Blind bidding (1 Viewer)

[bueno]

As for blind bidding, I get how people would like that as well, but only if you play in a league with a transaction limit. My league has unlimited transactions, so setting a cap on bidding dollars doesnt work.

Can you expand on this? Why is a transaction limit necessary? Why won't a cap on the dollars work?

What I meant was, giving each team a set amount of dollars for the season will at some point limit how many transactions that team can or will make...Once they blow through their wad they cant make any other pickups...I understand the strategy of that, but it still sets a limit of how many moves a team can make.I didnt word it right in my post...

No Mercy has a $100 limit on the season and blind bidding ends week 12. Most teams don't spend their limit. It does set a limit to how many moves a team can make, but the owners adjust their bidding to make sure the money lasts all season, or go broke.It works fine. Do you really make more than 10-12 moves a year?

Oh hell yeah...in my league its a friggin free-for-all...We have strict roster restrictions, but we have one extra spot for one player at any position....everyone is always picking up someone in hopes of landing the next gem, or for picking up a backup to a stud on someone elses roster for trade bait, etc...Id have to go back and look, but Id say the average number of moves made in my league last year was 20+. One guy is famous for making multiple moves EVERY WEEK, and he probably made upwards of 50 moves, maybe more.

I suppose my league is an extreme example, so maybe I should pipe down and let the discussion continue

On a side note, the sky just opened up here in Florida and its storming like a mofo.

But how much money do you spend prospecting?

We got rid of transaction fees a few years ago when we moved the entry fee up to $200....I guess that was the tradeoff: guarnateed, set amounts for the payouts.And there's the rub.

So if you had transaction fees, it would cut down on the amount of moves. If you don't do transaction fees (whether real money or an allowance) then WTF follwed by FCFS is probably the best route. If you do have some kind of blind bidding with a seasonal limit, I think it's a better way to go.If you have Shawn Alexander and he gets hurt, shouldn't you be allowed to bid on Maurice Morris?

 

[Wingnut]

So if you had transaction fees, it would cut down on the amount of moves. If you don't do transaction fees (whether real money or an allowance) then WTF follwed by FCFS is probably the best route. If you do have some kind of blind bidding with a seasonal limit, I think it's a better way to go.

If you have Shawn Alexander and he gets hurt, shouldn't you be allowed to bid on Maurice Morris?

With this league, MoMo would either be on someones roster already (as insurance to the SA owner or on someone elses roster as trade bait), or picked up by whoever had high priority after SA got hurt...Currently we use the never-resetting waiver order...when you pick someone up, you drop to the bottom...

With rosters this big, most stud's backups are on a roster somewhere.

I wouldnt be against blind bidding myself, but I doubt it would get voted through. Maybe next year to shake things up Ill suggest it to be put up to a vote. I wouldnt mind trying it, even for one year, to see if we like it better or worse.

 

[bryhamm]

I don't like that, I could just bid the max amount knowing that no one else will and I could get him for way less. If you really want a guy there is not much thought involved there imo.

I've heard this arguement before and I don't understand it. But let's break it down and see if it becomes clearer.Scenario 1 - Live Auction

You want Player A. The most you are willing to spend is $35.

No one else wants player A.

Your league shows up for a live auction at your house. You start the bidding off for Player A at $1. There are no other bids and you get Player A for $1

Scenario 2 - +1 blind bidding

You want Player A. The most you are willing to spend is $35. You enter a blind bid for $35. No one else wants player A so there are no other bids.

Waivers are run by the computer and all bids compared. The bidding for Player A started and ended at $1. You get Player A for $1.

I think you can see how the +1 blind bidding is exactly the same as a live auction. You are getting the player at fair market value. Why should you have to pay $35 for a player that no one else wanted?! You paid exactly what the market said the player was worth, $1.

As for comments about how teams most in need can get out bid, my question would be, "How?". Teams that are most in need are the teams that will be bidding the most money. If they aren't the ones bidding the most money then what the heck are they doing? How much do you really have to carry owners who can't manage their own teams? Maybe a better solution to "keep it competative" would be to take a look how everyone was doing at midseason, and then have the top three teams give one of their stud players to the three worst teams so they can better compete...

