[DO NOT TRY TO SELL IN HERE] Pimp Legacy Decks

[nedleeds]

Sounds like Europeans trying to fuck over Americans. Sadpanda.

Selling something for huge profits ... that's down right capitalist! That kind of thinking has no place here in ... uh wait a minute ...

Also, spending $500 on shiny paper might seem irrational to one individual while it could be completely rational to another. The idea that $500 for one card is too much is relative to their discretionary budget.

This is spot on. I take a completely different tact when buying stock than I do with buying Magic because I have arbitrary constraints on what I think 'i should spend' on Magic cards. When buying stock I am analyzing the current value with it's potential to either tank or rise. Most MTG stuff I just stumble on when I'm surfing eBay, or at Gencon.

Then there's the personal preference / aesthetics side of MTG collecting. I abhor foils, and think they look terrible which suppresses the value of most legacy stuff I'd buy. I'm also (clearly) not as thorough or completest as some of the collectors out there (not knocking them, I admire some of the really awesome collections folks have ... all signed beta sets, summer stuff, etc.).

All this talk of Russian value makes me think I should open these

[sauce]

So basically, WOTC is responsible for this ridic low supply by not printing enough russian booster boxes for US dealers/US customers to acquire. I wish it was on demand/pre-order option for anyone, even if they make it a case minimum for pre-order.

Go to a website, pre-order/pre-pay WOTC or through a dealer for your case of [insert language here] booster boxes and receive them when the set releases.
That would be the dream world.

But then again, like mentioned above, the whole Veblen Good thing would cease to exist for Russian foils if they were readily available.

[nedleeds]

But then again, like mentioned above, the whole Veblen Good thing would cease to exist for Russian foils if they were readily available.

Yes. I think also 95% of the 'Merican magic playing community wants English cards. At my weekly legacy more people bleed vaginally about my 'dern ferrin' cards then actually like them. I'd say maybe 5 of 30 or so actively want foreign stuff over english stuff. Having spent time in Taiwan in the fall it seemed like English cards were the most valuable there ... with most traders eager to swap chinese for english.

[hukstor]

Everybody does that. By the logic of the homo economicus, everybody's got his own utility function that he's acting to accordingly.

It's almost funny, when you look at it. When someone is lazy and doesn't do a lot to achieve a certain goal, neo-liberal economists would just argue, that he just doesn't want it enough. That his utility function rewards "lying on the couch" more than it does for goal xyz, relative to the cost of his actions. While the simplicity of neo-liberal theories is appealing, I've always been challenging for being to narrow and abstract.



As I said, when everything we do is rational, then what's the point in even bothering about the whole concept/term. I mean, rationality is defined by the existence of irrationality. If there's no such thing, the concept becomes obsolete.

It's not true that everything we do is rational though. Have you ever done something out of impulse and regretted it later? If so, that's probably because doing that thing was unproductive towards some other more important goal you had. You acted irrationally in that moment or perhaps did not know how to best maximize your utility in the long term. So sure, if someone bought a card for $500 and then regretted doing so because he did it out of impulse, then he would have acted irrationally. However, if peope are consistently offering $500 over a long period of time, then they are rationally making that decision based on their goals.

[Julian23]

That's why I dislike neo-liberal theories of economy. There's no room for a concept like regret in them. Just a decision based on incomplete information at a certain point in time. Not to even talk about "impulse." I mean, impulse usually describes a state of insufficient reflection about future implications of your actions. Practically, that works fine for me. But from a scientific point of view, at what point is impulsiveness meant turn into rationality? A person that acts out of impulse still considers the outcome of his or her action - but does so based on a different utility function.

I mean, at the moment you act out of impulse, you're not performing an completely insane move. You just acted based on an utility function. When that functions changes later on, chances are, you will then perceive your past actions as "irrational". However, when you performed them, you considered them "rational" for the time being.

My point is that I see no scientific use in the term "rational", other than stating that a person will do what he/she thinks would serve him best. I blame neo-liberalism for its failure to explain how those preferences, that determine what said person considers best, are actually shaped.

/edit: th post!

[sdematt]

But, since this is the pimp thread, i thought I'd also add something not related to complaints!

I just got my 4 Korean Dread of Night and 2 Korean Warmth in the mail. So nice :)

-Matt

[hukstor]

What you just said is the definition of irrationality. If someone does something out of impulse and has a deviation in their utility function, then later comes back to their original utility function, then they are by definition acting irrationally. They have not behaved in a manner that aids in accomplishing their goals. You are more or less debating the semantic meaning of irrationality rather than rejecting the concept of rationalism. Beyond that, you can make any argument you want, but it would be worthless in a philosophical context.

[RJM]

But, since this is the pimp thread, i thought I'd also add something not related to complaints!

