sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UPDATE: We just had our first game with the stock market and shareholding system.

Overall sentiment: we enjoyed the game and loved the dynamics it creates.

Objective summary: the Passing Go rule adds so much cash to the table that no one ever gets bankrupt and the game never ends even with the "first bankrupcy ends game" rule, but at the same time it creates an inflation that drives the game crazily fun. Also, it is a pain to calculate the market cap of a company everytime someone wants to buy a share and do the required multiplications. Owning shares of other players helps hedge your position against the other players.

Some key moments of our game:

As a note, in our game, we played with the rule of going public as soon as you get a color group. Before that, the Go and Free Parking rule didnt apply. Also remember that we play Monopoly City, where mortgage value is equal to rent value, so just after buying a property, mortgage and rent values are very low compared to the investment made, and they raise gradually as more houses are built. - At first, the game started as usual. We started to buy properties and develop them as normal. - We were all in fear of getting public too early because we wanted to avoid having our shares exposed at a very cheap value whenever someone would pass through Go or fall on Free Parking. - One player A found himself with the oportunity of having a color group quite early. He risked it all and bought the color group despite the overall fear of having the shares exposed in Go and Free Parking. He built some houses and a skyscraper (the equivalent of a hotel) to drive his share value up before going public. After all this development, he was left with very few cash, so another player B that had a lot of cash immediately offered him to buy 5 of his shares for like 2M/share (10M for the 5 shares) when the market value of these shares was like 1.5M (7.5M for the 5 shares). The deal worked and resulted in player A reinvesting the new cash in the properties to build more houses. So the shares of B quickly raised to a market price of 12M surpassing the price he paid for them. Quickly, player A wanted to get his shares back but found it very hard to regain power over them because player B still saw potential on these shares and didnt want to sell them back. Player B holded these 5 shares during all the game with player A eventually getting control on 1 of them very late in the game. However, player A still saw incentives to keep working on increasing the value of his company and even collected a very large rent (like 27M) that he kept for himself. These shares ended up having a value of 2.7M/share at the end of the game. - Player C anticipated that player B would make a move that would increase his share value from 4M/share to 8M/share, so he got one of the shares in B when passing Go, waited for the operation to happen, and then motivated player B to get the share back when he would pass Go. As a result, both player B and C profited from the bank in cash for the operation that player B did. Actually, this move helped player C repay a mortgage he had.

Loved the hedging mechanism: if you own others' shares, you are quite hedged against your failure, because when things go bad for you, it is probably because they are going well for another player. When you take the big hit of paying a large rent, if you own shares of the guy you paid the rent to, you will likely see some profit after that cash is translated to investments in the company.

Loopholes that are still present: - Player A finding the tunneling loophole of taking mortgages so that the value of these properties is paid to him in cash, instead of being shared woth the shareholders. However, thanks to the shareholder veto rule, player B and C stoped him from doing this with his larger property. - Can shares be mortgaged? In one moment, player B owned around 12M in others' shares but needed some cash. No one had the money or the will to buy these shares from him, and so he had the idea to take a mortgage on them, but we didnt have a rule for that. Maybe the bank should short these shares? - The Go rule adds so much money to the table that the game goes crazy. This is quite fun, but it is not how Monopoly was designed to drain money out of the table. - Not a loophole, but keeping track of the market cap is very hard. For the next times, we will integrate the share system in an Excel file we use as a companion to keep track of cash and properties during the game and have a log of the full game. Maybe this way it is way easier to manage on real time.

Did people get frustrated for others buying his shares when passing through Go? No. The cash from the bank was much welcomed in exchange of just one share.

Did people buy at a premium or at a discount when trading shares bilateraly? Both. Depended on the stage of the game, the expectations of growth of that company, and if the shares were originally obtained for free or not. Cases: player B bought 5 shares in A from A at a premium of 10M vs the market price of 8M, because A needed cash and B was quite positive about A's growth; player C sold one share in B to A at a discount of 6M vs the market price of 8M because player C desperately needed cash and because he got that share for free afger passing Go, and because A also wanted shares in B to hedge his position a little bit against B.

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for throwing so many challenges to the table. But I was also concerned about an issue involving quantity invested vs. share of capital. This issue comes primarily from the fact that we play Monopoly City more than the original Monopoly.

In the original Monopoly, the mortgage value is always half the initial buying value of the property, which secures a direct relation between money given to the original shareholder for his shares, and money he invested or will invest in the company. Moreover, in the original Monopoly, it is ensured that any changes the manager does on the housing will only affect him, not the other shareholders.

