EPTPRIME match-fixers given suspended sentences - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MaCRo.gg
Korea (South)860 Posts
| ||
|
MaCRo.gg
Korea (South)860 Posts
On April 05 2016 03:47 MaCRo.gg wrote: How does bribing to have a World Cup in your country have anything to do with match fixing? On April 05 2016 02:15 Shield wrote: So, if you follow your own logic, you shouldn't be too upset if a burglar steals from your house. It's an integral part of life sometimes. Really, this is the dumbest argument I've heard. I betted only £20-40 back in WoL, I was never into gambling, and I haven't betted since then. I did it because I wanted to try my luck, so I don't consider myself a gambler. However, match-fixing shouldn't be part of betting's risk. Fairness has to be ensured. Whether it's smart to gamble or not is irrelevant here (I don't approve it even if I did it once with a very small amount of money). Edit: In other words, environment has to be fair. After that, it's gamblers' fault if they lose money because THEY made the wrong decision. Not someone else who decided to lose a game. Burglary is far from a valid comparison. More like getting swindled by a confidence man. It is as much your fault for being so... to use your words "dumb", than is the con man who misrepresented the facts. Gamblers already made a stupid decision to gamble, can't blame the casino for "fixing" the odds on a slot if you are dumb enough to gamble on a slot machine. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 05 2016 02:15 Shield wrote: So, if you follow your own logic, you shouldn't be too upset if a burglar steals from your house. It's an integral part of life sometimes. Really, this is the dumbest argument I've heard. I betted only £20-40 back in WoL, I was never into gambling, and I haven't betted since then. I did it because I wanted to try my luck, so I don't consider myself a gambler. However, match-fixing shouldn't be part of betting's risk. Fairness has to be ensured. Whether it's smart to gamble or not is irrelevant here (I don't approve it even if I did it once with a very small amount of money). Edit: In other words, environment has to be fair. After that, it's gamblers' fault if they lose money because THEY made the wrong decision. Not someone else who decided to lose a game. The fact that people choose to bet on something - which is a completely unilateral decision, the thing you bet on has no say in this - doesn't mean that what you bet on should change things in order to make itself fair for betting. To go into details, when you bet on something, you bet based on two main factors : what you know, and what you don't know. Thus, "unfairness" is bound to happen within "what you don't know". It can be other things than matchfixing : it can be that one of the two players had a bad night because he was moderatly sick, it can be that he's having difficulties in practice and you don't know it, it can be that his opponent got leaked practice replays and knows what to prepare for. If we extend our thought beyond SC2 or (e)Sports, it can even be legitimate "matchfixing", in a way : for example if you bet on who's going to be the next Minister of Agriculture, and your assumption was going to be correct, up until the point a deal - something that you don't know when betting - got made assuring that politician that he'll get the Ministry of Finances soon if he accepts to leave the Ministry of Agriculture to a rival. Thus, the perceived risk/reward balance you use when betting is necessarily false, because the real risk/reward balance is affected by things you don't know, things you cannot know. As long as what you bet on was not created with the specific goal of being betted on, as long as what you bet on is something that existed before betting and can exist independently of betting, you are not entitled to getting that what you bet on changes its usual practices because of betting. You have to accept that when you bet on a environment, that environment has practices that are independent of betting, and that these practices (matchfixing, corruption, whatever) interfering with what you perceive as being "fair" will happen. | ||
|
chipmonklord17
United States11944 Posts
On April 05 2016 04:13 OtherWorld wrote: The fact that people choose to bet on something - which is a completely unilateral decision, the thing you bet on has no say in this - doesn't mean that what you bet on should change things in order to make itself fair for betting. To go into details, when you bet on something, you bet based on two main factors : what you know, and what you don't know. Thus, "unfairness" is bound to happen within "what you don't know". It can be other things than matchfixing : it can be that one of the two players had a bad night because he was moderatly sick, it can be that he's having difficulties in practice and you don't know it, it can be that his opponent got leaked practice replays and knows what to prepare for. If we extend our thought beyond SC2 or (e)Sports, it can even be legitimate "matchfixing", in a way : for example if you bet on who's going to be the next Minister of Agriculture, and your assumption was going to be correct, up until the point a deal - something that you don't know when betting - got made assuring that politician that he'll get the Ministry of Finances soon if he accepts to leave the Ministry of Agriculture to a rival. Thus, the perceived risk/reward balance you use when betting is necessarily false, because