[MrCrabbs]

OK so some players like to think that if they auction and buy a property, they are getting a 20% discount. This is not quite the case though, as will soon be clear...

So, you auction a property, and you get 20% of the final price WHOEVER BUYS IT. If you buy one black, say, for 1000, you pay only 800 (1000-20% of 1000=800). But if on your auction, it is the other player who buys for 1000, then you still get that 200.

The best way to think about this is that you get the 20% whoever buys. Thus, in making your decision WHETHER TO BID (on an aution you have already opened), say, "Would I rather get 20% of the going rate, and let them have the property at that price, or would I rather bid another 30, and get 20% of 30 extra, and maybe get the property myself?"

OK, happy so far? Good. But 20% of 30 only 6. That is, basically nothing. Therefore the above decision rule for whether to bid can be simplified to The First GM Decision Rule (which is the rule for deciding whether to bid on a property you have opened):

"Would I rather get 20% of the going price, and let them have the property, or bid another 30 and maybe own the property, and the 20%?


To players of 2p, this will already be clear I expect. But in multiplayer, there's a large group of people who think that by buying a property that they auction themselves, they are getting it 20% cheaper. They are not, since they get 20% of the value of any property they auction. We get the following decision rule, which can be applied to whether or not to PUT UP FOR AUCTION any property whatsoever. The Second GM Decision Rule(which is the rule for deciding whether to open any given property for bidding):

"Would I rather get 20% of the price I expect this property to sell for, and let the winning bidder (possibly myself, if the first decision rule is also met) have it, or would I rather pass over? (and let chance, and others also making this decision, determine when it gets auctioned)"

So, players who think they are getting a property 20% cheaper if they auction it themselves are not behaving rationally. And players who never open another player's property for bidding, are also not behaving rationally. Adjust your games!!!

[Magflag12]

I am somewhat confused by what your saying, let me ask.

Firstly, I am not sure what context you are suggesting this under as far as rationally thinking. So, if a players has 2 whites and is going for his third in a 5p game and the start is at +200 and he has 1300 cash (including credit) would he be irrational to bid knowing that someone could out bid the 1300 cash, BUT because he has 20% advantage it is unlikely that someone will bid the 1560 that is required to out do him, and if they do he gets 300 profit while the other player suffers from a severe unprofitable and inconvenient opportunity cost?

I just don't get your allocations, I am not critisizing your thought, I just don't get it. You are suggesting that auctioning a peice because you get 20% profit is not a rational thought? Or that BUYING a peice because you get 20% profit is irrational?

Just confused.
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[MrCrabbs]

I am saying that buying it coz you get 20% off is irrational. Auctioning for the 20% is rational.

Your first paragraph is baffling.

[Magflag12]

Ok, I just see the simplicity of your first sentence as a claim. You saying that is absolute? That auctioning a peices because you get 20% is irrational absolutely? Surely your not saying that. I think thats where I got confused.

As for my first paragraph... baffling in the U.S. is often used in the context of "in awe" of something. But I assume you mean the other working definition and you see problems with it... Not sure what baffled you, but I am curious
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[MrCrabbs]

Now I am baffled. Can you sort out those two posts so they make sense please.

[Magflag12]

LOL

Is this quote:

[MadMACS]

If I want to buy a white for 900 effective dollars, I can either a) auction myself and bid 1100 or b) let someone else auction and bid 900. Either way, I spend 900, so effectively, by auctioning myself, I can bid 20% higher, and if I get it for less than 1100, all the better.

This only holds true if you know prior to going to auction, how much you're willing to spend on a property as your max bid. If you bid willy nilly, then this logic won't hold because you'll just keep adding 30 til it's yours.

As for whether or not you should auction another person's property, unless you expect the auction price to be so high that 20% commission is greater than the start value you'd get for completing your lap, why bother, you're helping your opponent and making it that much further for you to get to start.

[Magflag12]

Your last paragraph, Madmacs is incorrect in my eye.

EVERY auctioning of a piece is 100% situational. A peice, ANY peice, is only worth how many rolls are left in the game. If it is coming up on recession and you want your opponent to buy a second peice of pink so that it will put him low then it can work out to your advantage. If you want your opponent to buy a peice to put him low early in the game so that you have the advantage of having the most cash out of all the players of the game, that oo can be a good strategy. Its all subjective
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[MrCrabbs]

OK let me clarify. First of all, what I am saying is not subjective. If you think it is you have not understood it.

No, I am not making the statement that people should always auction other peoples properties, and never their own. That would be absurd, read again what I wrote.

The question of getting the benefit of the 20%, is a question that arises BEFORE you decide to auction a property - be that a property you are trying to get, or one that someone else is trying to get. If you auction it, you will be better off to the tune of 20% (although if you go on to buy the property, you will also have lost the 100% and thus have less money than before you bought it, obviously. But you did get the 20%, and it was the same 20%, more or less). But you take into account the 20% on your estimate of what the property will sell for, when deciding whether to open it up.

To make the relevance of what I am saying clear, here's an example. So, you buy an extractor for 1500. Assume, simply to avoid confusion (although it in fact makes no difference) that it was opened up by someone else, but you bid 1500 and got it.

Now, you want to sell that white for 1800 to someone who already owns two of them, but who didn;t have the money to get the one you hold, when you bought it. Let's say he bought the first two for 1500 each, and that he opened the bidding on them, so got 20% back, and paid only 1200.

You offer him the third for 1800. He declines. You say, "but you paid 1500 for each of the first two", and he says "yeah, but I got 20% discount". You can correctly reply that he would have got 20% of 1470 if he hadn't bid the extra 30, and since 20% of 1470 is about equal to 20% of 1500, you can essentially say that he would have got the same amount of money, ie: 2x.2x1500, if he had let someone else buy them. That is, he still paid 1500, not 1200. Bidding the extra 30 caused him to lose 1500 cash.

[Magflag12]

Good point, I never thought about that.

Thanks for making it clear.
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[MrCrabbs]

I am still puzzling over the full implications. But one example is:

Suppose you land on the first white in a multiplayer game. Bidding gets to 1470 and you recon you can win it with one more bid. Or you can go for black, and win it for 1250 (whoever auctions it). You basically have the 20% of 1500 anyway. You then have a simple choice - would I rather have white for 1500 or black for 1250?

[aleqqqs]

Well, Mr Crabbs, i had to read your post several times before i got what you meant.

This is a situation on which you can look from multiple points of view.


The same situation you describe your way, i could describe e. g. that way:

I ask myself (when bidding 1500 on the first two whites each):
"Do i want to buy that white for 1500-20% and PAY 1200, or do i want to EARN 20% of 1470, which is ~300? (and of course, let someone else have that property)"


Since when auctioning, the only 2 options are
- to EARN money
or
- to LOSE money,
i dont consider the 300$ as "earned anyway" when having auctioned.


Something else to the topic:

You auctioned something you initially wanted to buy and bid against someone.
After bidding a while, you let the other bidder have it.
You always do it for one of the following reasons:

- you are lower in money (including credit) than him and you are unable to bid any higher

- you think it is too expensive to improve your game performance

- you want to harm the bidder and make him lose money

- you think you can trade it later for a better price or against a property

please correct me if i missed a reason


Anyway Mr. Crabbs, i tend to use my "way of thinking", but your "additional way" kinda enhances my image of the game.

I consider it a model rather than a fact or a theory

[Yiles]

Aleqqqs,


Crabbs hasn't been around for months- sorry old chap
_________________

[aleqqqs]

oh :-/



well, im new to this forum and didnt recognize...


however, maybe someone has to say something about it