Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

A shallow(er) dive into the dynasty fable of "Trading 4 quarters for 1 dollar"


A few questions regarding momentum, value, and a spin on the dynasty fable of "trading four quarters for a dollar"  

64 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I'm new to posting polls so I hope this format works in order to generate some light philosophical discussion about this. 

Basically my premise is that yes there are times it makes sense to break down an asset on your dynasty roster and sell for less than the dollar and I want to use the analogy of going to a vending machine for a coke (that costs a dollar). There will also be times where maybe it makes sense to trade 5 quarters for a dollar.

We use this 4 quarters for a dollar analogy all the time in our analyses. Imagine this ice cold coke represents a fantasy championship. It may be that the only way for you to get this coke is to have a green dollar bill that can slide in the receptor on the vending machine, and that the coin slot is broken. So if you have 4 quarters perhaps you can find someone nearby that will trade with you (maybe they need coins for the laundry - a rebuilding analogy perhaps). But maybe they are kind of greedy and will only give you a dollar bill if you give them 5 or 6 quarters (or not greed but that's what they need to do a load). Well if I really want a coke that seems like a great deal to me. Even though on paper there is no debate that I am in fact losing value.

The other side of this "coin" would be what if the dollar bill receptor is broken and it will only accept coins? If you don't have 4 quarters would you trade a dollar bill for only 3 quarters if you had just one other quarter laying around but this would get you the coke? Again an inarguable mathematical value loss, but an ice cold coke that within the construct of this BS analogy couldn't be obtained any other way? Again it seems worth it.

The NBA thing is just to demonstrate how much context matters because I would sure hope that knowing nothing else, 100% of people would take the 7 point lead. But at least some % would take the deficit knowing the rest? I guess we'll see in the polls if this gets a little traction.

I believe there are times on one's dynasty team that it makes more sense to consolidate and even pay 5 or 6 quarters for just one dollar, and that there are other times it makes sense to break an asset down into chunks and sort of liquidate it. 

Aside from picking this analogy apart - the biggest and easiest thing is that no single coke really turns the tide of a championship except maybe Kamara, CMC and the like, but perhaps we think of this more like investment portfolio assets that are needed to buy a new car that can only be bought with cash or something. I think it's fair to say that relative to our roster market value, a dollar bill type player that we chunk out is going to be much more valuable than a coke would be relative to our own personal net worths, but I think the mechanics of the analogy work well otherwise.

Anyway what I am hoping people get into here is a discussion of actual FF rubber-meets-the road examples where it makes sense to be knowingly off from the ideal value play in order to get what we perceive to be a coke. I chunked out Golladay last week in a trade that generated some discussion in this regard and I am wondering if other people have examples they'd like to talk about. Or maybe this just dies in the ether of February forum stuff.

 

 

Edited by barackdhouse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or if you have a gift card that's worth a hundred dollars and you want to buy some coke with it. So you accept about seventy for the hundred and go buy a gram of the rocket fuel.

Bing!

Like that?

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Or if you have a gift card that's worth a hundred dollars and you want to buy some coke with it. So you accept about seventy for the hundred and go buy a gram of the rocket fuel.

Bing!

Like that?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. And yet even in this example there are two paths to getting high. You can go sell the card for cash and then hook up. Or....maybe dude just will take the card straight and save you a half hour but at the same $70/100 rate. Time is valuable. Maybe like how a 1.05 is more flexible than veteran player X?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m confused. Aren’t both answers in #2 the same thing? 

Applied to actual trades, I could see the dollar for 3 quarters scenario happening if you’re targeting certain players (the 3 quarters( for your top asset (the dollar) - maybe you’re not getting full value on paper, but you’re achieving your goal and unable to pry any more blood from that turnip. 

