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 08:30 xenonn40 wrote: Could someone please explain to me why it is so unlikely that this was the result of insider information about San's injury?
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely.
Thanks.
Because the odds were 5 to 1 against San. Meaning people who bet on Dark at that point were only getting a 20% return. They were betting 10,000 to gain only 2000. If they were wrong, they lose the 10k.
The number of people making this crazy bet is still unclear, but its just not feasible to have that level of certainty on a SC2 game even if you know San was sick. He could just cannon rush and he'd have 20%+ chance.
On January 23 2015 08:30 xenonn40 wrote: Could someone please explain to me why it is so unlikely that this was the result of insider information about San's injury?
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely.
Thanks.
very short version :
1) out of all people to get that insider information, it just happens to be some big e-sport betting enthusiast who can throw 5-6 figures in the match?
2) the value of the information is not nearly enough to bet so much with that confidence on such low odds. "Hey, i've heard San went to a hospital and short on practice! -Really? Well i am going to throw 50k$ on Dark, there is no way for San to win this best of one PvZ"
Because the odds were 5 to 1 against San. Meaning people who bet on him at that point were only getting a 20% return. They were betting 10,000 to gain only 2000. If they were wrong, they lose the 10k.
The number of people making this crazy bet is still unclear, but its just not feasible to have that level of certainty on a SC2 game even if you know San was sick. He could just cannon rush and he'd have 20%+ chance.
Don't you mean people who bet against San (and for Dark)?
Because the odds were 5 to 1 against San. Meaning people who bet on him at that point were only getting a 20% return. They were betting 10,000 to gain only 2000. If they were wrong, they lose the 10k.
The number of people making this crazy bet is still unclear, but its just not feasible to have that level of certainty on a SC2 game even if you know San was sick. He could just cannon rush and he'd have 20%+ chance.
Don't you mean people who bet against San (and for Dark)?
On January 23 2015 08:30 xenonn40 wrote: Could someone please explain to me why it is so unlikely that this was the result of insider information about San's injury?
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely.
Thanks.
Think of it like this. The way the bets were coming in, you were betting a lot for very little return, so they were betting on dark with almost 100% confidence he would win. Let's say you knew san was injured and hadn't been practicing for a while, would that info be enough for you to go tell your friends and family to throw $1000 or something like that on Dark in a bo1 without being worried about them losing their money? Would you have that much confidence in that info to consider it a slam dunk loss for San? I know I wouldn't considering it's a bo1 in sc2 when even one undetected cheese or something like that could win a game, so unless San lost his playing arm, I wouldn't be almost 100% confident san would lose just because he's in poor condition and hasn't been practicing as much.
On January 23 2015 08:30 xenonn40 wrote: Could someone please explain to me why it is so unlikely that this was the result of insider information about San's injury?
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely.
Thanks.
Since this is a direct question, I feel free to copy paste my analysis form the other trade:
The insider information theory is very ublikely because it implies that the "informed gambler" had far better informations than San's coach, and in fact than San himself (if you suppose than San is innocent)
for this to be true, you would need that 1) San knew that he was creepled horribly enough to make his chance to win a regular game again Dark less than 20% 2) San confessed his condition to someone. 3) San hid it from his coach this is obvious and crucial. If the coach had been aware, he would have ask San to try some silly cheese, one that yield more than 20% winrate 4) San decided on his own to not try a silly cheese, but instead went for a longer game he was almost sure to loose.
tldr: if he knows that in a regular game he has 20% chance to win, there is no way that a decent protoss player, let aside his coach, will choose not to flip a coin and go for some proxy 2 gates, or any other ultra cheesy infamous protoss bullshit.
On January 23 2015 06:48 darktreb wrote: It's funny when people who are both biased toward hoping nothing bad happened, and lack an understanding of betting patterns, as well as general statistics, throw out statements like "those percentages don't look that crazy to me" or "what if some rich person just wanted to put it all on black".
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.
First you said math doesn't lie, then you said it's totally possible San himself is innocent. So you at least admit that beyond the bets placed online, we don't have a damn clue what happened. Any assessment of likelihood regarding the explanation behind the betting is entirely subjective, no matter what Pinnacle's reputation and knowledge level is.
