Price Suggestion
~440 keys
burning
Unusual Lil' Bitey Burning Flames
49 votes up
13 votes down
Advertisement
Related Suggestions

This suggestion was accepted by Vijf Kilo Boter (met voetjes).

Comments can no longer be left on this suggestion.

Comments

R.I.P Burning flames


Sale: 300 keys

https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198413496095#!/compare/1545350400/1545436800

https://backpack.tf/item/6624382082


☆Current seller at 580 old price (willing to go lower)

☆Highest buy order at 210 keys

https://gyazo.com/91467a5411470b6467cb012e8034ecca


New price: 300 keys

    This SCREAMS quicksell.

    Rip Burning Flames? I dont get what you mean. Seller quicksold for 300 pure in a day to me. Close this.

      Again, quicksold? That seller got that lil bitey with an inflated BoA (recent sales for less than 350, even less than 300) of course that you are disagree because you want 580 (lol). Just read the previous comment made by Frosty the Foamman about 580 lil bitey price suggestion...

        I dont disargee, i simply provided counter info. Doesnt matter what the seller got it for, it sold in a day, even for low tiers, thats a quicksell.

          It does not matter how overpriced, how bad or whatever issues with the previous sale there are, i'm not sure if you can grasp this concept, but it sold in a DAY, a day, and before you bring up ex god tier suggestions that dropped them hard, try and think about the fact that they had multiple unsolds and sales around the price they dropped to in many cases. Despite the fact that this should not be 580 keys, 300 is no more accurate, so without other indications that 300 is a common trading point this should be left outdated until crimson sells it

            Are you talking about price accuracy?

            If you want to let this lil bitey outdated at 580, why didnt you let unpriced this beauty?

            https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5bfcd63dcf6c75636f48d761


            An obvious joke but you insisted with that suggestion and many traders told you that you should have closed that one, but you didnt hear them.

            Why didnt you wait for a second sale?

            R3SP4WN already sold it

            https://backpack.tf/item/7268760431


            So if you want to discuss about accuracy, open a new suggestion for that punk's pomp and post an accurate price for that unusual, focus in that one instead of saying this sale is a quicksale


            Technically I still didnt see any proof that it actually quicksold, just the buyer saying it did (which has never really been the strongest evidence, and if it were someone else, he himself would've dismissed it instantly :P).


            On the other hand, after 2 months it has remained unsuccessful at 580, so if we're going to base this solely off of selling time, then that should prove a reasonable indicator that 580 may be on the high side.


            The abovementioned points aren't the most solid ones, but the funny thing here is that if we were to act as you suggest (where you say it should be left outdated) there are actually 2 thinkable cases:


            (1). We revert:

            in that case it should never have been priced in the first place, and should really be reverted to 230 (which I assume he would not want, and I suppose 300 would then even be preferred :P)


            (2). We accept this as a fix for the last suggestion:

            Say for a moment we make that wild decision to say the 580 sale was in fact not an outlier: that too had a buyout at 300 for a LONG LONG time; nothing quickselly about that :P. From what I heard, the only reason it was accepted as it was in the end was because outpost closed down just before the suggestion was handled as well as a misrepresentation of when the BO was there the last (the seller was inconsistent in that aspect and in his final argument he stated it was half a year before the sale happened, and earlier he said it was ~2 months before the suggestion). Seeing as we now have the evidence that even the buyer valued it at no more than 300, I guess it is pretty fair to assume that - even if it is just in hindsight - valuing it at 580 was never a good idea.


            I don't think option (1) is a good idea here since it díd end up selling for 300 in the end, and Im pretty sure the only reason it managed to sell fast (in case it did) is because of that last suggestion. All things considered, I think repricing it at 300 is actually a nice, neutral solution to the issues on these past suggestions combined whilst keeping up a common trading point in pure (which - if you think about it - is now pretty well-represented).