Two days ago I have sinned. When Parasoja announced his capital ship lottery, I asked for a Nidhoggur. Nidhoggurs are sold around 1.2B. I obviously should have asked for a Moros, and sell that thing for 2.8B on the same station, buy a Nid and get 1.6B bonus. The niceness of Parasoja made me forget what the only true spiritual leader taught us. Being nice and friendly is contagious, we must not let our guard down!
As a penitence for my sin, I promised to deliver a directly ISK making post this week. It's not easy to make up one out of the blue, so I scoured various places to find material. I bumped into it when reviewed my skill plans. One of my pilots will drive a jump freighter. Jump freighters - like all jumping ships - use isotopes as fuel. Their usage is Base*(1-JF/10)*(1-JFC/10), where JF is jump freighter skill, JFC is jump fuel conservation. I have not learned any racial spaceship skills yet as I'm in a Charisma remap for PI, trade and mining boost for the Rorqual.
The ships have various cargohold size, various isotope need and they all use different isotopes. To see the relative jump costs, we must first see the relative prices of isotopes:
Averaging the points over the year provided the relative prices of isotopes. By calculating the isotope need of the ships per m3 cargo, we get their relative fuel efficiencies. Multiplied by relative fuel prices, we get their relative ISK efficiencies:
I made one more calculation on the data: every day I picked the cheapest fuel. It shows how much the costs would be if one had all 4 JFs in the hangar and picks the one that operates on the lowest cost that day. The relative cost would be 0.832, which is barely cheaper than the Amarr 0.850. So if you go for minimum costs, there is no point having various JFs, the savings are much smaller than any profit you could earn with the price of the other JF.
Friday morning report: 185.6B (6.6+2.0 spent on main accounts, 7.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.8 on Ragnarok, 3.3+2.0 on Rorqual, 3.4 on Nyx, 3.4 on Dread, 37.4 sent as gift)
As a penitence for my sin, I promised to deliver a directly ISK making post this week. It's not easy to make up one out of the blue, so I scoured various places to find material. I bumped into it when reviewed my skill plans. One of my pilots will drive a jump freighter. Jump freighters - like all jumping ships - use isotopes as fuel. Their usage is Base*(1-JF/10)*(1-JFC/10), where JF is jump freighter skill, JFC is jump fuel conservation. I have not learned any racial spaceship skills yet as I'm in a Charisma remap for PI, trade and mining boost for the Rorqual.
The ships have various cargohold size, various isotope need and they all use different isotopes. To see the relative jump costs, we must first see the relative prices of isotopes:
Averaging the points over the year provided the relative prices of isotopes. By calculating the isotope need of the ships per m3 cargo, we get their relative fuel efficiencies. Multiplied by relative fuel prices, we get their relative ISK efficiencies:
I made one more calculation on the data: every day I picked the cheapest fuel. It shows how much the costs would be if one had all 4 JFs in the hangar and picks the one that operates on the lowest cost that day. The relative cost would be 0.832, which is barely cheaper than the Amarr 0.850. So if you go for minimum costs, there is no point having various JFs, the savings are much smaller than any profit you could earn with the price of the other JF.
Friday morning report: 185.6B (6.6+2.0 spent on main accounts, 7.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.8 on Ragnarok, 3.3+2.0 on Rorqual, 3.4 on Nyx, 3.4 on Dread, 37.4 sent as gift)
4 comments:
There's a standard high-frequency trading strategy, so-called 'pairs trading' where if you believe you understand that two securities move in either somewhat consistently the same direction, or somewhat consistently in opposite directions, then you respond to a movement in one security by anticipating the expected movement in the other.
For example, just by eye (need to actually plot it), it might be the case that oxygen prices are anticorrelated with the other isotopes.
A trader executing a pairs trading strategy would hold a pool of isotopes, and shift the mix in the pool toward oxygen if they see the price of the others drop, and away if they see the price of the others increase.
Do you think people are already doing that sort of thing? Do you think it's profitable by comparison to, say, missioning? Did you consider that sort of strategy and reject it?
@Johnicholas Hines
Gev makes all his money margin trading. For him to have an opinion on that would require him to regularly hold stocks for longer than "as fast as the market will buy it."
It looks like a bunch of folks used the same calculations you did:
ship - number of requests
Moros - 87
Rorqual - 66
Revelation - 43
Archon - 42
Thanatos - 35
Nidhoggur - 29
Chimera - 28
I, for one, was one of the 66 requests for a Rorqual because that's something I'd actually use. Could I flip the Moros and buy a Rorq and pocket the change? Sure, but I see it as somewhat disrespectful to the guy running the lottery. I didn't win, which is fine, and being able to fly any of the prizes is many months away.
@Hines
I think you may be reading more into the graph, or misreading it, as I did at first. Gelvon is using an interesting metric to show price. it is the deviation from the daily average of prices. If we look at the beginning of the graph where Oxygen is really high the relative high cost of it pushes down the graphs for the rest of the isotopes. The setup used has a moving 0 so that if the prices of three isotopes stays constant but one increases by 3 points the rest will now be one point lower on the graph due to the formula used to calculate it (relative position to the mean of the 4) so if oxygen goes up by 30 points (isk) it will appear as a tall spike on the graph while the rest of the isotopes are 10 points lower on the graph than they would be without the oxygen spike. In this case I think it might be useful to overlay this graph with a line graph showing the average price of all 4 for the day.
With that added information you could infer the information you want to. If you see one isotope move up on the graph, with the others moving down, but the overall average doesn't move much then you have a pair where they move in opposite directions. If both graphs have a rise (that is the above graph shows one isotope moving up with the others moving down, and the average shows a similar rise) then you have a situation where there is no shown relationship one goes up and drags the average price up with it.
Post a Comment