Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BringIt.com Allows Players to Bet On Console Game Matches

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the i'm-sure-it-wont-get-abused dept.

112

eldavojohn writes to tell us of a new service, "BringIt.com," that allows gamers to put their money where their mouth is with respect to their console gaming skill. "BringIt supports the PlayStation 2, the PS3, the Xbox 360 and the Wii. Players challenge each other on the site, but play on their consoles. BringIt holds players' entry fees until the game is finished. After the game is done, it verifies the results and credits the winner, minus the service fee. To attract players of a broad range of skill sets, BringIt has separate tournaments meant for novice players and expert gamers. Levin compared it to the handicap system in golf or the weight-class system in wrestling.

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did I win the first post bet? (-1, Offtopic)

JoshDM (741866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932277)

I want my money if I did.

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (1)

Lectoid (891115) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932369)

No, but I'd pay money to the person who can figure out how to stop people from posting "first".

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932529)

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932681)

Now if only we could stop people from modding down posts that mention the word nigger. Then again, if the easily offended think theyre accomplishing anything by doing that maybe we should just let them feel useful. It sure beats what happens when they focus their energies in politics, then we get a bunch of dumbass justifications for censorship.

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932709)

They're usually modded down for being off-topic and flamebait, which they usually are. It has nothing to do with censorship.

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933799)

Conditionals like "when" are hard, aren't they Sparky? I said WHEN THEY FOCUS THEIR ENERGIES IN POLITICS WE GET JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CENSORSHIP. When you say "politics" Slashdot moderation is not the first thing that comes to mind. I tell you what we do get when the easily offended have political influence, we get shit like that censorship firewall in Australia or silly controversies like the ESRB and the Elder Scrolls game Oblivion. That's why I clearly said it's better to let them vent their self righteousness here. Get it now? I can use more monosyllabic words if that helps you.

Fact is people get real pissy over certain combinations of letters, like nigger. They don't mod them down thinking "hey this is unrelated to bringit.com" they do it because they get offended. This isn't hard.

cotton niggers, sand niggers, rice niggers (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28938699)

kill all niggers

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932703)

Because a simple word will SOOOOOOOOO degrade the quality of your life, right? Because a 5-letter word will stop you from getting up in the morning and working for your paycheck. It'll completely ruin your cup of coffee and turn you into a different person.

All because someone else finds putting a certain post on a internet forum is funny.

Jerk.

Re:Did I win the first post bet? (1)

Supergibbs (786716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28935301)

Lost? I believe you are looking for http://img.4chan.org/b/ [4chan.org]

rigged (2, Interesting)

blackomegax (807080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932301)

whats to stop you from betting against your own gamer ID and intentionally losing?

Re:rigged (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932349)

The service fee.

Re:rigged (2, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932359)

Do you get to bet on some arbitrary player winning or losing, or just on yourself-winning?

Re:rigged (4, Informative)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932565)

yourself. Otherwise it would be plain gambling.

Re:rigged (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933059)

yourself. Otherwise it would be plain gambling.

I'm pretty sure it's still gambling. That, or Pete Rose needs to be reinstated to the Hall of Fame!

Maybe he was just ahead of his time...

Re:rigged (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933271)

Pete Rose needs to be reinstated to professional baseball and then inducted into the Hall of Fame!

Fixed that for you.

Re:rigged (1)

murdocj (543661) | more than 5 years ago | (#28935685)

Pete Rose needs to understand that ever since gamblers fixed the World Series gamblers have been persona non grata in baseball.

Fixed that for you

Re:rigged (3, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933801)

It's not gambling if it's a game of skill. You can charge an entry fee for a game of skill and pay a prize in pretty much every state of the US.

Re:rigged (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933881)

Not at all! If I can bet on the other guy winning, it's a sure thing!

Re:rigged (1)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932411)

Well, you would be paying yourself to beat yourself. You would also be paying the bringit service fee, of course. I guess if that sounds like fun, go for it.
Reminds me of Super Troopers:

Farva: What's this?
Rabbit: A chamois cloth.
Farva: Ha. Lucky guess. I just lost a buck. To myself.

Re:rigged (2, Interesting)

Megane (129182) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932887)

Nothing, really. But it sounds like this is only bets between the competitors, not side bets. So you would come out even, minus the service fee.