Except in a live auction, when there are more than one bidders, rebids are allowed. Your example is a special case and the only example where +1 bidding does mirror auction.

The +1 is designed to mimic the rebid process. Let's use an example of a live auction. Below I have listed 3 owners, with the number in parenthesis being the max amount that they are willing to spend (obviously know one else knows this except them).Owner A (7): I would like to start the bidding on RB X at $1.

Owner B (12): I will go $2

Owner C (30): I will go $3

B (12): $4

A (7): $5

B (12): $6

C (30): $7

A (7) thinking to himself -- I can't go any higher

B (12): $8

C (30): $9

B (12): $10

C (30): $11

B (12): $12

C (30): $13

B (12) thinking to himself -- I can't go any higher

The bidding ends and C gets him for $1 more than B's top price.

To exactly mimic an auction, A would bid $5, B $12 and C > $12 is what you're saying, but not everybody thinks that way. Maybe A bids $5, B 12 and C, thinking he could get the player on a low ball bid bids $10. Now C would get the player for $11.I don't see where it mimics the auction process. Different strategies required for each.

I was addressing someone stating that in a live auction there is the ability to rebid. If B was willing in his mind to go up to $12, why would he bid $10 and then stop? We are talking about a live auction. You have been to one or have seen how one works right? You don't just bid once and that is it. That would be a true blind bid. What I am describing is how a blind bid with the +1 feature would EXACTLY mimic a live auction process.

 

[stugnut]

To exactly mimic an auction, A would bid $5, B $12 and C > $12 is what you're saying, but not everybody thinks that way. Maybe A bids $5, B 12 and C, thinking he could get the player on a low ball bid bids $10. Now C would get the player for $11.No, if C bids $10, B then bids $11, and C then bids $12, his maximum. And he gets the player for $12.[/b

I don't see where it mimics the auction process. Different strategies required for each.

I've reread your reply but I am not quite getting it. I think maybe you are assuming owners only get one bid and then it's over. At least that is the only way I can make sense of what you are saying. That's not how it works in either a live or blind bidding system; bidding goes back and forth and owners drop out when they reach the max they are willing to spend. The confusing part of your example is this, "...and C, thinking he could get the player on a low ball bid bids $10". Well, if he bids $10, player B would counter bid $11, because his max is $12. Then player C would counter with $12, and win the player at $12. See? It would play out exactly the same regardless if it happend live with all owners present or if it happened with the league software acting as the auctioneer. If you are still not understanding this, you are missing a concept somewhere.

 

[SSOG]

Mixed feelings on FCFS, but anyway...

If you're going to do bidding, IMO blind bids are stoopid. Would you run an auction draft that way? YES, this is exactly how an auction is run No. So why do FAs that way? wtf w/the guessing game? That's kinda like walking into a dealership and a dealer goes "I have a bottom-line number on this car. If you guess higher than that number, you have to pay that amount and buy it. If you're too low, you can't buy it."

*snip* Market value. agreed,this is the best way to handle waivers/FA Let the FA bidding wars happen - fairer and IMO more fun. You can either let it go or if you really want the player, fork over the cash instead of this "one and done" thing.

I think you are assuming blind bidding means you pay your maximum bid. That is only one way to blind bid. In my opinion, if you want the most fair way of running waivers/FA, you would use a +1 system of blind bidding. In the words of Tone Loc, "And it goes a little somethin' like this":Think of it this way. Most of us here would agree that for the draft an auction is the "fairest" way to run it. If that is the case, the same should hold true for the waivers/FA period. However, trying to get 12+ teams together every week for claims just aint going to happen. However, there is a way to run claims that mirrors an auction process exactly.

With "+1" blind bidding, the computer acts as the auctioneer. As a simple example, lets say your entire league got together for a live auction during week 1 of the waiver process. And lets say 3 owners wanted to acquire the waiver phenom, Brandon Jacobs. Those three owners are willing to bid, $4, $6, and $22. The guy bidding $22 is in dire need of a RB because his RB1 and RB2 were arrested after celebrating their week 1 wins.

what is the fair market value of Brandon Jacobs? It's $7. And that is exactly what he would go for (NOT $22), using a +1 blind bidding system. Because in a live auction Owner 1 would drop out when the bidding hit $5, Owner 2 would drop out when bidding hit $7, and therefore Owner 3 would get BJ for $7 (no pun intended). Well, that is *exactly* what you would pay when the computer acts as auctioneer in the +1 system.

