In-game sale of HR compared with site

I have been looking for

Ber rune for some time now, but i have been short of ists for it (had 23).
And as we all know how ridicilous the prices for it are atm in this site, i just thought i try my luck on in game trading..

Made a game offering 22 ists for it, and within 15minutes i was able to make that trade. Stayed in game organizing my inventory and 5 minutes later another person showed up wanting to trade his/her

Ber for the ists...

So.. Before offering (or while offering) 30+ ists and couple high runes for it at this site, i highly suggest you try your luck at in game trading.

thats very interesting cuz at first i found this site to be the place find the more fair prices for things, and now its looking the reverse.

What's happening here on the site is a market of perfect knowledge. Everyone can see all the sellers, everyone can see what the potential buyers are offering. No one seller can sell for higher than what is offered, no one buyer can reasonably offer below what has been offered before. The game lobby is the exact opposite. People who are not on this site can only go by their previous knowledge.

Yes, I can attest that. Trying to trade

Gul/

Vex/

Ohm to

Jah within the site was very hard, but I think is just the fact that people want to make profit, or not spend too much, given that they can see the prices on real time.
For example I sold more unidentified torches (

Gul or

Gul+) ingame than on the website, but in every other occasion it was fine.

it's also different on other sites that have more people like traderie the prices sky rocket for certain things because there are more people to trade to also it doesn't have a price check

It seems to me that you're coming from the perspective that these prices here are "ridiculous" and the in game traders are the reasonable ones. But someone with a different frame of reference could put it this way: the prices you see on d2.

Io are the "fair" ones, and the ones you got in game are you exploiting people who don't know market prices. I find it interesting that you say you've had 23

Ist and couldn't buy a

Ber, but you decided to start by making a game and only offering 22

Ist. Aren't you doing the same thing everyone else is (trying to make a profit on every trade)?

This might be a case of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people see those game names and not join them, and so we can't get a full picture and conclude that in-game trading has less informed traders.

oldboldsummoner wrote: 3 years ago

This might be a case of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people see those game names and not join them, and so we can't get a full picture and conclude that in-game trading has less informed traders.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to assume that people who trade in game are less likely to be informed than people who trade on third-party websites like this one with transparent Price Check and the barrier of entry (casual/newbies are much less likely to use third party resources because they don't even know or care about them: lobby trade games are "bundled" with the game they are playing). Is survivorship bias possible? Of course, but that seems to me like an attempt to discredit the more plausible/intuitive assumption.

There's also the fact that virtually every trading site/discord has

Ber > 23

Ist.

The trades in game can also be hilariously one-sided, like the OhmVex 4

Ber I saw yesterday, as well as

Shako 4

Gul I saw today.

This is the way I see it; There is no "set" price for anything, there is simply a ballpark where the price or value can vary, but it will change around that ballpark value. Runes tend to keep their value better, and it's widely agreed that HRs are relatively stable in price. But there will always be a seller/trader that is willing to sell one below the "standard" price, so at the end of the day, a set price is only as good as a community is willing to follow it. Whoever finds a seller willing to let go of a HR lower than the community set "price," good on whoever can get such a trade. As long as both parties are satisfied, there is no problem at all imo.

oldboldsummoner wrote: 3 years ago

This might be a case of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people see those game names and not join them, and so we can't get a full picture and conclude that in-game trading has less informed traders.

Come now. d2io literally has buttons that say Past Trade history 3 days, and you can narrow your search function down to list ALL the items of the type and parameters u want, and show them to you. You can see the asking prices that have been listed 2 weeks without a buyer, and you can see the WTBs that have been ignored for 6 days. You can't win this argument.

MarcWizard wrote: 3 years ago

oldboldsummoner wrote: 3 years ago

This might be a case of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people see those game names and not join them, and so we can't get a full picture and conclude that in-game trading has less informed traders.

Come now. d2io literally has buttons that say Past Trade history 3 days, and you can narrow your search function down to list ALL the items of the type and parameters u want, and show them to you. You can see the asking prices that have been listed 2 weeks without a buyer, and you can see the WTBs that have been ignored for 6 days. You can't win this argument.

I think he was saying that while we have great information here on this site as you suggested, we have next to no information about in-game trading where all you get to see is the game names and you have no idea whether the trades actually complete.

Well, the argument still stands. Let's cut the informed traders out of the picture then. For any "bad" trades to take place, we need 1 uninformed victim. Here on d2io, it would be wilful ignorance, since the information is 1 click away, and the market is replete with options and transaction histories and existing offers. On the game lobby, an uninformed person stays uninformed unless they also have a source of info open and are checking it. It is therefore statistically more likely to succeed in lowballing or ripping off someone in the game lobby, period. Anyone who tries to argue this is wasting time.

