Scamming for boosters
Standard forum
Posted on May 6, 2016, 2:55 p.m. by Argy
I ran into someone the other day from a LGS where I used to play Magic.
They said that the Owner had to stop awarding prizes for 1st and 2nd place at FNM because some of the players had come up with a scam.
There was a group of about 8 of them, all extremely good players, who would "concede" to each other in the final rounds if one of them would not get in the Top 2.
That way they always got the extra boosters awarded.
I'm probably not explaining it exactly right, but that is the gist.
The Owner was told what was happening by other players, and started randomly choosing the booster winners, so all the scammers stopped playing.
Thats not really a scam....if you have a group of friends that consistently do well at the tournament they deserve the packs for the high placings and if one person cannot get into packs there is nothing wrong with someone conceding to another person so that they can.
May 6, 2016 3:16 p.m.
More-or-less Colluding.
Against the rules.
Reprehensible according to DCI protocol.
You could start to argue that it isn't actually colluding because there's a super fine line that you can work in your favor to get away with this crap, but we all know what it is. They are deciding the results of a match without actually playing it, and while it may not be discussed at the table (which is the loophole), it is well known that the person conceding to put the other ahead will be compensated for doing so.
Evidence should result in immediate disqualification, relinquishing of any prizes earned or to be earned, and, in severe or repetitive cases, after review by the DCI board can result in a ban from sanctioned tournaments.
FNM is run at a regular REL. It is not exempt from these kind of reprehensions for breaking a major misconduct such as collusion.
The owner should have reacted to his more appropriately. He should learn how it works very very well so that this system can't be more easily manipulated in the future and he can catch the ones who don't work the loophole correctly.
Granted, working at an LGS myself, I understand the reluctance to lose customers.
"Randomly awarding 'prizes' to non-winners is probably a way to get Wotc to look at the store and be like, "hey, we're not supporting this store anymore." It's also just terrible business." -Dorotheus
This statement also couldn't be more wrong. Not trying to be an ass. But what a store does with it's booster packs has absolutely NOTHING to do with WotC, unless they are handing out product that has yet to release or is under special rules (such as Promos). And if the store can afford it it's actually very good business. It gets more people in the door. People who are likely to spend money on singles and product while they are there.
May 6, 2016 3:26 p.m. Edited.
That is not collusion if you call that collusion then all intentional draws are collusions and what andrea mengucci did at the pro tour is collusion and neither of those are treated as such.
May 6, 2016 3:53 p.m.
Okay well I might be misreading his story.
If they are intentionally drawing to both make Top 2 then yeah that's not scamming or collusion.
Conceding to put somebody else in the top spots and be reimbursed for it is collusion.
May 6, 2016 4 p.m.
I saw nothing about them awarding packs to those who conceded and even if they did that there is no way to prove that since I am sure they are not stupid enough to talka bout that while conceding
May 6, 2016 4:13 p.m.
nobu_the_bard says... #8
Why didn't they just play it straight... then give the "losers" the packs afterwards? Is there something besides the packs themselves colluding like this nets the winners? Or is this about them manipulating their scores to lock down all the prize positions amongst themselves?
May 6, 2016 4:47 p.m.
It was about making sure that the packs stayed within their group of eight players.
It wasn't so much making sure that they GOT the packs, as making sure that OTHERS didn't get them.
When it looked like a person outside their group was going to get the second spot they would start conceding games to get draws, so that none of them ended up in third position.
I'm only repeating the story told to me so I'm probably not getting all the details exactly right.
The Owner is not very savvy at all.
May 6, 2016 5:04 p.m.
Ok, well I suppose I am corrected...
"Evidence should result in immediate disqualification," is definitely something that should happen.
May 6, 2016 10:34 p.m.
fadelightningmm says... #11
A similar event happened at a local LGS in my area the owner had larger prize payouts for a long time and the top 2 would always split. The top 2 were always the same people too so it made events "uneventful" and "anticlimactic" so the store adopted a new prize payout method: if you take a round you get any standard pack you want, a bye also counts as taking the round so you got a pack for that. No packs go out in the event of a draw. The owner said not only does this spread out who gets the packs it also increased the overall prize payout
May 7, 2016 12:11 a.m.
My LGS uses the X-1 formula.
Prizes to 3-1, 3-0-1, and 4-0. We add X store credit to the pool per participating player and then divide it appropriately at the end of the match based on the results. It may ultimately result in smaller payouts but people still come for it.
Monday night is our free tournament and we put a $1 store credit in per player. Usually between 2 and 4 people walk away with $2 to $4 store credit.
We do high value tournaments on Tuesday and Thursday where it's $3 entry and $5 in the pool per player store credit prizes. Usually see pools upwards of $50 store credit. Usually everybody 3-1 up walks away with at least $10 store credit.
Then we have our Win-A-Pack tournaments on Wednesday and Saturday where you pay $5 to get in and then earn $3.50 store credit (the price of a booster pack at our store) per match win. (Much like what fadelightningmm described). Win two matches and you have already made your money back. Even if you only win one, at least you only spent $1.50. Surprisingly not as popular as the other ones.
FNM is typical $5 in $5 out and we usually run both a Modern and a Standard tournament. Sunday is kind of a freebie day (Draft/Pauper).
The reason I mention all these is because I'm:
A) Surprised other stores use such a faulty method of prize payouts
B) Hope it may allow some of you to suggest changing your local LGS's structure
Something like this Top 2 garbage just seems far too exploitable, as we've seen.
May 9, 2016 1:02 p.m.
Our LGS uses Store Credit only for prizes. The amount of store credit and how it is divided is determined based on the number of participants. But they also put in a catch...
Lets say the top 8 store credit is: (example only)
1 = $40
2 = $30
3-4 = 15 each
5-8 = $10 each
They will also add $10 ($50 total credit)to First place IF the first place went X-0-0
If first place even goes X-0-1, they will only get the $40 credit, and the additional $10 becomes 2x $5 randomly distributed door prizes. - This is to reduce the likelihood of drawing the final round, or drawing into top 8 if there is a top-8 cut off instead of standings... the draws still happen, but less often.
FNM promo goes to top 8, as well as 2 'random' non-top 8.
The only issue I currently have at my LGS is that the 2 FNM promo and 2x $5 credit can only be awarded to those who play their final round. - Not a big issue, but when they sometimes start 20-30 minutes late to accommodate a few stragglers, it can sometimes mean I have to drop before the final round, excluding me from possible prizes.
Outside of FNM, my LGS also runs 3 round tournaments. Wednesday Standard and Sunday Modern. These are always $7 entry, $4 credit for each win, $2 credit for each draw, $3 credit if there's an uneven number of players and you get a bye. - Any left over value goes to prize funds for future 'free' events that are held (sometimes invite only, sometimes open to everyone)
May 9, 2016 3:50 p.m. Edited.
I like your store Rayenous. Only thing I don't like is the late start time. You're technically not supposed to wait that long to start a tournament according to DCI. Especially on a regular basis.
But working at an LGS, I respect the randoms to last round only players. That's to benefit the store more than anything, which is pretty obvious.
May 9, 2016 4:06 p.m.
This isn't so much collusion as it is poor gamesmanship. Asking for (and conceding) happens at higher level events where real prizes and pro points are on the line, but the point of FNM is to have fun PLAYING the game. An Intentional Draw here or there isn't a big deal. Even a concession here or there I don't mind. If a group is doing it often enough to garner attention, that's a problem. At the end of the day, it can put the store in a bind. FNM attendance is vital for a store. These are the people who buy snacks, who buy sealed product, who buy and sell singles. If people see this kind of behavior and don't see the store do something about it, it can affect attendance. At the same time, if they do something, people might take issue and stop coming. The ideal solution (well, second place for ideal. Ideal would be them just to stop), would be for someone to ask them to stop and point out that what they are doing is poisoning the community and going to eventually lead to smaller FNMs (thus smaller prize pools, or even a loss of the store's WPN status if it goes low enough). My cynicism prevents me from having the faith in humanity that this will work, but it's all I got.
May 9, 2016 10:18 p.m.
GeminiSpartanX says... #16
My area rarely gets more than 12 people at an FNM, and packs are given out to the top 3 based on attendance and then the remaining players roll for 2 random packs (highest roll and lowest roll, in hopes to keep the less-competitive players coming back).
May 11, 2016 11:01 a.m.
Both the stores in my area give one pack from any set in standard per win (a person who goes 1-3 gets one pack and someone who goes 4-0 gets four) and no other prizes. As far as I can tell, this keeps people coming to FNM while keeping people from doing shady things to get prizes.
May 27, 2016 6:07 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #19
My LGS hands them out to Standard and Draft players based on their record. You get more for doing better. Two losses? You get nothing. Modern and Legacy only award store credit; no packs.
This is a good way to avoid these kind of things, but I don't know if it would work for a store that has a less Spikey culture or one that isn't as big.
May 28, 2016 11:02 p.m.
GreenYawgmoth says... #20
If you're seeing lot of intentional draws because of the prize pool, then the problem is with the prize pool, not with the players. This is especially true of FNM, where the difference between winning and losing in the last round should never be more than a pack.
Dorotheus says... #2
A lot of places I know have switched to the 3-x format, where only and always the players that are at least 3-x-x get prizes and there are no "extra" boosters ever possible of being awarded. But this might be more for stores that get a regular 30 and that sometimes dip down into around 15 from week to week.
Randomly awarding 'prizes' to non-winners is probably a way to get Wotc to look at the store and be like, "hey, we're not supporting this store anymore." It's also just terrible business.
May 6, 2016 3:11 p.m.