Strange bid patterns on e-bay auctions

[Super_D]

I was just browsing e-bay auctions on WOW Collectors Editions and I noticed some had very high bids ($170+). I looked at the bid history and they looked like this



drewsgunsammo ( 70) US $187.50 Jul-17-05 17:52:52 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $185.00 Jul-17-05 21:24:21 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $175.00 Jul-17-05 21:24:01 PDT
sohum36 ( 52) US $125.01 Jul-14-05 09:48:18 PDT
magical_nessy ( 1 ) US $115.00 Jul-15-05 21:12:33 PDT
magical_nessy ( 1 ) US $110.00 Jul-15-05 21:12:26 PDT
magical_nessy ( 1 ) US $105.00 Jul-15-05 21:12:16 PDT
sohum36 ( 52) US $100.01 Jul-14-05 01:18:34 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $100.00 Jul-14-05 17:33:17 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $90.00 Jul-14-05 08:04:04 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $85.00 Jul-14-05 08:03:52 PDT
opera_divas ( 69) US $75.00 Jul-13-05 17:08:15 PDT


and here's another one on a different WOW CE auction



powderhunter75 ( 3 ) US $177.50 Jul-17-05 21:49:00 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $175.00 Jul-17-05 21:25:57 PDT
powderhunter75 ( 3 ) US $175.00 Jul-17-05 21:48:31 PDT
powderhunter75 ( 3 ) US $150.00 Jul-17-05 21:48:23 PDT
powderhunter75 ( 3 ) US $125.00 Jul-17-05 21:48:10 PDT
powderhunter75 ( 3 ) US $100.00 Jul-17-05 21:48:00 PDT
powderhunter75 ( 3 ) US $75.00 Jul-17-05 21:47:50 PDT


Is someone trying to artificially raise the auction price by putting in false bids?

[Bob Cherub]

Aren't those just the proxy bids? Like a guy bid, but furious' proxy outbids him so it shows the new amount.

[VegasRobb]

Yeah, they look like proxy bids. They tend to work, since the bidder may keep pumping in more cash until they finally break through.

On the otherhand, it's nice if you get in on something first and don't want to keep rushing back to the auction. I'm trying to recreate some comic collections from my youth and it's nice to bid .99 for an issue of Sgt Rock from the 1970s and proxy it up to the max I'm willing to pay.

[Lunch of Kong]

$170 for a fuckin' panda?

That's like 400 gold! Not even a tiny black whelpling goes for that much.

[Nick Walter]

Yeah, they look like proxy bids. They tend to work, since the bidder may keep pumping in more cash until they finally break through.

On the otherhand, it's nice if you get in on something first and don't want to keep rushing back to the auction. I'm trying to recreate some comic collections from my youth and it's nice to bid .99 for an issue of Sgt Rock from the 1970s and proxy it up to the max I'm willing to pay.

I'm feeling like a horrible internet n00b because I don't ebay and . . . well . . . I have no idea what a proxy bid is. Can someone explain?

[Lunch of Kong]

Sure.

You look at something with a current bid price of $100, and you say "I will bid up to $800 on that item". You are now the top bidder, with a bid of $101.

Now, when someone else bids below your bid limit, the system acts as a proxy, automatically outbidding the lower bid, until the price either exceeds your bid limit, or there are no other bids.

[Tyrion Lannister]

But surely that means that all the seller needs to do is run his own bot, if he suspects someone is using a proxy to push the proxy to its limit and then remove his bots last bid. Thus maxing out the bids.

[Jose Liz]

But surely that means that all the seller needs to do is run his own bot, if he suspects someone is using a proxy to push the proxy to its limit and then remove his bots last bid. Thus maxing out the bids.

Good idea, thanks. ;)

(Actually, I think there are rules against this.)

[Enidigm]

Bidding by proxy is actually how i just won a recent auction. I set my limit at 150, and spent about three weeks watching every auction close at around 160-175. Finally last Friday i set my bid to 152.50 and went to play with my IL2 squad for a few hours. When we were done i checked, and to my horror i had won.

[Dave Long]

But surely that means that all the seller needs to do is run his own bot, if he suspects someone is using a proxy to push the proxy to its limit and then remove his bots last bid. Thus maxing out the bids.

If you get caught, they'll ban you. But yes, someone could do this. They could also get a friend to do it by hand.

I know of people who have done this, though I definitely do not condone or endorse it in any way and it really pisses me off to hear about it.

