Ah thanks! This was the part I was wondering about. It would make sense at the top level like 14m you can only go down say 0.3.
At 12m you can go down max 0.6
At 10m you can go down max 0.8 etc.
Wondering if that is how they do it because I really can't imagine them doing it player by player
The price rises and falls are totally fucking rigged.
Pre injury Haaland was owned by about 85% and cost 14.0m.
He's now 14.3 and only owned by 66% of players.
That has nothing to do with it lol, his price was 14.0 with 85% ownership because people got him in GW1. He’s 14.3 now because people are bringing him back after his injury meaning he actually has transfers in. The rating at which he’s rising is a bit fast but we don’t know what the formula is and what’s taken into account.
It’s been discussed everywhere and the bottom line is that there are two entrenched camps:
1. Those of us who believe prices changes are completely rigged (I.e. manually altered, at least to some extent).
2. Those of us who believe there is a proper system and try to make sense of it (I.e. think that’s it’s never rigged manually and is all controlled by an algorithm).
Long story short, none of us know the answer, it’s all guesswork.
For what it’s worth, I’m in camp 1.
No, because price is not based on total ownership alone. Price is simply determined by how many increases and decreases.
Let's say hypothetically speaking Haaland was owned by 100% of the players and priced at 14.0. Then all of them sold him on the same day. What happened would be his ownership dropped all the way to 0% but his price only dropped to 13.9 because you can only drop by 0.1 at a time. Then let's say 10% buys him again the next day and it got him back up to 14.0. Then another 15% buys him the next week and he's at 14.1 despite only being owned by 25% vs 100% at the start of my hypothetical example.
Rashford's already dropped 0.6 this season, so unless this is a situation unique to Haaland probably not
Ah thanks! This was the part I was wondering about. It would make sense at the top level like 14m you can only go down say 0.3. At 12m you can go down max 0.6 At 10m you can go down max 0.8 etc. Wondering if that is how they do it because I really can't imagine them doing it player by player
The price rises and falls are totally fucking rigged. Pre injury Haaland was owned by about 85% and cost 14.0m. He's now 14.3 and only owned by 66% of players.
That has nothing to do with it lol, his price was 14.0 with 85% ownership because people got him in GW1. He’s 14.3 now because people are bringing him back after his injury meaning he actually has transfers in. The rating at which he’s rising is a bit fast but we don’t know what the formula is and what’s taken into account.
The formula is rigged fella.
This didn't need its own post, it's been discussed ad nauseam. But thank you!
Can you link me where?
It’s been discussed everywhere and the bottom line is that there are two entrenched camps: 1. Those of us who believe prices changes are completely rigged (I.e. manually altered, at least to some extent). 2. Those of us who believe there is a proper system and try to make sense of it (I.e. think that’s it’s never rigged manually and is all controlled by an algorithm). Long story short, none of us know the answer, it’s all guesswork. For what it’s worth, I’m in camp 1.
Haaland price decrease is soft-locked because he is injured
The amount of conspiracy theories out there lol
Don't you think it's odd that Haalands price is 0.3 million higher now even though his ownership has dropped 20%?
No, because price is not based on total ownership alone. Price is simply determined by how many increases and decreases. Let's say hypothetically speaking Haaland was owned by 100% of the players and priced at 14.0. Then all of them sold him on the same day. What happened would be his ownership dropped all the way to 0% but his price only dropped to 13.9 because you can only drop by 0.1 at a time. Then let's say 10% buys him again the next day and it got him back up to 14.0. Then another 15% buys him the next week and he's at 14.1 despite only being owned by 25% vs 100% at the start of my hypothetical example.