Finally, as a life-long Warriors fan, I’d always rather have the lead but in the situation of runs a case could be made that all the momentum is with the Dubs so take the deficit and momentum. But I voted for “team with the lead” because being in the cat-bird seat with a qualify defense is better than having to fight from behind. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest difference here is that in the money analogy, we KNOW 3 quarters is worth less than a dollar. In FF, we all have different values for players, so one person’s quarter is another person’s nickel.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m confused. Aren’t both answers in #2 the same thing? 

Applied to actual trades, I could see the dollar for 3 quarters scenario happening if you’re targeting certain players (the 3 quarters( for your top asset (the dollar) - maybe you’re not getting full value on paper, but you’re achieving your goal and unable to pry any more blood from that turnip. 

Finally, as a life-long Warriors fan, I’d always rather have the lead but in the situation of runs a case could be made that all the momentum is with the Dubs so take the deficit and momentum. But I voted for “team with the lead” because being in the cat-bird seat with a qualify defense is better than having to fight from behind. 

No, in one you're the Warriors with a deficit and in the other you are their opponent with the lead. It was tough for me to frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kutta said:

I think the biggest difference here is that in the money analogy, we KNOW 3 quarters is worth less than a dollar. In FF, we all have different values for players, so one person’s quarter is another person’s nickel.

yeah there are all kinds of holes in it, but since we use the analogy all the dang time....

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kutta said:

I think the biggest difference here is that in the money analogy, we KNOW 3 quarters is worth less than a dollar. In FF, we all have different values for players, so one person’s quarter is another person’s nickel.

I was going to say the same thing.  That is the biggest piece of the puzzle for any deal....differing values on the coins (players).  It leads to both sides believing the just got a dollar for 3 quarters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barackdhouse said:

No, in one you're the Warriors with a deficit and in the other you are their opponent with the lead. It was tough for me to frame.

So in one the Warriors are down seven and in the other their opponent is up seven?

which is… The same thing. No?

 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So in one the Warriors are down seven and in the other their opponent is up seven?

which is… The same thing. No?

 

Right but which side of it would you prefer to be on?  There is a game and one team is the Warriors with a 7 point deficit, and the other team is some other team with a 7 point lead.  Which team would you rather be holding a moneyline bet on at that point?

It confused me at first as well.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mentioning the team name in #2 creates misleading answers.

I would definitely consider taking the better team if the better team were the one trailing, depending on who the teams were and the situation.  I think question #2 is meant to measure momentum but by mentioning the team name I think it colors the results, likely consciously for some people and subconsciously for others, into choosing their answer based on the idea of getting the better team at a deficit outside of momentum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Right but which side of it would you prefer to be on?  There is a game and one team is the Warriors with a 7 point deficit, and the other team is some other team with a 7 point lead.  Which team would you rather be holding a moneyline bet on at that point?

It confused me at first as well.

Ooooooooooo ok. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I think mentioning the team name in #2 creates misleading answers.

I would definitely consider taking the better team if the better team were the one trailing, depending on who the teams were and the situation.  I think question #2 is meant to measure momentum but by mentioning the team name I think it colors the results, likely consciously for some people and subconsciously for others, into choosing their answer based on the idea of getting the better team at a deficit outside of momentum.

Right, I mean if we’re talking about one of the championship warrior teams I took the Warriors in every answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

So in one the Warriors are down seven and in the other their opponent is up seven?

which is… The same thing. No?

 

Which. Side. Would. You. Rather. Be. On?

Yes it is the same. Would you rather have all the momentum and a deficit or getting your butt handed to you but you've got the lead?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I think mentioning the team name in #2 creates misleading answers.

I would definitely consider taking the better team if the better team were the one trailing, depending on who the teams were and the situation.  I think question #2 is meant to measure momentum but by mentioning the team name I think it colors the results, likely consciously for some people and subconsciously for others, into choosing their answer based on the idea of getting the better team at a deficit outside of momentum.

Yeah I should have framed it better for sure. You get it, though. We're not trying to get published here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Which. Side. Would. You. Rather. Be. On?

