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 20th 2015, Pinnacle Esports voided all bets placed on the Proleague match betweenDark and San.
In their statement, Pinnacle esports said:
In accordance with this policy, the match between Dark and San {20th January 2015 } has been identified by our fraud prevention team as being manipulated. The bet placement pattern clearly indicates that the match was not played on a fair basis.
As a result all bets on this match have been voided. We apologise for the inconvenience this causes for anyone betting on this match in good faith, but hope you will appreciate that protecting the integrity of eSports is of paramount importance.
At the time of the initial thread here on TeamLiquid we stated that Pinnacle had declined to comment on the specifics of the suspicious betting pattern which resulted in their decision to void all bets placed on the match in question.
We continued to follow up with Pinnacle Sports and were put in contact with the Manager of Social Media at Pinnacle Sports, who gave us the opportunity to ask them a series of questions regarding the match between Dark and San, and the circumstances which lead to their decision to void all bets placed on this match. The questions were sent in an email to Mr. Wise who then forwarded these questions to the Head of Sportsbook at Pinnacle Sports for answering.
In short, Pinnacle Sports identified, as noted in their statement, strange betting patterns. These strange betting patterns lead to their decision to flag the match, lower the maximum bet, and then take the game offline to investigate. Key in their statement regarding the potential for matchfixing is that they:
"are not insinuating anything, nor suggesting any specific culpability. [They] are raising a flag, not pointing a finger".
Below you will find a complete transcript of the questions forwarded to Pinnacle Sports and their Answers:
We asked Pinnacle Sports to provide a short introduction describing their company offering context for any readers who may not know the company:
Pinnacle Sports is an online bookmaker, established in 1998. Based on the volume of bets we receive, we are one of the largest in the world. In 2010 we first started offering eSports betting, and since then have seen a huge expansion in interest. eSports is our fastest growing product, now more popular than mainstream sports like Golf or Rugby; we have now surpassed 1 million eSports bets. We firmly believe in the credibility of eSports and many of our staff are gamers.
TL: We understand you cannot divulge your anti-fraud practices to us in this interview. You can however understand that this is the first serious insinuation of perceived match-fixing or corruption in StarCraft 2 during a major competition. I would like to ask if there are any particular details surrounding this case you would be willing to share. What in this case, in as broad or detailed a manner as you wish, lead Pinnacle to void the bets?
Pinnacle Sports: I hope you will understand that I am unable to comment on our anti-fraud practices. We would however be willing to share some of this information with KeSPA if they seek out our help investigating this matter.
We are sure you do not take voiding bets lightly as making this a regular activity would be bad for your business. Are bets voided on a case by case basis after each match? How often do sports bets become voided?
We very rarely void bets, but when we do it is because we see it as the only fair solution for our customers. Voiding a bet is a not a ‘get out of jail free card’ for us. The amount concerned here was tiny in the context of our daily volume.
Our customers expect to make bets on a level playing field. When we have strong suspicion of irregularities, we need to take action to ensure that is the case, to protect our honest customers.
Some online sources, claiming to be clients of your betting service, described the odd betting behaviour on our forums at the following link: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/476033-pinnacle-voids-dark-vs-san-bets-due-to-match-manipulation-concerns The prevailing theory within the thread is that by the time betting closed, a five figure sum had accumulated for Dark, the perceived favorite to win the match. Some posters claim that the maximum bet possible was placed on Dark multiple times reducing his betting line each time.
Regarding the max bet theory, we would like to know first, if not already answered above, if there is any veracity to this'max-bet' theory?
I am unable to comment on the specifics, but money generally moves markets. This market moved a lot for an eSports match.
In your statement found here http://www.pinnaclesports.com/en/notice/esports-statement?ito=twitter you state that "Pinnacle Sports has always been very clear that it will take an aggressive stance against any perceived match-fixing or corruption in any sport that it offers betting for. In accordance with this policy, the match between Dark and San {20th January 2015} has been identified by our fraud prevention team as being manipulated. The bet placement pattern clearly indicates that the match was not played on a fair basis."
In this statement you imply that the bet placement patterns which caused you to void all bets on this match are indicative of match fixing.
Was your decision to void the bets for the San vs. Dark match based purely on the betting patterns for this match which you observed on your website?
Yes it was purely based on sophisticated algorithms detecting potential fraud.* After the flagging of the event, a team of experts who regularly trade SC analysed the betting patterns and came to the conclusion that they were abnormal. I met with the team in the morning and based on the presented evidence had to make the decision to void all wagers. We then let our customers know.
I think many of our users would appreciate seeing how you received the information that lead you to closing the bets on this particular match and how you reacted to it. Can you provide us with a timeline summary of your course of action related to this event?
The game in question showed very worrying signals in the early betting and was put under "close monitoring" from an early stage. The evidence was however, not conclusive, but our traders were alerted that the game showed unusual activity. Over the course of the day the evidence became so overwhelming that we reduced our maximum wager from a high of $1,000 back to $100 to limit the incoming action, eventually taking the game offline to investigate.