the real risk/reward balance is affected by things you don't know, things you cannot know. As long as what you bet on was not created with the specific goal of being betted on, as long as what you bet on is something that existed before betting and can exist independently of betting, you are not entitled to getting that what you bet on changes its usual practices because of betting. You have to accept that when you bet on a environment, that environment has practices that are independent of betting, and that these practices (matchfixing, corruption, whatever) interfering with what you perceive as being "fair" will happen. I suppose I just have a difference of opinion. Yes there are things you don't know when you place a bet, but (in my opinion) factors like match fixing are not a part of those things. Betting is a game of probability, hard numbers. What is essential to placing a bet is assuming that the only thing you are betting against is probability, not that some outside source is fixing it. If I gave you 10 to 1 odds that a coin would land on heads, most rational people would place a bet saying the coin lands on tails. Your probability SHOULD BE 50% for either option, so betting $5 that it ends up on tails has a great chance of netting you an extra $45 dollars. Now what I didn't tell you is this is a trick coin and you actually have a 90% chance of landing on heads. Suddenly that bet isn't fair. You don't gamble assuming your bet is unfair, you gamble assuming the probability of a situation occurring is in your favor. Or at least that's gambling smart. Shield hit the nail on the head imo, you have to assume your environment is fair and beyond that it becomes your fault for making the wrong decision. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
Just to add to the probability discussion, say you calculate the probability player A loses if B cheeses him. Then, probability of player A winning if B doesn't cheese, then probability if both A and B play macro, etc. You do all the math, for example, then you reach a conclusion that player A is more likely to win against player B in 50%+ of cases, so you bet on A. What you didn't know is that player A already arranged to play to lose. Your probability estimation goes to toilet. It's no longer an environment you can 'control' based on data or assumptions. Hence, you need a fair environment to make a good guess. Just because player A is more likely to win doesn't mean B won't win under fair circumstances though. In that case, it will be your fault if you bet on player A but only if there was no match-fixing. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 05 2016 04:35 chipmonklord17 wrote: I suppose I just have a difference of opinion. Yes there are things you don't know when you place a bet, but (in my opinion) factors like match fixing are not a part of those things. Betting is a game of probability, hard numbers. What is essential to placing a bet is assuming that the only thing you are betting against is probability, not that some outside source is fixing it. If I gave you 10 to 1 odds that a coin would land on heads, most rational people would place a bet saying the coin lands on tails. Your probability SHOULD BE 50% for either option, so betting $5 that it ends up on tails has a great chance of netting you an extra $45 dollars. Now what I didn't tell you is this is a trick coin and you actually have a 90% chance of landing on heads. Suddenly that bet isn't fair. You don't gamble assuming your bet is unfair, you gamble assuming the probability of a situation occurring is in your favor. Or at least that's gambling smart. Shield hit the nail on the head imo, you have to assume your environment is fair and beyond that it becomes your fault for making the wrong decision. I precisely think that betting on uncontrolled/loosely controlled environment like in SC2 is not a game of hard probabilities, because the perceived risk/reward balance and the actual risk/reward balance aren't the same. To further your coin example : if you hand me the coin so that I can test it, control it, make sure it is 50/50 weight, then yes, the probability should be 50% for either option. But in this case, I am betting in a controlled environment, thus we are indeed working with hard probabilities, kinda like if robots played SC2. But if you offer me that bet without allowing me to test the coin, then nothing's telling me that this coin is a regular 50/50 weight coin : it is me who makes that assumption if I take the bet. In this case, I'm betting on an uncontrolled environment, thus the perceived risks/rewards balance (which, if I make the assumption that the bet is "fair" - which here means, really, nothing else than "how I think it should be" as opposed to "how it should be" -, should be heavily in my favor) is not the same as the actual risks/rewards balance. Thus, when you bet on an uncontrolled environment, you accept among the risks the fact that your perceived risks/rewards balance is wayyyyy off. Thus, you indeed bet assuming that your environment is "fair", "fair" as far as what you perceive as being "fair" is "fair" ; however, you accept among the risks the fact that uncontrolled factors can skew what you thought were the probabilities of event X happening. On April 05 2016 05:37 Shield wrote: In addition, if you say "match-fixing is part of betting's risk", what you say is this: the system is corrupt and I'm happy with status quo. Sorry, but if you apply this logic to any