Yeah it was. That Wrestling All Stars set is worth a lot more than $2k isn't it? I also would've said 1979 Topps wax boxes would never reach $2500 but here we are.
Yeah it was. That Wrestling All Stars set is worth a lot more than $2k isn't it? I also would've said 1979 Topps wax boxes would never reach $2500 but here we are. >>
Yes it is.
Some wild things have happened in the card hobby in the past five years that is for sure.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs, the one that even though it was completely irrelevant still stated:
Nevertheless, the benefits of sniping are significant
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
[Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning
This is comical. At one point, earlier in this thread, I was wondering if you were just being intentionally obtuse or simply unable to comprehend this topic. My question has been answered.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought. >>
LOL, you will never say you were wrong. Who are you kidding?
You also said you were moving on last night. Yet here you are back at it again today, LOL..
Still waiting for a link..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought. >>
LOL, you will never say you were wrong. Who are you kidding?
You also said you were moving on last night. Yet here you are back at it again today, LOL.. >>
Grote. I get it you don't like me. The studies speak for themselves. I am done.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought. >>
LOL, you will never say you were wrong. Who are you kidding?
You also said you were moving on last night. Yet here you are back at it again today, LOL.. >>
Grote. I get it you don't like me. The studies speak for themselves. I am done. >>
You mean, these so-called studies you have no links to? OK, yes, we are done.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
this is funny. and proves the oriignal intent here grote15 and dpeck100 are battling, literrally for nothing Anyone know what cards these guys are in to that I can send them links of ?
Comments
<< <i>i had my snipe set for $31.88 for this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Magic-the-Gathering-Return-to-Ravnica-Holiday-Gift-Box-New-Sealed-NR-/301167379344?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=7KeWdx8siPw65X8w4UH3LfpSYEg%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
my snipe allowed me to win it for $20.50
How is this bad? >>
It isn't bad.
That was definitely an interesting one.
Yeah it was. That Wrestling All Stars set is worth a lot more than $2k isn't it? I also would've said 1979 Topps wax boxes would never reach $2500 but here we are.
<< <i>From the original Hogan thread.
That was definitely an interesting one.
Yeah it was. That Wrestling All Stars set is worth a lot more than $2k isn't it? I also would've said 1979 Topps wax boxes would never reach $2500 but here we are. >>
Yes it is.
Some wild things have happened in the card hobby in the past five years that is for sure.
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs, the one that even though it was completely irrelevant still stated:
Nevertheless, the benefits of sniping are significant
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This is comical. At one point, earlier in this thread, I was wondering if you were just being intentionally obtuse or simply unable to comprehend this topic. My question has been answered.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought. >>
LOL, you will never say you were wrong. Who are you kidding?
You also said you were moving on last night. Yet here you are back at it again today, LOL..
Still waiting for a link..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought. >>
LOL, you will never say you were wrong. Who are you kidding?
You also said you were moving on last night. Yet here you are back at it again today, LOL.. >>
Grote. I get it you don't like me. The studies speak for themselves. I am done.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me make it a little more clear.
THERE IS NO MEASURABLE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SNIPING.
Read the papers. If mathematical models have been created and tested trying to find it and can't. I rest my case. >>
You had no case to begin with. Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it any more accurate, either. >>
Grote what is comical is the results were already published and none of us bothered to check. Once it was raised and a just a little research confirms the argument I have made from the beginning.
You might have also seen the comment about bidding early. Interesting to see the data confirmed the scare away tactic you have been so critical of works.
These are not my findings obviously. Just very high level economists who studied the concept. I am certainly not surprised by their findings. >>
Do you have a link to these "studies"?? And no, I'm not talking about the one from 10 years ago that tracked bidding on DVDs. >>
Just do a Google search and you will find them. Lots of them. Some are 54 pages long so have fun reading them. I decided to this morning and was pleasantly surprised to see it in print.
There is a good one from Stanford and a few others. The one advantage that can be found is a 5% greater chance of winning but this can naturally be explained by the nuclear snipe.
Look the game is over. I am moving on. Had the findings found me wrong I would have been the first to say so. Instead it was just as I thought. >>
LOL, you will never say you were wrong. Who are you kidding?
You also said you were moving on last night. Yet here you are back at it again today, LOL.. >>
Grote. I get it you don't like me. The studies speak for themselves. I am done. >>
You mean, these so-called studies you have no links to? OK, yes, we are done.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.