--Dave

[Rywill]

Why does it piss you off? I mean, if it's against their TOS, okay, that's breaking the rules and it's bad for that reason and the person could and should get banned. But getting mad about it? All they're doing is shifting who the system favors (sellers instead of buyers). Under the rules as I understand them, the seller is always getting unfavorable treatment--because he's always selling his goods at the minimum offered price, even though buyers might be willing to pay much more for the item. Using your own bot would simply allow you to sell the item for the maximum price that the market will bear, even though you might have accepted less. In both cases, it seems like people can protect themselves: sellers can set a reserve price to make sure they don't let an item go too cheap, and buyers can set a maximum proxy bid to make sure they don't pay too much. There's always going to be some differential between the least a seller will accept and the most a buyer will pay. Why is it any worse for the seller to get the advantage rather than the buyer? (I'm not saying it's BETTER that way, just that I see both systems as pretty much equivalent and don't understand why someone would be outraged over using one system rather than the other.)

[Dave Long]

Your reasoning is entirely contrary to the entire idea of the auction. Auctions by definition favor the buyers because they will be able to pay the price they determine the item is worth, not what some seller believes it's worth. If there aren't enough people bidding on an item to reach my maximum proxy bid, the seller should not be able to artificially inflate his price by bidding himself. You give up that right when you decide to sell the item.

He has the option to set a reserve price. If he didn't do that and the item goes for less than he expects, that's his fault. Frankly, I don't think eBay would be so popular if it favored sellers the way you propose because most folks wouldn't bother bidding if they knew they'd end up at their maximum bid every time. Much of the thrill of eBay is getting a good deal on something. As a seller, if you want to fix your prices, then by all means sell it a flea market or in a store. Don't put it on eBay.

--Dave

[Rywill]

Your reasoning is entirely contrary to the entire idea of the auction. Auctions by definition favor the buyers because they will be able to pay the price they determine the item is worth, not what some seller believes it's worth.
Well, not exactly. Assuming the seller can set a reserve or a starting bid, the winning bid is the lowest price that is both (a) what the seller believes the item is worth and (b) what at least one buyer believes the item is worth.

I understand, though, that the way an auction is set up by default favors the buyers because they may end up winning with a bid that is lower than the most they would pay. All I'm saying is I don't see why that system is intrinsically superior to one in which the seller gets the maximum possible that a buyer is willing to pay, even if the seller might have accepted less. In other words, the winning bid will always be in the "zone" between "least the seller will accept" and "most the buyer will pay." As long as it lands somewhere in that zone, the system seems fair.

Of course I understand that by selling on eBay the seller agrees to go with the buyer-favoring system and it's wrong to try and change it to a seller-favoring system by breaking the rules you agreed to. So, like I said, assuming it's against the TOS I can understand those sellers getting banned. But I don't understand being angry about it, because it seems no more or less fair than the buyer-centric system that is set up by default.



Frankly, I don't think eBay would be so popular if it favored sellers the way you propose because most folks wouldn't bother bidding if they knew they'd end up at their maximum bid every time. Much of the thrill of eBay is getting a good deal on something.
I think you're probably mistaken. After all, eBay depends on having both buyers and sellers, and I'm sure for sellers the thrill of eBay is getting a good price for something. Yet they continue to sell even though they know that they're likely to end up at a lower sale price most of the time. And I tend to doubt your prediction about people not bidding if they knew they'd end up at the max all the time--when eBay was initially introduced, there were no proxy bids, and people had an incentive to bid their maximum bid (assuming they wouldn't be able to babysit the auction). People still bid all the time.


As a seller, if you want to fix your prices, then by all means sell it a flea market or in a store. Don't put it on eBay.
Well, one could just as easily say that if you want to know what you're going to pay, go buy your stuff at a flea market or in a store. If you bid on eBay, accept that you will likely end up paying your maximum proxy bid, and bid accordingly. (Again, I understand that that's not the default rule, and that's fine too--but either rule would be equally fair as nearly as I can see, so I don't understand being pissed off at having one rule versus the other.)

[shift6]

But surely that means that all the seller needs to do is run his own bot, if he suspects someone is using a proxy to push the proxy to its limit and then remove his bots last bid. Thus maxing out the bids.
If someone retracts their bid, the system reverts to the bid state from before that bid, even if it was a high proxy. The only way to really game it is have a second eBay ID (or a friend) bid it up and not retract it.

The problem is if your helper bids it up too high and wins. Because then eBay charges you their fee, a percentage of the winning bid price. Your friend can pay you for it (not likely), you can just relist it and eat that eBay fee, or you can go with the "second chance" buyer. In the latter case, the system recognizes that the first guy couldn't pay for whatever reason, and drops the winning price to whatever the second guy was at before your buddy bid it up. So it's like an after-the-fact retraction.

