Prize Splitting and Collusion

[the Luke]

After the recent talk of questionable prize splits at Origins, I think it's important to get this straight, so I have the following question: according to the DCI, what actions involving prize splits are legitimate and what aren't?

-Luke

Edit from Eld's post (I didn't include these originally because mtg.com was down at the time):

25. Conceding Games or Matches
Players may concede a game or match at any time within the following guidelines. The conceded game or match is recorded as a loss for the conceding player. If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she concedes the match.

The following actions are prohibited:
• Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop, or draw of a match
• Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method, such as a coin flip or die roll

Players who engage in these actions will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

Players are allowed to share prizes they have won as they wish, such as with teammates, as long as any such sharing does not occur as an exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop or draw of a game or match.

EXCEPTION: Players in the final match of the single-elimination portion of a tournament have the option not to play their match. If both players of the final match agree not to play, one of them must agree to drop from the event (in order for prizes to be awarded). The DCI ratings of the players will not be affected because no match will have been played. The dropping player receives the second-place prize, and the other finalist receives the first-place prize.

Example: Two players in the final of a Pro Tour Qualifier may agree to split the prizes (the travel award and the Pro Tour invitation), but this agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One player must drop from the event, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not drop from the event. That player is then free to split the prizes as agreed upon. The prizes will be sent only to the winner (that is, the finalist who did not drop); Wizards of the Coast will not send the Pro Tour invitation to one person and the travel award to another person.

[Jacob Orlove]

Prize splits in the finals or before the event are fine.

[the Luke]

So that means that prize splits in a straight swiss tourney with no finals isn't allowed, I guess.

[Zhalfirin]

Prize splitting: determining the percentage of winnings between players regardless of the outcome of matches.

Example of prize splitting: In round 1, players A & B decide that they will take home 25% of the others prize (money/cards/etc.).  Note that this arrangement in no way affects the outcome of matches.

Bribery: Offering something other than gratitude in exchange for fixing the outcome of a match.

One might think that s/he can circumvent the bribery limitation by offering a prize split of 0% to the winner and 100% to the loser (this prize split alone is perfectly legal) and then asking for a concession.  The DCI rules state that conceding when a prize split has been established is bribery because the concession involves a monetary reward.

The one exception is the finals: players may discuss any split of the prizes offered by the dci in exchange for one player conceding  to the other. The concession usually comes in the form of dropping out of the tournament so there is no loss of rating.

[Addolorisi]

So the theory of prize splitting is fine, it's just enforceability issues that cause it to be disallowed?

[Zhalfirin]

Prize splits are fine and happen all the time in Magic.  Prize splits combined with concessions, however, will likely result in a DCI investigation!

[rvs]

It's really simple. Conceding in order to receive something = collussion.

edit: this discussion should actually be in the Type one forum, since it's a big issue and a lot of players (especially t1 players) have NO clue whatso-ever what goes, and what doesn't.

[Jebus]

This is a very important issue that it appears many players are uneducated about.  Moving to the Type 1 forum for more exposure.

[Toad]

One might think that s/he can circumvent the bribery limitation by offering a prize split of 0% to the winner and 100% to the loser (this prize split alone is perfectly legal) and then asking for a concession.

Well, as long as you don't ask for concession, that split is fine. It's allowed to tell something like "OK I really really really need to win that game in order to Top8. I think It would be fine if the winner gave X% of his prices to the loser" to your opponent. This does not involve asking concession to the opponent, and is thus not considered as collusion.

I must admit It's really borderline though.

If one day your opponent offers you something in exchange of your concession, just call a judge.

[the Luke]

Toad: I think that a judge who overheard the conversation you propose would be well within their rights to call the player out for collusion.

[Jebus]

Toad: I think that a judge who overheard the conversation you propose would be well within their rights to call the player out for collusion.

Indeed, talking in a round about way or in third person doesn't really make it not collusion.

[The Atog Lord]

When discussing prize splits, I have found it best to call over a judge for the entire conversation. What is and is not allowed can be tricky, so having a judge approve everything that is said ensures that it is all legit.

[walkingdude]

Are prize splits during a tournament for purposes of risk hedging considered collusion if there is no discussion of concession?

Ex1: I’m in finals of a weekly type one and propose that instead of splitting trhe money 15-0 we split it 10-5 so that the loser at least has money to buy a snack and pay for their ride home.

Ex2:  an opponent and I are playing for top 8 and it’s a tog mirror and we both run the same number of DAs and no SB tech. I say, this is fairly random let’s agree to a 50-50 split now of whatever the winner makes.
[don’t attack the example by telling me tog mirrors are not actually random, just assume for the example’s sake that they are]

What if the purposed split gives an incentive to lose the match?

