• 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:

    Who Should Bear the Risk in Infrastructure Projects?

    The answer to the question is the public sector, always. It’s okay to have private-sector involvement in construction, but the risk must be borne by the public sector, or else the private sector will just want more money to compensate for the extra risk. …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 30, 2020

    Fireside Friday, November 27, 2020

    Hey folks! Fireside this week. A bit of a change-up in terms of the coming attractions. I had planned to start “Textiles, How Did They Make It?” next, but I want to do a bit more reading on some of the initial stages of textile production (that is, the pr…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 27, 2020

    Thoughts you mightn't have thunk about remote meetings

    Welcome to this week's edition of "building a startup in 2020," in which all your meetings are suddenly remote, and you probably weren't prepared for it. I know I wasn't. We started a "fully remote" company back in 2019, but …

    via apenwarr November 23, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact