Recommend
28 
 Thumb up
 Hide
301 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [13] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Trades

Subject: Testing the Percentages - A Games Only Math Trade - Discussion Thread rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jonny B
United States
Baltimore
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Cannibal Ox wrote:
jonnymut wrote:
Hi relatively new to bgg. I still have no idea how to add the sweetner image. Can anyone help me out with that?


Each image found on BGG has an associated ID number that can be found in the URL for that image. Find the image you want to include and take note of that number.

Then when you are adding your sweetener click on the little camera icon that says "Insert Geek Image". Input the ID number you want and you're good to go.


Ok cool Thanks!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So… this math trade is basically how every math trade was until around three years ago when gift certificates started becoming accepted?

Now all we need is to turn back the clock another year before that, before people started the "I only cover the first $10" type shipping policy.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Gatti
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Can you retitle this to a BOARD Games Only Math Trade?

I was sad to see that video games have been excluded, especially since VGG is part of the xGG universe. soblue
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
YaVerOt YaVerOt
United States
Arvada
Colorado
flag msg tools
Armchair warriors often fail, and we've been poisoned by these fairy tales.
badge
Aoi Aoi toki ga toke dasheta.
mbmbmbmbmb
dcorban wrote:
Now all we need is to turn back the clock another year before that, before people started the "I only cover the first $10" type shipping policy.


Not being here at that time, I assume that beforehand most listings were (my_country) only or whatever this "mirror shipping" was that no one allows now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B. Perry
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems odd that

Cannibal Ox wrote:
1. Only boardgames and RPG's are allowed to be put up for trade.


But in the very next rule

Quote:
2. Non-game entries must be added using "Outside the Scope of BGG"


Maybe rule #2 was added after the change allowing GG. (At least I think GG was originally not allowed when I first posted items.)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vast Aire
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kayvon wrote:
It seems odd that

Cannibal Ox wrote:
1. Only boardgames and RPG's are allowed to be put up for trade.


But in the very next rule

Quote:
2. Non-game entries must be added using "Outside the Scope of BGG"


Maybe rule #2 was added after the change allowing GG. (At least I think GG was originally not allowed when I first posted items.)



It's more for entering things like game parts or promos that don't have proper entries on BGG.

Rule #2 was there from the start. GG was always allowed in this trade.
1 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Walnut Creek
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Obviously there are a lot of games here that were in the previous math trade. I checked the previous wants for a couple of them (from 2 different users) to see what I might have to offer up to get one. Gadzooks! These people sure value games differently than I do.

Both are newish games. One has an MSRP of $45 but is in the BGG marketplace for $25 new ($15 "like new"). The other has an MSRP of $50 but is also in the BGG marketplace for $25 new.

In the previous trade, both of these particular items had tight wants, including games that sell for at least $10-25 above their game's value (at any comparable condition). One also had wants for GC's of $50+, while the other also wanted 2 older "grail" games (going for $80 and $150).

Really? Really??? Depending on condition, I can see valuing them at BGG marketplace "new" price plus shipping. Or **maybe** at MSRP (without shipping since presumably that would be a local buy). But both of these only had wants above that.

If people are only going to put such tight (crazy?) wants on their lists, I would prefer they not list the item at all. It consumes my time researching the game, checking the box, and double-checking the condition and shipping rules...all for nothing. It also lowers the overall percentage of the trade.

Is it just me?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Eddy
United States
Coeur d'Alene
ID
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
Obviously there are a lot of games here that were in the previous math trade. I checked the previous wants for a couple of them (from 2 different users) to see what I might have to offer up to get one. Gadzooks! These people sure value games differently than I do.

Both are newish games. One has an MSRP of $45 but is in the BGG marketplace for $25 new ($15 "like new"). The other has an MSRP of $50 but is also in the BGG marketplace for $25 new.

In the previous trade, both of these particular items had tight wants, including games that sell for at least $10-25 above their game's value (at any comparable condition). One also had wants for GC's of $50+, while the other also wanted 2 older "grail" games (going for $80 and $150).

Really? Really??? Depending on condition, I can see valuing them at BGG marketplace "new" price plus shipping. Or **maybe** at MSRP (without shipping since presumably that would be a local buy). But both of these only had wants above that.

