|
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 04:22 aidoSC wrote:
I have no words. I thought this is a solid bookmaker Pinnacle. but it's a shame. Pinnacle robbed players.
Are you serious here? So they shouldnt void a match when its obviously far from being legit? Is that what you are saying?
"Customers, we suspect that a match was fixed, if you did bet on San we are kinda sorry, but be more carefull next time, your money is gone." The only one who could be mad here is someone who followed the criminal money, expecting easy profits.
|
Maybe someone close to San knew he was sick and started to bet on Dark. The history spreads and more people bet on Dark.
Maybe it is a case of needing more journalism in esports, to report this kind of stuff (player injuries).
|
On January 23 2015 04:28 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 04:22 aidoSC wrote:
I have no words. I thought this is a solid bookmaker Pinnacle. but it's a shame. Pinnacle robbed players. Are you serious here? So they shouldnt void a match when its obviously far from being legit? Is that what you are saying? "Customers, we suspect that a match was fixed, if you did bet on San we are kinda sorry, but be more carefull next time, your money is gone." The only one who could be mad here is someone who followed the criminal money, expecting easy profits.
He's more likely implying that heavy damage was done to San's reputation
|
To anyone who thinks that my speculation about Kespa is boardlane insane consider these facts :
1) Asumming that there is something shady going on with this match, how many other matches like that went unnoticed because the betting patterns were chosen more carefully and less greedy? Whats the probability of this match being "one and only" ?
2) The amount of money involved strongly suggests that its either :
a) a very wealthy individual
b) a group of people / an organization
3) No response from Kespa, seems like they are either stalling for time, figuring out what to do, or hoping it would all just go away.
I am not saying that its more probable that some organization is involved, the 2) could be easily a) and not b) and 3) could mean a lot of other things.
But the possibility is not 0%, not even close.
|
On January 23 2015 03:32 Canucklehead wrote:Show nested quote +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 the whole I agree, but San did state that not only did he go to the hospital for wrist pain, but that the hospital treatment failed, so much so that he made a conscious decision to reduce his practice time. To someone maybe not fully aware of Mvp's superhuman pain-denying abilities (or confident that San is not so hardy) that would seem like slam-dunk information. This same inexperience could have to the super-obvious shady betting pattern as the novice inside information trader scrambled to put as much $ as he could on the only match he "knew". Maybe someone like a non-SC friend of a coach or fellow player who was just gossiping about the health of a friend.
While still hoping for the best, overall it does look like we can't entirely rule out the worst.
|
I say, not guilty until proven.
|
On January 23 2015 04:51 jubil wrote:
On the whole I agree, but San did state that not only did he go to the hospital for wrist pain, but that the hospital treatment failed, so much so that he made a conscious decision to reduce his practice time. To someone maybe not fully aware of Mvp's superhuman pain-denying abilities (or confident that San is not so hardy) that would seem like slam-dunk information. This same inexperience could have to the super-obvious shady betting pattern as the novice inside information trader scrambled to put as much $ as he could on the only match he "knew". Maybe someone like a non-SC friend of a coach or fellow player who was just gossiping about the health of a friend.
While still hoping for the best, overall it does look like we can't entirely rule out the worst.
Just ask yourself how confident would you be betting tens of thousands $ on Dark based on that "slam-dunk" info.
ZvP, BO1 against someone who can likes early aggression/all-ins. Confident enough, to lets say, bet 50k and smoke a sigar, knowing that its "in the bag"?
|
your Country52797 Posts
I agree that there's probably something fishy about the betting but I don't think San threw it. He did play badly, but I think he intended to win the game. There are points where he seemed to be trying his best to come back.
|
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. 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.
[...]
Hmm, I think you:
1) Over-estimate how much a progamer is paid. It's certainly no "solid coin".
2) Over-estimate how scrutinized PL is. I mean, it's just a not-so-popular-anymore video game, let's stay real for a second. For us Starcraft fans it's the pinnacle and all, no pun intended, but in the grand scheme of things, it's really small-time.
On the contrary, it seems to me like it would make the perfect playground for some small fish wannabe match fixers. Not many people watching, gullible and poor young kids as the athletes, it's just ripe for the taking.
