Is this a "fair" trade in Monoply, or would you be insulted?

Question

Two people (in their late 20's) playing, and one person needs a Red property to complete a Monopoly. The other person really likes the railroads and only has 1, while the person needing the red has the other three.

He offers to give ONE railroad in exchange for a Red, giving him a Monopoly!

What do you think of this?

I said, what do you take me for, a 6 year-old that has never played before? That is the most absurd trade I have ever heard of!

Answer 1

It isn't the face value of the cards that counts, but what someone can do with them. Your competition can collect something like $1100 for each property with a motel. With all four railroads, the best you can do is collect $200. Therefore, the red card is worth considerably more than the three railroads.

Your competition has two red cards and lets assume the money for the hotels. You only have one railroad. So it may be fair to grab the three railroads of lesser value in exchange for the red card.

If your competition is willing to consider only the face value of the cards, then you can use this against him to sell him your railroad plus possibly some cash in exchange for a monopoly of your own.

When people are self-centered and/or have faulty logic, it is best to turn the tables on them and offer them a deal that abides by their thinking but is to your advantage. In this way, you will find out quickly whether your competition truly believes his own thoughts or is just trying to shortchange you.

I'd beware of the person who is trying to shortchange you in Monopoly. How far will they go in life to do the same?

Answer 2

It depends on how much money all players are holding and what properties are still in the bank. If the player holding the Red monopoly had the money to develop the property, then the player holding the two railroads (and all the other players, if any) are getting the worst of the bargain. BTW, don't take the offer personally. It never hurts to ask.

Answer 3

No, that is not a fair trade. You would need all 3 of the other railroads, but your friend still may skip over them each time where you have a lower chance of doing so because the red properties are closer together and cost a lot!

Answer 4

Yeah, I definitely would not have accepted that trade. BUT... that is what counter-offers are for. I would not have been insulted by it. Honestly, I wouldn't have made the trade for all three railroads, but if you really love them so much, you could have asked for that. It would be an improvement. In any case, of course he offered low at first. Common sense. Make a counter-offer, and if it doesn't work out, then move on. It is a game. Hardly worth getting offended over.

Answer 5

I guess it depends on how bad you want it. But a more fair trade would be to trade all 3 railroads for the red property plus a couple of hundred dollars.

Answer 6

I agree with you. That trade is insulting. I would have asked for all 3 railroads. After all, if you give him a monoply with red, he can build houses& hotels. and if you land on any of his reds, you'll be paying alot more $$$, then he would have to pay to you on all 4 railroads.

Answer 7

The person with the Railroad is making a poor decision. He will lose a fortune on the rent he pays on the three red porperties.

Answer 8

A trade is never good unless both agree on it. Since you didn't agree on the deal, it must have been a bad trade.

Answer 9

The player should have been kicked in the head for even suggesting this trade.

Answer 10

I think that is a very fair trade