Pro Tour Champion Osyp Lebedowicz on Conceding

[Goldfish519]

I wonder how many times this guy conceded to saito.

[Ectharias]

The question at 6:30 is why all this stuff is such bullshit. You guys are doing favors for each other beyond playing the game and it hurts other players who might have made it otherwise. It's collusion among pros

[LordSundayThe2nd]

idk, in these kinds of situations it always seems whoever would have gotten into the T8 or w/e instead of him if you had forced the draw could potentially have been more worthy. You've got to remember that by conceding to him you're forcing someone else, potentially someone more worthy, out of T8 (or T whatever)

[enginekid88]

i don't like conceding to let an opponent win a game he was not legitimately going to win. it changes the outcomes for other players who are on the cusp of making the next day or final eight. to be fair though, since it seems to be perfectly legal, i guess it doesn't matter. but to me it seems like colluding to change the natural outcomes because you discuss it. if you want to concede, just concede. to try and negotiate who should concede is the unfair part to the rest of the players.

[goatrevolt]

Finally, I understand his viewpoint about concessions, but he (and you can tell by him saying the opus was on me to concede in this interview) felt like he was entitled to a concession from me when we drew. I don't know why he believed he was entitled to a concession, but I did not feel that way, and was actually perfectly happy with a draw and playing for top 32. And for the record, I did win out and finish 17th, so I do appreciate his concession and it was not done for naught.

[goatrevolt]

Also, I did not have lethal. He had a Linvala to block my colonnade, which was the only offense I had at the time. I played walls and preordains to dig into my library to find a path to exile so i could win that turn. Instead I found Jace, but I didn't have enough mana at that point to activate Colonnade and play Jace to bounce his Linvala, so I passed the turn to leave mana open to prevent a possible, albeit unlikely, alpha strike with his guys to kill me, having a guaranteed win next turn.

[goatrevolt]

I was his opponent. I have nothing against Osyp, but his story isn't very factually correct. I didn't slow play. I lost game 1 and needed to win game 2, which finished with 20 seconds left. My deck is slower as an archetype, but Osyp actually played slower than I did. If he's honest, he can attest that he spent a good 30 seconds to a minute at the end of each turn game 1 debating which land to get with Knight of the Reliquary. That ate up a lot of time.

[dzjustin]

Osyp's opponent is a class act and Osyp's re-telling of the story is not accurate. The guy offered Bill to hear both sides. We'll see if this is about journalism or "pro" player face time.

[thehuntergrachus]

Also, "Osyp also probably had a better chance of winning the whole tournament than your friend." is not a convincing argument. I would never concede to a "name" player just because they have a "better" chance of winning. Obviously, Osyp did a good deed by conceding when he didn't have to, and that's cool - I've done the same thing. My problem is that he basically states as fact that he should not have been the one conceding, and in doing so undermines his opponent's integrity.

[nathones]

@thehuntergrachus well yeah except his opponent slow played, whether intentional or unintentional was kinda lame

[thehuntergrachus]

Is just playing UW control the definition of slow playing? Unless Osyp put his hand on the table and said, "You can kill me now, I have no answers, let's move to game three" then I don't buy that argument. If it was obvious he was going to lose, Osyp should have conceded earlier to go to game three. If the game was still a game, then yeah, his opponent SHOULD play for the win to go to game three, even if a draw is the result.

[Talionis11]

Game theory says you should punish people who behave badly. So the guy slow playing to get a draw that would only hurt Ospy and could not help the other guy should be punished.

Ospy should have forced the draw to punish your friend for slow play. Ospy also probably had a better chance of winning the whole tournament than your friend.

But your friend didn't concede. Ospy paid it forward, so at least one of them could still move on in the tournament. That's being the bigger guy.

[thehuntergrachus]

Additionally, if neither player wanted to draw, then they should have had an agreement BEFORE the match about what to do. Entering a game three where you can't play any turns, and thus neither player has any advantage, there isn't an onus on EITHER player to concede to the other, all else equal. It's cool that Osyp conceded here, but I don't understand the need to complain on video about your opponent NOT conceding to you first.

[thehuntergrachus]

I don't really see Osyp's point here. Why is the burden on his opponent to concede? (full disclosure - I am friends with the opponent) Because he is playing a slower deck? If Osyp was worried about time, he should have conceded game two when he knew he was dead on the board. Also, when you are in a position where losing 15-20 points by conceding may put you under the threshold for byes at an upcoming Grand Prix (which happens to be the case here), then it DOES make sense to draw.

[superdumgator]

This guy is my hero.

[dar482]

9:06 Calasso Fuentes reference. Osyp is the best.

[dar482]

I like the old school altruism that Osyp supports. I've had opponents concede to me and I've found them later on to give them prize packs that I won.

It shouldn't be forced and agreed to (illegal in the rules), but it should just be a tacitly agreed to by people. Be nice to me, I'll be nice to you.

[ThePortableOps]

@dar482 It's unfortunate that it is illegal, but bribery over being nice is completely different.

[dar482]

@ThePortableOps I don't get your point. Yes, there shouldn't be bribery. People should just be nice. That's what I said.

[jliller]

If you feel someone should concede and someone is clearly winning and just needed another turn or two then the person who was going to lose "should" concede so that is clear.

But in Osyp's situation today going into Game 3: if both people share Osyp's opinion that they should concede how do you determine who does so? Whoever has better tiebreakers? What if you don't know your tiebreakers or they're practically the same?