There will be math... 0

[valiantman]

Just now, bc said:

Congrats on the 60% - in some schools that is still a passing grade 

That was actually a Ron Burgundy joke, but there was a saying in college... "D is for diploma". 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, bc said:

Congrats on the 60% - in some schools that is still a passing grade 

Awwww....reference joke fail!

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's ok. It means you're normal. 

The more reference jokes you get, the less of a life you have.

Like the title of this thread...

Someone will be along to drink my milkshake soon enough.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Or this one...

 

[valiantman]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Or this one...

 

I almost included that one in my first post. 

[Howling Mad]

Personally I feel that GoCollect's modeler does a pretty accurate job at this. Of course there is no perfect equation, and things will ALWAYS get skewed at the high and low extremes.

[thunsicker]

46 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I almost included that one in my first post. 

I DID include that one in my first post.  

[valiantman]

28 minutes ago, Howling Mad said:

Personally I feel that GoCollect's modeler does a pretty accurate job at this. Of course there is no perfect equation, and things will ALWAYS get skewed at the high and low extremes.

That's good, but is it required to use GoCollect's modeler or can the same thing be done by hand (or in Excel)?  I'm hoping to come up with something simple and fully transparent.  My guess is GoCollect has a modeler that isn't simple and isn't transparent.

[thunsicker]

12 minutes ago, valiantman said:

That's good, but is it required to use GoCollect's modeler or can the same thing be done by hand (or in Excel)?  I'm hoping to come up with something simple and fully transparent.  My guess is GoCollect has a modeler that isn't simple and isn't transparent.

Yeah they use Gerber's RVI model modified to each comic.  

  

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by thunsicker
Wrong Link (removed modified duplication)

[Howling Mad]

2 hours ago, thunsicker said:

Yeah they use Gerber's RVI model modified to each comic.  

  

 

In my limited experience it's been pretty accurate, certainly for books that are somewhat stable. Books that explode with each sale, say FF #1 right now, or Hulk #181 a few months back, it's not always going to be 100%.

[porcupine48]

42

 

[The Lions Den]

5 hours ago, kav said:

 

 

[kav]

7 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

 

[sfcityduck]

5 hours ago, thunsicker said:

Ok, I think I followed everything so far.  I got 8.  Is that right?

The answer is 42.

[sfcityduck]

10 minutes ago, porcupine48 said:

42

 

Should have read page 4 before I responded to page 3.  

[sfcityduck]

5 hours ago, valiantman said:

 

If it's rational, then it's math.

So here we are.  

Irrational numbers are a thing.

[Readcomix]

I applaud the formulae and the fun thread you have generated! Someone in this thread tried to get at rarity as a factor; I think the other  hard thing to try to capture is likelihood that the census ratios for a given book will be altered by future submissions, given that the CGC graded universe of 5 million comics is still much smaller than the universe of printed comics extant.

Whats the likelihood of another 9.8 New Mutants 98 joining the census?

Of a fourth 9.6 AF15?

Of another copy of Green Giant Comics at all?

I'm not complaining, just "musing aloud" online. Not sure how to account for those varying likelihoods. Each book on the census has the potential to experience different rates of change to their grade ratios.

I think this where I read bc's strategy and thought that he's accounting for the Mike Tyson quote: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

New census books can be a punch in the face; not sure how we capture that in a formula. And we can't short the census to expose ourselves to upside from say two more AF 15 9.6's emerging ... Can we?  

Regardless, you guys are fun over here! 

[sfcityduck]

26 minutes ago, Readcomix said:

 

New census books can be a punch in the face; not sure how we capture that in a formula. And we can't short the census to expose ourselves to upside from say two more AF 15 9.6's emerging ... Can we?  

 

The conventional wisdom is that "the best copy" of many great books has yet to be certified.  

[Readcomix]

Just now, sfcityduck said:

The conventional wisdom is that "the best copy" of many great books has yet to be certified.  

Exactly my point! 

[thunsicker]

Then there are all those things that aren’t captured in the numerical grade that may be taken into consideration for a relative price.  Cut, page condition, centering, even what the defects are that made up the grade.