• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Proxy Bidding Leaks Information

    September 12th, 2013
    auctions, bidding, ebay  [html]

    A friend comes to me and complains about getting sniped in an online auction. Perhaps it went something like:

    time action max bid current winner
    0 auction starts $1 auctioneer
    200 friend sets max-bid to $5 $1.10 friend
    400 stranger sets max-bid to $3.50 $3.60 friend
    999 sniper sets max-bid to $7 $5.10 sniper
    1000 auction ends $5.10 sniper

    They would have been willing to buy the item at $10 but lost to a sniper who only thought the item was worth $7 because the sniper put in a higher bid. If my friend had simply entered the maximum amount they were willing to pay as their maximum bid, wouldn't they have won the auction for $7.10?

    time action max bid current winner
    0 auction starts $1 auctioneer
    10 friend sets max bid to $10 $1.10 friend
    20 stranger sets max bid to $3.50 $3.60 friend
    999 sniper sets max bid to $7 $7.10 friend
    1000 auction ends $7.10 friend

    This is how I thought about eBay for years: just put in the maximum amount you're willing to pay and don't worry about sniping. After discussion on HN, however, I now see that while while this does guarantee that if you fail to win an item it's because someone else had a higher willingness to pay, you might be losing auctions you don't have to or paying more than you need to.

    The problem is that when you place your bid, even through the auto-bidder, you're sending a signal that you're interested in the item. Other people can see the increase in price and number of bidders. For something where there's a clear consensus on value, like an ounce of gold, this information has very little effect, but things you might buy on eBay aren't mostly like that. Because no one really knows how much things are worth, your visible signal of interest tells other people they should increase their estimate of its value.

    By sniping you convert an automated open auction to the equivalent of an second price sealed bid auction.

    So why don't we just switch to submitting sealed bids and awarding the item, at the second-highest price bid, to the person who bids the most? There are several problems: people like feedback as they go, it's helpful to know when you've lost the bidding on something so you can go bid on a substitute, and it makes the site seem active and interesting. One way to keep all this while giving people an incentive to bid their true maximum is to randomize the end of the auction. Because no one knows when the auction is going to end sniping doesn't work anymore. (Testing this with econ undergrads (pdf) randomized auction termination did eliminate sniping.)

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Willingness to look stupid

    People frequently1 think that I'm very stupid. I don't find this surprising, since I don't mind if other people think I'm stupid, which means that I don't adjust my behavior to avoid seeming stupid, which results in people thinking tha…

    via Posts on Dan Luu October 21, 2021

    Experiences in raising children in shared housing

    Sometimes I see posts about people’s hope to raise children in a group housing situation, and it often seems overly optimistic to me. In particular they seem to expect that there will be more shared childcare than I think should be expected. Today I talke…

    via The whole sky October 18, 2021

    EDT with updating double counts

    I recently got confused thinking about the following case: Calculator bet: I am offered the opportunity to bet on a mathematical statement X to which I initially assign 50% probability (perhaps X = 139926 is a quadratic residue modulo 314159). I have acce…

    via The sideways view October 12, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact