Suspicious betting-odds changes at WESG 2018? - Page 19

On March 15 2019 06:27 Charoisaur wrote:
"but when I saw his base, there's a gateway but no gas, so I thought he's gonna expand"
Ah yes, the classic gasless expand build in PvP, now I understand how he fell for it.

On March 15 2019 06:42 unrev wrote:
There seems to be a contradiction between Macsed's statement and WESG admin VanCaspel.

Macsed said that he was tricked by the single gateway at main and that rail taught Seventy91 this build.
But VanCaspel is saying that Senventy91 told him that he built this gateway by accident.

On March 15 2019 08:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:4. On the topic of MMR, I don't know exactly what 2000 MMR translates to in terms of win probability, but using the old 315 = 75 wins out of 100 games marker, 2000 would be what... 99%? 99.9%? Extremely improbable.

On March 15 2019 06:36 NinjaNight wrote:


Lmao, yes, even this is solid evidence that he's playing dumb. Anyone who believes a professional SC2 player can actually think in such a dumb way has a poor understanding of this game and has definitely not played it at a high level.

I don't think I've ever seen someone directly arguing that Macsed is innocent. I've only seen people saying in game evidence shouldn't count, but those people are still dead wrong.

The unanimous consensus is that he is guilty. The problem we have to solve is that some people argue that we don't have enough evidence yet. The reality is we have more than enough. BeastyQT took one look at that game and said there's no way he isn't matchfixing. It's beyond reasonable doubt when combined with the betting line evidence.

I would actually be defending Macsed instead of going after him if the evidence wasn't so strongly against his case here. I had no problem with him prior to this incident.

On March 15 2019 08:17 Alejandrisha wrote:


I think most of the people posting here know that even allegations of match fixing are extremely serious and are not to be taken lightly. the only reason i would post here is because the situation is so clear-cut and obvious. this isn't a 15 year old mkp losing his cool; macsed is a grown ass man who threw a match and no one would say so if it weren't so blatant

On March 15 2019 08:15 Rob-Zero wrote:


So it seems you are investigator, police, lawyer and judge all in one person ? YOU don´t have anything to solve or any evidence to find. I´m not saying he did matchfix, nor am i saying he did not, but I´m pretty sure it is rather irrelevant what you personally think about all of this. If this is really a thing, then there will be some guys taking care of this, just like it happened with the ladder qualifiers some months ago.
I find it absolutely okay when you or anyone else speculates and argues about this, but saying that "the unanimous consensus is that he is guilty" is not right, and it´s not okay. That is just a typical internet witchhunt of the lowest calibre possible.

On March 15 2019 08:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:
1. The accusations of matchfixing are life-altering and not to be thrown around lightly. Significant evidence is necessary to prove the existence of matchfixing. Just so we're on the same page about the gravity of the situation.

2. The changing of the betting lines is notable in degree, but not necessarily in amount. At first I thought maybe it wouldn't take a very large bet in order to change the betting lines that much (since, as others have said, this is one match out of many). But then I realized the amount is essentially immaterial when it comes to motive: a famous case is when Dota 2 player Solo threw a tournament game because he bet $322 against his team.

3. After reviewing the game, it is extremely odd to me that Pinnacle did not invalidate the bets. The events of this game are beyond suspicious. The cannon wall and pulling away the Probes that were about to kill both invading Zealots are just extremely incriminating examples. A Bronze player might do the former -- maybe -- but nobody, absolutely nobody would do the latter.

4. On the topic of MMR, I don't know exactly what 2000 MMR translates to in terms of win probability, but using the old 315 = 75 wins out of 100 games marker, 2000 would be what... 99%? 99.9%? Extremely improbable.

5. Confirmation bias exists. It is much easier to see suspicious behavior when you are looking for it. I'm just stating this as fact for the sake of general awareness, not relating it affirmatively or negatively to this instance. We should all just keep that in mind during discussions like this.

On March 15 2019 08:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:

3. After reviewing the game, it is extremely odd to me that Pinnacle did not invalidate the bets. The events of this game are beyond suspicious. The cannon wall and pulling away the Probes that were about to kill both invading Zealots are just extremely incriminating examples. A Bronze player might do the former -- maybe -- but nobody, absolutely nobody would do the latter.

On March 15 2019 08:39 NinjaNight wrote:


Great post. The only thing I'd disagree with is the amount bet not being relevant. It's relevant because the logical deduction is that only a person who knows the match is prearranged would bet a huge amount of money on a player who is at such a massive skill disadvantage. Maybe you meant something else?

On March 15 2019 08:40 Jarree wrote:


What happened in the game doesn't affect Pinnacle voiding bets or not. Nobody at Pinnacle watched the game. When a booker voids a bet, it's done because of betting patterns. There's couple of things the booker looks at (and these are automated by triggers):

1. Who placed the bets. This is the most important one. If it was done by regular bettors that have been using the site for a long time and often bet against the lines, it's not suspect. Low level matchfixers usually are pretty dumb and just create dummy accounts for the exact event and place bets on the games. That's extremely suspect and always a clear sign of faul play. Often they even operate several accounts from the same IP address.

2. Line movements. When and how fast did the line move, did some new information come out just then? Like if Messi breaks his leg 10mins before a Barcelona game, the odds shift as soon as the information gets out. But most importantly, how much does the line move, does it go to beyond absurd figures. The more well known the players (or teams) are, the less the lines can move, without new information.

My initial guess what happened is that the information about MacSeD throwing the game leaked out of the inner circle of the fixers. The real fixers place bets mostly on illegal gambling sites in China. But as the information leaked, some more regular bettors used the information on Pinnacle. That's why the lines moved slower and didn't raise the alarm bells.

There's even a good possibility that regular outsider bettors realized from the lines themselves that a fixing is happening and joined the betting. It's sort of like investing in a pyramid scheme knowing it's a pyramid scheme, but that you're one of the first and will get your money back, unlike others who lose.

My 2 cents from being in the industry for 10+ years.

edit: edited because the line was more confusing the helpful.

On March 15 2019 08:44 Alejandrisha wrote:

he is the most notable chinese player at the moment. probably the best chinese protoss since LoveTT. the level of suckage at microing things goes beyond the norm here. it's not like he was playing against sOs. he was playing against a normal/hard AI in single player and making those mistakes.

On March 15 2019 08:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:


I meant just from a motive point of view. If there is such a thing as a "sure bet" for a person, then that person will place the bet. I'm actually of two minds on it. You would want to bet high to maximize your return, but not high enough to arouse suspicion and void the bet. In the Solo example I gave, $322 certainly isn't life-changing money, but I don't know whether he simply couldn't afford a larger bet or if he chose a smallish bet to try and avoid suspicion. In any case, he was caught, so in that context throwing your career away for $322 sounds hilariously irresponsible.



Thanks for the info! I did have a feeling large swings trigger automated actions, but I also assumed there was some degree of manual review for suspicious cases after the fact. Maybe those only happen when the stakes are really high? Really great point about the identity of the bettor and their betting history. I never thought about the pyramid scheme angle, but it's logical. Good post! I saw your other post earlier in the thread outlining some of this stuff. Really cool to know.

The scam was unveiled a year later. Finnish police interrogated 460 persons involving the scandal. Most of them were never charged due to lack of evidence or for the reason that they were only lucky gamblers who had a hint on the results of meaningless games.