BuzzerBeater Forums

Some of you guys obviously dont know much about economics.

This is not Economics. It is auction theory, which is a part of applied game theory.

In a frst price auction like this the market price is not what the highest bidder is willing to pay but rather whatever the second highest bidder is willing to pay + 1. And this option to bid on your own player totally disrupts that.

It doesn't disrupt anything. It just changes bidding strategy. If this was a second price auction, all bidders will be willing to make an extra bid beyond their real willingness to pay.

LOL. You didnt actually say anything here... except copy paste a sentence or two from Wikipedia.

I already said its an auction, so no need to repeat that. Game Theory is most widely used in Economics (check Wiki again), and as far as this problem is concerned it has everything to do with economics.

For your information I am currently doing a PhD in Game Theory, at an Economics department.

But to get to my main point....

Bidding on your own player disrupts a fully functional market, because if the owner has bid on his own player you are not truly paying the market price.

I understand that yes, everyone can see who is bidding and that if one doesn't believe that the price is right he shouldn't bid any higher.

But isn't this game supposed to be beginner friendly? How is a new player supposed to know what is the right price if it can be easily manipulated?

But this doesnt only concern new managers. How many times has it happened that someone doesn't notice that the actual bidder is the owner, or maybe didnt even know that the owner can bid on his own player so never cared who is bidding? (I myself learned very recently)?

Many of you defending this issue said that only an IDIOT will bid on if the owner is bumping the price too high! But lets face it, just like in the real world, I am sure there are quite a few "idiots" (as you called them) playing this game as well. So what is this game, trying to achieve... force them to quit the game within a month because the market can be easily manipulated and they spent all their money on a 18 yo announcer. With a perfect market this can not (or very rarely) happen... but with the current situation all you need is one sleazy owner + 1 idiot.

As far as I know these unreal prices due to sleazy owners + idiots, beginners, people not careful enough, people not informed enough... (I probably listed more than half of the population) actually drive the Transfer Price Estimate up for all the similar players... which in turn tricks the other half of the population.

I think we all agree that it's sleazy and unethical. But is it really that big of a problem? I have only played this game for about a year, I've bought ~40 players, bid on a few hundred others, and I've only witnessed this issue once!

Regarding new owners, there are a few beginner-friendly tools. First of all, the 18 y.o. announcer would have a message below saying that players like that never sell for more than a few thousand dollars. So this is only a risk for players where we don't see the transfer price estimate, and new owners have limited cash and small-money deals are more frequent, they should have estimates available most of the time.

One issue that hasn't been touched is that we can actually be in an auction where the owner is driving the price up and not notice it. Suppose you place a bid, then the owner places the next bid, and then a different guy places a bid before you refresh the page. You won't know the intermediate bid was not placed by an "independent" bidder.

But like I said, there is no way the rules can distinguish the evil plotter driving the price up from the honest owner who wants to buy his player back because either the deal is not good enough, or he missed a better deal somewhere else, etc... If we just want the second kind, then I left a suggestion a few posts back, which is forbidding the owner from placing any bids, giving him the option of setting a "buy-back price" when he transfer lists the player.

I think this would be solved with a warning sign: "WARNING! The bidding teams is the same as the selling team".
I don't think we need any set buyback price. If the team wants to keep his player he may bid on him. But with the above warning sign. I agree that a lot of newbies get conned by managers bidding on their own players, but I believe that a big red warning sign would frighten the newbies and they would stop bidding. Thus protecting them from making a mistake.

I don't think there should be a warning sign. First of all, I don't think it happens that often. Second of all, it is the players responsibility to notice who the opposing bidder. Next people will want the following:

Warning! You are bidding too much for this player.
Warning! The player you are bidding on in monoskilled and you are not getting good skills for the high salary.
Warning! This player is too old.
Warning! Don't bid on this player as the starting price is too high.

People learn from mistakes. We do not need a warning for every single thing that they could do wrong.

I think the main reason an owner would bid on a player is to buy the player back.
A simple buy back option where the player will get taxed on the current bid is sufficient.

A simple buy back option where the player will get taxed on the current bid is sufficient.

As in noone else sees the bid? Or? It would be funny to bid on a player, win it and then boom the player still stays at the same team:D

Again, you are focusing on the wrong part of this, a question that need to be answered is

Why are managers allowed to bid on their own players with the only intention being to gain more money for themselves and thus attempt or achieve in creating a false economy.?

The PHD guy ( Sorry, cant see his name at the moment ) is spot on with that he says.

People say this isnt a big problem, as they have only noticed it once or twice, I guess the issue is how many other times does is go unnoticed. I have had it twice out of 25 purchases, meaning an average of 8% of the time for me. I think that is something of a concern.

