Suspicious betting-odds changes at WESG 2018? - Page 25

On March 16 2019 08:14 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's certainly true that some posters are more zealous than others with regard to convicting MacSed in the court of public opinion. What I believe you may be missing is the game in the greater context of the match. If you take Game 2 out of context, then it could be reasonably assumed that he was just messing around for the first half of the match and had mentally given up in the second half.

However, things get much more damning when we look at the skills he showed in the other two games. Even if we say that he's a rusty GM player and that 6000 MMR doesn't accurately describe his current ability, we would have a very difficult time making that argument when we are watching Game 3 which immediately followed. Game 3 looks like he's in good competitive shape, a modern contender in SC2.

There is a "mental defeat threshold" that exists in games. This is a threshold which defines a state of mind that prevents a player from rallying because of a perceived foregone conclusion. If you're playing basketball and you're 40 points down with 2 minutes remaining in the final quarter, that's statistically impossible to win. 40 points down with 5 minutes remaining? Not absolutely impossible, but so extremely unlikely that you probably crossed your mental defeat threshold. You've already written off the outcome, so you just stop trying. I think we can probably outline whether that was a factor in this game:
1. Poor pylon placement (in plain view): MacSed might be feeling confident.
2. Poor cannon placement (easily thwarted): MacSed might still be feeling confident.
3. Cannon to seal the ramp opening: ???
4. Probes fail to kill Zealots: Mentally defeated. "Even if I kill them, I can't win. GG."

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in #4, but #3 is where I can't in good faith reasonably say that MacSed was in an unwinnable position. That was salvageable by even average players, let alone 4000-MMR players, not to mention 6000-MMR players. If you seal that wall with a Gateway, you'll fully recover, stabilize, and potentially win. Nobody would make a decision to seal that choke with a Cannon.

Lots of players in tournaments do risky or wacky builds when they're ahead in a series. However, the riskier the build, the faster they concede when it fails because whatever happens, the result occurs quickly. But they still try to win those high-risk games. If someone cannon rushes and it completely fails, they GG and go to the next game. If it does moderate damage, they transition into the mid-game and things eventually start to play out more normally. That transition was possible for MacSed, but he didn't even make an effort. The outcome of the game was already determined not by the actions of his opponent, but by his own decisions. And then when you factor in the suspicious bet lines, it becomes very difficult to argue that this was anything but orchestrated.

On March 16 2019 17:24 Wardi wrote:


I think when the betting site which would have lost ‘thousands of dollars’ doesn’t void the bet and he is brought on as a caster its probably time to stop saying the game was fixed aiaiai

Pinnacle is the most trusted and reputable sportsbook in the world. That reputation is their most valuable asset. They are going to be very hesitant to ever cancel bets unless they are absolutely sure the fix was in as it is a bad look for a gambling business. I know that sounds crazy to most who bet online because most other books are always a bit shady and love any excuse to cancel a winning bet.

On March 16 2019 17:45 Powerfoe wrote:


First of all, you need to realize that Pinnacle is the largest offshore sportsbook in the world and that losing thousands on a small match is nothing to them. To quote /u/Frammow1 from /r/starcraft, who is a lot more knowledgeable about the industry than I am:



Based on this info, it's not surprising to me that their algorithm doesn't catch the irregular betting pattern of a super small time line such as this one.

You might not like this, but most people agree that viewing this as a match fix is a reasonable take.

On March 16 2019 17:18 HolydaKing wrote:
MacSed is btw a commentator for the chinese at todays final stage of WESG, I saw that being mentioned here and after seeing the chinese stream on TakeTV it seems like it's true.

I think it's safe to say MacSed intentionally threw the game, whether or not he received money for it is another thing. I got my own suspicions, but they don't add anything.

On March 16 2019 18:57 Wardi wrote:


Yet they have voided bets in the past for matches that had line swings and suspicious betting patterns and yet no accusations of match fixing came from any of the matches.

You can cherry pick information however you want, but it is wrong to accuse a guy of match fixing and to keep accusing him of it even when the evidence/investigations starts to say its not the case.

The witch hunt that has gone on here is disgusting. Did the game look weird? Yes, but it was a very weird situation and we can analyze it as much as we want but there is no proof.

Were the betting lines weird? Yes. But betmakers have had wrong lines in the past, have voided matches before too. When they say there was no suspicious betting its probably because there was no suspicious betting, not because they have a reputation to upkeep considering this didn’t stop them voiding bets in the past.

The sad thing is no matter what happens right now people are always going to hear MacSed and say ‘the matchfixer?’ Which is why this entire thing has been handled awfully. He was guilty from the start because thats how it was portrayed, which is sad.

On March 16 2019 17:24 Wardi wrote:


I think when the betting site which would have lost ‘thousands of dollars’ doesn’t void the bet and he is brought on as a caster its probably time to stop saying the game was fixed aiaiai

On March 16 2019 19:17 Pangpootata wrote:


Making a post to explain how betting sites work, because not all betting sites will lose money from match fixing.

Some sites are bookmakers i.e. they bet against the punters. These sites will lose money from match fixing.

Some sites are market makers aka betting exchanges. The betting odds are floating and essentially people are betting against each other, with the site taking a small profit through arbitrage. The site will earn no matter what the outcome of the game is.

I am not familiar with chinese sites, but pinnacle is definitely a betting exchange. It is not in the interest of betting exchanges to void matches because they make money regardless of the outcome.

On March 16 2019 19:17 Pangpootata wrote:


Making a post to explain how betting sites work, because not all betting sites will lose money from match fixing.

Some sites are bookmakers i.e. they bet against the punters. These sites will lose money from match fixing.

Some sites are market makers aka betting exchanges. The betting odds are floating and essentially people are betting against each other, with the site taking a small profit through arbitrage. The site will earn no matter what the outcome of the game is.

I am not familiar with chinese sites, but pinnacle is definitely a betting exchange. It is not in the interest of betting exchanges to void matches because they make money regardless of the outcome.