Small Traditions LLC/SCANDAL UPDATE

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

I'm not arguing that point all. You came on here and are directing your commentary to mostly pre-war collectors on a pre-war card forum, and that audience is typically older collectors who don't really care all the much about social media and this other garbage you keep spewing out as a contrarian and opposite of everything else that anybody seems to say or think.

I told myself this thread had gotten to the teaching a pig to sing mile marker and was done with it. So, it pains me to do this, but he is not making a point about social media. His claim is that there is a correlation between higher card prices realized and higher eBay follower counts. In other words, the more followers an eBay auction house has, the higher prices they will achieve, all other things remaining the same.

That is his claim, anyways, as he hasn't actually presented any proof that would substantiate it. Nor has he addressed what they teach you on the first day of Data Analysis 101: correlation is not necessarily causation.

And by the way, what are you exactly, a data scientist and/or some kind of programmer, right? So exactly how does that make you an expert on the effects of social media and attracting customers and the business and other aspects of having followers equate to higher sales? Have you ever actually run a business or done marketing or the like?

I spent the first two decades of my professional career in electronics manufacturing and the most recent decade in oil and gas. Both are industries dominated by engineers. Indeed, my background is engineering. It is my observation that folks with technological backgrounds often assume that, because they have mastered one (or several) difficult subject matters, that they can reason their way to correct answers beyond those areas. So, go easy on him because he is a victim of his programming.

On a lighter note, I thought I'd share with Snowman how us grayheads used to bid on card auctions outside our hometown back in the day,

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.

Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.

Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.

Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.

Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.

Same thing I'm seeing in many of his posts. He does know how to use prettier words, and puts them together very well. You really have to read, pay attention, and comprehend to get the gist of what he's saying, and figure out if it is meaningful or just empty words. He does make many good points, and brings up logical and thought provoking counter ideas, but forgets that at the end of the day a lot of it is nothing more than unsupported opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. And in commenting here on a pre-war forum, that is relevant and has to be taken into consideration. You always have to consider the audience you are talking to if you are looking to prove your point, especially in a back and forth type situation he often gets into.

Now based on how he typically responds, I'd expect him to answer back that he doesn't really care if others believe him and his points or not. Or that he's not really trying to change anyone's mind, but will respond in some manner usually that makes people feel he still questions why they don't just automatically acquiesce and accept his point of view on different topics like this one because of his logic and thinking. Which is why I asked the question of him if he knowingly continues on with this contrarian banter because he enjoys irking people, or if truly doesn't have a clue how he comes across.

[Peter_Spaeth]

He does have a bit of a theory of mind issue but that's not uncommon or a fault, just an observation.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He does have a bit of a theory of mind issue but that's not uncommon or a fault, just an observation.

Yes, I do.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Same thing I'm seeing in many of his posts. He does know how to use prettier words, and puts them together very well. You really have to read, pay attention, and comprehend to get the gist of what he's saying, and figure out if it is meaningful or just empty words. He does make many good points, and brings up logical and thought provoking counter ideas, but forgets that at the end of the day a lot of it is nothing more than unsupported opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. And in commenting here on a pre-war forum, that is relevant and has to be taken into consideration. You always have to consider the audience you are talking to if you are looking to prove your point, especially in a back and forth type situation he often gets into.

Now based on how he typically responds, I'd expect him to answer back that he doesn't really care if others believe him and his points or not. Or that he's not really trying to change anyone's mind, but will respond in some manner usually that makes people feel he still questions why they don't just automatically acquiesce and accept his point of view on different topics like this one because of his logic and thinking. Which is why I asked the question of him if he knowingly continues on with this contrarian banter because he enjoys irking people, or if truly doesn't have a clue how he comes across.

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

No one has accused you of mincing words.
.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

I don't think there's general disagreement that more eyes equal more bids. The disagreement comes in that being a real explanation for what's going on. It has been pointed out that ever since a seller appeared on the scene, as far back as 2013, the same conversation has been had the entire time that seller has been active. Before the followers and before the vault the same issue existed and the same questions were asked.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Incidentally an interesting point was made on another forum where we were discussing what ebay meant by shill bidding by "persons associated with PWCC." Some think it only means consignors were running up their own cards, not that employees or house accounts of PWCC were involved. But as someone asked, how would ebay know who his consignors were?

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Incidentally an interesting point was made on another forum where we were discussing what ebay meant by shill bidding by "persons associated with PWCC." Some think it only means consignors were running up their own cards, not that employees or house accounts of PWCC were involved. But as someone asked, how would ebay know who his consignors were?

There are third party providers that provide store management capabilities that complement eBay's service. Without actually checking, it does seem reasonable that those services would include the capability to associate specific listings with the consignor. And, if eBay had been subpoenaed, you can pretty much bet whomever was PWCC's store provider was also.

