EPTExclusive: Pinnacle Interview on San/Dark - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
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. | ||
|
oFFoy
Lithuania33 Posts
| ||
|
darktreb
United States3017 Posts
The great thing about numbers, and especially statistics (mathematical definition of statistics here, not like "5 wins 3 losses" stats) when applied *correctly* is that they know they might be wrong. And, even better, they know how likely it is they're wrong. I'll take that any day over unbounded rationalizations such as "I watched and it doesn't look like he threw the game ... ps - I really hope he didn't throw the game because that would make me sad!" Anyone who has any experience with betting, trading, etc., can read between the lines for the statement "Is it likely?". As someone noted earlier in this thread, that's a *strong* statement to make. For a bookmaker with the amount of experience and data Pinnacle has accumulated over the years to say something like that ... that's heavy. Of course anything is possible. We can concoct any number of theories in which all players, coaches, team staff, etc., were completely innocent. Hey, maybe a friend of a nurse who took care of San in the hospital is a rich e-Sports better, heard about how messed up his wrists were, and was like "you know what? I'm going to throw down upwards of 50K even at ridiculously terrible BO1 odds of 80% to win!". It's possible sure. But what's most likely across the space of all possible scenarios that would have led to this result is that something shady happened. It's totally possible (and in fact, much more probable than "total coincidence some better just wanted to bet it all") San himself is totally innocent. But it's very likely that somewhere, someone acted shadily with insider info. If you're the type where as long as it's not proven completely you can just keep pretending rainbows and daisies, go ahead and live your life - honestly I envy you. But for the rest of us, this kind of stuff is a huge bummer. | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
2- it seems that the insider info scenario is not impossible, the question is now : is it likely? In the other thread we were called dumbass for thinking that this wierd betting line could have been the result of such a scenario. 3 - other possibilities are not entirely discarded There are a lot of possible explanations for the betting behaviour we saw, but we are not making any specific allegations. We voided the bets because in our assessment, the pattern was extremely irregular. That is our process. and seems to have an higher probability than the "5 royal flush in raw" bullshit some tried to sell us. 4 - what remains for sure is the unusual activity of bets for this sc2 match in particular, and the wierd pattern. As the bet was voided there is no real prejudice here and unless Pinacle tells Kespa that the betters were all San's relative, there is a fair chance that we never know more than this on this case. 5 - San will be looked closely by everybody now, and SC2 games too. Maybe the only result of this will be to have betors bet less on sc2, which may not be a bad thing in the end. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
|
just_mo
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
On January 23 2015 06:53 Gwavajuice wrote: 2- it seems that the insider info scenario is not impossible, the question is now : is it likely? In the other thread we were called dumbass for thinking that this wierd betting line could have been the result of such a scenario. 3 - other possibilities are not entirely discarded There are a lot of possible explanations for the betting behaviour we saw, but we are not making any specific allegations. We voided the bets because in our assessment, the pattern was extremely irregular. That is our process. and seems to have an higher probability than the "5 royal flush in raw" bullshit some tried to sell us. . 2. Yes, i said that this scenerio is very unlikely, and its more than confirmed by this interview that pinnacle shares that opinion, even i did not expect that they would imply that the chance being close to 0% (between the lines) 3. You are grasping @straws here. When you put the pinnacle on the spot with this kind of question - "So, was the match fixed?" - they obviolsy have no other way but to answer it in a very vague way. "A lot of possible explanations" by no means equals "it could very well be clean&legit" If you want to present a decent theory about what happened, i am all ears. But please include your reasoning on why that theory should be considered over the 'obvious' one, without being emotionally attached to a player/team/game. On January 23 2015 07:29 just_mo wrote: Good on TL to follow up with Pinnacle. One question I have, is the chart listed referencing percent of tickets or percent of money? Do you mean the 60% to 78.8% ? (the money line odds), or did you mean something else? | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
On January 23 2015 03:14 hagrin wrote: 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. I just logged in to say that this is such a quality post. Thanks for clearing things up and clearly pointing out the difference between betting patterns and match fixing. This should be in the op | ||