Yes it is the same. Would you rather have all the momentum and a deficit or getting your butt handed to you but you've got the lead?

got it. i'm up at 4 on sundays - bear with me. heh

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

got it. i'm up at 4 on sundays - bear with me. heh

It's ok it is a weird thread idea. I have a solid inch of ice on top of everything and my roof is creaking and we've been stuck at home for like a year. I think I have all my FFPC squads down to a solid cutdown and will let the deals come to me for a bit. I'd love to unplug fully but the mancave is as close as I can get right now. And the mancave leads to more FF not less. I have ran through a *lot* of new hobbies during the pandemic. I've gotten a ton of remote work done and had great family time and am truly blessed where many aren't, but I am really, really bored. I think we've watched every movie and show ever made. Let's do weird NBA polls about momentum. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

I've never traded 4 quarters for a dollar but I've traded a dollar for 4 quarters.  It's my favorite casino machine, you can't lose money.

This is way more important than people think right here. Nobody trades four quarters for a buck unless the machine doesn't take quarters. Most machines do. But this gets to the liquidity aspect of what we're getting after here with draft picks vs. players of equal value, one might say. Having the draft pick that is equal to the value of a player actually gives it more value because of its liquidity, which is what I was getting at before with my admittedly slightly risque drug analogy.

It's all about liquidity and ease of transaction to fit one's overall goal, which is a ship.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is way more important than people think right here. Nobody trades four quarters for a buck unless the machine doesn't take quarters. Most machines do. But this gets to the liquidity aspect of what we're getting after here with draft picks vs. players of equal value, one might say. Having the draft pick that is equal to the value of a player actually gives it more value because of its liquidity, which is what I was getting at before with my admittedly slightly risque drug analogy.

It's all about liquidity and ease of transaction to fit one's overall goal, which is a ship.

Plus it’s not a 1:1 trade. 

If one is dropping a $1 into a slot machine, you’re not exactly trading $1 for 4 quarters. You’re trading $1 for a chance to get more than 100% return on that $1. 

similar to the upside of making a trade of $1 player for 4 $.25 players, or even 3. The perceived value could be greater than the sum of its parts if your team addresses 3 weaknesses for something you have in surplus. 

which also alludes to the fact that your $1 player may only be worth $0.50 to you if you don’t have an active roster spot for them. 

Context is everything. 

Ps - I’ll ignore the fact that most casinos have eliminated coins in favor of printing tickets when one wins for the purpose of this post analogy. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

I even bought Civilization 6 and upgraded my graphics card. Last time I played a Civ game was in like 1999.

Not really forum relevant but civ 5 is the vastly superior game.  Feel like I wasted money buying six.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, wgoldsph said:

Not really forum relevant but civ 5 is the vastly superior game.  Feel like I wasted money buying six.

Agreed.  I got 6 for free when I downloaded an app. It was kinda clunky - and it felt like they tried to dumb down a game that was far better for the complexity of its predecessor.

 In that genre I kinda miss sim city, too. 

/topic derail

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a question of perspective. Who is making the valuation and through what lens? 2 observers will have two different opinions, infinite observers infinite opinions. Are you pleasing a random observer or yourself? That is the only consideration

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t have to win every trade.  I’m old and been playing fantasy football for over 30 years and there have been times I’ve traded a dollar for 3 quarters and have been happy about it.  The entire league knew it and it worked out for both of us. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

My objective for every trade is for both parties to win. Doing so creates repeat customers. 

This is something I try to do as well when approaching trades.  If I'm offering quarters I at least make sure they're quarters where the other team has dimes.  Getting offered a log jam at a position for my star makes me much more likely to value my dollar more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wgoldsph said:

Not really forum relevant but civ 5 is the vastly superior game.  Feel like I wasted money buying six.

