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!



  • @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.



  • @Ericali said in Capital Depreciation Thread:

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

    But someone is always right & someone is always wrong.

    Not true, you say that day follows night, I say that nights follows day. Who is 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.

    And yet you still haven't answered the question, what do you consider 'bigger drops' means? I'll answer it for you, it means those that did drop, dropped by more. He wasnt (I believe ) talking about the amount of players that dropped, but the amount that players dropped by



  • @Ericali If you valued the data that much you would have done what you said you were gonna do 3 times and left the thread alone for data sharing.
    I've no doubt in continuing your sole intent was for me to do what I said I would and delete the thread so you can carry on your own little way.
    People are starting to see through you Eric.
    I don't know how many more times I can ask for you to leave it as the forum is tired of it.



  • @Ddr we can talk about night follows day & day follows night - we can also talk about what came first, the chicken or the egg? 🤔

    These are questions where both are correct the data I'm on about is black & white.

    One is correct, one isn't.

    Let's not muddy the waters. 👍



  • @janner73 said in Capital Depreciation Thread:

    @Ericali If you valued the data that much you would have done what you said you were gonna do 3 times and left the thread alone for data sharing.
    I've no doubt in continuing your sole intent was for me to do what I said I would and delete the thread so you can carry on your own little way.
    People are starting to see through you Eric.
    I don't know how many more times I can ask for you to leave it as the forum is tired of it.

    People are not seeing through me - they are seeing through YOU.

    Reinstate the thread. 👍

    I called out a blatant lie & you pulled the thread.



  • @Ericali actually a chicken can't just appear out of nowhere, it definitely came from an egg.



  • @Westy said in Capital Depreciation Thread:

    @Ericali actually a chicken can't just appear out of nowhere, it definitely came from an egg.

    But who layed it? 🤔

    😂


Log in to reply