Capital Depreciation Thread



  • Unfortunately I have decided to delete the thread and will no longer provide the data.
    On numerous occassions I have asked for the thread to be left as an information thread with no agenda pushing and yet one forum user who has agree multiples times to this continues to not honour that agreement.
    Apologies to those that found it useful.



  • Leave it for all to see. 👍

    People can make up their own mind who was pushing an agenda.



  • @janner73 it's a shame but I understand your frustration. The mass debating needed to stop 😯

    It's a pity you cant set user groups up on the forum so you can have a private discussion group



  • @Ddr I called @Vespasian32 out for saying the bigger drops were on the squad list. (Fake news)

    Top 200 drops was 21%
    Squad list drops were 2.2%

    I apologize if I'm incorrect - but I'm not.



  • @Ericali I don't care what anybody called anybody out for.
    I had asked, and you had agreed to, leave it as an information thread - you simply cant help yourself.



  • @janner73 said in Capital Depreciation Thread:

    @Ericali I don't care what anybody called anybody out for.
    I had asked, and you had agreed to, leave it as an information thread - you simply cant help yourself.

    Is the information I'm sharing correct, or is vespasian correct? 🤔



  • @Ericali
    Both of you were correct as there are multiple ways of interpreting the same data.
    But you were the child who despite 3 times agreeing to leave the thread as an information thread continued to do the opposite. You just cant help yourself and it was sadly inevitable that it happened.
    The forum is being ruined lately and for the sake of being right or wrong I no longer want to be a part of that. I enjoy debate but sadly with you its not debate or considering differing views its Erics right and everyone else is wrong.
    On that note you can carry on with your immature behaviour and agenda pushing - the smart people already see it for what it is.



  • @janner73 no, not good enough Janner.

    Someone is right & someone is wrong.....

    The top 200 had 21% depreciation
    The squad list had a 2.2% depreciation.

    He said the squad list had a higher depreciation. He was wrong.

    Just admit it for God's sake!



  • @Ericali said in Capital Depreciation Thread:

    @janner73 no, not good enough Janner.

    Someone is right & someone is wrong.....

    The top 200 had 21% depreciation
    The squad list had a 2.2% depreciation.

    He said the squad list had a higher depreciation. He was wrong.

    Just admit it for God's sake!

    Wow just wow 🥱🤦‍♂️



  • @Ericali if I may interject, I haven't looked into the data itself, but I believe he said that the bigger drops were in the squad.

    I think you have taken him meaning this as more drops, whereas I took it as meaning the drops that occurred on players In the squad lists were bigger

    Again, haven't looked at the actual data, so my view may even be wrong, but that's how i interpreted his comment



  • @Ddr we detailed both sets of data in detail as a fellow forum member had asked.

    If the thread wasn't deleted you could see for yourself.

    We analysed both sets (top 200 & squad list) in the top 200 (21% had dropped) over a 24 hour period.

    We did the exact same over a 24 hour period with the squad list (2.2% had dropped)



  • @Ericali
    @Vespasian32 's point was that 78% of the squad was static and therefore could be considered to be not having your money working for you.
    This was an equally valid conclusion to draw.
    90% of the forum is fed up with this now and yet you still can't just leave it.



  • I missed his chomp... But he's so predictable I can imagine how he twisted my facts. Sav is right... I said the largest drops not the most irrelevant drops.



  • @Ericali yes but when you look at % dropped then the top 3 in the squad are over 10%, the top 3 in the top 200 are under 5%. So the BIGGER drops were in the squad players.

    As much as I think you do provide insightful information at times, this is just showing more and more that you have a very blinkered view and are unwilling to accept another person's point of view.

    I have had numerous conversations with friends regarding stats and the fact that they can be interpreted several ways and manipulated to show what you want, I feel this is precisely what you are doing to suit your agenda/portfolio



  • @Ddr there is no other way to interpret them.

    The top 200 had drops of 21%
    The squad list had drops of 2.2%

    I welcome more information sharing - just a shame the thread was deleted & we can't make a more reasonable judgement over a longer period of time.



  • Was the debate about the top 200 and the squad list as a whole or the biggest drops in both?

    Seems like you lot are debating different things.



  • @Ericali it's a shame that you have such a hardline stance on always being right. Yes, there are other ways to interpret it as stated in my previous post, but you're just unwilling to accept it as it shoots holes in your strategy

    Answer me this, what do you think 'bigger drops' means?



  • @Ddr I'm not about always being right....

    But someone is always right & someone is always wrong.

    They were @janner73 stats.

    I was calling out the lie & the squad list being more risky. If anything, it proved they were more stable.

    Only a 2.2% depreciation over 3,000 players to 21% of the top 200 falling over a 24 hour period.

    You can't dress it up more than it is.

    I welcome a longer study - but unfortunately the thread has been deleted.

    Draw your own conclusions as to why.



  • @Ddr You're wasting your time sadly.
    Of course there are multiple ways to interpret the data. One of which is Eric's way but others for example are:

    1. 49% of the top 200 had risen versus 20 odd % of the squad list so you could argue that you have twice the chance of finding a riser in the top 200 as you do in the squad.
    2. 78% of the squad were static so you could argue that this is opportunity cost when others are rising.

    All of them are valid and none of them based only on the numbers are 100% correct as you would need to look deeper than headline percentages to understand the best opportunities.



  • @Ericali It was only deleted because you cant accept when to leave something and always have to continue arguing.
    Its done, people can think what they like. But if we want more users on this forum that are happy to contribute and debate then this bickering needs to stop.



  • @janner73 said in Capital Depreciation Thread:

    @Ddr You're wasting your time sadly.
    Of course there are multiple ways to interpret the data. One of which is Eric's way but others for example are:

    1. 49% of the top 200 had risen versus 20 odd % of the squad list so you could argue that you have twice the chance of finding a riser in the top 200 as you do in the squad.
    2. 78% of the squad were static so you could argue that this is opportunity cost when others are rising.

    All of them are valid and none of them based only on the numbers are 100% correct as you would need to look deeper than headline percentages to understand the best opportunities.

    I can interpret your stats exactly as they are.

    49% of the top 200 have risen & 21% have dropped. That's a volitile market with 70% either going up or down.

    78% of the squad list was static - so just 22% went up or down. Not so volitile....

    If anything, when someone pointed out the squad list was more risky - the stats point to the exact opposite.

    I welcome more data to draw a better conclusion, but unfortunately you are not willing to share the data.


Log in to reply