|
SWAT-Kat
United States311 Posts
On January 23 2015 05:40 Wuster wrote: 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? If I'm not mistaken, he was required to play the match. It was Proleague, and they announce line-ups a handful of days before match day, right? Aren't those players then "locked-in" to play those matches? Or is there a rule that, in certain situations, allows a team to make a line-up change before a match starts? That would be really annoying to deal with from the bookkeeper's side of things. On January 23 2015 07:46 EmoFin wrote: Do you mean the 60% to 78.8% ? (the money line odds), or did you mean something else? I believe that's what is being referred to. I'm not sure if matters which one it is. Either way, there was a huge shift in bettor confidence that Dark would win. If it's percent of tickets, it could be one person placing repeated bets, or many people working together. If it's percent of money, it's the same thing, right? One person dumping a bunch of money or many people together dumping what adds up to a bunch of money. | ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
60% being 1.66, 78,8% being 1.26, etc | ||
|
Popkiller
3415 Posts
| ||
|
SWAT-Kat
United States311 Posts
On January 23 2015 07:59 EmoFin wrote: I thought its pretty clear that its not % of money or anything like that but just moneyline odds displayed as win % 60% being 1.66, 78,8% being 1.26, etc So in other words, it's a bettor confidence rating/value? Sorry, I'm not too familiar with betting...  | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
I hope this is resolved quickly one way or the other. A long, drawn out match-fixing accusation is about the last thing professional SC2 needs right now. | ||
|
Orr
United States168 Posts
On January 23 2015 04:02 EmoFin wrote: Makes a lot of sense to me, actually. Nice job extracting a single line without the subsequent context provided. 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* Numbers rarely lie and at no point did I disagree with Pinnacle's findings. In fact after seeing the betting line shifts they provided in the email response it's quite obvious something unfortunate was afloat. My observation after watching the replay and factoring in the match setting/stakes/individual was that San had no direct role in anything nefarious. My bias is tilted towards the still innocent, but I prefer to be wrong about people rather than right. Your above example is pretty stupid and gives very little credit to the intellect that many on this site possess. You seem to be confused with the distinction between a scam and fraud. A scam is when someone attempts to extract something from you. Fraud as seen in this instance is akin to insider trading. Very different entities. | ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
On January 23 2015 08:04 SWAT-Kat wrote: So in other words, it's a bettor confidence rating/value? Sorry, I'm not too familiar with betting... odds of '2' mean that you need to win 50% to breakeven on the bet, for example you bet 1$ and get 1$back+1$ profit = '2' , like a coinflip odds of 1.66 - you need 60% because you get 1$back+0.66$ proft (100/1.66 = ~60%) In short, Dark started as a 60% favorite, then dropped to being only 53% favorite(which turned out to be a trap/manipulation, according to pinnacle), and then became a massive 79% favorite. If the match was legit, Dark needed to have 79%+ winrate in this bo1 for the bet to be profitable. | ||
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
KeSPA should probably investigate to be safe, and Pinnacle is okay to void the match, but aside from that, it shouldn't really bring upon much conversation. | ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
Your above example is pretty stupid and gives very little credit to the intellect that many on this site possess. You seem to be confused with the distinction between a scam and fraud. I am fully aware of the difference, it was not the point. Point is, that dismissing something because it "looks too obvious to be what it seems" in either situation is usually not a good idea at all. | ||
|
EmoFin
Fiji34 Posts
| ||
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
| ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On January 23 2015 07:55 SWAT-Kat wrote: If I'm not mistaken, he was required to play the match. It was Proleague, and they announce line-ups a handful of days before match day, right? Aren't those players then "locked-in" to play those matches? Or is there a rule that, in certain situations, allows a team to make a line-up change before a match starts? That would be really annoying to deal with from the bookkeeper's side of things. True, I guess we don't have enough information on the timeline, if San's been going to the hospital (not clear to me if just once or multiple times) and cutting down his practice, I don't think this is something that's happening over a day or two. I'm not sure what provisions KeSPA gives to lineup emergencies either, just saying a player's hurt and can't play isn't something I've seen (and sounds sketchy anyways). Usually the player is shelved and just doesn't get sent out. | ||
|
xenonn40
United States282 Posts
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely. Thanks. | ||
| ||