So far I'm the other way around. There was a shocking lack of cool videos once you built a wonder. I built the Apollo Program in Civ5 and nothing happened. So lame. I did try Civ 5 first and ran it out a bunch. Still toying with 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

What about trading 5 dimes for one quarter? Still within the same coke for a dollar world. 

You just smoked, didn't you? I speak Leroy Hoard, but I'm not sure I speak barackdhouse on this one. 

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the perception of values and how that all plays into this....well if you sell someone a player that *they* think is a dollar and you get 3 quarters back (that have upside) then that could actually be profitable. Getting rid of a declining asset for less than market is good if you're churning for growing assets.

And yes this is all about liquidity and consolidation vs breaking an asset into chunks. 

I love to try and pull off win win trades but will do any deal that makes sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

You just smoked, didn't you? I speak Leroy Hoard, but I'm not sure I speak barackdhouse on this one. 

Haha no not yet. But if you had five dimes and needed just one quarter to get the coca cola you would make that trade no? No different than the question of trading a dollar for just 3 quarters but smaller scale. Might make more sense with marginal roster cuts as the analogy. I would cut ten dimes for a chance at one or two quarters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, barackdhouse said:

Haha no not yet. But if you had five dimes and needed just one quarter to get the coca cola you would make that trade no? No different than the question of trading a dollar for just 3 quarters but smaller scale. Might make more sense with marginal roster cuts as the analogy. I would cut ten dimes for a chance at one or two quarters. 

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. Yes, I would. The theory round fantasy football makes it so you'd have trouble unloading your dimes in that instance. But I get what you're saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. Yes, I would. The theory round fantasy football makes it so you'd have trouble unloading your dimes in that instance. But I get what you're saying.

Yes it would be difficult but it demonstrates the point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, barackdhouse said:

Yes it would be difficult but it demonstrates the point. 

Indeed. I've never gotten the logic that you shouldn't have parts of something when those parts of something make you better. Conversely, if having one really good player helps you attain your goals, reason tells you that the goal is the championship, and that the true value of the deal is how far along it gets you there. Never mind that you're giving up 50 cents for 25 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I have large portions of a deal negotiated and it is perhaps imminent, I love to add those dimes and quarters that I perceive to have upside to grow into more (the Vaughns, Slaytons, Jeff Wilson?, Hamler, etc) onto a deal if I have a rebuilding team that can roster them. Dimes and quarters with upside are some of my favorite targets. 

Draft picks are maybe like a debit card or universal currency where you don't need perfect change or bills to get the coke. You just have to spend wisely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

My objective for every trade is for both parties to win. Doing so creates repeat customers. 

This is a philosophy that is lost on many FF players.  If you make equitable trades with other owners you are more likely to be able to make future trades.  Getting over on other owners may help short term but it could burn a long term bridge.

 

I have also had owners tell me they won't make a trade even though it significantly helps their team because they don't want to improve my team at all.  So they are essentially cutting off their nose to spite their face.  

Edited by Gally
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't let the fear of them not coming back to me stop me from making a deal in my favor. At all. 

But yes way too many owners are hung up on needing to *win* a trade. That isn't really a consideration for me as I'm just trying to get good deals made. But a win win is the best for all those reasons. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gally said:

This is a philosophy that is lost on many FF players.  If you make equitable trades with other owners you are more likely to be able to make future trades.  Getting over on other owners may help short term but it could burn a long term bridge.

 

I have also had owners tell me they won't make a trade even though it significantly helps there team because they don't want to improve my team at all.  So they are essentially cutting off their nose to spite their face.  

This is true in spirit but so hard in practice. Especially given that negotiation is part of the deal. I try to make deals as fair as possible to begin with using calcs and ADP and lineups and the like, and I've found that's often taking a position of weakness because people expect to be able to counter with less.

A tough exercise, trading is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2021 at 7:10 PM, Pipes said:

You don’t have to win every trade.  I’m old and been playing fantasy football for over 30 years and there have been times I’ve traded a dollar for 3 quarters and have been happy about it.  The entire league knew it and it worked out for both of us. 

