WXV Trade Talk

[RaisyDaisy]

That's actually a great point you make Daz

13 trades being negged from 106 isn't bad at all. Lets look at that a little closer

1. Pacific & Rio
2. Beijing & Rio
3. Dublin & Rio
4. Mexico & Berlin
5. NDT & Mexico (Only failed because 4 failed)
6. Christchurch & Rio X 2
7. Christchurch & Rio 2nd attempt
8. Dublin & Rio
9. Mexico & London
10. Moscow & Beijing
11. 6 Way Trade
12. NDT, Mexico & New York 3 Way
13. Mexico & Cairo (Only failed because 12 failed)

Now, out of those 13 trades 2 of them failed simply because a previous trade did otherwise they were fine to pass, so it's actually only 11 that the coaches have declined

2 of those 11 where Rio and Christchurch attempting the same deal, so let's just count that as one making the total now 10

Lets also remove the 6 way trade and take the lesson that a trade that big is never going to pass and should not be attempted due to the fact that one small part can decline the entire trade. Love the ambition, but it's not practical

That leaves us with 9 negged trades from 106 which is completely fine and I would suggest that we actually don't have a problem with the current system whatsoever, and that the perceived problem we have is due to the strength of personalities in this comp coupled with the high level of activity and discussion.

That is all.

A lot of us like to discuss trades, debate, argue etc because it's what we enjoy doing and quite often the discussions are healthy, but with that a few misconceptions have been created and from what the data suggests the current system is in fact fine - It's the personalities and activity levels here that impact perceptions

A few things I take out of this years trades - in particular the 9 (13) trades that didn't pass

- Rio seemed to be a soft target, with several of their trades failing always because they were giving up too much and losing - something they can look to improve next year
- Dublin actually had a lot of big/decent trades pass without question, but as per point one their dealings with Rio were the big ones that failed
- Other than that, you would have to say that everything else is completely fine

I don't want to single you out Holz, but you continuously state that your trades don't pass, you have to give up more etc but the data doesn't lie man. The only trades of yours that failed were with Rio, and as highlighted now they had several trades fail because they kept agreeing to giving more than what they received. All of your other trades involving big names passed without issue because they were fair. It might appear like there is, but there is no agenda against you and your team. Now I know you'll want to quote this and argue otherwise, but it is what it is and you're not the hard luck story you make yourself out to be. Turns out most of your trades are completely fair and pass :) Just stop trying to beat up Rio :P

I like the idea of a committee (obviously, I suggested it haha) but when you look over the results and break things down I think I now actually agree that we do not need to change the current system

Perhaps we can make a change around the timeframes like Rico suggested with maybe 2 votes a week or something along those lines, but it's hard to suggest that we need to change the voting process.

I think it's simply the personalities and activity levels here that have over-hyped all of this and created a few misconceptions, which is totally fine and great in fact because that's why Worlds is so much fun, but it does appear that the current system ain't broke

[GoLions]

Nah, shower's flower'd

[Holz]

but the data doesn't lie man.

Data doesn't lie but the people interrupting it can.

7 rejected trades last year has resulted in quite a few coaches telling me to pay more then a fair deal. have had 1 coach say its fair but you know it wont pass so give more.

you cant discount the 6 way trade that should have passed it had 13/18 coaches approval and the 5 coaches couldnt even agree on who was losing (except Dublin) and that was a mistake.

Data is how you interpret it.

I had 9 trades pass but 3 of them were tiny deals either pick swaps or picking up browne Fair to say nothing deals. Of the deals that actually mattered.

3 Fails 6 passes thats a 33% success rate. from your numbers 8.5% of trades failed. even if you add back in my tiny trades I still had 25% failures thats 3-4 times the comp average.

coming off a season of 7 fails and intentionally giving more then a fair deal to pass certain trades then the call is valid. by the way I had deals agreed upon then added more to my side. If i didnt i reckon the number would be higher then 25-33%

go numbers go

[Ricochet]

Can't ask all coaches to vote by say Wednesday and then by Sunday each week RD. It won't happen

[Holz]

I think it's simply the personalities and activity levels here that have over-hyped all of this and created a few misconceptions, which is totally fine and great in fact because that's why Worlds is so much fun, but it does appear that the current system ain't broke

the major issue is it can take a week and a half to see if your trade is passed. then another week and a half if you negotiate.

compared to other systems (euro) where I can reject a trade, negotiate with the coach and have the deal done in under 3 days.

