You are incorrect in assuming this line of thinking leads to any middleman being unethical; just most of them. There are situations where goods are only sold only in bulk/large quantities, thus making it unreasonable for typical consumers to buy them directly.
I don't understand what you're getting at in saying there is a flaw in assuming any item has a single value. Yes, everyone values everything differently but that is irrelevant in terms of company pricing. A company can only put one value an item at a time hence, pricing. OK, it is not irrelevant if their goal is to actually sell merchandise...beside the point.
At a single given point in time for a company, an item can have only one value. Yes, overtime these values change based on a number of things, but again that is beside the point. If you go to Walmart and look at the price of anything, there is typically one price tag on any given item. (Sometimes more if you want to count things like buy 2 for 1 deals or what have you...) Sure, there could theoretically be scenarios where Walmart decides to put 2 price tags on their merchandise and let consumers pick the amount they want to pay, but for now I think it's safe to say that this isn't going to happen anytime soon.
In your example you used donuts as an illustration, so I'll do the same to make my point. The grocery store selling donuts for $2.55 is going to be a reasonable purchase for some people, for others it might not. Some people really love donuts so they don't mind spending the extra money. Some people may be strapped for cash, so they decide if they really want donuts, they'll need to shop elsewhere for cheaper donuts. Hence, value for one person is not the same as another person, check. It makes sense to assume the people with less money will eventually want to find the same donuts for the cheapest possible price. For fun, say there is a donut farm somewhere out there selling these cheaper donuts. The poorer people start going to this donut farm buying donuts at $2.00 at bag, and in turn start to make some of the richer people buying them at $2.55 a bag, a little peeved. So what do the richer people do? They start going to the donut farm too. Eventually the grocery store realizes what's happening, and they are faced with a few options if they want to stay in business. Let's for kicks say the grocery store was actually buying the exact same donuts they were selling at $2.55, from the donuts farm for $2.00 also. They have to get them somewhere right? Can someone please explain to me how the grocery store is not being unethical in selling donuts for $2.55 when they are clearly only worth $2.00?
Yes, some people are going to buy donuts at the $2.55 price regardless, because they don't mind throwing away their money or whatever. This is what I alluded to at the end of my original post saying businesses feed off of consumer negligence. Again, in my opinion, unethical.
If I need Forests for that same Titan Valakut ramp deck and you need the Bayous I have for your Legacy deck, just because making the trade would benefit both parties, does that mean I should not value what other people would offer in this situation?
There is more than one reason why Sales Tax is possible. I for one don't mind paying to help build the roads I drive on.
Given my own training on this issue (MA in Political Economy), I just had to weigh in. Below is a post I made in response to Kelly Reid on ManaNation, but it applies fairly well to Medina as well. @Onemillionwords - please feel free to correct me if you see any mistakes.
Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle of this debate on trades. Your best argument is probably the one regarding the time and effort you put into the memorization of pricing trends, and into the act of trading itself. As a local trader with a decent stock, you are adding value in that you provide a service to those looking for cards. However, you do seem to be going a bit far with some of your other arguments. A couple of points that you might want to consider, mostly from my own graduate training in Economics (I imagine Pete will post some of these in the next post, given his own training):
(1) All evaluations of market efficiency and the benefit of free exchange in a market setting are based on a concept called rational choice theory. The general idea is that all parties to a contract are agreeing to the contract based on a full knowledge of relevant information. This would include the general price of the cards involved on major sites, and arguably their playability in current archetypes (though the latter is more contentious, given divergent valuations). Free competition under market scenarios is only beneficial to the community (and here, magic as a whole) if the standard rules of honest contracts are adhered to - even under hardline libertarian economics.
(2) Note that, under (1) above, there is still room to make a profit based on your own supply of a card and speculation. There is nothing forcing either party to make a transaction, and if you are honest and say that your purchase/sale of any one card is largely irrelevant to you, then that's fine. They just need to know that you are operating as a de facto miniature store, not as someone trading for cards for a deck. If they still are willing to value an Arid Mesa at $7, so be it.
