Recently at GenCon, a player named Julian Jakobovits was given a match loss with four players for, in his words, considering an equity chop with a friend outside of the event. When an incident gets this much buzz in the Magic community, it's important we observe it to figure out what happened and what should happen moving forward.
An equity chop means a friend of this player asked if they could buy a piece of that person's action. The prize was a Promo Dark Ritual, which is one of four in the entire world. That scarcity creates a large price tag, and most people will end up selling the card. Let's say this friend wanted to own 20% of what the player would sell the Dark Ritual for, and the rumors I heard were the Dark Ritual's price tag was solid at $50K USD. For 20%, the player would likely pay their friend $10K divided by their chances of winning the two matches left and an additional compensation based on how likely the person playing the match was to win their matches. If the player was going to win their match 50% of the time both times, it would be $2500, but a strong player will usually win more than 50% of the time, so the price would be negotiated higher. This comes up from time to time in random events, not generally at the Pro Tour, but sometimes people want a rooting interest. It's not to gamble and is often just for camaraderie.
Regardless, Julian said he briefly considered the offer but ultimately declined. However, the damage had been done because an outside entity, perhaps a judge, overheard the conversation, questioned the player, and reported their findings.
As someone who's been on the inside and in the know, I've done my fair share of splitting. In fact, multiple times I've watched Pro Tour finals where healthy splits were in place with both final-match players. These splits were almost always negotiated quickly and days before the tournament took place. You wouldn't be surprised to learn that in almost every event you watch, deep in the tournament, splits are discussed and occur. The big difference here is the prize, a single Dark Ritual, can't be split without the Dark Ritual being classified as having monetary value.
There is so much money on the line at PTs. While the top-heavy prize structure looks good for advertising an event, most players, especially a decade or so ago when I began my professional career, would prefer less variance in their volatile income stream. Friends who knew and trusted each other would often restructure prize pools so there was less hard cash being played for, as winning an event is also worth more on top of just the cash. The trophy, the prestige, and often the Pro Points back then were worth a lot, and in many cases more than the cash purse. It wasn't like you'd win a Pro Tour and win the $50K, and if you lost you got $25K. If you lost, you got $25K, and if you won, the win would give you a Worlds slot, Platinum, and the notoriety that landed many of us content opportunities. Pro Tour Champion is an incredible way to sell and build your brand.
This event, however, didn't have much prestige. I still don't even know who won the event. I have gathered that the players in the finals ended up splitting the prize that was one card, as in one player scooped regardless of what had already occurred. Unless that's just hearsay, but I have no way of following it up, as I don't even know who won.
I thought a lot about this situation over the last week. It's a bad look to have a tournament end on this note, and I would assume no tournament wants this kind of press. It was supposed to be a fun event with a cool prize, but the issue is when you create this kind of scarcity, we all know what's going to happen. The card will hit the secondary market, and many people will want an original WotC promo that is designed to be so scarce that it's a desirable prize for collectors, speculators, and grinders who are playing tournaments for profit. If you produce a prize that will have secondary market value, and they know they are doing just that, there will be people seeking what the prize is worth rather than the prize itself. I'd wager a massive percentage of people in that event were in the tournament specifically to sell the card, and few would keep it for the price tag it was fetching. My recommendation for WotC would be to stop making prizes of individual cards and start giving out full playsets. A single copy of 16 Dark Ritual cards won't feel as valuable to players, but the whole playset will still be scarce and easily accrue the single copy's value on the secondary market, something they care about whether they'll admit it or not.
I harbor no ill will toward any judges and think we should all learn to respect that they spend their time and, in many cases, money to be part of this community. Judges aren't there for just a paycheck. Judging takes commitment, dedication, and a skillset like being a professional player. You have to know an insane amount of complicated rules most professional players don't know and make quick decisions about challenging situations. Judges are human beings and will make mistakes. I do believe this was a mistake, though. Much like not calling a picky foul in game seven of the NBA Finals, I'd hope for some understanding when there is a massive prize on the line.
While I say that, I couldn't imagine being in that situation with the training the judge staff had and understand what I'd do. Judges and players have completely different perspectives in many cases. It's best to use a situation like this to find common ground rather than create a divide where players are demonizing judges because of what we consider a mistake, just like we wouldn't want to be judged based on a mistake we made in a game. Should you be ridiculed and shamed in a public setting because of that time you forgot to reset your sideboard? Absolutely not, so give judges the same respect. If you have an issue with how something was handled, let's have a community discussion on how we should approach these situations moving forward. There was a lot of useful discussion on X regarding this situation, but also a lot of vitriol aimed at the people who show up to events to make sure we play a fair tournament.
In this situation, my intuition is that the judges may have done what the rules dictated, but I would prefer to focus on the rules' intent. Why do these rules exist? Is it to prevent some young kid playing for a ton of money from becoming less exposed to variance? If this kid doesn't take insurance, isn't he just gambling? If he takes it, is he gambling? Entering a tournament at all is a form of gambling. You're paying a fee to try to win a larger prize. With all the jargon and hearsay involved, it's easy to misinterpret a situation like this. I'd prefer if the rules allowed for more personal judgment and leniency.
Many have pointed out that the people who get hurt here are the people who don't know what they can and can't say. In fact, I recall many times watching judges help players negotiate splits in a legal way. My recommendation is whenever a split is to occur, or any conversation of it at all during the event, you should speak to a judge first and ask about the legality and proper approach. Julian's biggest mistake was not discussing what happened well enough. I suspect had he talked about the situation as detailed as possible, clarifying exactly what happened and the conversation's result, he could have battled for the prize. Instead, things were left unclear or unsaid, and he paid the price, which sucks and was too harsh.
You can look at it in a lot of different ways. The letter of the law may state that any talks of a split or equity share are disallowed, with my best guess being that it's because this card isn't supposed to have secondary market value in the eyes of WotC. However, that's generally to prevent collusion and situations where a player bets against themself or prevents a match from being played. Neither was the case in this situation. Julian not only didn't arrange a split, but he was punished in a harsh way for merely considering some kind of split with a large sum, or as he described it, "life-changing money." I don't think anyone wanted this, including the judging staff.
This should teach us all that our communication needs to be clear, specific, and without jargon that may be misinterpreted. We should seek confirmation that splits are allowed at specific events. If you ever split with someone in the middle of a tournament, run it by the judging staff before you agree and make sure it's legal. If not, it's best to not split. I'm well aware, and as you should be too, that judges are mostly judging at events. They see the rules and enforce them. Don't blame judges for the rules. Try to get the rules to adapt to what is desired and acceptable in the community.
Hopefully, we will continue to see more of these unique, exciting events, but the more negative energy they generate, the less likely we will have these valuable events in the future.
I feel for every person involved in this awful situation—the judging staff for having to deal with the fallout of a tough call and the player for facing the harshest penalty for what could have been resolved if things had been handled differently. It's a tough spot, and hopefully, we all can learn from it and move forward.
Comments