Controversial Idea: Allowing "bribes"

[Griselpuff]

Hey all,

You should read this if you haven't yet already to familiarize yourself with WotC's current prize splitting rules : http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/5034_FINAL_JUDGEMENT_Concessions_and_Prize_Splits.html

I was just thinking to myself, I wonder if there's a system where "bribes" could be allowed. Looking at it from an economic perspective, it just makes sense for two players to want to collude, such as when time is called and the two players wish to avoid a draw in order to get prizes. Typically, either it ends in a draw or one player graciously offers to concede. Oftentimes, this is done with the taciturn understanding that the player who conceded will be "reimbursed" in some way shape or form. However, this can often put the "nice guy" at the mercy of the other person who could very well feign ignorance and just keep all the prizes himself. The incentive here is always to convince the other person to concede to you.

I can understand WotC's hesitancy to allow overt "bribery". It would benefit the people who did collude at the cost of everybody else who is playing by the rules and ended up drawing and not getting prizes. BUT, what if WotC not only allowed but even ENCOURAGED these collusive behaviors and made them public? That way, everybody would be expected to concede and then everybody who is close to prizes would then get a share. Of course, I would be against actual bribery (meaning giving gifts/money outside of the actual prize pool in exchange for concessions), but why not allow these types of concessions (that involve just the prizes that they had a shot at winning if they didn't draw)?

This is just an idea that has been in the back of my mind for a while now. Now I'm sure there are tons of arguments against why this shouldn't be done and I'd like to hear them.

I can think of a couple good counter-arguments:

1. Right now the system is set up so that people who either a) win naturally or b) have a nice opponent concede come out ahead. If we did it by my system, then everybody who went into the last round in good position should theoretically get a prize, which is not necessarily better.
2. This might have a "cascading" effect, where people would be conceding before the last round for prizes and this would just make the logistics/math too difficult. So perhaps this "collusion" should only be allowed in the very last round, when prizes are on the line and it's better if one person wins than both people drawing.

[Dan Turner]

No, it would hurt that one player who could have a decent enough win perentage to top 4 or 8 if the other one of yall had lost.

[TsumiBand]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/in%20before%20the%20lock/grand/star_trek_-_in_before_the_lock_gif.gif

You guys have fun.

[lochlan]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/in%20before%20the%20lock/grand/star_trek_-_in_before_the_lock_gif.gif

You guys have fun.

Thanks for your valuable contribution? I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be discussed, no matter how convinced I am that this will never happen. This isn't mtgsalvation, pretty sure there's no problem here.

Wizards relunctantly allows splits because they can't avoid it. Allowing bribes would just be bad PR for tournament magic.

[Malchar]

2. This might have a "cascading" effect, where people would be conceding before the last round for prizes and this would just make the logistics/math too difficult. So perhaps this "collusion" should only be allowed in the very last round.

I like the idea of bribes from an economic perspective. You can greatly decrease the variance of your winnings, and skill will actually show through more clearly than random luck. However, the problem is that you end up doing too much "metagaming". Some people would spend all their time figuring out their odds against different opponents and how much money they should bribe during each round. Even if you limit it to the last round, there are still a lot of prizes on the line and a potentially significant amount of metagaming. The problem of course would be that the metagaming detracts from the actual game.

The best Magic player should win the most prizes, and being good at the bribe metagaming should not increase the amount that you win, but if you allowed it, then it would. A basic example could go like this: Adam is playing a good deck but he doesn't know anything about odds or he doesn't want to worry about calculating ev bribes. Brian is playing a bad deck but he can perfectly calculate odds. If Adam took a 60/40 split with Brian even though Adam's deck was favored 70/30, then Brian ends up with more prizes than he should have if they were only playing Magic. Brian essentially lost the Magic game by having a worse deck, but he "won" the bribing game. You could say that it was Adam's fault for taking a bad ev bribe, but he came to play Magic, not to calculate that stuff. Even the possibility that someone could accept an unfair bribe should be enough to disallow it since it completely detracts from playing the game.

If you want to go to an extreme example where everyone splits perfectly, then you could just have everyone show up to the tournament, pay the shopkeeper $1, and then go home. You get perfect ev with no variance, and you don't even have to sit around for 4 hours, so you actually gain value this way. In fact, if everyone leaves, then the shopkeeper doesn't even have to have a shop, so they don't have to rent out the space for the tournament, so they could just charge an entry fee of $0, and then no one would have to do anything. Then you could just play Magic for fun with your friends whenever you want to.

[Wanderlust]

[If] everyone splits perfectly, then you could just have everyone show up to the tournament, pay the shopkeeper $1, and then go home. You get perfect ev with no variance, and you don't even have to sit around for 4 hours, so you actually gain value this way. In fact, if everyone leaves, then the shopkeeper doesn't even have to have a shop, so they don't have to rent out the space for the tournament, so they could just charge an entry fee of $0, and then no one would have to do anything. Then you could just play Magic for fun with your friends whenever you want to.

Applause. Well played.

The OP has created an interesting thought experiment for us, and you just solved it elegantly.

[TsumiBand]

Thanks for your valuable contribution? I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be discussed, no matter how convinced I am that this will never happen. This isn't mtgsalvation, pretty sure there's no problem here.

Wizards relunctantly allows splits because they can't avoid it. Allowing bribes would just be bad PR for tournament magic.

No, it's ridiculous to talk about it, because

(a) the rules linked to above showcase all manner of outside bribery like "Player A offers Sizzler to Player B before the game to split prizes" and calls them all foul play. they can't do anything about discussions like this, and i'm sure they happen all the time, but they are clearly frowned on and would result in consequences if ever reported at a high enough REL

(b) sanctioning or condoning bribery is just tantamount to saying "Hey speculators and collectors - did you know you never have to play a game of Magic to win? Leverage your profits from sitting on collectibles and buy your way into more profit!"

