ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[samosa4u]

PWCC needs to do the following:

a) When the Vault Marketplace opens up next month, try to make sure that prices closely reflect today's market. In other words, stop listing them at '2020 prices,' cause' that just isn't going to work now.

b) I will NOT pay a hundred US shipping for a hundred-dollar card! Seriously, WTF! And I'm not paying three-hundred US shipping for a thousand dollar card. They're obviously making profit from shipping and this needs to stop. I've bought all sorts of stuff from Americans over the past twenty years and I know just exactly how much it costs.

c) Limit the amount of times someone can bid on a single auction. Anyone bidding ten or fifteen times on the same item should be given the boot. I don't care if the bids are legit and this guy has a hundred-grand in his bank account - no more games.

d) Stop doing business with known card doctors. I don't know what kind of relationship Moser has or had with Brent, but PWCC needs to distance themselves from guys like him.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

PWCC needs to do the following:

c) Limit the amount of times someone can bid on a single auction. Anyone bidding ten or fifteen times on the same item should be given the boot. I don't care if the bids are legit and this guy has a hundred-grand in his bank account - no more games.

Am I reading you correctly and you actually think legit bidders should be booted for bidding so many times in an auction?!?!? So let me get this straight, if there are two bidders going back and forth on an auction and one of them finally makes say their 10th bid, you are for them not being able to bid anymore? And if the other person can still make one more bid they'll win the item by default because the 1st bidder is stopped from bidding again, the consignor gets less than the item would/should have sold for, and the AH loses out on getting more commission.........do I have that all right? I just want to make sure I didn't misread what you just wrote.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by BobC

Am I reading you correctly and you actually think legit bidders should be booted for bidding so many times in an auction?!?!? So let me get this straight, if there are two bidders going back and forth on an auction and one of them finally makes say their 10th bid, you are for them not being able to bid anymore? And if the other person can still make one more bid they'll win the item by default because the 1st bidder is stopped from bidding again, the consignor gets less than the item would/should have sold for, and the AH loses out on getting more commission.........do I have that all right? I just want to make sure I didn't misread what you just wrote.

Bob,

Yes, you read right.

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

Hmmm, let's see ... 350 ... 400 ... hehehe ... 425 ... 450 ... oh dear ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ... hohoho ...

A person bidding like that is either a) not serious about the item or b) shilling it up! Limiting the number of times an individual can bid on a particular item is a great idea and all the major auction houses should consider it!

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

No disrespect intended but you've got to be kidding. Over the years I have many times bid more than ten times on a particular lot, and in each instance I was hoping my last bid would be my final bid and I would win the item. In some instances I simply do not know how high I am prepared to bid unless faced with the reality of knowing that unless I place another bid, I will not win the item. It is all well and good to say that one should know beforehand how high one will bid. But we are human and there are times we will exceed our preconceived limit once the stark reality of being outbid hits home.

In other instances, I might not feel comfortable leaving max bids. Trust in an AH's bidding integrity is something earned over time, and unless and until I have developed that trust I do not leave max bids.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Bob,

Yes, you read right.

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

Hmmm, let's see ... 350 ... 400 ... hehehe ... 425 ... 450 ... oh dear ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ... hohoho ...

A person bidding like that is either a) not serious about the item or b) shilling it up! Limiting the number of times an individual can bid on a particular item is a great idea and all the major auction houses should consider it!

What harm does it cause though to bid like that though? Regardless of whether the item sells for $501 or $5,001 in this case, I don't see what harm this causes. And I don't see how it prevents shill bidding either. If you tell a shill bidder that they can only bid 10 times, do you honestly think this will discourage them from doing so? "Ah shucks, I only get 10 bids? Dammit! I was planning to shill my item up. Well, there goes that idea!" I would argue that if this is a $5,000 item then bids of "350 ... 400 ... 425 ... 450 ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ..." are probably not shill bids, and if the item is worth around $500 then there's nothing fishy about someone incrementally bidding up to that amount. There are many different ways to detect and prevent shill bidding from a data perspective. But I don't see how this is one of them.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Bob,

Yes, you read right.