(3) Monopolization of resources - this is textbook terrible economics, and essentially outright extortion due to supply hoarding. While there are some instances where this can't be avoided just because of the nature of a CCG (e.g. trading mid-size rares into cornerstones for the P9 or trading cornerstones into the P9), in the case of MTGO, wizards should put into effect some size limitation on individual account or Bot stocking, much as the US government has anti-trust and financial regulations. This is not a moral argument, it is a good economics argument.
(4) Just a minor ethics point, since I also have philosophy training - you cannot avoid discussions of ethics, just because you wave your hand and state that no formal rule exists. Market economics is driven, unlike formal magic competitions, by a series of social unwritten rules - the exact rules that you claim to hate. The value judgments inherent in each trade you make are not only financial value judgments, but the manner in which the trade occurs is also an ethical value judgment. You may think that being self-serving to the extreme in a market environment is morally acceptable, but that cannot be taken as "truth" without it's own independent argument. The simple fact that we do have formal rules regarding market transactions in every developed country proves this point - if there weren't value-judgments and public interest points related to market transactions, we wouldn't have these rules.
One final, related point - be happy that the government hasn't decided to tax your non-"brick and morter" store yet. I'm pretty sure you don't report all your ebay profits or cash transactions from the personal binder to the IRS... despite that what you (or Medina) are doing is running a small business without the risk of owning actual facilities. That's shady on it's own
ah yea, the best one out of the bunch is by far skinrender. a 3/3 might as well be like a 5/5 in this format, and 3 -1/-1 counters kills everything. grasp also does, but just isn't as good as slice and twain or galvonic blast
Turn for slag is almost never a 1-1 removal spell. Destroying equipment is huge. I specifically remember in round 4 I beat someone who had sword of body and mind because I turn to slagged his creature game 2.
"Another idea I had would be offering ways to earn packs in a Standard tournament other than top 8ing or going 4-0. Such as offer a “head hunter” aspect to the game. If you beat a well known pro then you win a couple extra packs. For example, I play LSV in round one of a constructed tournament. Instead of me thinking that this is an auto loss and I’m at 0-1 before the tournament has even started. I might get the eye of the tiger and start thinking how I am going to beat him and earn 3 packs. I will bring my "A" game and try to rise to the challenge of beating LSV. In this example, you take the same situation of playing LSV in round one but the mind changes from auto loss to a competitive fire to beat LSV. This is because there is a little extra reward for beating a player of that caliber. Wizards should also reward the pro player with the “head hunter” status by giving them free entry to various tournaments."
This just seems like an awful attitude to me. Who cares if the guy you play is a professional? Instead of worrying about what rating your opponent has, or how many pro points they have, or how experienced they are in a format, worrry about yourself. Instead of worrying about who you are paired with, worry about making the best deck and making the best plays. I have both wins and losses against LSV, Brad Nelson, and a couple other pro's (that I know of.) If I was sitting around feeling sorry for myself about getting those pairings, I would probably only have losses.
Hard to argue with a guy who goes 4-0. 2x Slice in Twain seems huge, and the bombs in red seem worthy to play it there, since there are so many artifact playables it let's you focus on the most dominating colored cards in your pool, 1 for 1 removal cards don't seem as important as game changing bombs or 2-1 effects.
Can't say that I disagree with what you've done here, not that I would necessarily have come to the same build but that might be the result of my deficit not yours.
I'm going to attempt an answer from my perspective:
Cyclops Gladiator doesn't make the cut because the deck is already top heavy and compared to Masticore he cannot deal direct damage to the player. Koth, at the other 4 cc slot, is pretty obviously better. In short, there's just not enough room for so many 4 cc cards.
Goblin Guide is potent against ramp decks, as you can see in games 1 and 3. They take advantage of the early window where there is little going on on the opponent's side. Although this deck is called a control deck, it's not a traditional control deck in that it hasn't any permission spells, so you have no reason to leave your mana open in the first couple of turns. The alternative is to play a land and say go, which is pretty bad. Because of the metagame, early quick beats are not enough to win once you get to the late game, which is why you need the bigger creatures/threats, but essentially, it's the same idea as RDW... get in there with beats.
Flame Slash is more consistently 4 dmg. Galvanic Blast is horrible because it really needs you to have artifacts for it to be effective and in the first few turns, that's not going to happen consistently. If your opponent plays a second turn Wall of Omens, it is much better to have a Slash instead of needing to first cast artifacts before you can use the removal.
With a deck that has so many high casting cost spells, you really don't want to be thinning your deck. You want to reliably hit 4 mana by turn 4 or 5 so you can play Masticore or Koth.
Valakuts' benefit has to be measured by its disadvantages. The probability of it helping you win games is probably less than the probability it will slow you down when you draw it early on. I haven't tested it in this kind of deck, so that's pure speculation.
I don't know if Erik would agree with the above points, but I gave it a shot.
Whether it's the optimal play or not, I'm guessing the rationale behind running 24 Basics is to maximize the 4 Koth in the main. Valakut would both water down Koth and slow your game play by ETB tapped. I do think that with so many high CC spells, it might be better to go up to 25-28 lands with some Fetchlands and Tectonic Edge to give you extra mana when you need it, and a way to thin out your deck and hurt Valakut Ramp decks when you don't. Maybe something like:
15 Mountain
4 Mesa
4 Tarn
3 Tectonic
As LE said, the wurmcoil is a nice way to offset the life loss.
Flame Slash is THE burn spell right now next to Lightning Bolt. Its ability to kill Kargan Dragonlords, Masticores, Wall of Omens, and other walls without losing card advantage is key in the format. Plus with only about 10 Artifacts with CMC 2 or less, I doubt Metalcraft will be very reliable.
Maybe Goblin Guide is there as a way of giving you outs against control decks in Game 1. If you can get them to like 12 life, the game has so many must-counter creatures plus burn, that they probably won't be able to survive, even sitting behind their walls and JMS and Titans. Plus it makes a decent blocker against RDW and WW. The edge it gives you against U and U/W decks might be a reason to run it over more burn.
Actually I think the bellyaching from players is worse than the mechanic itself. I've seen a lot of moaning on MODO about poison even when the poison player is hardly in the game. At least by choosing Skittles as your general, you're essentially telegraphing your plans to your opponents. I think there are far more degenerate mechanics than a flier with Infect. I watched one game that was long and fun . . . until one guy cast an Emrakul with an Erratic Portal on the battlefield, so he could just bounce, rinse, repeat. It was such an anti-climactic end to the game that the disappointment and perhaps anger was palpable, even as an watcher. Compared to that, poison and Skittles are really not so menacing.
Gaea's Revenge was mentioned in a StarCityGames article and for that matter has started seeing a lot of play in ramp due to all the Blue control decks running around.
I don't think I'll start it this week or anything but I'm looking at it as something to start working toward soon enough.
Maybe I'll be able to find some additional personnel to help me on this one.
Come to think of it I do have separate lists for the four rarities and if I use the list randomizer from this one website I can probably generate random packs pretty easily for classic at least since all i have to do is each rarity on it's own randomize the entire list and take the top x slots the rarity would normally get.(parsing out other sets/formats will be more of a headache)
I recently spoke to Sheldon Menery about the whole poison issue. They will as always keep an eye on it. If it seems to start making a difference to were it's not a fun mechanic to play against, then they will probably do something about it.
Well, I'm very new to this whole mono Red thing myself and therefore I need to ask a few questions.
Why are there no Cyclops Gladiators in the deck(in the main or side)? And why do you run Goblin Guide? Isn't it a bit aggro for this kind of a control deck (I ask these questions because I really do want to understand)?
Also why not Galvanic Blast over Flame Slash? You have so many artifacts and Galvanic Blast makes perfect sense to me. And why no fetchlands to thin the deck? You have Wurmcoil Engine to recover from the life loss if that's a problem. And finally, considering you have so many Mountains, why not add a few Valakuts?
As I said, I'm really new to this mono Red thing and that'll also be my deck in the very near future, but I need to know your reasoning for those cards.
Donut farm ftw!! :D
You are incorrect in assuming this line of thinking leads to any middleman being unethical; just most of them. There are situations where goods are only sold only in bulk/large quantities, thus making it unreasonable for typical consumers to buy them directly.
I don't understand what you're getting at in saying there is a flaw in assuming any item has a single value. Yes, everyone values everything differently but that is irrelevant in terms of company pricing. A company can only put one value an item at a time hence, pricing. OK, it is not irrelevant if their goal is to actually sell merchandise...beside the point.
At a single given point in time for a company, an item can have only one value. Yes, overtime these values change based on a number of things, but again that is beside the point. If you go to Walmart and look at the price of anything, there is typically one price tag on any given item. (Sometimes more if you want to count things like buy 2 for 1 deals or what have you...) Sure, there could theoretically be scenarios where Walmart decides to put 2 price tags on their merchandise and let consumers pick the amount they want to pay, but for now I think it's safe to say that this isn't going to happen anytime soon.
In your example you used donuts as an illustration, so I'll do the same to make my point. The grocery store selling donuts for $2.55 is going to be a reasonable purchase for some people, for others it might not. Some people really love donuts so they don't mind spending the extra money. Some people may be strapped for cash, so they decide if they really want donuts, they'll need to shop elsewhere for cheaper donuts. Hence, value for one person is not the same as another person, check. It makes sense to assume the people with less money will eventually want to find the same donuts for the cheapest possible price. For fun, say there is a donut farm somewhere out there selling these cheaper donuts. The poorer people start going to this donut farm buying donuts at $2.00 at bag, and in turn start to make some of the richer people buying them at $2.55 a bag, a little peeved. So what do the richer people do? They start going to the donut farm too. Eventually the grocery store realizes what's happening, and they are faced with a few options if they want to stay in business. Let's for kicks say the grocery store was actually buying the exact same donuts they were selling at $2.55, from the donuts farm for $2.00 also. They have to get them somewhere right? Can someone please explain to me how the grocery store is not being unethical in selling donuts for $2.55 when they are clearly only worth $2.00?
Yes, some people are going to buy donuts at the $2.55 price regardless, because they don't mind throwing away their money or whatever. This is what I alluded to at the end of my original post saying businesses feed off of consumer negligence. Again, in my opinion, unethical.
If I need Forests for that same Titan Valakut ramp deck and you need the Bayous I have for your Legacy deck, just because making the trade would benefit both parties, does that mean I should not value what other people would offer in this situation?
There is more than one reason why Sales Tax is possible. I for one don't mind paying to help build the roads I drive on.
PM me via the Wizards forum, thanks
Given my own training on this issue (MA in Political Economy), I just had to weigh in. Below is a post I made in response to Kelly Reid on ManaNation, but it applies fairly well to Medina as well. @Onemillionwords - please feel free to correct me if you see any mistakes.
Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle of this debate on trades. Your best argument is probably the one regarding the time and effort you put into the memorization of pricing trends, and into the act of trading itself. As a local trader with a decent stock, you are adding value in that you provide a service to those looking for cards. However, you do seem to be going a bit far with some of your other arguments. A couple of points that you might want to consider, mostly from my own graduate training in Economics (I imagine Pete will post some of these in the next post, given his own training):
(1) All evaluations of market efficiency and the benefit of free exchange in a market setting are based on a concept called rational choice theory. The general idea is that all parties to a contract are agreeing to the contract based on a full knowledge of relevant information. This would include the general price of the cards involved on major sites, and arguably their playability in current archetypes (though the latter is more contentious, given divergent valuations). Free competition under market scenarios is only beneficial to the community (and here, magic as a whole) if the standard rules of honest contracts are adhered to - even under hardline libertarian economics.
(2) Note that, under (1) above, there is still room to make a profit based on your own supply of a card and speculation. There is nothing forcing either party to make a transaction, and if you are honest and say that your purchase/sale of any one card is largely irrelevant to you, then that's fine. They just need to know that you are operating as a de facto miniature store, not as someone trading for cards for a deck. If they still are willing to value an Arid Mesa at $7, so be it.
(3) Monopolization of resources - this is textbook terrible economics, and essentially outright extortion due to supply hoarding. While there are some instances where this can't be avoided just because of the nature of a CCG (e.g. trading mid-size rares into cornerstones for the P9 or trading cornerstones into the P9), in the case of MTGO, wizards should put into effect some size limitation on individual account or Bot stocking, much as the US government has anti-trust and financial regulations. This is not a moral argument, it is a good economics argument.
