Re-pricng of players

I put a lot of work into researching these players because I love the mystery card games (all four decades) and want them all to be as much fun as possible and because I enjoyed doing it.

It shouldn't be too hard (for IT guys) to calculate use and reprice players based on usage.

You have an intriguing notion of "enjoyment," Bombers. That's a full weekend of snowboarding at Squaw Valley you put into that project.

I have no problem with adding new players to the set; it would increase the combinations of rosters I and other players could construct. However, it would add new players to the "unused players" pool and would cause more original players to go unused, a problem a previous poster bemoaned. So, solving one "problem" would just enhance another one. If everybody actually agrees on their priorities and desired changes, that won't matter. However, I don't exactly see that happening.

As far as re-adjusting prices based on usage goes, as I noted in an earlier post: the problem with basing it on usage is many overused players are only used because of their low price. Once their prices are raised, they will go unused, need to be re-priced, and we'd be right back where we were before.

You have an intriguing notion of "enjoyment," Bombers. That's a full weekend of snowboarding at Squaw Valley you put into that project.

No doubt I would rather crunch numbers for Strat enjoyment than go snowboarding where I would likely break my neck. That.......and it doesn't snow in Florida.

If you adjust the price based on usage every month it would theoretically self-correct. I think someone mentioned before that you would limit the adjustment to 10 or 20%. After a year you could keep the adjustments going or finalize it. It might be frustrating but it would be a bigger challenge. My draft cards are usually the same core 20-22 players or more with a few different players in there for a change of pace. I don't think I'm alone in that respect. I might adjust the order based on familiar faces in the league. It would force me to not be an automaton. We all survived the change of HAL not setting lineups. I think we could handle a different price structure too.

A lot of people seem to think Larkin in the 90s is over-priced. Does anyone think, as I do, Morgan in the 70s is the same?

If you adjust the price based on usage every month it would theoretically self-correct.

It would not theoretically or realistically "self-correct." That's pure and unfounded speculation. As I said earlier, many cards that were over-used because of price will then go mostly unused because their over-usage will make them over-priced in the new price structure. Adjusting for price based on usage every month--and SOM is not going to continually re-price--won't make a difference. We'll still end up with cards being under-used because of mis-pricing and cards being over-used because of it. That will lead to the same complaints we have now, just over different cards.

So, whether or not we could handle a new price structure is not the point; I'm sure we can. The point is re-pricing will just give us a new set of the same problems that caused people to want re-pricing. It won't solve those problems.

IMO and probably all the economists of the world would agree...basing some component of price on usage would actually correct itself due to the well oiled and time tested rule of supply and demand. I would think over time the price of each card would settle in at a price attractive to some...although with the min .75 in the Mystery set you'd probably still have a group (a much smaller one) that never got selected.

I think an annual review would be a more realistic cadence though. I believe that's what SOM did with the All time greats set.

IMO and probably all the economists of the world would agree...basing some component of price on usage would actually correct itself due to the well oiled and time tested rule of supply and demand. I would think over time the price of each card would settle in at a price attractive to some...although with the min .75 in the Mystery set you'd probably still have a group (a much smaller one) that never got selected.

I think an annual review would be a more realistic cadence though. I believe that's what SOM did with the All time greats set.

It doesn't matter what economists think about supply and demand, which only applies to ever-fluctuating price systems. It doesn't apply to the predominantly static price structure of SOM, who are not going to keep changing the prices of the cards. Economists--who rarely all agree--would definitely agree on that. You don't address the clear fact that many under-priced cards are now over-used. And If SOM bases its pricing on usage, those cards are inevitably going to be overpriced and will be little if ever used in the new system. Even if SOM re-prices once after that, those little used cards will go back to being under-priced again and we will be right back where we were before.

These are the unpleasant realities of what whould happen if SOM re-prices on usage. No mis-application of the rule of supply and demand will change that.

My draft cards are usually the same core 20-22 players or more with a few different players in there for a change of pace. I don't think I'm alone in that respect.

I have a few favorites that I almost always put on my card but mostly they are different each time. For one thing I don't always play the same kind of park. I like to keep it fresh.

It doesn't matter what economists think about supply and demand, which only applies to ever-fluctuating price systems. It doesn't apply to the predominantly static price structure of SOM, who are not going to keep changing the prices of the cards. Economists--who rarely all agree--would definitely agree on that. You don't address the clear fact that many under-priced cards are now over-used. And If SOM bases its pricing on usage, those cards are inevitably going to be overpriced and will be little if ever used in the new system. Even if SOM re-prices once after that, those little used cards will go back to being under-priced again and we will be right back where we were before.

These are the unpleasant realities of what whould happen if SOM re-prices on usage. No mis-application of the rule of supply and demand will change that.

It depends on how a 'static price structure' is defined. If SOM will reprice and then leave cards at that price for another 5 years I agree that current bargains will be replaced new bargains and it will be the same problem. If static price structure is 20 leagues or 50 leagues (I really don't know how quickly 80s leagues are formed) then current bargains will become cards that are maybe used and new bargains can be changed into the same type of cards.

Molitor doesn't go from $4.5M to $9M and then back to $4.5M. He is at $4.5M, used a lot? Make him $5.5M. Still used all the time? $6.5M. Never used, back to $6M. This certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of theories of pricing but it's better than Brandon Moss being #1 on every team list on every league like he was a couple of years ago. When Moss was being drafted #1 in every single league it was clear SOM missed the price. Some program to say he is too popular and the price goes up 10%, then another 10%, then another 5% over a period of leagues can help. Not a one time bump from $2M to $5M and then left there forever.

It depends on how a 'static price structure' is defined. If SOM will reprice and then leave cards at that price for another 5 years I agree that current bargains will be replaced new bargains and it will be the same problem. If static price structure is 20 leagues or 50 leagues (I really don't know how quickly 80s leagues are formed) then current bargains will become cards that are maybe used and new bargains can be changed into the same type of cards.

Almost any economist would see a one-year or greater period of unchanging prices as "static." A static price structure has nothing to do with # of leagues; it is dependent on how long the prices of these players remain unchanged. Since SOM has never re-priced ML cards before, and is unlikely to do so more than once a year (if that), then the price structure will be static. Supply and demand will not apply, over-used cards will become little-used, and we'll have the same problems with different cards. Most new bargains will just become over-used; they will not change into the "same type of cards." The next re-pricing will return us to the beginning and the vicious cycle will continue.

Molitor doesn't go from $4.5M to $9M and then back to $4.5M. He is at $4.5M, used a lot? Make him $5.5M. Still used all the time? $6.5M. Never used, back to $6M. This certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of theories of pricing but it's better than Brandon Moss being #1 on every team list on every league like he was a couple of years ago. When Moss was being drafted #1 in every single league it was clear SOM missed the price. Some program to say he is too popular and the price goes up 10%, then another 10%, then another 5% over a period of leagues can help. Not a one time bump from $2M to $5M and then left there forever.

I never said anything about the rightfully much-used cards. So, your Molitor anecdote is irrelevant to my argument and post. The problem I predominantly mentioned, and re-explained above, lies in the over-used cards/bargains whose over-usage would make them over-priced in the new system re-priced on usage. That still applies and is still true.

Also, you (and others) need to lose the notion that SOM is going to continually re-price the Mystery League Sets. They're not going to keep re-adjusting price based on usage (or anything), which is why supply and demand won't apply. The prices will be effectively static. And, no matter what changes SOM makes, 1-4 players are going to continually be drafted first the most. Re-pricing won't change that; it will only change who is chosen first.

I never said anything about the rightfully much-used cards. So, your Molitor anecdote is irrelevant to my argument and post. The problem I predominantly mentioned, and re-explained above, lies in the over-used cards

Can you tell me the difference between a 'much-used card' and an 'over-used card'? It seems to me that both of these result from cards being under priced therefore used often in leagues. Whether it is a $4M card, a $10M card, or a $.75M card one that is used in 99% of leagues would seem to be a card that should be repriced.

As I stated before, if SOM will reprice the cards every 5 years they may as well not do it as current bargains would disappear and new bargains would appear. I also don't feel I should have to "lose the notion that SOM is going to continually re-price" (your words). Such a mechanism would enhance the game. Do I think it will ever happen? No. But if someone from JC Penney asks me how to make the store better I give them my view points, even if I don't think the company will change. I feel some sort of continual (not every league, but every 10 or so) adjustment would make the game better.

Since you are in a thread about repricing you must feel there is a need of it. I admit my continual adjustment is not as easy as it sounds in this thread but if SOM came to you and said "How do we fix the pricing" what would put forth as an idea?