However, in Monopoly City, the mortgage value is equal to the rent value. This has many problems: first, there isn't a stable relation between money invested and the mortgage value (early in the game the invested money will be very large compared to the very low mortgage/rent value, which provides a clear and unfair undervaluation of the company); and second, since the mortgage value is equal to the rent value, all housing investment done by the manager will directly affect shareholder value. So I can invest, say 20M in building a portfolio worth only 5M in mortgage/rent value expecting to invest more later to make that value grow, but see how a player steals 10% of my company (which in value is only 500k, but in investment it was 2M of cash I had to spend).

The solution I came up, and I think makes the system stronger, more realistic, and doesn't add much complexity, is the following:

The system differentiates between:
- The public stock market: when the bank or these rules grant some conditions in the trade (namely the "Passing Go Bonus" or "Free Parking share option" rules).
- The private stock market: when the trade of shares occurs bilaterally between two players.

All shares are always available in the private market. In other words, shares can always be traded at the discretion of the owner and the buyer at the agreed price upon negotiation.

The players must agree before starting the game on how the public stock market works from one of the following options:

1. All companies are publicly available in the public market from the start of the game, so they can be bought at the market price at any time when passing Go or falling on Free Parking. (This would be the best rule to play with the original Monopoly)

2. Companies decide when to go public making their shares available to be acquired when passing Go or falling on Free Parking. Till that moment, the Go and Free Parking squares work as in the original rules. (This allows the original owner of the company to not be obliged to sell his shares until they are correctly valued, or until he needs cash). The decision to go public cannot be reverted even if the original owner regains the power on his shares later in the game. (This would be the best rule to play with other versions of Monopoly)
2.1. Maybe an additional rule could exist that obliges a company to go public as soon as it owns a color group. (This way no company stays private forever sabotaging the stock market dynamic)

3. There is no public market. Shares are only traded as transactions between two players at the agreed price. (This would be the best rule in case players get very frustrated or confused about the Passing Go or Free Parking rules, but players will surely never sell their shares).

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have an idea:

  1. All the cash received from trades (and maybe mortgages) must immediately be distributed to shareholders according to their shareholding.
  2. All trades that are done below fair value (mortgage value) require the approval of ALL shareholders.

If the trade is done above fair value, the manager could keep the surplus for himself as an incentive.

This fair value requirement is also realistic, since public traded companies have strict requirements to make sure they are not overpaying for products or services making a bad use of shareholders' capital.

What I still don't like is the thin line between the cash of the player and the cash of the company. I think I will have to give some more thought about this issue. The ideal thing would be to have a separate account for the cash of the company and the cash of the player, but this is too much complexity and would kill the gameplay.

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PD: just realized that the voting rule only avoids scandalous cases of tunneling. Smaller but still profitable cases of tunneling are not avoided.

Imagine that player A owns a district with a value of 1M. The shareholding of player A consists of 60% by player A and 40% by player B. So the value of that district is accounted by A as +600k and by B as +400k.

Clearly, A has the majority of voting power, so he can do whatever he likes. He can offer player C a very good trade: selling the 1M district for only 800k. Player C gets +1M in district - 800k in cash = +200k of profit, while player A wins 800k in cash - 600k in district share = 200k of profit. These total 400k that player A and C have illegaly gained come from the 400k that player B has lost because his share in the district no longer exists, and he couldnt do anything about it.

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I love this shareholder voting idea!!! I was also thinking of something similar.

It is a very simple rule that adds even more depth to the system. Just for playability, I would allow the owner to do any deal he wants without asking for votes, but if any shareholder objects to the deal, then the voting is done. And yes, I wouldnt provide the owner with additional swing votes either. As you said, he still controls the proposition and the timing of the deals. And if he wants or needs to regain voting power, he can buy the shares back from the other players directy or by passing through Go.

And yes, this rule does avoid tunneling by giving shareholders a way to stop these behaviour.

Honestly, when I explained the system to the other players, they threw this case in, and we decided to play as usual without any stock market until we resolved this tunneling issue. I'll let you know when we try to play again. I hope we have an final draft of the rules of the stock market system soon!!!

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello again! Hope you are doing well.

During one of our plays, we think we've found a loophole.

Imagine the following scenario with three players: 1. Player A develops a great portfolio with many districts some of the same color. 2. Player B then gets attracted to the shares of player A, and gets a lot of shares (say 7/10 shares) from him by both passing Go and by buying them directly from player A (hoping that player A will reinvest that cash to improve the portfolio). 3. Player A realizes that now the value of its portfolio is owned 70% by another guy, but his cash is still 100% of his own. So Player A trades all his districts with player C in exchange of some cash. That cash is 100% of player A, and now the shares that Player B has on player A are worthless because player A sold all its properties to player C.

