- Forums
-
Pricing
- Community Pricing
- Pricegrid
- Spreadsheet
- Browse Suggestions
- Latest Changes
- Unusual Pricelist
- Browse by Item
- Browse by Effect
- Steam Community Market
- Market Pricelist
-
Trading
- Classifieds
- Classified Listings
- Utilities
- Calculator
- Premium Search
- Statistics
[Proof below]
3 months old price
Overpay applied
http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/14447972
-sold for 1.7 buds
http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/14241478
-sold for 2 buds
http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/14603808
-sold for nnb nappers + bud + sweets (~2.2)
http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/15336788
-added a peace phantom for bubbling crones (~2.2)
Your 1.7 proof is old. I paid 2 buds and he gave back 4 keys I think - this was over 45 days ago and since then ('in the past couple of weeks) the same hat has had offers of 2 pure more than once, one of which is in my active trade. You've failed to mention it even though you looked back at what I paid.
At the time buds were around 19-20 keys, so I actually paid 34-35 keys in pure.
proof for 1.7 is just wrong
2 buds - 4 keys(0.2) = 1.8 which is still in the range
EDIT: and a month old sale isn't ancient
1.8 is in your range, 1.7 has no proof and a month AND A HALF old sale with outdated key prices does make a difference here.
Also you're failing to address the fact that the same hat I apparently got for 1.7 has had offers of 2 buds very recently, again 2 buds is worth much less now. Yet you're setting to 1.7 based on an really old trade which was actually valued at around 34-35 keys.
And to add to that here's an offer I got within a few days of buying mine - http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/14775232 = 38 keys = 2 buds
If you would also look at my current trade I've had offers of 2 buds and declined them, I really dont think you have any proof that 1.7 or 1.8 is current.
So, do you really think you could get one of these for 27 keys right now?
1.7 is not that far from 2 to be considered an outlier
and again 2 buds is in the range
My argument is that 2 buds should be the low range (plenty of current proof). And 1.7 has no current proof.
1.7 just isnt accurate, it would be good if you could explain why you think it is, when the 1.8 offer was actually worth more than 2 buds is today.
As buds have changed the price has fluctuated to above 2 which I agree needs lowering. But not to 1.8 using outdated prices, which again is an argument you're failing to comment on.
He's still raising the price from the original of 1.5-1.8 buds.
Doesn't make it correct?
Actually I'd be really interested to know how you could call this raising a price when the 'visible' price would become much lower, based on old evidence. See the little red arrow pointing down?
And now buds rise and the 1.7 proof (which was actually 1.8) becomes a 1.6 suggestion :(
it doesn't matter since we use original values on unusuals
What on earth are you taking about.
So
Your proof for 1.7, was actually 1.8 is now being used to set 1.4
The 1.8 proof was 34-35 keys is now being used to set a price of 28 keys (at most) as the low range even though buds are worth the same amount of keys as they were when your 1.8 proof happened.
Does this really make any sense to you or are you just living in statistic/maths/rep land?
okay here is how to tell that a sale is not valid
1) if the sale was fast (e.g sold in 1 day) which we call a quicksell
2) if the sale was too far from the other sales
3) if the sale was too old (e.g 3 months or more)
is the 1.7 sale applies any of these,,,no? then its a valid proof
so what you're saying is that your valid proof of 1.7 (which was 1.8 btw) is valid proof of 1.4.
You are making zero sense
the original value doesn't change
I give up trying to make you see the reality of what your data shows and the context of your own little suggestion code, how it actually should work to get you an accurate suggestion.
No idea what your comment 'the original value doesn't change' is meant to mean, what point you're making. Seems like a little one liner with zero context or helpful explanation
1.4 is ridiculously innacurate, should be obvious to everyone who sees it. Not supported by any proof blah blah blah goodluck. Needs resubmitting with the buds changes imo.