BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > bumping up the bid

bumping up the bid

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
152363.55 in reply to 152363.54
Date: 7/31/2010 12:58:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
I think one of the most telling points of this debate is that nobody has anything good to say about being able to bid on your own player, some managers defend it, but not actually state a positive for its presence!!

For me, when the best that can be done is to defend something, but not claim a positive position for it being part of the game then this is something that should be looked at.

I think many managers would be happier if it was not possible to bid on your own players, but from this debate, I am not sure anyone would be unhappy should it be stopped?


From: CrazyEye

To: RiP
This Post:
00
152363.57 in reply to 152363.56
Date: 7/31/2010 3:12:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
that doesn't count, this was said before^^

From: rcvaz

To: RiP
This Post:
00
152363.58 in reply to 152363.56
Date: 7/31/2010 3:15:10 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
Nice reply, you really touched all the important issues, and like I said before in my replies, I essentially agree with your views.

The one thing I don't fully agree with is the price to set when transfer listing players (and this isn't even related to the main topic itself). I don't know how this goes in the top divisions, but for the kind of players I buy or sell, listing them at a low price has the risk of ending up with an "unfair" bid, but it also helps gather more bidders. You may notice that when players come on the TL as FA, some players place lots of 1k bids to keep tabs on the players, I have done it myself. If one starts with a higher asking price, fewer people may notice it, and there's a bigger chance the player will go unnoticed if people set a low limit because of the newly arrived free agents.

Other than that, the idea of having a warning sign saying "Warning: the player owner is bidding on the player!" could be introduced, but I don't see much need for it, to be honest. If the bidders notice, they should stop bidding. If they don't and the price is not overblown, they're free to keep bidding. If the price goes over any reasonable valuation and someone still bids, then that's just throwing money away.

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
152363.59 in reply to 152363.58
Date: 7/31/2010 3:16:35 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
Other than that, the idea of having a warning sign saying "Warning: the player owner is bidding on the player!" could be introduced, but I don't see much need for it, to be honest.


you could see clearly the teamname, where he is and who is bidding.

From: Carl Future

To: RiP
This Post:
00
152363.60 in reply to 152363.56
Date: 7/31/2010 5:04:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
And as it stated in the thread, there are other ways of achieving this without allowing the " sleazy" behaviour that we all agree upon.

I stated earlier , I have no issue with being able to buy the player back.

Saying the argument has no credence is a ridiculous comment, also, you state that the only reason someone would keep bidding is if they feel the player hadnt met the market value, but that is not the point of this. The true value of a player is what you fairly get him for, I do not class fairly as interference from the owner of that player for the sheer intention of completing more money. If you was going to get X player for say 400k but ended up paying 500k because of the owner hicking the bids, then you have spent 100K MORE than a fair market place was asking for at that given time. He may well have been worth 500k, but thats not the point, it is outside interference in the variable that is the tranfer market.

It is clear that the system isnt the best way to offer a buy back option to teams, and that a buy back option could be facilitated without involving the ability for a manager to encourage a price hick on his player, an action which nobody thinks is positive.

With that being the case, why the reluctance to address the system to offer a buy back system and stop this " sleazy 2 behaviour" from the game???

This Post:
00
152363.61 in reply to 152363.60
Date: 7/31/2010 5:20:07 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
I just read back through the last few posts and it has been described perfectly in one of the last posts

Second Natural Highest Bid +1 = True Market cost for that player

Not

Second Highest Natural Bid + Owner Bids to price hick + 1 = True Market cost for that player

I think that the easiest way to explain why it is an unfair option, and interferes with the markets true values.

This Post:
00
152363.62 in reply to 152363.61
Date: 7/31/2010 5:23:51 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
market values are unfair, because the market is too flexible(even withhin a day), and if you see the owner as a part of the market you also have a natural market ;) If the owner buys him, it is the same buissness for him, like when you buy him.

Or would you say that the value of a player switch from 500k to 1000k within a day?

This Post:
00
152363.64 in reply to 152363.60
Date: 7/31/2010 5:33:35 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
172172
If you thought the player was worth 400k then you're to blame if you buy him for 500k. If the only other bidder is the owner, then he loses money if you stop bidding at 400k. If there are others who are willing to pay more, then that's their problem.

In response to GM-rip, the buy-back button could be introduced. When listing the player we could have an option "Buy player back if bid is below X". But the way it would work would be having an automatic bid of X being placed at the end of the auction, of the bid at the time was lower than X. If there were other bidders still willing to go higher, the auction would proceed. If not, the owner got his player back.

Last edited by rcvaz at 7/31/2010 5:34:30 PM

Advertisement