Simply put, blind bidding using a +1 system is the fairest way of running your waivers/FA claims.

Haven't read the entire thread, but I want to comment on your use of the word "fair".Both Blind Bidding and +1 Blind Bidding systems give everyone single team an equal shot at every single player. Both allocate an equal amount of resources to everyone, and both give no statistical advantage to one team over another. All teams are required to follow the exact same rules. As a result, both are EQUALLY FAIR. You might like one system more than another, but please, don't try to pimp it as "unfair" just because you don't like the rules. If everyone follows the same rules and has an equal shot at all players, then you've got yourself a "FAIR" system.

 

[stugnut]

Haven't read the entire thread, but I want to comment on your use of the word "fair".

Both Blind Bidding and +1 Blind Bidding systems give everyone single team an equal shot at every single player. Both allocate an equal amount of resources to everyone, and both give no statistical advantage to one team over another. All teams are required to follow the exact same rules. As a result, both are EQUALLY FAIR. You might like one system more than another, but please, don't try to pimp it as "unfair" just because you don't like the rules. If everyone follows the same rules and has an equal shot at all players, then you've got yourself a "FAIR" system.

I think we are splitting our hairs a little thin here. "Fair" is relative. And if it's relative it has to be relative to something. I defined what that something is and prefaced my entire position on it:

Think of it this way. Most of us here would agree that for the draft an auction is the "fairest" way to run it. If that is the case, the same should hold true for the waivers/FA period.

I even put "fair" in parenthesis to show that this is my definition of fair. If you are going to disagree with my use of the word fair, then that is the place to disagree with it. However, I believe that most of here would agree with the position that an auction is the fairest way to hold a draft. If not, then we can part ways here because my position on blind bidding is predicated on that.If you do agree that an auction is the fairest way of running a draft, then lets take it to the next level. The "fairest" way to hold waivers would then be to model it as close as possible to the auction. That would mean every owner getting together each week to hold a live waivers auction. Obviously, that is not workable. However, as I’ve outlined above, the +1 blind bidding system would allocate players in the exact same fashion as if the auction were held live. The other type of blind bidding system wouldn’t. In other words, the +1 system most closely models a live auction draft, and because our definition of “fair” is a system that allocates players in a fashion that most closely models a live auction, the +1 system would be “fairer” than the other type of blind bidding system.

Notice that, contrary to your claim, I never said the other blind bidding system was “unfair”. I don’t think it is unfair. I do however think that a live auction is the fairest way of acquiring players and as the +1 systems more closely models a live auction, it is by definition, more fair…. Sheesh, you misconstrue my position, accuse me of ‘pimpin like a Snoop Dog wannabe, and then put words in my mouth.

The 2 people who have read this far can now safely move on to another thread. But since we have entered the realm of semantics, and because I have a couple of beers in me and there is nothing on TV, I’m going to validate my sad evening by putting a spin on your EQUALLY FAIR argument. Let’s say that my position is that if you had to kill yourself, the “fairest” way to do so would be with the method is the most humane. Call me crazy, but that is my position. If I then say that overdosing on morphine is “fairer” then sticking a red-hot poker through your eye and into your brain, would you accuse me of pimping the hot poker method as being “unfair”? After all, you are free to choose either method, neither method would give you an advantage on killing yourself, and both result in the same outcome (death). So are they EQUALLY FAIR? Of course, it all comes back to what you mean by fair. You are free to disagree with me on my definition of “fair”, but if you agree that the most humane way to kill yourself is the fairest way, you shouldn’t disagree with me that overdosing on morphine isn’t fairer then the hot poker to the brain. Unless, you are, you know… psycho-crazy and live in the same town as me. In which case disregard everything I’ve said.

Jesus, I’ve even bored myself. When does the season start??

 

[SSOG]

Haven't read the entire thread, but I want to comment on your use of the word "fair".

