Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:31:08 -0700, jk wrote:

Everyone _could_ be an asshole and merge right at the point where "left
lane ends" too, but most people have the decency not to.

Some days it doesn't seem like it.

I do think the idea someone raised, of extending the auction by 15 min
if there are bids in the last few min to be a good one.

Yes, I'm the one who made that point.

I would modify it to be a single extension, of random but short
duration. But all either of them does, is equalize the chances of the
snipe services with the manual sniper. It still wont get the seller
more $ out of me.

Then stop bidding. Your choice.
WHy should I stop bidding?
Even your method doesn't get more $ out of me.

jk

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 15:34:55 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz says...


I'm not proposing anything arbitrary, I'm proposing "This auction has
auto-extension in the event of late bids".

In which case my proposal would be "I'm not bidding on that stuff,
no way, no how." AKA, it was nice not doing business with him.


Great; isn't choice _wonderful_, Jim? I don't want to sell to someone
who snipes, and since the purpose of such a term of sale is to avoid
them, it sounds like a win-win.

So, why don't you let us know where these seller-optimal websites you
like so much are? You're right that Ebay isn't the only game in town,
but the rules are clear, and as both a buyer and seller I find that
valuable. I don't like the games I've often seen at live auctions where
you really can't see all the players.

Thanks,
Pete

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:31:42 -0700, jk wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:31:08 -0700, jk wrote:

Everyone _could_ be an asshole and merge right at the point where "left
lane ends" too, but most people have the decency not to.

Some days it doesn't seem like it.

So you join them, do you?

I do think the idea someone raised, of extending the auction by 15 min
if there are bids in the last few min to be a good one.

Yes, I'm the one who made that point.

I would modify it to be a single extension, of random but short
duration. But all either of them does, is equalize the chances of the
snipe services with the manual sniper. It still wont get the seller
more $ out of me.

Then stop bidding. Your choice.
WHy should I stop bidding?
Even your method doesn't get more $ out of me.

Then why do you object to it?

Todd Rich wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:31:08 -0700, jk wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

O

Everyone does -not- have an equal chance. The snipers know damn well
taht the goal is to get in the last bid and not give others that chance
to still win the item.

Except that every one COULD use a snipeing service (or do it by hand).

Everyone _could_ be an asshole and merge right at the point where "left
lane ends" too, but most people have the decency not to.

I've been on more than one road where the sign said "Stay in lane until
merge point". (Eastern PA most often) Those are the rules Ebay has. You
don't like them (obviously), but that doesn't make them immoral or wrong.

I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either. It goes
against his "ethics", so it must be bad.

On 12 Jul 2005 12:41:08 -0700, wrote:
Todd Rich wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Everyone _could_ be an asshole and merge right at the point where "left
lane ends" too, but most people have the decency not to.

I've been on more than one road where the sign said "Stay in lane until
merge point". (Eastern PA most often) Those are the rules Ebay has. You
don't like them (obviously), but that doesn't make them immoral or wrong.

I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either. It goes
against his "ethics", so it must be bad.

Why am I not surprised. It's not "best practice", it's "screw you, I'm
gonna get in front of you no matter what". Somehow, I'm not real
optimistic that you'll "get it" on this either. I see a distinct
pattern.

I'm sure you'll reply, but I'm done. There's nothing positive that
could come from dragging this out further.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 12:41:08 -0700, wrote:
Todd Rich wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Everyone _could_ be an asshole and merge right at the point where "left
lane ends" too, but most people have the decency not to.

I've been on more than one road where the sign said "Stay in lane until
merge point". (Eastern PA most often) Those are the rules Ebay has. You
don't like them (obviously), but that doesn't make them immoral or wrong.

I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either. It goes
against his "ethics", so it must be bad.

Why am I not surprised. It's not "best practice", it's "screw you, I'm
gonna get in front of you no matter what". Somehow, I'm not real
optimistic that you'll "get it" on this either. I see a distinct
pattern.

I'm sure you'll reply, but I'm done. There's nothing positive that
could come from dragging this out further.

Right, the State Highway Dept. is advocating a "screw you" mentality
when they post those signs. They have no logical reason (at least in
Dave's little world). They're just in cahoots with the auto body shops
and hospitals. Yeah, that's the ticket.

No point in explaining the real reason to someone with a padlock on his
brain.

wrote

I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either. It goes
against his "ethics", so it must be bad.


Dave seems like the kind of guy to me that will pass you doing 60 to get to
the front of the lane that is ending or go out on the shoulder, so that he
can horn in at the head of the line instead of just merging back a ways and
waiting in line with the riffraff.

Of course, I could be wrong ..........................

wrote

No point in explaining the real reason to someone with a padlock on his
brain.


Brain?

