BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Bidding Wars

Bidding Wars

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
100172.45 in reply to 100172.44
Date: 7/9/2009 2:28:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
bidwars suggest that the player is currently UNDER market value, because no one should put their personal max bid as their first bid when theres a shot you could get him for less, its a horrible strategy

if the deadline didnt extend, someone could wait until the last second and outbid you and you wouldnt get the opportunity to bid back at him even though you definitely would have paid more UP TO the actual market value

yes, occasionally it could go higher if someone goes on tilt after 10 minutes of bidding, or if someone is desparate due to injuries, but i believe thats a much lesser evil than my previous point and happens a lot less

This Post:
00
100172.46 in reply to 100172.43
Date: 7/9/2009 2:30:24 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
I am aware of how eBay bidding works. I don't think the BBs are interested in implementing an absentee-bidding process.


i agree. if i make the effort to be online at a certain time and someone else doesnt, then i deserve to win the bid

This Post:
00
100172.47 in reply to 100172.46
Date: 7/10/2009 1:30:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
I am aware of how eBay bidding works. I don't think the BBs are interested in implementing an absentee-bidding process.


i agree. if i make the effort to be online at a certain time and someone else doesnt, then i deserve to win the bid


You don't always get what you deserve...... but having large amounts of money does help. :)

I disagree on not going in with max bid straight away.

1) You may have limited money and be competing with someone with limited money. As the bids increase 2% + 2% more can amount to quite a bit. I would never bid 3% less than my available balance to find out I lose because after 1 more bid I cant then go back in over the top.

2) If you have a long drawn out auction creeping up a few thousand at a time. You are likely to attract maybe another bidder(s)... if this happens you are almost certainly better off placing a chunky raise to attempt to scare off your rival bidders and try and conclude the auction before others join.

This Post:
00
100172.48 in reply to 100172.22
Date: 7/20/2009 1:17:52 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Using the player with 2k-10k ET range that goes for 30k a half hour after the bidding was supposed to end as an example:

Whatever a player sells for is his fair market price. This excludes what is known as "overbidding", where a team clearly bids more than he is worth (aka, someone bidding 200k for above player). The fact that 2 people are bidding on a player shows he is still under value.

Also, the "fair market" value is determined by the bidders, not some calculation. If users have more money on average, the overall price will go up for players on average. The above player may sell for 40k, yet still be in fair market value. This is called supply and demand and is one of the ways day traders are able to exist.

Having a drop dead deadline will unfairly place a ceiling on the fair market value. The player will go to the last bidder, rather than the highest bidder. It would probably lead to some players reaching market value, or slightly above, a bit sooner. However, overbidding and underbidding would happen more often, rather than less.

This Post:
00
100172.49 in reply to 100172.48
Date: 7/22/2009 9:13:52 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
My problem with the current bidding system is that the player's owner can run up the price if he doesn't like the bidding.

That shouldn't be allowed. The starting price is the price you should be comfortable losing the player for. So the current owner of a player shouldn't be able to bid in order to make the price go up.

I got in this situation lately and lost a player because the owner didn't "like" the price I was about to get the player for. Chatting with him, he laughed saying he wouldn't let his player go too cheap. But why did he set up the price to a level where he wasn't comfortable with in the first place?

What does the staff think about this kind of situation?

This Post:
00
100172.50 in reply to 100172.49
Date: 7/22/2009 9:19:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
My problem with the current bidding system is that the player's owner can run up the price if he doesn't like the bidding.

That shouldn't be allowed. The starting price is the price you should be comfortable losing the player for. So the current owner of a player shouldn't be able to bid in order to make the price go up.

I got in this situation lately and lost a player because the owner didn't "like" the price I was about to get the player for. Chatting with him, he laughed saying he wouldn't let his player go too cheap. But why did he set up the price to a level where he wasn't comfortable with in the first place?

What does the staff think about this kind of situation?


There are downsides to this. No1 the current owner will have to pay the tax (minimum 3%) depending on what % of the re-sale he was due to gain. No2, the player will be treated like a new player on his roster and is likely to then start out with maximum 80% re-sale value. So if he has done this, then it can be an expensive decision. 20% of a $2mil player when he wanted $2.5 and then having to perhaps own him for 6more weeks (and pay his salary) - I wouldnt be upset.. if he doesnt want your money, plenty of other managers out there that will take it!

This Post:
00
100172.51 in reply to 100172.50
Date: 7/22/2009 9:26:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
ok but in the situation I experienced, the current owner didn't buy his player back. Another owner jumped in and bought the player, way after the initial deadline. Noone was bidding on this player until the current owner start bidding to make the price go up. I bid a few times until I realized this was the current owner trying to increase the price. Then the other guy came. So the current just got more money without having to pay any consequences.

I don't get it. No auction system allows a current owner to run up the bidding.
But if this is allowed here, I'll make sure to use it in my advantage.

This Post:
00
100172.52 in reply to 100172.49
Date: 7/22/2009 11:44:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
225225
What does the staff think about this kind of situation?

When you make a bid this means you're willing to pay a certain amount for a player. If you're not willing, you don't bid. Where's the unfair part?

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
This Post:
00
100172.53 in reply to 100172.51
Date: 7/23/2009 3:06:00 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
but a lot auction system allow to cancel your offer, or you could at least trick it to do so ;)

Maybe you are selling your backup guard because you are thinking this is to much luxus, you list your player and your starter got injured and you need him again. Why not holding your own player, especially when he was the best you could get before the game. And if someone bids on his own player don't bid with him and he often will pay a high price for the possibility of 3-4 additional bids.

This Post:
00
100172.54 in reply to 100172.53
Date: 7/24/2009 11:31:03 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
You don't get my point.

The situation was - no bid for a player except me and another coach/GM. The other guy stopped bidding. So I was about to get this player.

Within the last minute, the owner of the player came and started bidding on his own player. I put a few bids until I realized it was the owner of the player. Then I stopped.

The deadline was pushed because of these bids, then a new coach/gm came and bid too. He got the player for double the price I was about to get the player in the first place before the current owner run up the bid.

When asked about it, the owner of the player told me he wasn't going to let me have the player for the price I was about to pay.

So you all mean that this behavior is acceptable here? You can run up the bids if you think it doesn't go high enough. Is it what you mean?

Advertisement