This additional information on line movement helps illustrate what we saw :
Day
Time
Dark
San
17th Jan 2015
03:07:42
60.72%
39.28%
Opening
17th Jan 2015
10:37:59
53.50%
46.50%
19th Jan 2015
09:58:07
62.83%
37.17%
19th Jan 2015
23:40:07
73.09%
26.91%
20th Jan 2015
02:59:43
78.80%
21.20%
If you do have additional information which implies the match was manipulated by either player involved, we will respect the sensitive nature of such information and not ask for it at this time. We would like to know however, in the case where information corroborates the accusation of match fixing, whether this information has been forwarded to the appropriate channels in KeSpa for further investigation?
All our information is only based on our wagers. We are happy to work with KeSPA if they decide to investigate the case.*
Insinuating that San and Dark conspired to influence the outcome of a match, especially from such a respected organization as Pinnacle, may have a lasting impact on their reputations, careers and future matches Pinnacle hosts bets for.
It is entirely your right to void bets when you feel that the betting lines were unduly influenced by outside factors. Your statement describing your decision to void the bet insinuates that San and possibly Dark conspired to have Dark win the match. Understanding the history of match fixing in Korean esports, this kind of insinuation cannot be made lightly. With this in mind, I would like to know, if you do not have any additional sources, whether you feel the way you worded your statement was irresponsible?
To be clear, we are not insinuating anything, nor suggesting any specific culpability. We are raising a flag, not pointing a finger.
We certainly do not take this action lightly. We are aware of the significance, but first and foremost must follow our internal procedures. We feel our analysis is sound, and conclusive and on that basis we decided to prevent a negative impact on our customers by voiding all bets.
San has provided a public statement in response to the allegations in the StarCraft community that he is involved in match fixing. His statement may be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sk5aog .
In his statement he describes having practiced less, and being in poor physical condition resulting in his inability to play well. Is it possible that this insider information which was not public prior to the match between San and Dark may have factored into the odd bet placement pattern your fraud team discovered?
I don't like to talk in absolutes. So the answer to the question is simple. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely, but the real question is: Is it likely?
In your expert opinion, are there any explanations beyond match manipulation for the odd betting patterns which forced you to void the bets?
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. We have been conducting this kind of analysis for 16 years, so feel we have the relevant experience to guide our actions.
On January 23 2015 02:32 DarkLordOlli wrote: I don't know, numbers never lie...
Nor do they prove anything in this situation...
I think this reaction is perfectly reasonable for the betting company. They seem to have some messaging mismatch, but are trying to clean that up with these additional statements (i.e. "We don't know what happened. But we know something happened.")
It's unfortunate for the players that they are associated with this as it seems to be some outside actors (not players) who created fraudulent betting patterns. Hopefully this will help clear up controversy of earlier statements. (Notice they don't admit to 'crossing streams' in messaging as it were.) Not sure there's much more anyone can do in this situation barring a KESPA investigation, which is interesting and almost implies it's a player issue if Pinnacle is so forward and willing to work with KESPA.
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 .
I don't know. The presented evidence doesn't warrant a judgment in my eyes. It's seems understandable that they voided the bets, but I'm not convinced that San and Dark actually did something. And I like to stay on the innocent until proven guilty side in such cases.
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.
Hm I think Pinnacle did the right thing to protect their customers and business, but I still do not think San lost on purpose. Something was weird with the bet though and Pinnacle reacted, that's good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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 .
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?
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 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?
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.
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)
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 05:40 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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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 07:29 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?
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
Nice job extracting a single line without the subsequent context provided.
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*
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.
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...
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.
Doesn't really seem like much of a thing to be honest. Somebody sure did something weird, but I wouldn't think too much about it. 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.
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.
I must say though, I hope peope stop talking about this soon. All this talk of betting reminds me of how I can't bet due to the US restricting my freedoms and liberties.
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.
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.
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.
On January 23 2015 10:34 DookuSc2 wrote: Well, all I know is that if I was San I would either sue Pinnacle, TL, or whoever publicly claimed that "San was payed" or the "Match was fixed" for defamation of character. Easily a proceedable case.
Eh, you're more right than you might know at first glance, because Korea has very strict defamation laws (including criminal), and unlike Western countries, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation. It could even be a crime, although there are very few convictions, something like 2 since 2011 and most people who are accused are in really ugly divorce cases.
But since most of these people are foreigners, it means trying to get them to go to Korea to face justice. Which is just a big pain in the ass and he won't ever get any satisfaction or payout. He's better off just trying to move on.
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.
How do you know it's not just one guy?
The algorithm picks up a large bet amount, nothing too complicated about that.
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.
You should compare and contrast your post with the mod note. There's a reason for the mod note.
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.
How do you know it's not just one guy?
"One guy doing a wild bet." From what I've read it's at least one guy making a series of suspect bets on the same match.
Also the silence from korea could simply be them hoping to avoid another scandal. The one that rocked BW did so much public perception/sponsorship damage. Appearances are everything here.
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.
You should compare and contrast your post with the mod note. There's a reason for the mod note.
Not much info from Pinnacle as expected. The percentages are interesting, but without much more data its hard to tell how much of a statistical outlier this is.
Hmmmm, well I wish they were more specific about actions they are taking outside their own site. Also it is weird that when asked to divulge why they stopped the bets they didn't just reveal the jump in % win odds over 4 days. That to me already reads as a big, and significant, change given that there was no new information about either player coming out.
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
Thanks to TL for following up; i'm glad Pinnacle agreed to cooperate with Kespa in the interview
As some people are still mentioning me personally, let me clarify that I rescinded my initial statement that San definitely threw the match (made hastily on twitter which I have apologised for, I should have stated it is a possibility as something suspicious clearly happened in this match, and the betting WAS manipulated in Pinnacle's fraud team's opinion as confirmed by Pinnacle here, but San can't be judged as definitely having involvement based on that).
The statement would have been made by Pinnacle regardless of anything I did/said, and we would be in this exact same situation. Their risk/fraud team spotted the market manipulation and I just happened to spot it in real time as well as an esports bettor and talk about it publicly because I had recommended to people who follow my picks to bet on San before there was suspicious movement and didn't want people to continue betting on San when I thought there was something shady and unprecedented going on with the line movement that made me suspicious that the match may not be on the level (a conclusion Pinnacle's experts reached as well).
I remain almost certain something shady happened here but I have less information than Pinnacle and nothing to add to the conversation beyond speculation.
On another note I never insinuated that Dark had anything to do with anything and find it odd TL would even mention that possibility in their question, there is absolutely no reason to suspect him of any wrongdoing. You don't need to have the winner of a match involved in fixing if it occurred, because people are trying to win by default and everything Dark did in the game was totally normal. There is a reason to suspect but not convict San or somebody close to him of some sort of wrongdoing, but it's not up to me to investigate. Certainly I can't draw a definitive conclusion, but it should be investigated by Kespa and not to do so would be willful negligence, especially since Pinnacle have agreed to cooperate with a Kespa investigation. At the very least they should find out what specifically Pinnacle found suspicious so that they can keep an eye out for it in the future as they are the body tasked with keeping Esports clean as they run the biggest SC2 league in Korea. Hopefully San will be cleared of wrongdoing we can't say he is guilty based on speculation, but the suspicion is valid and will not go away without a proper investigation by Kespa, even if they don't make the results public beyond 'we are satisfied San did not participate in any match fixing'. If they can reach that conclusion after an investigation, then yes, it is fair to assume San was not involved as he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but it is also fine to suspect that somebody did something when there is circumstantial evidence pointing to that conclusion and a comprehensive investigation has not happened. Once the investigation happens if it does, we can draw more accurate conclusions even if the results are not made public in detail.
Something did happen here and i'm glad Pinnacle spoke up about it even if this interview doesn't really give us much in the way of new information other than confirming that Pinnacle believes it is unlikely that the match was played on a fair basis and that they will cooperate with Kespa in any investigation.
One thing Pinnacle should do is make the accounts who bet on this match known to Kespa, so that the information can be analysed in any investigation in case anyone linked to the esports scene in Korea is involved in making suspicious bets. Obviously Pinnacle should also ban these accounts from wagering on their account to be safe; although IF a match fixing syndicate does exist, they will always find a way to get bets on.
To anyone describing Pinnacle as an unscrupulous bookie; this is the sportsbook that went out of their way to pay out both sides on a bet on Al Iaquinta vs Mitch Clarke (an MMA fight in which the wrong finish time was announced for the over/under, under was announced as losing on the night, then about a week later the official finish time was amended so they paid out the bets that were graded as losers on the night on the under as well as the over which was graded as a win on the night) without taking the funds back from the winners graded on the night. The amount wagered on this game would be substantially less than 1% of pinnacle's wagers that day, and probably substantially less than 0.1%. They have no financial incentive to void the bets other than protecting their customers.
I don't have anything else to contribute at this stage other than i'm glad Pinnacle agreed to do an interview with TL, and I hope they are contacted by Kespa who at the very least should make themselves aware of what suspicious petting looks like in the future.
I don't know exactly what happened, I just know that something unscrupulous happened a mathematically ridiculous % of the time and that kespa should look into it because if they dont this sort of thing might happen again and that would be messed up.
And offtopic but hey, Kespa, while we're looking at stuff to do with Startale-Yoe and SKTT1... can we release Parting from Kespa-jail already? There is no reason he shouldn't be able to play in proleague.
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
Ya, Pinnacle is the bad guy. That's why they issued a press release and then took the time to answer TL's questions.
Kespa's done nothing, and has a history of matchfixing, but they're the good guys we trust.
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
bizarre betting lines are pretty much evidence for something being amiss. For betting sites a site stands to lose a lot more if they don't void these type of betting patterns. Gamblers expect to to have an even playing field. I'm pretty sure pretty much everyone who gambles will tell you they don't feel defrauded if something like this happens
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
Kespa's done nothing, and has a history of matchfixing, but they're the good guys we trust.
Pinnacle obviously did the right thing, but constantly repeating that "Kespa is doing nothing" is foolish. We don't know if they are investigating or not. We'll try to find out, but to suggest some large scale fixing because they haven't made an announcement is crazy.
Any accusations from this point forward 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 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.
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.
It's very hard to speculate on what makes things fishy without indirectly implicating San, but you are right that is premature and unfounded. Apologies if I went overboard arguing against this all being some big misunderstanding.
I just find the amount of hand-waving in this thread astounding. People act like there's no way something like this could happen in Starcraft 2 or under KeSPA's watch.
But just looking at the history of Korean esports you already have: Brood War match fixing scandal Warcraft 3 map editing scandal
So it's not like big cheating cases are unheard of in Korean esports.
Even in SC2 you have: Thrown game on stream (ESV Weekly) WCS EU players banned for negotiating match fixing Map hacking during a WoL show match (for money) KeSPA players offered money to throw games Dreamhack qualifier game replayed due to one player being told what the other player was doing A Korean pro admitting to stream cheating during an online tournament
None of these incidents are in dispute either, I left out anything that wasn't actually proven / admitted to.
I know this doesn't mean anything regarding San-Dark but it feels like people keep wanting to bury the ugly incidents and deny that anything could possibly happen. But this is the first time a major 3rd party organization is implying that something ugly could be going on and maybe it's time to pay attention.
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
Actually Pinnacle suspended all betting on San - Dark once enough red flags piled up. Then they voided all bets after an investigation.
BTW, you know how bookies make money? By taking a cut from all bets. The losing bets pay the winning bets, so it really doesn't matter who wins or loses each game.
I know this doesn't mean anything regarding San-Dark but it feels like people keep wanting to bury the ugly incidents and deny that anything could possibly happen. But this is the first time a major 3rd party organization is implying that something ugly could be going on and maybe it's time to pay attention.
Nobody wants to bury anything, and you can rest assured that people are paying very keen attention to this thing as it develops. Some of us are simply very aware of the negative repercussions that a scandal could have on a player's career regardless of their actual involvement, and we would rather the speculating was left to the professionals. I think the only thing we have the power to do in this situation is turn foreign public sentiment for or against a player... although with Koreans being booted out of Europe, that might not mean much. If Korean sentiment (which we have zero access to or control over) turns sour, there's not going to be any "MMA flees to Europe" type saving moves.
1) you need to understand that Pinnacle interested party - their speculation about fixed matches can not be objectively 2) bookie can not guarantee your income in each match 3) match-fixing serious crime. decision on fixed matches should take sports associations and the police, not the bookmaker 4) bookie himself decides on a fixed match - it is an unreliable bookie
oh please fill in the first post on there that you can not berate Pinnacle and I did not notice
mass discussion at 2p2 over innovation vs super game 1 today
I had bet Innovation ML at -177 opener to win 100usd equiv and returned home to an all bets have been cancelled on the match due to fraudulent activity.
Apparently Super got bet into being a huge favourite in Map 1, Pinnacle suspended lines, then innovation came back and won the series. This time it was my winning bet that got cancelled, and again I don't care about the money but I want to know WTF is going on here. I didn't see it myself but people were saying Super got bet into being a huge favourite over Innovation in map 1?
I caught the opener and it moved the line to -203 which I thought was huge, but figured i'd been flagged as sharp and it moved the line more than usual
Inno was a substantial fav in game 1 at the time I bet, but apparently Super became a huge fav in game 1 specifically and I didnt watch live so I have no idea what happened. Emailed pinnacle I hope they make a statement
I have no comment on this other than what the hell is going on... it could mean anything but how nothing makes sense
I'm really hoping Innovation isn't the next Savior. Really strange that the betters would make it so obvious by betting on one game in a series like that.
Even if the players involved weren't really involved in match-fixing, it's going to be a hell of a time for them back in their respective team houses / talking to their friends or family who know about this. Feel really sorry for them if they're not really guilty, but if they are then I'd be very disappointed. Innovation, especially, has been the closest to the most inspirational progamer in my eyes.
I know this doesn't mean anything regarding San-Dark but it feels like people keep wanting to bury the ugly incidents and deny that anything could possibly happen. But this is the first time a major 3rd party organization is implying that something ugly could be going on and maybe it's time to pay attention.
