- 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
another green War Pig for the collection. (anotha 1:1)
(stinky fart cloud pig.. gigathemed?¿?)
Item 1: https://backpack.tf/item/3151004622
Sale 1: https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198094365132#!/compare/1727913600/1728000000
Sale Contents: Golden Pan for Ooze War Pig + Voodoo-Cursed Soldier Soul (CGFP + Voices) + $4350 via PayPal. [img]
Double spelled Soul was valued at $350 during the transaction. Deal was going to be $4700 + Pig for the Pan, but I decided to buy the Soul from ultra at the same time. So, soul mini = $350.
(shamelessly stealing this key mini from Bentry Suster: 1 Key = $1.698)
Golden Pan = 3737.5 keys = $6346.275 ( = $1.698 × 3737.5)
$6346.275 - $4350 - $350 = $1646.275
$1646.275 ÷ $1.698 = 969.537 keys
Taking 969 😎
Nice very nice
nice ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Woah cool, congratulations!
the war pig accounts for far less than 50% of the trade value here. this would be considered a bulk sale for the pan and shouldn't be used to update this
While yes, this would indeed count for only ~25% of the sale value (so, half of the rate you mentioned for bulk sales,) and that should qualify as a bulk sale.. I don't believe that it fits the essence of a bulk sale, since it involves so very few items.
Ultralow was willing to buy the pan entirely for $ via Paypal, but I was also interested in his War Pig. It really doesn't make sense to me that this would be invalid, but if I had split this transaction up into 2 different transactions (sell the pan for $, then send some $ back for the War Pig,) that it would then be considered a valid sale. My take is that if a transaction can be translated down that easily, well, I wouldn't consider it bulky or complicated.
It would make sense to me though, if more items were involved. But also, since I traded away a very liquid item (Golden Pan) for it, I think that's another simplifying factor. It would definitely be a different story if I sold an illiquid item for the War Pig + Cash.
I typically like to suggest on items that I've bought for keeps, but.. in the end, its bp.tf value being updated to the price I paid isn't that important to me, since it will be dying in my inventory anyways. However, I do think that this suggestion is a much more accurate price than the 200 keys it was priced at 7 years ago.. and since it's a 1:1, this item will have no further sales (unless my account is compromised.)
The problem here is that there isn't a set valuation for the War Pig in the trade like there is for the Soul. Ignoring the Soul, $4700 + Pig for the Pan doesn't give a valuation for the Pig because, as what you did for this suggestion shows, you'd get too small a value for the Pig for that to be considered valid / not bulk.
I'm not quite sure that I understand the reasoning, maybe I'm missing something?
So if there's a screenshot stating "we agree to value the hat at X keys," then a suggestion at X would be valid?
In my head, for a cash sale, it would make more sense to mathematically figure out the value instead of using an arbitrarily agreed upon number. Especially when considering the liquidity of a Pan, as well as there being so few items involved.
It's not quite the same in this case because the Pig is on the cash side rather than the Pan side, but the idea still applies to other scenarios. If you paid cash for multiple items, and the sum of X, Y, and Z associated for each item totaled the cash amount, you could price the individual items at X, Y, and Z.
Here, the biggest problem is the Pig being a minor piece of the total trade value.
>Here, the biggest problem is the Pig being a minor piece of the total trade value.
I understand I'm being told that this is the problem, but I fail to understand why that is problematic in this scenario.
Even if there are few items in the trade, it's inaccurate to pull a value for the cheapest item in a large trade. If you were you pay $100 + a 5-Key item for a 60-Key item, is it accurate to price the 5-Key item as 1.11 Keys if we use $1.698 as the Key price in cash? That's more extreme of an example than this, but the idea still applies.
I understand this concept, but the War Pig is not the cheapest item in this trade. The War Pig is the most expensive non-pure item in the trade by a large margin, since pans are widely considered pure.
And even if we don't consider the pan as "pure," if we apply the example you give to this suggestion:
If it's an issue of under-valuing an item.. then I don't really see any problem with that if said item is 1/1 and not being resold. Especially if the owner of said 1/1 item is the one suggesting said "under-valued" price. Plus, since the War Pig was listed at 1000 keys for a while, the highest that it could be priced at would be 1000 due to the buyout cap. 969 keys would be ~97% of that value, so I don't think that 969 keys would be any significant under-valuation. Compared to 1.11 keys being only ~22% of 5 keys.
I am not attempting to be unreasonable or hostile, I am just trying to present my understanding of the situation and my understanding of the information which has been explained to me.
My understanding of the concern that I've been given: "this is a bulk sale, so it should not be used."
My understanding of the reasoning for why that concern is problematic in this scenario: "the price may be inaccurately represented; the item that's being priced could have significant upside potential that may be ignored due to the item only being a small portion of the trade."
But in this situation, the upside potential for the War Pig would cap at 3% due to its buyout of 1000 keys. Even if this hat has a 3% pricing inaccuracy, that would not lead to an inaccurate price. I've seen suggestions for hats that are around this value which add or remove ~3% when rounding to the nearest X keys.
As the owner of this hat, since I'm suggesting the value of 969 (after having effectively paid 969) I think it would be clear that I don't have a problem ignoring that potential 3% upside. I am simply making this suggestion to document the price which I have paid.
Regarding the potential impact of the potential 3% upside: even if the price would be inaccurate to a negligible degree, there would be no wider market impact to worry about because the hat is 1/1, and also not for resale.
