|
Matchfixing is a very serious offence and accusations of matchfixing should not be made lightly. Please avoid making accusations against specific individuals unless you have substantial proof, or until further information is released. (0620 KST) |
On January 21 2015 11:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 11:11 lichter wrote:On January 21 2015 10:59 dsousa wrote: Could the replay of the match provide conclusive evidence? playing like crap isn't evidence San didn't even play that bad if it was then I can think of multiple games that Virus cheated xD. Or San games before he became ManZenith when he dominated an entire group including Nestea. His games in the early GSLs were... painful to say the least.
Still waiting on that sword-swallowing.
|
So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL?
|
Canada13378 Posts
On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL?
They didnt outright claim matchfixing. They claim odd betting patterns.
Two different things.
|
On January 21 2015 13:14 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? They didnt outright claim matchfixing. They claim odd betting patterns. Two different things.
Doesn't change the fact this is only clickbait.
I expect to see click bait on Fox news MSNBC or CNN. I didn't expect it on TL.
Edit: If it's really not clickbait then change the language to "due to suspicious bets" not "match manipulation".
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL?
It isn't some random shady site. Pinnacle is a big betting website for traditional sports and also has betting on esports.
|
On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL?
So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting.
I fixed it for you.
Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that.
You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread.
- Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behavior
This last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board
|
Well obviously betting patterns indicate something out of the ordinary happened. It could have been match fixing, but it could have been inside knowledge that San is really bad / has been to hospital / doesn't even want to play / knows is going to lose / what ever, that made some people bet heavily in Dark.
|
On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting.
I'm not saying that they're not reputable or big in the betting community but betting is still considered a shady business thus I would not consider their word to mean much.
I'm more disappointed that because of this sites statement that people have jumped on an anti-san bandwagon and TL plays it as clickbait.
Few years back I'd have said Fulltilt was pretty reputable as well. They still owe me 5k (I know I'll never see it again).
|
On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behaviorThis last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board
I'm not very familiar with betting practices, could you elaborate please on what constitutes unfair betting?
|
Betting is not "shady" when it's done through a reputable party like Pinny, it is something millions of people do worldwide every day 100% legally. And FYI you could have gotten your 5k back from FTP.
|
On January 21 2015 13:37 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behaviorThis last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board I'm not very familiar with betting practices, could you elaborate please on what constitutes unfair betting?
Put simply in this case someone or a group made a large amount of illogical bets that triggered the sites warning system.
|
|
On January 21 2015 13:40 Jaded. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:37 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behaviorThis last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board I'm not very familiar with betting practices, could you elaborate please on what constitutes unfair betting? Put simply in this case someone or a group made a large amount of illogical bets that triggered the sites warning system.
But just because they seem like illogical bets to the average person doesn't really mean they are. I mean, maybe San always loses horribly when there's a full moon out, and only one person in the universe has picked up on this fact.
How does the system handle something like that?
|
On January 21 2015 13:34 Jaded. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I'm not saying that they're not reputable or big in the betting community but betting is still considered a shady business thus I would not consider their word to mean much. I'm more disappointed that because of this sites statement that people have jumped on an anti-san bandwagon and TL plays it as clickbait. Few years back I'd have said Fulltilt was pretty reputable as well. They still owe me 5k (I know I'll never see it again). everybody got their money back from fulltilt, you should send an e-mail lol, Ultimate Bet on the other hand
|
On January 21 2015 13:42 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:40 Jaded. wrote:On January 21 2015 13:37 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behaviorThis last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board I'm not very familiar with betting practices, could you elaborate please on what constitutes unfair betting? Put simply in this case someone or a group made a large amount of illogical bets that triggered the sites warning system. But just because they seem like illogical bets to the average person doesn't really mean they are. I mean, maybe San always loses horribly when there's a full moon out, and only one person in the universe has picked up on this fact. How does the system handle something like that? It's called math.
|
its this simple, this is a case of an almost certain statistical anomaly, the likelyhood that San/Dark are involved in match fixing is slim to none, and continuing to discuss the matter is only a waste of time.
Due to the immensity of the allegations of match-fixing, unless immense amounts of evidence are presented to the community, our best course of action is to assume that this was just a weird happening.
San's loss isnt even *that* unbelivable, blink fuckups happen all the time, i doubt he was throwing the game.
|
Large companies can be wrong and can make mistakes. If we're using Bill Gates as an example, you just need to look at the trail of government anti-trust cases against Microsoft to know that even the largest and most "reputable" companies are not always in the right.
Pinnacle doesn't run an anti-fraud / anti-corruption department out of the benevolence of their heart. They are 100% doing it to make/save them money. Whether from directly thwarting fraud, raising the barrier to entry for fraudsters, or to protect their brand.
The Pinnacle copy tries to straddle the line between certainty, and ass-covering weasel words. The "bet placement pattern clearly indicates that the match was not played on a fair basis" so they voided the bets to comply with their stance against "perceived match-fixing" for "suspected manipulation".
So wait, which was it? Suspected manipulation, or clearly not fair? In this contradiction, we have something for everyone to latch onto. What they probably should have written in their notice is that a suspicious betting pattern occurred, and in their experience this pattern is most often, but not always, indicative of match manipulation (whether fixing, or otherwise).
|
On January 21 2015 13:48 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 21 2015 13:40 Jaded. wrote:On January 21 2015 13:37 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behaviorThis last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board I'm not very familiar with betting practices, could you elaborate please on what constitutes unfair betting? Put simply in this case someone or a group made a large amount of illogical bets that triggered the sites warning system. But just because they seem like illogical bets to the average person doesn't really mean they are. I mean, maybe San always loses horribly when there's a full moon out, and only one person in the universe has picked up on this fact. How does the system handle something like that? It's called math.
I stand before you an enlightened man.
|
On January 21 2015 13:37 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 13:24 magicmUnky wrote:On January 21 2015 13:10 Jaded. wrote: So we have a shady betting site saying the bets on their site were fishy and might have been matchfixing. No real evidence just conjecture.
And TL puts this on News?
You hurting for clicks that badly TL? So we have the most reputable betting site in the world saying that the bets on their site were made in a manner that indicates unfair betting. I fixed it for you. Take note of the language that I used... I didn't say "they think the betting might have been unfair", I said "indicates". There's no guesswork or 'maybes' or anything like that. You've regurgitated a bunch of misconceptions here so I'll just point them out for others to see, hopefully before they get parroted again in this thread. - Unfair betting does not mean the match was fixed. - Pinnacle's reputation cannot reasonably be doubted in this particular situation - Pinncale loses money by voiding the bets - You can decide with certainty that unfair betting is taking place by looking at betting behaviorThis last one will no doubt trip some particularly stubborn minds up but I can't teach statistics and common sense on an sc2 board I'm not very familiar with betting practices, could you elaborate please on what constitutes unfair betting?
It's PR copy designed to make you feel good about Pinnacle fighting back against all the evil match fixers! They're certain! Just don't ask them to define the exact meaning, because then the become less certain.
|
math is generally right
maybe it's not. but it generally is.
|
|
|
|