1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:53 PM |
| For lesser-value limiteds like CF and JJ5x5, RAP seems to be a good and accurate indication of value. For high-value limiteds like domino and domini, RAP is quite far off. At what point would you say RAP starts becoming less accurate, or at what rate would you say RAP becomes less accurate as price increases? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:53 PM |
idk probs liek 20394k
Send me trades!! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
steelfish
|
  |
| Joined: 29 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 7607 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:53 PM |
| RAP I'd say is more accurate for 15k and under items |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Arktika
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2586 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:54 PM |
value>>
unless you're trying to outsmart a trade hangout noob
then it's rap>>
~『+24,643 posts』~
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:55 PM |
| What is the cheapest limited (at least 20k) you can think of that has a very inaccurate RAP? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
iBL00XER
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1838 |
|
| |
|
Linkmon99
|
  |
| Joined: 11 Feb 2009 |
| Total Posts: 29662 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:58 PM |
| Once things go over 10k rap the gap between rap and price starts to go really far |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 05:59 PM |
| BSF doesn't seem too bad. RAP vs lowest price has over 86% confidence. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:00 PM |
| Firebrand, on the other hand, has less than 42% rap::low confidence. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:01 PM |
K cool *¥~When all else fails, Mrpin prevals!~¥* |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:03 PM |
| no, I'm doing something wrong. you can't have negative confidence, it should only go down to 0% |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:18 PM |
JJ5x5 lowest ~ 11k RAP ~ 9k 11k ~ 120% of 9288 100%/120% ~ 83% confidence
FB lowest ~ 50k RAP ~ 32k 50k ~ 158% of 31606 100%/158% ~ 63% confidence
EST lowest ~ 1010 trillion RAP ~ 255k 1010 trillion ~ 395 billion% of 255k 100%/395 billion% ~ 0% confidence |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:19 PM |
DDH has lowest > rap? what is this someone buy that so my data isn't messed up. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:20 PM |
| @Down Saying "nop" has no significant value or relevance to anything in this entire thread. Your entire post is stupid and useless. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 06:24 PM |
@Tails
"At what point would you say RAP starts becoming less accurate, or at what rate would you say RAP becomes less accurate as price increases?" Your answer: RAP
I see. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 07:00 PM |
So, what should I do to determine the value of a limited? I only want to have three variables: RAP, lowest price, and number of listed sellers.
I was thinking of something like:
value = (RAP/sellers + low)/(1/sellers + 1) which can be simplified to: value = (RAP+sellers*low)/(sellers+1)
which can be tested on limiteds with a value already widely determined:
STF = 450k value = (207691+475000*11)/(11+1) 452724 accurate
messor = 125k value = (88150+24*140000)/(24+1) 137k moderately accurate
grind = 900k value = (147250+9*1.7 million)/(9+1) 1.5m moderately inaccurate
DH = 2.4m value = (234365+6*4 million)/(6+1) 3.4m sufficiently inaccurate
EST = 10m value = (255236+3*1010 trillion)/(3+1) 757 trillion absolutely wrong
It seems to lose its accuracy as the number of sellers decreases. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 07:31 PM |
Well, these are mathematica's results:
RAP has no statistically significant effect on Value Value tends to be larger for larger Lowest Sellers has no statistically significant effect on Value
So far, based on the regression analysis, the number of sellers seems to have no affect on the value. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 07:32 PM |
rap means nothing at times, since lpp's can trick RAP based traders
then again, that's a good thing |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 07:33 PM |
rainbow fed
it's been lpped 3 times today |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 07:48 PM |
| Value, RAP and the lowest price all have a positive slope. Number of sellers is just absolutely random, so I guess I won't be using that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 07:57 PM |
| @Tails Statistics is confusing. especially when your numbers are based on *emphasis* SUBJECTIVITY. *cringe* |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 20 Mar 2013 08:31 PM |
| I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to predict the value of a limited mathematically. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|