The game has rules stopping people owning 2 teams and farming money from one to another, although this is a much nore diluted form of it, the action is still falsly farming money into your team.

A warning button could also be a solution, I dont buy into the guy that said next we will be asking for warning buttons for X other things, there is no mention of that, as those choices are honest mistakes that people make, the price hicking is not an honst mistake, its underhand, not always easy to see happending and takes advantage of new managers or managers that dont see what has been happening.

It is not the responsibility of the manager to keep eye on this, the game should prevent any actions like this that are in their control

haha would be funny :D

This argument could go on forever!!!
But I have another Idea when it comes to bidding.......
When you bid you put down the highest amount that you are willing to pay.... Now no one else but you know what it is....
To make sure the seller gets what they want for the player they put a minimum price on the player. Now say that price is $1000. If no one bids then the player stays at the owners team....
now say $5000 is the most you want to pay....the market will show you as the high bidder but for only $1001 it is then up to the others that want the player to put more money on him...
If i came and put $10000 on the player then the new high bidder would be me for $5001

Same as ebay works.... it means that market preasure will push up the price and youwill never have to pay more than u wanted too
Also makes it a bit easier for the highest bidder to get the player due to no one knowing how much they need to bid to win him!!

"Why are managers allowed to bid on their own players with the only intention being to gain more money for themselves and thus attempt or achieve in creating a false economy.?

Why shouldn't they? People are allowed to buy players that are selling cheap and sell 3 days later for way more money. So why shouldn't people be allowed to bid on their own player for the sole purpose of raising the bid. They are taking a risk to get some reward. If they raise the bid too high then they will not sell the player and they will be taxed as well. However, if an owner raises the bid, and then someone else still bids on it then that person obviously is happy to spend that amount of money for the player so there is no issue. It is no different to the owner setting the starting price high and waiting for a bid.

I have had it twice out of 25 purchases, meaning an average of 8% of the time for me. I think that is something of a concern.

Was the price lower than what you would expect to pay for the player in your opinion? Did you keep bidding after you noticed it?
I doubt that it would happen in 8% of all players on the market. I think it would be closer to 1% of players on the market.

The game has rules stopping people owning 2 teams and farming money from one to another, although this is a much nore diluted form of it, the action is still falsly farming money into your team.

Next you want to stop day trading as well?

I dont buy into the guy that said next we will be asking for warning buttons for X other things, there is no mention of that, as those choices are honest mistakes that people make

A person will bid what they want on a player. They will not bid more than they are willing on a player. If the owner set the starting price to 1 million someone could come along and buy him. If he sets it to 1k starting price then he might get bid up to 850k, the owner might bid on him and then someone else comes along and bids 1 million on him. It doesn't matter. If you think the price is too much for the player then don't bid, it doesn't matter who the other bidder is. The point I was making about the warning signs is that you can't warn someone about everything that you think shouldn't happen. Do you want a warning that say "This player was bought a few days ago for half the amount that he is now listed for so you should not buy him or you will help facilitate day trading".

It is not the responsibility of the manager to keep eye on this

I disagree, it is the managers responsibility to keep an eye on this.

new suggestion, worth looking into:

we do want to distinguish between a managerwho really wants to cancel the sale of his player
to a manager who is just bumping up the bids.
now, the manager who wants his player back, and does win the bid eventually, is punished accordingly with
the tax system - he pays the tax and will earn less % on his players next sales.
however, the player who is bumping up the bids will not get punished at all - he can only earn from his
devious ways. yes, he is taking some risk, but its hardly enough to prevent him from doing it.
so, i suggest (if possible techniqually) - if the player does eventually sell, the bidder will pay a fine of - let's say- 5% of the sale price FOR EVERY BID HE MADE. i repeat, this is only if the player was actually sold. if the seller wins the bid - his "punishment" with the tax system is more than sufficient.

however, the player who is bumping up the bids will not get punished at all - he can only earn from his
devious ways.

no, he could loose a lot of money and ending in buying a player he don't want. And yes it is like buying a new player, because he could use the money to every player he wants.

And if you bid more then a player is worth, you most likely get him. So when you try to sell expensiv, make an high starting price which has onlyadvantages against this strategie because it runs without a risk, and when no guy is outside who thinks he is worth that much you could make it again the next day.

now, the manager who wants his player back, and does win the bid eventually, is punished accordingly with
the tax system - he pays the tax and will earn less % on his players next sales.

so, i suggest (if possible techniqually) - if the player does eventually sell, the bidder will pay a fine of - let's say- 5% of the sale price FOR EVERY BID HE MADe

would be a great punishment who tries to keep his guy, ending against someone who wants him a lot more ;)