business, any sane customer will stop using their services as soon as possible. Just to add to the probability discussion, say you calculate the probability player A loses if B cheeses him. Then, probability of player A winning if B doesn't cheese, then probability if both A and B play macro, etc. You do all the math, for example, then you reach a conclusion that player A is more likely to win against player B in 50%+ of cases, so you bet on A. What you didn't know is that player A already arranged to play to lose. Your probability estimation goes to toilet. It's no longer an environment you can 'control' based on data or assumptions. Hence, you need a fair environment to make a good guess. Just because player A is more likely to win doesn't mean B won't win under fair circumstances though. In that case, it will be your fault if you bet on player A but only if there was no match-fixing. I did not say this, and please do not put words in my mouth. What I said was (1) When betting on an uncontrolled environment, you have to accept the fact that uncontrolled factors can make it "unfair" ; among these factors is matchfixing. Other factors exist too : if player A (who, we'll assume, didn't fix the game) eats something bad the morning before his games, and that causes him to throw up 30 minutes before the game, and obviously he's not in his best state for the game, feeling all dizzy and stuff, and thus plays at ~30% of his actual level : your estimation also goes to the toilets. Yet, will you blame food? Will you blame the cook, asking that cooks should be controlled in order to have a fair betting environment? Or will you accept the fact that uncontrolled factors can fuck things up? And what if someone intentionally put bad food into player A's breakfast? (2) Because of life and stuff, you cannot expect an uncontrolled environment to change its practices just because people are betting on it, thus suddenly they'd need a fair environment. You can say that matchfixing is bad, that the system is corrupt and should be fixed, independently of betting concerns. In fact, you can say "they matchfixed ; they should be punished because it's illegal/contrary to sportsmen ethics/a danger to the scene's future/whatever", while you cannot say "they matchfixed ; they should be punished because it's an attack on the fair environment necessary for betting" (!). Players did not choose to be the subjects of bets, and they can live without anyone betting on them. Betting on them is something you do without their consent at all, thus you have no right to force upon them the creation of a "fair" environment. | ||
|
Advantageous
China1350 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
 | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On April 05 2016 06:46 OtherWorld wrote: I precisely think that betting on uncontrolled/loosely controlled environment like in SC2 is not a game of hard probabilities, because the perceived risk/reward balance and the actual risk/reward balance aren't the same. To further your coin example : if you hand me the coin so that I can test it, control it, make sure it is 50/50 weight, then yes, the probability should be 50% for either option. But in this case, I am betting in a controlled environment, thus we are indeed working with hard probabilities, kinda like if robots played SC2. But if you offer me that bet without allowing me to test the coin, then nothing's telling me that this coin is a regular 50/50 weight coin : it is me who makes that assumption if I take the bet. In this case, I'm betting on an uncontrolled environment, thus the perceived risks/rewards balance (which, if I make the assumption that the bet is "fair" - which here means, really, nothing else than "how I think it should be" as opposed to "how it should be" -, should be heavily in my favor) is not the same as the actual risks/rewards balance. Thus, when you bet on an uncontrolled environment, you accept among the risks the fact that your perceived risks/rewards balance is wayyyyy off. Thus, you indeed bet assuming that your environment is "fair", "fair" as far as what you perceive as being "fair" is "fair" ; however, you accept among the risks the fact that uncontrolled factors can skew what you thought were the probabilities of event X happening. I did not say this, and please do not put words in my mouth. What I said was (1) When betting on an uncontrolled environment, you have to accept the fact that uncontrolled factors can make it "unfair" ; among these factors is matchfixing. Other factors exist too : if player A (who, we'll assume, didn't fix the game) eats something bad the morning before his games, and that causes him to throw up 30 minutes before the game, and obviously he's not in his best state for the game, feeling all dizzy and stuff, and thus plays at ~30% of his actual level : your estimation also goes to the toilets. Yet, will you blame food? Will you blame the cook, asking that cooks should be controlled in order to have a fair betting environment? Or will you accept the fact that uncontrolled factors can fuck things up? And what if someone intentionally put bad food into player A's breakfast? (2) Because of life and stuff, you cannot expect an uncontrolled environment to change its practices just because people are betting on it, thus suddenly they'd need a fair environment. You can say that matchfixing is bad, that the system is corrupt and should be fixed, independently of betting concerns. In fact, you can say "they