EPTPinnacle voids Dark vs. San bets due to match manipulation…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
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) | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9336 Posts
On January 24 2015 01:57 SatedSC2 wrote: It wouldn't take much for an already small market to become incredibly volatile if a handful of big gamblers got involved. And these big gamblers decide to bet on G1 multiple times instead of G2 or the overall match despite the odds being a lot lower? That arguments doesn't really make sense. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
| ||
|
Swoopae
Australia339 Posts
On January 24 2015 01:33 Hider wrote: Hmm, almost all Sc2 bets are offline atm. WTF is going on? https://www.pinnaclesports.com/League/E Sports/SC2 GSL/1/Lines.aspx Games 2 and 3 usually only go up after the series has started since if one person plays really badly in game 1 the opening line can be different to whats expected because obviously more money will be bet on a player that is playing well on a day than on the first game when its unknown. This isn't unusual for games 2/3 to be down this far out. Just to clarify Games 2 and 3 aren't always up in advance this is not related to anything to do with the cancelled bets on Pinnacle on San/Dark and Innovation/Super | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
A group of "gansters/gamblers/bad guys" somehow, through force or through money, get some SC2 players to agree to lose a few specific games. The players don't have any idea how much is going to be bet on the matches, they are probably being coerced and they can't know because once they agree to throw the game, they can't really control how much people with that information bet on those games. Probably the player would love for them to keep it small, but the "bad guys" want to make more free money so they over bet the line. Then they continue to do so in an attempt to collect the reward of their scheme. The only way they get any money is to bet the lines. It's absolutely wrong to assume the players took money, they could very well be having their families threatened or being coerced in some other awful way. So while its important to protect the player reputation, the most important thing is that the truth come out and that SC2 not create an environment where this can fester. Even if a player did throw a match, its still a long road to WHY. Seriously, why can't some gangsters just make them throw the match or else they'll beat them up...... simple, stupid plan that would look totally obvious, but the gangster wouldn't care, they'll just make the player take the fall. Someone like that is the type of person to not care that they set off Pinnacle triggers twice. So I never blame the player. If this is happening, there may very well be real scary reasons why. We should protect the players by insisting the truth comes out. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
Exactly, Pinnacle's been running SC2 betting for around 5 years, so it seems unlikely that this is just a fluke. On January 24 2015 00:32 Zealously wrote: I don't think saviOr was contending for multiple championships when his match fixing came to light, or that he was match fixing when he was at his peak (or near enough) Playing for a championship didn't prevent a World Series from being rigged. Jake LaMotta also threw a fight on his way to becoming Middleweight Champion in boxing. He was immediately suspended for it too, which shows you why you don't normally fix fights to be upsets (the opponent was such a scrub LaMotta almost won anyways). Just a few years ago, a referee making at least $200k (I saw an estimate as high as $300) was fixing games in the NBA (I know he didn't admit to fixing games, only betting on games he worked, but somehow games he worked always beat the over/under, hmmm). | ||
|
TOAA
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On January 24 2015 07:59 TOAA wrote: lol how was this a match fix if everyone knows how good dark is, san is already the underdog and yet he get's paid to lose? lmfao i would bet dark against san any day You realize alot of match fixing isn't actually fixing it so the underdog wins right? For one when you fix a match where the expected winner wins, it's much less suspicious to the casual observer. And two, putting a large sum of money on the expected winner is also much less suspicious. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2093 Posts
On January 24 2015 07:59 TOAA wrote: lol how was this a match fix if everyone knows how good dark is, san is already the underdog and yet he get's paid to lose? lmfao i would bet dark against san any day Well, let's make up a scenario. Let's say you get (win) $1000000 for betting $10 on San. But, you only get $20 for betting $10 on Dark. While you might still think Dark is favored by a considerable margin, the odds are high enough for San to win that betting on San is infinitely more intelligent. Of course, the numbers are not that extreme, but betting sites try and make it so that people betting on San have enough of a return that they will do it even if they think Dark is favored. Likewise, they might make Dark low enough so that he is less appealing to bid on. I believe it's in the betting site's best interest to keep it relatively even between the two players, that way there is some guaranteed income; So it's very unusual for betting lines to become so lop-sided. This is all from my limited knowledge on betting and betting sites. Someone like Swoopae could probably give you a complete overview. So, while it might seem reasonable for people to favor Dark, it is not normal at all for the betting lines to move in the way they did. Of course, this doesn't mean anyone was match fixing, either. Nobody knowwwwwws... | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:15 Blargh wrote: Well, let's make up a scenario. Let's say you get (win) $1000000 for betting $10 on San. But, you only get $20 for betting $10 on Dark. While you might still think Dark is favored by a considerable margin, the odds are high enough for San to win that betting on San is infinitely more intelligent. Of course, the numbers are not that extreme, but betting sites try and make it so that people betting on San have enough of a return that they will do it even if they think Dark is favored. Likewise, they might make Dark low enough so that he is less appealing to bid on. I believe it's in the betting site's best interest to keep it relatively even between the two players, that way there is some guaranteed income; So it's very unusual for betting lines to become so lop-sided. This is all from my limited knowledge on betting and betting sites. Someone like Swoopae could probably give you a complete. So, while it might seem reasonable for people to favor Dark, it is not normal at all for the betting lines to move in the way they did. Of course, this doesn't mean anyone was match fixing, either. No body knowwwwwws... this is a pretty good summary. plus a lot of people who bet are trying to make money and you make money over the long run by betting on games where the actual likelyhood of winning is higher than the line, thats how you make a profit. for example In the long run if your betting on 3-1 favorites you need them to win at least 75 percent of the time to make a profit. as to the recent stuff I don't know what to think at this point. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
