Rainman Pricing tool? (3 Viewers)

[gopherblue]

I won't enter this fray at this point except to say that I think that the underlying issue raised by certain folks speaks to the "thread crapping" aspect. To wit: posts criticizing asking prices (whether overtly or implied, constructive or not) in someone else's WTS thread aren't really appropriate. Everyone is free to price their offerings as they see fit. Some of us have far more institutional knowledge and history with regard to sets, history, pricing, availability, rarity, etc. than other, newer participants.

I have no problem with @RainmanTrail's database, per se, but as others have pointed out, its utility in all circumstances is limited at best. It may be, however, a useful tool for some. But if I'm correct in interpreting the overall gist of what has been said--and I saw the posts that were deleted--the concern was probably that analyzing someone's price points in their WTS thread, regardless of whether the intent was constructive, isn't really appropriate.

Prices change. Circumstances change. I was encouraging many folks to participate in the group buy for my BCC GCRs (particularly with my colorways), but few did. That is why they are so highly sought after now. Why do I bring this up? (I'm auctioning them off!) Kidding--but seriously, I bring it up because the value of my set isn't really quantifiable in a database, because as @Chicken Rob pointed out, there is practically no useful sample size.

I admire @RainmanTrail's enthusiasm, but I also caution that while I understand how well-intentioned he may be, he ought not to discount some of the wisdom available from longtime participants or take too quick of offense (to be sure, we can be a snarky and at times mildly abrasive lot). I for one, am interested in seeing what he's done, but I think that it should be kept out of other's WTS threads.

I know Rain is well-intentioned, and I truly respect that, as well as his enthusiasm for our shared hobby. Now, let's get back to bidding on my chipes and skewing the statistical validity of the pricing tool!

 

[Marius L]

I am looking forward to seeing this tool as well. I agree with some of the points made, but think a lot of it is a bit harsh. For certain chips that there are a lot of around and that sell fairly often (like Paulson pharaohs, classics or James Bond) the tool can actually give a pretty good idea of current /recent market value and be a guide line for pricing. However for chips that sell much less frequently the info from the tool will be more of historical interest and entertainment value, rather than provide guiding prices.
From my own experience sets /chips posted with a price in a thread might be subject to some negotiation and just copying the price tag from the thread might not be accurate. This is obviously the case if one is to lookup old threads looking for a guiding price as well, so in this way the tool doesn't hurt, it simply makes the information easierly accessible.

Obviously this tool does not hold the answer to all questions of a certain chip's value, but in spite of problems with limited sample size and price negotiations behind closed doors, I still think it could provide some interesting, helpful and fun data to have a close look at.

 

[bergs]

More misleading than having no information at all?

I work in IT and we have a saying - no documentation is better than bad documentation. If you think about it, it makes sense. In the absence of documentation, a good engineer will sit down and figure things out. But with inaccurate documentation, an engineer (even the good ones) can be easily led to follow it word for word, and sometimes with disastrous results if the documentation is either inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading due to changing conditions.

Yep. That's why this tool isn't gonna change buyer behavior much. It's not like you have anywhere else to turn for a given chip at any particular moment.

Could not disagree more strongly. New visitors are going to see this and base their chip buying decisions on it. Sometimes it's going to artificially retard the prices of chips, sometimes (particularly where a buyer overpaid for specific reasons not related to supply and demand) they will asked to pay significantly higher prices.

Near as I can figure, because it means you can get a sense of historical trends without having invested years in marketplace observation. In other words, it could make it harder to sell chips for significantly more than their actual value.

Their actual value is what the buyer perceives the value to be. This has worked for 10+ years and people get a sense of what a rack is worth.

Put another way, rather than new members asking me how much PNY or Dunes go for in PMs, and then doing their own research, they're going to look them up in what will be an incomplete and inaccurate chip guide.

 

[stocky]

I don't really care what you think

What I find funny, is that @ssanel54 posts here asking for information about the tool I'm building, and you (@bergs) start slamming my project without even knowing what it is yet, or perhaps more importantly, what it is not.

