[time-nuts] OT: eBay bidding question

Thu Apr 26 21:06:21 UTC 2007

Mike and Robert,

Thanks for your replies but these bids still don't make sense to me. 

First, here are my assumptions.
Every entry in the bid list is the result of some new bid. The winner
and current bid amount is decided based on 3 things: 
1) the actual maximum bid amount that was already posted by the previous
high bidder, (No other previous bidder can have a higher maximum bid at
that point or they would be at the top of the list.)
2) the maximum bid amount of the new bid,
3) the increment for bidding at this price point.

The winner and the new entry in the bid list will be the lowest amount
that resolves between these three amounts.

Once the list switches to names like bidder 1, bidder 2, the number in
that name seems to be determined by who bid first in this auction.

Now I'll post some comments in Mike's reply below.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:00:36 -0400, "Mike Feher" <mfeher at eozinc.com>
wrote:

>Rex -
>
>Robert explained it very well. Glad my computer had a hiccup while I was in
>the process of doing so. When I look at the bid list Bidder 1 is still
>there. He did not disappear as you say, he was simply outbid by Bidder 2's
>second attempt.

Let me try again. Bidder 1 gets the name bidder 1 by placing the first
bid in this auction. Seems to me he would have been high bidder in the
list of only one bidders and should therefore have the very first bottom
entry in the list of bids.

I guess the explanation might be that bidder 1 placed a bid below $250
and the minimum reserve price was $250 so his first bid was not valid
and was not recorded in the list of bids. Even though his bid didn't
count, the eBay computer assigns him as Bidder 1.

>Bidder 5 could be a shill bidder as he incrementally raised
>the price till it got to $3000.

I think bidder 5 was ok in that stretch. He had placed a maximum bid in
the vicinity of $3000 when he won the bidding at $2200. Then some other
bidder, bidder 6, 7, or 8, placed a series of bids that were all less
than bidder 5's maximum.  That's how bidder 5 might show with that
string of bids.

>When bidder 8 realized his bid was the same
>as bidder 6's, after a little deliberation he raised his and is now on top
>by the correct bid increment. At this point we do not know bidder 8's
>highest bid (known as his proxy bid), and maybe we never will. Maybe he only
>bid $4050 exactly to outbid bidder 6. You not only have to see the bid
>amounts, you have to look when they were placed also. 

When bidder 5 had the highest bid of $3000 on Apr 25 at 19:31:08 he must
have had a maximum bid somewhere in the range of $3000-4000. A couple of
days later bidders 6 and 8 place bids and wind up in a tie with bidder 6
winning. How did this happen?

Bidder 6's bid of $4000 shows a date of Apr 22. If he actually placed a
max of $4000 on Apr 22, all those other bids wouldn't be listed between
Apr 22 and Apr 23. Bidder 6 would have had the highest bid every time a
new bid was placed less than $4000.

If bidder 8 bids first after the $3000 wouldn't he show up as winning
with a bid of $3050, or bidder 5 would win again because his max was
higher, or bidder 8 wins with some number a bit greater than bidder 5's
max? If bidder 6 bids first, same thing.

So maybe bidders 6 and 8 both place maximum bids of $4000 on the 25th at
a time so close that they are both processed together. Seems unlikely.
Bidder 6 wins because he place a bid earlier in the auction, I guess.
But why does his bid show up backdated to Apr 22? Maybe it is an attempt
to explain to bidder 8 why he isn't at the top of the list, but it
confuses me more.

None of this really matters, because bidding continues, but that tie bid
still makes no real sense to me. I wasn't even bidding, so I guess I'll
stop worrying about it.