If people are only going to put such tight (crazy?) wants on their lists, I would prefer they not list the item at all. It consumes my time researching the game, checking the box, and double-checking the condition and shipping rules...all for nothing. It also lowers the overall percentage of the trade.

Is it just me?


Not at all. I will say that I will throw something way crazy valuable against one of mine that has no business being there, just on the random miracle-chance that the trade goes through. But, I always list plenty of other realistic trades as well.

/shrug

But, ya it's odd to see like Monopoly Deal for some standard board game or some such...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Walnut Creek
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
eekamouse wrote:
Not at all. I will say that I will throw something way crazy valuable against one of mine that has no business being there, just on the random miracle-chance that the trade goes through. But, I always list plenty of other realistic trades as well.

Right. I have no problem with wanting a $50 GC for Monopoly Deal. The checkbox is there, and the OLWLG highlights it in yellow to warn you if you don't check it, so whatever.

But if you're ONLY going to list games that are much more valuable than yours, why bother? Perhaps people aren't aware of the little OLWLG button that shows what recent copies have sold for? Perhaps people think their games should be valued at MSRP+ (but that games they are receiving should not)?

Perhaps people listed the game first, and then realized there was nothing of comparable worth in this trade that they want. Ok, I can see that as an occasional thing. At least one of the games I described above was listed by someone who had the same "grail-ish" wants for all the items s/he listed. (I didn't check the actual values of all those other items since I wasn't interested in them).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Hooper
United States
Rockford
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
Obviously there are a lot of games here that were in the previous math trade. I checked the previous wants for a couple of them (from 2 different users) to see what I might have to offer up to get one. Gadzooks! These people sure value games differently than I do.

Both are newish games. One has an MSRP of $45 but is in the BGG marketplace for $25 new ($15 "like new"). The other has an MSRP of $50 but is also in the BGG marketplace for $25 new.

In the previous trade, both of these particular items had tight wants, including games that sell for at least $10-25 above their game's value (at any comparable condition). One also had wants for GC's of $50+, while the other also wanted 2 older "grail" games (going for $80 and $150).

Really? Really??? Depending on condition, I can see valuing them at BGG marketplace "new" price plus shipping. Or **maybe** at MSRP (without shipping since presumably that would be a local buy). But both of these only had wants above that.

If people are only going to put such tight (crazy?) wants on their lists, I would prefer they not list the item at all. It consumes my time researching the game, checking the box, and double-checking the condition and shipping rules...all for nothing. It also lowers the overall percentage of the trade.

Is it just me?


Hmmm. I don't think either of them are mine, since I only traded 1/4 items that I actually submitted wants for (and only that one item was a game, the other three were my DVDs). I submitted no wants for my other two items since I missed updating the shipping policy in time.

I will say that on occasion I have aimed high with some of my items, but not tightly. I might say I'd trade (for example) one of my DVD sets from last time for the copy of Eclipse someone was offering, but I also offered it for smaller stuff at the same time. It didn't get into any chains. I appreciate your position on research, etc., but you just never know what might happen in a trade chain.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B. Perry
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
In the previous trade, both of these particular items had tight wants, including games that sell for at least $10-25 above their game's value (at any comparable condition). One also had wants for GC's of $50+


I agree that it's poor form to put up items with the sole intent of trying to "trade up."

There's two sides to this, however. When I list a game, I put on my want list everything of similar value that I'm interested in. Afterwards, I then add everything of higher value as well. For instance, if I post a game worth $15 (and I have), then I'll add all gift certificates of $15 and up to my want list. Why not?

Edit: I see you said about the same thing two posts up
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Hooper
United States
Rockford
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Of course, there are also situations where people aren't willing to trade down a little. I've taken some minor hits value-wise, but it doesn't matter that much since I got rid of something that never gets played for something that does.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmb
dcorban wrote:
Now all we need is to turn back the clock another year before that, before people started the "I only cover the first $10" type shipping policy.


I think shipping will be the reason the trade % will still be around 15% for this MT.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Walnut Creek
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Gah. Maybe I should stop looking at past wants, as they are too depressing.

