At work, I have a mug that says “Everyone’s Entitled to my Opinion.” My coworkers know that that’s my mug. So, if Flores and Bennie Smith are arguing about Green, and Zac Hill writes more about concessions, is there any doubt I’ll jump on my soapbox? No, didn’t think so. This week I’ll opine on concessions, but I’ll add some facts to the debate.
The most recent tempest over concessions and IDs comes from Zac Hill. Zac wrote about his experience with Tuan Nygen, then wrote a more general piece on concessions. The forum responses to both articles are worth reading.
Let’s start with some factual matters. First, let’s kill the myth that IDs and concessions don’t affect your rating. They do. Then I’ll create a tournament to show exactly what can happen. Finally, I’ll get up on the soapbox and lecture on the difference between illegal, prosecutable, and unethical. The behavior that Zac Hill described fits in several of those categories.
Intentional Draws, Concessions and Ratings
First, I want to clear up a misconception that appeared in articles and forum posts alike. Intentional draws do affect your ratings. A sanctioned match was played and an outcome was recorded. That affects ratings.
If both players have roughly the same rating, the effect will be very small and may be lost in rounding. If the difference in rating is significant, then the lower ranked player will gain points. The exact amount will depend on the difference in ratings, the K value of the event and so forth – but the effect is real.
The DCI uses the ELO formula to calculate the probability of winning the match. The formula looks like this:
This probability is then used to recalculate each player’s rating after the match, using this formula. Scoring points: 1 for a win, 0.5 for a tie, zero for a loss.
Player’s New Rating = Player’s Old Rating + (K-Value * (Scoring Points–Player’s Win Probability))
For example, assume this is a Vintage event. I have a 1638 Eternal rating. My opponent is a Vintage veteran with an 1893 rating. My win probability is 0.187262. His is 1 – mine (that’s how probability works.) The difference in ratings is huge, so if I win, I will gain a lot of points. The exact amount depends on the “K-value” of the event.
K-Value is the maximum amount of rating points you can (theoretically*) win in a match. More casual events, like FNM, have a K-value of 8 to 16. Pro Tour qualifiers and other competitive events are generally 32k. Grand Prix: Columbus was 40k. Professional level events, like Pro Tours and the World Championship, are 48K events.
For my example, let’s assume that this is a store tournament with a K-value of 16. With those ratings, and a K-value of 16, if I win I gain 13 rating points and my opponent loses the same amount. If we draw, I gain five points and my opponent loses five points. (If I lose, as expected, he gains just three points, because – relative to him – I’m a pushover.)
By comparison, if our ratings are 1875 to 1869, the higher ranked player loses just 0.0038 points when we draw – which is lost to rounding. Some quick math says that, if ratings are within ten points, the change in ratings should be lost in rounding to the nearest point. I don’t know, however, whether Wizards actually rounds off the rating after each match, or if the rating is calculated to several decimal points each match, but just displayed on the player information pages truncated to whole numbers. If the latter, all draws have full effect – even when that effect is less than half a point.
There is one “exception” to the rule that concessions and IDs affect ratings: prize splits in the finals of a single elimination tournament. Actually, the rule applies – but the match does not happen. Technically, one player drops from the event after the end of the second-to-last round, and the other player is recording as winning with a Bye. The result is that the final sanctioned match is not played, so ratings are not affected. This is also how prize splits get around the collusion rules – since the match was not played, the outcome was not affected by the split.
What The Rules Say
Since I mentioned the rules, here they are. The relevant rules come from the DCI’s Universal Tournament Rules, or UTR. Section 25 states:
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 the other.
The philosophy is pretty clear: what should determine the outcome of the match is how the game is played, not outside influences like coin flips, bribery, threats, or collusion.
The rules also allow intentional draws:
27. Intentional Draw
Players may mutually agree to accept an intentional draw at any time before the match or game result of a Swiss round is submitted. This agreement should not be regarded as a violation of section 41. Declaring an intentional draw has the same results for competitors as playing to a draw. For example, if two players choose to draw their match during the Swiss rounds of a Magic tournament, each would receive 1 match point.
What This All Means
Like anything involving human interactions, there are clearly right actions, clearly wrong actions – and a broad spectrum in between. What is acceptable is a matter of judgment. Sometimes, personal preference is a decent measure.
For example, the temperature of bath water can range from zero to 100 degrees Celsius. At zero you can’t get in (literally), and at 100, you boil. The “comfortable” range is narrower, and varies from person to person.
Society also has rules and tolerances – a sort of collective consensus on what is acceptable, and what is not. At the extremes, action may be limited by law. In the middle, they are limited by concepts of manners and / or common courtesy.
Another simple example: I can work out with my punching bag at home, no problem. I can punch a friend in the shoulder when he makes a stupid play. I can’t punch a colleague at work, no matter how stupid, because that is outside the bounds of etiquette at work (although it would not be illegal, and probably not even get to the boss.) At the other extreme, if I punch a stranger in the jaw, I’ll be prosecuted for assault.
The ends of any spectrum are clear – it’s the shades of gray in the middle that are more questionable. Let’s muck around in the gray, shall we?
I’m facing lethal on the board, with nothing in hand and topdeck a land. Can I concede?
Of course. Nothing wrong here.
My opponent offers me $200 and a night with Paris Hilton if I throw him the match. Legal?
Of course not. Taking money to lose the game is accepting a bribe – and illegal.
I’m sick as a dog, and I want to go home and sleep. Can I concede and drop?
Sure. Unless your name is Frank Karsten, you do not have to play while throwing up.
I’m a lock for Top 8, and I know my opponent is playing a deck I absolutely crush. If I scoop to him, he’s – and his deck – are in the Top 8, and I may face him. Can I concede the match?
We have moved out of the black and white here, but this is still legal, as the rules are written and enforced. No bribe or other inducement is involved, beyond wanting to win the tournament.
I’m paired against my friend / significant other. I’m at 5-1, she’s at 6-0. 7-1 will make Top 8, 6-2 will not. She scoops to me. Legal?
Firmly in the gray, here. As a judge, I will ask about this, but will probably let it stand. Just don’t even think about say “scoop to me or walk home” – because that really could get you disqualified. This is right on the edge – and if you tip it towards bribery, it’s DQ time.
I’ll talk more about legal verses enforceable – something the U.S. Attorney General knows a lot about.
I’m in with a win, my opponent (and teammate) is mathematically eliminated (win or lose, he cannot make Top 8.) The team has a standing rule to split all winnings evenly. He scoops to me, to help me reach Top 8. Legal?
The rules specifically allow this. It is in the gray area, but the rules carve out this exception. Technically, the rules allow you to scoop to your teammate for reasons other than the prize split (e.g. scooping to help your teammate, because he’s a friend, etc.)
I’m in with a win, my opponent (not a teammate) is mathematically eliminated, so he scoops to me expecting that I will give him some packs later. We don’t say anything about it in the match or make the exchange where a judge can see it. Legal?
No. The rules say you cannot accept a bribe or share winnings in “exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop, or draw of a game or match.” If the opponent scoops to you, expecting a reward later, he is violating the rules. The fact that you both carefully avoid discussing this does not make it legal – just difficult to prosecute.
Let’s talk about that.
Illegal, Illegal but not Prosecutable, and Unethical
The definition of illegal, according to The American Heritage Dictionary, is “1. Prohibited by law. 2. Prohibited by official rules.” Sometimes that rule is crystal clear: e.g. “The speed limit is 75mph.” Sometimes the rule takes some evaluation: e.g. “Police may not use excessive force.” or “Charges must be reasonable.” In the later case, there are generally rules, standards, and precedents that help determine what is “excessive” or “reasonable.”
An action is either legal or illegal, as defined by the rules – not by whether you are caught and / or prosecuted.
A year or so ago, a friend’s dog was hit by a car. I drove to the emergency clinic for animals at high speed. Was it illegal? I was unquestionably speeding. I was not caught. The odds are really good that, if I had been caught, I would not have received a ticket.
None of that changes the fact that driving 90mph is illegal.
You can argue that there were extenuating circumstances. That is probably true – and I think there were. That does not change the fact that the action is illegal. Extenuating circumstances change the punishment – they don’t make an illegal action legal.
