Congrats to The Steward!

[Kelly Haggerty]

I can't respond to all the items here and apologies for bringing this up, I was just hoping someone could explain the issue to me, but I do not think that has happened in the replies

I'm poor and getting poorer. I play very little in the thoroughbred game. They are too inconsistent for my taste and everything is way overpriced because that's where the big dogs play and those purses are far too large they they will always have big bank accounts. But slashing mixer purses was a great idea, eh? And wouldn't you know, that's where I can afford to play. I have accepted my fate. Treading water.

I hear you. I had $3m to spend and was really hopeful to get something that would help me achieve some of my goals, but no dice. Every plan I come up with to try something new or try to take a different angle and grow my barn just gets blocked by those with unlimited funds, and then half the time they don't even want the horse or aren't really interested in that division or whatever, they just have too much to burn. So basically you can just tread water and stay in one place. Whatever.

This would be a grand time for someone to hit me up if I have a broodmare you are interested in leasing. Not sure how much breeding I will be doing this year.

The people with "unlimited funds" did not block us. Danny getting the Less filly for $27.6M did not materially impact those of us with a budget of $4M (me) or $3M (sounds like you). In the last steward non-selection auction of 50 horses, only 11 went for $3M+. In the 86 horse non-select auction, only 11 (again) went for $3M+. So that means 22 were out of budget, but 114 were within. I know some of these were underbids, but the vast majority were not.

As for the select auction, I hear you, only 1 went for under $3M (I believe an underbid), I was trying with a budget of $4m here too. I only had $4M.

However, if you look at the top 50 players with the most sim$:
The 47th ranked person has $17.2M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year.
The 42nd ranked player has $18.4M - he bought one stewardbred for $195K
The 39th ranked player has $20.8M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 38th ranked player has $21.6M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 36th ranked player has $23.1M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 35th ranked player has $23.7M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 34th ranked player has $23.8M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 27th ranked player has $28.3M - he bought one stewardbred for $1.556M
The 26th ranked player has $28.6M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 14th ranked player has $45.5M - she bought two stewardbreds, one for $3.867M (select auction) and one for $1.290M (86 horse non-select)
The 7th ranked player has $71.1M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 5th ranked player has $101.0M - she bought two stewardbreds, one for $10.9M (select auction) and one for $4.568M (50 horse non-select)
The 3rd ranked player has $118.1M - she bought one stewardbred, one for $12.1M (select auction - sold to the 5th ranked player for $19M)

What do we define as "unlimited funds"? $20M+? If so, that's about 40 players we just established that 8 of them did not even purchase a stewardbred and 3 of them bought one for under $2M and one for close to $4M.

Yes the top 10 players have crazy cash, but even if they were brought down by 80% of their sim$, they would still outprice us. Us with $4M and $3M budget were fighting amongst ourselves. I was able to get one in each of the non-select auctions for $2.6M and $1.0M - both stakes, but there were plenty of freaks going for less than that.

Maybe they didn’t buy a SB because they don’t need more building blocks? Or they don’t run TB? I quit bidding because (as I posted before) most are not a good value. The RL horses as broodstock were different. My complaint isn’t being blocked by by big spenders as just everything seeming “stale”. There isn’t much to look forward to in the middle. It won’t make any difference how much she pulls out, I agree with you there.

[Tim Matthews]

I can't respond to all the items here and apologies for bringing this up, I was just hoping someone could explain the issue to me, but I do not think that has happened in the replies

I'm poor and getting poorer. I play very little in the thoroughbred game. They are too inconsistent for my taste and everything is way overpriced because that's where the big dogs play and those purses are far too large they they will always have big bank accounts. But slashing mixer purses was a great idea, eh? And wouldn't you know, that's where I can afford to play. I have accepted my fate. Treading water.

I hear you. I had $3m to spend and was really hopeful to get something that would help me achieve some of my goals, but no dice. Every plan I come up with to try something new or try to take a different angle and grow my barn just gets blocked by those with unlimited funds, and then half the time they don't even want the horse or aren't really interested in that division or whatever, they just have too much to burn. So basically you can just tread water and stay in one place. Whatever.

This would be a grand time for someone to hit me up if I have a broodmare you are interested in leasing. Not sure how much breeding I will be doing this year.

The people with "unlimited funds" did not block us. Danny getting the Less filly for $27.6M did not materially impact those of us with a budget of $4M (me) or $3M (sounds like you). In the last steward non-selection auction of 50 horses, only 11 went for $3M+. In the 86 horse non-select auction, only 11 (again) went for $3M+. So that means 22 were out of budget, but 114 were within. I know some of these were underbids, but the vast majority were not.

As for the select auction, I hear you, only 1 went for under $3M (I believe an underbid), I was trying with a budget of $4m here too. I only had $4M.

However, if you look at the top 50 players with the most sim$:
The 47th ranked person has $17.2M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year.
The 42nd ranked player has $18.4M - he bought one stewardbred for $195K
The 39th ranked player has $20.8M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 38th ranked player has $21.6M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 36th ranked player has $23.1M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 35th ranked player has $23.7M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 34th ranked player has $23.8M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 27th ranked player has $28.3M - he bought one stewardbred for $1.556M
The 26th ranked player has $28.6M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 14th ranked player has $45.5M - she bought two stewardbreds, one for $3.867M (select auction) and one for $1.290M (86 horse non-select)
The 7th ranked player has $71.1M - but that person did not buy a stewie this year
The 5th ranked player has $101.0M - she bought two stewardbreds, one for $10.9M (select auction) and one for $4.568M (50 horse non-select)
The 3rd ranked player has $118.1M - she bought one stewardbred, one for $12.1M (select auction - sold to the 5th ranked player for $19M)

What do we define as "unlimited funds"? $20M+? If so, that's about 40 players we just established that 8 of them did not even purchase a stewardbred and 3 of them bought one for under $2M and one for close to $4M.

