Could there be a better way to price suggest rare unusual items?

[Milz187]

Hey all,

 

Do you think the suggestions mechanism regarding rare items needs an update? I feel they need their own set of rules outside those of generic items.

 

I'm mostly a rarity collector and most of the items I deal with are 1 of 1 / 1 of 2s... ect. Everytime I price suggest a rare hat I feel like it suffers from sharing the same rules as generic items. As an example for generic items there needs to be multiple incidents of sales but say a owner didn't make a suggestion there's not much lost with the generic item as there are consistent sales thus more of an opportunity for that price to be corrected.

 

With a rare item if a certain amount of time goes past post a sale then the price is locked into the previous suggested price until a new sale is made. This could mean years before the price is corrected. If the new owner had put through a suggestion then the item pricing will be more accurate but since they didn't then an older price is said to be more accurate in the current mechanism, now regarding pricing accuracy this doesn't make much sense and I've seen a lot of unusuals suffer in value because of this.

 

I'm currently looking to price a Burning Pullover and its current price is at 110 buds, the Sunbeams is at 175 and after doing some research all current owners of the burning have paid well about 110 buds. I think the pricing mechanism should be able to work better that rarity items aren't stuck at an older suggested price.

 

An example process could be:

 

This could work as a question being asked before any suspected rarity item suggestion.

 

1. Does item have less than xxx amount of owners? (xxx will need to be decided)

 

If yes go to next question, If No, this is not a rarity item, please go to generic process

 

2. Is there evidence of all sales in the hands of the current owner? If yes continue... if no then this isn't part of the rarity process.... please go to generic

 

(If there's evidence of all sales in the hands of the current owners, then there's no more solid evidence for a min and max value and time that elapsed should not matter)

 

3. What is the minimum a current owner paid and a maximum a current owner paid? Answers to these should be your minimum and maximum. Value of the rare items which aren't being traded often are in the hands of the current owner/s not previous owners

 

(xxx really could be any number, it's just that the higher the number is the more work there is on the suggester in gathering prices)

 

Now if the item then processeds to unbox more and then surpass the xxx amount in question 1 then it then should move to the generic process.

 

I'm not claiming that this is a full proof process but I think it works much better for rarity items then the current generic process. If you see any flaws please point them out, if you think you have another solution or can tweak this to work better please comment.

 

---

TLDR

 

- I feel that rarity items suffer in prices under the generic pricing process

- I've proposed a suggestion that could help price rarity items

- If you have thoughts or feedback, feel free to post.

 

(I've noted unusual in the title but this could be for all rarity items e.g. uncraftable buds .ect)

[♠Derpeh♤]

The process for rare unusuals is already very different though there isnt a unusual guide written specifically for rare unusuals but rare unusuals suggestions can get accepted from one sale if there are no other sales for a while. In essence we cannot just pull numbers out of nowhere everything needs to have a source, if it is from a 8month old source then 8months it is as it is the most recent sale and everything else you "think" is very subjective.

 

Suggestions for rare unusuals arnt exactly taken as a "suggestion" but rather "the most recent sales"

[Milz187]

The process for rare unusuals is already very different though there isnt a unusual guide written specifically for rare unusuals but rare unusuals suggestions can get accepted from one sale if there are no other sales for a while. In essence we cannot just pull numbers out of nowhere everything needs to have a source, if it is from a 8month old source then 8months it is as it is the most recent sale and everything else you "think" is very subjective.

 

Suggestions for rare unusuals arnt exactly taken as a "suggestion" but rather "the most recent sales"

 

How it stands seems very grey and like you said it's very subjective. I'm finding that word used a lot currently across many communities... which in turns opens things up for inconsistent rulings. I think it'll be great if rules can be put in place where things are no longer subjective but black or white and I think in case the of pricing rarity items creating a set of rules to eliminate subjective rulings is very possible.

[♠Derpeh♤]

How it stands seems very grey and like you said it's very subjective. I'm finding that word used a lot currently across many communities... which in turns opens things up for inconsistent rulings. I think it'll be great if rules can be put in place where things are no longer subjective but black or white and I think in case the of pricing rarity items creating a set of rules to eliminate subjective rulings is very possible.

This is already part of the unusual guide where there are "exceptions"

 

Exception 1: High Tier Hats

 

Sales for high tier hats (>20 buds) can be based on a single sale if there are no other sales in the last 3 months. Estimations can be made for unpriced / outdated parts of that trade as long as reasonable estimations are provided.

 

Exception 2: Rare Hats

 

Any hat can be priced based on a single sale if ALL these criteria are met:

- There are no other recent sales in the last 3 months

- The hat went to a collector or person who intends to keep the hat. A collector can be identified by looking at the person's trade history, item history of similar unusuals in the backpack OR if the owner has not resold the hat 1 month after the sale occurred.

 

 

Not trying to have a go at you or anything but you havent made many unusual suggestions and i believe you should familiarise yourself with how suggestions are being made here first as there are always exceptions and rules already in place which you dont seem to be aware of.

 

However I will agree on your point about the grey area between "report sale" suggestions and actual suggestions, maybe have some sort of mark placed on the unusual prices where they are simply reporting the most recent sales? (Burning TC...etc)

[polar]

Several mods had previously discussed a possibility of reporting sales with a date. So if a hat was outdated by 2 years, and a sale happened 6 months ago, it could be "priced." Even though the suggestion would be new, it would still get the red triangle outdated mark because the sale would be 6 months old, but at least it might be better than the current. Allowing suggestions like this in the current format is simply out of the question. Trades 6 months ago when currency values were completely different and the climate of unusual trading was very different just cannot be used to set an updated price. Consider that 1 year ago, there were ~12000 hats and now there are closer to ~20000 unusual hat-effect combinations. The average unusual price has to go down. So no, there is no way we will change the 3 month rule for outdated hats in the current format.

 

I know that in the past Brad mentioned in passing that he would consider an overhaul to the current unusual suggestion format. Here is information I would want - when did each sale happen, how often does the hat sell for pure, what are the pure sales vs unusual sales, how long does it take to sell a hat, how long does it take to sell a hat for pure, what are the differences between duped and clean sales. All of this could potentially be annotated if there was a way to report sales. With the report you could provide all this information in there and it would automatically get factored into the current price. And heck, you might be able to do away with "overpay" entirely. There could be a separate price for what a hat sold for in pure vs what it sold for in unusuals.

 

But this overhaul is pretty low on the priority list atm. There are many more pressing issues, including an overhaul of stats.tf. So we're going to have to live with the current system with its current rules. I will emphasize what Derpeh said, which is that high tier suggestions are already looked at quite differently. Assessing suggestions will never be black and white - it will always have a significant degree of subjectiveness. If you noticed, my original name for the suggestion guide was the "cheat sheet," with the intention of making a much more detailed guide outlining every possible exception with examples. In that was actually a specific section for high tier unusuals. However, that document was pressing on 15+ pages and I didn't think anyone would even want to read it, so I scrapped it and just employ those guidelines when I assess suggestions. It illustrates the very point that it's very hard to capture every single consideration that goes into traders mind when they consider an unusual trade. It's very hard to put that into a defined set of rules. 

[Milz187]

Assessing suggestions will never be black and white - it will always have a significant degree of subjectiveness.

 

In many cases they are, as an example if a said item has only 5 in existence and it's know what each owner has paid for the item then i believe your minimum and maximums are there. For a true value you don't need any more information. 

 

How i understand it in the current environment is that say an item has 4 in existence with no listed price and 3 have been locked away for 6 months + but the 4th has been traded several times, in the current philosophy the value with be derived from the sales of the 4th item as they are more recent. Gathering and comparing prices of sales of the 4th item isn't a true indication of the items value. But if you know what the current owners have paid for their items (instead off going of the 4th item) then you have a true minimum and maximum and the value is achieved from both what the current owners value their item at in combination with historical sales. With this philosophy it also makes suggestions easier and it removes the subjective nature.

 

Not trying to have a go at you or anything but you havent made many unusual suggestions and i believe you should familiarise yourself with how suggestions are being made here first as there are always exceptions and rules already in place which you dont seem to be aware of.

 

No offense taken, thanks for the reply and looking to clarify. I would have been more active but when I've looked to make suggestions I've always run into hurdles I felt were unnecessary so I gave up on them.

