Hello. First of all, i would like to apologize for my English. I haven't practiced it much lately.

The story of my question begins with the last WMCQ, in which I act as a floor judge. We had a streaming of the event in charge of a website dedicated to MTG. Just before the beginning of the Top 8, this site posted a contest in the facebook page of the web-site, that involve guessing who would be the winner of the Top8. The prize for the winner of the contest was a Karakas (judge promo). Just yesterday I was visiting this facebook page and realize of this, and made me wonder of the consequences that such contest could have for the integrity of the game.

I don't think the rules consider this a wage: “Wagering occurs when a player or spectator at a tournament places a bet on the outcome of a tournament, match or any portion of a tournament or match. The wager does not need to be monetary, nor is it relevant if a player is not betting on his or her own match.” (IPG 4.4).

Nevertheless, the reason we have this rule is to protect the integrity of the game and the tournament; because they could encourage some players to intentionally loose. I obviously don't think that any of the members of the top 8 would change a trip to the WMC for a Karakas; as I don't think betting just a cent would defy the integrity of a tournament. Still, I do think this practice could become dangerous in other contexts (smaller tournaments, bigger prizes for guessing), as they present the same consequences as wagering (encourage the possibility of playing to loose, for an external win). I would like to discourage this kind of contests.


If I had access to this information before, should I have acted preventing it? Should I speak with the people of the site involved in this? Am I just making a storm in a glass of water here?

Thanks for the responses.

Joaquín Ossandón
Lvl 1 Judge, Viña del Mar, Chile

I was doing some research on something similar to this and came across three criteria required for “gaming”:

1. Participants must place a stake (buy an entry, ticket, etc)
   
2. Winning involves an element of chance
   
3. The winner receives a prize of some monetary value
   

While the last two are true, the first doesn't seem to fit, so I would say this doesn't constitute betting or wagering. However, if the players in the match were allowed to participate this could constitute bribery.

Edited Adam Zakreski (June 17, 2013 10:21:52 AM)

For questions like this, I usually advise “talk to your WPN rep”. Two reasons for that:
1) the WPN rep can provide the official answer, from Wizards;
2) every time a WPN rep hears a question like that, it means someone at Wizards gets to think about whether or not that's a good idea. Change often comes from frequently asked questions.

I will provide one bit of advice, for games like this: make sure none of the judges or staff are involved in any manner.

Adam, I agree on the fact that this is not wagering. But the reason we have that rule is because it defies the integrity of the game. And I think that betting or wagering doesn't defies the integrity of the game because of the risk involved from the betters (the main difference between the situation exposed and the criteria you posted), but because of the chance that this contests (bets or games) could alter the appropriate motivations we need from our players to tournament maintain the integrity of the game (for example conceding or droping to loose the prize but win the bet or contest). That's my main concern.

Scott, I will send a question to the WPN regarding this. In the case exposed, the staff of the event wasn't involved.

Thank you both for responding.

This seems awfully similar to the Drew Levin vs. Craig Wescoe incident from a number of years ago. For those not familiar, my understanding of the incident is as follows:

It's the final round of a GP, where Drew Levin is playing against Craig Wescoe (for those not in the know, both are rather prolific players on the circuit; Craig Wescoe was the very same Craig Wescoe who won PT Dragon's Maze). Both players are Win-and-In. Levin wins the game and is thus in the Top 8. Following the game, Levin says something to Wescoe along the lines of “OMG I can't believe I made it! I bet my friend $100 at 50-to-1 odds that I'd make it!” Wescoe calls a judge on Levin; the judge declares that this is considered Wagering, and Levin is DQ'd from the event.

Based on Adam's suggestion above, was this actually Wagering?

Participants must place a stake (buy an entry, ticket, etc): There is no evidence, AFAIK, that Levin actually placed a stake. No money changed hands before the event, as far as I know. Levin simply said “I bet my friend that…” or something along those lines, which in my experience means that there would be money changing hands after the event but not before (that's how I've always heard those words used, your opinion may differ).

Winning involves an element of chance: Certainly true. It's Magic, after all.

The winner receives a prize of some monetary value: Certainly true. In this case, that “monetary value” is actually “money”.

How does the situation of Levin v. Wescoe differ from this situation? Why is the answer on this thread not a straight DQ, in line with Levin v. Wescoe?

EDIT: I should note that I'm not against the ruling of Levin v. Wescoe, I think that was the correct ruling, as the spirit of Wagering was certainly there; what I'm asking is more along the lines of why this situation is not black-and-white Wagering.

Edited Lyle Waldman (June 18, 2013 06:43:01 AM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

How does the situation of Levin v. Wescoe differ from this situation?

Because nobody involved in this situation is in the room. That's rather relevant.

In this case, if the top 8 players or any local spectators are shown to be involved in the contest, there's an issue. If not, it's outside our jurisdiction.

I would like a clarification here, please.

The Streaming team count as spectators, and they proposed the contest threw their Facebook Page. I'm not sure if players or spectators with internet access participated in it. Let's supposed they did, and I had discovered this contest somehow during the tournament (somebody shows me the facebook page with a smartphone, for example). Should I issue a DQ to them? Should I issue a DQ to the streaming team?

My question was mainly about this type of contests, not necessarily the media used for them. I don't think the media of the contest is that relevant. I mean, if there's is a bet between players in the room threw internet, I think I should issue the DQ.

The streaming team should not be getting involved in wagering, no.

Note, however, that they are not wagering as described. Wagering requires some kind of material risk to both parties. Did the participants have to pay if they were incorrect, or pay to enter the contest? This looks more akin to a radio trivia contest or a promotional giveaway.

I don't think there's anything to worry about here. It's possible that your local laws may make this a bad idea, but I wouldn't stress about it too much otherwise.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

The streaming team should not be getting involved in wagering, no.

Note, however, that they are not wagering as described. Wagering requires some kind of material risk to both parties. Did the participants have to pay if they were incorrect, or pay to enter the contest? This looks more akin to a radio trivia contest or a promotional giveaway.

I don't think there's anything to worry about here. It's possible that your local laws may make this a bad idea, but I wouldn't stress about it too much otherwise.

Thanks for the reply Toby! May I ask a followup question? I'm not entirely sure of the philosophy behind why Wagering requires that each party loses something depending on the outcome. I mean, I guess the obvious thing would be “Say Player A bets against himself, then he'll scoop the match to make it so that he doesn't have to pay”, but realistically is that a thing we expect to happen? I guess the situation could be “Player A bets that Pro Player Y will be in Top 8, and in the win-and-in Player A is paired against Pro Player Y and scoops to win his bet”, but that seems very corner case to me.

Lyle, all - Magic: the Gathering is a game of skill (which does include elements of luck, obviously).

Gambling is not an element in Magic; hasn't been since the concept of ante was removed.

While it's clear to most of us that Magic is about play and deck-building skills, it's not always as obvious to various local jurisdictions, some of whom hold a very strong anti-gambling stance. To ensure that we can all continue to enjoy playing Magic, let's all make sure that there's no association created between gambling and the game we love.

As for your specific question, I'd suggest Googling for definitions of Wagering. It seems they tend to focus on that “at-risk” element Toby mentioned…