[Jose Liz]

You feel gipped when you realize that you could have gotten something for less than you got it. You're right though that neither system can fully benefit sellers or buyers. As such, the "best" system for you depends on which side of the fence you are on.

[shang]

Why does it piss you off? I mean, if it's against their TOS, okay, that's breaking the rules and it's bad for that reason and the person could and should get banned. But getting mad about it?

It's the "removing the last bid" that puts me off. I think that all bid retracting in auctions is foul play and goes against the spirit of auctioning.

[RobotPants]

I always buy stuff on eBay using the "Buy Now" option, so the seller always gets what he wants from me. But I'm going to have to go with Dave Long on this one. If you don't want to sell your stuff below a certain price, set that as the reserve. Artificially pumping up the bids takes advantage of the system and totally defeates the purpose of it being an auction at all. Sure, someone may be willing to pay a certain amount, depending on how badly they want the item they're bidding on, but they surely don't put their maximum bid in there for anything but as a last resort. It's just really deceitful to bid on your own item just to make someone pay the maximum amount.

[Rywill]

I guess the disconnect for me is this: when talking about the seller, everyone just says "Christ, if you want a certain amount, just set that as the reserve, it's not that hard jackass." But the buyer can just as easily protect himself from overpaying by setting a low maximum proxy bid, and yet everyone seems to take the position that the buyer is getting "screwed" by the seller if the seller bids on his own item.

Or, looked at from the opposite perspective, people seem to think it's unfair if the seller moves the price toward the high end of that mutually-agreeable zone, but nobody thinks it's unfair if the buyer artificially keeps the price towards the low end by using a proxy bid. In other words, the way eBay used to be, things were somewhat more equal because buyers were motivated to bid more than the minimum bid--if you couldn't babysit the auction, there was an incentive to bid somewhere closer to your maximum price to make it more likely you would win. Now with proxies (which I assume were put in to defeat people who would wait for the end of an auction and then "swoop in"), the balance is even more in favor of the buyer, so I have trouble getting into a real rage about sellers trying to push the balance back the other way. Like I said, if it's against the rules, they shouldn't be doing it and should be banned (if that's the punishment). But I just can't see people getting what seems like really upset over something like this--the system is just as fair (or unfair) either way.

[Enidigm]

The complaints i would have about sellers bidding up their own items are;

-It wastes buyer's time. Especially for computer parts, when your bidding on something this essentially exludes the buyer from other potential bids, unless you risk picking up multiple winning bids. If the seller secretly has no intention of selling his item beneath a certain amount - "NO RESERVE!!" - then the buyer is being misled. This can lock a buyer out of authentic auctions for up to a week.

-It's sleazy. Of course congrats! i just defined half of ebay. Ebay attracts a great deal of half legal sleaze anyway - my favorite listing i noticed recently was someone offering to buy "Direct from Manufacturer!" for the same price as was listed online - essentially, you pay them 20$ so they fill out the form for you. Wow SOLD sign me up! You're never *quite* sure with sellers anyway, and bidding up your own item is just another way to try and scam buyers.

Of course the attraction of Ebay to sellers is that many buyers simply have no self control or have a great lack of knowledge about the retail value of a product. If a buyer lets his bid spiral out of control because he just *has* to have some widget, it's his own fault. Even if a seller is bidding up an item, for god sakes just stop bidding. I think alot of the draw is the personal attention in feedback - certain personalities like getting a pat on the back, or have a 'local' smiling face they can 'trust' or whatever. Who wants to buy retail when RebateMonster2005 leaves gratifitying feedback like "GREAT BUYER FAST PAYMENT TRUST THIS ONE!!". I think (guess) that's what goes on alot of the time.

Ebay is a dissertation or two waiting to happen in group psycology.

[Enidigm]

I always buy stuff on eBay using the "Buy Now" option, so the seller always gets what he wants from me.

Just curious, buy why? Isn't the whole point of Ebay to get something considerably under retail cost? Most "Buy Now" seem like they're usually listed only 10% less than what it costs in a store, and probably 10-15% more than what you could get by bidding.