Both Blind Bidding and +1 Blind Bidding systems give everyone single team an equal shot at every single player. Both allocate an equal amount of resources to everyone, and both give no statistical advantage to one team over another. All teams are required to follow the exact same rules. As a result, both are EQUALLY FAIR. You might like one system more than another, but please, don't try to pimp it as "unfair" just because you don't like the rules. If everyone follows the same rules and has an equal shot at all players, then you've got yourself a "FAIR" system.

I think we are splitting our hairs a little thin here. "Fair" is relative. And if it's relative it has to be relative to something. I defined what that something is and prefaced my entire position on it:

Think of it this way. Most of us here would agree that for the draft an auction is the "fairest" way to run it. If that is the case, the same should hold true for the waivers/FA period.

I even put "fair" in parenthesis to show that this is my definition of fair. If you are going to disagree with my use of the word fair, then that is the place to disagree with it. However, I believe that most of here would agree with the position that an auction is the fairest way to hold a draft. If not, then we can part ways here because my position on blind bidding is predicated on that.If you do agree that an auction is the fairest way of running a draft, then lets take it to the next level. The "fairest" way to hold waivers would then be to model it as close as possible to the auction. That would mean every owner getting together each week to hold a live waivers auction. Obviously, that is not workable. However, as I’ve outlined above, the +1 blind bidding system would allocate players in the exact same fashion as if the auction were held live. The other type of blind bidding system wouldn’t. In other words, the +1 system most closely models a live auction draft, and because our definition of “fair” is a system that allocates players in a fashion that most closely models a live auction, the +1 system would be “fairer” than the other type of blind bidding system.

Notice that, contrary to your claim, I never said the other blind bidding system was “unfair”. I don’t think it is unfair. I do however think that a live auction is the fairest way of acquiring players and as the +1 systems more closely models a live auction, it is by definition, more fair…. Sheesh, you misconstrue my position, accuse me of ‘pimpin like a Snoop Dog wannabe, and then put words in my mouth.

The 2 people who have read this far can now safely move on to another thread. But since we have entered the realm of semantics, and because I have a couple of beers in me and there is nothing on TV, I’m going to validate my sad evening by putting a spin on your EQUALLY FAIR argument. Let’s say that my position is that if you had to kill yourself, the “fairest” way to do so would be with the method is the most humane. Call me crazy, but that is my position. If I then say that overdosing on morphine is “fairer” then sticking a red-hot poker through your eye and into your brain, would you accuse me of pimping the hot poker method as being “unfair”? After all, you are free to choose either method, neither method would give you an advantage on killing yourself, and both result in the same outcome (death). So are they EQUALLY FAIR? Of course, it all comes back to what you mean by fair. You are free to disagree with me on my definition of “fair”, but if you agree that the most humane way to kill yourself is the fairest way, you shouldn’t disagree with me that overdosing on morphine isn’t fairer then the hot poker to the brain. Unless, you are, you know… psycho-crazy and live in the same town as me. In which case disregard everything I’ve said.

Jesus, I’ve even bored myself. When does the season start??

See, the thing is, you're comparing apples and oranges. A live auction might be the "fairest" way to put together the original team, but that's because there are generally two choices- Draft, or Auction. Saying something's fairer than a draft doesn't make it the "fairest" way. I think if there were Blind Bidding auctions to assemble the original team, they'd be just as "fair".I get it. You like Blind Bidding +1 auctions because you feel like you don't overpay for players. That's fine, you're allowed to like Blind Bidding +1 auctions. Here's the definition of "fair":

1. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

2. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

Both systems are completely and entirely free of favoritism or bias. Both systems are perfectly impartial and just to all parties. All parties abide by the same rules. As a result, both systems are equally fair. That doesn't mean you have to like both systems equally as much, it just means it's kind of silly when you say that Blind Bidding +1 is more "fair" than regular Blind Bidding.

 

[roadkill1292]

This is starting to sound like a tax thread over in the FFA.

The +1 system is pretty intriguing. I'm gonna have to give that one some more thought. Either way, a bidding system for free agents is far superior to a worst-to-first process. It should be a level playing field as much as possible, not welfare for the unsuccessful.

 

[yaheRRdme]

I dont get all the arguing over +1 systems.. it really does not matter because it is not like there are going to be 100 quality free agents out there each week.. there MIGHT be a handful that will be actively bid on by multiple teams, the rest are just filling in holes in your team or picking up a player on a hunch.. ..the only way to get one of the highly sought after players is to bid alot... the rest who cares?? Does it really matter if you pickup John Carney or Kris Brown???