On the other hand, if you played it right, you could shill one of your sockpuppets into appearing worse than it really was. Go up against an appropriately and properly rated opponent, and you might be able to win more matches than your rating says you should... at least until your ratings float high enough that you need to start again with new dupe accounts.

Re:rigged (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28935997)

So basically 'smurfing', like Warcraft 3 online play had a lot of. Mid-level players would get to the upper reaches and start losing as many games as they won, and instead of manning up and trying to improve they'd make a new account and go stomp the noobs again. Great fun if you're a noob... >.> Except this time there's money riding on it, yay.

Great, just great (5, Funny)

Illender (888481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932343)

This is perfect! I can just quit my job, and bet on myself. And my mom said playing games would do nothing for me.

Re:Great, just great (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932391)

Looks like you have to find someone to support your habit (bet on the other end). Plus the net would be negative as there's the service fee.

Re:Great, just great (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932433)

This is just a simple way for geeks to get back their lunch money.

Re:Great, just great (5, Funny)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932531)

This is just a simple way for geeks to get back their lunch money.

No, this is a way for Korea to become the economic powerhouse of the world.

Not really. No. (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934359)

This is just a simple way for geeks to get back their lunch money.

It would be if the kind of person who took your lunch money were actually into willy waving about their score in a console game.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a gamer. I like games a lot.

But the chances you'd compete against the kind of person who ostracized you for being a computer nerd are slim to nil. They were against you because they weren't like you, and didn't understand that obsession with computers. It's a pipe dream that some day they'll see the light and come groveling to learn the secret Tetris-fu from you.

Even _if_ they started playing online stuff, it will be casual-gamer-friendly stuff that they can dump one hour into after they watched the news, put their kids to bed or whatnot. You'll find them in the likes of WoW or some Wii sports game, not in Halo. And they're not going to bet money to measure their penis size by some online score, against some 12 year olds who have nothing else to do for 8 hours a day.

You're simply most likely to play against other geeks, and lose your money to someone else who thinks he's vindicating himself for playing in mom's basement when other teenagers were going on dates.

Re:Great, just great (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28935729)

This is just a simple way for geeks to get back their lunch money.

Hey that's great now give me it back or you'll spend tomorrows lunch in your locker.

Cheating (4, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932365)

Maybe technology has advanced since last I played console games.. But wouldn't cheating be a huge issue? Cheaters were annoying when you just played fps games for fun, annoying but tolerable. Now if you are betting money and you suspect that your opponents cheat, then you would be pissed.

Re:Cheating (1)

Digestromath (1190577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932909)

I would say its easier to cheat in a video game, but don't forget that pro sports/racing are just as tainted by cheating. If this got bigger, individuals betting on team matches, I'm sure we would be more likely to see point shaving than flagrant hacks. Then again, if the technology existed... Im sure we would see some sort of android golfer botting up the links at least once.

Re:Cheating (2, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933193)

And business dealings, taxation, and the stock market are all even more full of cheating, so they'll never catch on.

Re:Cheating (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933083)

Just like in the real world, if you really think someone's cheating, you either bring it the attention of a referee, or you just don't play against them next time.

If a game itself is known to have many exploits, then it'd be pretty dumb to wager money on it at all, right?

Re:Cheating (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933355)

I'd challenge somebody to a game of L4D - except that, cheating is so rampant, there's no way to guarantee the results are legitimate.

Some are easy to spot, like aim hax, or fast movement. Others are harder, like somebody always knowing where the special infected are, even when they aren't making noise. It could be a skilled player, or something else.

And sometimes cheating is indistinguishable from bugs. One time a hunter pounced me on that board in Dead Air one, and the pounce didn't register. He was sitting on my head, so I looked up and shot him with my shotgun. Didn't take long for him to ragequit, after that.

Re:Cheating (2, Insightful)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933547)

Hell, I would never do L4D, since the randomness of the level between teams can easily make or break your game. Location of tanks/witches can vary enough to screw one team pretty good, random placement of the tier 2 weapons, the number of pills/med kits, placements of items (very obscure rooms to the most obvious places).

Re:Cheating (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934343)

You obviously haven't played in a loooooong time. Valve "fixed" all of that stuff in VS mode.

