Recommend
24 
 Thumb up
 Hide
348 Posts
[1]  Prev «  10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14  Next »  [14] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Trades

Subject: GenCon 2018 No Ship Math Trade (Ends 7/19 9pm EST, Exchange 8/3 8am Union Station:Grand Hall) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure y'all are right on this one. Particularly because you're treating cash offers as fungible while trademax treats all lot instances as discrete. I might be wrong on how abecorn works. I'm not that familiar with it. But it's not enough (in traditional math trading at least) for someone to go through and offer cash on things for those things to trade. Those cash offers have to be wanted. Additionally, for those cash-based exchanges to create more trades as in the above examples, there has to be direct trading between the buyer and seller.

Even if I'm wrong on all the above, I'm still not sure I understand the problem. Math Trades are themselves marketplaces where commodities are being transmuted into values and then those values are shifted around. If you want $20 for your thing, then don't accept $10. It's always the case where people would preference more value over less value, but that's not the same as saying less value is an unacceptable exchange. I suspect most people who took cash on their items were happy with the cash they received.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred Quintanilla
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
And it doesn’t mean necessarily more positive trades.

The point of a math trade is that every trade is positive. Value is subjective, and every participant decides what their items are worth and what the items they want are worth. If anyone feels that they lost on a trade then it would only be because they made a mistake entering their values. More offers means more trades, and that can never be a negative.

gonzoron wrote:
Hmm... good point, and I was almost convinced, but then I thought about this sample case:

Dude... I read that like 3 times trying to find the logic in your argument. It barely makes sense with 4 traders each listing one item with one want. Maybe I'm not giving Ben enough credit, but how could he determine anything resembling that with 200 traders listing thousands of items that each want handfuls of items? It is impossible to tell which offer is going to match with which item.

FrankNBeans13 wrote:
Because of trade maximizer pretty much every cash offer will always be accepted if it meets the minimum for the item. It has to because it maximizes trades. It doesn’t mean more games traded.

No... The offer almost never gets matched directly with the item it wants. It happened twice this time. It's a math trade item with one want. You have to stop thinking of it as a direct offer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Chamberland
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sirgalin wrote:
I suspect most people who took cash on their items were happy with the cash they received.

There was a lot of cash in this trade - way more than the OLWLG trades in previous years - which made it much easier to get rid of unwanted games and clean out the closet.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Moller
United States
Lincoln
Nebraska
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Did anyone get something they didn't ask for (that wasn't self inflicted)? In other words, is anyone unhappy with what they got? I'm not. I don't think I saw someone else say that happened to them... Sooooo, why are we talking about things with such a skeptical eye when everyone seems happy with the trade?

Everything is amazing and no one is happy.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Doe
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mospinach wrote:

Everything is amazing and no one is happy.


I was pleased with my trade result. I have no complaints here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Boyung
United States
Brookfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mospinach wrote:
Did anyone get something they didn't ask for (that wasn't self inflicted)? In other words, is anyone unhappy with what they got? I'm not. I don't think I saw someone else say that happened to them... Sooooo, why are we talking about things with such a skeptical eye when everyone seems happy with the trade?

Everything is amazing and no one is happy.


Nah, there's just two people here that believe there's impropriety that has been proven repeatedly to be all but impossible and definitely incredibly impractical for the person who could be doing it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike

Charlotte
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I get that apparently a lot of people are okay with getting less for their trades. If you are then great but I am not. You are getting less value than you would. That is a fact. Look at the example below and this is why I say it doesn’t have to be direct

A has $50 game - wants B game
B has $40 game - wants C game or $20 cash
C has $30 game - wants A game or $15 cash

In the example above A goes from a $50 game to $40, B goes from $40 to $30 and C goes from $30 to $50. It is fine everyone was okay with the changes.

Now you let D in and he puts $20 on A and $15 on B. Notice A won’t take $20 and B won’t take $15. Doesn’t matter because of trade maximizer. Those dollar trades will still happen just not directly.