Nobody wants to bury anything, and you can rest assured that people are paying very keen attention to this thing as it develops. Some of us are simply very aware of the negative repercussions that a scandal could have on a player's career regardless of their actual involvement, and we would rather the speculating was left to the professionals. I think the only thing we have the power to do in this situation is turn foreign public sentiment for or against a player... although with Koreans being booted out of Europe, that might not mean much. If Korean sentiment (which we have zero access to or control over) turns sour, there's not going to be any "MMA flees to Europe" type saving moves.
Ya, I took a deep breath and realized that's just how things go on forums. You get a spectrum from 'nothing's wrong, Pinnacle's stupid' to saying as-yet unfounded stuff about San that gets you banned.
Anyways, on topic, the fact that this *just* happened again might finally get KeSPA to act and hopefully get the Korean scene to stop pretending nothing happened.
I know this doesn't mean anything regarding San-Dark but it feels like people keep wanting to bury the ugly incidents and deny that anything could possibly happen. But this is the first time a major 3rd party organization is implying that something ugly could be going on and maybe it's time to pay attention.
Nobody wants to bury anything, and you can rest assured that people are paying very keen attention to this thing as it develops. Some of us are simply very aware of the negative repercussions that a scandal could have on a player's career regardless of their actual involvement, and we would rather the speculating was left to the professionals. I think the only thing we have the power to do in this situation is turn foreign public sentiment for or against a player... although with Koreans being booted out of Europe, that might not mean much. If Korean sentiment (which we have zero access to or control over) turns sour, there's not going to be any "MMA flees to Europe" type saving moves.
Ya, I took a deep breath and realized that's just how things go on forums. You get a spectrum from 'nothing's wrong, Pinnacle's stupid' to saying as-yet unfounded stuff about San that gets you banned.
Anyways, on topic, the fact that this *just* happened again might finally get KeSPA to act and hopefully get the Korean scene to stop pretending nothing happened.
Yeah. We saying "nothing is wrong" has no direct implications on a person. Claiming a person is match fixing can have an impact on them directly and immediately. Its also unfounded with no direct evidence, so we need to choose which side of the coin to moderate and we chose the latter.
KeSpa will act eventually I am sure, but only if they have to deal with it. I don't think this is big news in Korea atm so KeSpa has no PR to deal with and might not even know shit is going down. At the time of the interview, Pinnacle was willing to work with KeSpa if approached. Considering the latest bet voiding I am not sure if Pinnacle will get involved of their own accord or not.
I know this doesn't mean anything regarding San-Dark but it feels like people keep wanting to bury the ugly incidents and deny that anything could possibly happen. But this is the first time a major 3rd party organization is implying that something ugly could be going on and maybe it's time to pay attention.
Nobody wants to bury anything, and you can rest assured that people are paying very keen attention to this thing as it develops. Some of us are simply very aware of the negative repercussions that a scandal could have on a player's career regardless of their actual involvement, and we would rather the speculating was left to the professionals. I think the only thing we have the power to do in this situation is turn foreign public sentiment for or against a player... although with Koreans being booted out of Europe, that might not mean much. If Korean sentiment (which we have zero access to or control over) turns sour, there's not going to be any "MMA flees to Europe" type saving moves.
Ya, I took a deep breath and realized that's just how things go on forums. You get a spectrum from 'nothing's wrong, Pinnacle's stupid' to saying as-yet unfounded stuff about San that gets you banned.
Anyways, on topic, the fact that this *just* happened again might finally get KeSPA to act and hopefully get the Korean scene to stop pretending nothing happened.
Yeah. We saying "nothing is wrong" has no direct implications on a person. Claiming a person is match fixing can have an impact on them directly and immediately. Its also unfounded with no direct evidence, so we need to choose which side of the coin to moderate and we chose the latter.
KeSpa will act eventually I am sure, but only if they have to deal with it. I don't think this is big news in Korea atm so KeSpa has no PR to deal with and might not even know shit is going down. At the time of the interview, Pinnacle was willing to work with KeSpa if approached. Considering the latest bet voiding I am not sure if Pinnacle will get involved of their own accord or not.
I guess I'm more incredulous / frustrated by people saying 'nothing could possibly be wrong' when not only does the evidence, but the history of eSports is against giving them the benefit of a doubt.
Also, I'm positive KeSPA knows about it, if San made a public statement in English and Korean then the Korean scene knows there are questions. If Parting commented in San's defense in a post-game interview, then the Korean scene definitely knows.
Edit: To be fair to KeSPA, just saying they're aware of the allegations is basically an announcement of a possible announcement, so I don't think there's anything wrong with a delay in response from them.
Anti-viruses also provide a lot of false-positives with their smart algorithms and vast experience in the business. Could have just kept that in secret until the official judgement from kespa, because their careers were stained for free.
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
Kespa's done nothing, and has a history of matchfixing, but they're the good guys we trust.
Pinnacle obviously did the right thing, but constantly repeating that "Kespa is doing nothing" is foolish. We don't know if they are investigating or not. We'll try to find out, but to suggest some large scale fixing because they haven't made an announcement is crazy.