If you ask me, the randomness should have been offset with a Difficulty Multiplier that was less than 1 for maps that turned out to be especially easy for a set of Survivors.

Re:Cheating (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#28936779)

Depends. I play somewhat regularly on the Xbox (I know the PC has one more patch than we do). While they did fix alot of stuff, they still have randomness to a degree (ie, tank/witch placement based on health and percent through level). The best example is NM3. Sometimes, one team will get the tank in the warehouse (set fire, run backwards, no damage), while the other team will get just in the sewer (no fire, no back pedaling back up the ladder). And the health and weapons are still random.

Then you have the score switching bug that was introduced when they started having the winning team be survivors first (if you are in the lead, sometimes, it will swap team scores and you will be losing starting the next round).

Re:Cheating (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28936905)

You obviously haven't played in a loooooong time. Valve "fixed" all of that stuff in VS mode.

I see why you quoted that. ;)

Randomness puts them pretty close together, but "pretty close" can be in the middle of a hallway, vs in a room with a closed door. Or spawning a tank before a crescendo, spawning it right after, or spawning it ontop of a flame barrel. Or maybe just not giving control fast enough, and letting the AI charge forward into a molotov.

I'm still waiting for all the bugs relating to smoker pulling to be resolved.

The other day on Dead Air two, a friend of mine got pulled out a window, and didn't grab the ledge. He didn't fall to his death - he dropped down and was hanging against a column. We shot the tongue, and he fell a few feet, to his death. Very lame.

And then later a smoker pulled one of us right over a railing, and off a ledge, causing death. I believe it had something to do with climbing a ladder at the time of the pull - but Francis should've been firmly on the ground after being dragged for a second to get to the ledge.

Re:Cheating (1)

aafiske (243836) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933509)

"... you suspect that your opponents cheat ... "

In other words, they won.

Go on, try to find an online game where when you win, you aren't accused of cheating.

This site will never work without owning nearly everything about the game experience. And even then it's tricky.

Re:Cheating (1)

elloGov (1217998) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933551)

Exactly what I was thinking! Here is an idea. When it comes to sport or any other competition, an neutral third party (referee) seems to do the trick. Of course the referee's integrity has got to be evaluated. If you can fit referees into the picture and reward them accordingly, you might have something.

Re:Cheating (1)

Grieviant (1598761) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934313)

Not only that, but xbox live (XBL) rarely provides a level playing field, in part due to its reliance on host-client networking rather than dedicated servers. Anyone who plays a decent amount of console FPS games such as Halo 3 and Gears 2 over XBL will tell you that host conveys a significant advantage. It can easily be the decisive factor when the individuals or teams are closely matched in skill. This becomes an even bigger issue in a game like Halo 3 where you can't manually choose host - it is selected automatically so there's no way to equalize by alternating between teams.

I've also heard that there's been a sharp rise in cheating in Halo 3 as of late (standbying and host-booting) which has gone unchecked by Bungie. It makes one wonder if BringIt's "24/7 staff" will be able to resolve the thousands of disputes (both legitimate and illegimate) per day that will come pouring in if their service ever catches on.

I'd like to think these shenanigans would be less of a problem among the 18+ crowd as compared to something like GameBattles, which is dominated by teenagers, but maturity may be thrown out the window then money is on the line.

Wagers+HonorSystem= (4, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932447)

What could possibly go wrong? From the BringIt.com rules page: "When the game is completed, both you and your opponent must report and verify the results." If my experience with the gamers on XBox Live is any indication, maybe 1 in 5 of the losers will report it. And 4 of 5 of losers will 'dispute' the results.

Usually the way it works is like this: I am playing a ranked match against somebody named some variant of '420niggah' (classy I know) and as soon as I am about to drop a coup de grace, they just quit. YOu what would make that even more fun? Losing real money each time it happens. No thanks.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932537)

On top of that, what would they do if a network connection was dropped or something? I'd assume that if they refunded the money, people could just cut their system and say "Oh well it was a network problem"

The internet is full of sore losers, and I could see this being a big problem like you stated.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932719)

pfft, not to mention the fact that folks are trusting their money to this company. I'm sure they wouldn't lose money on bad investments and be perfect holders of this money, right? Nothing bad with money holding corporations has ever happened, especially recently...

