- 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
Update!
Sale 1: https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198010991677#!/compare/1592870400/1593043200
https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198131081286#!/compare/1592784000/1592870400
Qs for 28 pure.
Sale 2: https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561199025158544#!/compare/1593388800/1593475200
https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198993686702#!/compare/1593302400/1593475200
?
Sale 3: https://marketplace.tf/items/tf2/30413;5;u109 - 60.06/1.92 = ~31
https://backpack.tf/item/5208681502
Rest of the mp.tf sale(s):
132.99/2.04 = ~65
Sales: 28, 31 and 65. Classies: https://i.imgur.com/IDb3hVK.png. 65 flat.
Based on only the data points listed in this suggestion, this should be left outdated (28, 31, 65 does not say 65 flat). There's another marketplace sale from the same time frame at ~50 too
Wait, no 50-65?
I mean sales are still 28, 31, 50, 65, and youre updating a hat that was only just outdated when half these sales happened :P Updating it now would make it seem like it is currently stable at 50-65 which it most certainly isnt. If this was a year or more outdated id have said go for it, but personally I dont think it would be an improvement over the price as it was set so short before these sales.
So we just completely ignore the miles higher buyers, than both of those sales just cause there's 2 low sales? I understand common trade points, but like...
I assumed buyers would have been lower back then; turns out they were, although not as low as these.
I checked and the sale at 28 is actually 40, 12 extra keys were used to buy that rack (40 being above buyers at that time).
The point is that if half the people feel the need to dump at or below buyers, it feels weird to give the hat a raise based on a single sale if you are dealing with something that is (or in this case was) pretty much in-date. Adding a sale you deemed too old to the equation (since you were already dealing with old sales when this was made, even though actually it wasnt outdated so its weird you didnt include it) further implies that 65 flat is too high.
If something sells this irregularly I generally prefer not to force an update on something priced so recent. I guess if this was done in may-june I would've let it slide (at 50-65 based on the data points as they were summarized earlier) despite being very lopsided, but now that it is very lopsided ánd way too old to use I think it would be pushing it too much.
Now that one of the sales is no longer exempt from being used by default I guess there is no doubt anymore, but even without that Id probably have preferred this to have remained outdated.
True