 

To my thinking on value in general I feel that if you can see what the current set of owners have paid for an item (hats, cars, je)they should realistically trump all other criteria. Generic items I understand this method of thought in impossible since the numbers are vast and the birth of the given item is consistent but for a rare item which has a say an average of 1 unbox per 6 months and you can gauge what each of the individual owners has paid then it's value is in what they paid as the history of the most recent payments are there as well as the minimum and maximum expected payment will be needed to own the said item.

 

I think with the right questions in place the subjective nature could be removed. I say this as I worked as a process specialist for 7 years in a leading ISP and my role was to build black and white process flows to cover each and every encountered scenarios.This was done via a questions based flow where a question will be asked and depending on the answer then they will be redirected to another set of questions or a answer will be outputted. The more complex something is the more branches it has but with the right questions subjectivity can always be removed. 

[Milz187]

The current system is fairly subjective, I think that stems from the core questions isn't really defined and I think that's the key of having a non subjective system. There should be core questions and core answers.

 

As an example.

What is the value of a rare item? There should be a very simple answer and then processes can be built around that, if the question is left unanswered then it's subjective then anything beyond that is going to remain subjective.

 

If the answer to what is the value of a rare item was "The value of a rare item is determined by documented evidence of minimum and maximum values paid by the current owners" then it's black and white and should be simple to make suggestions / approve or deny.

[polar]

 Allowing suggestions like this in the current format is simply out of the question. Trades 6 months ago when currency values were completely different and the climate of unusual trading was very different just cannot be used to set an updated price. Consider that 1 year ago, there were ~12000 hats and now there are closer to ~20000 unusual hat-effect combinations. The average unusual price has to go down. So no, there is no way we will change the 3 month rule for outdated hats in the current format.

 

How i understand it in the current environment is that say an item has 4 in existence with no listed price and 3 have been locked away for 6 months + but the 4th has been traded several times, in the current philosophy the value with be derived from the sales of the 4th item as they are more recent.

 

When a suggestion is made, it is assumed that that is the CURRENT value of an item. Therefore, recent sales ALWAYS have priority even if they are all on a single hat as long as the hat is clean. Taking sales >3 months old into consideration is simply out of the question for reasons I have already mentioned. The unusual hat market, currency values change drastically. You cannot assume 50 buds 6 months ago is the same as 50 buds today. Furthermore, the single most important factor for hat values is its availability on the market. 6 months ago, availability may have been very different. Recent sales are much more likely to capture recent availability.

[Milz187]

When a suggestion is made, it is assumed that that is the CURRENT value of an item. Therefore, recent sales ALWAYS have priority even if they are all on a single hat as long as the hat is clean. Taking sales >3 months old into consideration is simply out of the question for reasons I have already mentioned. The unusual hat market, currency values change drastically. You cannot assume 50 buds 6 months ago is the same as 50 buds today. Furthermore, the single most important factor for hat values is its availability on the market. 6 months ago, availability may have been very different. Recent sales are much more likely to capture recent availability.

 

Correct, I don't assume 50 buds 6 months ago is the same as today, history and stats show that.

 

This points out another fundamental issue I feel. That buds a non stable item is being used to offer a stable value over a period of time. An Items value at its final point is a $$$ value, throwing in another variable (buds) creates instability in its true value. A Sunbeams Pullover recently got priced at 175 buds, the buyer paid $3500.. it got priced at because bud prices are currently $20. I'm sure there's an example somewhere but say someone paid $3500 for a Scorching View Finder when buds were $35, then the Viewfinder will be priced at 100 buds. Same value was paid but at different times but backpack.tf is showing a 75 bud price difference.

 

I think things will work much smoother if you got rid of the bud price as a main value point and replaced it with the $$$ value at the time, if something sold for $3500 6 months ago and $3500 tomorrow no matter when somebody looks at it then it's price is going to remain the same.

 

Currently if buds go back up to $35 then the value of the Beams Pullover is going to jump to $6125 where the Scorching Viewfinder (example i used with a made up number) will be at $3500 when they both paid the same.

 

I don't see how buds being sold on the steam market and dropping its value or say getting mass dupped and flooding the market (this contributed very highly) should affect the $$$ value of another item. 

 

Behind these fundamental issues other rules and processes are built behind them to sort of justify them and in the process the true value of an item get more and more clouded.