Re: Potential Match Fixing involving Finnish teams FC Futura and Ilves-Kissat

[...]

Two points that can be inferred from your teaching so far, one, minor league and the potential fixing within it didn't get investigated by the authorities of the league, and two, due to above, the bookmakers are the one who made the final call.

Wow, people should change their mind, apparently you go to a length to paint fairlay as a bad actor here, because not only fairlay is not a bookmakers, the other actual bookmakers actually go with a decision to stick with the official result instead of voiding it. And from fairlay's own statement, the market maker on that bet wouldn't need to be compensated if the arbitrator decides to say so.

Quote from: FairlaySupport on June 02, 2024, 03:11:05 AM

[...]
The market maker / counterparty in this bet has actually hedged the bet we learnt, so he does not have to be compensated if arbitrator decides so. It would also be acceptable for us and the market maker, if we donated the 799mBTC to charity. Just giving it back to the alleged criminal involved in match-fixing would be the wrong thing to do.[...]

Thus, if you try to teach us that Fairlay is allowed to make their own call for this match...

You don't understand it because you have tunnel vision. If Fairlay allows this when Pinnacle matches bets Pinnacle will be taking the loss. Every cheater out there will come out paying off ping pong players and tennis players. Fairlay has to take a stand on cheaters or Pinny will never match bets. Fairlay wants to stop this gang from cheating.

So the solution will be, amongst many other possible bets, to take one with [subjectively] big win, where the market maker doesn't need to be compensated with whatever the arbitrator decide, then take an independent arbitrator who will pull investigation from only-god-knows-where-but-clearly-not-from-officials-of-the-league? Interesting. This should explains why they won't accept mediators who openly said they will rule to the player's favor.

You sure you're here to teach us about things we don't understand and that we wrongly assumed fairlay is the bad actor here?

Not directed towards me but I’ll answer this since I did recommend you. I know it was a misunderstanding as I didn’t explain it well, but Fairlay was looking to hold arbitration off the forum by one person with input from all on forum and you didn’t accept under those conditions. Ef declined to arbitrate. People are holding Fairlay to a standard impossible to meet since outside investigation, if even done, will be done at a later time.

Let’s ignore the Fairlay is an exchange, it works more like a book or seeded exchange. The question is how would you grade based on wagers made considering amounts, time of bets as well as these wagers being very high for a small market. Fairlay can only be judged on accessible information. Fairlay’s actions on the forum do not determine grading.

Hopefully I’ll refrain from further comments.