Edit: On the other hand, it was like word for word what Swoopae had reported to us in the thread, so props to him for his analysis of the betting shift.
|
On January 23 2015 03:14 hagrin wrote:
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.
That's the only part of this that bothers me: apparently they didn't take action until after the match? So how do we know they wouldn't have simply banked it all should San have actually won?
|
San has provided a public statement in response to the allegations in the StarCraft community that he is NOT involved in match fixing. His statement may be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sk5aog .
Right?
|
On January 23 2015 05:15 forsakeNXE wrote:Right?
No, the allegations were that he was actually involved in match fixing. His statement is that he is NOT involved in match fixing but it's in response to the allegations that he IS involved in match fixing.
|
On January 23 2015 04:51 jubil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 03:32 Canucklehead wrote: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 the whole I agree, but San did state that not only did he go to the hospital for wrist pain, but that the hospital treatment failed, so much so that he made a conscious decision to reduce his practice time. To someone maybe not fully aware of Mvp's superhuman pain-denying abilities (or confident that San is not so hardy) that would seem like slam-dunk information. This same inexperience could have to the super-obvious shady betting pattern as the novice inside information trader scrambled to put as much $ as he could on the only match he "knew". Maybe someone like a non-SC friend of a coach or fellow player who was just gossiping about the health of a friend. While still hoping for the best, overall it does look like we can't entirely rule out the worst.
Except, San didn't have to play the match did he? He could have been swapped for another player from ST / Flash Wolves.
Just think what you're saying that San is in such terrible, terrible shape that he's 100% sure to lose, but the coaches don't know or care and play him anyways?
Anyways, since the other thread has gotten super bloated, I'll ask my question here.
If the max bet is $1k, does that mean that someone trying to put 5 figures on Dark would have to open multiple accounts on Pinnacle?
|
Aight so, basically just re confirming the same nothing again. Cool. Need to get in touch with the people who actually placed the suspicious bets.
|
On January 23 2015 05:40 Wuster wrote:
If the max bet is $1k, does that mean that someone trying to put 5 figures on Dark would have to open multiple accounts on Pinnacle?
The "Max bet" is what can you bet with 1 click, so to speak, you can bet 1k, and then bet 1k again, and again, etc.
So its not "the max amount you can bet", but more like the amount you can bet before it will influence the line.
The interesting thing to me was that at first, the line was manipulated into San's favor, to give Dark better odds (from 1.6 to 1.8), and then when the limits were increased, they unleashed the money on Dark.
Kinda like financial market pump&dump scheme.
|
I mean if the percentage was 60% to Dark and 40 to San as the first initial percentages, I don't find those numbers to be all that alarming.. but hey who am I really to comment on such a thing to begin with :/
|
On January 23 2015 05:49 IcookTacos wrote:
I mean if the percentage was 60% to Dark and 40 to San as the first initial percentages, I don't find those numbers to be all that alarming.. but hey who am I really to comment on such a thing to begin with :/
Noone said that 60% opening on Dark is alarming, its the fact that it went 60%(opening) -> 53% (manipulation/bait, to improve the odds before unleashing the money) -> 79% (dumping tons of money)
|
Great reporting TL!
Now get an interview with Kespa. What do they have to say about this?
|
What if some rich person just wanted to "put their money on black" and put $50k on Dark?
It's also pretty funny that Pinnacle is now saying they "don't want to point fingers" even though their first statement said "we believe the match wasn't played on a fair basis". They might not be pointing fingers at one person, but they are pointing fingers at one of two people.
|
On January 23 2015 05:47 EmoFin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 05:40 Wuster wrote:
If the max bet is $1k, does that mean that someone trying to put 5 figures on Dark would have to open multiple accounts on Pinnacle? The "Max bet" is what can you bet with 1 click, so to speak, you can bet 1k, and then bet 1k again, and again, etc. So its not "the max amount you can bet", but more like the amount you can bet before it will influence the line. The interesting thing to me was that at first, the line was manipulated into San's favor, to give Dark better odds (from 1.6 to 1.8), and then when the limits were increased, they unleashed the money on Dark. Kinda like financial market pump&dump scheme.
Thanks for the clarification.
I guess the next question is, what do other line manipulations look like? If the movement was low early on then could it just be the natural stabilizing effect since a line is supposed to create action on both sides?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
