One thing I have also found that you touched on is that trading is a lot more about your relationship with the person than actual numbers or even a set of logics by which you trade by. Much like you I have a ton of cards and need very little so if I am going to make a trade I want to make it worth my while. This means they will have to give up more to get my cards. I make no apologies about this and it could very well turn off a person if not handled with finesse.

My dad a notorious negotiator that enjoyed negotiating the purchases of cars or other big ticket items on people's behalf for the fun of it told me "The dealer is entitled to make a profit. I just dont want him to make a big profit off me" In a lot of ways I believe one of the keys is making people feel okay with the idea that it is okay for you to make a profit and in return you give them something they want. At the same time you want to avoid a stigma of being a hustler or wanna-be dealer. The logic you use from person to person might change. People can point out that its inconsistent but what do you care? Youre use of logic is merely a means to an end; getting a better return on your trade.

Thanks,
Mtg_Source
Safe Haven Collectibles

I have often traded my higher-value cards that I wasn't/wouldn't play for (slightly) lower-value cards that I wanted for a deck that I would play, and vice-versa. Those I've traded with have always been happy with the trade and have come to me to trade again.

I would have no problem with the type of trades the author suggests.

garrhhh!

*grabs burning oil*

It's a troll Matt RUN!!! Save yourself!!!

Clarification – When I say I don't need to justify myself, I mean that I don't do anything I wouldn't write about for the world to see. But I do believe there is value to many readers by addressing this topic.

Ahh… didn't see you'd already replied down here. Well done!

1. If you do need a card, it is not ok to gain value from any trade involving it.

That's a negated, converse statement which is not a logical extension at all. I think what you're trying to find is the following contrapositive which is logically equal.

If it's not okay to gain value, then you have something I need.

While logically equal it does not help either argument since the condition is what we're trying to determine.

2. You would never seek to gain value while trading for a card you did quote-unquote “need”, such as cards for and from older formats.

This is predicated on your first statement which has already been proven false.

3. Players who do not have a full playset of all cards in Standard deserve to lose value while trading with you, by virtue of not having a full playset of all cards in Standard.

Again you're using converse instead of contrapositive. To paraphrase Mr. Sedlak, he "does not need any cards because he has a full playset of each." You incorrectly assume that means, "if you do not have a playset of each, then you must need the cards."

This is similar to saying, "If you're looking at the sky, then you see blue." and saying it follows that, "If you see blue, then it must be the sky."

If statements can only be reversed when using, "if and only if". i.e. "A polygon is a triangle if and only if it has 3 sides." Then it is also true that, "If a polygon has 3 sides, then it must be a triangle."

That was fun! 🙂

I also don't think that disagreeing with someone is the same as being baited. Despite evidence to the contrary (i.e. the Internet) a productive discussion usually involves people who disagree, especially when those involved can keep the discussion civil and mature.

On MTGO people doing "floor trades" rarely add value because there is a virtually unlimited supply of the cards online. Nothing is truely rare (Except on tuesday night when you need 1 more Nicol Bolas to redeem your 16 sets of Conflux).

This is the same reason the NYSE is a ghost town compared to electronic exchanges. It's the same reason players buy from big online stores rather than the LGS. Money follows the liquidity.

Most of the extra tickets in MTGO are made on speculation based on tournament results or new information that the market hasn't caught up to yet.

@Ozymandius: "One other illustration: If you let people trade with you whatever cards they wanted, as long as you got an equal value, you would soon have no good cards and be ass-deep in dollar rares." QFT The danger of trading down without getting a really good value for it.

"Just to clarify, by logical extension, you must believe all of the following:

1. If you do need a card, it is not ok to gain value from any trade involving it."

Logic doesn't work this way and I studied math for 6 years just to make sure. In this example let A be the statement "you don't have anything I need" and let B be the statement "it is ok for me to knowingly gain value while trading" So my statement could be restated as a conditional statement "if A, then B". When that statement is true it doesn't follow logically that the statement "if not A, then not B" is true. To look at a simple counterexample. "If the sky is clear then it is not raining" is true but the statement "If the sky is not clear then it is raining" is not true since it can be overcast with no rain. So this statement does not follow logically from mine.

2 "You would never seek to gain value while trading for a card you did quote-unquote “need”, such as cards for and from older formats."

This is a statement of the form "If I need a card then I will never try to get value while trading for it" or to put it into our A-B form from above "If you have a card I need then it is not ok for me to get value from trading for it. Again this is a case of not A implies not B which does not follow logically from A implies B.

3 "3. Players who do not have a full playset of all cards in Standard deserve to lose value while trading with you, by virtue of not having a full playset of all cards in Standard."

I'll handle this one a bit different because it is not related to the initial statement like the other two are. This basically boils down to a statement "If you don't have a playset of Standard then it is ok for me to gain value while trading" but this shares only the conclusions and not the hypothesis so there really is no way to compare them. My statement does not imply this one. I am saying if you dont have anything I want then it is ok for me to gain value while trading. It is possible for you to have something I want and have a full playset of standard, or for you to have something I want and not have a full playset of standard, or have nothing I want and…well you get the point.

Anyway I have to wake up and teach a class in 5 1/2 hours and I'm full of Benadryl at the moment so I may have mis-explained something here but what you said at the end, "All of that follows completely from your statement, so either you think all three of those are true, or your statement is incorrect," is not a valid argument.

I think the third deviates from logical extension by the use of "deserves." It's fair game for them to lose monetary value because they are making up for it in gaining some other value — pride in progressing to a playset of a given card, enjoyment that they can put the deck they are envisioning together, etc.

More importantly, it's not as though someone is compelling them to lose monetary value.

Nobody's making other players trade with him. The way I see it, it's a question of incentivization. Why should he bother trading with them? Out of the goodness of his heart? Maybe that's enough of an incentive for some traders, but clearly not for Mr. Sedlak. And that's fine. If that seems harsh, recall that there are other forms of incentivization-like actually wanting the card in question. For instance If you want to get rid of your Koths for duals, and someone else has duals and wants Koths, then you are mutually incentivized to trade. The ability to gain in value is a the only reason he would want the cards in question, and therefore the only way he would want to make a trade.One other illustration: If you let people trade with you whatever cards they wanted, as long as you got an equal value, you would soon have no good cards and be ass-deep in dollar rares.