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

innerweb (721995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933003)

That would the least of concerns. With so much cheating going on with simple games, imagine the level of cheating with games for profit. The invisible hand of the market place would definitely be pumping some lag switches.

Now, on the other hand, could there be a legal precedent in the making where someone can prove and sue someone else for online cheating? I believe this idea is doomed still (again) as there has never been a reliable way to prevent cheaters from ruining the experience.

InnerWeb

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

SoVeryTired (967875) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932543)

Well, if there was an ebay-type system which allowed you to give feedback on your opponents, you could reduce the likelihood of that happening a bit.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932627)

I could've sworn gaming networks have tried that already, haven't they?

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933211)

Then the sore losers would also rate down the people who beat them.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (4, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932617)

The only way I see this working is if they have a system like eBay does with positive/negative comments. If someone bails on matches on a regular basis, then nobody would play them. If you are a respectable citizen of the site, then people will trust that you will honor the bet.

It might be a bit harder to get started but once you're established, it probably wouldn't be a big deal.

Also, I'd like to see a ranking system be implemented. Kind of like with Go. KGS uses a pretty decent ranking system with their online software. Basing your rank off the people you've played against. Have a separate rank for each game you play. Allow "rank" games with no wager and those with a wager so that someone new can work up their rank so people would play them. Require 20-30 ranked games before they can start betting and it would probably be a very robust system. Limiting the bets based on how many total games you have would also help people get their credibility up as more people would play you if they don't have to bet $20+ on someone with no reputation on the site.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932863)

In other words, the only respectable citizens would be the really good ones who stand to win because there's no incentive for the bad ones to lose money honorably for the privilege of losing even more money honorably.

Anyone you play will be better than you, and the winners would know better than to play each other.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933249)

Or the winners will play each other because of big egos, and losers will play winners becaause of the same.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (5, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932933)

I ran a league with some friends 10 years back. We had 300 - 400 players. Everything was done on trust.

The majority of cheaters were stupid. Registering new accounts and posting 40 wins within an hour was a classic. Registering multiple accounts was another - we tracked IP numbers. Poorly edited screen grabs were easy to spot - lossy jpegs show changes easily.

In the end reputation was king. With a small number of people, everyone knew each other. We also took part in our own leagues.

The caught cheaters used to go to great lengths to get even with us for banning them. Forum exploits, DOS attacks, and general annoyances. Funny because we offered no prizes except a name on a 'winners' page.

Good luck to these people. They'll need it.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (4, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933109)

I don't know. Considering the lengths to which people went to when money wasn't involved, I would bet that this system would tempt the even more clever cheaters to get involved. When money is involved, you could justify spending more time developing methods of gaming the system. Just look at the systems brokers setup to do stock trading: clusters which could do trading on micro-second transactions. I just hope bringit.com has reasonable security experts.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933603)

Not just clever cheaters. If money is involved you can be sure there will be legions of third world players being PAID to play, bet, and cheat.

Today there are 2 kinds of cheaters (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933767)

The majority, who are essentially griefers, although most of them aren't actually smart enough to know this. The second type is the well respected 'pros' who probably do a lot of the discovery or development themselves, or know someone who does and provides unreleased cheats.

Probably the exact same situation as hacking where 99% of the kids involved can barely turn on a computer, much less run a compiler or low level debugger.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (2, Insightful)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934979)

The reason eBay's system works is that both parties stand to benefit from the transaction. A buyer wants the product and a seller wants to get rid of it to a paying customer. If the transaction goes smoothly on both ends, both parties get a positive rating. Gaming is different. Everyone wants to win, but even moreso than that everyone HATES losing. If you're really good at any online game, you're automatically labeled a cheater even if you've spent hundreds of hours mastering the craft and the other person is still trying to figure out the controls. Winners can judge their opponents pretty well, but losers will think the winner is the biggest asshole on the internet. eBay's system definitely wouldn't work in this environment. In order for it to actually work, you'd need a referee, but that would require way too many resources to monitor every game.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932679)

I could see this potentially working with a game like Call of Duty where they give you a weblink at the end of each match that contains the match results (which could potentially allow you to supply it to bringit.com to process for verification of winning).

but honor system? lol.. color me apathetic to this non-service.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932733)

I'm guessing Live records the results of matches somewhere, so they can be verified by a third party. They could always charge a higher service fee for false disputes.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

Fyzzle (1603701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932889)

Since you guys crashed the site that TFA is from: -_-

Usually the way it works is like this: I am playing a ranked match against somebody named some variant of '420niggah' (classy I know) and as soon as I am about to drop a coup de grace, they just quit. YOu what would make that even more fun? Losing real money each time it happens. No thanks.

I would imagine that a disconnect would mean loss.

What could possibly go wrong? From the BringIt.com rules page: "When the game is completed, both you and your opponent must report and verify the results." If my experience with the gamers on XBox Live is any indication, maybe 1 in 5 of the losers will report it. And 4 of 5 of losers will 'dispute' the results.

I would hope that contested games get verified by a neutral third party, and that frequent false verifications would flag an account for banning.

I know I would put myself in the "novice" category to give myself a better selection of gamers to play increasing my payout. I'm not saying I'm primed to compete against fatal1ty or anything, but I do like easy money.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933055)

That is why self-reporting doesn't work, and sites like worldgaming.com that have automated verification are a bit more reasonable -- they can actually who won, quit or disconnected. I guess they have some deals with the game developers.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (3, Informative)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933181)

I am playing a ranked match against somebody named some variant of '420niggah' (classy I know) and as soon as I am about to drop a coup de grace, they just quit. YOu what would make that even more fun? Losing real money each time it happens. No thanks.

Starcraft (and that's more than a decade old) recorded "Disconnects." Having a record like "15-12-37" would lead people to not play against you, either cause you're a sore loser or because you have a really terrible connection. I haven't used any of the current gen systems' online multiplayer services, but I think they'd be able to implement counting disconnects for each user easily.

Also, I didn't check out Bringit's rules but it makes sense that they'd put into terms that disconnecting counts as a loss.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28937823)

That would work if the Xbox 360 allowed you to choose who you were playing against.

Re:Wagers+HonorSystem= (1)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934375)

I am playing a ranked match against somebody named some variant of '420niggah' (classy I know) and as soon as I am about to drop a coup de grace, they just quit. YOu what would make that even more fun? Losing real money each time it happens. No thanks.

so don't start your match against them at 4:19.

Stay classy, Phoenix New Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932457)

FTA:

Who knows? Maybe Levin and BringIt will someday steer as much money toward Arizona politicians as the racing industry does, and then Arizona video nuts can clean out each other's bank accounts -- with the state taking its cut, natch.

Not everyone can be the fratboy's newspaper of choice!

Re:Stay classy, Phoenix New Times (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932815)

FTA:

Who knows? Maybe Levin and BringIt will someday steer as much money toward Arizona politicians as the racing industry does, and then Arizona video nuts can clean out each other's bank accounts -- with the state taking its cut, natch.

Not everyone can be the fratboy's newspaper of choice!

But the article does have a very valid point. Just ask McCain's in-laws.

Gambling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932461)

If we already have states blocking online poker websites and taking money won thru online poker, how can they think this will pass?

Re:Gambling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932581)

FTA: BringIt says that the service it provides is not a form of gambling because its outcomes are based on skill, not chance.

Re:Gambling (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932685)

Then BringIt is setting themselves up for failure. Sporting events are games of skill too (mostly *cough* White Sox) but there is only one place in the US where you can bet on them.

Four places (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933029)

Delaware, Oregon and Montana now allow sports betting.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4162225 [go.com]

Re:Four places (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933337)

Mod parent up. Right you are. I thought it was still limited to Las Vegas.

Rankings (4, Insightful)

nitsew (991812) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932487)

How do they rank players? Couldn't an expert player just pose as a novice, and win easily?

Exploitable system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932763)

Apparently they update your rank based on your wins.

But consider this cycle of exploitation:

Step 1: You're highly ranked. Pretending to be someone else, you bet on the underdog, against yourself. You take a fall.
Result: You get money, and lose rank.

Step 2: Then, you use you artificially-lowered rank to fight easier opponents with better odds given by automated bookie.
Result: You get more money, you gain rank.

Step 3: PROFIT!! (And repeat.)

Re:Rankings (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933011)

How do they rank players? Couldn't an expert player just pose as a novice, and win easily?

Yeah I was chuckling thinking about that, and hearing their CEO comparing it to wrestling weight classes.

