TOPIC: Pre GameHole Con Auction - FUNDED!

edwin wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Azzy wrote: I guess I'm still a little confused why some bidders on the same items (pyps) are currently at 105 and other are at 75?

I can explain why...the 105s got bids in for only a few PYPs. Then Caramon came in with a bid on ALL the PYPs, whiched pushed all those others up to 105, but there arent any other bids to compete with the rest of caramon (or maybe it was a $70 bid), so all of caramon are low until someone bids against.

Got it. caramon bids $100 for all PYPs and others bid $65 for all PYPs.

Managing bids on a pool of identical items is tricky - there are a few approaches - none of which are used on eBay, so it's a bit unspecified as to how an "eBay style auction" would handle this scenario.

Here is the one I use which I think matches intuitions the best:

1. Look at all bids on PyPs, for example:

A bids $110 on 1
B bids $120 on 5
C bids $65 on 10

2. Increase the price of all PyPs by $1 (or whatever increment you like) at a time until you get to the lowest price where there isn't demand for all PyPs, then go back 1 increment. Then assign winning bids based first on hidden highest bid, and then on or order the bids came in:

In the scenario above we'd get:

B - $1 on PyP #1-5
A - $1 on PyP #6
C - $1 on PyP #7-16

3. Repeat as new bids come in, suppose:

D bids $75 on 16
E bids $110 on 16

The lowest bid amount where there is not demand for all all PyPs is $76, so we go back one increment to $75, and the final bid resolution is:

B - $75 on PyP #1-5
A - $75 on PyP #6
E - $75 on #7-22
D - $75 on #23-32 (only gets 10 of the 16 they wanted at that price).

Giving preference to the hidden highest bid of B, A, E, and then D, tie breaking between A and E based on who got their equal bid in first.

In this system the PyP price is always the same, which it should be on my opinion - otherwise there is an advantage to not overbidding, if the auction operator will let A and B in this example "run each other up" to $111 or something when in reality there isn't demand for 32 PyPs at $111.


The current bids posted don't seem to be following this algorithm, because winning bids are at different prices.



As a bidder in this auction, I'd appreciate it if Edwin would explain exactly how bids on pools of identical items work, using perhaps the example bids above.

Daniel White wrote: Thanks for explaining, that makes sense. I think it's still a little off though.

◦ The winning bid amount is the lesser of the 2nd highest bid + the bid increment and the highest bid.

I had entered a bid for $75 on all the PYPs. The bid increment over $50 is $5, so all Caramon's bids should be at $80, I believe.

You are right. I missed the increment for that. I will re-look at my spreadsheet. I will update this as well once I finalize today's bids.

To everyone saying that all the bids should be the same...if one person bid 70 on all, another bid 100 on all, then a third bid 105 on one; what do you expect the result to be?
I would expect third person to be winning one at 105, then person 2 winning the rest at 75...because the only person bidding against them is at 70.

Now, the other way of one person bidding 105 on all and another person bidding 100 on only one SHOULD result in the first winning all items at 105...because that single bid of 100 will run down the line of every item pushing them all up over 100.

Basically, in the current situation; someone PM edwin a bid for 100 on one PYP, then all will be well.

If only one person bid against one person that bid on all pyps then I could see a large gap but in the current situation multiple people have bid so the second person that bid 105$ should have run all the bids up to the current high bid because he shouldn’t have to pay 105$ if the other guy only bid to 90$.

kurtreznor wrote: To everyone saying that all the bids should be the same...if one person bid 70 on all, another bid 100 on all, then a third bid 105 on one; what do you expect the result to be?
I would expect third person to be winning one at 105, then person 2 winning the rest at 75...because the only person bidding against them is at 70.

Now, the other way of one person bidding 105 on all and another person bidding 100 on only one SHOULD result in the first winning all items at 105...because that single bid of 100 will run down the line of every item pushing them all up over 100.

Basically, in the current situation; someone PM edwin a bid for 100 on one PYP, then all will be well.

A bids 70 on 32 PyPs
B bids 100 on 32 PyPs
C bids 105 on 1 PyP

Result:
PyP #1 - C - $100
PyP #2-32 - B - $100

All buyers pay the lowest price that actually wins any item. This is a standard way of running a multiunit auction .


Your proposed result is:

PyP #1 - C - $105
PyP #2-32 - B - $75


Why are C and B paying $30 different prices for the same thing? Make the example more extreme and you can see how odd this is:

A bids $5 on 32 PyPs
B bids $100 on 32 PyPs
C bids $105 on 1 PyP

By your system the final bids are:

PyP #1 - A - $105
PyP #2-32 - B - $5

Does that seem right to you? Would you be satisfied with this result of an auction if you were A?

Also, in your system, how do you determine who is "bidding against" who? I sort of see how you're backing into it with 3 bidders, but how would you handle:

A - 3 tokens at $75
B - 14 tokens at $60
C - $50 on all
D - 11 tokens at $95
E - 5 at $105, 2 at $115
F - 8 tokens at $110

?

Matthew Hayward wrote:

kurtreznor wrote: To everyone saying that all the bids should be the same...if one person bid 70 on all, another bid 100 on all, then a third bid 105 on one; what do you expect the result to be?
I would expect third person to be winning one at 105, then person 2 winning the rest at 75...because the only person bidding against them is at 70.

Now, the other way of one person bidding 105 on all and another person bidding 100 on only one SHOULD result in the first winning all items at 105...because that single bid of 100 will run down the line of every item pushing them all up over 100.

