Just as in the previous thread, simply saying "X player did Y" without significant evidence will not be tolerated. Unless you can provide factual basis for your claims, do not accuse anyone of anything. Any accusations that Pinnacle isn't legitimate or attempted to scam people, or that Kespa is involved in matchfixing will be moderated SEVERELY.

TL.net ESPORTS Profile Joined July 2011 1 Post Last Edited: 2015-01-24 04:11:35 #1 and San.



In their statement, Pinnacle esports said:



On January 20th 2015, Pinnacle Esports voided all bets placed on the Proleague match between Dark andIn 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



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:



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:







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.











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? 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 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? 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?







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% 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 :







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.











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? 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 *Any emphasis added is ours alone