In the example A gets $40 game, B gets $20 cash, c gets $15 cash, d gets $30 game and $50 game.

A came out the same, B and C came out worse because of the deal. D is the winner. He will win every time.

You want to see everyone lose imagine if it looks like this

A has $50 game - wants B game or C game
B has $40 game - wants C game or $20 cash
C has $30 game - wants A game or $15 cash

Without the cash everyone comes out the same. Now enter D and he puts $20 on A and $15 on B. Again not trading for the amount. In this scenario A gets a $30 game, B gets $20, C gets $15, and D gets a $40 game and a $50 game. So A,B and C are all losers and D wins more.

I guess my desire to win in things other than board games prevents me from wanting to participate in something that is stacked against me. Which this set up is.

If you want to participate in an Abecorn trade and have the money you should put a dollar amount at around 50% below its actual value on every item and you will walk away with stuff and maximize your value in the trade and hurt everyone else’s value if you do it. You won’t necessarily get every item but you should get a lot of them.

The only possible fix for Abecorn with the way it is written is to process all non-cash trades first and lock in those results. Then remove those items from the pool and process any further trades that could be made using cash. This would be fair and maximize the trades as much as possible while still maintaining value.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No one is losing anything in your examples. The difference between your first example and second example is in E2, there are more trades happening. All trades in both examples conform to everyone's wants. This is exactly how the trademax algorithm is supposed to work. In terms of value perception, the trader will value game X and cash X the same if they want to exchange their item for either. So it doesn't matter which they got.

The problem is you're trying to fix value assumptions with phrases like "B has a $40 game". But that's clearly not true because B will trade that game for $20 cash. That means B actually has a $20 game. When B gets $20 for it, B is happy. That's the way value works. Value is not Price or Cost. If you want to participate in an open system of pricing, I'd recommend buying and selling on the marketplace or ebay rather than participating in any math trades. Your problem doesn't seem to be with abecorn, it seems to be with the entire concept of value as being self-defined and therefore differential.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike

Charlotte
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sirgalin wrote:
No one is losing anything in your examples. The difference between your first example and second example is in E2, there are more trades happening. All trades in both examples conform to everyone's wants. This is exactly how the trademax algorithm is supposed to work. In terms of value perception, the trader will value game X and cash X the same if they want to exchange their item for either. So it doesn't matter which they got.

The problem is you're trying to fix value assumptions with phrases like "B has a $40 game". But that's clearly not true because B will trade that game for $20 cash. That means B actually has a $20 game. When B gets $20 for it, B is happy. That's the way value works. Value is not Price or Cost. If you want to participate in an open system of pricing, I'd recommend buying and selling on the marketplace or ebay rather than participating in any math trades. Your problem doesn't seem to be with abecorn, it seems to be with the entire concept of value as being self-defined and therefore differential.


No because it doesn't exist like this in OLWLG. Because in OLWLG cash is an individual item cash doesn't get the priority it gets in the Abecorn system. To do what Ben did in this GenCon Abecorn trade using OLWLG he would have had to put in 150+ Alt cash items. Then assign each one that was at a value or lower than what he was willing to pay. Then people would have had to select all these alt cash bids at or above what they would accept. Because of how manual the process is and the need for the other party to select all this alt cash bids the likelihood for manipulation is a lot less.

Also contrary to what you are saying the metric on trade should be number of games traded. That is the purpose of a math trade. In my example no more game trades were made. Exactly 3 games traded in every example. The people just get less value as cash entered the equation. In my opinion you shouldn't count cash in the trade count unless it specifically caused games to be traded that wouldn't have otherwise.

I believe it is a broke system. Many people on BGG wouldn't play a game with a broke system but if you want to that is fine. I've outlined clearly how everyone can exploit the current system. It may be easier for the developer to exploit it but really anyone can as long as the algorithm works as people expect and they want to go through the trouble of entering the cash bids.

