BuzzerBeater Forums

how many people trade 10 times a day????? ok so now 10 times a week is popular... seems like more and more people are doing it which is slowly causing an equilibrium in the market.

are you guys going to complain when we get waives of inflation?? oh the prices are too high whilst others are fully vested into players... or perhaps BB will increase stadium revenue... will you moan that others make more than you in gate money whilst others expand their stadium?

as for saying taking DT out (think it was PatjeBono) will lower prices - what a joke. If DT were banned then people like you would jack up the prices cos you now think it is your right to buy players on the cheap.......

the amount of time youve spent arguing the point on this thread you couldve made 100k on the market!

if 1 trade per week secures my wage bill, staff and other temp expenses... it is a no brainer....i encourage more DT (can we rename them Week Traders)

I encourage WT to carry on so that the market finds a happy medium quicker than if the WT all disappeared...

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Everyone agrees that daytrading is sound planning, this is not the issue.

The point is that many of us came here looking for a strategy based game that someone could succeed at based in their strategy alone. While daytrading is a strategy it is one that is only available to the players who can be online a lot, and it means that whoever is online the most will have the most money and will dominate the game. Sure it is a strategy, but it is not a strategy that should be allowable in the best interest of the game.

There are a pretty serious number of people who will walk away because they have no way to compete. People say things like "come up with your own strategy to beat us," but this is naive at best. This is our whole point. There is no other strategy to beat daytrading, thus trading becomes the only factor that matters in a game that is supposed to be based on ALL AROUND STRATEGY. You are supposed to use tactics, various economic factors (if you day trade why bother ever upgrading your arena?), and you are supposed to train players (again...if you day trade why bother?).

This is what we are hoping for, a game that can be won by having the best overall plan, not by being the most active on the trade market.

something must be done


Why, exactly?

I've seen many people say this, but no real concrete reason as to why.

for the sake of realism.
find me a single team with more than 30 transfers in a season.

ah, also find me a team made by players happy to be tranfered on daily bases. call it motivation.

edit - though annoying, there's nothing wrong with this tactic, as they are just finding undervalued players.

or gullible newbies as in any other Ponzi scheme.

Here's how:

-The more people who participate in a market, the more likely it will be to arrive at a an agreed upon value for a player
-Daytraders find players who are undervalued by the market and sell them at market price, plugging a hole in the market for that particular skillset and timeframe
-The more daytraders you have, the less likely each one can find undervalued players
-If no players are undervalued (or overvalued), the the market has reached equilibrium for a particular skillset and timeframe
-When a market reaches equilibrium, it's less risky for everyone trying to buy and sell because there is less uncertainty about what they can get for a certain price
-Thus, for people who run the standard training and selling regimen, they will have a better idea of what their trained players will sell for than if the market were not at equilibrium.

straight out of the book, too bad it just doesn't work in real life. not even in a simplified market as this one.

You will receive 80% of the sale price after fees.

I've still to check but anyway unfortunately is not enough, as Hattrick can easily show...

Sometimes I thought that there should be a parallell agent game to both BB and HT. In this way people that love trading can get their fun without having to ruin the balance of the games.

(It is probably to complicated to introduce, so it is more of a thought than something really realistic. But who knows)

Cuba's economy struggles because of the embargoes imposed on it by the greediest, most selfish economy of them all. Small socialist economies in countries with mostly homogenous populations do fine, as I am sure Cuba's would if the USof Greed didn't strongarm the world into not dealing with it.

The definition of successful economy is a central issue. If it is okay that some players have huge piles of money with which they can buy all the best players and dominate the basketball part of the game, similar to the ways of professional sports in the US of Greed (see NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, etc.) then alright! Let's have a greed-based capitalist game!!! Woohoo!!! If, however, we define a successful economy as some sort of parity and equity between all members of the community, then a major penalty for purely profit-driven transfers is necessary. Let revenue come from increasing arena capacity and developing a team that fans want to come see, not from poring over the transfer lists and buying and selling players like stocks. Go play a stock simulator if that's what gets you off.

My two baht anywho...

I've still to check but anyway unfortunately is not enough, as Hattrick can easily show...

Without outright restricting the amount of transfers (which would be more unfair than anything), then this is as good as it will get.

I've still to check but anyway unfortunately is not enough, as Hattrick can easily show...

Without outright restricting the amount of transfers (which would be more unfair than anything), then this is as good as it will get.

I really don't think so. I think that player contracts of, for example, half a season would be better. If you break the contrct that's ok, but you wil then have to pay a penalty fee.