I feel that if there is some problem with this suggestion, there must be some other factor that's a concern. Either one which I am unaware of, or one that I'm failing to understand.
Additionally, if we do consider the Pan as pure (which most would,) the only reason that this sale is 'bulk' is because there's an excess of pure on both sides. Using an algebraic equation, we can control for this excess of pure.
Trade:
Pan = Cash + Pig + Soul
Math:
3737.5 = ($4350÷x) + Y + ($350÷x)
x = Key price in USD ($1.698)
Y = War Pig's value, in terms of keys.
Since we know x = $1.698, we can use this to convert the cash values into key values:
3737.5 = ($4350÷1.698) + Y + ($350÷1.698)
Simplified:
3737.5 = 2561.837 + Y + 206.125*
(*note: the Soul's value of 206.125 will not be counted during the calculation of "excess pure," because it is not considered "pure")
We can see that the excess of pure that's attached to both sides is 2561.837 keys. If we subtract this excess of pure from both sides, we get:
1175.663 = Y + 206.125
When we remove the excess pure value from each side, we see that Y (the War Pig's value) is still equal to 969 keys, and it makes up ~82% of the non-pure value on its side.
To use this math in a different example scenario;
If I pay 1250 keys, and in return I get 1000 keys and an "item" (the "item" being Z)
1250 = 1000 + Z
We see that there is an excess of pure on each side, so we subtract the 1000 excess pure from each side. That simplifies to:
250 = Z
did I not just pay 250 keys for the "item" Z?
That's effectively what happened.
Even if the sale for the "item" Z is technically bulk, I see no practical reason as to why that sale would be unusable.
I don't think you're being unreasonable or hostile. The buyout for the Pig being 1000 does give an upper limit like you said which would be very close to the suggested price. However, the problem with using a bulk sale isn't just that you are likely undervaluing the small item by subtracting out what was added to it from what was received (at most, it'd be a 3% undervaluation here), but you aren't accurately valuing it at all given the nature of a bulk sale. The margin of error for a smaller item is much larger because there's so much more value being added to it than if you were to price the larger item in a bulk sale. While many people may view a Pan as pure, it's intrinsically not pure as an item, so subtracting out the cash as a pure equivalent wouldn't work.
>but you aren't accurately valuing it at all given the nature of a bulk sale. The margin of error for a smaller item is much larger because there's so much more value being added to it than if you were to price the larger item in a bulk sale.
I understand how this could be problematic, but I still fail to see how this is a concern when pertaining to this scenario.
The Pig is not being undervalued, due to the margin of error for its upside potential being 3%.
And if we're concerned about downside potential, that means the Pan would be overvalued during the trade when compared to the Pig, meaning both the Pan and the Pig should be less? Well, if we check the current quickbuy price for a Golden Pan (3800) and use that, then the Pig would actually still cap at the buyout of 1000 (3800-2768=1032 before capping.) This would mean that the current downside is non-existent. (technically this would be a -3% downside, which translates to actually being a 3% upside.)
So how I see it, is that the margin for error is +3%/-0% [technically +3%/-(-3)%, which translates to +3%/+3%, which is still a 0% downside]
And if the margin for error is 3%, I don't really see how that's inaccurate.
Sure, the Pig is not ≥50% of its side (it's around ~26%, which is not a wholly insignificant amount,) but I don't understand why that would necessitate a significant inaccuracy in the given scenario.
Buy orders at the time of the sale were 3600 for the Pan, so that'd be 832 - 969 for the Pig which is a more significant range, even more if we consider 1000 the upper limit. I can have a discussion with the other moderators to see if they share my opinion or see the benefit of an exception, but I'm personally not convinced yet.
Sure, if we are to consider the price of a Pan at its quickbuy price on the date of sale, that would lead to a potential ~14% downside.
At that point though, I did have multiple cash offers that were closer to the average price at which the pan ended up being suggested at. I figured, why not kill two birds with one stone? Sell the pan and get the Pig, while minimizing chargeback risk. (My thought process being: If I sell the pan for full $, and then buy the Pig separately, I am exposed to more risk than if I combine the transaction into one deal.)
Note that I will be unable to pull up these 2+ month old chat logs, so I can't specify an exact value, and since I cannot post the proof, this comment should not be considered as proof of any specific offer relating.
Apologies for the delay. After discussing this, we still feel the margin of error is too large for this case. For what Pans were worth at the time, while you may've had offers close to the average price, the price range of the Pan is/was still sizeable leading to the wide margin of error for the Pig.
Understood, I'll be closing this then. And no apologies necessary, your response was not untimely.
Ultimately, I understand that any price suggestion and/or exception for this hat would be irrelevant anyways, since it will not be coming back on the market. There would not be any effective purpose or function that this suggestion would serve for the community.
From my perspective, I would respectfully disagree with the concern here, since the margin of error between my competing offers would be much slimmer. If the transaction was split into two instead, there would be no effective difference, except for there being no concern relating to "bulk."
However, I do understand the concerns on the other side, being that- regardless of other "competing offers" -the wider trading price of the pan at the time would leave a much wider range for the margin of error. If price suggestions were allowed to disregard that concern en masse, I do see problems that would arise. Especially so in a situation where the "competing offers" are not properly documented, such as in this case.
Since this suggestion would not serve any purpose or function for the community anyways, I'm sorry for wasting your time with this.