Not being prosecuted also does not mean no crime was committed. For example, if you lie under oath, you commit perjury. However, perjury is a difficult crime to prove. It is even harder if the liar simply says that he "doesn’t know” or “can’t remember.” So far, no one can get inside a person’s head and see whether they really don’t know, or just don’t want to admit knowing.
When someone spends a couple hours debating and discussing a major decision with huge ramifications, and a couple months later they swear they “don’t remember” anything about it, the odds are they are committing perjury. The odds are also pretty good that they will get away with perjury. It’s hard to prove otherwise.
Bringing this back to Magic, if someone is throwing a match in expectation of being paid or reimbursed later they are breaking the rules, regardless of whether they can avoid being caught and DQed.
But does this have any effect on an actual tournament? Let’s find out.
Effect on a Tournament
To illustrate the effect of draws and concessions, I created a tournament. I fired up DCI Reporter and entered 81 players. I assigned the players decks, with the metagame being Rock, Paper, Scissors, and Loser. I entered 6 Rock players, 6 Scissors players, 6 Paper players, and 63 losers. For results: losers lost to non-losers, Rock beat Scissors, etc. and if Paper played Paper I rolled a D6. On a 1-2, the first deck won. On a 3-4, the second deck won. On a 5-6, the match was a draw. (These simplified results made scoring rounds a lot faster.) I alternated between 2-0 and 2-1 results.
I started with 81 players and a seven-round tournament. I dropped some 0-X losers along the way. I ended with 71 players and the following standings at the end of round 6.
| Tie 1 | Tie 2 | Tie 3 | Matches | |||
| Rank | Name | Points | OMW% | PGW% | OGW% | P/W/D/B |
| 1 | scissors 1 | 18 | 68.5185 | 80.0000 | 61.3559 | 6/6/0/0 |
| 2 | paper 1 | 16 | 55.5556 | 78.5714 | 54.2468 | 6/5/1/0 |
| 3 | scissors 5 | 16 | 49.0741 | 73.3333 | 48.5043 | 6/5/1/0 |
| 4 | rock 3 | 15 | 63.8889 | 71.4286 | 58.8653 | 6/5/0/0 |
| 5 | paper 5 | 15 | 63.8889 | 64.7059 | 55.7761 | 6/5/0/0 |
| 6 | paper 4 | 15 | 61.1111 | 84.6154 | 56.7323 | 6/5/0/0 |
| 7 | scissors 4 | 15 | 51.8519 | 66.6667 | 52.4710 | 6/5/0/0 |
| 8 | rock 5 | 14 | 60.1852 | 76.9231 | 54.5238 | 6/4/2/0 |
| 9 | scissors 6 | 13 | 67.5926 | 69.2308 | 58.5104 | 6/4/1/0 |
| 10 | rock 6 | 13 | 61.1111 | 69.2308 | 58.8889 | 6/4/1/0 |
| 11 | paper 6 | 13 | 61.1111 | 66.6667 | 58.6325 | 6/4/1/0 |
| 12 | rock 1 | 13 | 61.1111 | 64.2857 | 59.7894 | 5/3/1/1 |
| 13 | rock 4 | 13 | 60.1852 | 60.0000 | 56.8071 | 6/4/1/0 |
| 14 | rock 2 | 13 | 58.3333 | 64.2857 | 58.4020 | 6/4/1/0 |
| 15 | loser 42 | 12 | 63.8889 | 58.8235 | 57.0661 | 6/4/0/0 |
| 16 | loser 78 | 12 | 63.3333 | 64.2857 | 56.9231 | 5/3/0/1 |
| 17 | paper 2 | 12 | 60.1852 | 61.5385 | 56.7766 | 6/4/0/0 |
| 18 | loser 60 | 12 | 59.2593 | 56.2500 | 54.9174 | 6/4/0/0 |
| 19 | paper 3 | 12 | 58.3333 | 56.2500 | 52.6984 | 6/4/0/0 |
| 20 | loser 66 | 12 | 57.4074 | 60.0000 | 56.7173 | 6/4/0/0 |
Some quick math shows that, if just the people at 13 points play it out, there will still be more than eight people with 16 or more points. In other words, Top 8 requires at least a 16 (or 5-1-1) and good tiebreakers. Since only eight people can possibly make 17 points, anything over 16 is a lock for Top 8. Fifteen points and good tiebreakers should be able to draw in, unless your opponents all drop suddenly, and your tiebreakers go to hell.
Because of the Rock, Paper, Scissors metagame I created, we can also determine what the results would be – aside from a few mirror matches – if all matches played it out.
Here are the round 7 pairings, for the matches that matter:
| Table | Player | Points | Player |
| 1 | scissors 1 | 18-16 | paper 1 |
| 2 | scissors 5 | 16-15 | rock 3 |
| 3 | paper 5 | 15-15 | paper 4 |
| 4 | scissors 4 | 15-13 | scissors 6 |
| 5 | rock 5 | 14-13 | rock 6 |
| 6 | paper 6 | 13-13 | rock 4 |
| 7 | rock 1 | 13-13 | rock 2 |
| 8 | losder 42 | 12-12 | loser 78 |
| 9 | paper 2 | 12-12 | loser 60 |
| 10 | paper 3 | 12-12 | loser 66 |
| 11 | loser 48 | 12-12 | loser 37 |
| 12 | loser 2 | 12-12 | loser 51 |
| 13 | loser 55 | 12-12 | loser 61 |
| 14 | loser 28 | 12-12 | loser 58 |
| 15 | scissors 2 | 10-9 | loser 70 |
| 16 | scissors 3 | 10-9 | loser 52 |
If all matches were played out, the results at the end of the Swiss would look like this:
| Rank | Name | Points |
| 1 | paper 1 | 19 |
| 2 | rock 3 | 18 |
| 3 | scissors 1 | 18 |
| 4 | scissors 4 | 18 |
| 5 | rock 2 | 16 |
| 6 | paper 6 | 16 |
| 7 | paper 4 | 16 |
| 8 | paper 5 | 16 |
| 9 | scissors 5 | 16 |
| 10 | rock 5 | 15 |
| 11 | paper 2 | 15 |
| 12 | paper 3 | 15 |
| 13 | loser 28 | 15 |
| 14 | losder 42 | 15 |
| 15 | loser 48 | 15 |
| 16 | loser 51 | 15 |
The Top 8 players would make Top 8, and play it out from there.
What is more likely, however, is that the players at tables 1, 2, and 3 will all draw. Those players are all at 15 or more points and have good tiebreakers, although Paper 4 is definitely on the bubble. The rest of the field will have to play it out. Here are the results if the top three tables ID:
| Rank | Name | Points |
| 1 | scissors 1 | 19 |
| 2 | scissors 4 | 18 |
| 3 | paper 1 | 17 |
| 4 | scissors 5 | 17 |
| 5 | rock 2 | 16 |
| 6 | rock 3 | 16 |
| 7 | paper 6 | 16 |
| 8 | paper 4 | 16 |
| 9 | paper 5 | 16 |
| 10 | rock 5 | 15 |
| 11 | paper 2 | 15 |
| 12 | paper 3 | 15 |
| 13 | loser 28 | 15 |
| 14 | losder 42 | 15 |
| 15 | loser 48 | 15 |
| 16 | loser 51 | 15 |
We could also have people scooping to others. I lost my note on exactly who scooped, and who won, but here are the results adjusted for scoopage.
| Rank | Name | Points |
| 1 | paper 1 | 19 |
| 2 | rock 3 | 18 |
| 3 | scissors 1 | 18 |
| 4 | rock 2 | 16 |
| 5 | paper 6 | 16 |
| 6 | paper 4 | 16 |
| 7 | paper 5 | 16 |
| 8 | scissors 4 | 16 |
| 9 | scissors 5 | 16 |
| 10 | rock 5 | 15 |
| 11 | paper 2 | 15 |
| 12 | paper 3 | 15 |
| 13 | loser 28 | 15 |
| 14 | losder 42 | 15 |
| 15 | loser 48 | 15 |
| 16 | loser 51 | 15 |
Let’s compare the Top 8s under all three options:
| Ranking | Played Out | With IDs | With Scoopage |
| 1 | Paper 1 | Scissors 1 | Paper 1 |
| 2 | Rock 3 | Scissors 4 | Rock 3 |
| 3 | Scissors 1 | Paper 1 | Scissors 1 |
| 4 | Scissors 4 | Scissors 5 | Rock 2 |
| 5 | Rock 2 | Rock 2 | Paper 6 |
| 6 | Paper 6 | Rock 3 | Paper 4 |
| 7 | Paper 4 | Paper 6 | Paper 5 |
| 8 | Paper 5 | Paper 4 | Scissors 4 |
The differences are not all that great – but they are real.
The initial difference that the IDs made is that Paper 5 does not make Top 8, but Scissors 5 does. In short, IDs gave Scissors 5 a chance it wouldn’t have otherwise had.
More importantly, the order has changed. If this is a Constructed event, and uses ordered pairing, first after Swiss will play eight after Swiss, second versus seventh, and so on. If played out, we would have:
| Paper 1 | Paper ? | Paper ? |
| Paper 5 | ||
| Rock 3 | Paper 4 | |
| Paper 4 | ||
| Scissors 1 | Scissors | Rock |
| Paper 6 | ||
| Scissors 2 | Rock 2 | |
| Rock 2 |
The Paper on Paper mirror matches cannot be determined, but it is clear that the Rock deck will beat both Scissors decks, leaving Rock versus Paper in the finals, and Paper will win that.
With IDs, however, the pairings change, and produce these results:
| Scissors 1 | Scissors 1 | Scissors ? |
| Paper 4 | ||
| Scissors 4 | Scissors 4 | |
| Paper 6 | ||
| Paper 1 | Paper 1 | Paper 1 |
| Rock 3 | ||
| Scissors 5 | Rock 2 | |
| Rock 2 |
Now the Top 4 looks different, and Scissors wins the event.
Finally, with IDs and some strategic scoops, the Top 8 and results look like this:
| Paper 1 | Scissors 4 | Scissors 4 | |
| Scissor 4 | |||
| Rock 3 | Paper 5 | ||
| Paper 5 | |||
| Scissors 1 | Scissors 1 | Scissors 1 | |
| Paper 4 | |||
| Rock 2 | Paper 6 | ||
| Paper 6 |
The scoopage changed the finals to a Scissors mirror match – and Scissors winning it all.
In order to create these results, I created an 81-player tournament, scored almost 300 rounds and created multiple sets of results and standings for round 7. The variance in results would be more noticeable if the number of players had been closer to the next point at which an extra round is added – namely 128 players – but adding more players would mean a lot more work. Someone else can do that. Running a 125-player event, however, will mean more players with a shot at Top 8, and more variance in the Top 8 and bracketing.
Summary
Intentional draws, to ensure a place in the Top 8, are a fact of life. They are legal under the rules. They also change the make-up of the Top 8, and the pairings, but so do wins and loses when matches are played out. Like them or not, IDs are legal, and that’s just how it is.
A further note: IDs are never required. Some players come to Magic events to play Magic. They don’t want to sit around for an hour when they could be playing. Those players may want to play it out instead of drawing. That’s their right – they paid their money, they can do so. If you are paired against them, and they force you to win the match to make Top 8, then win the match. If you lose, there will be someone else that makes Top 8 instead – probably because they won their match.
If, on the other hand, you are at 4-1-1 and expecting your 4-2 opponent to scoop you into the Top 8, think again. Your opponent is supposed to throw the match and burn some rating points so you can bump someone else out of the Top 8? That’s unethical and unreasonable – and if they do it expecting you to pay for it later, it’s also illegal. True, if you are careful never to admit that it happened, you will probably get away with it, but that doesn’t make it legal. Just illegal and not prosecuted.
And if you admit to doing it, or try to make a deal where a judge can hear it, then expect to get penalized. When you do get penalized, don’t try arguing that “everyone does it.” First, not everyone does. Second, as the cop said when the speeder tried the “everyone does it” excuse: “Maybe, but you got caught. Here’s your ticket.”
Caveat: these are my opinions. I planned to talk this over with a couple local judges, but the deadline looms.
Okay, everyone, off to the forums.
PRJ
“one million words” on MTGO.
* Theoretically, because in order to win the entire amount, your ratings have to differ by 750 or more points. At the moment, Guilliame Wafo-Tapa is the world’s highest ranked player, with a 2237 Constructed rating. If a Pro Tour opponent wanted to steal all 48 points, that opponent would have to 1) win the match and 2) enter the match with a constructed rating of 1445 or less.