This second one feels to me not so much like a match-fixing scandal as someone figured out how to screw with Pinnacle's betting lines. At this point, it's a riskless troll because you know Pinnacle will shut down a bet if it gets too volatile and low-cost because Pinnacle readily gives you back your money. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:15 Blargh wrote: Well, let's make up a scenario. Let's say you get (win) $1000000 for betting $10 on San. But, you only get $20 for betting $10 on Dark. While you might still think Dark is favored by a considerable margin, the odds are high enough for San to win that betting on San is infinitely more intelligent. Of course, the numbers are not that extreme, but betting sites try and make it so that people betting on San have enough of a return that they will do it even if they think Dark is favored. Likewise, they might make Dark low enough so that he is less appealing to bid on. I believe it's in the betting site's best interest to keep it relatively even between the two players, that way there is some guaranteed income; So it's very unusual for betting lines to become so lop-sided. This is all from my limited knowledge on betting and betting sites. Someone like Swoopae could probably give you a complete. So, while it might seem reasonable for people to favor Dark, it is not normal at all for the betting lines to move in the way they did. Of course, this doesn't mean anyone was match fixing, either. No body knowwwwwws... Sorry, you're understanding of betting lines is wrong. Never do they try and make the number similar or whatever you are saying. The premise is simple. They make the odds, and keep adjusting the odds, in such a way, that whether player A or player B wins, the payouts will be say 96-98% of the total bets. It's possible it's over 100% here and there, if they get the initial numbers off. So if someone is a heavy heavy favorite (in UFC it's not infrequent to see 800:110 - 800 back for 100 dollars, or 110 back for 100 dollars, the way that all lines should be reported imo). So that's the premise behind it, and also, the line is very slightly skewed towards the underdog, as human psychology prefers voting on who they think who is going to win, rather than what is statistically optimal. That's basically the formula behind all betting sites, however Pinnacle is good at what they do, and can make very tight lines with high payouts because of the high volume they deal with, and because they have optimized the initial low limits (which progressively increase) which help them give good estimates of what the odds are going to be in peoples' mind. In many sites, if a match is perfectly equal, the odds would be 190:190, while in Pinnacle you'll almost always see 195:195 or more, in some cases even 198:198. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2093 Posts
Err, I do believe they try and keep the money bet on players equal between the two. The lines move as more people bet on one player, so that bettors will start bidding on the other one, does it not? If I have something wrong, oh well, sorry. Bidding is not something I have put any time into. Regardless, I believe my above example is still valid, and is sufficient as an argument against what TOAA was saying. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
I believe it's in the betting site's best interest to keep it relatively even between the two players I was under the impression that you said Pinnacle intentionally tries to keep odds even, so people have incentive to bet, which of course doesn't make sense. But possibly what you meant is that they'll try to keep the payout for whoever the winner is relatively the same, which is mostly correct. Because as you stated, it in essence guarantees them profit for every bet. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
1) Insider information about mental or health state of San 2) Someone silly really like Dark and wanted to bet on him (If it was under some threshold, not that unreasonable to see something like that) 3) Match fixing... The most unlikely for sure, but we should not eliminate it as a possibility as information emerges. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2093 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:56 FiWiFaKi wrote: Anyway, does anyone know a +/- 100% estimate of how much money was bet on Dark vs San, and origin/IP of all the accounts? From my intuition it really does come down to 3 options. 1) Insider information about mental or health state of San 2) Someone silly really like Dark and wanted to bet on him (If it was under some threshold, not that unreasonable to see something like that) 3) Match fixing... The most unlikely for sure, but we should not eliminate it as a possibility as information emerges. Pinnacle obviously has that information, but is not willing to disclose. You can read their interview (and what little it says) here. They said... The game in question showed very worrying signals in the early betting and was put under "close monitoring" from an early stage. The evidence was however, not conclusive, but our traders were alerted that the game showed unusual activity. Over the course of the day the evidence became so overwhelming that we reduced our maximum wager from a high of $1,000 back to $100 to limit the incoming action, eventually taking the game offline to investigate. This additional information on line movement helps illustrate what we saw : Day Time Dark San 17th Jan 2015 03:07:42 60.72% 39.28% Opening 17th Jan 2015 10:37:59 53.50% 46.50% 19th Jan 2015 09:58:07 62.83% 37.17% 19th Jan 2015 23:40:07 73.09% 26.91% 20th Jan 2015 02:59:43 78.80% 21.20% Other than that, I heard some people mentioning 5 figures. Dunno the validity, but you might be able to PM Swoopae for some more info. That guy is passionate about being in the know. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3088 Posts
The point being, Kespa have a history of successfully investigating things like this, AND they're highly, highly incentivized to deal with match-fixing. If there is significant match-fixing going on, they're overwhelmingly likely to find it. At this point, though, everyone's innocent until proven guilty. We have only circumstantial evidence at best to link any progamer to match-fixing. If Kespa doesn't think there's match-fixing going on, then there's nothing here that should be allowed to tarnish anyone's career. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 24 2015 09:06 Blargh wrote: Pinnacle obviously has that information, but is not willing to disclose. You can read their interview (and what little it says) here. They said... Other than that, I heard some people mentioning 5 figures. Dunno the validity, but you might be able to PM Swoopae for some more info. That guy is passionate about being in the know. yeah. 5 figures was earlier in the thread but I think that was just a guess on how much money it would take to move the line to where it ended up. certainly not a confirmed number | ||
| ||