I just got my 4 Korean Dread of Night and 2 Korean Warmth in the mail. So nice :)

-Matt

Yes, too much arguing not enough sexy pictures! More pictures, this I command!

[sdematt]

I've got a final tomorrow morning, so wish me luck, but after that, I'm posting sexy pics, don't you worry :)

-Matt

[Occam]

Arbitrage means absolutely nothing and is more worthwhile as a theoretical equaliser than a practical exercise, especially when it comes to physical goods. The continual failure of all the finance-economic parity conditions pretty much tells you about the world outside the classroom. PPP (Big Mac Index) is a constant study in failing to showcase any kind of price equality in relation to spot rates. IRP means absolutely nothing when economists cannot even decide if changes in interest rates are attractive or not in terms of foreign inflows. And so on.

That said, arbitrage in unison with an oligopolistic market makes arbitrage even worse. Part of the driving argument behind arbitrage, which is a function of EMH, is that there is an assumption that there is a large number of eyes on the lookout for arbitrage opportunities with the means to exploit said arbitrage. An oligopolistic market violates both of these.

There is also the above point of deriving utility from paying a higher price for a certain good, which is absolutely true. I'd go a bit further and say that EF is spot on. You want to know what the fair value of a summer island is right now? About 400. What was it before? 175. What happened? Kid Icarus, and people being convinced that other people paying 400 meant that they would be validated in paying that same amount. Even if his items didn't actually sell, and were shilled, the pressure is on the upside, not the downside, with regards to price. Plus, anyone using rationality without an objective benchmark is going to find it tough to showcase the average ebay user as such. Bounded rationality, perhaps, but a look at the political situation in the US already tells uss how useful that is.

[Mr.C]

Something cool I found in a binder:

[r3dd09]

Lovely card sir.

@ Matt - you have a playset of korean DoN's. I cant find any of my english playsets :/

EDIT: instead of looking through my bulk, figured i should just ebay a few playsets for the big tourney this weekend :)

[DownSyndromeKarl]

Is anyone really interested in seeing an all foil Mono-Red Burn? I mean, it's probably the cheapest pimp deck you can make for Legacy, but hell, I'm happy with it.

[ImpinAintEasy]

Is anyone really interested in seeing an all foil Mono-Red Burn? I mean, it's probably the cheapest pimp deck you can make for Legacy, but hell, I'm happy with it.

Can't be any worse than the white bordered Affinity deck posted in this thread, unless it consists of Fire and Lightning crap.

I suppose if you have to ask permission then well, you got your answer

[hukstor]

Arbitrage means absolutely nothing and is more worthwhile as a theoretical equaliser than a practical exercise, especially when it comes to physical goods. The continual failure of all the finance-economic parity conditions pretty much tells you about the world outside the classroom. PPP (Big Mac Index) is a constant study in failing to showcase any kind of price equality in relation to spot rates. IRP means absolutely nothing when economists cannot even decide if changes in interest rates are attractive or not in terms of foreign inflows. And so on.

That said, arbitrage in unison with an oligopolistic market makes arbitrage even worse. Part of the driving argument behind arbitrage, which is a function of EMH, is that there is an assumption that there is a large number of eyes on the lookout for arbitrage opportunities with the means to exploit said arbitrage. An oligopolistic market violates both of these.

There is also the above point of deriving utility from paying a higher price for a certain good, which is absolutely true. I'd go a bit further and say that EF is spot on. You want to know what the fair value of a summer island is right now? About 400. What was it before? 175. What happened? Kid Icarus, and people being convinced that other people paying 400 meant that they would be validated in paying that same amount. Even if his items didn't actually sell, and were shilled, the pressure is on the upside, not the downside, with regards to price. Plus, anyone using rationality without an objective benchmark is going to find it tough to showcase the average ebay user as such. Bounded rationality, perhaps, but a look at the political situation in the US already tells uss how useful that is.

I'm not even sure how you can even begin to claim that arbitrage doesn't exist when there are countless examples of it in practice. While it is true that the PPP doesn't hold in practice (short run), it has nothing to do with whether or not arbitrage exists. The variation in prices is largely due to the domestic country's ability to produce that particular good - inputs that are not traded internationally. The failure of the short term PPP is mainly due to production capabilities. If you look at long-term studies, every one of them suggests that the PPP holds once friction is reduced in the long run, even ones that deal with the entire CPI and PPI, not just one particular good.

Oligopolistic markets have a high barriers to entry, so it's obviously less likely for arbitrage to be cleared out. The assumption that there needs to be a large number of people looking out for opportunities is also relative to the size of the market. Since the market is small in this case, then it is conceivable to have arbitrage in oligopolistic competition. With arbitrage established, it is more likely to have a steady stream of profits due to the high barriers of entry. This is a rejection of the EMH in certain markets, and has been demonstrated numerous times in practice.