Any accusations from this point forward that Pinnacle isn't legitimate or attempted to scam people, or that Kespa is involved in matchfixing will be moderated SEVERELY.
I just don't understand this mentality of rectal mountaineering with respect to Pinnacle. Some company comes out of nowhere and significantly endangers the careers of people they don't even know, while endlessly repeating how they can't tell us anything, because it's so fucking important that their super-intelligent fraud-fighting soon-to-be-Skynet remains obfuscated. I am sorry, but the only thing Pinnacle deserves from the SC2 community at the moment, is shit. They have shown very clearly that their business is for them much more important than lives of real people that may not even have ever heard about their company, so how exactly did they earn out respect?
They are a fucking betting company, that means that if anybody knows what effect their "actions based on suspicions" have on the people involved, it's them. Yet they go through with it without willing to show their hands. If they are not willing to play this openly, they should have just kept their mouth shut, pay out the money as usual and only then come back when there is solid evidence of manipulation, reimburse those who lost on the unfair bet out of their pockets and go after the scammers in court to possibly get their money back. After all, these sums are apparently peanuts for them.
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.
1) Pinnacle at no public evidence (may be no evidence) 2) San said - there was no fixing 3) KeSPA not canceled the results 4) Pinnacle was aware of the "problem" but accepts bets
output
1) Pinnacle unscrupulous bookie 2) Pinnacle wants to pay the winning players
I'm sorry defrauded players and San.but Pinnacle is registered in an offshore zone...
Kespa's done nothing, and has a history of matchfixing, but they're the good guys we trust.
Pinnacle obviously did the right thing, but constantly repeating that "Kespa is doing nothing" is foolish. We don't know if they are investigating or not. We'll try to find out, but to suggest some large scale fixing because they haven't made an announcement is crazy.
Any accusations from this point forward that Pinnacle isn't legitimate or attempted to scam people, or that Kespa is involved in matchfixing will be moderated SEVERELY.
I just don't understand this mentality of rectal mountaineering with respect to Pinnacle. Some company comes out of nowhere and significantly endangers the careers of people they don't even know, while endlessly repeating how they can't tell us anything, because it's so fucking important that their super-intelligent fraud-fighting soon-to-be-Skynet remains obfuscated. I am sorry, but the only thing Pinnacle deserves from the SC2 community at the moment, is shit. They have shown very clearly that their business is for them much more important than lives of real people that may not even have ever heard about their company, so how exactly did they earn out respect?
They are a fucking betting company, that means that if anybody knows what effect their "actions based on suspicions" have on the people involved, it's them. Yet they go through with it without willing to show their hands. If they are not willing to play this openly, they should have just kept their mouth shut, pay out the money as usual and only then come back when there is solid evidence of manipulation, reimburse those who lost on the unfair bet out of their pockets and go after the scammers in court to possibly get their money back. After all, these sums are apparently peanuts for them.
Some people threw out numbers in regards to how much money was required to move the line that much. Since Pinnacle did not release the records of bets being placed these numbers were pulled straight out of their asses.
For all we know the line movement could have been caused by an error in their betting system as well.
Unless Pinnacle is accepting anonymous payments they already have the information to go after the parties responsible but i guess they won't even inquire with that being bad for business and all.
I think like all good stories of this type, numbers never lie but they can deceive. Pinnacle is totally in the right to at least raise the flag here, it's up to KeSPA to see if there is a real fire or not. It's likely that it's nothing but considering the Brood War debacle its better to be safe than sorry
On January 27 2015 00:27 showstealer1829 wrote: I think like all good stories of this type, numbers never lie but they can deceive. Pinnacle is totally in the right to at least raise the flag here, it's up to KeSPA to see if there is a real fire or not. It's likely that it's nothing but considering the Brood War debacle its better to be safe than sorry
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Kespa even to acknowledge this.
They're like congress, they're going to investigate themselves and then tell us everything is ok.
I'm pretty disgusted with Kespa that they haven't released a statement. Especially when Pinnacle said they'd share their data with Kespa in an investigation. Even if I was one of the players involved i'd want them to investigate and clear me if i'm innocent. As a fan and esports bettor, every match the relevant players are involved in now has a question mark over it from this point forward if the situation is never investigated, especially if lines sharply move against them (there have been no more suspicious line movements in the days since; what are the odds it happens twice in two days, Pinny cancels the bets then it never happens again? Weird).
KeSPA are waiting on Pinnacle to provide them with data and information. KeSPA are aware of what happened and are looking into it. They don't want to make an announcement until they have enough information to make a meaningful one. That's as much as I can say.
Just because they haven't announced to the public that something is being done doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.
Good to hear. Hopefully it turns out that this weird anomaly was the result of something other than match fixing, I guess we won't know until the Kespa investigations concluded if one is taking place.
On January 26 2015 23:54 icydergosu wrote: I fully agree with opisska as well.
Some people threw out numbers in regards to how much money was required to move the line that much. Since Pinnacle did not release the records of bets being placed these numbers were pulled straight out of their asses
I think this statement is a bit disrespectfull, considering that - the people you target are the very people who tried in this thread to provide analysis with far more details and far less simplification than most of other "contributors", and specially the dozens of fanboys who came in with an incredible amount of hatred against the unbelievers. - the numbers you claim are pulled out of their ass where specifically given as a rough estimation, which are quite likely to be accurate for that purpose (re-read the very detailed explanations in the thread if you want to find out why, or feel free to challenge those explanations if you can).
Regarding the attitude of Pinnacle, I can understand why it seems very rough to the players (because obviously they are, now, guilty or not, on the short side of the stick), but you have to consider the implications of playing the "business as usual" card until they collect convincing evidence, which could never happen, match-fixing or not. They would have to take the money of the loosing bettors, while suspecting they were robbed. What do you think would have happen two months later, when they disclose the whole deal? Or maybe they should have payed the winning bettors, and refund the loosers in the meantime? Why not hold a big sign "scam me plz"?
To be clear, I think it would be for the better for sc2 if betting was not allowed. But since it's not the case, Pinnacle is running a legitimate business: it's prefectly legitimate for them to protect their turf, in particular if they can do so without accusing anybody in particular. If the reputation of San is tarnished by their very cautious statement, it's not because they were too quick, but because for a lot of people (like me), the match-fixing theory seems the most likely, among "misclick of a very rich guy" or "some insider knew better than San and his coach how badly he was injured". Maybe I'm too quick to point fingers, feel free to think so, but Pinnacle certainly is not, because they didn't point fingers in the first place, but protect their customers, period.
PS: in a sharp contrast, you know did not protect their customers in the slightest as of now? Yeah, the association which is suppose to defend the players and the pro-teams...
On January 26 2015 23:54 icydergosu wrote: I fully agree with opisska as well.
Some people threw out numbers in regards to how much money was required to move the line that much. Since Pinnacle did not release the records of bets being placed these numbers were pulled straight out of their asses
I think this statement is a bit disrespectfull, considering that - the people you target are the very people who tried in this thread to provide analysis with far more details and far less simplification than most of other "contributors", and specially the dozens of fanboys who came in with an incredible amount of hatred against the unbelievers. - the numbers you claim are pulled out of their ass where specifically given as a rough estimation, which are quite likely to be accurate for that purpose (re-read the very detailed explanations in the thread if you won't to find out why, or felle free to challenge those explanations if you can).
Regarding the attitude of Pinnacle, I can understand why it seems very rough to the players (because obviously they are, now, guilty or not, on the short side of the stick), but you have to consider the implications of playing the "business as usual" card until they collect convincing evidence, which could never happen, match-fixing or not. They would have to take the money of the loosing bettors, while suspecting they were robbed. What do you think would have happen two months later, when they disclose the whole deal. Or maybe they should have payed the winning bettors, and refund the loosers in the meantime? Why not hold a big sign "scam me plz"?
To be clear, I think it would be for the better for sc2 if betting was not allowed. But since it's not the case, Pinnacle is running a legitimate business: it's prefectly legitimate for them to protect their turf, in particular if they can do so without accusing anybody in particular. If the reputation of San is tarnished by their very cautious statement, it's not because they were too quick, but because for a lot of people (like me), the match-fixing theory seems the most likely, among "misclick of a very rich guy" or "some insider knew better than San and his coach how badly he was injured". Maybe I'm too quick to point fingers, feel free to think so, but Minnacle certainly is not, because they didn't point fingers in the first place, but protect their customers, period.
PS: in a sharp contrast, you know did not protect their customers in the slightest as of now? Yeah, the association which is suppose to defend the players and the pro-teams...
Lots of good points.
In addition, the 'just refund the losers and take the hit yourself' approach is pointless. That would be just as suspicious. Everyone knew were suspecting foul play, because why do that otherwise.
Mabye we need just Richard Lewis to take a look into it.
There is just another Esport Matchfixing Scandal happening (or has happend) and it took 5 month and a investigative journalist with alot of passion for the truth to show it up to us.
Folks bashing Pinnacle in this thread need to realize that Pinnacle is an extremely reputable bookmaker in the betting industry that has nothing to gain by returning bets in a match like this. They are offshore but they are so legitimate they don't even take bets from U.S. customers.
Books get sided all the time, the lost money on the single favorite like this is not important to them in the long run; because more often than not when they do get sided, an upset happens and they make a killing. If they say they have evidence that would suggest possible irregularities and will work with Kespa; I am inclined to believe them.
On a more general level, I think that there is a big problem in SC2 and esports whereby most players make so little money, that the betting market for the sport dwarfs the sport itself. And so there is real an incentive for a deep pocketed bettor and a struggling player to make a deal; as deplorable as it is, it is bound to happen eventually just as it happens when the same scenario exists in other sports. As an example, you can look at soccer in China (where the president of the league and many refs went to prison a few years ago) or in Nigeria (where home teams inexplicably win substantially more than in other countries). I think it's probably safe to say that Starcraft is in great shape relatively, likely because individual reputations are at stake after all.
