BuzzerBeater Forums

hahaha if that was the case I would be screwed :D

Should sellers not be allowed to advertise then if putting a player up for sale is the end of their contribution? Plus, an advertisement adds exposure to the player which I'm guessing would also increase the price.

Also, you said that the market has to come up with the value for the player (not exact quote). If sellers can't bid, then they can't contribute to the value of a player. If they can't contribute to the value of the player, then are they still part of the market?

Sorry I only have a Bachelor's (no PhD) in the medical field so I need more explanation.

Last edited by kLepTo at 8/1/2010 4:03:08 PM

Should sellers not be allowed to advertise then if putting a player up for sale is the end of their contribution? Plus, an advertisement adds exposure to the player which I'm guessing would also increase the price.

No, this action is fine , becuase it is upfront , honest and causes no harm to a buying team, its simple advertisement, there is no link to underhand bidding to falsly gain more money by hicking the bid.

Also, you said that the market has to come up with the value for the player (not exact quote). If sellers can't bid, then they can't contribute to the value of a player. If they can't contribute to the value of the player, then are they still part of the market?

NO, I said this is just an idea, the rest of your sentence, I am unsure of the point of it. The issue is the action of underhand bidding to gain more money in a dishonest fashion, not these symantics and quips that are off the main point.

This is going around in circles, I am happy to leave this debate now, its dragging on abit!!!! You seemto be wanting to focus on areas that have no relevance to the actual issue. No system is perfect, but some are less perfect than others1!

I could continue to argue back every point, but its obvious that we aren't going to achieve much. So we will all continue to agree to disagree.

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.

First derivatives, constrained optimization, logarithms, and integration, to name a few, are also "most widely used in Economics", but are mathematical concepts.

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

Good for you. Unfortunately, you still have a lot to learn, since your post here fails to offer adequate support for your point of view.

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.

The market is not "fully functional". As set up, it is distorted from time zone constraints, cash flow constraints, and server uptime issues. Not that this concerns the issue in question in any way.

Furthermore, the statement that "you are not really paying the market price" needs to be explained better (hint: you will have to do better in peer-reviewed papers).

Assume there is a bid of X dollars on a player. This either is, or is not the true market price (or the true market price +1, if you wish). The owner of this player places a new bid. If X was the true market price, then no other user will bid, resulting in the owner buying back his player. If X weren't the true market price, someone will overbid.

In this sense, it doesn't even matter who has placed the last bid, unless it is the rare case of a truly unique player. But then again, those players, by definition, will not have a clearly defined market price.

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?

Players do not exist in vacuum. They exist on the transfer market with thousands of other players. We all determine the right price by comparing the going rate of a player with the going rate of other similar players. Some managers are better in this than others, and this will be true regardless of whether or not bids by owner are allowed.

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)?

A user's willingness to pay is not affected by who is bidding on the player.

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.

There is no use in trying to charge the issue emotionally. It doesn't strengthen your argument. Owners who bid on their players are not "sleazy", and users who buy such players regardless are not "idiots". Both respond to simple incentives.

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.

Actually, I haven't noticed anything remotely similar to what you're describing.

Stop the clock; 13:13 on 3rd August, 2010.

5 Ball Post

Now close the thread!

Sorry - that will have to wait.. apparently I cant rate you more than once every 12 hours....

Why not allow the seller to accept or reject the final offer and eliminate the need for the seller to bid at all? The seller sets the initial price. If he likes what is bid he accepts the offer; if he doesn't like the bid or changes his mind for any other reason, he simply rejects the bid and keeps the player. I'm not sure I understand why someone that already owns a player should have to pay more to keep him. You would also have to require the seller to sell to the highest bidder, if he decides to accept any offer. (disclaimer: I don't have a PHd in economics, playing this game, or anything else for that matter.)

Last edited by LDR at 8/6/2010 9:54:42 PM