BuzzerBeater Forums

I guarantee, if they listed them for $1 and, really, I mean really, let the market decide their value, they wouldn't be selling for 100 and 100ks of dollars. These players are not in bid wars at the high price. its 1 bid, then sold to the unknown buyer. But hey, lets not be honest here. Lets go hide behind the guise of "real market value." lmao (and YOU DON'T KNOW!) :-$

I will give you the solution.

For every young player, make an estimation of final SOS if trained every week until 28 given his current SOS, potential and age.

For example, a player with very high potential but very low SOS and already 21, could say while on sale
"Predicted final SOS: 105"

You're welcome.

Agreed here.

The idea being that what Poland D1 is doing has nothing to do with real transfer list value changing over 10 days (because we know it's not that volatile). Even at high and low activity times you're not gonna see a +3,333% difference in market pricing in those times within that short of a period.

This is seen also because there was no market competition on your player that sold for 400k. There was 1 bid by 1 manager, that's it. I can go on and bid 400k for a player on the TL, does that mean they are worth 400k, no.

See the above comment:

I guarantee, if they listed them for $1 and, really, I mean really, let the market decide their value, they wouldn't be selling for 100 and 100ks of dollars. These players are not in bid wars at the high price. its 1 bid, then sold to the unknown buyer. But hey, lets not be honest here. Lets go hide behind the guise of "real market value." lmao (and YOU DON'T KNOW!)

As for storing the other 8 youngsters, that was you that counted them in your explanation. I'm not on that genius level of math so you can explain it to me.

Which problem are we trying to solve here?

The daytraders or the inexperienced users gifting money?

Solving the last one, means capping new users o limit them in some way so they can't miss big, which is hard.

Solving the first one IMHO, is doable. How would I limit daytrading?:

Establishing selling limitations

Instead of messing with player valuation and reports (I was a GM before, been there, done that), I would apply some limitations.

For e.g., you can't sell a freshly bought player unless (whichever happens first):

* It achieves a minimum player role of X
* Gets injured
* Stays on the team for a minimmum of Y weeks.
* Your finance is in red numbers or your weekly economy isn't profitable
* Player isn't top five on your payroll.

I imagine a minimmum player role of (4)rotation player. Of course some tweaking of the pace on which the status varies could help, but this would force the team to lineup the recently bought player in official games.
So if you want to daytrade, you still can do it but you have to carry the burden of having a bad player on your games.
This also serves as a limit to how many players you can sell while doing this, since you can't field every bought player.

Again, this is a matter of what are we trying to solve here.
I'm playing BB since Season 2, and the market value rules where meant for cheaters, not for daytraders.
Limiting daytrading with the actual rules, enforcing a theoretically market value to apply fines, is short-sighted at best IMO.
And the backlash on this thread is absolutely justified (and I hate daytrading).

Last edited by Kainan-Maki at 5/11/2022 12:59:30 PM

I will clarify a few things as I think I understand where you are coming from in your argument:

1. I think what you're doing is smart and requires being very active (I wish I had thought of it)

2. I'm not against buying at a low point and selling at a high point to make money.

3. The transfers of these young players with high potential a few weeks apart for sometimes 10x as much money are not about playing the market. They are about playing less knowledgeable and new users. I don't think this is a good thing for BB and I don't want this to be the go to way to make money (though I'll do it if it is). It seems like you think it is fine way to gain an advantage and should be a part of the game. This is where we disagree.