Possible Transfer Change ~ Bit of Auction Theory.

robborover · Post by **robborover** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:55 pm

Paul_G wrote:I don't like all this. Just keep the system the way it is. Keep it simple.

No, you don't always get the player as quickly as you'd like. But at least if I want a player I know how much I need to pay for him to have the top offer. Everything is out in the open. The price is out there for everyone to see.

Besides, if someone wants a player really fast from me THAT badly, then PM me and give me a value that I know no-body else will match. I hate people who write me asking me to release so and so because they're the current top bidder and they need my player fast.... without offering any compensation for the extra money I'm gonna lose if I do that. I don't see why I should have to bend over backwards because some lummocks didn't plan and doesn't have a backup at a position when a starter gets hurt.

Anyway, going further, you don't HAVE to bid 5% more than the other offer, of course. If you really want a guy then bid 25% more than the other offer. If not then prepare to wait. That's the price you pay.

Plus don't forget we have many different players here of many different ages. We need to keep the rules as easy to understand as possible. These rules are fair, people understand them... why tamper with that?

i think you're right. the market will even itself out and if you cannot afford a player or get outbid then it's only because you have not offered enough.

sljivovica · Post by **sljivovica** » Sun May 07, 2006 9:05 pm

Paul G has good points....
Still I would like the other system, to reduce waiting times.

Anyway, the reactions on the Dutch forums are mixed as well:

7 votes for
6 votes against
5 votes neutral

Not a lot of discussion there, by the way.... A bit disappointing

Arkzein · Post by **Arkzein** » Sun May 07, 2006 9:13 pm

Perhaps lost in the other threads? (Or most aren't actually too bothered wityh things currently) After all there's nothing much of anything going on around these parts.

robborover · Post by **robborover** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:23 am

i think it's a fairly good idea but not really a priority for many managers.

shame because it's one of the better ideas (even though i'd prefer the current system).

silverblast · Post by **silverblast** » Mon May 08, 2006 11:09 pm

Ok, after a lot of reading I think I'm starting to comprehend some stuff.

Some comments:
- Hide the names of other teams that bid on a player, leave no chance for manipulation.

- Robborovers suggestion, to create an invisible deadline, I think it's bad. Not everyone can predict a correct price for their players. And sometimes competitors (=>right spelling?

) would've been able and willing to bid higher than the deadline and then it would be unfair to those managers.

- Now a question: Can you make an invisible bid if you weren't participating in the bidwar? Because, if yes, then it's unfair.
Example
A player gets a bid of 500K.
The bid remains the same for 6 days.
On the 7th 'magic' day other managers make an invisible bid while the manager that bid 500K was willing to pay a lot more. But of course, it would be foolish to raise your own bid without any other bids. And so, I think it's not fair if you can make invisible bids if you haven't bid before that 7th day.
- Question number 2

Is de seller able to see the names of the buyers and, if so, can he see their bids on the 7th day? I hope no, again, to prevent manipulating.

There aren't a lot of reactions on the Dutch forum, but that's because there are tons of topics. (some are really worthless I tell you

)

Personally I believe it's a very good proposal and it certainly deserves more attention on the Dutch forum.

P.S. My deepest apologies for the many grammar, spelling and vocabulary errors. I tried hard to evade them, but it's probably crowded with mistakes. I'm sorry.

Arkzein · Post by **Arkzein** » Tue May 09, 2006 9:50 am

Pretty much got it. As for entering the closed phase, you have to be in the top few bidders from the six days to even have a chance to get there so you must enter the ascending auction earlier which is the driving force behind getting the prices to at least a reasonable level before the closed final part. (Again a bit of theory behind that, lesser bidders are more likely to enter on the off chance they get "lucky" and into the top few with a low bid but conversely more people in the auction raises the minimum bid)

robborover · Post by **robborover** » Tue May 09, 2006 10:09 am

Silverblast: why is it unfair to be outbid at the last day? it is a transfer market so prices and competition are the factors. the way the system is now helps people from being outbid as you get 24 hours to up your own bid. now if you can't afford to raise then you should lose the player.

i don't see any problem witht he current system really. it's fairer than logging in a 2am and bidding just before the simulation. i agree that you may have to wait longer to get your player, but it gives everyone a fair chance.

