BuzzerBeater Forums

No actually he means that: there is a starting price let's say 500k. Reserved price at which case the sale goes through let's say 650k.
Now player has a bid of 625k auction ends and player will not be sold because hidden lowest sale price is set at 650k.
And that is a pointless suggestion tbh. You have a chance to set the minimum price you want to sell a player. That is the starting bid no need for extra nonsence.
For the everyone bids silently suggestion that you thought he made. Whoever is lucky enough to get it will win. Easiest way to actually cheat more as you can say I really wanted that player etc etc and bid idiotic amount of money.

Interesting to see people fail so bad and bash neutral posts but okay - maybe I should avoid the international community in the future...

bidwars suggest that the player is currently UNDER market value, because no one should put their personal max bid as their first bid when theres a shot you could get him for less, its a horrible strategy

if the deadline didnt extend, someone could wait until the last second and outbid you and you wouldnt get the opportunity to bid back at him even though you definitely would have paid more UP TO the actual market value

yes, occasionally it could go higher if someone goes on tilt after 10 minutes of bidding, or if someone is desparate due to injuries, but i believe thats a much lesser evil than my previous point and happens a lot less

I am aware of how eBay bidding works. I don't think the BBs are interested in implementing an absentee-bidding process.

i agree. if i make the effort to be online at a certain time and someone else doesnt, then i deserve to win the bid

I am aware of how eBay bidding works. I don't think the BBs are interested in implementing an absentee-bidding process.

i agree. if i make the effort to be online at a certain time and someone else doesnt, then i deserve to win the bid

You don't always get what you deserve...... but having large amounts of money does help. :)

I disagree on not going in with max bid straight away.

1) You may have limited money and be competing with someone with limited money. As the bids increase 2% + 2% more can amount to quite a bit. I would never bid 3% less than my available balance to find out I lose because after 1 more bid I cant then go back in over the top.

2) If you have a long drawn out auction creeping up a few thousand at a time. You are likely to attract maybe another bidder(s)... if this happens you are almost certainly better off placing a chunky raise to attempt to scare off your rival bidders and try and conclude the auction before others join.

Using the player with 2k-10k ET range that goes for 30k a half hour after the bidding was supposed to end as an example:

Whatever a player sells for is his fair market price. This excludes what is known as "overbidding", where a team clearly bids more than he is worth (aka, someone bidding 200k for above player). The fact that 2 people are bidding on a player shows he is still under value.

Also, the "fair market" value is determined by the bidders, not some calculation. If users have more money on average, the overall price will go up for players on average. The above player may sell for 40k, yet still be in fair market value. This is called supply and demand and is one of the ways day traders are able to exist.

Having a drop dead deadline will unfairly place a ceiling on the fair market value. The player will go to the last bidder, rather than the highest bidder. It would probably lead to some players reaching market value, or slightly above, a bit sooner. However, overbidding and underbidding would happen more often, rather than less.

My problem with the current bidding system is that the player's owner can run up the price if he doesn't like the bidding.

That shouldn't be allowed. The starting price is the price you should be comfortable losing the player for. So the current owner of a player shouldn't be able to bid in order to make the price go up.

I got in this situation lately and lost a player because the owner didn't "like" the price I was about to get the player for. Chatting with him, he laughed saying he wouldn't let his player go too cheap. But why did he set up the price to a level where he wasn't comfortable with in the first place?

What does the staff think about this kind of situation?

My problem with the current bidding system is that the player's owner can run up the price if he doesn't like the bidding.

That shouldn't be allowed. The starting price is the price you should be comfortable losing the player for. So the current owner of a player shouldn't be able to bid in order to make the price go up.

I got in this situation lately and lost a player because the owner didn't "like" the price I was about to get the player for. Chatting with him, he laughed saying he wouldn't let his player go too cheap. But why did he set up the price to a level where he wasn't comfortable with in the first place?

What does the staff think about this kind of situation?

There are downsides to this. No1 the current owner will have to pay the tax (minimum 3%) depending on what % of the re-sale he was due to gain. No2, the player will be treated like a new player on his roster and is likely to then start out with maximum 80% re-sale value. So if he has done this, then it can be an expensive decision. 20% of a $2mil player when he wanted $2.5 and then having to perhaps own him for 6more weeks (and pay his salary) - I wouldnt be upset.. if he doesnt want your money, plenty of other managers out there that will take it!