Ex3: Same scenario as example 2 but playing two extended tog decks in a ptq. We decide that the fair expected value of the chance to qual that you get in the top 8 is 50 dollars and the money prize expected is 100 so the 50-50 split if done fairly is 25 dollars to the winner and 75 dollars to the loser. Is this legit?

[Azhrei]

The number of times that people have conceded or IDed to help teammates or a friend get a better record is probably equal to at least 12 million, because WotC says there are 6 million Magic players and you've all done it at least twice.

(Yes, I realize not all Magic players are in tournaments, but shut up.)

Collusion is a fact of the Magic tournament scene, and highly unenforcable. It's also impossible to remove. You can always ID, and you can always throw a match even if you don't concede (Oops, I mulliganed to 1 again!). People ID when losing is too great a risk, and people concede matches for their buddies to help them win. If two teammates meet in the t4, they're going to wait and see who the other finalist will be before sending in whoever has the best deck for the pairing. Collusion? All I know is that I've seen it done dozens of times. Teammates with prize splits agreed upon beforehand always ID. Collusion?

Personally, I think that as long as the only thing being used a bribery is a cut of the winnings, it should be fine. That disallows external incentives like a real bribe, for example, and limits people to begging and promising something they might not even have later.

Oh, and as an example as to why this is fine:

You get to the finals of a PTQ. Your opponent wants to go to the PT, and offers you the prize in exchange for the win. You don't have interest in making this PT.

How is that unethical? Both parties walk away satisfied and neither has lost anything. And before anyone makes any arguments about the integrity of Magic's tournament scene, let me remind you that a game of chance has too many random factors and opportunities for cheating to ever be held in the same company as strategy games that have been extant for hundreds of years.

[Jacob Orlove]

The rules specifically exempt the finals, because there all the parties affected by the decision are involved in it. Bribery to make T8, for example, directly affects the tiebreakers and possibly the standings of other players not involved in the "deal". Obviously, players are allowed to concede, and players are allowed to split their prizes, but both together is cheating.

An interesting example happened to me at AndyStok's Double Lotus tournament: it was round 6 (of 7), and Matrix and I were tied at one game each when time was called--we had just started game 3. Neither of us could win in 2-3 turns, and a draw would put us both out of contention. I explained to Matrix that neither of us could offer a prize split in exchange for a concession (he had gotten into some trouble with that just the past week), and we were both just sitting there thinking, when he conceeded--with no prompting from me, as the crowd of onlookers could attest. Needless to say, I was surprised.

I went on to get 2nd place, and win the damaged lotus. When I next saw Matrix (at Waterbury), I gave him an Italian Mana Drain. I didn't have to, but he didn't have to conceed either. As strange as it sounds, this was legal. If I'd made the offer before he conceeded, it would have been bribery, but since I didn't, it ended up just being two players doing the right thing.

[ELD]

I don't understand why people don't just read the rules.  They are not that difficult to understand.  At the very least they are the only place to start this discussion.  

25.   Conceding Games or Matches
Players may concede a game or match at any time within the following guidelines. The conceded game or match is recorded as a loss for the conceding player. If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she concedes the match.

The following actions are prohibited:
•   Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop, or draw of a match
•   Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method, such as a coin flip or die roll

Players who engage in these actions will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

Players are allowed to share prizes they have won as they wish, such as with teammates, as long as any such sharing does not occur as an exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop or draw of a game or match.

EXCEPTION: Players in the final match of the single-elimination portion of a tournament have the option not to play their match. If both players of the final match agree not to play, one of them must agree to drop from the event (in order for prizes to be awarded). The DCI ratings of the players will not be affected because no match will have been played. The dropping player receives the second-place prize, and the other finalist receives the first-place prize.

Example: Two players in the final of a Pro Tour Qualifier may agree to split the prizes (the travel award and the Pro Tour invitation), but this agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One player must drop from the event, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not drop from the event. That player is then free to split the prizes as agreed upon. The prizes will be sent only to the winner (that is, the finalist who did not drop); Wizards of the Coast will not send the Pro Tour invitation to one person and the travel award to another person.
 

[rvs]

@Walkingdude:
Ex1: This is fine, since it seems you guys are still playing the match, and there is definately no incentive whatsoever to concede (since the % you can win is > the % you can win when you lose :p). It's exactly what prize splits are for, making sure you at least walk away with something.

Ex2: This is still fine, for the same reasons Ex1 is fine.

Ex3: If it is not the finals, I would say it isn't legit. There's a bigger incentive to lose than to win, and you would effectively be buying yourself into the next round.

@Azhrei:
This is not about ID's. ID's in general improve both players standings within the tournament (or at least, that's the intention). You also can't do anything about scoops. But that's not what the topic is about. It's about offering something in return for either ID's or Scoops (and in general, unfavorable prize plits for the winner of a match!).

