[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

While it may seem like you'd be bidding against yourself by bidding on both sides, the math doesn't actually work out that way. The game theory optimal strategy here would be to focus on the individual lots first, and to ensure participation in the set lot as a backup plan, since the individual lots should be the favorite to win out. You're not effectively bidding against yourself because you only bid on one side of the auction unless two or more bidders overtake you on the other side, in which case *they* are the ones who bid you up, not yourself, as they have rendered your losing bids on the other side irrelevant. You never bid up both sides at the same time. You only switch sides if forced to. You will still have to overtake all bidders on both sides regardless if you intend to win. A single competitive bidder on one side cannot overtake you if you control the other side unless the two sides are in a dead heat already, in which case you'd still have to overtake him regardless of which side he is on, and you'd be bidding against him, not yourself. And if a single competitive bidder bids against you on both sides, then it doesn't matter which side he chooses as the decision is arbitrary and you have to overtake him either way.

Suppose lete in the bidding there's just one or two lots where it's obvious another bidder really wants them and would go to the moon to get them. You really want the set so abandon the plan to win all individual lots and chase the set. Suppose too nobody else would have bid higher on the other individual lots on which you are now high. At that point aren't all your other bids built into the set price you now have to beat? Wouldn't you have done better just to chase the set from the get go?