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

Hmmm, let's see ... 350 ... 400 ... hehehe ... 425 ... 450 ... oh dear ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ... hohoho ...

A person bidding like that is either a) not serious about the item or b) shilling it up! Limiting the number of times an individual can bid on a particular item is a great idea and all the major auction houses should consider it!

Many times, in extended bidding when I'm going against another bidder, that is exactly how it goes. I remember one time in particular, after we'd leap frogged each other a few times, I decided to discourage him by placing a hard bid that was several increments above his current bid. I won the item with that bid, and since then I've wondered if, in doing so, I bid much more than would've been necessary.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's hard to legislate honesty.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Bob,

Yes, you read right.

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

Hmmm, let's see ... 350 ... 400 ... hehehe ... 425 ... 450 ... oh dear ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ... hohoho ...

A person bidding like that is either a) not serious about the item or b) shilling it up! Limiting the number of times an individual can bid on a particular item is a great idea and all the major auction houses should consider it!

Okay, that is an interesting opinion, and I don't think you'll ever see it happening. No self-respecting AH would ever institute such a practice as the first thing I can see consignors doing is taking their items elsewhere from then on. How someone chooses to legitimately bid in an auction is their own business, and I can't understand how your thinking will be of much help. I assume your concern is with shill bidding, if not, I'm really curous to know what it really is.

I saw one other person already responded to your post stating they have at times made multiple bids on auctions, and for exactly the same reason I'm assuming you are concerned with, shill bidding. So are people that do that type of bidding so they don't get stuck leaving a secret max bid out there for some shill bidder to run up wrong? And if so, please tell me exactly what they are supposed to do then. Since auction houses have things like extended bidding, you normally can't just set a snipe bid and forget about it. And the way a lot of these extended bidding periods are set up, they continue on till only one person is still standing. I have gotten into a back and forth in extended bidding periods myself, and at times have only wanted to go one increment at a time so as to hopefully outlast the other bidder without going higher than I have to. During such times things can change also if another lot suddenly went out of reach so I now have more to spend on a lot than originally planned. Or I end up winning a lot I didn't expect to, and so have less money than I anticipated to have and am thus thankful I just didn't put in a secret max bid on the lot I was going bid increment by bid increment on. And the same circumstances can happen with the person you are bidding against, which may suddenly cause them to drop out of a back and forth bidding war and allow you to get something for less than you would have had to pay otherwise.

So you stated what you don't approve of, numerous multiple bids, which I assume is an issue to you in combating shilling. So if that isn't okay, please explain to me how limiting the number of times a person can bid on a particular AH item will actually stop shill bidding. If the number of times someone could bid on an auction item were limited, I would assume someone shilling an auction would simply run the bidding up to where they wanted in fewer bids going forward. So you haven't really stopped the shilling, but you've now succeeded in limiting legit bidders to how often they can bid, potentially costing consignors and AHs money as I said earlier.

And if it turns out you aren't really concerned about shill bidding at all, do you really just dislike the way some legit people bid? If so, would really like to hear from someone who owns/works for an AH to get their perspective on limiting how many times someone can legitimately bid on an auction lot.

And calling people schoolchildren because you personally don't like their legit auction bidding habits is a bit harsh, don't you think?

[packs]

I always thought there was a psychological angle to bidding 20 times just to slightly increase your max bid. I always thought it was a tactic people used to try to scare others off by making them think the lot has a a lot of competition.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I always thought there was a psychological angle to bidding 20 times just to slightly increase your max bid. I always thought it was a tactic people used to try to scare others off by making them think the lot has a a lot of competition.

or a tactic used to make people think they are getting shill bid.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Bob,

Yes, you read right.

We're all grown men here - not schoolchildren. Why do we need to bid ten times or more?

Hmmm, let's see ... 350 ... 400 ... hehehe ... 425 ... 450 ... oh dear ... 475 ... 499 ... 501 ... hohoho ...

A person bidding like that is either a) not serious about the item or b) shilling it up! Limiting the number of times an individual can bid on a particular item is a great idea and all the major auction houses should consider it!

I totally disagree with this. Also, different auctioneers have different bidding rules and formats and call for different strategies. I bid multiple times on cards I really want and am really serious about all the time. In most auctions, I am worried about shill bidding and other shenanigans so I don't like to place my max bid until late.