MarcWizard wrote: 3 years ago

Well, the argument still stands. Let's cut the informed traders out of the picture then. For any "bad" trades to take place, we need 1 uninformed victim. Here on d2io, it would be wilful ignorance, since the information is 1 click away, and the market is replete with options and transaction histories and existing offers. On the game lobby, an uninformed person stays uninformed unless they also have a source of info open and are checking it. It is therefore statistically more likely to succeed in lowballing or ripping off someone in the game lobby, period. Anyone who tries to argue this is wasting time.

IMO, the bigger problem is the lack of consensus on what trading behaviors are acceptable:
Scenario 1: Someone does an item swap trick where they replace shaco with an

Emerald hat. 99.9% of us think that's not OK. Maybe .1% think the victim deserves it for not being careful
Scenario 2: Someone lists a 140 defense Shaco as "perfect" and someone buys it thinking it is perfect defense when actually max is 141 defense. Ok or not OK? On one hand, the seller falsely called the item "perfect", but the buyer receives the advertised item of a 140 defense shaco
Scenario 3: Someone makes a game "Shaco for

Ber" and a newbie who doesn't know rune values and got lucky finding a

Ber at level 70 in Act 1 Hell joins and trades. I'd estimate 75% of people would say this is "okay" since there was no coersion or false information, but ~25% would say it is exploitive/not OK.

The lack of consensus on acceptable behavior is why we have some people complaining about lowballers and ripoff trades, while other people repeatedly say "a fair trade is whatever both parties agree to"

wale wrote: 3 years ago

MarcWizard wrote: 3 years ago

Well, the argument still stands. Let's cut the informed traders out of the picture then. For any "bad" trades to take place, we need 1 uninformed victim. Here on d2io, it would be wilful ignorance, since the information is 1 click away, and the market is replete with options and transaction histories and existing offers. On the game lobby, an uninformed person stays uninformed unless they also have a source of info open and are checking it. It is therefore statistically more likely to succeed in lowballing or ripping off someone in the game lobby, period. Anyone who tries to argue this is wasting time.

IMO, the bigger problem is the lack of consensus on what trading behaviors are acceptable:
Scenario 1: Someone does an item swap trick where they replace shaco with an

Emerald hat. 99.9% of us think that's not OK. Maybe .1% think the victim deserves it for not being careful
Scenario 2: Someone lists a 140 defense Shaco as "perfect" and someone buys it thinking it is perfect defense when actually max is 141 defense. Ok or not OK? On one hand, the seller falsely called the item "perfect", but the buyer receives the advertised item of a 140 defense shaco
Scenario 3: Someone makes a game "Shaco for

Ber" and a newbie who doesn't know rune values and got lucky finding a

Ber at level 70 in Act 1 Hell joins and trades. I'd estimate 75% of people would say this is "okay" since there was no coersion or false information, but ~25% would say it is exploitive/not OK.

The lack of consensus on acceptable behavior is why we have some people complaining about lowballers and ripoff trades, while other people repeatedly say "a fair trade is whatever both parties agree to"

Your first 2 scenarios involve active deceit. False advertising and the ol' switcheroo. These are quite straightforwardly, cons.
The 3rd scenario is the one we are discussing. The fact there is no coercion or false information just means you cannot fault the person profiting in this trade. The worst you can do is say they prey on ignorance. Which is applicable in scenarios where 1 party has an overwhelming advantage - for example, an adult tricking a young child out of money, or a insurance agent overselling coverage to a senior citizen. In these cases, someone who is perceived to be trustworthy is abusing that trust. These are NOT applicable to our debate, for the simple fact we are all usernames floating on a website with perfect market information. Here, there is no advantage. There is no preconception to speak of, except perhaps the Trust system, but it would seem unfair to distrust someone just because they are new to the website. To get this straight, in order for someone to be victimized by a "lowball" offer here, they would have to list an item, IGNORE the recommendation to price check, REFUSE to look at other similar products and the standing offers for them, NEGLECT the existing WTB posts and how long they have been up, SHUN the transaction history page. And here we see people take aim at the informed preying on the "uninformed".

MarcWizard wrote: 3 years ago

wale wrote: 3 years ago

MarcWizard wrote: 3 years ago

Well, the argument still stands. Let's cut the informed traders out of the picture then. For any "bad" trades to take place, we need 1 uninformed victim. Here on d2io, it would be wilful ignorance, since the information is 1 click away, and the market is replete with options and transaction histories and existing offers. On the game lobby, an uninformed person stays uninformed unless they also have a source of info open and are checking it. It is therefore statistically more likely to succeed in lowballing or ripping off someone in the game lobby, period. Anyone who tries to argue this is wasting time.

IMO, the bigger problem is the lack of consensus on what trading behaviors are acceptable:
Scenario 1: Someone does an item swap trick where they replace shaco with an

Emerald hat. 99.9% of us think that's not OK. Maybe .1% think the victim deserves it for not being careful
Scenario 2: Someone lists a 140 defense Shaco as "perfect" and someone buys it thinking it is perfect defense when actually max is 141 defense. Ok or not OK? On one hand, the seller falsely called the item "perfect", but the buyer receives the advertised item of a 140 defense shaco
Scenario 3: Someone makes a game "Shaco for

Ber" and a newbie who doesn't know rune values and got lucky finding a

Ber at level 70 in Act 1 Hell joins and trades. I'd estimate 75% of people would say this is "okay" since there was no coersion or false information, but ~25% would say it is exploitive/not OK.

