BuzzerBeater Forums

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.