BuzzerBeater Forums

However you look at this, if a player would have been sold for say 500k, without owner interference, but ends up getting sold for 750k because of that interference, means you have paid more than the true market asked for him due to insider bidding.

and if you put him for sale for 750k and some idiot bids on him +50% market price it is ok?

Or if someone puts a player on market and have the luck, that several managers are willing to pay more then he is worth this is ok too.

But if a idiot pays it, while the owner bids on him with a very high chanche of loosing much money through a very bad deal - it is not ok.

Is that right so far?

Again, you are missing the point, as I mentioned 3 systems that could be considered, your comments only address one of them, and even then from a blinkered view.

Back to basics, the thing I am trying to prevent is managers raising the bids on there own players when they are doing so for nothing more than financial gain. Nothing else.

If a manager gets more money than a player is worth through natural bidding, then yes, obviously, that is fine, the problem is when it is enduced by the actual owner raising the bid himself. If the market naturally does it, fair enough!!

Are you saying it is an acceptable practice that managers raise the bids on there players and on many occasions gain financial benefit from it by receiving more money than if they didnt do that?

Are you saying it is an acceptable practice that managers raise the bids on there players and on many occasions gain financial benefit from it by receiving more money than if they didnt do that?

personally i don't see the extra gain, to replace a system because of a strategy which leads in over 80% to a overpriced buy of a player he didn't want from the manager who use it, and brings another disadvantage into the game. people who make it for finncial gain, get punished enough while doing it^^

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/25/2010 2:30:24 AM

People dont lose 80% of the time, people do it all the time because it works, thye end up getting more money off the other team. They get little punishment while doing it, thats why so many teams do it.

when i bid above market value i get the player must time, so why this should be different when you bid on your own players?

And personally i also make different experience with it ;)

And getting a player you don't want, isn't a good decision for a manager right? So why risking buying your own player, and get punished through taxes, keeping the player, fan survey etc. is a good deal?

But most of the time they dont get there own player, they actually sell them for a much higher price. This part isnt up for debate as it is why the whole thread started. It goes on all the time.

If it didnt work, then it wouldnt be happening so regularly in the game, they do it to maximise the money they get for a player, more then they would have got without doing it.

But most of the time they dont get there own player, they actually sell them for a much higher price. This part isnt up for debate

in this case i would recommend you make it yourself, but don't complain when you end up loosing money and buying overprized players :)

LOL, The whole point of the thread was that it is wrong to be allowed to do this process, which makes you comment bizarre.

Anyway, thanks for the debate, was interesting to engage and get another indepth view

Good Luck for the season

Just read through this pretty interesting thread. I think the part that is interesting is the talk that players' managers are making other teams pay above market value, when (to me) if it was above market value, then other managers wouldn't pay it.

The way I look at it (having at some point paid extra to a manager raising his own bid at the last minute) is that the manager is paying the extra risk (of having to pay the taxes) for the ability to adjust the asking price at the last minute.

I'm not a huge fan of "real life" comparisons in all situations, but for example, if an NBA player has a team go out and get an offer, then the player comes back to his original team because he'd like to stay there, then they decide to match... the new team would obviously need to raise the bid in order to have a shot. I see the way BB works as very similar to this.

Moral of the story... if the player isn't worth it, don't pay that for him and screw the current owner with the 3 to 25% tax for taking such a risk.

I have read all the arguements, and i must say both views make sense to some extent.
Biddng on your own players is allowed, true, and isn't cheating in any way, but the buyer must be notified that
the current bidder is the seller himself. Because - there isn't really a clear "market price" for a player, only an evaluation, and not all of us can do all the math and take all player attributes into account in a single glance.just today i saw a player with a market evaluation of "100K to 3.4 million". many of us dont have that much expirience to tell what an EXACT fair price is.we partly depend on others to "signal" for us - if there is a bidding war, then the price is probably reasonable. if i bid 500K and i see others bid 700K, i might think to myself that this is probably a fair price, cause other managers keep on bidding. however, if i see that the bidder is the seller himself, i might suspect that this is not actually a fair market price, and the seller is just squeezing for more $$$.
so - how about some kind of sign - an "alarm" that shows on the player page when the current bidder is the seller?
i think that would be more than fair.


Last edited by Gabi at 7/29/2010 6:21:44 AM