|
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote:
I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
I guess that would make Revival.. undead? (white walker)
Hnnnng, the puns!
|
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote:
I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
Jeor Mormont, the guy who keeps him at the Wall.
|
5k for being 16. (and sry i cant see nani beat soulkey  sad but true) but still
if revival NOT make top2 in the group its 2 times 500 euro so nani still makes 4k+ xD
|
On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 02:52 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:47 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 02:44 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head. And the difference that the bounty will make is so negligible it will not matter. Theses are professional players, not amatures. We don't know for sure, do we? It's just baseless speculation on your part to assume that. No, I know for sure. I've watched these players for years and they give no fucks $500 bounty. It is fucking minor pressure compared to what these players normally deal with. So all those showmatches which give out $500 or less, it's the same as playing for nothing, huh? I didn't know you could read minds. I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
|
i rly dont get a few stupid comments, he ask OTHERS to beat him and make a bounty, thats common guys like "i give you 100 extra if you beat this guy" i mean ... its a GOOD thing
its not like he pay him for LOOSING or anything he want the other guy to play his BEST
there is no rule against its even something GOOD
if in boxing some guy say JAEH I HATE THIS GUY, IF U WIN VS HIM I GIVE YOU 1 MILLION EXTRA ...
it would only be cool ... nothing wrong to see here just a COOL move
|
699 Posts
To clarify, TaeJa had only forfeited his bracket stage match, and we do expect him to compete in his group this week.
|
On October 31 2013 06:28 NASL.tv wrote:
To clarify, TaeJa had only forfeited his bracket stage match, and we do expect him to compete in his group this week.
If TaeJa had played, odds are that Minigun would be in the group and not TaeJa. So now Revival has to beat TaeJa instead of Minigun. Is there going to be any penalty against TaeJa for what happened?
|
On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 02:52 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:47 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
And the difference that the bounty will make is so negligible it will not matter. Theses are professional players, not amatures. We don't know for sure, do we? It's just baseless speculation on your part to assume that. No, I know for sure. I've watched these players for years and they give no fucks $500 bounty. It is fucking minor pressure compared to what these players normally deal with. So all those showmatches which give out $500 or less, it's the same as playing for nothing, huh? I didn't know you could read minds. I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated.
|
TaeJa was sick and forfeited his match against Minigun to fly home and get a doctor's appointment. We explained this when it happened. We expect him to play tomorrow we see no reason why he wouldn't based on forfeiting an earlier match when he wasn't feeling well. NASL has the same understanding of the situation.
|
On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 02:52 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
We don't know for sure, do we? It's just baseless speculation on your part to assume that. No, I know for sure. I've watched these players for years and they give no fucks $500 bounty. It is fucking minor pressure compared to what these players normally deal with. So all those showmatches which give out $500 or less, it's the same as playing for nothing, huh? I didn't know you could read minds. I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated.
Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose.
Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? It is just as shady.
On October 31 2013 06:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
TaeJa was sick and forfeited his match against Minigun to fly home and get a doctor's appointment. We explained this when it happened. We expect him to play tomorrow we see no reason why he wouldn't based on forfeiting an earlier match when he wasn't feeling well. NASL has the same understanding of the situation.
More than fair enough. Any idea where the rumors that he was going to forfeit his group as well were coming from?
|
On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No, I know for sure. I've watched these players for years and they give no fucks $500 bounty. It is fucking minor pressure compared to what these players normally deal with. So all those showmatches which give out $500 or less, it's the same as playing for nothing, huh? I didn't know you could read minds. I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you?
There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning.
Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it.
|
About as shady and unethical as it gets, even if its not breaking a specific rule imo.
|
On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
So all those showmatches which give out $500 or less, it's the same as playing for nothing, huh?
I didn't know you could read minds. I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it.
So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok.
There have been plenty arguments in this thread to support bounties. If someone argues that Naniwa should've had a bounty on his head as well when ForGG slummed through his match up, that is completely logically sound. The position you're defending now is plain silly though.
|
On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok.
The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games.
The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games.
|
On October 31 2013 06:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
TaeJa was sick and forfeited his match against Minigun to fly home and get a doctor's appointment. We explained this when it happened. We expect him to play tomorrow we see no reason why he wouldn't based on forfeiting an earlier match when he wasn't feeling well. NASL has the same understanding of the situation.
How does Taeja feel about taking Naniwa's money? Hasn't he already taken enough foreigner money T_T
|
On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
Not stress, motivation.
$500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount.
Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games.
Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does.
Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties.
|
On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:21 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group. On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical. Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season. On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting. Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/ You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right? Cheating is banned in sports. Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports. Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat. Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad. For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties.
Here is where we differ.
I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another.
The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it.
Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative.
|
United States23455 Posts
Taeja is about to make the easiest 500 bucks of his life...
|
On October 31 2013 07:11 Darkhoarse wrote:
Taeja is about to make the easiest 500 bucks of his life...
if he plays from korea not so sure.
|
United States23455 Posts
On October 31 2013 07:12 shid0x wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 07:11 Darkhoarse wrote:
Taeja is about to make the easiest 500 bucks of his life... if he plays from korea not so sure.
Well won't Revival play from Korea as well? And WCS AM had that stupid rule where two players playing from KR still had to play on the NA server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
