Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp



  • Mike Bohan
    @MikeB_FI
    Hi Mike. Bit of a storm Brewing over MB, going to be more and more vocal outrage as one weeks data becomes one month and still it's clear squad players winning MB is far more prevelant than 7%. I've sold my large holdings in Pogba and Neymar based on new info, at considerable expense. But now I have, I can see several issues with the future of the platform. My port was £50k and I've moved from top end players to sub £1.50. If the 'whales' follow suit... Some of these guys have £500,000 +... The IPD/outside pb&mb players will be saturated in the blink of an eye. With the elite players previously having added value for that exclusive shot at MB, 365 days a year, there was a clear growth pattern to the index. This is observed by the youth bubble... The hope that a Haland would move to Utd and sort the goalscorer problem, thus becoming an 'MB beast' is an example. Now its wide open, and PB is already considered something of a lottery... The platform massively favours a scatter gun approach at cheap chancers... Where 1 win is a higher ROI than paying £7 for 10 wins for example. This will affect long term liquidity massively. You've effectively halved the ceiling price for the best holds on the market and opened up added value to the 1000s of previously undesirable players (who were still traded in low volume generating healthy profit I'm sure as no chance of paying out dividends on them). Now it's happened, I feel increasing mb prize money or even places will compound the effect. Without a segregation between elite and cheap the money will always flow to the cheap punt. How about offering 1p prize money daily to the squad players for mb... And 2p daily for the top 200. Creates that focused liquidity again, retains an 'investment' feel to the product... But also adds value and purpose to the rest of the market... Appealing to the masses as well as big budget investors. Regards, Vespasian.
    3:24 PM
    Sent
    Delete



  • @Vespasian32 Why not make it 3p for the top 200 players, and 1p for squad players? Still means the squad players can achieve some MB added-value, but also places the top 200 back in the driving seat. If the squad players do win significantly more often than the 7% FI quoted, then it should balance itself out for FI in terms of divs paid out.



  • @Wotabeast well of course... The higher the better I was just illustrating the importance of segregating the two... Otherwise any benefit to all will still probably see money shift from top to bottom due to the nature of mb.



  • I think that would just hurt the PB players because if there emerged a dozen or so squad players who dominated squad MB they would likely be lumped on, promoting them to the top 200, probably funded by the likes of sensi who are good for PB but will never get MB



  • @Vespasian32 said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    it's clear squad players winning MB is far more prevelant than 7%.

    Massive overreaction. Of the 6 MB days since the change, 3 have been won by top 200 and 3 by squad players. Way too early to be making conclusions. What if top 200 players every day for the rest of the year?



  • @Snrub 4 of the top 6 today. 3 of the runners up as well as winners for the last few days. I've eluded to the fact its only one weeks data. But if you think after a month or two itl be close to 7% you are kidding yourself. Already they need to win the next 37 days or something...



  • @Vespasian32 very good points mate! I fully agree. Tbh this last week is making me seriously consider selling up and leaving index. I just don’t feel like there’s anything worth me staying for now. It’s all too much of a lottery/gamble rather than investments now and that’s not what I signed up for



  • @Snrub whilst I agree that 1 week isn't enough of a sample, purely on the last week it has been 50% won by squad players, a massive 7 times more than what they have said......



  • @Vespasian32 I said a similar thing in another topic about an hour ago.
    They need to do something to differentiate the 'Top 200' and the rest. Maybe increase all 'Top 200' DIVs for game days x3 (or even x2). As it stands it seems with all the negativity around MB and most ports falling as a whole...FI is possibly as rocky as it has ever been.



  • @Ddr said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    @Snrub whilst I agree that 1 week isn't enough of a sample, purely on the last week it has been 50% won by squad players, a massive 7 times more than what they have said......

    Its not one freak player either like lloris horrific injury dominating for three days... Its been a plethora of junk in the top 10 with 3 different winners and 3 different runners up from the squaddies



  • @Ddr Someone told me flipping a coin has a 50% chance of landing on heads or tails but I've just done it 10 times and I got 8 tails!