On the one hand, that makes no sense, because weight classes have nothing to do with separating people based on skill, but rather simple physical attributes and the unfair advantage that stems from them. Even the most skilled 110 pounder on earth is going to get smushed into the mat by a competent 275 pounder.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense, because wrestlers are all about gaming the weight class system as much as possible. That's why they starve themselves, and run five miles wearing a dozen sweatshirts and/or plastic bags the day before weigh-in to lose water weight, all so that when they walk onto the mat in the "150lb" weight class they're sporting the body of a 170 pounder. In practice this just means everyone is really a couple weight classes heavier than what they wrestle at. But that's because you can't easily change your weight, and your weight class is defined by what you weigh at weigh-in. You can't wrestle at 130 a couple weeks then gain some weight but stay at 130. If you could? Yeah you'd see people cutting so much weight they couldn't stand up right just so that later at a more important match they'd have an advantage.

Anyway, I'm assuming/hoping it's a sort of ladder system and that the size of wagers is capped at each level. It's one thing to have someone sandbagging and pool shark you out of $10, yet another when Mr. Franklin gets involved.

Re:Rankings (1)

IdahoEv (195056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28936131)

Anyway, I'm assuming/hoping it's a sort of ladder system and that the size of wagers is capped at each level.

Their FAQ page [bringit.com] makes it clear that it's a ladder system. Win enough times, and you automatically go up a rank.

Doesn't say anything about wager sizes, however (that I could see in an admittedly shallow read-through).

Re:Rankings (2, Informative)

IdahoEv (195056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28936147)

Found it. Wager size caps are based only on how many games you have completed, historically. They start at $50/game, and go up in steps to $500/game once you have completed 30+ ranked games.

http://www.bringit.com/rules/

Re:Rankings (1)

Another David (1603417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933595)

i agree. as a terrible, awful halo player, i can attest to how much it sucks to come across a restarter. everyone in a ranked match is a [very low number], except there's one guy who's actually a 35 but restarted his account so he could wail on some noobs. i imagine this would happen a lot more often if there was money on the line.

Re:Rankings (1)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934211)

The practice is called Sandbagging. Lose games on purpose to keep your ranking low, and occasionally when you get to play a much weaker player, go full throttle and humiliate the poor guy who thinks he's playing someone of equal skill. There are sandbaggers pretty much on any free gaming service on the net. Apparently sandbaggers enjoy their trade. In a gambling situation, the sandbagger would lose games on purpose when the bet is small, and play for real when the bet is large. Possibly making some money at it. Definitely laughing the entire time.

look up pool shark I can see people doing that hea (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934583)

look up pool shark I can see people doing that hear with the games aka let you win and when they up the bet kick there ass.

Call The F.B.I. : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28932559)

about this gambling operation.

Yours In Puritanism,
Kilgore Trout

to help out those who don't speak sports lingo .. (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932653)

BringIt has separate tournaments meant for novice players and expert gamers. Levin compared it to the handicap system in golf or the weight-class system in wrestling

or the operating system in geek world

Re:to help out those who don't speak sports lingo (1)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932911)

BringIt has separate tournaments meant for novice players and expert gamers. Levin compared it to the handicap system in golf or the weight-class system in wrestling or the operating system in geek world

I don't think you need to 'speak sports lingo' to know the difference between 'novice' and 'expert'...

Re:to help out those who don't speak sports lingo (1)

bridgeco (1385677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934041)

or... clock multiplier!

ok (1)

loafula (1080631) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932657)

Now, I didn't RTFA, but how are they supposed to verify these results? I can see maybe somehow on the PS3 or 360 doing it online, but on the PS2 and Wii? Are they relying on screenshots or something? The word of the players? I am willing to bet (pun intended) that this flops before it ever gets off the ground.

This seems like a good way to lose money (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932667)

Even if you win. I will admit I did not read TFA, but I'm pretty sure the US government would put the kibosh on this pretty quick. I would even venture to say there are criminal statutes that could come into play.

Re:This seems like a good way to lose money (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932883)

Why? Gambling of this kind is a state issue, not federal.

Re:This seems like a good way to lose money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933111)

Interstate commerce clause makes it a federal issue, if it is one.

Aren't gambling sites illegal? (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932689)

What is the difference between this and the various poker sites that have been outlawed in the US ?