The lack of consensus on acceptable behavior is why we have some people complaining about lowballers and ripoff trades, while other people repeatedly say "a fair trade is whatever both parties agree to"

Your first 2 scenarios involve active deceit. False advertising and the ol' switcheroo. These are quite straightforwardly, cons.
The 3rd scenario is the one we are discussing. The fact there is no coercion or false information just means you cannot fault the person profiting in this trade. The worst you can do is say they prey on ignorance. Which is applicable in scenarios where 1 party has an overwhelming advantage - for example, an adult tricking a young child out of money, or a insurance agent overselling coverage to a senior citizen. In these cases, someone who is perceived to be trustworthy is abusing that trust. These are NOT applicable to our debate, for the simple fact we are all usernames floating on a website with perfect market information. Here, there is no advantage. There is no preconception to speak of, except perhaps the Trust system, but it would seem unfair to distrust someone just because they are new to the website. To get this straight, in order for someone to be victimized by a "lowball" offer here, they would have to list an item, IGNORE the recommendation to price check, REFUSE to look at other similar products and the standing offers for them, NEGLECT the existing WTB posts and how long they have been up, SHUN the transaction history page. And here we see people take aim at the informed preying on the "uninformed".

Your points about ignore/refuse/neglect/etc. don't apply in scenario 3 because that's an in-game trade. But if you want to take the simple position that "there is no coersion or false information" then sure, many people agree with you that hosing a newb in a Shaco-for-

Ber trade is OK. But a good portion of the player base also think that's kinda fucked up.

eltair wrote: 3 years ago

MarcWizard wrote: 3 years ago

oldboldsummoner wrote: 3 years ago

This might be a case of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people see those game names and not join them, and so we can't get a full picture and conclude that in-game trading has less informed traders.

Come now. d2io literally has buttons that say Past Trade history 3 days, and you can narrow your search function down to list ALL the items of the type and parameters u want, and show them to you. You can see the asking prices that have been listed 2 weeks without a buyer, and you can see the WTBs that have been ignored for 6 days. You can't win this argument.

I think he was saying that while we have great information here on this site as you suggested, we have next to no information about in-game trading where all you get to see is the game names and you have no idea whether the trades actually complete.

Neither. Survivorship bias in this context means that the in-game trading games that have successful trades that are skewed select for uninformed traders. If the majority of in-game trades are done this way, it gives the false impression that most in-game traders are clueless, when in reality it could be that 10% (example for the sake of argument) of the pool of in-game traders are clueless and the other 90% (again, not a real estimate) are simply ignoring those game lobbies and are not visible. From the perspective of an informed trader, however, it would look as though the majority of in-game traders are clueless.

This is just an observation that the topic could be this form of selection bias, it's not a guarantee that it is this way. But, as wale pointed out, it's likely that things are the way they seem and the majority of in-game traders are in fact clueless.

Smaller example here, but I opened a game with my Pala while leveling around and slowly progressing in hell.
Name was asking

Herald Of Zakarum for a

Mal rune.
Here in the forum, almost all sells start by

Ist rune. My wtb runs quite unattended, which of course is fine as there I am also offering a

Mal rune for whatever HoZ presented.

However, 10 minutes into the game someone comes in, trades a 180% one even with me, leaves happy, leaves me happy, too.

Less drastic than the

Ber rune thread start, I am aware. Still, a trade, which is satisfying everyone's needs is a good trade.

Another item was my (yeah, be sad with me) best find ever, a SoJ.
Wanted to sell it for 12

Ist in the forums, no one matching that.
Took 15 minutes ingame to get someone in and buy it very happily as I was shortly thinking to be underselling it.
However, the forum here gave me always good advices of what range I must consider.
Without it here, someone could have bought the SoJ for the HoZ, being honest with you.

Essence of what I am saying?
Everybody can use Google to find this place (I did by the runewords filter, which is the best I could find currently existing).
Whoever does not want to, leave them be happy with their trades, thinking they made a great cut.

The only use I make for this site is when I want to buy some really cheap item, like in

Ko -

Lem range.

Besides that is a waste of time, even if you manage to sell something you have to deal with so many lowballers, trolls and people that offer for the same item in 20 different trades that it simply doesn't worth it.

I have way better luck spamming my list in the discord of /r/Diablo.

I traded 1

Mal rune for my 938 def

Tal Rasha's Guardianship in game. people on this site wanted my blood and first born for one with defense that high.

Is it that prices are higher on the site or the fact that people in game might be ignorant to the value of their stuff due to not using these sites? who knows.