Yes the top 10 players have crazy cash, but even if they were brought down by 80% of their sim$, they would still outprice us. Us with $4M and $3M budget were fighting amongst ourselves. I was able to get one in each of the non-select auctions for $2.6M and $1.0M - both stakes, but there were plenty of freaks going for less than that.

This is interesting. It would be really hard to pull comprehensive data from TBS auctions going back decades, which I think would be useful to this discussion. A one-year analysis of how many TBS are affordable to certain players doesn't seem super useful to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my intutition is that if you could pull that data, you would find that TBS horses are, by and large, much more expensive now. Since not all TBS horses are created equal, think of it this way: 30 years ago, a $5 million budget could get me (on average) a lot better quality than $5 million could now (it could also get me a lot closer to the top 50 list, and the amount of players hasn't grown much if I'm not mistaken). If there is "simflation," that's gotta be part of it. And it seems "taking money out of the game" isn't doing much to address it.

Obviously, it's hard to pin down this topic because the dynamics of each auction are different - crop quality fluctuates, auction size influences price, etc. Again, I'm agnostic on simflation and extra money in the game, but it's interesting to think about.

[Cleo Patra]

I created, was admin off or have played 18 horse racing games. Granted most of them were 10 or more years ago. The SIM is the only survivor. “Inflation” (or unlimited money going in and very little coming out) was either the deciding factor or a major factor in the death of all those 17 other games. I think steward breds and RL horses are a fun and effective way to put the brakes on the amount of available money in the game. They also serve to keep Emily interested and involved in the game. Game owners losing interest was the other death factor for those other racing games.

[Randall Allen]

For real. Durzo should be in the hall of fame for his consistently useful analysis of the happenings in the SIM

Durzo turning this thread negative in the third post. Very useful!

[Tim Matthews]

For real. Durzo should be in the hall of fame for his consistently useful analysis of the happenings in the SIM

Durzo turning this thread negative in the third post. Very useful!

I'm not seeing how his post was negative.

[Kelly Haggerty]

You are both saying, in different ways, that you cannot consume your way out of wealth inequality. Something every left-leaning economist will shout and every right-leaning one will admit over beers. The big question though, is what is the alternative?

[Nini Panini]

Heeeeere we go again.

[Tim Matthews]

Heeeeere we go again.

NOT HELPING!!

[Kelly Haggerty]

Who will say the T word…..

[Tim Matthews]

Who will say the T word…..

I’ll do it.

Tim

[Kelly Haggerty]

Who will say the T word…..

I’ll do it.

Tim

Lmao

[Durzo Blint]

I created, was admin off or have played 18 horse racing games. Granted most of them were 10 or more years ago. The SIM is the only survivor. “Inflation” (or unlimited money going in and very little coming out) was either the deciding factor or a major factor in the death of all those 17 other games. I think steward breds and RL horses are a fun and effective way to put the brakes on the amount of available money in the game. They also serve to keep Emily interested and involved in the game. Game owners losing interest was the other death factor for those other racing games.

I think you are mistaking my question. I love stewardbreds, I bid on them, I want them. I love real horses, I bid on them, I want them. I am very thankful for the Steward taking the time to breed these horses and adding the real horses into the game. I just want to make that very clear, I, personally, am very appreciative and enjoy this game and all of it's nuances, including stewardbreds, very much!

I just always see posts about how we need money out of the game and I just do not understand why. I was hoping someone could explain - that fact that other games collapsed is a good one, I'd be curious if we knew how the extra $ contributed to that. I'm not arguing anything, just seeking clarity.

My point is that the $523M that left the game will not impact the game in anyway, at least that I can see, so I was just seeking clarity.

Apologies if people took my question as negative. I wish I did not ask my question.

[Kelly Haggerty]

I created, was admin off or have played 18 horse racing games. Granted most of them were 10 or more years ago. The SIM is the only survivor. “Inflation” (or unlimited money going in and very little coming out) was either the deciding factor or a major factor in the death of all those 17 other games. I think steward breds and RL horses are a fun and effective way to put the brakes on the amount of available money in the game. They also serve to keep Emily interested and involved in the game. Game owners losing interest was the other death factor for those other racing games.

I think you are mistaking my question. I love stewardbreds, I bid on them, I want them. I love real horses, I bid on them, I want them. I just always see posts about how we need money out of the game and I just do not understand why. I was hoping someone could explain - that fact that other games collapsed is a good one, I'd be curious if we knew how the extra $ contributed to that. I'm not arguing anything, just seeking clarity.

My point is that the $523M that left the game will not impact the game in anyway, at least that I can see, so I was just seeking clarity.

Apologies if people took my question as negative. I wish I did not ask my question.

It’s the inequality and people feeling like they can’t build or reach goals because the difference gets too great plus those that have it all getting equally stale on winning after awhile. To be fun the game has to be challenging but offer a chance at success and the opportunity to work on goals. Too much inequality kills that off. But, after a point, you cannot siphon enough off, which goes to what you are saying. It does not matter to the smaller player if the richest guy has $100m or $200m. Unless the ceiling is really low, or you somehow sell a bunch of really, really expensive duds, nothing will happen.

[Mr. Lord Rich]

I'm glad they added savings accounts =)

[Anthony Zappulla]

I'm trying to figure out why things need to be equal here