Also you will note in my last example I even put in the fix for this exploit but still allowing cash to be traded. Anyways, I would use OLWLG for math trades until Abecorn is changed with the fix I recommended. Otherwise I would recommend not trading with it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Mulholland
United States
Fort Wayne
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
creagan wrote:
blackgold369 wrote:


creagan wrote:
Wheatie wrote:
I also like gonzoron’s thoughts of groupings based on your user name.


I didn't originally read it this way, but this is a great idea. A names go here, B names next area, C names next and so on. Not full alpha order, but close enough to find each other.


I would have had a hard time splitting myself in half to be in two 'alpha-' locations as I also had another trades items (and a third if there had been more for another name on my paper).


This type of exception as well as the one where the abecorn name does not match the bgg name will happen. The latter was very few people in this trade, I believe. It would work close enough.


This could easily be fixed by putting a note at "persona B" spot saying "For Persona B, go find persona A". Then the person is sitting right where persona A should be. Just like in the dictionary it just says "See whatsit" when you look up whosit.*

So that would (IMHO) fix that.

*it probably doesn't right now, but it should.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:

Also contrary to what you are saying the metric on trade should be number of games traded.


This is exactly the point. You want the system to be one thing and it isn't the thing you want it to be. Math trading is just a mathematical system. It doesn't care what is traded. We could be swapping stamps, elephants, or my grandma's old bras. That's not a broken system, that's difference in expectations. I encourage you to restrict your participation to "games only" math trades in the future...though I suspect you'll be just as sad when you notice people trading games that sell for low prices on the marketplace for games that sell for high prices.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred Quintanilla
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
I believe it is a broke system.

The point that you either don't get or are willfully ignoring is that everyone gets something they want. How can that be broken? If someone trades a game that you think is worth $40 for a game that you think is worth $20, that doesn't make it a bad trade. They may be valuing space on their shelf and looking for a smaller game. They may value fun, and are trading a game they no longer play for one they will. It isn't broken, it's subjective. They traded exactly what they wanted to trade. If that means someone else trades up a little, then both traders are happy.

FrankNBeans13 wrote:
I guess my desire to win in things other than board games prevents me from wanting to participate in something that is stacked against me.

Nothing is stacked against anyone. You can't be forced into a trade that you don't want. Honestly, if you're just looking to "win" trades then most people are not going to get their feelings hurt if you decide not to participate.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Laufer
United States
Millington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sirgalin wrote:
I'm not sure y'all are right on this one. Particularly because you're treating cash offers as fungible while trademax treats all lot instances as discrete. I might be wrong on how abecorn works.
That's exactly it. Abecorn does work slightly differently because before sending the wants to TradeMax, it creates cash items based on the cash offers, and adds those cash offers to the wantlists for items that indicated they were willing to accept cash offers equal to or greater than that amount. This is actually a brilliant way to do it, IMHO, because it removes the clutter of GC and cash items in the trade and handles them behind the scenes. But it does make it slightly easier for a potentially dishonest trade organizer to gain an advantage. The same scheme could be done in OLWLG, but it would be more work and be more obvious, and thus, less likely to be worth doing.

faquin wrote:
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
And it doesn’t mean necessarily more positive trades.

The point of a math trade is that every trade is positive. Value is subjective, and every participant decides what their items are worth and what the items they want are worth. If anyone feels that they lost on a trade then it would only be because they made a mistake entering their values. More offers means more trades, and that can never be a negative.
Generally speaking, yes, and I believe I was one of the first to point that out a few pages ago. But there are cases where it's not true. One such case was GC/Cash Arbitrage, and after a long debate several years ago, the consensus was reached that Arbitrage actually hurt MTs, so modern MTs generally disallow it. Even in the case of arbitrage, no one gets something they didn't want, and everyone is "happy" with their trades, but there exist some people who just got free money without any positive effect on the trade, and everyone else is slightly worse off than they'd be if the arbitrage wasn't there.


faquin wrote:
gonzoron wrote:
Hmm... good point, and I was almost convinced, but then I thought about this sample case:

Dude... I read that like 3 times trying to find the logic in your argument. It barely makes sense with 4 traders each listing one item with one want.
I'll try to summarize it in brief: If a potentially dishonest trade organizer viewed the dollar amounts each user said they'd accept for their item, and offered exactly that amount on each, it would be highly likely that TradeMax would assign direct trades for each of them. Yes, everyone would still get something they wanted and said they'd accept, but one person would get an unfair advantage over the others.