SteveB wrote:
wrote

No point in explaining the real reason to someone with a padlock on his
brain.


Brain?

I stand corrected.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:44:30 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Dave seems like the kind of guy to me that will pass you doing 60 to get to
the front of the lane that is ending or go out on the shoulder, so that he
can horn in at the head of the line instead of just merging back a ways and
waiting in line with the riffraff.

You seem to have a habit of attributing to me the very behaviors I've
described as what I disagree with.

Of course, I could be wrong ..........................

Ya think?

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:45:06 -0700, SteveB wrote:

wrote

No point in explaining the real reason to someone with a padlock on his
brain.

Brain?

Yawn. You confuse "disagrees with" and "stupid". How....original.

On 12 Jul 2005 08:15:31 -0700, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , DoN. Nichols says...

1) I don't wind up with someone who isn't *sure* what it is worth to
them bumping my bid up a few dollars at a time until they find
my maximum or they finally decide that they don't want to spend
*that* much for it after all -- after pushing my bid to more
than I otherwise would have needed to pay.

2) I don't have the time to increment my own bid, if someone outbids
me, so I can't be *goaded* into bidding more than I had already
set as a maximum.

[3] Oh yes -- also it leaves me free to bid on another auction for
the same item. ...

And (4), it absolutely prevents shilling. Shilling only really works
when the seller bumps the bids during the auction. This sort of
nonsense does not work in the 'sealed bid' example of sniping.

Jim

All true.

It's not quite a normal sealed-bid auction when you bid at the very
end. As D. Lancaster has pointed out, it's effectively a "Vickerey
Auction" (sealed bids and the high bidder gets the item, but pays the
SECOND-highest price). The advantage of this is claimed to be that the
optimal strategy for the bidder is to bid just what the item is worth
to them.

http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~foec/scribes/lec4.pdf


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:45:06 -0700, SteveB
wrote:

wrote

No point in explaining the real reason to someone with a padlock on his
brain.

Brain?

Yawn. You confuse "disagrees with" and "stupid". How....original.


And you're a prig.

(look it up)

Steve

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Of course, I could be wrong ..........................

Ya think?


Is the concept alien to you?

Steve

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:28:52 -0700, SteveB wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Of course, I could be wrong ..........................

Ya think?

Is the concept alien to you?

No, I'm comfortable with you being wrong. Bye, SteveB.

wrote:


I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either.


It is not, as any observant fool can see at rush hour in the bay area
or la basin. The idiots that MUST rush to the very end of the lane,
and then suddenly try to merge regardless of space (or more often
continue down the shoulder for a ways as well), cause backups and
accidents, all the damn time.
jk

Dave Hinz wrote:


Some days it doesn't seem like it.

So you join them, do you?

Oooh Snideness, but no. What I frequently drive takes enough space
that I don't wait for the last minute to do any thing.
And actually, where I live now, I cant think of any merge lanes in the
area.

Then stop bidding. Your choice.
WHy should I stop bidding?
Even your method doesn't get more $ out of me.

Then why do you object to it?

I don't. I just don't think snipeing is dishonest or "shady"

jk

jk wrote:
wrote:


I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either.


It is not, as any observant fool can see at rush hour in the bay area
or la basin. The idiots that MUST rush to the very end of the lane,
and then suddenly try to merge regardless of space

If everyone stayed in their lane until the merge, there would be no way
for them to rush, would there? They'd have to move along with the
normal flow of traffic.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:19:11 -0700, SteveB wrote:
Some brain dead Netizen wrote:

Exactly. The people who snipe make it so the people who don't snipe are
disadvantaged in the auction.

Wrong. IF the people who don't snipe are at any disadvantage, it is
because they put THEMSELVES at a disadvantage, either by not
understanding the rules of the game (proxy bidding and a time limit)
or by choosing to play by a different set of rules than the official
rules used by everyone else.

And even without using sniping, you CANNOT be "disadvantaged" if you
make an honest assessment of the maximum the item is worth to you and
then bid that amount. For some reason, that concept seems to be too
difficult for you to comprehend.

Sniping works EXACTLY as proxies do.

Then use the proxy. Oh wait, you don't want to. Why, oh why, might
that be? Oh, probably because it _doesn't_ work exactly as proxies do.

So in your world view, given the existing rules of eBay, where is the
line that determines whether placing my proxy bid is "cheating" or
not? Ten minutes before auction end? Thirty minutes? Two days?

And if someone outbids me in the last minute, can I attempt to outbid
him, or would you consider that to be "cheating" because I would then
be denying others the opportunity to outbid both of us?

You put the maximum you will pay into
the system, and if you are high, you get it. It just doesn't do it early
enough to allow bidding wars and clueless newbies to mess things up.