 

[valhallan]

Yeeah the +1 system sounds great, but I think my league would be fine with standard blind bidding. We're probably going to go with a $1000 allotment per franchise and $1 bid increments. So if Brandon Lloyd explodes in week 1 and an owner wants him, he'll just have to decide how much of his load he's willing to blow on him.

Good discussion guys

 

[Godsbrother]

We've never done blind bidding because as a commissioner I don't see a good way for me to bid without knowing everyone else's bid.

We used CBS waiver system because it is all automated. Now it looks like they support blind bidding so maybe we'll go with it.

 

[stugnut]

Both systems are completely and entirely free of favoritism or bias. Both systems are perfectly impartial and just to all parties. All parties abide by the same rules. As a result, both systems are equally fair. That doesn't mean you have to like both systems equally as much, it just means it's kind of silly when you say that Blind Bidding +1 is more "fair" than regular Blind Bidding.

You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convice you. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

We've never done blind bidding because as a commissioner I don't see a good way for me to bid without knowing everyone else's bid.

We used CBS waiver system because it is all automated. Now it looks like they support blind bidding so maybe we'll go with it.

I think most of the sites not support some form of blind bidding. I know Fanball, RTSports, and MFL do.

I dont get all the arguing over +1 systems.. it really does not matter because it is not like there are going to be 100 quality free agents out there each week.. there MIGHT be a handful that will be actively bid on by multiple teams, the rest are just filling in holes in your team or picking up a player on a hunch.. ..the only way to get one of the highly sought after players is to bid alot... the rest who cares?? Does it really matter if you pickup John Carney or Kris Brown???

The owner in my league who picked up Samkon Gado in week 8 last year and then when on to win the championship game might disagree with you. How about Boldin after week 1 of his rookie year?

Either way, a bidding system for free agents is far superior to a worst-to-first process. It should be a level playing field as much as possible, not welfare for the unsuccessful.

Agreed!

 

[Ray Pollett]

We've never done blind bidding because as a commissioner I don't see a good way for me to bid without knowing everyone else's bid.

We used CBS waiver system because it is all automated. Now it looks like they support blind bidding so maybe we'll go with it.

on MFL you do not look at their bids. You can even lock youself out so you can not see them.

 

[yaheRRdme]

I dont get all the arguing over +1 systems.. it really does not matter because it is not like there are going to be 100 quality free agents out there each week.. there MIGHT be a handful that will be actively bid on by multiple teams, the rest are just filling in holes in your team or picking up a player on a hunch.. ..the only way to get one of the highly sought after players is to bid alot... the rest who cares?? Does it really matter if you pickup John Carney or Kris Brown???

The owner in my league who picked up Samkon Gado in week 8 last year and then when on to win the championship game might disagree with you. How about Boldin after week 1 of his rookie year?

These are the examples of the handful of players that multiple teams may want.. Boldin after week one his rookie season was pretty much still an unkown commodity and could would have been cheap....Marty Booker had over 100yds week one last year, but it did not work out so great for him... Gado is a prime example of why the "plus one" does not matter.. there is no way in a 10-12 man league that he should not have commanded 80% of someones allotment.. who else are you waiting to bid on??.. The real trick is to have some guys with "potential" on your bench

 

[culdeus]

PLEASE kill that avatar

I second that motion. Nice avatars or no avatars at all.

No

 

[Shining Path's Alias]

Mixed feelings on FCFS, but anyway...

If you're going to do bidding, IMO blind bids are stoopid.  Would you run an auction draft that way?  YES, this is exactly how an auction is run No.  So why do FAs that way?  wtf w/the guessing game?  That's kinda like walking into a dealership and a dealer goes "I have a bottom-line number on this car.  If you guess higher than that number, you have to pay that amount and buy it.  If you're too low, you can't buy it." 

*snip* Market value.  agreed,this is the best way to handle waivers/FA Let the FA bidding wars happen - fairer and IMO more fun.  You can either let it go or if you really want the player, fork over the cash instead of this "one and done" thing.