[Super_D]

Here's an update on the first bid I posted about.


inhume_gore ( 7 ) US $222.50 Jul-20-05 18:42:21 PDT
inhume_gore ( 7 ) US $222.50 Jul-20-05 07:47:14 PDT
inhume_gore ( 7 ) US $222.50 Jul-20-05 07:47:08 PDT
howard9204 ( 0 ) US $220.00 Jul-20-05 22:10:47 PDT
howard9204 ( 0 ) US $210.00 Jul-20-05 22:04:14 PDT
inhume_gore ( 7 ) US $200.00 Jul-20-05 07:47:01 PDT
howard9204 ( 0 ) US $200.00 Jul-20-05 22:00:58 PDT
inhume_gore ( 7 ) US $190.00 Jul-20-05 07:46:52 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $185.00 Jul-17-05 21:24:21 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $175.00 Jul-17-05 21:24:01 PDT
sohum36 ( 52) US $125.01 Jul-14-05 09:48:18 PDT
magical_nessy ( 1 ) US $115.00 Jul-15-05 21:12:33 PDT
magical_nessy ( 1 ) US $110.00 Jul-15-05 21:12:26 PDT
magical_nessy ( 1 ) US $105.00 Jul-15-05 21:12:16 PDT
sohum36 ( 52) US $100.01 Jul-14-05 01:18:34 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $100.00 Jul-14-05 17:33:17 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $90.00 Jul-14-05 08:04:04 PDT
furious131 ( 22) US $85.00 Jul-14-05 08:03:52 PDT
opera_divas ( 70) US $75.00 Jul-13-05 17:08:15 PDT

The odd bidding pattern continues. drewsgunsammo must have retracted his/her bid (she/he's bidding on another WOW CE at $122 or so) and now there are two very low feedback people bidding on it. Howard9204 registered July 16. Activity like this makes the auction look pretty suspicious but I don't know if I'm paranoid or if there are people who really really want the CE.

[Enidigm]

Dude. 220$ And then you have to subscribe. It's a fun game, but please don't drop that much money on it.

Stress out about other matters in life; like what you're going to spend that 250$ on you saved by not buying the CE!

[shang]

I guess the disconnect for me is this: when talking about the seller, everyone just says "Christ, if you want a certain amount, just set that as the reserve, it's not that hard jackass." But the buyer can just as easily protect himself from overpaying by setting a low maximum proxy bid, and yet everyone seems to take the position that the buyer is getting "screwed" by the seller if the seller bids on his own item.

The buyer isn't "protecting himself from overpaying" by using a proxy bid. The proxy bid is nothing but a convenience tool so that the buyer doesn't have to stalk the auction 24/7.

The reason the seller is considered a jackass is that the whole idea of an auction is that buyer demand dictates the price within the parameters supplied by the seller (opening price, price reserve). The situation is also asymmetric because a buyer can lose the item to another buyer if he bids too low, but seller always "wins" assuming the item gets any bids.

When a buyer sets a maximum bid, it doesn't mean "I'm willing to pay this much for the item, no matter what". It means "I'm willing to pay this much if demand warrants it".

This is why I think bid retracting is bad in general. It lets people inflate the price with no intention of buying it themselves, in essence, faking demand when none exists.

[RobotPants]

I always buy stuff on eBay using the "Buy Now" option, so the seller always gets what he wants from me.

Just curious, buy why? Isn't the whole point of Ebay to get something considerably under retail cost? Most "Buy Now" seem like they're usually listed only 10% less than what it costs in a store, and probably 10-15% more than what you could get by bidding.

Not for me it isn't. For me the point is to get items that I can't find, or would take too much time and effort to find, in stores. And I only use it if the Buy Now price is within reason. Even though I'm not using Ebay strictly to save money, I'm not an idiot. :)

[dannimal]

I got something with BuyItNow for 30% off retail (after shipping and all that). Was pretty happy.

[Tim]

I use ebay like RobotPants. It's usually not worth the time & risk for me to buy something that is easily available at retail.

[Super_D]

Dude. 220$ And then you have to subscribe. It's a fun game, but please don't drop that much money on it.

Stress out about other matters in life; like what you're going to spend that 250$ on you saved by not buying the CE!

Oh heck no. I'd never lay that down for any game (at least not in one chunk). I was looking at these auctions from a ebay user perspective because fraudulent activity kind of shakes my faith in the service. Granted most of the time when I use it, I'm selling but if there is suspicious activity, I'd hope that ebay would take action or there would be some kind of protection built into the system. In any case, the bidding seemed pretty wierd so I was wondering what was going on.

[Ben]

Traditional auctions favor the buyer, "Dutch" auctions favor the seller(in terms of raw consumer/producer surplus). Traditional auctions seem more popular for whatever reason, and by agreeing to list your item under a traditional auction system I think you are implicitly accepting that this transaction will favor the buyer.
Bidding on your own item is simply an attempt to get the best of both worlds. The proxy system is not a very good idea because it's open to exactly this sort of exploit, in addition to tilting an already buyer-favored system further towards the buyer.
It's not unfair in the sense that anyone is being cheated, but I can understand people's dislike of the practice.