Quote:
Maybe I'm not giving Ben enough credit, but how could he determine anything resembling that with 200 traders listing thousands of items that each want handfuls of items? It is impossible to tell which offer is going to match with which item.
Agreed 100%, but it's not necessary to figure that out. All that's necessary for this potential scam is to look at the cash values acceptable to each item you want and offer exactly that amount and no more. Other users have to guess what will be accepted, but someone with abecorn access can know exactly that value. That increases the chances of getting matched up.

TradeMax's maximization of items traded usually gives you the item on your wantlist wanted least by the rest of the group. $10 is going to be wanted less than $15 or $20, so it can make more trades by giving $10 to someone who would accept it than "wasting" a $20 cash item on that same person. So unlike an auction, you actually have the most chance of getting something in direct trade in an MT by offering the least-valued but still acceptable item for it.

faquin wrote:
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
Because of trade maximizer pretty much every cash offer will always be accepted if it meets the minimum for the item. It has to because it maximizes trades. It doesn’t mean more games traded.
No... The offer almost never gets matched directly with the item it wants. It happened twice this time.
And all that proves is that bien didn't do this. If he had, there would be a lot more direct 1:1 trades for cash with him.

motoyugota wrote:
Nah, there's just two people here that believe there's impropriety that has been proven repeatedly to be all but impossible and definitely incredibly impractical for the person who could be doing it.
If you're including me as one of those two people, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. My point (which I believe I've proven and would welcome a disproof of) is that it is both possible and practical with the current system for the TO to gain a small advantage, but I do not believe there has been such impropriety in this trade. My goal is not to dispute this trade, which I have no problem with, but to increase acceptance of abecorn for future trades because a) I like it and hope it does well, and b) more people in MTs means more possible trades for me. So when I see people like FrankNBeans13 saying they won't use abecorn because of the potential for undetected abuse, I would rather remove that potential to woo those users back in.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Laufer
United States
Millington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
Also contrary to what you are saying the metric on trade should be number of games traded. That is the purpose of a math trade. In my example no more game trades were made. Exactly 3 games traded in every example. The people just get less value as cash entered the equation. In my opinion you shouldn't count cash in the trade count unless it specifically caused games to be traded that wouldn't have otherwise.
Here's one place where I disagree with you. It seems you are against the inclusion of cash entirely. This was a debate years ago, even when we weren't allowed to use cash, but lots of people used GC's, some of which were listed "for any store you want" which was often code for just sending cash. It was proven that cash and GCs tend to "grease the wheels" of MTs and result in more games actually being traded. It wasn't the case in my simple example, but that's not what I constructed the example to prove. I don't see anything wrong with cash offers in general, even by the trade organizer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike

Charlotte
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I get people can swap low games for high games. I get that people said they would accept the cash and may be okay with the amount. I get all of that. I also get that is somewhat what a math trade is about.

What I am saying is with the way Abecorn handles cash it ends up prioritized which is driving down the value you receive in the trade. This is because for trade maximization that if every game sold for cash that would be the highest number of trades possible if you don't allow arbitrage. This doesn't happen in OLWLG because cash is listed ahead of time as a separate item. Like I mentioned you could do it but you would need the sun, the moon and the stars to all align and for you to do a lot of work for it to happen. In Abecorn it is easy.

The way it is currently handled anyone accepting cash on an item and if there cash amount is significantly below market(ebay price) for an item (maybe not their own) in a possible trade route for their item then someone can easily come in and enter a purchase price on that item and should get that item. With the way it written the system should normally always take the cash offer because it maximizes the number of trades if you include cash the way it is doing it.

So what that does is it drives down your overall value by removing any items for the trade list that have a cash option below market value. Like I said you don't even have to know what people's minimums are though it would make it more focused and easy. You could go through and put a cash amount on every item that is significantly below market value and you should win a good majority if there is some trade route to make it happen.

My point is that this is an exploit that is getting exploited. If you are okay with it then fine continue trading using the platform. But you will get higher value for your trades trading using OLWLG. If Ben made the change to do the item trades first and then do the cash trades second I would completely change my view and would actually tell you Abecorn was the better platform.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just don't see how it's a systemic exploit. I agree with the way you're describing the system's function re:maximizing number of trades. I just think you're making a leap when you are applying the value proposition "ebay prices" to the way that people are valuing their games. If people wanted ebay prices, they'd be selling things on ebay, not participating in a no-ship math trade at a gaming convention.

Now that I've been thinking more about this and reading more about how abecorn functions, I actually think it does a better job creating efficiency than the OLWLG. Under the old system you had to individually want all the cash/GC offers. Due to trade chains and random seed, I could potentially get $50 while I also wanted several $40 items. In this case I've been overpaid with respect to how I value my item. By forcing in all possible cash offers, it's more likely I'll receive close to $40. That ends up with more trades and more people getting their asking number. That's great. It pushes out "lottery winners" (people who gain value beyond their asking price) and allows for more people to reach their target number. This strikes me on the face of it as a much fairer system.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike

Charlotte
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sirgalin wrote:
I just don't see how it's a systemic exploit. I agree with the way you're describing the system's function re:maximizing number of trades. I just think you're making a leap when you are applying the value proposition "ebay prices" to the way that people are valuing their games. If people wanted ebay prices, they'd be selling things on ebay, not participating in a no-ship math trade at a gaming convention.

Now that I've been thinking more about this and reading more about how abecorn functions, I actually think it does a better job creating efficiency than the OLWLG. Under the old system you had to individually want all the cash/GC offers. Due to trade chains and random seed, I could potentially get $50 while I also wanted several $40 items. In this case I've been overpaid with respect to how I value my item. By forcing in all possible cash offers, it's more likely I'll receive close to $40. That ends up with more trades and more people getting their asking number. That's great. It pushes out "lottery winners" (people who gain value beyond their asking price) and allows for more people to reach their target number. This strikes me on the face of it as a much fairer system.



I totally agree the way Abecorn handles cash is more efficient. If he made the change to run the trade with no cash, remove those items and then run the rest of the items with the cash the system would be awesome. I disagree that you will ever get a higher value on a consistent basis besides using the cash offers. The reason being is the trades maximize the most by chaining together the lowest priced item with the highest priced item that it can. That will always generate the most trades. So while high priced offers could dominate and be the high priced piece of the trade chain in reality cash offers will almost always be the low priced side of the trade chain.

Like I said I will guarantee that if you ran this Gencon trade and replaced the the games with dollar values from something like "what is my collection worth" you will see one of the biggest dollar gains from what Ben gave to what he received. If you did the same thing and reran it with the cash taken out you would see a closer alignment across all people in the trade in the amount they gave and what they received. They would see a benefit to it not being there in terms of value.

That is why I said the algorithm should be changed. You should process all the game trades first and then process the cash trades second removing the games that are already traded. It allows for the efficiency of the cash method in Abecorn, doesn't allow someone to extract items from trade that have a low priced cash route to them, and provides people a fairer value for their trades.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike

Charlotte
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really need to quit replying. I know my math on this is right and no one has really disputed it. To me I just don't understand why people would prefer to get lower value than they could.