Re:Aren't gambling sites illegal? (1)

Xuranova (160813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932799)

The difference is (and I've seen this argument made before because I've seen another site aimed more at pc gaming do this) is with poker and other casino games, there is some 'chance' involved.

Removing the cheating factor from a console game, the amount of 'chance' is about zero. i.e with most FPS, players remember where weapons spawn and when, so map control isn't a luck game. In RTS, he who knows the correct build order will win most of the time, etc.

This is under the assumption that its only the players betting. I didn't read the article so I don't know if it allows spectators to bet on the results. IF it allows that, that opens a new can of worms, because spectators have no control over the event and are just hoping

Re:Aren't gambling sites illegal? (4, Informative)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932859)

Just to save you the time, the headline of TFA [gamepolitics.com] ends with the words "Legal in 39 States". And that article links to this [google.com] which says you can't play video games for cash in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Tennessee and Vermont.

Re:Aren't gambling sites illegal? (1)

thygate (1590197) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933009)

From TFA: "As reported by the Associated Press, the site, which is apparently legal in 39 states, will end its beta phase any day now." Arizona for example won't allow it. Also : "Gamers can bet up up to $100,000, says another media report." Makes me wonder what their fee is, but their webserver seems to be down already.

I can't wait (1)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 5 years ago | (#28932845)

for Junior to get Dad's debit card number and put the family jewels on the line.

Re:I can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933199)

... Ouch.

Great idea (1)

amohat (88362) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933141)

But I hope it's well implemented.

So-called network issues? Jokes on you, that's a loss.

Oops, my controller died? Here's another L for you, loser.

Mom unplugged the tv in the middle of a match? Take your loss like a man!

See where I'm going with this? Any kind of disconnect equals a loss, pretty much no exceptions.

This is in addition to a good feedback system to protect against griefers.

In fact, there needs to be a decent cash-based system like this to clear up a lot of the noise found in online gaming. Folks accused of cheating can redeem themselves, as can a lot of other gamer types benefit from a clear and undisputed settlement of skillz. Some fake ass bitches can get served and STFU. And some brilliant, amazing players can make a little money to supplement their obsession...nothing wrong with that!

Skillground (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933201)

Has anyone heard of skillground?

Sounds exactly like that website, except minus the "PC games" part.

NO ONE EVER PLAYS THE PEOPLE AT TOP RANKS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE. Even if you are good and can beat everyone, no one will play you, so you LOSE!

Yet another story related to the phenomenon of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28933483)

... Jackassery on the Internet.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg (Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory)

I am more and more dismayed how more humans want to be part of the problem rather than the solution... Does no one have any honor anymore?

Its is a sad commentary on our global society that idea this is immediately dismissed as, Nope, Won't work - "Cheaters Are Gonna Ruin It."

Too bad it only works with certain games (1)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933493)

If there was some way to make it work with Crash Team Racing I would use this to become financially independent, because I'm the best Crash Team Racing player in the world. I once had a standing bet with an entire dorm room that nobody could beat me. I couldn't lose, even against sober people when I was too drunk to walk.

Re:Too bad it only works with certain games (1)

Quackers_McDuck (1367183) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934209)

Perhaps, but once you get online it changes entirely. I could beat everyone in my dorm at Starcraft even in 2v1s and sometimes 3v1s, but online I'm just an average player.

Abuse? (0, Redundant)

sjfoland (1565277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28933537)

It seems like this could be easily abused. What is to stop an expert player from throwing a bunch of low-stakes matches to lower their ranking to novice, then raking in the winnings in a few higher stakes matches? More importantly, whatever happened to just playing games for the fun of it?

Re:Abuse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28934671)

The recession.

no pc games? and how do you keep house Shills (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28934253)

no pc games? and how do you keep house Shills for taking your cash and just giving it to the house?

10% fee (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28935487)

The fee is 10% with a minimum of 0.50 on each individual players wager.
With a rake of 10% you'd have to win about 70% of all games to make a profit.

Re:10% fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28937141)

A 10% rake is common enough in poker, it's a reasonable commission they're asking especially with the risk of being first on the block. I doubt it'll discourage anyone though, gamblers are perfectly willing to let the house take a cut, eg. every other form of gambling out there.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?