On January 20th 2015, Pinnacle Esports voided all bets placed on the Proleague match between
Dark and
San.
In their statement, Pinnacle esports said:
In
accordance with this policy, the match between Dark and San {20th
January 2015 } has been identified by our fraud prevention team as being
manipulated. The bet placement pattern clearly indicates that the match
was not played on a fair basis.
As a result all bets on this
match have been voided. We apologise for the inconvenience this causes
for anyone betting on this match in good faith, but hope you will
appreciate that protecting the integrity of eSports is of paramount
importance.
At the time of the
initial thread here on TeamLiquid
we stated that Pinnacle had declined to comment on the specifics of the
suspicious betting pattern which resulted in their decision to void all
bets placed on the match in question.
We continued to follow up
with Pinnacle Sports and were put in contact with the Manager of Social
Media at Pinnacle Sports, who gave us the opportunity to ask them a
series of questions regarding the match between Dark and San, and the
circumstances which lead to their decision to void all bets placed on
this match. The questions were sent in an email to Mr. Wise who then
forwarded these questions to the Head of Sportsbook at Pinnacle Sports
for answering.
In short, Pinnacle Sports identified, as noted in
their statement, strange betting patterns. These strange betting
patterns lead to their decision to flag the match, lower the maximum
bet, and then take the game offline to investigate. Key in their
statement regarding the potential for matchfixing is that they:
"are not insinuating anything, nor suggesting any specific culpability. [They] are raising a flag, not pointing a finger".
Below you will find a complete transcript of the questions forwarded to Pinnacle Sports and their Answers:
We
asked Pinnacle Sports to provide a short introduction describing their
company offering context for any readers who may not know the company:
Pinnacle
Sports is an online bookmaker, established in 1998. Based on the volume
of bets we receive, we are one of the largest in the world. In 2010 we
first started offering eSports betting, and since then have seen a huge
expansion in interest. eSports is our fastest growing product, now more
popular than mainstream sports like Golf or Rugby; we have now surpassed
1 million eSports bets. We firmly believe in the credibility of eSports
and many of our staff are gamers.
TL:
We understand you cannot divulge your anti-fraud practices to us in
this interview. You can however understand that this is the first
serious insinuation of perceived match-fixing or corruption in StarCraft
2 during a major competition. I would like to ask if there are any
particular details surrounding this case you would be willing to share.
What in this case, in as broad or detailed a manner as you wish, lead
Pinnacle to void the bets?
Pinnacle
Sports: I hope you will understand that I am unable to comment on our
anti-fraud practices. We would however be willing to share some of this
information with KeSPA if they seek out our help investigating this
matter.
We are sure you do
not take voiding bets lightly as making this a regular activity would be
bad for your business. Are bets voided on a case by case basis after
each match? How often do sports bets become voided?
We
very rarely void bets, but when we do it is because we see it as the
only fair solution for our customers. Voiding a bet is a not a ‘get out
of jail free card’ for us. The amount concerned here was tiny in the
context of our daily volume.
Our customers expect to make bets
on a level playing field. When we have strong suspicion of
irregularities, we need to take action to ensure that is the case, to
protect our honest customers.
Some
online sources, claiming to be clients of your betting service,
described the odd betting behaviour on our forums at the following link:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/476033-pinnacle-voids-dark-vs-san-bets-due-to-match-manipulation-concerns
The prevailing theory within the thread is that by the time betting
closed, a five figure sum had accumulated for Dark, the perceived
favorite to win the match. Some posters claim that the maximum bet
possible was placed on Dark multiple times reducing his betting line
each time.
Regarding the max bet theory, we would like to know
first, if not already answered above, if there is any veracity to
this'max-bet' theory?
I am unable to comment on the specifics, but money generally moves markets. This market moved a lot for an eSports match.
In your statement found here
http://www.pinnaclesports.com/en/notice/esports-statement?ito=twitter
you state that "Pinnacle Sports has always been very clear that it will
take an aggressive stance against any perceived match-fixing or
corruption in any sport that it offers betting for. In accordance with
this policy, the match between Dark and San {20th January 2015} has been
identified by our fraud prevention team as being manipulated. The bet
placement pattern clearly indicates that the match was not played on a
fair basis."
In this statement you imply that the bet placement
patterns which caused you to void all bets on this match are indicative
of match fixing.
Was your decision to void the bets for the San
vs. Dark match based purely on the betting patterns for this match which
you observed on your website?
Yes it was
purely based on sophisticated algorithms detecting potential fraud.*
After the flagging of the event, a team of experts who regularly trade
SC analysed the betting patterns and came to the conclusion that they
were abnormal. I met with the team in the morning and based on the
presented evidence had to make the decision to void all wagers. We then
let our customers know.
I
think many of our users would appreciate seeing how you received the
information that lead you to closing the bets on this particular match
and how you reacted to it. Can you provide us with a timeline summary of
your course of action related to this event?
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% |
|
If
you do have additional information which implies the match was
manipulated by either player involved, we will respect the sensitive
nature of such information and not ask for it at this time. We would
like to know however, in the case where information corroborates the
accusation of match fixing, whether this information has been forwarded
to the appropriate channels in KeSpa for further investigation?
All our information is only based on our wagers. We are happy to work with KeSPA if they decide to investigate the case.*
Insinuating
that San and Dark conspired to influence the outcome of a match,
especially from such a respected organization as Pinnacle, may have a
lasting impact on their reputations, careers and future matches Pinnacle
hosts bets for.
It is entirely your right to void bets when you
feel that the betting lines were unduly influenced by outside factors.
Your statement describing your decision to void the bet insinuates that
San and possibly Dark conspired to have Dark win the match.
Understanding the history of match fixing in Korean esports, this kind
of insinuation cannot be made lightly. With this in mind, I would like
to know, if you do not have any additional sources, whether you feel the
way you worded your statement was irresponsible?
To be clear, we are not insinuating anything, nor suggesting any specific culpability. We are raising a flag, not pointing a finger.
We
certainly do not take this action lightly. We are aware of the
significance, but first and foremost must follow our internal
procedures. We feel our analysis is sound, and conclusive and on that
basis we decided to prevent a negative impact on our customers by
voiding all bets.
San has
provided a public statement in response to the allegations in the
StarCraft community that he is involved in match fixing. His statement
may be found here:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sk5aog .
In
his statement he describes having practiced less, and being in poor
physical condition resulting in his inability to play well. Is it
possible that this insider information which was not public prior to the
match between San and Dark may have factored into the odd bet placement
pattern your fraud team discovered?
I
don't like to talk in absolutes. So the answer to the question is
simple. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely, but the real question is: Is it
likely?
In your expert
opinion, are there any explanations beyond match manipulation for the
odd betting patterns which forced you to void the bets?
There
are a lot of possible explanations for the betting behaviour we saw,
but we are not making any specific allegations. We voided the bets
because in our assessment, the pattern was extremely irregular. That is
our process. We have been conducting this kind of analysis for 16 years,
so feel we have the relevant experience to guide our actions.
*Any emphasis added is ours alone
돌겜
오버
히오스
디아3
