Just because I had someone mention this, I just want to clarify that there isn't a literal, physical handshake that players do to get a prizesplit. I mean "handshake" in the metaphorical sense. You could replace "handshake" with "code word", "signal", "nose touch" or anything else to imply "Only those in the know know how to prizesplit". I've seen plenty of seasoned players mention they don't know how to organize a prizesplit. Heck, I didn't even know how to do it and I've been playing the game for 15+ years.
@DVS57REBEL
Ай бұрын
Wow some folks really needed the handshake term explained. I assumed any intelligible person in English language was familiar with "handshake" aka gentleman's agreement
@ColleyFlour
Ай бұрын
My LGS's entire culture was around splitting when it came to draft and prerelease. The main reason was because first and second usually were hugely rewarded and losing in the finals usually knocked you down to third (swiss pairings). It always felt so bad when that happened so 2 seconds at every final table they just go "split....yeah....cool glhf" just so casually. And the record would be entered as a tie to gurantee 2 undefeated players. Was this illegal? Yeah probably very much so. But it was a small LGS, wasn't an RCQ and, no one ever minded. I actually remember asking about it when i traveled to a different one and then had this confused face when i explained it. I was like nevermind lets just play 😂
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
If you're in the finals and both players agree to a prize split, that's totally fine. Heck, you can even prize split with all 8 players in a top 8. All it comes down to is, how you ask. And the best and safest way to do that is to get a judge involved. *Assuming of course the prize is split-able
@TrixyTrixter
Ай бұрын
The way the beginning was formulated just tells me I should get a friend to approach mt opponent and ask them for price splitting to get a free win.
@echochildus2441
Ай бұрын
Yup. That's what I was thinking.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
To which the opponent will just call a judge over as soon as that happens and everything will continue like normal.
@SnackCakes
Ай бұрын
Fact
@Pannedcakes-90
28 күн бұрын
As a player in the tournament, if anyone approaches you and says anything about prizes, immediately call for a judge. Not a hard flowchart to follow.
@evilontoast7266
Ай бұрын
Two criminally underated creators making a great vid
@deejay.zedemex
Ай бұрын
15 minutes and this still doesn't explain anything important. In particular: if someone is in this top 4 position and a friend comes bustling up with such an offer, what are you supposed to do? Call a judge and - say what, exactly? Your friend has already made the offer, unsolicited, so it's not as if you can establish that you aren't considering it. And what if you actually don't understand what your friend is saying? Last I checked, understanding "equity swaps" is not a prerequisite to learning top level MTG play. Besides, people who are focused on the next match aren't necessarily going to parse everything they're hearing correctly. Why would anyone think it's fair to get locked out of the grand prize (and again, nobody actually cares about this distinction between a match loss and a DQ for the exact reasons that you and the judge pointed out) because of something a third party said, outside your control? And why did I sit through 15 minutes of "if you want to split a prize, call a judge first" when the guy who lost out was, by all apparent evidence, explicitly NOT interested in splitting?
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
So do you think Spectator A came over to Player B and said "do you want to sell some equity?", to which Player B responded "I'm not sure" and then the judge rocked up and said "That's a match loss. GG."? Again, I only have the information presented in the Judge Report and Julian's statement. Both mention that there was a discussion about selling equity. Which implies an actual discussion had taken place. Both the spectator and the player were interviewed and from that the judges made their decision.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Players aren't getting a DQ/ML because someone asked them a question. They're getting those infractions because they're compromising the integrity of the tournament by discussing prizesplitting in such a way that it could be considered bribery or wagering.
@deejay.zedemex
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard Well, considering that's exactly how you presented it....
@jkramer470
Ай бұрын
the main issue with this is from all accounts it was declined and he didn't want it, so because he said no and turned it down the proper outcome is a match loss, so will the new ProTour strategy be to just hire people to go talk to the other players about equity to get most of them match losses and out of day 2 or top 8? are players going to have to walk around with ear plugs in so they can't get got?
@2superstobie
18 күн бұрын
Exactly
@Knightfall8
Ай бұрын
calling it now, I see down the road a player being approached with an offer, the player immediately calling a judge in order to avoid the DQ described in this video, and getting DQ'ed anyway. It's just going to happen and it's going to be a crapstorm. Either way, it seems everyone knows the true solution to the issue: make prizes more equitable. Mtg event organizers seem braindead and dont see that the constant backdoor deals and prize splits are evidence that their prize pool scaling is trash.
@deejay.zedemex
Ай бұрын
Honestly I don't think you're being cynical *enough* here. Pro poker players offer and accept splits in tournaments all the time, even though their payouts are generally a lot more even (and even though the exact details of the prize structure influence correct strategy). Of course, they get to acknowledge openly that they're gambling, that's the point. But it's also just as clearly a game of skill as MTG is. And with this kind of money on the line, you aren't thinking creatively enough, either. For example, what if a player's friend goes and approaches *another* player with an offer, specifically hoping to get that player a DQ or at least a match loss (which amounts to practically the same in this situation)? What if some rando spectator starts approaching *all* the players just to try to make a point?
@Knightfall8
Ай бұрын
@@deejay.zedemex I'm aware of those things, I just didn't want to write an essays worth of examples to make a point
@tatemonoman
Ай бұрын
So you're expected to get a judge every time a talk of equity split is on the table, even if you have no intention to do so just to cover your ass? That's insane. Also, there is a big difference between another player in the tournament offering a split vs someone outside the tournament having a stake in you. In poker, players often negotiate prize splits with tournament organizers, but they don't have those talks when someone outside the tourney buys a piece of their equity, nor are they forced to. Someone outside the tourney doesn't have as much impact on the integrity of the game, unless they're threatening to break your legs unless you throw the game. So in this case, I can see why Julian would be confused at the friend's offer for equity. Like how would that even work at this point in the tourney? It really seems like this player was just made an example of. Can you imagine of someone in the WSOP was DQ'd for this? It'd be a complete circus.
@ravenjoker254
Ай бұрын
while I understand why these rules are in place and enforced in such a way, this still feels like an overly big punishment for "someone asked me to split equity". I'm sure the judges went to great lengths to check everything and make the decision, as well as explaining to the player why it's an issue, but this is not a proper teaching moment. the player did not know they should've involved a judge ASAP to not get into trouble, but from the accounts, a judge did get involved pretty quickly. or would Julian get a game loss even if he had approached a judge himself out of caution? simply put, it does not actually feel fair
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
The Judge Report states that the Judge team annouced when top 8 was starting that prize splits are not allowed for this tournament and should not be discussed. They literally gave everyone that warning. What are they meant to do when they see someone discussing that and admit that they were discussing that?
@TimothyRE99
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard Unless the summary at the beginning was wrong, what was the /player/ meant to do? He got approached by the friend, and then the judge. Where was the time to even flag a judge as a precaution? What difference would there be in flagging a judge down and explaining vs. immediately being approached by a judge and explaining it? If it was a longer discussion, going on for minutes, and the judge just caught the tail end and the player tried to deflect? Sure, match loss, maybe even DQ. But it seems to me from this description that, even acknowledging the anti-gambling purposes, they could implement something like the friend being removed from the venue or whatever. If it's handled like the story makes it out to be, what's to stop planning with your friends for them to approach your next opponent and noticeably offer equity right next to a judge? What other people say to you shouldn't be a factor if you didn't say anything back to them.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
@@TimothyRE99 It's hard to tell what actually happened at the event without actually being there and seeing everything. The only info I have to go off is the statements from Julian and the Head Judge (and the TO, but it's basically the same as the Judges report). One thing that I could have clarified is that in the Judge Report it states that they announced that there would be no prize splitting allowed at the start of the top 8. One round before Julian got a ML. Again, hard to tell exactly what Julian should have done in this situation as I don't know exactly how this all went down, but as soon as the discussion started "Hey Julian, I want to buy some equity" the response should have been "lets get a judge involved first". It's probably fair to say that an active conversation must have been happening for all of this to have taken place, rather than someone just walking up to someone and saying "selling equity?" and then the judge immediately handing out a ML.
@TimothyRE99
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard Yeah, I definitely do think that's a good response if given the chance, and thinking more on it you're right that it seems unlikely that it was a judge immediately jumping in after even the question was asked. At least I hope that's not the case! Going back to the starting point of the video, where you mention criticism popping up that's not accurate or misrepresents the situation, I do think that there's a habit of that coming across in discussions for non-game-related MLs/DQs where the situation gets blown to the most absurd possible state it could be.
@TheGahta
Ай бұрын
@raven You claim to know what he knew while ignoring what was demonstrably true and he had to know Regardless how you feel about it,he fucked up and by organising a witch-hunt he lost all reason to be treated like it was just a little mistake He is a cheater who got caught
@sovietgreen9328
Ай бұрын
My friend came up to me to talk about if I'd ever cheat on my wife. Judge heard, and im now getting divorced. 😂
@zotha
Ай бұрын
Ok, so if anyone you don't like is doing well in a tournament you can just start offering them an equity split and get them DQ'd? This decision is insane and opens up Pandora's Box.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
No? Because you just call the Judge over straight away.
@zotha
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard and if the judge happens to already be listening, like in this case and just DQs you on the spot?
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Assuming your first response to that person isn't something that is going to be entertaining the idea, and you call a judge, there isn't going to be an issue. This has been the rules for years, why is it suddenly an issue now? **Edit** Also, no player has been DQ'ed on the spot for this. The player mentioned in this video wasn't even DQ'ed 😂
@jacksonkohls820
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard While valid, the difference between a DQ and a match loss in a single elim event is almost completely semantics- anything below first, as said in the video, didnt matter
@deejay.zedemex
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard *and* *say* *what?*
@user-id7vs5js2e
Ай бұрын
I like your videos! Not this one, sorry. You explain a lot, but not a) the main point (why he got a match loss) b) the secret handshake (headline of the video) a) Because he was lying to the judge ("I have no idea what buying equity means" despite beeing an experienced player) or that the judge assumed he was taking part in discussion about price split (Why did they assume this? Why did they rule that way based on assumptions etc.?) b) Understandable that you want to encurage player to call a judge instead of following advice from an (probably to be outdated) video. But if you put it in the title, I am interested in seeing the handshake and in details about what nuances are allowed, which not and why. Feel free to put 1000 disclaimers to never ever do this and call a judge, but this way it feels lile click bait. Anyway thx for the effort you put in your videos.
@santiagoacosta6614
Ай бұрын
I think in this case the DQ has nothing to do with a prize split, since the friend was from outside the tournament. Rather it involves wagering. If the judge assumes that he considered the idea (it's not necessary to accept the wager offer, just considering it is grounds for a DQ/match loss).
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Thanks for taking the time to comment and letting me know your feedback. I'm not sure if it was because the video is too long, but I do answer both of those questions. "a) the main point (why he got a match loss)" - 12:46 - "Both Julian and the Judge report both indicate that some discussion of Wagering had taken place, without discussing it with a Judge first. Looking at the Infraction Procedures Guide, a Match Loss was the appropriate penalty here." There was no assumptions here by the Judges. Based on the report, they interviewed Julian and his friend, as well as having Julian admit what they were discussing. b) the secret handshake (headline of the video) - 6:52 - There is no literal, physical "secret handshake", it's a metaphor. The big discourse here is "how do you actually prize split without getting a DQ?", the answer being, "just call a judge.". It literally all comes down to the Tournament and the prizes. The issues with the GenCon tournament is how do you prize split a single card? You can't. Which is why in this tournament the Judges warned everyone closer to the Top 8 that no prize splitting would be taking place. As far as what is allowed, it comes down to the Tournament, the prizes and the players. Again, instead of covering each of the 1000s of possibilities, your best bet every time if you want to prize split is to call a Judge.
@deejay.zedemex
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard "Both Julian and the Judge report both indicate that some discussion of Wagering had taken place" - so, in the opening, you misled everyone about the critical details of the actual events? And then you based an entire video that's supposedly about how to split prizes, around an incident that wasn't about splitting prizes? Because even supposing that Julian understood completely what the friend was offering and was interested in it, the term "prize splitting" does not in any way describe it.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
@deejay.zedemex would you say that giving a percentage of something to someone is splitting it up?
@deejay.zedemex
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard Ha ha. Everyone understands "prize split" to be something that happens between two players in the event, because they're the only ones to whom it's a "prize". If I win something at an event, sell it, and spend part of that money on something else, that, too, would be "splitting it up". Pointless argument.
@ninjaman0003
Ай бұрын
i'm failing to understand something. maybe i'm missing some context. - the pro player gets into the top 4 - a friend that is not in the tournament asks about potentially buying equity in the pro players prize - the judge hears the discussion and gets details - the judge (assumedly) speaks with other judges about the situation and a call is made to give the pro player a match loss for prize splitting why was the pro player given a match loss? the only thing i can think of is that they assumed the friend was working as a middle man to accommodate a deal between two players in the tournament. edit: ok, the answer to this question was much later in the video. because the friend could be seen as wagering on the pro player, it could possibly be illegal gambling depending on the countries laws. so a match loss was given to protect the integrity of the tournament and not because the pro player necessarily did anything wrong. harsh but ya. the company needs to look after themselves first legally to even host these kinds of tournaments.
@GetCommanded
Ай бұрын
Love this kind of detail in a video! Great stuff! This is very interesting to me, gets even more interesting and confusing at a cEDH event... 4 players in a game where politics is integrated into the game's gameplay... oo boy! - James
@bubusbus1
Ай бұрын
Oh dis gone be good.
@jjcc8379
Ай бұрын
We're doing FinTech in MTG competitions now? JFK man.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
This one has gone right over my head. What are you suggesting? 😅 If it's something to do with the prizes, then yes, it's wild that 1st place is worth that much compared to 2nd.
@lugh.i
Ай бұрын
This is absolute banger of a crossover, I just love it Please do a colab with This is a Commander Channel (another rules channel, not just commandet, despite the name).
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment 😄 Definitely open to more collabs in the future 👀
@Freddisred
Ай бұрын
So for legal reasons one must imagine WotC is constantly trying to distance themselves from gambling; it's a no brainer they would squash these things the instant they appear. Hey rember when they called the Pinkertons on some guy? Good times.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Right, but unlike the Pinkerton incident, allowing "gambling" to occur at an event where children could enter could very well shut down MTG competitive play as a whole. And yes, I agree the whole Pinkertons situation is sh*tshow.
@Pseudotsuga.menziesii
27 күн бұрын
Just wotc trying to dodge the gambling label they deserve again. Gotcha.
@turkeythesquirrel
Ай бұрын
Where is the cat
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
I have a YT short that contains both Binx and Niko that I posted recently 😂
@2superstobie
18 күн бұрын
I think they dont mean to but by design more often than not judges suck the fun out of the game
@attackoncardboard
17 күн бұрын
How do they suck the fun out of the game by ensuring the integrity of the tournament hasnt been compromised?
@attackoncardboard
17 күн бұрын
Personally, that would suck the fun out for me if I found out my finals opponent only made it to the finals because their friends just scooped them in all the way to the top.
@casucasueq4479
15 күн бұрын
@@attackoncardboardBy requiring they get involved in the drama and get to rule on players choices. "Hey judge, can we make a side deal?" OK! "Hey judge they made a side deal." NO! It is or it isnt.
@Pseudotsuga.menziesii
27 күн бұрын
So wotc wants us to go up to pro tour players and get them disqualified by offering them a prize split they dont even want. Gotcha. Good way to make some money for the average joe going forward.
@williamdrum9899
Ай бұрын
WotC: "Gotcha was a bad mechanic because it encourages players to keep their mouths shut" Also WotC:
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Yes, threatening the integrity of a tournament after you've been told you can't spilt a $50k card is a problem.
@williamdrum9899
Ай бұрын
@@attackoncardboard After you just gave a tutorial on how to get away with it in the comments
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Asking a judge is the correct way to do it
@byeguyssry
Ай бұрын
Yes, and Gotcha was a silver border mechanic, not a rule at a $50k event
@cronosdimitri4584
Ай бұрын
this whole debacle makes sanctioned paper mtg seem like an stressful thing to take part in. i'll stick to the kitchen
@jacobwilbers9852
Ай бұрын
Playing mtg for money is gambling skill just plays a much larger factor.
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
Right, so it's a game of skill with variance?
@Cherokie89
Ай бұрын
Magic has been about gambling since its inception.
@Cherokie89
Ай бұрын
Ante
@Plexippuspetersi92
27 күн бұрын
The problem is that you are taking the words of the judges at face value without even a cursory attempt at verification. Which, fair enough, you are no journalist.
@attackoncardboard
27 күн бұрын
So I have the player at the centre of this drama admitting he was talking about wagering and then both the Judges and TO saying they gave him penalties based on Wagering. What more do I need to talk about this incident?
@ziegfeld4131
Ай бұрын
If you think Simon didn’t cheat at the pro tour then YOU don’t know the rules
@attackoncardboard
Ай бұрын
I literally made a whole video on why he didn't cheat, citing all the rules. Have you watched that? Happy for you to tell me where I'm wrong.
Пікірлер: 91