I think you are assuming blind bidding means you pay your maximum bid. That is only one way to blind bid. In my opinion, if you want the most fair way of running waivers/FA, you would use a +1 system of blind bidding. In the words of Tone Loc, "And it goes a little somethin' like this":Think of it this way. Most of us here would agree that for the draft an auction is the "fairest" way to run it. If that is the case, the same should hold true for the waivers/FA period. However, trying to get 12+ teams together every week for claims just aint going to happen. However, there is a way to run claims that mirrors an auction process exactly.

With "+1" blind bidding, the computer acts as the auctioneer. As a simple example, lets say your entire league got together for a live auction during week 1 of the waiver process. And lets say 3 owners wanted to acquire the waiver phenom, Brandon Jacobs. Those three owners are willing to bid, $4, $6, and $22. The guy bidding $22 is in dire need of a RB because his RB1 and RB2 were arrested after celebrating their week 1 wins.

what is the fair market value of Brandon Jacobs? It's $7. And that is exactly what he would go for (NOT $22), using a +1 blind bidding system. Because in a live auction Owner 1 would drop out when the bidding hit $5, Owner 2 would drop out when bidding hit $7, and therefore Owner 3 would get BJ for $7 (no pun intended). Well, that is *exactly* what you would pay when the computer acts as auctioneer in the +1 system.

Simply put, blind bidding using a +1 system is the fairest way of running your waivers/FA claims.

I don't like that, I could just bid the max amount knowing that no one else will and I could get him for way less. If you really want a guy there is not much thought involved there imo.

What would happen if two guys bid a huge amount thinking the other wouldn't? Your sort of scenario isn't realistic.

 

[stugnut]

I don't like that, I could just bid the max amount knowing that no one else will and I could get him for way less. If you really want a guy there is not much thought involved there imo.

What would happen if two guys bid a huge amount thinking the other wouldn't? Your sort of scenario isn't realistic.

He avoids that by (somehow) knowing what everyone else will bid That would be sweet.

 

[roadkill1292]

Mixed feelings on FCFS, but anyway...

If you're going to do bidding, IMO blind bids are stoopid. Would you run an auction draft that way? YES, this is exactly how an auction is run No. So why do FAs that way? wtf w/the guessing game? That's kinda like walking into a dealership and a dealer goes "I have a bottom-line number on this car. If you guess higher than that number, you have to pay that amount and buy it. If you're too low, you can't buy it."

*snip* Market value. agreed,this is the best way to handle waivers/FA Let the FA bidding wars happen - fairer and IMO more fun. You can either let it go or if you really want the player, fork over the cash instead of this "one and done" thing.

I think you are assuming blind bidding means you pay your maximum bid. That is only one way to blind bid. In my opinion, if you want the most fair way of running waivers/FA, you would use a +1 system of blind bidding. In the words of Tone Loc, "And it goes a little somethin' like this":Think of it this way. Most of us here would agree that for the draft an auction is the "fairest" way to run it. If that is the case, the same should hold true for the waivers/FA period. However, trying to get 12+ teams together every week for claims just aint going to happen. However, there is a way to run claims that mirrors an auction process exactly.

With "+1" blind bidding, the computer acts as the auctioneer. As a simple example, lets say your entire league got together for a live auction during week 1 of the waiver process. And lets say 3 owners wanted to acquire the waiver phenom, Brandon Jacobs. Those three owners are willing to bid, $4, $6, and $22. The guy bidding $22 is in dire need of a RB because his RB1 and RB2 were arrested after celebrating their week 1 wins.

what is the fair market value of Brandon Jacobs? It's $7. And that is exactly what he would go for (NOT $22), using a +1 blind bidding system. Because in a live auction Owner 1 would drop out when the bidding hit $5, Owner 2 would drop out when bidding hit $7, and therefore Owner 3 would get BJ for $7 (no pun intended). Well, that is *exactly* what you would pay when the computer acts as auctioneer in the +1 system.

Simply put, blind bidding using a +1 system is the fairest way of running your waivers/FA claims.

I don't like that, I could just bid the max amount knowing that no one else will and I could get him for way less. If you really want a guy there is not much thought involved there imo.

What would happen if two guys bid a huge amount thinking the other wouldn't? Your sort of scenario isn't realistic.

That's also the way I see it. Better bid only what you're ultimately willing to pay.