I was recently making an illustration for one of my friends showing how the law of large numbers works. I will change it a bit for the current situation.
Imagine you have 2 players of exactly the same skill, all other factors that can influence people betting on them are also the same and they don't change while betting is in progress.
Q:Out of 10 betters, what is the probability that at least 6 (6-10) of them will bet on the same player? A: 37,7% probability for a specific player, and twice that much (75,4%) for any of them.
Q:Out of 100 betters, what is the probability that at least 60 of them will bet on the same player? A: 2,8% probability for a specific player, and twice that much (5,7%) for any of them.
Q:Out of 1000 betters, what is the probability that at least 600 of them will bet on the same player? A: 2,72/10^10 for any of them. That is less than one in 1 000 000 000.
In other words, the probability that out of 1000 betters each player will receive from 401 to 599 bets is more than 999 999 999 out of 1 000 000 000.
I am not sure that's very helpful with respect to betting markets though as it's less about the number of people than the amount of money on a side. It's not rare for a book to have a winning position be the side with 75% of tickets on it, because the 25% on the other side is a hugely deep pocketed (and typically wiser) minority.
I would suspect that in this game for example, Dark would have easily gathered the overwhelming majority of the tickets as he's been getting a lot of hype from both Tastosis during games and the community at large (arguably deserved since he has been playing well). And if that ended up being a substantially more amount of money - even odds-adjusted, then there would be probabilistic value by betting on San - which the professional, smarter bettors might bite on. What probably happened was some version of that. However, what also likely happened is that a small group (or a even single but suspicious) bettor just poured money into Dark no matter how low the odds became. Meanwhile, there were probably very smart guys who were taking the value on San as the odds got longer and longer (too long) for him. It was those honest bettors who Pinnacle is trying to protect by refunding bets when they have good reason to suspect an irregularity.
Just regarding all those people who say Pinnacle is a large reputable business. I would like to say. Enron was also a large reputable business until they weren't.
Eerrm, are there any news to this case? It feels like nobody talks about that anymore. But, if there are some results from the investigation, i guess, SC2 Fans would like to hear... And - more of that - i think, betters want to see some real news as well.
Im my opinion it's just not fair to void the bets, (directly or indirectly) accuse a player and/or organisation of cheating and never reveal some results. Very strange story...
On January 31 2015 23:13 Mosha wrote: Eerrm, are there any news to this case? It feels like nobody talks about that anymore. But, if there are some results from the investigation, i guess, SC2 Fans would like to hear... And - more of that - i think, betters want to see some real news as well.
Im my opinion it's just not fair to void the bets, (directly or indirectly) accuse a player and/or organisation of cheating and never reveal some results. Very strange story...
investigations? There is only one organistation who can do that and that's kespa. Not sure if they are doing something. I am not even sure if they would make it public if they found something. Its not fair to void bets? The odds were clearly very far of. Numbers don't lie. There was going on something. As an experienced better i can tell you i have never seen odds like that in a match where the players were fairly equal matched. It's not like San is a low GM NA player or something but the odds suggested that. Btw Pinnacle doesn't accuse anyone they are just stating the facts. They are also acting within their own rules. I would have been very disappointed if they didn't react to this just to avoid some bad press.
I think, there was a little bit of a misunderstanding. Of course it's not unfair to void the bets, given the circumstances. But, according to this link: http://www.pinnaclesports.com/en/notice/esports-statement?ito=twitter they indeed accused someone to have fixed that match.
In accordance with this policy, the match between Dark and San {20th January 2015 } has been identified by our fraud prevention team as being manipulated. The bet placement pattern clearly indicates that the match was not played on a fair basis.
They speak of the MATCH being manipulated, not just the betting pattern being weird. (which could for example happen, if someone spreads inside information)
So, yes, i do expect something like "In order to solve the issues concerning this incident, Kespa has come to investigate further on it. Of course we do our best to keep our customers informed"
It was not Kespa cancelling or voiding a match, it was Pinnacle voiding the bets, so its their turn to inform people about whats going on, even if the investigation is not theirs to do.
Yes "they speak of the MATCH being manipulated" and then follow the reason how they came to that conclusion. That's an implication but i guess you can see it as an accusation as well. If the implication is correct there has to be someone who manipulated it after all. I think everybody would like to know the whole story behind it. But I don't think it's Pinnacles job from here to investigate or inform us. "Pinnacle Sports reserves the right to refuse, restrict, cancel or limit any bet perceived to be placed in a fraudulent manner in order to circumvent our bet limits, rules and/or system regulations. " They detected it and canceled the wagers. End of story for them. If Kespa investigates the issue they might or might not make a statement about it. I hope they do both.
EPT
Dark and 
San. 
.