If these posts aren't the definition of "thread crapping", then I don't know what is. But apparently you've amassed quite the following. So it's cool I guess.

----
Please don't delete any posts from this thread. Disagreements are welcome, and I don't want valid concerns to go unheard. I don't like the practice of deleting posts for "crapping". I believe in free speech.

Are you sure

 

[bergs]

Perhaps that's all useless information to @bergs and the thumbs up crew, but I find it to be quite valuable and worth my time to build.

Seriously, fucking knock it off. I didn't attack you - I attacked what I perceive to be a dumb idea and some people agreed with me.

There is no mean girls crew and the idea that there ever was is ludicrous. If anyone thinks that all of us think alike on any issue you're sadly mistaken. I've shared nothing that I've written in these posts with anyone before committing it to words here - and I've been outspoken about my concern that people are putting too much rules, pomp, and circumstance around what was a very user friendly and easy to navigate chip marketplace.

I disagree with you. I think it's a dumb idea. I could give two shits what anyone else fucking thinks.

 

[stocky]

Price guides IMO are nice to look at but rarely accurate enough. Just look at the chipguide (?) one. It has Trop 3rd edition $5s at something like $30ea when you could buy a rack for $80.

Anyways I appreciate what you are trying to do.

 

[BGinGA]

+1 to looking forward to seeing the tool once released. More information being available to all chippers cannot possibly be a bad thing. The information within is not 'made up', it's all out there and available for anybody to acquire and analyze.... and many people here have done exactly that, to one degree or another.

It's just historical data, folks, not Satan's seed. Lighten up.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I'll try this reply again. I just typed a long response and my iPhone ate it. This one will be shorter and lack all the nuance of the original.

The issue for some of us is the sample sizes, and available sources, can lead to a misleading understanding of chip values in the current market.

I have a PhD in an applied stats field. I embrace data science. The sampling that is available here might paint a perspective of history, but cannot tell us what chips are actually worth. It's not really science based on the level of available data.

Good chips are a limited resource. They are not always available. Supply and demand will both fluctuate continuously, and prices will change based on that.

This tool may be of some use to some people, but I suspect it's less likely to add as much value to the community compared to the disruption. Current reactions alone are pretty indicative of this.

Definitely agree 100% here.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of sample sizes and frequency of sales. The tool will be sure to inform the user of these caveats at every turn. One of the main reasons this tool isn't public yet is because the statistician in me refuses to allow people to misunderstand what the information is telling them, and to misuse it. I still need to incorporate confidence intervals and statistical significance of it's outputs for it to be useful in many of the various contexts. However, I assure you that it will be well done from the eyes of a statistician. The tool won't allow people to make unfair claims without them knowing it.

I would guess that there will only be a handful of sets (out of hundreds) for which the tool would feel confident in placing an estimated value on. Sets like Paulson Pharaohs, PNYs, PCAs, Paulson Classics, and a few other highly available and frequently traded sets that have enough data for it to matter.

There's no way in hell I'm going to allow the user to enter something like "Nevada Club fracs" and have it output something like "Your set is worth $433". That would be ridiculous

I have a strong statistics background. Any conclusions the tool provides will be given with plenty of barbed wire surrounding them.

 

[bergs]

+1 to looking forward to seeing the tool once released. More information being available to all chippers cannot possibly be a bad thing. The information within is not 'made up', it's all out there and available for anybody to acquire and analyze.... and many people here have done exactly that, to one degree or another.

It's just historical data, folks, not Satan's seed. Lighten up.

Regarding lightening up, I was in a good mood until people started making multiple references to me having some sort of anti-math clan or something. I've fucking had it with people whining that they're getting teamed up whenever 2 people happen to have the same opinion about something. I'm sorry, but sometimes more 1 person at the same time thinks an idea sucks.

Other than that, I'm done with this, good luck.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I don't know if I'm being lumped into the bergs camp or not, but I assure you, many of us who have been lumped together before are quite capable of drawing our own conclusions and challenging each other's ideas. I can't even begin to count the number of disagreements the BBotB regulars have had over the years. There is no hive mind here.