I also dispute the number of trades is higher. I am pretty sure I can pull the OLWLG trades and remove the ALT cash and remove the cash from Abecorn and count only "games" that traded and the percentage of items would be similar between the two. With the cash in the total trades will always be higher in Abecorn because with the efficiency in the way to enter cash offers it essentially prioritizes those trades.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
I really need to quit replying. I know my math on this is right and no one has really disputed it. To me I just don't understand why people would prefer to get lower value than they could.


Yep. Value just isn't something you can ascribe in the way you're trying to do it. Not everyone trades for price maximization. I have no doubt that Ben bought a giant pile of games at below market price. I also have no doubt that any harm was committed in him doing so since the system maximized everyone's personally defined value. The exact same thing happens in trades without cash where people are swapping around games without considering the cost of shipping. A ton of money is lost relative to costs.

Here's another way to think about it...why was anyone buying games at GenCon? Nearly everything you could buy at the show was MSRP and either available or will be available online at a discount. Why did people fork over $70 for Founders of Gloomhaven instead of pulling out their phones and ordering it for $50 from miniature market? There is some perceived value in buying that game at a cost greater than a cost that could be paid in a different circumstance. We could come up with a hundred fictions about why that happened, but the fact of the case is that it happened a lot this past weekend.

My example is meant to illustrate the malleability of value with respect to price. It's nearly always the case that a given market has a price curve because of the various forces that make up a value proposition.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Boyung
United States
Brookfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sirgalin wrote:
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
I really need to quit replying. I know my math on this is right and no one has really disputed it. To me I just don't understand why people would prefer to get lower value than they could.


Yep. Value just isn't something you can ascribe in the way you're trying to do it. Not everyone trades for price maximization. I have no doubt that Ben bought a giant pile of games at below market price. I also have no doubt that any harm was committed in him doing so since the system maximized everyone's personally defined value. The exact some thing happens in trades without cash where people are swapping around games without considering the cost of shipping. A ton of money is lost relative to costs.

Here's another way to think about it...why was anyone buying games at GenCon? Nearly everything you could buy at the show was MSRP and either available or will be available online at a discount. Why did people fork over $70 for Founders of Gloomhaven instead of pulling out their phones and ordering it for $50 from miniature market? There is some perceived value in buying that game at a cost greater than a cost that could be paid in a different circumstance. We could come up with a hundred fictions about why that happened, but the fact of the case is that it happened a lot this past weekend.

My example is meant to illustrate the malleability of value with respect to price. It's nearly always the case that a given market has a price curve because of the various forces that make up a value proposition.


Yeah - I agree with Nathan here. Mike - if your desire is to maximize the value for the games you are getting rid of, math trades (or any trades, actually) really aren't for you in any way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Mulholland
United States
Fort Wayne
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can everyone agree on two things?

1) The appearance of impropriety is a bad thing, and should be avoided.

2) to some people, there was the appearance of impropriety.


Regardless of if cash is a good thing to have in math trades or not, at least some people (more than one, less than everyone) felt there was the appearance of impropriety. That sort of thing can cause people to not want to participate / feel badly about the process.

If the above is true, then a change should happen, I'd think. What that change should be, I have no idea.

Just trying to further the conversation that has gotten bogged down in arguments about value and math.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Reagan
United States
Carmel
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a question that I am not sure about.

If I put game A in the trade and say I am willing to accept $20. If the only offer on my game is for $21 do I get $21 or $20?

My assumption is that for matching the system says I am willing to accept $20,21,22,23,24,25 and so on, but the $21 is a single item entry. Is that correct?

If so, and I now get a second offer for $25. I should be equally likely to get either of these. Which would create one direct trade in the system.

However, if I say I am willing to accept some set of games, and someone with one of those games wants mine. Then that should conceivably be just as likely (but dependent on chains)...I don't understand the perception that abecorn prioritizes one of these items ($21, $25, matching game).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike

Charlotte
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
creagan wrote:
I have a question that I am not sure about.