A solid point. 

Another factor is that the value of an asset depends a lot on how that asset was obtained. Maybe you're dealing  a player you received as a toss-in to a larger prior deal. 

Example: I snagged Tonyan for $3/500 FAAB early in the season. I had an empty roster spot, he was a dart throw. A week later his value popped due to climbing the depth chart. I had 6 TEs. 

A team who needed a TE desperately gave me a choice of 6 receivers and of he bunch I liked Curtis Samuel. At that moment Tonyan had a few decent games and a couple down games. Kind of a TD or bust kinda guy, certainly wasn't gonna crack my lineup with Gronk/Engram so I pulled the trigger. 

In hindsight, Tonyan was an asset I probably could have held longer, maybe gotten more for. But I'm still happy with the deal. Samuel went on to produce pretty solid weekly numbers for me as my WR5 (we have 4 Flex spots + 1 superflex) with a floor of around 6 and a ceiling of 23. He helped me get to the playoffs and cash in 3rd place with his week 13, 16+ point game. 

Did I overpay for Samuel? I'm sure many would say yes, if they only knew it was Samuel for Tonyan after the season. In the Dynasty topic I got bashed for the deal.  But I don't really see that - I see that I acquired Samuel for $3 FAAB, and got a young exciting player that I like.  Time will tell if Tonyan remains as valuable as he'd been for the Packers in 2020. 

So paying $1 for 3 quarters is only true of you actually paid $1, is the point I'm trying to make here. If you paid $.25 for a player who was later worth $1, then dealt that player for 3 quarters, you're up $.50 in the equasion. ;) 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

Yeah I don't let the fear of them not coming back to me stop me from making a deal in my favor. At all. 

But yes way too many owners are hung up on needing to *win* a trade. That isn't really a consideration for me as I'm just trying to get good deals made. But a win win is the best for all those reasons. 

The need to feel like they won the trade definitely stands in the way of most people being willing to give $1 for 3 quarters.  So many people look at a trade and all they see is who is getting the best player, and "if its not me then no deal".  Or they have to get 10 other people to say "oh man you robbed that guy you're so smart and good at ff wow amazing genius".  If it helps your team, it's worth pursuing...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

So far I'm the other way around. There was a shocking lack of cool videos once you built a wonder. I built the Apollo Program in Civ5 and nothing happened. So lame. I did try Civ 5 first and ran it out a bunch. Still toying with 6.

Guess I'm not one for spectical.  I couldn't wrap my head around new way they handled building various city improvements in 6, it was completely different than all the other games.  Guess I'm too old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wgoldsph said:

Guess I'm not one for spectical.  I couldn't wrap my head around new way they handled building various city improvements in 6, it was completely different than all the other games.  Guess I'm too old.

It is very different and I'm not sold yet. But I kind of hated 5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wgoldsph said:

Guess I'm not one for spectical.  I couldn't wrap my head around new way they handled building various city improvements in 6, it was completely different than all the other games.  Guess I'm too old.

If a game isn’t intuitive, the game designer is at fault. 

Games should be intuitive. Leveling up a city shouldn’t require 2 Red Bull’s and a trip to Google or Quara. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

A solid point. 

Another factor is that the value of an asset depends a lot on how that asset was obtained. Maybe you're dealing  a player you received as a toss-in to a larger prior deal. 

Example: I snagged Tonyan for $3/500 FAAB early in the season. I had an empty roster spot, he was a dart throw. A week later his value popped due to climbing the depth chart. I had 6 TEs. 

A team who needed a TE desperately gave me a choice of 6 receivers and of he bunch I liked Curtis Samuel. At that moment Tonyan had a few decent games and a couple down games. Kind of a TD or bust kinda guy, certainly wasn't gonna crack my lineup with Gronk/Engram so I pulled the trigger. 

In hindsight, Tonyan was an asset I probably could have held longer, maybe gotten more for. But I'm still happy with the deal. Samuel went on to produce pretty solid weekly numbers for me as my WR5 (we have 4 Flex spots + 1 superflex) with a floor of around 6 and a ceiling of 23. He helped me get to the playoffs and cash in 3rd place with his week 13, 16+ point game. 

Did I overpay for Samuel? I'm sure many would say yes, if they only knew it was Samuel for Tonyan after the season. In the Dynasty topic I got bashed for the deal.  But I don't really see that - I see that I acquired Samuel for $3 FAAB, and got a young exciting player that I like.  Time will tell if Tonyan remains as valuable as he'd been for the Packers in 2020. 

So paying $1 for 3 quarters is only true of you actually paid $1, is the point I'm trying to make here. If you paid $.25 for a player who was later worth $1, then dealt that player for 3 quarters, you're up $.50 in the equasion. ;) 

The bolded is a terrible way to approach a trade.  Once a player is acquired it really doesn't matter at all how you acquired the player or what you paid for him.  The only thing that matters is how he is producing and how you think he will continue to produce.

 

One of the most frustrating things in negotiating trades is when in week 3 an owner says I can't trade player X for player Y because I took player X in the 2nd round and you took player Y in the 12th round.   Things have changed since the draft and the fact a player was taken in the 2nd round is meaningless now.  The way the actual performance on the field is going is all that matters.  

 

Making trades based on what you paid for a guy will get you in trouble and either prevent you from making a quality deal (if you put too much importance on the capital you spent to get a guy) or allow you to give an asset away (because you got him for free anyway).  It really can set you up for disappointment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gally said:

The bolded is a terrible way to approach a trade.  Once a player is acquired it really doesn't matter at all how you acquired the player or what you paid for him.  The only thing that matters is how he is producing and how you think he will continue to produce.

 

One of the most frustrating things in negotiating trades is when in week 3 an owner says I can't trade player X for player Y because I took player X in the 2nd round and you took player Y in the 12th round.   Things have changed since the draft and the fact a player was taken in the 2nd round is meaningless now.  The way the actual performance on the field is going is all that matters.  

 

Making trades based on what you paid for a guy will get you in trouble and either prevent you from making a quality deal (if you put too much importance on the capital you spent to get a guy) or allow you to give an asset away (because you got him for free anyway).  It really can set you up for disappointment.  

I’m speaking more to a rationalization if you’re looking to deal the $1 for the 3 quarters. 

I’m not advocating using this as a general philosophy for all deals, nor am I suggesting taking pennies on the dollar because you only paid pennies.

I’m simply stating that in the context of this discussion where one may be comfortable taking $.75 for a $1 player because it suits a need, it’s more easily justified if the seller didn’t actually pay $1 for the player.

Sure; you could always hold out for that extra $0.25 - which could lead to either paralysis by analysis & no deal ever gets done because it’s not perfectly even, or worse, your $1 asset gets injured and becomes a $0 player. 

I agree with what you’re saying in general, but you’re being critical based on a generalization rather than the specific context of this topic & content of my response. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah people definitely get hung up on the capital that they used in the past to acquire someone, and it gets in the way of how they value them in the present. And that concept is directly relevant here in terms of how people value their own side in negotiations and to how they try to sell others on either side. 

I think it is similar to how a novice poker player can't get away from pocket Aces when a contested flop and turn on a terrible board might dictate otherwise. The inability to accept a loss is a major problem for FF owners.

I also find it interesting to consider these things when I have taken over an orphan. A player that the previous owner may have been super stingy about but I am willing to give away relatively cheap. Sometimes I've been told that my price was better than the previous franchise owners had been. I didn't have any of that emotional baggage of having had a bad experience with that player.