Translation: I am more entitled to this item than some newbie who
bids the way the auction is set up and hasn't stooped to sniping yet.

News flash: The "auction is set up" to allow sniping; both the sniper
and the newbie are playing by the rules. It's not a matter of
"stooping"; it's a matter of understanding the rules.

I think I've identified a couple of your ethical notions. Tell me if
I've got these right:

1) You as a seller have a moral entitlement to take advantage of those
who have no notion what an item is really worth, those who bid
irrationally in the heat of a bidding war, and newbies who don't yet
understand the rules; there is nothing ethically wrong with pitting
two or more of these rubes against each other to extract the maximum
price for your item, even if it's well above the fair market value.

2) Any bidder who acts in a way that might limit your ability to
capitalize on the ignorance or irrationality of other bidders is
cheating and acting unethically, even though they haven't violated any
rules of the game.

3) [A generalization of 2] Anyone who doesn't play by YOUR rules is
behaving unethically, even if they're playing within the bounds of the
official rules of the activity in question.

Do those sound about right?


I'm curious: There are other ways in which eBay rules differ from the
rules of traditional auctions, but you don't seem bothered with those.
Why is that? For instance, in an eBay auction, a bidder is limited to
the smallest bid increment; i.e., the bid shown reflects the smallest
winning margin, even if he placed a higher (proxy) bid. In a
traditional auction, a bidder is not limited to the smallest bid
increment; he can bid significantly higher than the current bid in an
attempt to intimidate other bidders into giving up. Without the
intimidation of a large bid, the other bidders may get caught up in a
nickel-and-dime bidding war and end up bidding well beyond the point
where the large bid would have fallen. Why do you not complain about
the inability to post a large (non-proxy) bid? Could it be because
that inability works to your advantage as a seller?

Dave Hinz wrote:

On 12 Jul 2005 06:43:54 -0700, wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Yes. ROFL all you want, but the reason you're doing it (hypothetically,
of course) is to get the item without them having a chance to outbid
you. Tell me I'm wrong. It's all about you doing it to them so they
can't do it to you. Do you deny that?

OK, you're wrong. They can outbid me instantly if they've placed a
proxy. Even if they haven't read eBay's recommendations on how to bid,
anyone with half a brain can figure it out after an auction or two.

And you contend that people make one proxy bid ever, and never up it? I
disagree. It's those people who you're outracing at the last second.

They are still free to up their bid at any point during the auction.
If they rationally determined a maximum amount they would pay for the
item and then bid less than that amount, then either it was an
ignorant bid due to not understanding the rules, or they were trying
to somehow manipulate the bidding. On the other hand, if their maximum
was based simply on what others bid rather than being based on how
they valued the item on their own, then it was an irrational bid.

How did you arrive at the notion that you, as a seller, have a moral
right to take advantage of their irrationality (in the second case) to
get the best possible price for yourself, but I, as a bidder, have no
moral right to take advantage of their ignorance or their unsuccessful
conniving (in the first case) to get the best possible price for
myself?

wrote in message
oups.com...
jk wrote:
wrote:


I was about to post the same thing. I'll bet Dave can't figure out why
using both lanes until the merge point is best practice either.


It is not, as any observant fool can see at rush hour in the bay area
or la basin. The idiots that MUST rush to the very end of the lane,
and then suddenly try to merge regardless of space

If everyone stayed in their lane until the merge, there would be no way
for them to rush, would there? They'd have to move along with the
normal flow of traffic.


Well, at a merge, one lane usually dies. And those who can see drive ahead
and think, "Gee, this lane ends up here. I better get over."

Not so with idiots.

They see the open lane, at least for a ways, and think, "Gee, here is a
place to get a few car lengths ahead of the commoners. I'll just drive like
90 to get there and then swerve in to the moving lane. ALL COMMONERS MAKE
WAY FOR THE KING!"

Steve

In article 11ZAe.27745$4o.25614@fed1read06, SteveB says...

They see the open lane, at least for a ways, and think, "Gee, here is a
place to get a few car lengths ahead of the commoners. I'll just drive like
90 to get there and then swerve in to the moving lane. ALL COMMONERS MAKE
WAY FOR THE KING!"

The funny thing is, merges like that work best when all the lanes
are used up to the last moment. And when the lane that stays,
realizes the merge has to happen at the last minute and leaves
a gap for the incoming cars. At this point you see a zipper
effect - basically the follow distance simply decreases by one
car length. As long as it was more than two to start with,
it works fine.

The most obvious example of this difference is when you have
construction sites with merges, that have been in effect for
a long time, and the commuters on the road know about it.

Traffic can flow unimpeded at, say, 40 mph because everyone
knows about the effect. But put some weekend drivers on the
road who are unfamiliar with the layout, and it jams up tight.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================