The next game I checked is one I value at $15 (since has shown up several times in BGG marketplace at that price). The only wants were for a grail game ($95+), an OOP game ($35) and a 2011 release whose cheapest sale ever on BGG so far was $35.

soblue
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
that Matt
United States
Toledo
Ohio
flag msg tools
I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.
badge
I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.
mbmb
Kayvon wrote:
There's two sides to this, however. When I list a game, I put on my want list everything of similar value that I'm interested in. Afterwards, I then add everything of higher value as well. For instance, if I post a game worth $15 (and I have), then I'll add all gift certificates of $15 and up to my want list. Why not?

Indeed. How does it hurt the trade to offer more options?

If you want the best math trade, you should encourage people to post as many games for trade as possible, and then to be as open with that trading as possible.

Even "crazy" wants have the potential to help make the overall trade better. Some people don't value their games the same way you do, and some don't really know the going secondary market rate for their games. Some might need to make a quick buck. Some just hate the game and want to get rid of it.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Monroe
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:

Perhaps people listed the game first, and then realized there was nothing of comparable worth in this trade that they want. Ok, I can see that as an occasional thing.


I could certainly see that happening quite a bit..Not uncommon for people to post their items early in the math trade since you never know what else will be added. Come time to edit wants and they don't really see anything they want aside from a few higher priced items. They loose nothing by taking a shot at getting one of those and if their item doesn't trade, they will just wait and relist it in the next math trade.

In some cases, folks may prefer an item not to trade and still have it than for it to trade for something they don't really want or is too much of a trade-down for that specific item
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Veillet
Canada
Boucherville
Québec, Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tumorous wrote:
Kayvon wrote:
There's two sides to this, however. When I list a game, I put on my want list everything of similar value that I'm interested in. Afterwards, I then add everything of higher value as well. For instance, if I post a game worth $15 (and I have), then I'll add all gift certificates of $15 and up to my want list. Why not?

Indeed. How does it hurt the trade to offer more options?

If you want the best math trade, you should encourage people to post as many games for trade as possible, and then to be as open with that trading as possible.

Even "crazy" wants have the potential to help make the overall trade better. Some people don't value their games the same way you do, and some don't really know the going secondary market rate for their games. Some might need to make a quick buck. Some just hate the game and want to get rid of it.


peakhope wrote:
Obviously there are a lot of games here that were in the previous math trade. I checked the previous wants for a couple of them (from 2 different users) to see what I might have to offer up to get one. Gadzooks! These people sure value games differently than I do.

Both are newish games. One has an MSRP of $45 but is in the BGG marketplace for $25 new ($15 "like new"). The other has an MSRP of $50 but is also in the BGG marketplace for $25 new.

In the previous trade, both of these particular items had tight wants, including games that sell for at least $10-25 above their game's value (at any comparable condition). One also had wants for GC's of $50+, while the other also wanted 2 older "grail" games (going for $80 and $150).

Really? Really??? Depending on condition, I can see valuing them at BGG marketplace "new" price plus shipping. Or **maybe** at MSRP (without shipping since presumably that would be a local buy). But both of these only had wants above that.

If people are only going to put such tight (crazy?) wants on their lists, I would prefer they not list the item at all. It consumes my time researching the game, checking the box, and double-checking the condition and shipping rules...all for nothing. It also lowers the overall percentage of the trade.

Is it just me?


OK in one Math-Trade, I've listed a RPG of 25 books wich I discovered that they worth 30$ a piece. Somebody got it for a cheap game of 20$ total worth against my 750$ worth stuff that I got a 200$ game for. To me that lost was acceptable. the one who had the 200$ game got a game worth 150$ and he was surely willing to accept the lost. and the track goes on and on... maybe somebody will, one get a 1,000$ game for 1 wooden cube for the Settlers of Catan.

If the CPU put it that way, it's because everyone made their list so that was able to append through the CPU. What is more important??? What you get for you're game or what was given for you're game? If you're not willing to accept that somebody got your big game for almost nothing, don't even plan doing trade throught math trade, but if the important is that you got your 50$ Holy-Graal for your 500$ piece of junk than and just then you might appreciate more the math-trades and life in general! :)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sicaria Occaeco
United States
Salt Lake City
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You know life is easier if you stop caring what others do.

