Huna for Beat?

Just because you use big words doesn't mean your argument isn't flawed. Price is not the only variable or "linear relationship" which can be used to determine equality. Rarity also comes in to play, and most would argue much more so than price. Therefore, things like bottle number, allocation, and availablity are all things that can be taken into account, and in actuality are objective measures of equality.

Just because two people agree to a trade and are happy with the results doesn't mean it is a fair trade from an objective outsiders point of view. For example, say your wife goes to Hunahupu day with you, and gets her two bottles which she has no intention of drinking, she doesn't even like beer, she just goes so you can have extra bottles. You now have 4 bottles of Huna. You're wife doesn't know much about beer, but knows you've traded bottles before. She also knows you really like Magic Hat, since she sees you drinking #9 quite often. So she decides to surprise you and make a trade to acquire your 'favorite' beer. She makes a trade giving up one of the Hunas in exchange for a 12 pack of #9 and a couple Circus Boys to make the $4$. The guy receiving the Huna is pumped because he snagged a whale for shelf beer that's available almost everywhere. Your wife is excited because she traded one beer for 15 of your favorite beers! Both traders are happy and the price was $4$, is that a fair trade?

 

I guess preference in the two styles, and how the beers taste aren't important anymore.

 

You're attempting to be snide, but missing what I said completely. I specifically said there is no other definitive underlying value to the beer. You cannot quantify any of the variables you cited. I specified a linear relationship because the concept of something like bottle count or allocation does not relate in a linear fashion. A 2000 bottle release does not always command two of a 1000 bottle release beer. Until you can relate the two definitively, as I said, then I do not accept that they are objective measures of equality.

As Jparkanzky said, what is important is how much you want the beer in question. I still maintain that the monetary value of the beer is the only objective measurement of the beer. There are, of course, other objective qualities of the beer that you may use to trade beer, like volume or ABV, but seldom do I come across someone who wants to do an ABV for ABV trade. What's left is only subjective measurements, which can be summarized by your desire for the beer. You may use bottle counts, allocations, availability, and all that as your guidebook to trading, but that does not mean that I do. If I want a beer and I have something you want, then, yes, I am happy. Perhaps you are not, but that is your prerogative.

Your argument about my wife trading Hunahpu for Magic Hat is not germane under the circumstances you have set. If she were to trade her two bottles of Hunahpu for Magic Hat for herself, then who are you to tell her she isn't happy? My wife would trade her two bottles $4$ for Zombie Dust and be thrilled. If she were to trade her two bottles of Hunahpu for Magic Hat for me, then it isn't I who decided what beer I want, which is the basis of my argument.

 

Can't believe this one is still chugging along. Three possible trades:

$4$ , Beatification + extra = Hunahpu
$4$ , 2 Beatifications = Hunahpu + extra
Whatever two traders agree on that makes them both happy

 

I was not attempting to be snide, I was attempting to use a dramatic example to show that $4$ and acceptablitiy of both parties is not the end all be all in terms of equality. Sure, it is acceptable to make those trades, but it's not fair as one individual would be taking advantage of the others naivety. And an outside 3rd party certainly would not consider such a trade fair, as in the open market the bottle of Huna could garner 3x that much Magic Hat.

And the things I list, particularly bottle count, are absolutely quantifiable by any definition of the word. To use your argument against you, a $20 bottle of beer does not always command two $10 bottles. Many people make trades that are not $4$, so in your own words the fiscal worth of the item in question does not equate in a linear relationship.

And I am quite aware that the example I used was over the top, but the point was to get you to see that just because two parties agree on a trade, it doesn't necessarily make it a fair exchange.

 

The point is that "fair" isn't objective. The fact that we have several different people disagreeing about what is fair in this thread should be evidence enough of that. Because fairness isn't objective, what looks fair to some parties won't look fair to others. Therefore the only way you can define a fair exchange is one that leaves both people who are party to the exchange pleased. I am not sure why this is controversial.

 

this man is correct. beer geek trading algorithms ruined beer trading.

 

Perhaps it's that those howling about the fairness or lack thereof of a given trade are worried it might establish a new "exchange rate" for those beers that they themselves wouldn't want to follow in future trades? Otherwise, I agree - some may think it fair, some may see it as a swindle, but if the actual parties to the trade are both happy, it's really no one else's concern.

 

There's still a few idiots out there that happily trade tasty beer for tasty beer without involving algorithms.
They do seem to be an ever diminishing crowd though.

 

People are doing a lot of math here, but there are variables not being considered. People are covering the logistics pretty well here, but you may want to consider that the last large release of Beatification (not counting the tiny one a few months back) was in 2008. It will probably be released again before 2016, but it isn't well defined like Hunahpu's where you know it is going to come out consistently once per year. I won't hypothesize what value this adds to the beer, but it is a major factor here in how closely people hold on to it.

 

beer geek trading algorithms outside of the context of a joke are patent stupidity. not like, "in my opinion, they're not very useful," but like, "you are, objectively, acting like a total moron if you think you've discovered the True Formula."

 

Agreed, but ignoring details related to a beer such as:

- Number of Bottles
- Allocation of Bottles
- Range of Distribution
- Number of Days it was available

And only looking at bottle cost is just as unrealistic.

Unless you have to have a situation where both parties are looking SOLELY for the 1 bottle the other guy has, then all of these factors will come in to play in varying degrees.

I was never trying to imply that the stats of a beer should be the only basis for determining the viability of a trade. At the end of the day the goal of any trade should be to get both parties the beer they want at a value they personally deem acceptable.

I'm gonna be straight up with you. If someone realllllly wanted to trade for one of my bottles of Hunahpu's, and all they had to trade was a bottle of M or Wooden Hell, and they offered to trade me one $4$, I wouldn't hesitate to make that trade. (Any takers ^_^). But that said, I would also be extremely aware of the fact that it was a horribly imbalanced trade and wouldn't expect that from then on all Hunahpu's were worth the same thing as an M or Wooden Hell.

PS. Seriously though, if someone wants to trade me an M or a Wooden Hell for one of my Hunahpu's (or 2 even) I will gladly make sure that deal happens ^_^.

 

more factors are important than cost, but the point is that what's important varies by time, person, etc etc. there's no hard truth except in the most specific of circumstances.

 

I am flabbergasted by the responses in this thread failing to understand this very basic concept. In terms of beer trading, the only possible way you'd be able to set a hard number on what's "objectively fair" is $4$. Anything beyond that is completely subjective.

 

actually, that's only the first rule. the other rule is that whatever the other person is offering is worth half of what you are offering.

 

Half? Fuck that, your shit's only worth a quarter of what I'm offering.

 

volume for volume is just as objective .

Either way though all of the factors I listed are objective.

Objective:​

ob·jec·tive - [uhb-jek-tiv]​

noun ​

​

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.​

I would very much like for you to explain to me how things like bottle count are subjective...

These factors are also the reason why almost no one traded Beatification Batch 4 at $4$.

 

really? i hope that's wrong. what a bunch of shitty traders we have on this site otherwise.

problem is that most of these " this is why my beer is rare " arguments can be applied to both sides. you'd think they would be a wash in most cases.

 

i'm guessing it's because $4$ inherently makes reference to value, while volume is an arbitrary marker of value.

that said, once again, there is no objective truth to the value of a beer, full stop.

"but we can get closer if we--"

nope.