>There is still over a
>day to go, so, who knows where it may wind up. So far every bid that you see
>is the maximum amount placed by a given bidder at the time shown, except for
>bidder 8. Regards - Mike
> 
> 
>Mike B. Feher, N4FS
>89 Arnold Blvd.
>Howell, NJ, 07731
>732-886-5960
> 
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On
>Behalf Of Rex
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:23 AM
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] OT: eBay bidding question
>
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:29:38 +0100, "Robert Atkinson"
><robert.atkinson at genetix.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Rex,
>>It's quite simple when you get used to it.
>>The list is ordered in bid value, highest at the top.
>>If two bids are for the same amount, the one that was placed first takes
>>precedence (and wins if they are at the top at auction end).
>>This is why bidder 6 is at the top, he bid on the 22nd, before bidder 8
>>on the 25th. Bidder numbers are time sequential.
>>The other issue is proxy bidding, Bidder 6's bid would only have shown 1
>>bid increment (about $10 in this case) above the next lowest bidder
>>until his limit was reached ($4000). If he had bid $4000.01 (or bidder 8
>>had bid $3999.99) there would have been no confusion. This is why some
>>bidders put an odd few pence (cents) at the end of their bid.
>>
>>HTH.
>>Robert.
>
>Yes, I understand the basic principle, but how can we explain the
>sequences and what bids remain recorded?
>
>Surely Bidder 1 was alone at the start of bidding. So Bidder 2 outbid
>him with a bid of $250 or more. Why did the first bid disappear? Maybe
>there was a reserve? Then I guess Bidders 1 and 2 swapped bids. Ok,
>those values got saved for some reason. Bidder 3 doesn't show before
>bidder 4. Does he become bidder 3 even if he looses to bidder 2? How
>come Bidder 6 doesn't show up until the very end? He must have been
>involved at some point between bidder 5 on the 21st and bidder 7 on the
>23rd. Say bidder 6 had a max bid of 4000 and that's why we see him
>winning at the end. Then why does bidder 5 have that string of recorded
>bids. Bidder 6 should have won all those bids. 
>
>If bidder 8 places a bid with a max of 4000 on the 25th and then bidder
>6 responds with another bid of 4000 he wins because he had a lost bid
>earlier. That surely can't be. Or bidder 6 places a max bid of 4000
>after 3000 from bidder 5 so he is winning with 3010 then bidder 8 bids a
>max of 4000. Bidder 6 wins the tie because he has a history. I guess it
>could be, but the recorded date of Apr 22 for the 4k bid would be wrong.
>
>Actually I guess this newish way of listing as bidder 1, 2, ... conveys
>more information than if it was just user names.
>
>I'm sure there must be a sequence that explains what is listed but I
>can't quite see it all. 
>
>Can anyone propose a sequence of bids on dates that explains this list
>of recorded bids and dates? I guess there must be one but it is evading
>me.
>
>>
>>	*Bidder*    Bid Amount    Date of bid 		
>>	Bidder 6    US $4,000.00  Apr-22-07 05:14:15
>>	Bidder 8    US $4,000.00  Apr-25-07 00:49:30 
>>	Bidder 5    US $3,000.00  Apr-23-07 19:31:08
>>	Bidder 5    US $2,900.00  Apr-23-07 19:31:00
>>	Bidder 5    US $2,800.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:50
>>	Bidder 5    US $2,700.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:42
>>	Bidder 5    US $2,500.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:32
>>	Bidder 5    US $2,200.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:25
>>	Bidder 7    US $2,050.00  Apr-23-07 00:33:36 
>>	Bidder 5    US $2,000.00  Apr-21-07 21:21:05
>>	Bidder 3    US $1,250.50  Apr-21-07 17:19:52 
>>	Bidder 4    US $1,111.00  Apr-21-07 17:38:42 
>>	Bidder 2    US   $559.00  Apr-21-07 16:39:08 
>>	Bidder 1    US   $365.00  Apr-20-07 21:33:10 
>>	Bidder 2    US   $250.00  Apr-21-07 16:38:56 
>>	
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list
>time-nuts at febo.com
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list
>time-nuts at febo.com
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts