ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Peter_Spaeth]

You know best. I am sure it means nothing. I am sure what DeLorme (who was in the thick of it) told me about what was going on was contrived as well. Just data set errors, nothing to see here. And just a huge fortuity that it coincides with a period when Brent acknowledged a group of people were "pushing" the market and reported prices were surging to unheard of levels. And just a coincidence that the seller is PWCC and not someone else.

Next..... nothing to see here.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You know best. I am sure it means nothing. I am sure what DeLorme told me about what was going on was contrived as well.

There might very well be all sorts of shenanigans going on at PWCC. I'm not defending them. I'm merely pointing out that this list proves nothing. Then, I demonstrated why with an example from my own purchases.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There might very well be all sorts of shenanigans going on at PWCC. I'm not defending them. I'm merely pointing out that this list proves nothing. Then, I demonstrated why with an example from my own purchases.

The list strongly supports what some know from other sources what was going on. Your semantics are meaningless.

Anyone can look at almost anything and hypothesize another explanation. So what? In context, what's the most likely explanation for all these apparently unsold items? A database error?

Oh and BTW a number of the recurring IDs identified are the same people Brent acknowledged were trying to push the market. Must be an innocuous explanation for that too.

[jad22]

“Everybody knows that the dice are loaded.”

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The list strongly supports what some know from other sources what was going on. Your semantics are meaningless.

You and I approach these sorts of things differently. You seem to be strongly influenced by people you trust. You know so-and-so is a good guy, and he wouldn't lie to you, and he told you x, y, and z are happening over at company ABC, so you know it's true. Then person B, who you also know and trust, knows that this and that are going down over at ABC too, so it builds on the narrative. You get enough of these stories going around, and then you come across a thread like this and it all just fits so well. You see this as evidence. Throw another snowball on the hill. Then another thread pops up about eBay buyer 'a***1' which has to be so-and-so because their masked eBay ID is also 'a***1', PLUS it fits with the narrative, so throw another snowball on the hill. Rinse and repeat enough times and eventually, you cause an avalanche on the hillside. This is textbook confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, someone like me comes along and says, "I don't care at all what your friend said about company ABC. That doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not saying your friend is a liar, I'm merely pointing out that he might just be misinformed or mistaken and that in order for me to believe something is true, I need to see actual evidence of the claim itself. And the holes I've been poking in all this data that keeps getting posted aren't just minor details or semantics. These are major, major issues that render the entire experiments and their conclusions invalid.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You and I approach these sorts of things differently. You seem to be strongly influenced by people you trust. You know so-and-so is a good guy, and he wouldn't lie to you, and he told you x, y, and z are happening over at company ABC, so you know it's true. Then person B, who you also know and trust, knows that this and that are going down over at ABC too, so it builds on the narrative. You get enough of these stories going around, and then you come across a thread like this and it all just fits so well. You see this as evidence. Throw another snowball on the hill. Then another thread pops up about eBay buyer 'a***1' which has to be so-and-so because their masked eBay ID is also 'a***1', PLUS it fits with the narrative, so throw another snowball on the hill. Rinse and repeat enough times and eventually, you cause an avalanche on the hillside. This is textbook confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, someone like me comes along and says, "I don't care at all what your friend said about company ABC. That doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not saying your friend is a liar, I'm merely pointing out that he might just be misinformed or mistaken and that in order for me to believe something is true, I need to see actual evidence of the claim itself. And the holes I've been poking in all this data that keeps getting posted aren't just minor details or semantics. These are major, major issues that render the entire experiments and their conclusions invalid.

I guess in your world you would exclude human witnesses from trials. Not my world or the real one. If what people I trust say is credible and is corroborated by other people, other evidence, and my common sense, then yes I might believe it. You have zero context and all you're doing is playing divide and conquer with each successive piece of evidence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There might very well be all sorts of shenanigans going on at PWCC. I'm not defending them. I'm merely pointing out that this list proves nothing. Then, I demonstrated why with an example from my own purchases.

Of course you're defending them. Every piece of evidence against them, you are trying to rebut. Oh, wait, it's just an academic exercise.

[Wite3]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There might very well be all sorts of shenanigans going on at PWCC. I'm not defending them. I'm merely pointing out that this list proves nothing. Then, I demonstrated why with an example from my own purchases.

What if I told you that the data points you provide from your own purchases could have been shilled and you overpaid due to that bidding practice? It sounds like you are trying to prop up your own recent purchases now.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Wite3

What if I told you that the data points you provide from your own purchases could have been shilled and you overpaid due to that bidding practice? It sounds like you are trying to prop up your own recent purchases now.

No! Say it ain't so!


Anyone remember the "sale" of the signed psa 5 Mantle psa reported....long before the run up for 275k? Literally was 10x the last sale and it had to be "noted" somewhere

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

No! Say it ain't so!


Anyone remember the "sale" of the signed psa 5 Mantle psa reported....long before the run up for 275k? Literally was 10x the last sale and it had to be "noted" somewhere

That outlier sale actually was a real transaction; the owner has the #1 signed Mantle Registry set. He is very wealthy and felt it was worth the money so he splurged for a piece he wanted. Man, I wish that sale never happened, let alone several of the sales afterward; that domino chain cost me a bundle collecting that stuff. The 4 card/9 auto that sold at Heritage a little ways back was also legit as a very respected member here and on SCT won it. A member here also won the Heritage signed 52b that went 69k. Sometimes an explosion is like the 1925 Gehrig; they’re cheap until they suddenly ain’t, and then they stay that way as the hobby accepts the new valuation/price point.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by MattyC

That outlier sale actually was a real transaction; the owner has the #1 signed Mantle Registry set. He is very wealthy and felt it was worth the money so he splurged for a piece he wanted. Man, I wish that sale never happened, let alone several of the sales afterward; that domino chain cost me a bundle collecting that stuff. The 4 card/9 auto that sold at Heritage a little ways back was also legit as a very respected member here and on SCT won it. A member here also won the Heritage signed 52b that went 69k. Sometimes an explosion is like the 1925 Gehrig; they’re cheap until they suddenly ain’t, and then they stay that way as the hobby accepts the new valuation/price point.

Oh it was, but it kind of BEGS U to ask why he needed that sale recorded. Just glad I didnt sell him mine, as it was about 1/20 the cost of that (now a) 5.5. Course now it looks like a bargain.

Ive found most people that are "very wealthy" dont want people to know it, and hardly show it off.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Oh it was, but it kind of BEGS U to ask why he needed that sale recorded. Just glad I didnt sell him mine, as it was about 1/20 the cost of that (now a) 5.5. Course now it looks like a bargain.

Ive found most people that are "very wealthy" dont want people to know it, and hardly show it off.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I see what u did there, my friend! Big fan of your example. Has great overall eye appeal. I know this is more for PM but did you ever get background on who had it signed? Looks like it has a great story behind it.