On January 23 2015 08:30 xenonn40 wrote: Could someone please explain to me why it is so unlikely that this was the result of insider information about San's injury?
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely.
Thanks.
Since this is a direct question, I feel free to copy paste my analysis form the other trade:
The insider information theory is very ublikely because it implies that the "informed gambler" had far better informations than San's coach, and in fact than San himself (if you suppose than San is innocent)
for this to be true, you would need that 1) San knew that he was creepled horribly enough to make his chance to win a regular game again Dark less than 20% 2) San confessed his condition to someone. 3) San hid it from his coach this is obvious and crucial. If the coach had been aware, he would have ask San to try some silly cheese, one that yield more than 20% winrate 4) San decided on his own to not try a silly cheese, but instead went for a longer game he was almost sure to loose.
tldr: if he knows that in a regular game he has 20% chance to win, there is no way that a decent protoss player, let aside his coach, will choose not to flip a coin and go for some proxy 2 gates, or any other ultra cheesy infamous protoss bullshit.
Maybe he didn't want to admit it to his coach because it could be seen as not having the dedication or courage to play for the team. People do what their superiors tell them to do in Korea. This is just one possibility which shows you have no idea about the odds San was involved in matchfixing.
On January 23 2015 08:30 xenonn40 wrote: Could someone please explain to me why it is so unlikely that this was the result of insider information about San's injury?
Everyone seems to say it is obvious that it is unlikely, but they give no reason for why it should be unlikely.
Thanks.
Think of it like this. The way the bets were coming in, you were betting a lot for very little return, so they were betting on dark with almost 100% confidence he would win. Let's say you knew san was injured and hadn't been practicing for a while, would that info be enough for you to go tell your friends and family to throw $1000 or something like that on Dark in a bo1 without being worried about them losing their money? Would you have that much confidence in that info to consider it a slam dunk loss for San? I know I wouldn't considering it's a bo1 in sc2 when even one undetected cheese or something like that could win a game, so unless San lost his playing arm, I wouldn't be almost 100% confident san would lose just because he's in poor condition and hasn't been practicing as much.
You assume the better was using sound betting logic.
Convenient for the gamblers then that San wasn't going to do some random all-in and instead play that macro game he was near certain to lose then huh?
Cuz that's really what it comes down to, 5:1 odds don't happen outside of no-name foreigner versus champion caliber Korean which speaks to the certainty you'd have to have to still bet on Dark. You'd have to think that San's condition gave him worse odds than that, and even then you had Scarlett 7 gating DRG for a win less than a year ago (yes I know DRG was nowhere near Dark's level).
Edit: If there was some illogical whale around the SC2 scene, why is this the first time in 5 years this sort of thing has happened?
On January 23 2015 09:37 Wuster wrote: Convenient for the gamblers then that San wasn't going to do some random all-in and instead play that macro game he was near certain to lose then huh?
Cuz that's really what it comes down to, 5:1 odds don't happen outside of no-name foreigner versus champion caliber Korean which speaks to the certainty you'd have to have to still bet on Dark. You'd have to think that San's condition gave him worse odds than that, and even then you had Scarlett 7 gating DRG for a win less than a year ago (yes I know DRG was nowhere near Dark's level).
Edit: If there was some illogical whale around the SC2 scene, why is this the first time in 5 years this sort of thing has happened?
You assume the better was using sound betting logic.
Given that he manipulated a line first to his advantage, its safer to assume that he is a competent individual who is aware of the odds, line movement, expected value, and other gambling concepts.
Assuming that he went berkerk after hearing about San's health and started a mass betting rampage is something you can do if you so desire though.
But i dont see any reason to take that hypothetis at all, except if you have some emotional reasons behind it.
Can we stop with the posts accusing San of a matchfix? Seriously. Pinnacle themselves stated that the only reason they voided the bets was due to a problematic betting pattern.
Without any serious proof to claim San was involved in matchfixing we cannot say he was.