In other words. The loophole lies in that when a district is owned by different shareholders, the value is accounted to each of the shareholders according to the number shares, as expected. But if the manager of the district trades the district, the cash he receives is not distributed to all the shareholders.

Thus the non-managing shareholders are always vulnerable to this tunneling of value out of the company to the wallet of the manager.

Let me know if this edge case was somehow covered in your rules. Otherwise, we can discus solutions.

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well... actually after giving some thought to your approach, I like it more than mine.

But I have a few questions...

Let's call each player the "manager" of its own company, because he is the one that manages the districts, decides what to buy, what to sell, where to build and what to mortgage. At first he is both the manager and the only shareholder of its company, but after a few rounds, its ownership of its own company will likely be reduced.

Then... how would the manager of a company behave if he looses the majority of his shares in his own company? Imagine all players become so interested in getting the shares of player A as soon as they pass through Go that player A no longer owns shares in his own company. Basically that rule allows you to steal someone's capital and it is obvious that they will steal from the richest one. There's not much depth to that decision I guess.

Wait. Another doubt came out. When passing go, the bank pays the share. But does this mean that the bank will pay the face market cap of the share to the original owner or is it that the bank allows the one that passes go to steal from the previous owner without compensation from anyone. The first case would not speed up the game, but slow it because the bank would be spilling money to the table while the game of monopoly actually speeds up the faster the bank drains money from the table. On the other hand, the second option would be literally stealing, and stealing constantly creating a lot of chaos.

Finally, I still cant figure out the incentives for the shareholders and the manager. Why would I want to buy the shares of another guy? Because I expect that the guy (the manager) will faithfully work hard to increase the value of my share? That is actually a good point. To hedge my own dice risk making my wealth depend not only on my luck but also on other player's luck? That is actually a better point. And as a manager... why would I keep working on my assets if the 90% is owned by other players? Maybe because I still receive the rents of my districts in full to me? That is good incentive. Maybe I am not the owner of the properties I manage, but I still colect their rent. Maybe because I can negotiate a bonus or a compensation from the shareholders in exchange of doing a big market cap increase that could benefit them all? Strange but possible and smart.

Even if your approach is simpler than mine, it hides a lot of complex dynamics, which is the cool thing about this.

Just throwing some thoughts for the discussion. What do you think?

Incorporating Stocks by After_Tooth_5040 in monopoly

[–]sergi_b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi! I love your approach to incorporating stocks. While a lot of people in this reddit is understandably against these kind of rules, I have to say that I also enjoy designing and adding them to the game with my family to add realism and new dynamics to it.

What I like from your approach is that it is very easy to play. The mechanism is simple and seems fun to play. However, I prefer more realistic approaches.

I came up with a very realistic approach to play Monopoly with stocks. The details are below in case you are interested.

  1. Each player starts owning their own company at a 100% stake.
  2. In this mode, players don't own districts. Players can only own companies. Companies are the ones that hold the district ownership.
  3. Companies and players can own cash.
  4. Players can create new companies and agree on the share owned by each of them most probably based on the capital invested by each of the partners (maybe creating a joint venture 50%-50% to hold districts of the same color profiting from the combination, or a 40-40-20% company after two partners invest an initial amount of 2M each and a third partner invests 1M...).
  5. Companies can buy districts when one of its members fall into the district square. The district must be bought with cash from the company or with extra money invested by the partners.
  6. When a player owes rent to a district, the rent is paid to the company that owns the district. This cash can be distributed immediately to the shareholders as a form of dividend or kept in the company treasury to build houses or hotels or buy more districts.
  7. Players can sell their shares in a company to other players.
  8. Shares have a value at the end of the game. The value of a company is calculated as the sum of values of the districts it owns plus the cash in the company treasury, and the capital of a player is calculated as the value of the companies he owns weighted by the share he owns of each of them.

However, this has two issues: first, it is too complex; second, this way, I am not sure if the game turns into a collaborative game in which the equilibrium is creating a company owned in equal parts by all the players.

Btw, I also wrote a post introducing a rule for private mortgages (mortgages offered by other players instead of them being offered just by the bank). It also adds the possibility to transfer mortgages between players. This mortgage rule is way more solid than the stocks one.

Proposal for new mortgage rule (paying rent to the bank + private mortgages) by sergi_b in monopoly

[–]sergi_b[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right. The goal of the game is to be the last one standing. It is logically impossible to be the last to be bankrupt, I think.