That said, I like what gopher said in post #31. I'm signing up for that bandwagon right now.

 

[Psypher1000]

To wit: posts criticizing asking prices (whether overtly or implied, constructive or not) in someone else's WTS thread aren't really appropriate.

#Truth

I work in IT and we have a saying - no documentation is better than bad documentation.

Ditto, and /agree. See also: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

The sales database is harmless in a vacuum, IMO, and can be an educational/informative tool for those that understand what it is & how/when to best use it. My fear, however, is that "sales database" will become synonymous with "price guide" and that's where things start to break down.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that I'm glad the database is being created, and I look forward to exploring it if made available. It's like a blade, though - useful, dangerous, most effective when properly maintained, and best stored in a safe place. I simply hope discussion of the database & the contents therein is kept out of the classifieds as it has significant potential to negatively impact both buyers AND sellers in different circumstances.

 

[BGinGA]

sometimes more 1 person at the same time thinks an idea sucks.

Totally agree. And sometimes they are all wrong, too.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Seriously, fucking knock it off. I didn't attack you - I attacked what I perceive to be a dumb idea and some people agreed with me.

There is no mean girls crew and the idea that there ever was is ludicrous. If anyone thinks that all of us think alike on any issue you're sadly mistaken. I've shared nothing that I've written in these posts with anyone before committing it to words here - and I've been outspoken about my concern that people are putting too much rules, pomp, and circumstance around what was a very user friendly and easy to navigate chip marketplace.

I disagree with you. I think it's a dumb idea. I could give two shits what anyone else fucking thinks.

I didn't make any claims about some existential bergs following group. By "bergs and the thumbs up crew" I simply meant you and anyone who 'liked' your ignorant post. Your talking straight out of your ass by attacking some strawman pricing tool that you've created in your own mind rather than asking questions about what it will contain and what it could be useful for and what it's not useful for. Hell, those very questions were asked and you came in here shitting around like a bull in a china shop making charges before I even had a chance to answer myself.

Pretty childish, ignorant, and annoying if you ask me.

 

[gopherblue]

Sigh.

And now here's an adorable picture of a puppy and a kitten.

 

[bentax1978]

 

[RainmanTrail]

I agree, misinformation is worse than no information. Which is why this tool won't misinform. The concerns for misuse are very valid and well heard. But I assure you, no one here is more anal about the misuse of data than I am. I have a very strong statistics background and know when you can and can't draw conclusions from data, and what conclusions can be drawn. As stated above, my OCD will also force me to lay plenty of barbed wire around any outputs this tool generates.

As for the "pricing tool" aspect of it, I'm probably not going to even call it that. It will likely be called something along the lines of 'Chip transaction database' or something like that. But it's not supposed to be a tool to tell you how much a given set of chips is "worth" (as I've stated already numerous times). Although in certain cases, it can be used as a surrogate for value (as in the cases of Pharaohs, china clays, PNYs, PCAs, Classics, and other similar widely traded sets). It's not going to tell you what a set of Dunes, Nevada Lodge's, Fitgeralds, Pick Hobson's, Mapes, or any other rare set is worth. But it might show you what the last rack of Dunes $1s went for on eBay, whereas a current eBay search won't if it was more than 90 days ago.

The funny thing to me is that it's not like I'm making this information up lol. This database is being assembled from publicly available information that most of us access on a weekly basis. All I'm doing is organizing that information and saving everyone time, everyone but me that is -it's a pretty time consuming project.

 

[stocky]

 

[Chicken Rob]

Sigh.

And now here's an adorable picture of a puppy and a kitten.

View attachment 34847

This is clearly a bad idea. Puppies are dangerous to kittens.

 

[Anthony Martino]

@RainmanTrail this sounds like a great idea and I applaud your efforts in contributing something useful to the community.

 

[bergs]

childish, ignorant, and annoying if you ask me.

Maybe. Perhaps. But not wrong. In any case, we'll see.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Maybe. Perhaps. But not wrong. In any case, we'll see.