If you make a prize split with somebody in a match where one of you could win something, and the other doesn't, that's just making sure you don't walk away empty-handed. However, it should never, EVER create an incentive to lose, since then it would be bribery, and thus collusion.
As jacob already mentioned, finals are a bit different.

[Toad]

Toad: I think that a judge who overheard the conversation you propose would be well within their rights to call the player out for collusion.

Seriously, no. I've already use this a couple of times in tournaments, often with judges close to me, and It seems to be perfectly legal.

The following actions are prohibited:
• Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop, or draw of a match
• Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method, such as a coin flip or die roll

Since I'm not offering or accepting a prize split in exchange for the win or loss or (...), It can't be considered as collusion. I'm just agreeing on a split with my opponent, I'm not even asking him to concede the match.

[mrieff]

The rules specifically exempt the finals, because there all the parties affected by the decision are involved in it. Bribery to make T8, for example, directly affects the tiebreakers and possibly the standings of other players not involved in the "deal". Obviously, players are allowed to concede, and players are allowed to split their prizes, but both together is cheating.

An interesting example happened to me at AndyStok's Double Lotus tournament: it was round 6 (of 7), and Matrix and I were tied at one game each when time was called--we had just started game 3. Neither of us could win in 2-3 turns, and a draw would put us both out of contention. I explained to Matrix that neither of us could offer a prize split in exchange for a concession (he had gotten into some trouble with that just the past week), and we were both just sitting there thinking, when he conceeded--with no prompting from me, as the crowd of onlookers could attest. Needless to say, I was surprised.

I went on to get 2nd place, and win the damaged lotus. When I next saw Matrix (at Waterbury), I gave him an Italian Mana Drain. I didn't have to, but he didn't have to conceed either. As strange as it sounds, this was legal. If I'd made the offer before he conceeded, it would have been bribery, but since I didn't, it ended up just being two players doing the right thing.

Actually, this happens a lot at the PT level among Pro's. It is an unwritten (and more important unspoken!) rule that in such a concession in such a situation the benefactor will be rewarded after the tourney.

On a related note, I've been quite shocked when reading this thread. We, the Vintage community, are such amateurs with regard to competing in serious tournaments. It is certainly not the first time that we've had these types of discussions. People don't even know the DCI tournament rules!  

If people dont take Vintage serious because of the 'die roll wins' argument, we can rightly call those people completely ignorant.
If people don't take us serious, and refer to threads like this and the appaling play level seem at some of our most prestigious tourneys, they are absolutely right. (compared to PT/GP/PTQ level of course, not below)

[GotRealLucky]

One might think that s/he can circumvent the bribery limitation by offering a prize split of 0% to the winner and 100% to the loser (this prize split alone is perfectly legal) and then asking for a concession.

Well, as long as you don't ask for concession, that split is fine. It's allowed to tell something like "OK I really really really need to win that game in order to Top8. I think It would be fine if the winner gave X% of his prices to the loser" to your opponent. This does not involve asking concession to the opponent, and is thus not considered as collusion.

I must admit It's really borderline though.

How is this borderline? I've played in several GP's and PT's and I'm quite sure I would get into a lot of trouble if I tried this there. It's still bribery and a good judge will probably give you a DQ without prices. If you're not sure what you can and cannot do, just call a judge and ask him to intervene when you or your opponent cross the line.

Rudy is quite right in the Kerz thing. In the past there have been several players who were suspended because of bribery (and writing about it). You obviously didn't know (and according to your reply still don't know) that you and your opponent were wrong, but please be more carefull next time.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Toad wrote:

Zhalfirin wrote:
One might think that s/he can circumvent the bribery limitation by offering a prize split of 0% to the winner and 100% to the loser (this prize split alone is perfectly legal) and then asking for a concession.

Well, as long as you don't ask for concession, that split is fine. It's allowed to tell something like "OK I really really really need to win that game in order to Top8. I think It would be fine if the winner gave X% of his prices to the loser" to your opponent. This does not involve asking concession to the opponent, and is thus not considered as collusion.

I must admit It's really borderline though.

How is this borderline? I've played in several GP's and PT's and I'm quite sure I would get into a lot of trouble if I tried this there. It's still bribery and a good judge will probably give you a DQ without prices. If you're not sure what you can and cannot do, just call a judge and ask him to intervene when you or your opponent cross the line.

Rudy is quite right in the Kerz thing. In the past there have been several players who were suspended because of bribery (and writing about it). You obviously didn't know (and according to your reply still don't know) that you and your opponent were wrong, but please be more carefull next time.

I'm not sure how far you can go with circumventing that. A lot of people do it and they do it regularly. Just about anyone has probably heard the words "ID and Split?" before (especially at non t8 tournaments), which would actually be illegal considering the DCI rules.
 
A bigger problem is enforcing this, too.
To give an example, here's something else that is said to have happened at a GP, i think (not sure):

Third game, final turns, Judge watching. Suddenly one of the players starts piling up Booster-packs besides the play area, without saying anything. When he had about 15 packs lying there, his opponent said "I concede" and later snatched the boosters. It's obvious what actually happened, but none of them could be persecuted, afaik, as none of them actually officially agreed to anything regarding this match.

[Smmenen]

in law that is considered agreement.  the piling of packs is offer and the physical grabbing is acceptance.

[Jacob Orlove]

Well, it sounded like he conceeded and then got the packs after the tournament. If he did just grab them as they were finishing up, then that sounds like an implied offer to me.

[ELD]

I'll go on the record and say that bribery should be legal.  You don't ever need to take a bribe if you don't want to.  This would create a level playing field.  In Jacob's very common example, Matrix conceded to him.  This is clearly the kind of thing that can only happen when you know your opponent.  Jacob is the kind of guy who wouldn't let that go unappreciated and Matrix knew it.  That way atleast one of them has a chance to win the lotus.  

Let's forget about the reason behind that specific example.  Stuff like that only happens because people know each other from previous tournaments or online.  This barrier for unknown players, or even unpopular players creates an unfair disadvantage.

[Methuselahn]

Ok, so being socially inept is unfair, yet being able to bribe because you can afford to IS fair?  wtf dude, do you live in communist russia?

[The Atog Lord]

I'll go on the record and say that bribery should be legal.

I'll have to disagree with you there. If bribery were legal, I could walk into a PTQ with a wad of hundreds and buy myself a spot on the tour. That should not be allowed.

[Jacob Orlove]

I'll go on the record and say that bribery should be legal.

I'll have to disagree with you there. If bribery were legal, I could walk into a PTQ with a wad of hundreds and buy myself a spot on the tour. That should not be allowed.

Or, in the extreme case, Bill Gates could buy his way to being the world champion.

Legalized bribery would completely discredit magic's image--it's something Wizards just won't do.

[ELD]

First off it's not so much a matter of being socially inept.  There are tons of people who are new to the scene at every tournament, and they are all at a disadvantage.  This disadvantage has nothing to do with how well they play the game and therefore I believe it is unfair.  Aside from that, I tend to not enjoy the company of alot of "better" magic players cause they whine like little girls when they lose.  It isn't exactly the attitude that makes one want to assoicate with pro or semi-pro players.  Sure, you may not know who I am, but chances are I've played your deck more than you have.  That should give me an edge.  It has nothing to do with who I know or if I tolerate some schmuck cause he's at all the major tournaments.  No one should need to be in a clique to have a fair shot at the prize pool.  

I have no problem with someone walking into a PTQ and handing out $100 bills like they're candy.  Let's be honest, that just doesn't happen.  When I play magic in a tournament it's so I score the highest amount of prize/cash possible.  I don't care about who wins the tournament, let's abandon the illusions, winning a magic tournament really doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone but yourself.  

Sanctioned magic to me is a perfect example.  I have worked very hard to get my rating sick like.  Clearly it is only important to me.  If bribes were legal, it would take quite a bit to get me to lay down a match.  It would have to be more than the first place prize I can say that for sure.  If it was a small tournament with limited prize support there's just no way.  But that will never happen.  Who on earth would actually lose money just to win a tournament?  The frequency of bribes is keep in check by what we're all playing for.  If it's for a prize pool, then what's wrong with taking some money and going home if you had no shot otherwise.  If it's for a title, come on, someone who is willing to pay money for something intangible like that can have it in my view.

[Jacob Orlove]

Honestly, playing T1 just for prizes is silly--you have to want to play, too. Otherwise, you'd just be playing poker or something. More than that, though, most players want to win--not for the prizes, but for the winning itself.

However, if someone can buy the win, then it's worthless. Titles like World Champion don't mean ANYTHING unless it takes work, effort, and skill (and maybe some luck) to get them. I think most people here would want to win the World Championship tournament, but how many would want to even bother if you could buy your way through a key round? Tournament victories are one of those things that are only worth having if you earn them--legalized bribery destroys their value instantly.

[Machinus]

People sell their PT invites all the time.

I don't dispute that legalized bribery, as an accepted practice, is bad for the game of magic. However, money and prizes are a very real aspect of the competition. Winning money plays a SIGNIFICANT role in attracting players to the pro tour and keeping them there. The winnings cannot be discounted as a strong influence on sanctioned play. It may make no difference to a player to receive some kind of compensation for a concession in exchange for giving another player a better chance at a higher level of competition that they want a lot more.

Remember, no one is ever forced to accept any bribe. All collusion is intentional. This is a very important fact that everyone seems to be overlooking. The accepted practices of the pro tour elite are definitely illegal by the DCI standards, but they make those players happier. It would be unfair to offer cash prizes and discriminate against players who want to make some money playing magic. WOTC's money is no better than anyone elses.