And I really try not to let past prices paid get in the way of the present, or of the vision of the future. I've cashed at the WSOP 2/5 attempts and I think I have played ~2,000,000 hands of NL Texas Hold Em in nearly 20 years. I have laid down a *lot* of big hands and taking arguably marginal losses in FF shouldn't scare me. And it doesn't. In my experience the poorer players in either hobby are the ones that are too risk averse, not the ones that are too risk tolerant. But knowingly taking a loss (to live another day in poker, to get closer to that coke in FF) is a part of that winning model. I may have put a lot of chips in with those Aces but I may need to minimize my loss by folding. Like drafting someone in the 1st round one year and selling for a loss the next year, but for more than you would get if you waited until year 3. 

Subject to perception of values of course. We are all trying to manipulate and spin the cost of a coke to each other and to haggle with what loose change and greenery we have sitting around. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m speaking more to a rationalization if you’re looking to deal the $1 for the 3 quarters. 

I’m not advocating using this as a general philosophy for all deals, nor am I suggesting taking pennies on the dollar because you only paid pennies.

I’m simply stating that in the context of this discussion where one may be comfortable taking $.75 for a $1 player because it suits a need, it’s more easily justified if the seller didn’t actually pay $1 for the player.

Sure; you could always hold out for that extra $0.25 - which could lead to either paralysis by analysis & no deal ever gets done because it’s not perfectly even, or worse, your $1 asset gets injured and becomes a $0 player. 

I agree with what you’re saying in general, but you’re being critical based on a generalization rather than the specific context of this topic & content of my response. 

I understand the idea that it can help you rationalize a deal after the fact but your statement was that the "value of an asset depends a lot on how you obtained that asset."  That statement is completely incorrect.  The value of an asset has *nothing to do with how you obtained that asset.  However, you can rationalize after the fact if it makes you feel better about a deal that you aren't too happy with.  

 

ETA:   *  I should have said that the value of an asset should have nothing to do with how you obtained the asset.  But to many people it does matter - which is why some deals are very hard to get through.  As barackdhouse mentioned....sometimes you have to realize that your player is now at a loss from the original value and cutting bait now is better than waiting until it bottoms out.  

Edited by Gally
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

I may have put a lot of chips in with those Aces but I may need to minimize my loss by folding.
 

the pocket Aces poker analogy is a good one.  Being “pot invested” always seems to cost players the most money. 

I’ve never played a tourney as big as WSOP, but I’ve played local tournaments & a lot of single table games at card rooms over the years, and I’ll never understand the players who say things like, “I know you’ve got me, but I just have to see it” and pay off my check-raise to do it. 

I’ve even told players I was friendly with “huge pot already. I’ve got the nuts. Call if you hate money.” numerous times without bluffing, and time and again, they pay to see that I’m not lying.

Of course that also works to my advantage because the next time I pull that schtick they’ll 💯 believe me when I’m BSing. 

But to your point - that’s the worst $ spent in poker. They KNOW they lost but bleed some more chips anyway. It’s a strange psychology. Throwing good money after bad, is how the old saying goes.

Back to FF, assets are assets and value is value, but none of that lives in a vacuum. You have potential trade partners who also have assets. And unlike poker or Coca-Cola, the asset value isn’t neatly fixed to the price of a can, or value of a chip. FF assets have imperfect values simply as caliber of player. Then other things factor in, like age, team situation, injury history, off-field drama, etc. And you have to depend on a potential trade partner’s need fitting your desirous selling price. 

So if you’re stuck on your perceived “well the trade calculator says you’re getting 25% better value than me in this deal” you ignore the peripherals that might make the deal closer than it appears on paper. And even if it doesn’t, you’re still going to have to accept that your particular trade partner might be the only one with an asset close enough to what you’re trying to acquire (and it might even be THAT specific player) so in fact, you may need to elevate the value of your trade partner’s asset because you’re the one looking to obtain those 3 quarters, so maybe your dollar is what the price really is. In that scenario they’re actually $.33 players. 

The psychology & equitability of trading is a fascinating subject though. I’m glad you started the topic. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...