matchfixed ; they should be punished because it's illegal/contrary to sportsmen ethics/a danger to the scene's future/whatever", while you cannot say "they matchfixed ; they should be punished because it's an attack on the fair environment necessary for betting" (!). Players did not choose to be the subjects of bets, and they can live without anyone betting on them. Betting on them is something you do without their consent at all, thus you have no right to force upon them the creation of a "fair" environment. Let's answer your points one by one. 1. Match-fixing can't be an acceptable "unknown risk". I explained it already. Your food example is unfortunate, but it happens randomly. Match-fixing is a decision someone makes. Result from food is sometimes unexpected response from one's body. Yes, you may eat food you're allergic to but it's not advisable. This isn't part of discussion. 2. I don't want to force players to care about bets but players are expected to do their best on the given day under current circumstances. If they feel tired, sick or whatever - fine, just bad luck. That is LUCK. Match-fixing is a choice not luck. It's illegal as well. I think there's no point discussing it anymore. Betting websites already void bets, so they should know better than you how to handle such cases. | ||
|
Apoteosis
Chile820 Posts
On April 04 2016 06:13 Shield wrote: I don't care if gambling is illegal in Korea. There are people outside Korea who bet on matches. How would you feel if you bet on player A when player A played to lose? It's not nice but I guess kids like you go to their mom for money rather than see how hard it is to earn some. User was warned for this post I have a family on my own (my wife and my little kid), I work hard as a lawyer and I won't throw my money away gambling at some shady website. Maybe the one who can't appreciate the money we got through hard work is you, because people with true responsibilities don't throw his money by gambling. But anyways, in gambling stuff, you can't just go crying because the match you were betting on was fixed. There is no costumer law on gambling, because of his inherent nature: a random event, that generates random obligations. The one who is betting takes all the risks when it comes to gambling. That is why, when you win, you get a huge reward. But when you lose... it's with no tears. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On April 04 2016 06:13 Shield wrote: I don't care if gambling is illegal in Korea. There are people outside Korea who bet on matches. How would you feel if you bet on player A when player A played to lose? It's not nice but I guess kids like you go to their mom for money rather than see how hard it is to earn some. User was warned for this post For sure, all systems of legal gambling are rigged in favor of the house or institution that is hosting the gambling. If you bet against the house, it is rigged over time that you will lose your money. The only chance you ever have in gambling is finding someone to host the bet and skim some money off the top for themselves as profit. If they have any other involvement I promise you they are manipulating the scenario to skew the results and amount of money they will take in their favor. Match-fixing is a counter manipulation on the side of person betting to neutralize the other person's advantage. This is almost exactly the same a bookie placing odds on a match, which ultimately influences how much money people bet on one player vs another. The difference in match-fixing is that supposedly you secure a 100% chance the outcome goes one way, but even then the match fixer can decide to not go through with it. You need probability to exist for gambling to exist. Apparently no matter how horrible the odds are, someone is very willing to place a bet on that slim chance that they may win. From the institutional standpoint it's all about playing on a persons' rewards systems in the brain to lure them into situations in which the odds are stacked as unfairly as they can possibly make them without being called a thief by society. If institutions could rig them 100% in their favor they would. Carnival games are a great example, you have about a 2% chance that you will throw the pingpong ball into that one red glass whose mouth is exactly the size of the ball resting among 30 more glasses, but the persons running the game will say, "I just gave away 2 of these teddy bears!" My point is that you are punishing a person for counter rigging the system against a bunch of thieves who rigged a scam to win money. Gambling is a game of stacking the odds against someone and convincing them the game is even odds, legal thievery. The only difference here is that these people did in one day what an institution does over a couple months to a year. They rigged the odds in their favor for one match vs. doing it over 20 matches. There is supposedly a 100% chance you win in match-fixing, but there is also a 100% odds that if you gamble in an institution over time the house wins the majority. I think in the scope of crimes and acts that hurt people I rate thieves rigging a thieves game pretty low, the punishment is more that sufficient. A lifetime ban from the sport is enough. The only real loser in gambling is the better, he's getting taken for his or her money because the fix is always in. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On April 06 2016 00:12 ShambhalaWar wrote: For sure, all systems of legal gambling are rigged in favor of the house or institution that is hosting the gambling. If you bet against the house, it is rigged over time that you will lose your money. The only chance you ever have in gambling is finding someone to host the bet and skim some money off the top for themselves as profit. If they have any other involvement I promise you they are manipulating the scenario to skew the results and amount of money they will take in their favor. Match-fixing is a counter manipulation on the side of person betting to neutralize the other person's advantage. This is almost exactly the same a bookie placing odds on a match, which ultimately influences how much money people bet on one player vs another. The difference in match-fixing is that supposedly you secure a 100% chance the outcome goes one way, but even then the match fixer can decide to not go through with it. You need probability to exist for gambling to exist. Apparently no matter how horrible the odds are, someone is very willing to place a bet on that slim chance that they may win. From the institutional standpoint it's all about playing on a persons' rewards systems in the brain to lure them into situations in which the odds are stacked as unfairly as they can possibly make them without being called a thief by society. If institutions could rig them 100% in their favor they would. Carnival games are a great example, you have about a 2% chance that you will throw the pingpong ball into that one red glass whose mouth is exactly the size of the ball resting among 30 more glasses, but the persons running the game will say, "I just gave away 2 of these teddy bears!" My point is that you are punishing a person for counter rigging the system against a bunch of thieves who rigged a scam to win money. Gambling is a game of stacking the odds against someone and convincing them the game is even odds, legal thievery. The only difference here is that these people did in one day what an institution does over a couple months to a year. They rigged the odds in their favor for one match vs. doing it over 20 matches. There is supposedly a 100% chance you win in match-fixing, but there is also a 100% odds that if you gamble in an institution over time the house wins the majority. I think in the scope of crimes and acts that hurt people I rate thieves rigging a thieves game pretty low, the punishment is more that sufficient. A lifetime ban from the sport is enough. The only real loser in gambling is the better, he's getting taken for his or her money because the fix is always in. This would be true for traditional casino games like Roulette or Blackjack, but this isn't actually what happens in both sports betting and poker. Yes it's true that the house always take their cut, but odds are set only initially by the house. They aren't static, but dynamic based on the total amount bet on all outcomes. This means that while the house does indeed take their cut, you are basically playing against all the other bettors rather than the house. This is why, in sports betting and poker you can make money by having an edge over the playerbase that's greater than the house cut. There are plenty of people who consistently win money in both. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:12 Mikau wrote: This would be true for traditional casino games like Roulette or Blackjack, but this isn't actually what happens in both sports betting and poker. Yes it's true that the house always take their cut, but odds are set only initially by the house. They aren't static, but dynamic based on the total amount bet on all outcomes. This means that while the house does indeed take their cut, you are basically playing against all the other bettors rather than the house. This is why, in sports betting and poker you can make money by having an edge over the playerbase that's greater than the house cut. There are plenty of people who consistently win money in both. I would agree with this statement only in the case of poker. I had a client once that won all his money playing poker and he always told me the only game you could stand to make money at was poker. Poker is the only exception, because you are truly not playing against the house at all. I'm not sure how online poker makes it revenue streams, but I imagine it is skimming off the top of every game and advertisements. I promise you... sport betting would not exist at all if the institutions running the bets could not guarantee they would turn a profit on a series of bets. The reality is they probably turn a large profit on almost EVERY bet. Alternatively you can just skim off the top of each bet and let people play against each other. *This kind of system is the only one that isn't rigged against you. The only way you can consistently turn a profit on bets is if you have rigged the system in your favor, which destroys the "purity" of betting. If companies aren't making their money through alternative methods (advertising or a flat rate per bet) the system has been rigged so they can promise a profit. Seems to me the only pure bet I can make, is between me and my friend over a game "I think soO gonna win this time, $10 on it." Anything else is thievery. | ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
| ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50536 Posts
On April 08 2016 14:37 showstealer1829 wrote: https://twitter.com/AxCrank/status/718302953375940609 KeSPA will not rest until they're all in maximum security KeSPA Jail. | ||
| ||