(4) Just a minor ethics point, since I also have philosophy training - you cannot avoid discussions of ethics, just because you wave your hand and state that no formal rule exists. Market economics is driven, unlike formal magic competitions, by a series of social unwritten rules - the exact rules that you claim to hate. The value judgments inherent in each trade you make are not only financial value judgments, but the manner in which the trade occurs is also an ethical value judgment. You may think that being self-serving to the extreme in a market environment is morally acceptable, but that cannot be taken as "truth" without it's own independent argument. The simple fact that we do have formal rules regarding market transactions in every developed country proves this point - if there weren't value-judgments and public interest points related to market transactions, we wouldn't have these rules.
One final, related point - be happy that the government hasn't decided to tax your non-"brick and morter" store yet. I'm pretty sure you don't report all your ebay profits or cash transactions from the personal binder to the IRS... despite that what you (or Medina) are doing is running a small business without the risk of owning actual facilities. That's shady on it's own
What is the etiquette for opening a booster for the coalition league and forgetting to take a screenshot?
ah yea, the best one out of the bunch is by far skinrender. a 3/3 might as well be like a 5/5 in this format, and 3 -1/-1 counters kills everything. grasp also does, but just isn't as good as slice and twain or galvonic blast
The 1-1 cards I was referring to were the black removal cards not Turn to Slag =P
X-
I'd just like to confirm that the door prize for season three is now upto 2 Day of Judgment's. Thanks go to elliottATL for donating the second.
NVM
Turn for slag is almost never a 1-1 removal spell. Destroying equipment is huge. I specifically remember in round 4 I beat someone who had sword of body and mind because I turn to slagged his creature game 2.
I like. Pro smo... w/e...
"Another idea I had would be offering ways to earn packs in a Standard tournament other than top 8ing or going 4-0. Such as offer a “head hunter” aspect to the game. If you beat a well known pro then you win a couple extra packs. For example, I play LSV in round one of a constructed tournament. Instead of me thinking that this is an auto loss and I’m at 0-1 before the tournament has even started. I might get the eye of the tiger and start thinking how I am going to beat him and earn 3 packs. I will bring my "A" game and try to rise to the challenge of beating LSV. In this example, you take the same situation of playing LSV in round one but the mind changes from auto loss to a competitive fire to beat LSV. This is because there is a little extra reward for beating a player of that caliber. Wizards should also reward the pro player with the “head hunter” status by giving them free entry to various tournaments."
This just seems like an awful attitude to me. Who cares if the guy you play is a professional? Instead of worrying about what rating your opponent has, or how many pro points they have, or how experienced they are in a format, worrry about yourself. Instead of worrying about who you are paired with, worry about making the best deck and making the best plays. I have both wins and losses against LSV, Brad Nelson, and a couple other pro's (that I know of.) If I was sitting around feeling sorry for myself about getting those pairings, I would probably only have losses.
OK, I surrender.
Hard to argue with a guy who goes 4-0. 2x Slice in Twain seems huge, and the bombs in red seem worthy to play it there, since there are so many artifact playables it let's you focus on the most dominating colored cards in your pool, 1 for 1 removal cards don't seem as important as game changing bombs or 2-1 effects.
Can't say that I disagree with what you've done here, not that I would necessarily have come to the same build but that might be the result of my deficit not yours.
X-
I agree, this was a huge mistake. I side boarded it in every single round.
I'm going to attempt an answer from my perspective:
Cyclops Gladiator doesn't make the cut because the deck is already top heavy and compared to Masticore he cannot deal direct damage to the player. Koth, at the other 4 cc slot, is pretty obviously better. In short, there's just not enough room for so many 4 cc cards.
Goblin Guide is potent against ramp decks, as you can see in games 1 and 3. They take advantage of the early window where there is little going on on the opponent's side. Although this deck is called a control deck, it's not a traditional control deck in that it hasn't any permission spells, so you have no reason to leave your mana open in the first couple of turns. The alternative is to play a land and say go, which is pretty bad. Because of the metagame, early quick beats are not enough to win once you get to the late game, which is why you need the bigger creatures/threats, but essentially, it's the same idea as RDW... get in there with beats.