[SteveS]

Peter, that phrasing by eBay does leave it open to interpretation. But there's another interesting phrase they used: "If we determine that a buyer or seller is not acting in good faith, eBay takes this seriously and takes action." To me, that would seem to indicate that they believe PWCC is complicit in the shill bidding, as the action they took was to ban them. I would also think that if they felt the consignors were behind the shilling, they would at least attempt to work with a seller that large to resolve the issue. It will be interesting to find out whether eBay ever contacted PWCC to say something like, "Hey, we're noticing some suspicious activity in your auctions involving shill bidding. Let's try to figure this out and stop it." But based on PWCC's response to the ban, it seems as though they were completely surprised by it, which would seem to indicate that eBay feels that PWCC are the ones acting in bad faith.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

Maybe try posting some cards and joining the discussion rather than showing up at a party already in progress and pissing in the punch bowl. Just an idea.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I told myself this thread had gotten to the teaching a pig to sing mile marker and was done with it. So, it pains me to do this, but he is not making a point about social media. His claim is that there is a correlation between higher card prices realized and higher eBay follower counts. In other words, the more followers an eBay auction house has, the higher prices they will achieve, all other things remaining the same.

That is his claim, anyways, as he hasn't actually presented any proof that would substantiate it. Nor has he addressed what they teach you on the first day of Data Analysis 101: correlation is not necessarily causation.



I spent the first two decades of my professional career in electronics manufacturing and the most recent decade in oil and gas. Both are industries dominated by engineers. Indeed, my background is engineering. It is my observation that folks with technological backgrounds often assume that, because they have mastered one (or several) difficult subject matters, that they can reason their way to correct answers beyond those areas. So, go easy on him because he is a victim of his programming.

On a lighter note, I thought I'd share with Snowman how us grayheads used to bid on card auctions outside our hometown back in the day,

I know what you are saying and understand exactly what he does. I did point out his own posted figures and asked why his own evidence doesn't support his statement that PWCC has the highest prices because Probstein actually has more followers. And there is no reason to go easy on him as he is obviously knowledgable, just doesn' t really say anything that basically ends up as anything other than he's right and you're wrong. Same thing you're pointing out. And just because he's an engineer he gets no pass from me. I've worked with many engineers and architects in the past, and engineers are typically very knowledgable and pay attention to details and facts. And my daughter is an engineer as well. Feel I'd be letting them all down if I didn't call him out.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.

Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.

Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.

Yes, I see this as being an apples to oranges comparison. I don't believe that anyone here would honestly argue that having more eyes on an auction would not bring about higher prices. I think anyone arguing to the contrary is simply being disingenuous. I don't believe for one second that you don't accept that premise as true. Surely, the relationship is not linear though, as there would be an element of diminishing returns (i.e., having 40 million eyes on an auction is effectively equivalent to having 5 million eyes on that auction, but having 40,000 is still significantly better than having 5,000).

I shouldn't need to provide data to support that claim. It is obvious. However, I could certainly prove that it's true if I cared to mine the data. Maybe I'll do that for fun in my spare time. It could be an interesting project to understand and measure the impact that it actually has. It would probably only take a few hours to do. The most difficult and time-consuming part would be building the dataset. Doing the math from there is the easy part.

Originally Posted by BobC

I know what you are saying and understand exactly what he does. I did point out his own posted figures and asked why his own evidence doesn't support his statement that PWCC has the highest prices because Probstein actually has more followers. And there is no reason to go easy on him as he is obviously knowledgable, just doesn' t really say anything that basically ends up as anything other than he's right and you're wrong. Same thing you're pointing out. And just because he's an engineer he gets no pass from me. I've worked with many engineers and architects in the past, and engineers are typically very knowledgable and pay attention to details and facts. And my daughter is an engineer as well. Feel I'd be letting them all down if I didn't call him out.

For the record, I have always claimed that Probstein auction also outsell the competition. I don't know about PWCC vs Probstein though, but from my readings of the various forums and other online communities, most people share this belief that both Probstein and PWCC sell for more than the others. Many of the data tools out there even have options to exclude PWCC and Probstein listings from their comps because of it.

I'm not an engineer. I'm also not a data analyst or a computer programmer or a developer. There is a bit of overlap with my field to each of those skills, but a data scientist, in general, is someone with multiple degrees in either mathematics, statistics, computer science, or physics. Typically, they will have majored in at least one of those 4 disciplines in undergrad and then will have a graduate degree in at least one or more of these fields as well. There are many sub-specialties within the data science space, but my primary area of expertise is in building predictive models. I basically use complex mathematics to teach a computer to learn how to solve specific problems.

When I get the time, I will explain in more detail why this skill set is relevant to the problem of identifying shill bidders, and why I claim it would yield a far superior solution to that problem than hiring a team of data analysts or accountants to do it manually.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's a free piece of advice. Repeatedly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or uninformed or unqualified or disingenuous is not an effective means of debate or discussion.

And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a free piece of advice. Repeatedly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or uninformed or unqualified or disingenuous is not an effective means of debate or discussion.

Fair point. It just makes me look like an ass.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.

Yes, as I mentioned above, the relationship is not a linear function. This is what I meant when I said, "there would be an element of diminishing returns (i.e., having 40 million eyes on an auction is effectively equivalent to having 5 million eyes on that auction, but having 40,000 is still significantly better than having 5,000)." The shape of the curve and the ceiling for a maximal benefit view count and the point at which the diminishing returns "kick in" would all be a function of both supply and demand for that individual card. We should expect to have a steeper curve for something like a Ken Griffey Jr PSA 9 Upper Deck RC than we would for something like a 1933 Goudey Lou Gherig and a shallower curve for something like a 1933 Goudey common. But the relationship between view counts and sold prices should look like some version of the plots below.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.

It can be about getting more eyes on stuff, which is Ebays most solid contribution.

But it's more about getting the right eyes on stuff.

A friend collects 16mm films, and is I think pretty well known in that hobby.
I tried helping him sell some of the cheaper stuff.. Had a print of a pretty decent school film of a famous story. It was everything you could ask for, low fade emulsion on Mylar, and looked like it had hardly ever been used. Maybe even a couple B or C list actors too. Not super valuable, but very nice.
I listed it twice at 24.99, no bidders. Told him I couldn't see letting it go for less. He listed it higher, using my description and pictures. Sold in under a day at fill price, Maybe 40?
On the other hand, I would list stuff that was practically junk, with an accurate description of its faults, and for me that stuff sold.

[drcy]

When I used eBay way back when, I'd have my bookmarked sellers. I collected unusual and rare items (photos, autographs, memorabilia), and I bookmarked them because I knew they were experts (authenticity), would have interesting stuff and were reliable. Others used them similarly and I'm sure the sellers got healthy prices.

However, that's different than selling a readily available 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas for 2x the price.

[68Hawk]

Originally Posted by drcy

When I used eBay way back when, I'd have my bookmarked sellers. I collected unusual and rare items (photos, autographs, memorabilia), and I bookmarked them because I knew they were experts (authenticity), would have interesting stuff and were reliable. Others used them similarly and I'm sure the sellers got healthy prices.

However, that's different than selling a readily available 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas for 2x the price.

I think what you are describing illustrates Snowman's theory, but also why it beggars belief for it to be accurate in describing a few dealers astonishingly higher returns on same cards.

Most people who find their way to 'major' ebay sellers do so by happenstance.
They spend ever increasing time on ebay looking at one item which leads to another, and as they build their buy knowledge and indeed add items to their collection, they are exposed more and more to better material and scarcer more desirable and price rich pieces.
The very act of going through this 'learning' process on ebay sets very quickly eBay's greatest strength for any prospective buyer: the ability to find items you want first, but even more importantly with so many contributing sellers you will find quite a number of the same item, and can compare condition and price etc before choosing your buy.

It's this very nature of comparative shopping that makes it hard to believe one eBay Seller could so massively get higher prices than the thousands of competing sellers.
Its audience has already learned how to search on eBay, how that often takes time to find the thing you want, how you can assign a price in your mind you're willing to pay and where that will meet up with how often the item shows and how much you need it...it's all part of the game on eBay.

That card collectors, who know there are other copies at same grade showing up regularly on eBay through different sellers, at prices sometimes 30-40% less, would just blythely say sure, "I'm happy to pay overs, even though I know I might someday want/or have to sell it again, and may not get my money back or make less on it that I otherwise can".....to be what? Brand or seller loyal? Where there's no incentive to be?
I just don't believe it.

More eyes giving greater opportunity to MAXIMIZE prices sure, but this collector space is sooooooo filled with assured professional sellers dispensing so much of this stuff, you'd have to be a nuffy to only buy at a mark up.
Nuffies here and there affecting some prices, sure, I could believe it.
But it's the very steady nature of PWCC and Probstein prices achieved over others that doesn't gel with the nature of the card market.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I shouldn't need to provide data to support that claim. It is obvious.

There are a lot of attorneys on this board. I wonder if they've ever tried the "Duh!" defense in court?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I told myself this thread had gotten to the teaching a pig to sing mile marker and was done with it. So, it pains me to do this, but he is not making a point about social media. His claim is that there is a correlation between higher card prices realized and higher eBay follower counts. In other words, the more followers an eBay auction house has, the higher prices they will achieve, all other things remaining the same.

That is his claim, anyways, as he hasn't actually presented any proof that would substantiate it. Nor has he addressed what they teach you on the first day of Data Analysis 101: correlation is not necessarily causation.



I spent the first two decades of my professional career in electronics manufacturing and the most recent decade in oil and gas. Both are industries dominated by engineers. Indeed, my background is engineering. It is my observation that folks with technological backgrounds often assume that, because they have mastered one (or several) difficult subject matters, that they can reason their way to correct answers beyond those areas. So, go easy on him because he is a victim of his programming.

On a lighter note, I thought I'd share with Snowman how us grayheads used to bid on card auctions outside our hometown back in the day,

Learned specialists are aware how ignorant they are in areas outside of their expertise and tread lightly.