If you feel THAT strongly about it, contact KeSpa and urge them to conduct an investigation. TL isn't the place to do some sort of vigilante justice style investigation or accusation.
On January 23 2015 06:48 darktreb wrote: It's funny when people who are both biased toward hoping nothing bad happened, and lack an understanding of betting patterns, as well as general statistics, throw out statements like "those percentages don't look that crazy to me" or "what if some rich person just wanted to put it all on black".
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.
First you said math doesn't lie, then you said it's totally possible San himself is innocent. So you at least admit that beyond the bets placed online, we don't have a damn clue what happened. Any assessment of likelihood regarding the explanation behind the betting is entirely subjective, no matter what Pinnacle's reputation and knowledge level is.
Yeah, it's all just circumstantial at this point. You have two fairly conservative statements at this point - Pinnacle noticed the betting behavior was strange, canceling a bet, and San apologized for playing badly, blaming injuries.
The unfortunate part is that some people jumped very early to conclusions of match-fixing and it's been hard to shake them off, even when the people who originally said them (Swoopae and Pinnacle) backed off to more defensible positions. Their tone in this interview is much more careful than their e-mail statement - they can't say what happened except the betting was strange, unusual enough to be a red flag and warrant protecting some bettors by canceling the bet. It seems these people want to continue to connect the dots as though it were self-evident and want actions that reflect that, mostly implicit but sometimes explicit hopes that Kespa "gets him".
On January 23 2015 09:58 ZeromuS wrote: Can we stop with the posts accusing San of a matchfix? Seriously. Pinnacle themselves stated that the only reason they voided the bets was due to a problematic betting pattern.
Dont be so childish, the "problematic bettting pattern" points that someone knew the outcome of the match
Without any serious proof to claim San was involved in matchfixing we cannot say he was.
But what can we do is to create a number of theories and assign a certain % of probability to them, based on the facts we know so far. If you are not keen on the matchfixing theory, you can offer some other expanation. Saying that "we dont know, it could be anything" is a cop out.
If you feel THAT strongly about it, contact KeSpa and urge them to conduct an investigation. TL isn't the place to do some sort of vigilante justice style investigation or accusation.
I am pretty sure that it was already been done. And the fact that KeSpa is not doing anything is not exactly helping the case.
Also, keep in mind that there are different ways that match could be fixed, with the different degrees of guilt on parties involved.
1) It could be just some 3rd party offering $ to San directly (no one else was aware or responsible) 2) Fixing was arranged by someone "above" - (coach/team/whole organization is involved, a whole bunch of people responsible)
Leaning towards 2) personally, espessialy given the silence from Korea so far.
What's more worrying was the betting line shifting Flash's FPL cost to 9 points right before the season begins. Everybody knows Flash can't win a single game right now, YET his cost was set at a ridiculously unlikely 9. Whether the FPL higher-ups were in on it we can't be sure, but there were rumors of an Excel spreadsheet, an unlikely pattern indeed.
Well, all I know is that if I was San I would either sue Pinnacle, or whoever publicly claimed that "San was payed" or the "Match was fixed" for defamation of character. Easily a proceedable case. The guy who made that tweet about San getting payed really does not understand the seriousness of his claim. I can assure you that many people will make sure San understands his rights in this matter and what his options are from this point on, good luck.
On January 23 2015 09:37 Wuster wrote: Convenient for the gamblers then that San wasn't going to do some random all-in and instead play that macro game he was near certain to lose then huh?
Cuz that's really what it comes down to, 5:1 odds don't happen outside of no-name foreigner versus champion caliber Korean which speaks to the certainty you'd have to have to still bet on Dark. You'd have to think that San's condition gave him worse odds than that, and even then you had Scarlett 7 gating DRG for a win less than a year ago (yes I know DRG was nowhere near Dark's level).
Edit: If there was some illogical whale around the SC2 scene, why is this the first time in 5 years this sort of thing has happened?
Because he felt like it on that night?
We're not talking one big bet, we're talking a series of bets the algorithm of a 15+ year betting agency picked up on as being extremely suspect. It's not just one guy doing a wild bet.
EPT