Basically, in the current situation; someone PM edwin a bid for 100 on one PYP, then all will be well.

A bids 70 on 32 PyPs
B bids 100 on 32 PyPs
C bids 105 on 1 PyP

Result:
PyP #1 - C - $100
PyP #2-32 - B - $100


How would you do it?

Not quite.

B bid before C

PyP 1-31: B @ 100
PyP 32: C @ 105

Also, why are there only 32?

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

kurtreznor wrote: To everyone saying that all the bids should be the same...if one person bid 70 on all, another bid 100 on all, then a third bid 105 on one; what do you expect the result to be?
I would expect third person to be winning one at 105, then person 2 winning the rest at 75...because the only person bidding against them is at 70.

Now, the other way of one person bidding 105 on all and another person bidding 100 on only one SHOULD result in the first winning all items at 105...because that single bid of 100 will run down the line of every item pushing them all up over 100.

Basically, in the current situation; someone PM edwin a bid for 100 on one PYP, then all will be well.

A bids 70 on 32 PyPs
B bids 100 on 32 PyPs
C bids 105 on 1 PyP

Result:
PyP #1 - C - $100
PyP #2-32 - B - $100


How would you do it?

Not quite.

B bid before C

PyP 1-31: B @ 100
PyP 32: C @ 105

Also, why are there only 32?

There are either 32 or 34 PyPs in an order depending on which 8k option you select.

C should get first priority, because they are willing to pay more, and all selections should go at the same price.

In the system you have above, C is charged $5 more than B for the same token - why does B get a $5 discount on the same token? This system would penalize bidders who bid higher amounts, and reward bidders who bid lower amounts in situations like this, which is the opposite of what a bidder should want.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

kurtreznor wrote: To everyone saying that all the bids should be the same...if one person bid 70 on all, another bid 100 on all, then a third bid 105 on one; what do you expect the result to be?
I would expect third person to be winning one at 105, then person 2 winning the rest at 75...because the only person bidding against them is at 70.

Now, the other way of one person bidding 105 on all and another person bidding 100 on only one SHOULD result in the first winning all items at 105...because that single bid of 100 will run down the line of every item pushing them all up over 100.

Basically, in the current situation; someone PM edwin a bid for 100 on one PYP, then all will be well.

A bids 70 on 32 PyPs
B bids 100 on 32 PyPs
C bids 105 on 1 PyP

Result:
PyP #1 - C - $100
PyP #2-32 - B - $100


How would you do it?

Not quite.

B bid before C

PyP 1-31: B @ 100
PyP 32: C @ 105

Also, why are there only 32?

There are either 32 or 34 PyPs in an order depending on which 8k option you select.

C should get first priority, because they are willing to pay more, and all selections should go at the same price.

In the system you have above, C is charged $5 more than B for the same token - why does B get a $5 discount on the same token? This system would penalize bidders who bid higher amounts, and reward bidders who bid lower amounts in situations like this, which is the opposite of what a bidder should want.

Well, most auctions specifically state, this auction favors early bidding.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

kurtreznor wrote: To everyone saying that all the bids should be the same...if one person bid 70 on all, another bid 100 on all, then a third bid 105 on one; what do you expect the result to be?
I would expect third person to be winning one at 105, then person 2 winning the rest at 75...because the only person bidding against them is at 70.

Now, the other way of one person bidding 105 on all and another person bidding 100 on only one SHOULD result in the first winning all items at 105...because that single bid of 100 will run down the line of every item pushing them all up over 100.

Basically, in the current situation; someone PM edwin a bid for 100 on one PYP, then all will be well.

A bids 70 on 32 PyPs
B bids 100 on 32 PyPs
C bids 105 on 1 PyP

Result:
PyP #1 - C - $100
PyP #2-32 - B - $100


How would you do it?

Not quite.

B bid before C

PyP 1-31: B @ 100
PyP 32: C @ 105

Also, why are there only 32?

There are either 32 or 34 PyPs in an order depending on which 8k option you select.

C should get first priority, because they are willing to pay more, and all selections should go at the same price.

In the system you have above, C is charged $5 more than B for the same token - why does B get a $5 discount on the same token? This system would penalize bidders who bid higher amounts, and reward bidders who bid lower amounts in situations like this, which is the opposite of what a bidder should want.

Well, most auctions specifically state, this auction favors early bidding.

Auctions only "favor early bidding" by breaking ties on the same bid by awarding the win to the earlier bidder.

Your system is creating a benefit for a bidder who bid a lower amount and a disadvantage for a bidder who bid a higher amount, simply because the lower bidder bid first.

This is bad for both bidders and the auctioneer.

But they arent bidding on the same item. Once the person is winning a bid at 105, they arent bidding on any of the other PYPs. Only if a bid is losing, does it run the gamut and raise all the bids. A winner gets locked in at the lower of 'their max OR 2nd highest plus increment'. If you insist on all bids being equal, then that means that person is winning one PYP at 105 and all the others have NO WINNER because noone else has bid that much.

Hmm, i think what people are asking for is to set the current bid of ALL 34 PYPs equal to lower of the 34th highest bid OR 35th highest bid plus increment. Note: bidding on all PYPs counts as 34 bids, so doing that would basically set a floor on the price.

Y would bidder b keep bidding against the same pyp. When pyp 2 goes to 80$ and there is a 75$ pyp out there would his bid then go against that one ?

Updated all bids from today and corrected the spreadsheet mistakes for the increment. Thanks for all the feedback.