MTR 5.3 Wagering

Tournament participants, tournament officials, and spectators may not wager, ante, or bet on any portion (including the outcome) of a tournament, match, or game.

JAR: Serious Problems

Determining match outcomes by incentives, coercion, or outside-the-game methods, or gambling on any part of a tournament.

IPG 4.4 Unsporting Conduct — Bribery and Wagering

Wagering occurs when a player or spectator at a tournament places or offers to place 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 their own match.

The JAR and MTR call out any bet involving any portion of a tournament, match or game as being examples of Wagering, yet the IPG specifies that only the outcome of those elements are considered Wagering. Is the IPG intentionally narrower with its definition or should we be applying the broader scope of the other documents?

The MTR, JAR, and IPG are complementary documents, not contradictory; they work well together, unless we try to over-analyze things.

d:^D

OK, so some number of people responded to me privately (since I closed this thread, that was their only real option), expressing concern with the dismissive nature of my reply, above.

While I do apologize for any hurt feelings, I am simply going to rephrase what I said: when you read too much into minor grammatical facets of policy and then (over?)analyze what you're seeing, you're heading down yet another rabbit hole, and confusing the issue. It really isn't confusing, unless you focus strictly on “outcome” and insist that its inclusion in IPG but not MTR is somehow significant; it's not.

Or, short version: don't read too much into it; wagering is bad, m'kay?

d:^D