(c) because people generally play these games to see who The Best One is, and introducing an implicit collusion method that allows for this kind of bribery just undermines all that. It introduces a non-game element wherein people can scout for who can be bought. It's not particularly sportsmanlike, and if people are really that dedicated to doing this they can just go to Example A and decide on everything before the game and keep it a secret and no one need be the wiser. Money exchanging hands during a tournament is just condoning buyouts. That'd make a sweet feature match.

So yeah, useless post is useless, gosh my bad. I didn't realize every idea ever had equal merit. (protip - they don't)

[Griselpuff]

As I stated in the OP, I'm not talking about actual bribery here. Only in the specific event of a TIE in the LAST ROUND, where everybody has the incentive to concede to get prizes, one player can split the prizes. No outside money is involved, just a concession with the understanding of a prize split.

[pavlaugh]

As I stated in the OP, I'm not talking about actual bribery here. Only in the specific event of a TIE in the LAST ROUND, where everybody has the incentive to concede to get prizes, one player can split the prizes. No outside money is involved, just a concession with the understanding of a prize split.

No offense intended, but your OP could be re-worded to make it clear this particular problem (unintentional draws) is what is concerning you. In the OP, instead of first identifying a specific problem you wanted to solve (unintentional draws in the last swiss round), you first identified the potential solution of "allowing bribes." Then you provided an example of one situation where bribes would seem good. So it's fair that your OP was not read as you intended.

FWIW, I think allowing prize splitting in the last round of a swiss tournament is an idea worthy of discussion. Players do this anyway, right? Just not as explicitly. For example, in turn 5 of extra turns, Player 1 asks if Player 2 wants to split prizes no matter who wins, Player 2 says yes, and then Player 1 concedes. That scenario is legal and occurs all the time in my experience. But when Player 1 says, "I'll concede if you agree to split prizes," that suddenly becomes bribery.

One problem is that rules get more confusing the more exceptions you add to them. There's already one exception to the rule, and I still see pro-players asking judges before the finals of minor tournaments what exactly is legal.

[TsumiBand]

FWIW, I think allowing prize splitting in the last round of a swiss tournament is an idea worthy of discussion. Players do this anyway, right? Just not as explicitly. For example, in turn 5 of extra turns, Player 1 asks if Player 2 wants to split prizes no matter who wins, Player 2 says yes, and then Player 1 concedes. That scenario is legal and occurs all the time in my experience. But when Player 1 says, "I'll concede if you agree to split prizes," that suddenly becomes bribery.

Here's where it gets shitty though: Player A asks, Player B says "sure", Player A concedes, Player B has sudden amnesia and doesn't admit to any kind of split, insisting that a deal of that nature is collusion and that they would 'never never agree' to any such action.

I'll grant you that if we're talking about Top 2 here, there are almost guaranteed to be lots of witnesses to this action -- but this isn't the only time people agree to split or tie. People will ID into Top 8, especially if it means product, money, store credit -- any kind of recompense. So it's one thing when your feature match is going on, but what do you do about the lesser matches?

Or are we just talking about Top 2 gets to legally split, because invariably you are inviting just establishing a pattern of behavior among the Top 2 - most of the time it's going to be the right play for both parties to ignore the last match altogether and just split. So then when the other player doesn't split AND doesn't care that it's a PTQ but wants to play it out because reasons, suddenly that player is a dick for not taking their half of the spoils and walking away - especially if they win. You make playing the last match into the wrong play by doing this; if not logistically, socially.

EDIT

As I stated in the OP, I'm not talking about actual bribery here. Only in the specific event of a TIE in the LAST ROUND, where everybody has the incentive to concede to get prizes, one player can split the prizes. No outside money is involved, just a concession with the understanding of a prize split.

Awesome, that is what you're talking about. I've seen this devolve into people just trying to prove who wants it more, and nobody's willing to play it out because everyone wants product, and it should be easy because the other player can just agree to concede, but then no one does and they are pissed that they have to play it out. This doesn't work as well as you might think it does.

[pavlaugh]

Here's where it gets shitty though: Player A asks, Player B says "sure", Player A concedes, Player B has sudden amnesia and doesn't admit to any kind of split, insisting that a deal of that nature is collusion and that they would 'never never agree' to any such action.

Certainly the sudden-amnesia problem is a negative of allowing prize splitting -- but it applies to all prize splitting, not just prize splitting conditioned on one party conceding. Under the current rules people can prize split whenever, and they can concede whenever. So the sudden-amnesia problem is still present.

The major downside of being able to link prize splitting and concessions, as I see it, is that the incidence of players getting more prize for finishing lower in the standings will increase.

[TsumiBand]

Certainly the sudden-amnesia problem is a negative of allowing prize splitting -- but it applies to all prize splitting, not just prize splitting conditioned on one party conceding. Under the current rules people can prize split whenever, and they can concede whenever. So the sudden-amnesia problem is still present.

The major downside of being able to link prize splitting and concessions, as I see it, is that the incidence of players getting more prize for finishing lower in the standings will increase.

At present it's less of an issue, partially because of your second paragraph here. For my part if I go to an event, I do want to come away from it with some product, because I'm trading a night out with my wife and kid at the movies to play Limited or something like a prerelease or whatever, so I'd just as soon get some extra cards. Suddenly it becomes more worth my while to tie at a way lower bracket, and way more often. So whatever subsequent inevitable ruling preventing that from occurring just adds cruft to the rules, all because we want to be able to split prizes more often without being called cheaters.