If I put game A in the trade and say I am willing to accept $20. If the only offer on my game is for $21 do I get $21 or $20?

My assumption is that for matching the system says I am willing to accept $20,21,22,23,24,25 and so on, but the $21 is a single item entry. Is that correct?

If so, and I now get a second offer for $25. I should be equally likely to get either of these. Which would create one direct trade in the system.

However, if I say I am willing to accept some set of games, and someone with one of those games wants mine. Then that should conceivably be just as likely (but dependent on chains)...I don't understand the perception that abecorn prioritizes one of these items ($21, $25, matching game).


It is because of maximizing trades. The highest number of trades you can have in a math trade involving cash would be assuming every item traded directly for cash. There is no way to have a higher number of trades. So with arbitrage removed cash is always at the end of a trade chain. Since you can't trade cash for cash it can't really be in the middle of the trade chain. Cash stops the chain. So to maximize the number of trades if you put the cash in there you pretty much are going to always include cash before games if you can because in theory it will maximize the number of items if you are calling cash an item.

Not sure if that fully makes sense but if you run the math it is what happens.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Boyung
United States
Brookfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
creagan wrote:
I have a question that I am not sure about.

If I put game A in the trade and say I am willing to accept $20. If the only offer on my game is for $21 do I get $21 or $20?

My assumption is that for matching the system says I am willing to accept $20,21,22,23,24,25 and so on, but the $21 is a single item entry. Is that correct?

If so, and I now get a second offer for $25. I should be equally likely to get either of these. Which would create one direct trade in the system.

However, if I say I am willing to accept some set of games, and someone with one of those games wants mine. Then that should conceivably be just as likely (but dependent on chains)...I don't understand the perception that abecorn prioritizes one of these items ($21, $25, matching game).


It is because of maximizing trades. The highest number of trades you can have in a math trade involving cash would be assuming every item traded directly for cash. There is no way to have a higher number of trades. So with arbitrage removed cash is always at the end of a trade chain. Since you can't trade cash for cash it can't really be in the middle of the trade chain. Cash stops the chain. So to maximize the number of trades if you put the cash in there you pretty much are going to always include cash before games if you can because in theory it will maximize the number of items if you are calling cash an item.

Not sure if that fully makes sense but if you run the math it is what happens.


No, it doesn't make sense because your entire premise is entirely wrong. First - everything is in the middle of every chain. It isn't a chain - it is a loop. You can't have a math trade without everything looping, it isn't possible. And because it is a loop, EVERYTHING is in the middle since there is no start and no end. If you're basing that on what you see in results, that just the semantics of how the results get displayed on a screen since you can't really display a loop as text.

And I have seen many times where multiple cash items have been in the same loop.

Game A -> Cash 1 -> Game B -> Game C -> Cash 2 -> Game D -> Game A.

being allowed to trade cash for cash doesn't prevent multiple cash items being in the same chain in any way. And it's entirely possible that Game A could be receiving cash and being given to a person sending cash, but still be an entirely different amount of cash. I've seen that happen many times.

So many things about what you believe is happening is wrong that I stand by my statement before - I don't think you really understand what happens when a math trade occurs.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred Quintanilla
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankNBeans13 wrote:
The highest number of trades you can have in a math trade involving cash would be assuming every item traded directly for cash.


You're assuming every item is ascribed a cash value and every item receives a cash offer. Both are false assumptions. It's true that cash is treated like an item, just as in the OLWLG. The only difference here is the process of every cash offer being automatically wanted by every game of equal or lesser ascribed value. Cash is also heavily wanted in the OLWLG trades, this just simplifies the process. I don't see anything broken or unfair in any way. If you think the auto-wants make the cash more likely to trade, that has to be balanced by the fact that it only wants one item. A game with a wide array of wants should be equally likely to find a trade partner, as long as somebody wants it as well. If anything OLWLG makes the cash items more likely to trade because they can want multiple games and are heavily wanted.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14  Next »  [14] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.