If what EF said is spot on and the supply of these goods is abundant as he suggests, then you should be able to shill bid up any card. If I put up a Raging Goblin and have a friend buy it for $2000, does that mean everyone else is going to start buying it for $2000 now? The answer here is probably due to the fact that is actually a good amount of supply. While there is some truth in EF's claim, the underlying reason is obviously the limited supply of these cards - which he completely rejects.

[Occam]

I'm not even sure how you can even begin to claim that arbitrage doesn't exist when there are countless examples of it in practice. While it is true that the PPP doesn't hold in practice (short run), it has nothing to do with whether or not arbitrage exists. The variation in prices is largely due to the domestic country's ability to produce that particular good - inputs that are not traded internationally. The failure of the short term PPP is mainly due to production capabilities. If you look at long-term studies, every one of them suggests that the PPP holds once friction is reduced in the long run, even ones that deal with the entire CPI and PPI, not just one particular good.

Oligopolistic markets have a high barriers to entry, so it's obviously less likely for arbitrage to be cleared out. The assumption that there needs to be a large number of people looking out for opportunities is also relative to the size of the market. Since the market is small in this case, then it is conceivable to have arbitrage in oligopolistic competition. With arbitrage established, it is more likely to have a steady stream of profits due to the high barriers of entry. This is a rejection of the EMH in certain markets, and has been demonstrated numerous times in practice.

If what EF said is spot on and the supply of these goods is abundant as he suggests, then you should be able to shill bid up any card. If I put up a Raging Goblin and have a friend buy it for $2000, does that mean everyone else is going to start buying it for $2000 now? The answer here is probably due to the fact that is actually a good amount of supply. While there is some truth in EF's claim, the underlying reason is obviously the limited supply of these cards - which he completely rejects.

READ what I said. Arbitrage as an equalising factor that causes the prevalence of fair prices is completely imaginary. Does it exist? Sure. Is it effective? Obviously not.


Arbitrage in an oligopolistic situation is entirely possible -- that's exactly what I'd be doing if I brought 30k to Japan, bought a mass of japanese foils, and sold them on eBay because the fair market values them higher than the Japanese. If you look at what I am saying, however, the very existence of those barriers to entry, which you obviously agree on, means that only a CERTAIN portion of the population is able to partake in this profit-making exercise, and this is NOT enough to bring the cards back to their actual fair value, by increasing supply outside of Japan. It isn't even in contention that this particular market is inefficient, and that is (using Occam's razor) due to a lack of equalising factors such as a sufficient amount of arbitrage. That EMH doesn't always hold true is something that most financial theorists have embraced to an extent -- or rather the concession that arbitrage IS possible in EMH; but in this case, the failure of EMH as you have pointed out is actually doing nothing but stating that the market for certain foreign foils is inefficient.

Simply put, if the Japanese and Russian markets weren't as closed as they are, and there is plenty of empirical evidence showing that they are, and these product were sold in the US in the same quantities as they are now instead of in Japan and Russia, would you expect prices to be as high as they are, with a smaller number of people controlling supply?

I'm simply agreeing with a portion of what he said, not everything. Even as you typed that example above, I'm certain you did so knowing exactly what I meant -- that utility derived from a high end luxury item is often linked to its price. Comparing a Raging Goblin to a cards that are far rarer (naturally or artificially so) is of no use at all.

Edit: I would argue against PPP even with those caveats, as even discounting the notorious difficulty in the prediction of spot rates, which none of the parity conditions have done well from an empirical point of view. That PPP holds only with the assumption that factors like trade barriers, intrinsic production frontiers etc hold equal or are bridged/breached is a Pyrrhic victory, as those assumptions defeat the purpose of there being a working international economic parity condition in the first place.

[nedleeds]

Is anyone really interested in seeing an all foil Mono-Red Burn? I mean, it's probably the cheapest pimp deck you can make for Legacy, but hell, I'm happy with it.

Well 2 of my Foils from one of those Russian Shards boxes were

<drumroll>

Basic F'ing Mountain

Maybe they can help you pimp.

[nedleeds]

Can't be any worse than the white bordered Affinity deck posted in this thread, unless it consists of Fire and Lightning crap.

I suppose if you have to ask permission then well, you got your answer

I missed the anti-Pimp affinity. Post #?

[jamesh]

there was a whitened dredge deck about a hundred pages ago (which i thought was really cool) but i didn't see that affinity deck - but i'd like to :)

[DownSyndromeKarl]

I do have F&L lands, only because I haven't hunkered down and bought the full-art Zen foils yet... I recently 'upgraded' my Guides to the GP ones. Personally, I like the art better. And of course the Chain Lightnings, Price, and Fireblast are F&L since that's the only way to get them in foil I believe