Do You Want To See Runnerup Bids In 2005?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:05 pm

Originally posted by Potter:

The downside is you might feel silly if you weren't sure of your bid or yourself. i will attempt to show which high bidders got "kicked in the jimmy" by bidding too much each week. nothing like knowing you OVERBID by a couple hundi

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:12 pm

Just because an owner outbids someone by a couple hundy does not make it the wrong move. But it doesn't surprise me that hasn't occured to you.

Latham · Post by **Latham** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:13 pm

I would vote for option B if we could keep the runner-up bid blind, otherwise put me down for option A. I like the blind bidding system but I am always curious if I overbid for a player.

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:19 pm

Me thinks many of you don't have a grasp of what the "blind" in blind bidding refers to. Just means you don't know what others are bidding PRIOR to the player going to the top bid. The term insinuates no reference as to what happens after.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:20 pm

Originally posted by Potter:

Just because an owner outbids someone by a couple hundy does not make it the wrong move. But it doesn't surprise me that hasn't occured to you. i can't say whether it's a "wrong move", but the feeling you get in your gut is priceless!!!

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:23 pm

hehe. Very true.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:27 pm

I knew the thoughts would be split between all three options because I've fielded calls from some of you during the debut season about this. My question on this subject is this: "Is providing more information a good thing or a bad thing for the contestants and the contest in general?"

I understand that some owners don't want their fellow owners to see what holes they are trying to patch in, so seeing EVERY bid would certainly be a drastic change for us from showing just the winning bids in 2004. So is showing the runnerup bid such a bad move for all of us in 2005? Do we take baby steps first? I'm proposing this not to make a change for the sake of change, but because I think there is value in knowing what others bid against you in each instance and knowing how active your fellow league mates are in FAAB.

In some ways, you can already tell how your winning bids compare to others because you can see all of the winning bids from all of the other leagues. But that doesn't tell you what your 14 league competitors are thinking, which is very important. Let's keep the discussion going, but I sense some movement to a variation of choice B.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:31 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Let's keep the discussion going, but I sense some movement to a variation of choice B. gekko's on board. let's make it happen. thanks.

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:33 pm

Okay, but at least post the home phone number of any owner who "outsmarted" the competition by more than 200.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:01 pm

Originally posted by Potter:

Me thinks many of you don't have a grasp of what the "blind" in blind bidding refers to. Just means you don't know what others are bidding PRIOR to the player going to the top bid. The term insinuates no reference as to what happens after. Actually, based on how it was handled in year one it clearly can be insinuated as 'blind' before and after. That's what it DID mean.

Dyv

Leaderboard Sports · Post by **Leaderboard Sports** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:13 pm

Knowing other bids will have a tendency to drive winning bids down as people see how much they are over bidding, meaning everyone will have more free agent money to use against you throughout the year.

Not knowing other bids will drive winning bids up as losing bidders think wow I was way under for that guy so he bids higher next time. As a result people start running out of money by the all star break and the prudent owner is able to add the players he needs to win close categories as the season winds down.

I prefer not to lose the advantage of experience gained (and money spent) from past high stakes contests.

Keep it as is. A

Puffins · Post by **Puffins** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:00 pm

I vote a. By having access to the bids of all the other leagues, you get a sense of the range of bids and more info is not needed. Option c is a very bad idea as I wouldn't want my competition to see which other players are on my "watch list".

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:00 am

How would it work with contingency bids? For example, If I know that Keith Foulke's shoulder is a bit cranky, but also know that Mariano Rivera is headed to the DL, and I only have 1 roster spot to fill, I may bid on Tom Gordon with a contingent bid on Matt Mantei. However if I get Gordon, I don't want people to start looking into "Why was someone bidding on Mantei?" Can the site differentiate?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:59 am

I guarantee we won't get into showing contingency bids. The question is just whether we want to show all of the actual bids made on that player, just the winning bid or the top two bids for each player. STATS is able to display whatever we request and I want to do this right. It's obvious we'll never agree on one answer, but throwing out your opinions here will help me make my decision for 2005. Thanks everyone.

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:08 am

My vote is A. I think Leaderboard has made the best points on this thread, I defer to him.

cfolson · Post by **cfolson** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:53 am

I would say A or C. If you are going to show the runner-up, you might as well show them all.

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:24 am

Dyv Greg didn't make up the term blind bidding. Go ahead and google it if you like, but it ain't called blind resulting. Seems pretty self explanatory really. BTW, your little resume and pearls of corn by your signature is pretty funny.

Kevin D · Post by **Kevin D** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:05 am

Eddiejag. Can you please stop SHOUTING?!

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:40 am

I vote for option B as long as no name is attached, otherwise I go with option A.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:51 am

Originally posted by Potter:

Dyv Greg didn't make up the term blind bidding. Go ahead and google it if you like, but it ain't called blind resulting. Seems pretty self explanatory really. BTW, your little resume and pearls of corn by your signature is pretty funny. Potter - appreciate your history lesson. All I was trying to point out (if you'd stop to try to understand instead of assuming everything) was that last year in the 2004 NFBC it was a blind bidding process that included blinded information before and after the bids. That's simply a fact and you apparently won't accept that. I'm sorry to confuse you.

As for my signature - I'm glad I can amuse you... always my pleasure.

Dyv

Liquidhippo · Post by **Liquidhippo** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:19 am

I don't see any 'right' or 'wrong' answer, seems more of a personal preference. I would put a strong vote in for C, for me, option a is very unappealing, the less info made available increases the luck factor and decreases the skill factor.

To me, the more 'blind' the whole process is, to that degree it increases the luck factor, and decreases the skill factor. The format that would allow the most knowledgeable to excel, would be to place bids, in $1 increments, up to a certain dollar figure.

That way, if you KNOW the average market for a given player is going to average $25, but you also know that this same market has undervalued him and he's actually worth $350, you're rewarded for that knowledge.

In any given league the same player can go for $1 or $750, its a crapshoot.

So, the less blind, the better, the more knowledge made available the better......IMHO

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:00 pm

Sorry cc i keep forgetting that means shouting. We had a couple guys in the NFFC who used capitals on everything , and they drove Jersey Paul crazy. I'LD WORK ON IT. just kidding

ALLACC82 · Post by **ALLACC82** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:12 pm

From a NFBC Rookie, I would vote to see the Runner-Up Bid to be BLIND also. This would at least give you an indication of perceived value from other owners. And the ulcer.....

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:26 pm

Originally posted by ALLACC82:

From a NFBC Rookie, I would vote to see the Runner-Up Bid to be BLIND also. This would at least give you an indication of perceived value from other owners. And the ulcer..... Excellent points, rook - don't forget if you show up late you sing your school's fight song. Donuts for the upperclassmen, etc.

Welcome aboard!

Dave

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:19 pm

Eddie G, you bringing your partner this year? You guys are too much!