No it is not a 270 swing as Shrey would have got 140 out of them and would have made 5 dollars profit. Mike mad a weird bet with 141 which is a sure loss as the maximum value was 140. If he would taken the bet from Shrey with 135 he would have 4 netdollars less then his actual bet and Shrey would have 5 netdollars more. In the end his 141 was better then let Shrey have it for 135.
@@herwinprem9939 That's the point. If he decided to take the 135$, he would have gotten NET 135$ and Shrey only 5$ profits. Now, he got -1$ net and shrey 0$... The point is that the price-vs-worth proposition is completely different for those auctioning (gain price) and for those buying (gain potential sell - price) This is the rub of this game which is quite counterintuitive and so hard to internalise
@@emanuelepanizon6007 The original poster had it wrong. It was not a 270 swing. it was a 136 dollar swing. Think about it, to make things simple lets say he had exactly 141 dollars. He pays 141 to bank, makes 140, so his total is 140. If he takes 135, he now has 276 (so 136 more).
@@joshdavis3743 Hi! Strange conversations over the years, but I had felt the same need to comment on the craziest moment of the video :) You are right about the total amount of the swing! I was going against the second commenter's "In the end his 141 was better then let Shrey have it for 135." I think the original poster is right that the move was a self-sabotage, and I reckon you also agree! Best :)
Wow, _two_ pieces of art? That's a lot!
EIGHTHUNDRED! Happy to be part of the herd bringing us that PTZ camera!
Today I have learned that Modern Art Ming be a game about not buying art.
If Mike had taken Shrey's bid of ~135$, he might have won the game. That was a ~270$ swing.
No it is not a 270 swing as Shrey would have got 140 out of them and would have made 5 dollars profit.
Mike mad a weird bet with 141 which is a sure loss as the maximum value was 140.
If he would taken the bet from Shrey with 135 he would have 4 netdollars less then his actual bet and Shrey would have 5 netdollars more.
In the end his 141 was better then let Shrey have it for 135.
@@herwinprem9939 That's the point. If he decided to take the 135$, he would have gotten NET 135$ and Shrey only 5$ profits. Now, he got -1$ net and shrey 0$... The point is that the price-vs-worth proposition is completely different for those auctioning (gain price) and for those buying (gain potential sell - price) This is the rub of this game which is quite counterintuitive and so hard to internalise
@@emanuelepanizon6007 The original poster had it wrong. It was not a 270 swing. it was a 136 dollar swing. Think about it, to make things simple lets say he had exactly 141 dollars. He pays 141 to bank, makes 140, so his total is 140. If he takes 135, he now has 276 (so 136 more).
@@joshdavis3743 Hi! Strange conversations over the years, but I had felt the same need to comment on the craziest moment of the video :) You are right about the total amount of the swing! I was going against the second commenter's "In the end his 141 was better then let Shrey have it for 135." I think the original poster is right that the move was a self-sabotage, and I reckon you also agree! Best :)
if two or more artists have equal numbers of artworks on the table, the artist lying furthest to the left on the value tracking board wins
Noticed that error too. Pretty important rule too because the artists to the left have less cards.