchfixing.
You can't dismiss someone putting ~$50k on Dark as 'people favouring Dark'. The fact is something very abnormal happened, nobody knows exactly what happened, but some events are clearly more likely than others. I'm so sad because I've been a San fan ever since the very first GSL where he played an awesome game vs Inca on Delta Quadrant .
So someone with a lot of money is betting on the stronger player to win , is that not normal ? What are we debating actually that people with a lot of money don't have knowledge in starcraft or they don't have friends that do ?
"I am unable to comment on the specifics, but money generally moves markets. This market moved a lot for an eSports match." It's the sheer amount of money put on Dark that makes it abnormal.
On January 23 2015 03:31 Orr wrote: And aside from the humanistic standpoint, from a logical one it makes zero sense for San to have taken a bribe to throw the match.
Makes a lot of sense to me, actually.
After watching the replay, at no point did I feel San threatened the integrity of the game with his performance. He looked like someone who was mentally and physically exhausted and off his game. If you are as talented as they are on such a closely watched stage, it hardly seems prudent to 'intentionally' lose your scouting probe off the top and your MC against a lone queen a short time later. Those are the least subtle ways possible and practically asking to be red-flagged. The suspicious blink-forward didn't seem terrible to me and the fight was a very close one that San appeared to be winning before his slight overestimation. Taking a 3rd instead of going all-in with his timing is pretty standard too. These players as amazing as they are, make mistakes and bad decisions all the time just like us lesser beings.
Oh, the "too obvious to be a throw" argument. Good luck applying it to fraud/scams. "Oh wow, this email looks too fishy and too obvious to be a scam" - *invest the money* *click on all the links*
I'm very surprised that Pinnacle has repeatedly implied that KeSPA has not gotten in touch with them at all. Given past issues, I would expect that KeSPA would be all over this. Are they...
-not aware of this because it's only been discussed in the foreign community? -not wanting to be seen as associated with betting sites? -ignoring this and hoping it will go away?
None of those are good excuses, though. I'm not saying that San did anything, but the best way to prove that would be an investigation. KeSPA...?
On January 23 2015 02:30 TeamLiquid ESPORTS wrote: TL: What is the least amount of information that you can give us in the largest number of words?
Pinnacle Sports: I hope you will understand that I am unable to comment on specific details of our lexicographical usage practices, though rest assured, I will do my best to put you at ease and prevent our business from taking any flak in the public relations department. We would however be willing to share some of this information with Webster's dictionary, if they seek out our help investigating this matter, thus being yet another piece of information that I shall tantalizingly dangle just outside of your demonstrably limited reach. In fact, I could go on for days just how much information we have that you don't have, just to rub in in your face how little this matters to our bottom line. Granted, we value all of our customers equally. However, some are unavoidably more equal than others.
Hillarious thing would be if the whole Kespa itself is involved, and this is just one match where betting got out of control and got spotted by the anti-fraud team. And now they are figuring out how what to do, because if they would point fingers to San he would end up giving them all up.
[/speculation]
Also lol @ people expecting a detailed information from fraud prevention team about how do they prevent fraud. Are you serious?
I wish people would reserve judgment until more conclusive evidence comes out...while i personally don't think this seems like something San would do, I am willing to admit that the numbers are strange, but we need more evidence before damning or clearing anyone.
On January 23 2015 04:19 EmoFin wrote: [speculation]
Hillarious thing would be if the whole Kespa itself is involved, and this is just one match where betting got out of control and got spotted by the anti-fraud team. And now they are figuring out how what to do, because if they would point fingers to San he would end up giving them all up.
seems to be an informative interview that doesn't tell us anything we couldn't have already figured out ourselves. It makes sense from them though as they don't have anything to add and revealing their algorithm would just make it easier for fraudulent betters to avoid triggering it.
EPT
.
