shill bidders?

[vintagehofrookies]

it is on BO, FCB + CU forums

[steve B]

If someone collects a fairly narrow group of stuff, like only crackerjacks, those bid percentages are reasonable.

The one tap bidding really messes up what have become the traditional ebay signs of shilling.

And there isn't the usual high number of retracted bids.

There's a lot of stuff that's probably going on with many of the big sellers auctions on Ebay, and they could all do a better job of keeping an eye on it. But I don't think it happened here.

Steve B

[auggiedoggy]

Originally Posted by steve B

If someone collects a fairly narrow group of stuff, like only crackerjacks, those bid percentages are reasonable.

The one tap bidding really messes up what have become the traditional ebay signs of shilling.

And there isn't the usual high number of retracted bids.

There's a lot of stuff that's probably going on with many of the big sellers auctions on Ebay, and they could all do a better job of keeping an eye on it. But I don't think it happened here.

Steve B

Agreed. I tend to buy from the same sellers for items like Imperial Tobacco lacrosse cards and C46s, etc. The stats don't always tell the whole story.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagehofrookies

it is on BO, FCB + CU forums

So you're saying the auction above was shilled?

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, red flags are where bidders not only have a high percentage of bidding with the seller, but ALSO have a high number of retractions -- suggesting they are consignors who run auctions up until they top the high bidder, then retract; or set a high target to induce other bidders to go higher and then retract. This particular auction does not seem suspicious.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, red flags are where bidders not only have a high percentage of bidding with the seller, but ALSO have a high number of retractions -- suggesting they are consignors who run auctions up until they top the high bidder, then retract; or set a high target to induce other bidders to go higher and then retract. This particular auction does not seem suspicious.

There was a thread a while back where someone accused Sean/Greg Morris of shilling a bunch of 1960 Topps Tatoos. The bidder had sveral retractions, a high percentage with GM and seemed to bid often. It was later established that the bidder wasn't shilling. I don't think it's nearly as easy to spot shill bidders than members lead to believe. A good start:

A high percentage of bids with the seller; and
A large number of retractions; and
Low feedback; and
Whole number bids in a sporadic increments.

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

There is shill bidding and fraud in Probstein auctions. Obviously not every auction but fraud exists. Not maybe, definitely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

There was a thread a while back where someone accused Sean/Greg Morris of shilling a bunch of 1960 Topps Tatoos. The bidder had sveral retractions, a high percentage with GM and seemed to bid often. It was later established that the bidder wasn't shilling. I don't think it's nearly as easy to spot shill bidders than members lead to believe. A good start:

A high percentage of bids with the seller; and
A large number of retractions; and
Low feedback; and
Whole number bids in a sporadic increments.

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

I agree there will be cases where something looks like shill bidding but in fact isn't. But there are so many of these suspicious-looking auctions, usually with the same sellers, that I think it's a near certainty that at least some of them are not innocent. If it looks like a duck, it usually is a duck, even if once in a while it might not be.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

There was a thread a while back where someone accused Sean/Greg Morris of shilling a bunch of 1960 Topps Tatoos. The bidder had sveral retractions, a high percentage with GM and seemed to bid often. It was later established that the bidder wasn't shilling. I don't think it's nearly as easy to spot shill bidders than members lead to believe. A good start:

A high percentage of bids with the seller; and
A large number of retractions; and
Low feedback; and
Whole number bids in a sporadic increments.

I only see maybe one of those things here. Certainly not enough to out an auction and accuse people of shilling, but what do I know.

I don't agree that shillers have a large # of retractions. Some do but most don't.

As far as the Sean/Greg accusations many of their auctions had some crazy bid histories. The "random" bid histories I posted in that thread actually all came from Greg's eBay listings auctions.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

So you're saying the auction above was shilled?

I think (could be wrong) that he is saying it is well known about the alleged Probstein auction shilling issues on those forums, not necessarily this one auction.

[vintagehofrookies]

I was commenting in general but whenever I see a private bidder and a another bidder with that high a % bid on the same seller, red flags go up.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagehofrookies

I was commenting in general but whenever I see a private bidder and a another bidder with that high a % bid on the same seller, red flags go up.

That's a pretty big generalization. I know of a couple people in this very thread that have consigned to Probstein, so to imply that his auctions are shilled would be to accuse these members of shilling.

Some auctions, it's obvious. This one isn't (at least I don't think so) and there has been apparent fraud, but with 57,000+ completed auctions in his completed listing, I would be shocked if 1% of those auctions were shilled.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

That's a pretty big generalization. I know of a couple people in this very thread that have consigned to Probstein, so to imply that his auctions are shilled would be to accuse these members of shilling.

Some auctions, it's obvious. This one isn't (at least I don't think so) and there has been apparent fraud, but with 57,000+ completed auctions in his completed listing, I would be shocked if 1% of those auctions were shilled.

Your first summation is absurd. Just because someone says they think there is shilling in Probstein auctions doesn't mean they are making specific allegations against any one person. No kidding it's obvious in some auctions. It's not only obvious it's hysterical. I would be shocked if your 1% isn't way, way low.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just because someone says they think there is shilling in Probstein auctions

That's not what he said. He said his auctions are shilled.

Just like if I were to say "It is known Brockelman & Luckey Auctions are shilled" (they're not btw), I'm not saying that I think maybe one or two might have been possibly shilled. I'm saying your auctions are shilled. ***Again, I don't think they are.

I was just taken aback by the careless generalization.

Also, the 1% could very well be low. He has quite a few bad apples.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Also, the 1% could very well be low. He has quite a few bad apples.

Yes, including the bad apple in the mirror.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

...I would be shocked if 1% of those auctions were shilled.

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Also, the 1% could very well be low. He has quite a few bad apples.

You're doing good so far.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Your first summation is absurd. Just because someone says they think there is shilling in Probstein auctions doesn't mean they are making specific allegations against any one person. No kidding it's obvious in some auctions. It's not only obvious it's hysterical. I would be shocked if your 1% isn't way, way low.

Agree completely.