Flame Slash is more consistently 4 dmg. Galvanic Blast is horrible because it really needs you to have artifacts for it to be effective and in the first few turns, that's not going to happen consistently. If your opponent plays a second turn Wall of Omens, it is much better to have a Slash instead of needing to first cast artifacts before you can use the removal.
With a deck that has so many high casting cost spells, you really don't want to be thinning your deck. You want to reliably hit 4 mana by turn 4 or 5 so you can play Masticore or Koth.
Valakuts' benefit has to be measured by its disadvantages. The probability of it helping you win games is probably less than the probability it will slow you down when you draw it early on. I haven't tested it in this kind of deck, so that's pure speculation.
I don't know if Erik would agree with the above points, but I gave it a shot.
Whether it's the optimal play or not, I'm guessing the rationale behind running 24 Basics is to maximize the 4 Koth in the main. Valakut would both water down Koth and slow your game play by ETB tapped. I do think that with so many high CC spells, it might be better to go up to 25-28 lands with some Fetchlands and Tectonic Edge to give you extra mana when you need it, and a way to thin out your deck and hurt Valakut Ramp decks when you don't. Maybe something like:
15 Mountain
4 Mesa
4 Tarn
3 Tectonic
As LE said, the wurmcoil is a nice way to offset the life loss.
Flame Slash is THE burn spell right now next to Lightning Bolt. Its ability to kill Kargan Dragonlords, Masticores, Wall of Omens, and other walls without losing card advantage is key in the format. Plus with only about 10 Artifacts with CMC 2 or less, I doubt Metalcraft will be very reliable.
Maybe Goblin Guide is there as a way of giving you outs against control decks in Game 1. If you can get them to like 12 life, the game has so many must-counter creatures plus burn, that they probably won't be able to survive, even sitting behind their walls and JMS and Titans. Plus it makes a decent blocker against RDW and WW. The edge it gives you against U and U/W decks might be a reason to run it over more burn.
Actually I think the bellyaching from players is worse than the mechanic itself. I've seen a lot of moaning on MODO about poison even when the poison player is hardly in the game. At least by choosing Skittles as your general, you're essentially telegraphing your plans to your opponents. I think there are far more degenerate mechanics than a flier with Infect. I watched one game that was long and fun . . . until one guy cast an Emrakul with an Erratic Portal on the battlefield, so he could just bounce, rinse, repeat. It was such an anti-climactic end to the game that the disappointment and perhaps anger was palpable, even as an watcher. Compared to that, poison and Skittles are really not so menacing.
Gaea's Revenge was mentioned in a StarCityGames article and for that matter has started seeing a lot of play in ramp due to all the Blue control decks running around.
Didnt think of that. Could give yourself Pro black
I thought it was funny. Koth kind of reminds me of that Tony Little who used to do the "Gazelle" Infomercials.
You can do it!
Thanks Flippers,
I don't think I'll start it this week or anything but I'm looking at it as something to start working toward soon enough.
Maybe I'll be able to find some additional personnel to help me on this one.
Come to think of it I do have separate lists for the four rarities and if I use the list randomizer from this one website I can probably generate random packs pretty easily for classic at least since all i have to do is each rarity on it's own randomize the entire list and take the top x slots the rarity would normally get.(parsing out other sets/formats will be more of a headache)
Something to work toward anyhow,
X-
I recently spoke to Sheldon Menery about the whole poison issue. They will as always keep an eye on it. If it seems to start making a difference to were it's not a fun mechanic to play against, then they will probably do something about it.
Hmm, quite a few people selling them on the boards now for 26ish, so we have not bottomed out yet!
Well, I'm very new to this whole mono Red thing myself and therefore I need to ask a few questions.
Why are there no Cyclops Gladiators in the deck(in the main or side)? And why do you run Goblin Guide? Isn't it a bit aggro for this kind of a control deck (I ask these questions because I really do want to understand)?
Also why not Galvanic Blast over Flame Slash? You have so many artifacts and Galvanic Blast makes perfect sense to me. And why no fetchlands to thin the deck? You have Wurmcoil Engine to recover from the life loss if that's a problem. And finally, considering you have so many Mountains, why not add a few Valakuts?
As I said, I'm really new to this mono Red thing and that'll also be my deck in the very near future, but I need to know your reasoning for those cards.
Thanks.
LE