Silverblast wrote:Robborovers suggestion, to create an invisible deadline

No i said create an invisible price to guarantee a sale. eg: bid a $million and he's yours. Like on Ebay with the 'buy it now' price.

silverblast · Post by **silverblast** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:09 pm

robborover wrote:Silverblast: why is it unfair to be outbid at the last day? it is a transfer market so prices and competition are the factors. the way the system is now helps people from being outbid as you get 24 hours to up your own bid. now if you can't afford to raise then you should lose the player.

i don't see any problem witht he current system really. it's fairer than logging in a 2am and bidding just before the simulation. i agree that you may have to wait longer to get your player, but it gives everyone a fair chance.

Silverblast wrote:Robborovers suggestion, to create an invisible deadline
No i said create an invisible price to guarantee a sale. eg: bid a $million and he's yours. Like on Ebay with the 'buy it now' price.

This is perfectly logical, isn't it? The manager with the most money that wants to pay the most for a player gets the player. Don't tell me you think this is wrong.

Yes I understood what you said but I guess I phrased it wrong. (again, my apologies) The first problem this would give is a seller that doesn't really realise how much his player is worth... These things could very easily be too low or too high and that would bring unfair situations. (Especially when that "buy it now"-price is too low..)

Now, again, I like this idea very much.

Ehm, question: what's an auction?

pelsen · Post by **pelsen** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:31 pm

silverblast wrote:Ehm, question: what's an auction?

Veiling

silverblast · Post by **silverblast** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:40 pm

pelsen wrote:Veiling

Ty very much

robborover · Post by **robborover** » Wed May 10, 2006 12:10 pm

really is there a way to make is fair and unbiased? when you consider different timezones, valuations, languages, interpretations and rules. there is a hell of a lot to fit into one unique system.

@ silverblast: what do you mean by "unfair" situations? if a player is rated too highly he won't sell and if he's cheap then it's either because he's rubbish or they're cheating?

and if the price was hidden then there would be no way that they'd know anyway (unless the managers agreed the price). as for cheating; that will happen anyway. but the sp team keep an eye on it and it's obvious if you have bought loads of players from the same ip address anyway!

modes98's revenge · Post by **modes98's revenge** » Wed May 10, 2006 12:19 pm

Go back to the old system. It worked for both buyer and seller.

The seller had the chance to set the opening price and the buyer could bid right at the last minute for anybody they wanted, rather than having to battle against teams with more money and time to cruise the market.

The 24hour rule stops G league teams getting bargains, which is generally the point with transfers. Not every player goes for their official value.

An invisable auction would be an ok idea but it could end up with people entering in high amounts to try and secure players, which isn't ideal.

robborover · Post by **robborover** » Wed May 10, 2006 12:23 pm

i liked the old way too. if you want a player just bod more than just the 5% increase. or arrange the deal with the selling manager. easy peasey!

Arkzein · Post by **Arkzein** » Wed May 10, 2006 1:44 pm

Depends on what sort of a system you want and how "fair" you want it to be. The current system could be argued to be entirely "fair" namely that every sold player always reaches their full market valkue unless sold early by the selling manager.

The sealed price auction would be similar to this, but slightly less in favour of the sellers, likely players would go for a few % less than their optimal market value on average.

With the option of a set, unseen, "buy them now" price. (I see it more as a possible feature addition to any system rather than a system in itself) there are three scenarios, perhaps four.

One: Set above optimal market value and is pointless.
Two: Judged perfectly at the market value, player still goes for the same amount.
Three: Judged slightly below the market value (1/105% to be exact) The player goes to the same team as he would anyway, the buyer pays a little less.
Four here is where I see the problem. The value set is well below the market value so it's just a lotter as to whther or not a buyer gets him. For example 10 bidders bidding up in the 105% increments. One player just happens to get lucky when his next bid beats the set price.

Solutions? Show the Buy them now price (ala ebay) I'd actually be strongly in favour of that though no doubt some sellers will get a raw deal if they set it too low (nothard to check market going rates though, shouldn't be much of a problem) if they set it too low the ultility they lose may be offset by the added benefit of buyers getting a player quickly.

Again, distorts the market from the equilibrium in any case though not to a huge degree of the buy it now price is known.

As for the old system, I can't see how anyone could think it "fair". Players going for less than their true value more often than not and even asymmetric restraints on buyers, those who can log in a 4am with a quick finger and those who can't. The only way those who can't can actually ever get a player is buy bidding above the equlibrium market value. (So on the whole most sellers are a lot worse off, with some buyers a lot better off and some a lot worse off)

robborover · Post by **robborover** » Wed May 10, 2006 1:49 pm

yeah but at least the old system had a cut-off point rather than bidding day upon day!

i honestly don't think there is a best way. after all if there was they probably would have done it by now lol!