Nobody is wasting your time putting a game up for trade, despite what you think. So what if it doesn't trade? If you think you've got something worthwhile to trade for it then pm them and stop wasting everyone's time putting your items up for trade and theirs. If it's really wasting your time then you shouldn't be doing math trades.

Nobody is going to put the same value on every item. So what if they value something more than you? Maybe it's got sentimental value, maybe their dead dog pooped in the lid and they cry every time they bring the game out. Maybe that high valued holy grail game will help them through their grief.

If you feel it's a waste to research games and check values to make reasonable trades then you shouldn't do it. My putting up games for trade isn't wasting anyone's time except mine but it's my right to do so. Who are you to tell other's what they should and shouldn't trade and what value they should put on their own property? If it doesn't trade they might get the hint that it's not worth what they think it is. Or it might never trade. So what? I'll keep putting the games I want on my list and you can setup your list however you want.

I've walked away from trades unhappy. I've never walked away from a non-trade unhappy.
19 
 Thumb up
0.11
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Sicaria wrote:
You know life is easier if you stop caring what others do.

Nobody is wasting your time putting a game up for trade, despite what you think. So what if it doesn't trade? If you think you've got something worthwhile to trade for it then pm them and stop wasting everyone's time putting your items up for trade and theirs. If it's really wasting your time then you shouldn't be doing math trades.

Nobody is going to put the same value on every item. So what if they value something more than you? Maybe it's got sentimental value, maybe their dead dog pooped in the lid and they cry every time they bring the game out. Maybe that high valued holy grail game will help them through their grief.

If you feel it's a waste to research games and check values to make reasonable trades then you shouldn't do it. My putting up games for trade isn't wasting anyone's time except mine but it's my right to do so. Who are you to tell other's what they should and shouldn't trade and what value they should put on their own property? If it doesn't trade they might get the hint that it's not worth what they think it is. Or it might never trade. So what? I'll keep putting the games I want on my list and you can setup your list however you want.

I've walked away from trades unhappy. I've never walked away from a non-trade unhappy.


Right on. thumbsup

There has never been a math trade I participated in where at least one of my entries tried to "trade up". I've got no problem with it.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem to make sense to look at someone's wants to try and put up something they're interested in. That's not what Math Trades do. I'm giving my game to person A, her to person B, then C, and so on...It's much more useful to try and figure out how "in demand" your items are to give you an idea if they'll trade. For example, my copy of Ora et Labora was one of (if not the) most in demand, non-GC item of the last MT, where as my copy of Bang! was scrapping the barrel of the last list. I didn't end up trading Ora since everything I wanted with it (maybe 20ish items) ended up with blank want lists or connected to a game with blank want lists. But it tells me that the people demand cake...er...Ora et Labora so I'm putting it back in again and will keep putting it back up, where as Bang! will get a larger want list this time around and probably shoved in with a sweetener the next time around.

If you want to do the work of creating a value-neutral trade, start contacting people to do one-for-one trades. You'll get a much quicker, straight answer by just saying "hey, how do you value your copy of Buffy, The Vampire Slayer?"
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Albert
United States
Wauwatosa
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mb
Sicaria wrote:
You know life is easier if you stop caring what others do.


QFT. There's a reason people don't generally discuss salaries with co-workers. As long as you are happy with what you earn, it shouldn't matter what someone else gets paid.
9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yannick Campagna
Canada
St-jean-sur-Richelieu
Québec
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Low % can be explain also by having 2500 items. I don't think everybody check all items listed, some people just surfed them and goes for games they recognized easily.

Might explain some 'crazy' wants too.

I probably missed a few potential games because I skipped a lot of entries when someone didn't ship to Canada so I'm more looking for people who shipped here and after check the games offered.


I confessed I'm generating a lot of the 'crazy' wants by the way I'm making my choice. I generally use for a mediun to high vallue game 'check all' and after I uncheck the games I didn't want to trade for it. Since I listed 20+ games, it's faster this way but it may look like I wants to trade a 5$ games for a 50$.