Also not once have we had a trade rejected and then negotiated and passed.

I have had the 6 way trade rejected for losing too much then one of the winning teams as decided by the comp pull out. Or had a deal fail because of a tiny component of it e.g. not having Aaron Black and then the other coach pulling out. this is all due to time and people being able to get out of deals.

If a trade is accepted and is failed and you are not the losing coach under no circumstances should you be able to back out of a deal.

[Ricochet]

I think it's simply the personalities and activity levels here that have over-hyped all of this and created a few misconceptions, which is totally fine and great in fact because that's why Worlds is so much fun, but it does appear that the current system ain't broke

the major issue is it can take a week and a half to see if your trade is passed. then another week and a half if you negotiate.

Yep this
Even if a trade is close and we need all 17 votes to get a result you can be waiting 10 or so days

Trade committee would be perfect i reckon

[Ricochet]

Also a trade committee could privately talk to the two coaches involved in a trade of they didnt like it. That way the two coaches can renegotiate the trade without being influenced/sharked by others

[Ringo]

No matter which way we decide to go there will always be the problem of coaches rating trades differently.  This will occur whether even if you have a trade committee to rule. You may have 3/4 different interpretations on a trade amongst the trade committee based on their rating of the trade. We see this in worlds voting by some saying x wins and others saying y wins by too much.
So we need to work out what is the best system going forward recognising the differing opinion of coaches on trades,

[upthemaidens]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   
 

[Holz]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   

because some have put 5 years into this comp. I know most regard it as the elite comp and it is the most active, however that doesn't mean it cant be improved.

if there is something to make the comp even better why wouldn't we want to improve it.

[Ricochet]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   

?? It's just a discussion about how to improve the comp man. If majorirty of coaches don't like the suggestions then it stays the same. No biggy

[upthemaidens]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   

because some have put 5 years into this comp. I know most regard it as the elite comp and it is the most active, however that doesn't mean it cant be improved.

if there is something to make the comp even better why wouldn't we want to improve it.

Because taking away the Coaches input into trades will just turn it into another version of all the other Comps.

You have an issue with Coaches voting on trades and getting it wrong, but it's the same Coaches that are going to vote on the rules..
   Surely if they can't get a simple trade right, why would you think they will make a correct judgement on the fundamental rules that govern the game?

[upthemaidens]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   

?? It's just a discussion about how to improve the comp man. If majorirty of coaches don't like the suggestions then it stays the same. No biggy

I understand it's just a discussion, but changing the rules to mimic the other Comps. is a mistake.
  Take AXV as an example, less than half the trades done and barely any activity. Is that what you would like WXV to turn into?

Having Coaches vote on trades creates activity and debate and dare I say interest.

[Ricochet]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   

?? It's just a discussion about how to improve the comp man. If majorirty of coaches don't like the suggestions then it stays the same. No biggy

I understand it's just a discussion, but changing the rules to mimic the other Comps. is a mistake.
  Take AXV as an example, less than half the trades done and barely any activity. Is that what you would like WXV to turn into?

Having Coaches vote on trades creates activity and debate and dare I say interest.

Think that's more to do with more active coaches here and unlimited trade movements imo
Move trades creates more interest. I know we'd be making more trades in AXV if we had more movements, throw in Holz, RD/AK, JRoo, etc in there and it'll make other coaches more active because they have offers thrown at them.

Not trying to mimic other comps at all, just trying to make the best XV comp better :)

[Holz]

There are a half dozen Comps. why not just join one where the rules suit your preference.   

?? It's just a discussion about how to improve the comp man. If majorirty of coaches don't like the suggestions then it stays the same. No biggy

I understand it's just a discussion, but changing the rules to mimic the other Comps. is a mistake.
  Take AXV as an example, less than half the trades done and barely any activity. Is that what you would like WXV to turn into?

Having Coaches vote on trades creates activity and debate and dare I say interest.

I dont think any activity is good activity, alot of the activity here is negative surrounding  the rules and trade voting.

we wont to get rid of this activity.

The rules arent the reason why there is activity its the top work Ossie and Purp have done with all the write ups, interesting facts etc.. also the fact its the orginal and has the most coaches involved.

the rules if anything take away from the good work they have done. I have been left frustrated multiple times by the system and at some times wanted to leave despite all the positives.