In other instances or auctions formats, it behoves the bidder to put in a floor bid that is significantly higher than the next required step up in bidding to rule out a lot of non-serious buyers from being involved in the "extended bidding" period or whatever the auction house calls it.

The proposal you are talking about requires a lock-tight system where everyone is on the up and up - all other bidders, the auction house - everyone. That's not what we are faced with at all.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Bram99

I totally disagree with this. Also, different auctioneers have different bidding rules and formats and call for different strategies. I bid multiple times on cards I really want and am really serious about all the time. In most auctions, I am worried about shill bidding and other shenanigans so I don't like to place my max bid until late.

In other instances or auctions formats, it behoves the bidder to put in a floor bid that is significantly higher than the next required step up in bidding to rule out a lot of non-serious buyers from being involved in the "extended bidding" period or whatever the auction house calls it.

The proposal you are talking about requires a lock-tight system where everyone is on the up and up - all other bidders, the auction house - everyone. That's not what we are faced with at all.

+1. There is an entire psychology of and strategy to bidding in an auction and a lot of it is dependent on the rule structure of the auction. An auction with a fixed close time, no BP, and a very minimal increase for each bid (eBay) calls for an entirely different approach than one with prior bidding on an item to qualify for overtime, bid increments measured as a percentage of the last bid, and 20% BP, or one with fixed bid increments, a 'jungle' OT rule that lets you bid on anything, and a BP.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

+1. There is an entire psychology of and strategy to bidding in an auction and a lot of it is dependent on the rule structure of the auction. An auction with a fixed close time, no BP, and a very minimal increase for each bid (eBay) calls for an entirely different approach than one with prior bidding on an item to qualify for overtime, bid increments measured as a percentage of the last bid, and 20% BP, or one with fixed bid increments, a 'jungle' OT rule that lets you bid on anything, and a BP.

I find it fascinating from a game theory perspective. I enjoy the mathematical nature of game theory and solving for optimal strategies from a business perspective.

As a buyer on eBay, I will often place snipe bids on an item that far exceeds their market value just to ensure I win that item (although I'm selective about which auctions I employ this strategy on). Obviously, it comes with risk since if others utilize the same strategy, it can be costly. There are a few times where I've had to overpay for an item, but surprisingly, it's an extremely rare occurrence (probably somewhere between 1-3% of the time). There are also a few times where my bid has cost someone else with the same strategy a lot of money. It also leaves me open to getting shilled, but as you may have noticed from some of my other posts, I believe this is nearly a non-factor, but that's a topic for a different thread.

From the auction house's perspective though, I think the extended bidding framework yields higher closing prices than the snipe-heavy environment that eBay unintentionally created. Nowadays, eBay is effectively a silent auction site with the vast majority of sports card auctions being won by hidden snipe bids within the final few seconds of an auction.

I also think the buyer's premium aspect is an interesting game theory problem. I think initially, buyer's premiums were introduced as the fee that an auction house would charge for selling an item, but in addition, it has since evolved into an illusion aimed at getting people to bid higher because they prey on people's inability to do math. This is evidenced by the fact that some auction houses will charge a 20% buyer's premium but then turn around and give half of that fee back to the consigner. So it's not just a fee for the auction house, it's a way to trick buyers into bidding higher than they otherwise would have.

Another intersting game theory problem is that of bidding increment options for the buyer. Some auction houses will allow you to bid in $100 or $250 increments when the current bid is $6,000, whereas the next minimum bid at another auction site is in $1000 increments, forcing you to bid $7,000. This is a double edged sword though, because while you may push the item price higher with larger bid increments, it also comes with the consequence of creating a smaller pool of total bidders who can participate in the extended bidding period because an item might get close to it's full market value after just a handful of bids are placed, causing would-be participants to bow out of the auction before it enters extended bidding. I actually use this strategically to my advantage in the early stages of an auciton if it's an item that I really want. Bidders will often just place one bid on an item in the early stages as a way to sort of bookmark them for the extended bidding period, and not place another bid until the "real" auction begins. But this strategy allows room for more extended bidding participants. Whereas if two people "go at it", bidding each other up back and forth in the early stages, until the item is near its full market value, then it discourages other people from participating in extended bidding. Thus, once the extended bidding session begins, I might only be competing against one or two other bidders instead of 10 or 15.