And I don't bother to ckeck BGG value neither so probably made some 'crazy' wants on a collectable game I didn't know . But I'm participing in most math trade in the last two years and didn't hit the jackpot rarely 'gain' more than 10$ in value.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
yaverot wrote:
dcorban wrote:
Now all we need is to turn back the clock another year before that, before people started the "I only cover the first $10" type shipping policy.


Not being here at that time, I assume that beforehand most listings were (my_country) only or whatever this "mirror shipping" was that no one allows now.


Actually, the first year or so I was on BGG, I never even concerned myself with shipping, as either the recipient or sender. I never had to limit my options, since everyone was willing to ship to Canada. People only seemed to care on heavy games, which were games like Doom or Descent, and even then it was referred to as "needing assistance with shipping". I, and the people shipping to me, paid the $10-15 to ship across the border without (public) complaint.

Mirror shipping was created in response to what you mention. It was an incentive to get people to loosen their increasingly strict shipping policies. I can only assume it is not longer permitted due to ambiguities and confusion it sometimes caused.

The problem is that the increasing shipping costs are decreasing the viability of these math trades.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tumorous wrote:
Indeed. How does it hurt the trade to offer more options?

If you want the best math trade, you should encourage people to post as many games for trade as possible, and then to be as open with that trading as possible.

This is absolutely true. The logical conclusion is that we should allow absolutely every possible item to be entered (shoes, clothes, electronics, and other garage sale type items).

However, some people enjoy the idea of trading strictly board games. While this will clearly result is fewer items trading, the voluntary participants may have an increased enjoyment of the trade as a whole.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. Jefferson
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
If people are only going to put such tight (crazy?) wants on their lists, I would prefer they not list the item at all. It consumes my time researching the game, checking the box, and double-checking the condition and shipping rules...all for nothing. It also lowers the overall percentage of the trade.


There's lots of ways to explain this without assuming that the person is trying to trade up, not that trying to trade up is a bad thing, IMHO.
--Maybe they are new to trading and being very conservative until they see how it works.
--Maybe they were hoping for some things of comparable value that never ended up being offered in the trade.
--Maybe they don't have the time to do the research that you've done.

It also makes no sense to me to lament tight want lists lowering the trade percentage. If any items with tight want lists do trade, it increases the total number of trades, even if having tight want lists in the trade lowers the overall percentage.

Finally, criticizing tight want lists and encouraging looser ones just strikes me as a bad idea because if new traders loosen their want lists, it increases the chance of buyer's remorse, and the potential for somebody refusing to honor the trade. As far as I know, that hasn't happened in a while, thankfully.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Morgan
United States
Hendersonville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
Obviously there are a lot of games here that were in the previous math trade. I checked the previous wants for a couple of them (from 2 different users) to see what I might have to offer up to get one. Gadzooks! These people sure value games differently than I do.

Both are newish games. One has an MSRP of $45 but is in the BGG marketplace for $25 new ($15 "like new"). The other has an MSRP of $50 but is also in the BGG marketplace for $25 new.

In the previous trade, both of these particular items had tight wants, including games that sell for at least $10-25 above their game's value (at any comparable condition). One also had wants for GC's of $50+, while the other also wanted 2 older "grail" games (going for $80 and $150).

Really? Really??? Depending on condition, I can see valuing them at BGG marketplace "new" price plus shipping. Or **maybe** at MSRP (without shipping since presumably that would be a local buy). But both of these only had wants above that.

If people are only going to put such tight (crazy?) wants on their lists, I would prefer they not list the item at all. It consumes my time researching the game, checking the box, and double-checking the condition and shipping rules...all for nothing. It also lowers the overall percentage of the trade.

Is it just me?


I noticed the valuations of games in the last trade was relatively high as well. There was a ton of 'rabble' offered for some expensive titles. But then again - I generally check ALL my lower valued items for higher valued ones because I cannot manage to check 1001397103 checkboxes without investing so much of my life it tires me - so that helps explain it.

Also explaining it is, I feel, gift certs. as they have no shipping price and shipping really kills their value. Why would I trade a $30 game for a $30 gift card if I have to end up paying $15+ to ship it? More if the game is very heavy or over sized.

I have hopes for this trade!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [13] | 
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.