  • @gball1975 said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    @Vespasian32 I said a similar thing in another topic about an hour ago.
    They need to do something to differentiate the 'Top 200' and the rest. Maybe increase all 'Top 200' DIVs for game days x3 (or even x2). As it stands it seems with all the negativity around MB and most ports falling as a whole...FI is possibly as rocky as it has ever been.

    Yes, my proposed solution is based on simple principal that this was marketed as a stock market.. So needs something to invest in not just outright gamble. And the need for some elitism to drive growth and higher market ceiling prices.

    The mechanism is entirely theirs to solve... Through mb, pb, ipd or a brand new type of dividend. But they do need to create a 'top end'



  • @Snrub said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    @Ddr Someone told me flipping a coin has a 50% chance of landing on heads or tails but I've just done it 10 times and I got 8 tails!

    Must be a dud coin mate ... here try mine! 😉



  • @Snrub yes but when you flip a coin each flip is a 50% chance it's not a case of if I flip 10 times then it's 50% heads and 50% tails, it's completely different



  • @Vespasian32 Imagine if they gave 'first class' to everyone on the planes....what would be the point? You'd end up sitting next Heidi Klum thinking 'winning' and then Rab C Nesbitt comes and sits behind you!!! Needs to be a definitive split!!



  • @MickTurbo said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    I think that would just hurt the PB players because if there emerged a dozen or so squad players who dominated squad MB they would likely be lumped on, promoting them to the top 200, probably funded by the likes of sensi who are good for PB but will never get MB

    Potentially tho sensis ROI from pb would become more and more appealing. Where either his price goes up enough to be top 200 or you happily buy lots of cheap shares and win healthy payouts.

    But you can already see the market would change back to a clamour to be in the top 200..so there is growth and ever increasing ceiling price... Rather than what's happened now where £7 and £1 players meet in the middle with an absolute ceiling and therefore stagnation and lack of liquidity as everyone's holding a handful from thousands of similar value player



  • @Ddr said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    @Snrub yes but when you flip a coin each flip is a 50% chance it's not a case of if I flip 10 times then it's 50% heads and 50% tails, it's completely different

    Well not completely. As we know there's a 50/50 chance with my coin toss. Now say I flip it 100 times and I got 7heads, 93 tails. You could then say that you've checked the results and there's a 7% chance of heads coming up yes?

    Now if you flip the coin the next 6 times you get 3 and 3 and say the prediction was way too low?

    I know there are other factors at work with who wins MB rather than it being a 50/50 shot between top 200/squad but we can't say now after 6 days that 7% was totally wrong, as who knows how long the original sample was?

    Maybe after that many days again we'll be dead on 7% or on squad will win 70% but it's far too early to judge is what I'm saying and probabilities can be misleading!



  • @Snrub firstly I said to start that we don't have enough sample data
    Secondly if you flipped 100 times and got those results then no, the chance of either result on the 101st flip would still be 50%



  • @gball1975 said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    They need to do something to differentiate the 'Top 200' and the rest.

    Why?
    I understand that was the case originally but I see no special reason for them to be favoured, surely the top 200 most valuable players should get there on merit, ideally through their footballing ability & performances. Just because a media friendly player gets a new haircut or has his dog kidnapped why should he win a dividend on a football stock market?

    Perhaps they should set up a media index & open it up to all sorts of celebrities, reality TV stars & social media types but not call it "football index"?



  • @Ddr said in Mbgate-liquidity problem-losing usp:

    @Snrub firstly I said to start that we don't have enough sample data
    Secondly if you flipped 100 times and got those results then no, the chance of either result on the 101st flip would still be 50%

    I know that, that's the point I'm trying to make. The coin flip is always 50% but if I take those 100 flips I can say tails 93% of the time so that's how the way it's put can be misleading so we can't take 7% would be won by squad players as a set in stone rule.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.