ATG 5 auction bidding

[mjruth]

Put a 1 or a 2 next to your name.

gorshar - 2
litangel - 2
BobBoone
hackra - 2
DHowser
getowta
miduar - 2
CATom
joekendall
Mr BBW 2
mjruth -1 Like that's going to fly haha! No I really bid 2 and thats the majority so we don't have to post on this subject anymore!!
jet40 2

[mjruth]

My little brain is churning out another devasting scenario based on the #2 ruling.

I bring out a pitcher whom I do not want and Pass. (value 7.34M)

then two guys make a bid only for .76M and its a tie.

They both pass in the re-bid!

Now I am forced to take the pitcher at .73M because technically I am the next highest bidder because everyone else passed. I guess in this twisted scenario the pitcher would have to go back to the pool and I would nominate another pitcher because I would be outraged to get stuck with a guy that 2 teams had bid on. :roll: :shock: :D
I should have been a lawyer! lol!

[hackra]

[quote:3d91985dbf="mjruth"]My little brain is churning out another devasting scenario based on the #2 ruling.

I bring out a pitcher whom I do not want and Pass. (value 7.34M)

then two guys make a bid only for .76M and its a tie.

They both pass in the re-bid!

Now I am forced to take the pitcher at .73M because technically I am the next highest bidder because everyone else passed. I guess in this twisted scenario the pitcher would have to go back to the pool and I would nominate another pitcher because I would be outraged to get stuck with a guy that 2 teams had bid on. :roll: :shock: :D
I should have been a lawyer! lol![/quote:3d91985dbf]

I would say......be sure not to nominate a player you are not willing to take on your team....[b:3d91985dbf]you are likely to get them by default[/b:3d91985dbf] :evil:

(my interpretation of the scenario above is that you could not return the player to the pool having nominated them)

[The Jerk Store]

Everyone passed on Rolfe or couldn't afford, so . . .

Rolfe goes to getowtamypot for 1.0

[The Jerk Store]

Yogi Berra - .75 (didn't see him on the list of the chosen)

[DHowser]

[quote:a5e48a3c4b="mjruth"]My little brain is churning out another devasting scenario based on the #2 ruling.

I bring out a pitcher whom I do not want and Pass. (value 7.34M)

then two guys make a bid only for .76M and its a tie.

They both pass in the re-bid!

Now I am forced to take the pitcher at .73M because technically I am the next highest bidder because everyone else passed. I guess in this twisted scenario the pitcher would have to go back to the pool and I would nominate another pitcher because I would be outraged to get stuck with a guy that 2 teams had bid on. :roll: :shock: :D
I should have been a lawyer! lol![/quote:a5e48a3c4b]


I agree with Hackra on this one. The rules state that if you put up a player and pass, and everyone else passes, then the nominator gets that player for either 500K or 10%, whichever is higher. Since we're going with the original rule that tied bids can be passes, technically this would mean that everyone passed, thus having the original nominator forced to take the player.

[MIKEARCHAMBAULT]

Only CATom left to bid on Newt Allen

[mjruth]

[quote:3cf8bb7801="hackra"]

I would say......be sure not to nominate a player you are not willing to take on your team....[b:3cf8bb7801]you are likely to get them by default[/b:3cf8bb7801] :evil:

(my interpretation of the scenario above is that you could not return the player to the pool having nominated them)[/quote:3cf8bb7801]

Part of the strategy in this format is to make people spend their dollars while trying to get the players you want. I fully understand that if I nominate a player and get stuck with him because everyone passes that it is 100% my problem. However if two people make bids higher than mine and technically win that player and now they have to re-bid to simply break the tie. Both players decline to break the tie and it now falls back on the lower original bidder.I clearly cannot see the logic there.

Example: I just nominated Deacon Phillipe and passed! If no one bids I would get him for .88M
Now if two people bid .95M and refuse to break the tie I now have to take him it at .88M. That makes absolutely no sense! It may never happen but on these low end players it could and part of my strategy is to nominate players I do not want because I believe others will bid.and I should not be penalized for people that outbid me and then pass on a re-bid.

[kimkrichbaum2]

I would like to repropose an idea that was a little misunderstood before. How about if two owners who tie both pass, the player goes to the owner [b:ac142538e7]among those two[/b:ac142538e7] who has the most money, left. That owner would simply be getting a player at the price they bid for them. It seems like that would cause the least disruption is someone's plans.

PS feeling tired of this issue! :shock:

[hackra]

[quote:cb94449882="mjruth"][quote:cb94449882="hackra"]

I would say......be sure not to nominate a player you are not willing to take on your team....[b:cb94449882]you are likely to get them by default[/b:cb94449882] :evil:

(my interpretation of the scenario above is that you could not return the player to the pool having nominated them)[/quote:cb94449882]

Part of the strategy in this format is to make people spend their dollars while trying to get the players you want. I fully understand that if I nominate a player and get stuck with him because everyone passes that it is 100% my problem. However if two people make bids higher than mine and technically win that player and now they have to re-bid to simply break the tie. Both players decline to break the tie and it now falls back on the lower original bidder.I clearly cannot see the logic there.

Example: I just nominated Deacon Phillipe and passed! If no one bids I would get him for .88M
Now if two people bid .95M and refuse to break the tie I now have to take him it at .88M. That makes absolutely no sense! It may never happen but on these low end players it could and part of my strategy is to nominate players I do not want because I believe others will bid.and I should not be penalized for people that outbid me and then pass on a re-bid.[/quote:cb94449882]

This is not intended to be overly critical, and I do understand your strategy and you concern, BUT having voted for option 2 above, you need to be aware that you ARE at risk to get the player at the bid price EVEN after several rounds of rebid ties having agreed upon the ruling....therefore making your strategy just that much more risky.

perhaps an addendum to the rules could be agreed upon to allow tiebreak rebids to be the same, higher, pass, or even lower than the first tied price (as long as the rebid is higher than the next lowest bid), or an alternate tiebreak allowing the tied bidders to discuss the tie and agree upon which would aquiesce....but it seems to me any further rules changes would require everyone's agreement.

I am envisioning a scenario where a player is nominated and passed. the bid is tied at 0.52, the tied bidders only have .52 or thereabouts available to spend and can't legally up their bids. ...or worse, a 0.50 player is nominated and passed upon, 2 people bid 0.5 and each only has .50 to spend, there is a tie that is essentially unbreakable without someone being able to back out or pass.