That's just it though. You are wrong this time, dead wrong. It's an EXTREMELY useful tool, and you don't even know what it is yet. However, you still want to criticize it. Pretty fucking ignorant man.

 

[stocky]

I didn't make any claims about some existential bergs following group.

But apparently you've amassed quite the following. So it's cool I guess.

Ok I'll stop trolling

 

[Chicken Rob]

For me, I think the tool would be fine if only people weren't gonna misuse it. I think there are going to be unintended consequences coming when this goes live no matter how hard you try. Even people I went to grad school with don't understand statistical significance and confidence intervals correctly. It's unlikely that your tool is going to change this issue.

We'll see though.

 

[Psypher1000]

It's an EXTREMELY useful tool, and you don't even know what it is yet.

I think that's part of the challenge we're all facing here - Everyone other than you is ignorant to exactly what it is. It seems that your tool isn't quite ready for prime time by your own estimation, and that's okay. I might suggest to cease any further discussion of it, however, until you are ready to fully debut it and throw wide the gates of criticism. This is a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing - we know a little about it, but it seems we might not know enough about it to make a fully informed conclusion. It ultimately may be much ado about nothing.

 

[gopherblue]

Guess my puppy/kitten therapy didn't have its intended effect.

 

[BGinGA]

Bonus points for trying, though. (y) :thumbsup:

 

[bergs]

That's just it though. You are wrong this time, dead wrong. It's an EXTREMELY useful tool, and you don't even know what it is yet. However, you still want to criticize it. Pretty fucking ignorant man.

Well, I didn't think I was wrong, this time, never mind dead wrong, but if the tool that doesn't exist yet is EXTREMELY useful than who am I judge? After all, you've already empirically proven that the tool is invaluable to the chipping community. I saw three graphs and one told me Paulson is a prevalent chip manufacturer. What else is there? I can die happy.

I had an opinion that the tool will be misused. You can do whatever you want with it but ultimately, like any tool, it can and probably will be used in a manner that you did not intend. How do I know this? Because I've hacked ice off roofs with a hand axe. I've split wood with a hammer. I've punched in nails with a flashlight. And I not alone. We do not forgive. We do not forget. We are clumsy.

But I digress - I think the existence of a tool that will contain incomplete information will be misused as an authoritative source of chip prices and will cause both buyers and sellers problems. Rather than new members asking around and doing their own research as to current market conditions, they will instead rely on a tool that contains chip prices that are only partially representative of all total transactions.

There, I said my piece, it's my opinion, if you disagree, well, gosh, I'm just a math-hating fucking ignorant dummy that uses flashlights as hammers. I can't possibly be right. There's no way. You're right. I'm completely overreacting.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Rather than new members asking around and doing their own research as to current market conditions, they will instead rely on a tool that contains chip prices that are only partially representative of all total transactions.

Uh, wouldn't new members doing their own research lead to "chip prices that are only partially representative of all total transactions" and thus produce the same exact problem you're postulating, only on an even larger scale, as the tool would likely contain far more data than a "new member" would obtain via their own research methods?

 

[bergs]

Uh, wouldn't new members doing their own research lead to "chip prices that are only partially representative of all total transactions" and thus produce the same exact problem you're postulating, only on an even larger scale, as the tool would likely contain far more data than a "new member" would obtain via their own research methods?

My point is that there is no clearinghouse for this information. Creating one with imperfect info will create the impression that it's a price guide, regardless of whatever disclaimers are prevalent in the tool. People talking to people gives one an impression that this individual believes the chips are worth a certain amount, but it's by no means authoritative, because the ultimate price is decided between buyer and seller.

Anyway, I've stated what I think will happen. Now I'll hang out with Terrell Owens in his hyperbaric chamber and get my popcorn ready.

 

[abby99]

I'd love to see and hopefully have access to this tool when it's finished. Its value should be in tracking sales activity, but I don't expect it to determine current or future prices. It would be nice if eBay provided historical information that's more than 90 days old, but it doesn't. @RainmanTrail's guide isn't and won't be perfect, but what price guide is?