I'm a game theory nerd, so I could go on about this stuff for hours, but I think this post is long enough already lol.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I find it fascinating from a game theory perspective. I enjoy the mathematical nature of game theory and solving for optimal strategies from a business perspective.

As a buyer on eBay, I will often place snipe bids on an item that far exceeds their market value just to ensure I win that item (although I'm selective about which auctions I employ this strategy on). Obviously, it comes with risk since if others utilize the same strategy, it can be costly. There are a few times where I've had to overpay for an item, but surprisingly, it's an extremely rare occurrence (probably somewhere between 1-3% of the time). There are also a few times where my bid has cost someone else with the same strategy a lot of money. It also leaves me open to getting shilled, but as you may have noticed from some of my other posts, I believe this is nearly a non-factor, but that's a topic for a different thread.

From the auction house's perspective though, I think the extended bidding framework yields higher closing prices than the snipe-heavy environment that eBay unintentionally created. Nowadays, eBay is effectively a silent auction site with the vast majority of sports card auctions being won by hidden snipe bids within the final few seconds of an auction.

I also think the buyer's premium aspect is an interesting game theory problem. I think initially, buyer's premiums were introduced as the fee that an auction house would charge for selling an item, but in addition, it has since evolved into an illusion aimed at getting people to bid higher because they prey on people's inability to do math. This is evidenced by the fact that some auction houses will charge a 20% buyer's premium but then turn around and give half of that fee back to the consigner. So it's not just a fee for the auction house, it's a way to trick buyers into bidding higher than they otherwise would have.

Another intersting game theory problem is that of bidding increment options for the buyer. Some auction houses will allow you to bid in $100 or $250 increments when the current bid is $6,000, whereas the next minimum bid at another auction site is in $1000 increments, forcing you to bid $7,000. This is a double edged sword though, because while you may push the item price higher with larger bid increments, it also comes with the consequence of creating a smaller pool of total bidders who can participate in the extended bidding period because an item might get close to it's full market value after just a handful of bids are placed, causing would-be participants to bow out of the auction before it enters extended bidding. I actually use this strategically to my advantage in the early stages of an auciton if it's an item that I really want. Bidders will often just place one bid on an item in the early stages as a way to sort of bookmark them for the extended bidding period, and not place another bid until the "real" auction begins. But this strategy allows room for more extended bidding participants. Whereas if two people "go at it", bidding each other up back and forth in the early stages, until the item is near its full market value, then it discourages other people from participating in extended bidding. Thus, once the extended bidding session begins, I might only be competing against one or two other bidders instead of 10 or 15.

I'm a game theory nerd, so I could go on about this stuff for hours, but I think this post is long enough already lol.

The weakness of game theory alone (I was a big game theory guy in college in poli sci) is that it assumes a rational and calculating player who will act logically and in his own best interests. People, however, have psychological tendencies and prejudices that are irrational and do not factor into a logical game theory, like a tendency to prefer round numbers (why is 3000 hits so acclaimed versus 2900 hits? because people like round numbers), make groups of non-related items, or lack of ability to solve a multiple-variable equation. Even calculating a percentage increase with a corresponding BP increase (which is really just a multiple-step multiplication problem) puts half the population into the fetal position. i think the more complex bidding rules can even cause the more math-challenged to bid higher because they can't really solve the problem of what they are going to pay.

i don't think some of the AHs do a good job of understanding their bidders' psychology. For example, if a certain % of your customers have to stay in budget, it means that they may be knocked out of some items in OT by deep pocketed players. If every auction has a 'jungle' OT where anyone who has bid on anything can bid on everything, then everyone who has to watch a budget can reallocate their resources to secondary or tertiary items, especially items that close with no bids. I am always stunned that items with no bids close at the end of regular time. Why not leave them up so people who lose on a bunch of other stuff can bid on them rather than passing the lot?