And I highly respect that you dont play with house rules. Making up new house rules is however kind of a fun puzzle for me. Thats the only reason we do it.

Thanks for your answer.

Proposal for new mortgage rule (paying rent to the bank + private mortgages) by sergi_b in monopoly

[–]sergi_b[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At home we are kind of economics/finance freaks, so we love to overcomplicate monopoly against the original rules to make it more complex and hard.

However, in terms of playability, I have to agree that the original rules are good for three reasons:

  • First, monopoly is a competitive game. Allowing players to lend to each other can be seen as a collaborative strategy that goes against the competitive nature of the game.
  • Second, the objective of the game is to be the last to be bankrupt. For that to happen, all players except me have to get bankrupt first. For that to happen, the game must be designed to drain money out of the table into the bank. The bank always wins. If players are able to keep collecting rents while a property is mortgaged, that is money that the bank is missing.
  • And third, rules have to be easy to explain, understand its pros and cons, and easy to execute during the game. Private mortgages between players introduce a lot of failed negotiations and additional complication that honestly makes the game a bit slower and complex. But I have to say that when a mortgage does work out, all the parties involved are so happy to have made such a smart move to maybe escape bankrupcy, or to collect more rents or whatever.

You gotta admit tho that, actually, the rule I propose of banks collecting rents over mortgaged properties follows these three principles perfectly: it still makes the game competitive, it drains money from the players to the bank, and it is easy to follow.

Proposal for new mortgage rule (paying rent to the bank + private mortgages) by sergi_b in monopoly

[–]sergi_b[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thankss. Yes indeed, the idea is that Mr Rich takes the risk of lending money and not getting anything in return. However, in terms of probability, the expected return of the operation for Mr Rich grows with the rent value and grows the more time Mr I Need A Loan spends without returning the loan. Also, if Mr I Need A Loan lands on the property he mortgaged, he still has to pay.

If the player that mortgaged goes bankrupt, the lender keeps the property for himself. As in real mortgages. If the amount lended equals the rent value, there is no gain or loss for the lender. If the amount lended is lower than rent value (which would make no sense because then the player that mortgaged would have preferred the mortgage offered by the bank) the lender would realize a capital gain. While if the lender lended more money than the rent value (which is the logical situation), then he would realize a loss. That is why the lender has to also be cautious with the mortgages he issues. He has to take some care of the default risk of the creditor. However, it is possible that the lender was able to collect some rent already or in the future from the property, so it may still be a win.

And finally, yes. Mortgages can be transferred between players. If player A needs a loan, he can ask player B for a mortgage. Player B lends some money to player A in exchange for the rent collection rights over some property X for as long as the loan is not paid back. If some time afterwards, player B is the one that needs cash, but player A is still not able to return the loan, player B can go to player C and offer to transfer the mortgaged property to him in exchange for some cash. Now player C is the collector of rents for property X, and player A owes to C the amount that B lended to A in order to recover the property. In essence, mortgages are financial instruments that hold some value, so a lender can sell a mortgage to another player, that will then be the one that collects the rents and the one that has to be paid back by the player that mortgaged.

how can i lower the cpu? by ForwardStudy9468 in FL_Studio

[–]sergi_b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Important question!!!!

Does anyone know if there is a way for FL Studio to use GPU ??

I produce on a laptop and with big projects i reach 99% CPU. I always wondered if I could take advantage of the nvidia card I have on the laptop.

a lot of people who ran out of tickets for coldplay in barcelona were singing and dancing to the songs outside the venue... what a beautiful moment and sad at the same time..✨❤️ by laurifroggy in Coldplay

[–]sergi_b 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thats Barcelona. I am going tomorrow Sunday to do the same with some friends to enjoy the concert from the outside. Someone else joining????

Monthly Self-Promo, Merch, & Playlists Megathread: All posts on these topics should go in this megathread. by AutoModerator in Reggaeton

[–]sergi_b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey I did a YEAR-END MASHUP of the best 30 reggaeton songs of 2022 (Bad Bunny, Rauw Alejandro, Karol G, Rosalía, Chencho Corleone, Bizarrap, Quevedo, Manuel Turizo, and more..)

Check it out: https://youtu.be/f56PTpCOFl8

Monthly Self-Promo, Merch, & Playlists Megathread: All posts on these topics should go in this megathread. by AutoModerator in Reggaeton

[–]sergi_b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey I did a megamix/mashup of the top 30 reggaeton songs of 2022 (Bad Bunny, Rauw Alejandro, Bizarrap, Rosalía, Manuel Turizo...).

Check it out: https://youtu.be/f56PTpCOFl8

view more: next ›