BuzzerBeater Forums

The market value is whatever someone's willing to pay for the player. Bidders can back down whenever they feel the asking price is beyond their evaluation of the player. In that sense, the player's owner is just another bidder. I have had one or two cases where the owner kept bidding at the last minute to push up the price. After the price got out of the range I found fair for the player, I left the auction and searched for an alternative.

I agree that it's not the most ethical thing to do, but the rules are there and this is not cheating. Bidders should be disgusted by this and stop bidding, thus resulting in the owner losing money at the time (taxes) and in the future (would get smaller % of future transfer). But I think there are much more outrageous cheating schemes out there. I have been reporting a few cases lately of teams creating a bunch of new teams to buy their crappy players for 100x what they're worth.

Just an example, to sum it up. Suppose you have a player you want to sell and you think he's worth 800k. You place him in the market for 1k to get as many suitors as possible. If, let's say one hour before the end of the auction, the bid is at 300k only, I don't see any wrongdoing with the owner placing a 600k bid. If the suitors still think it's a fair value, they'll bid again. If they don't, they won't and the owner won't lose money by selling a player for a smaller sum than the one he finds fair.

I understand the point you make.

I get this from the choices of the buyer and all the implication of this. I am looking at it from the other side, the seller, and the fact that the game allows for a seller to attempt to invoke this process in the first place. They should not be allowed to do this in my view.

One thing I would add is that you dont always realise that someone is doing this, esp when bid are coming in thick and fast in the final few minutes of a transfer, which make it difficult to stop bidding as you have worked out what is happening with the owner of that player.

But yes, buyers have choices, or course. even though they would have paid more than the market has aksed of them, I do not count insider bidding as part of the normal market, more a false economy.

Have you ever thought about asking the wider public of BB how they feel about this , and use that survey as a guide as to what should be done about this?

I think this would be better than just say , this will not be monitored and does not need addressing, surely this is an opinion based decision and that should provide the answer?

I just look at it as the player is a Restricted Free Agent. So the team has an option to match any bids.

When I see a manager continously bidding on his own player I just forget about that player and move on to the next one.

But when I have really appreciated the opportunity to bid on my own player was when I had an unco moment and missed putting a 0 on the selling price. So I put $20,000, instead of $200,000 for a guy I was hoping to get around $300K. So I placed a bid for $200k on him, and yep risked losing $6k in fees, but that was more acceptable to me then potentially losing $180k. He sold for around $400k so it worked out all good.

I always double check all my prices and never thought I would put the wrong price in. But I had an unco moment. And if you guys ever do, you would be glad you can bid on your own player.

I understand what you're saying. In the midst of a bidding war the bids just fly in and sometimes you don't take a moment to think about it and end up splashing more money than intended in the first place. But like I said, the owner acts as another bidder, so you're right, it drives the price up and manipulates the market.

But you have to agree that under current rules this isn't cheating, and I still believe there are bigger issues to be sorted out. Even with this "price fixing" players tend to get sold withing a given range of what they're really worth, so as long as bidders have a clear idea of how far they're willing to go, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

It may not be classed as cheating under the rules of this game, but I am not using them as my guidance, as I am critising the rule tat states that it isnt cheating. I think this is flawed and it should be classed as cheating

I agree with your points but I cannot say it is not cheating for me, I cant answer the question of why should they be allowed to increase their income in such a way!!

I do hope that one of the GM's looks at this properly and thinks about banning it!

Desired by who? The debate seems to be split within this chat about such conduct.

Surely a simple buy back feature, not linked direct to the transfer bid would create this option of getting your players back from the market if you want them and eliminate the ability for a seller to enduce higher bids on thier players.

We are not debating the option of buy players back, we are talking about the bi product of the mechanism meaning increased bidding wars. Falsy created!!

We are not debating the option of buy players back, we are talking about the bi product of the mechanism meaning increased bidding wars. Falsy created!!

but this strategx is often also a killer of bidding wars, because i would only bid in very rare cases against the owner of a player - but maybe these rare cases are the reason for me that it is better with bidding then a buy back button. Because if you plan to get a specific player, and you need him in time and then he disappeared from transferlist and there is no replacement n the list?