ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Are you yet again trying to put words in my mouth? I repeat, shill bidding is not okay. Please stop putting me in a position of having to defend my integrity (this time vs. Bill Mastro's illegal activities.)

In general, and this applies to everything, from cards to non fungible artwork to houseboats: If someone voluntarily pays some amount for some non-essential item, then, by definition, they are voluntarily choosing to pay that amount for that item. "Overpaying" is defined by the bidder, who is voluntarily choosing to pay that amount.

Is a dealer offering the card in your previous example for $150 being fair? Is the guy who buys it "over paying?" I say, that's for the buyer to decide. If he thinks the price is too high, walk away.

Stop overreacting, I never said you condoned shill bidding or questioned your integrity, I am asking from a price perspective if you think the winners were manipulated or manipulated themselves. In my example where I was shill bid you said I manipulated myself, so it's a fair question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What about price-fixing, Mark? Prices for some non-essential good are fixed by the two dominant firms. People voluntarily pay the inflated fixed price. So was it a market price or a manipulated price?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Stop overreacting, I never said you condoned shill bidding or questioned your integrity, I am asking from a price perspective if you think the winners were manipulated or manipulated themselves. In my example where I was shill bid you said I manipulated myself, so it's a fair question.

If someone had access to bidders' secret maximum bids and manipulated them upwards, that would be a completely different scenario than what we have been discussing, and that would certainly result in artificially inflated prices.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If someone had access to bidders' secret maximum bids and manipulated them upwards, that would be a completely different scenario than what we have been discussing, and that would certainly result in artificially inflated prices.

Why? They paid voluntarily. Nobody made them leave a ceiling bid.
But beyond that, that describes only a small part of the transactions identified in Mastro. Most were people placing bids with the intention of driving up the price and, allegedly, as a result the winners paid more, just like my example where you said I manipulated myself.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why? They paid voluntarily. Nobody made them leave a ceiling bid.

You can defend Mastro if you want, but I think driving up someones' bid when you have access to their ceiling bid is very, very wrong and would result in artificially high prices.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You can defend Mastro if you want, but I think driving up someones' bid when you have access to their ceiling bid is very, very wrong and would result in artificially high prices.

LOL now who is mischaracterizing? Defending Mastro? I am simply trying to understand your position using the Socractic method. I am not defending ANY of it, I think it's all manipulation in case you didn't notice. A comment really not worthy of you, Mark. Surely you're a better debater than that.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL now who is mischaracterizing? Defending Mastro? I am simply trying to understand your position using the Socractic method. I am not defending ANY of it, I think it's all manipulation in case you didn't notice. A comment really not worthy of you, Mark. Surely you're a better debater than that.

Yes I know. But your invoking the name of a convicted criminal and then trying to put me on the defensive with it was the first salvo.

I've stated my opinion; to restate would be redundant. And I agree with what Bob said too. If people will pay a certain price for something, then that is what the price is that people will pay.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes I know. But your invoking the name of a convicted criminal and then trying to put me on the defensive with it was the first salvo.

I've stated my opinion; to restate would be redundant. And I agree with what Bob said too. If people will pay a certain price for something, then that is what the price is that people will pay.

OK I think we've had a good discussion, but if you want to have the last word, my final point would be your reasoning is circular or maybe just tautological.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I've stated my opinion; to restate would be redundant. And I agree with what Bob said too. If people will pay a certain price for something, then that is what the price is that people will pay.

Except that after that sale occurs, that buyer is no longer in the market and the “price” becomes what the next person will pay. And now we are back to the auction scenario of second highest bidder plus one increment

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You can defend Mastro if you want, but I think driving up someones' bid when you have access to their ceiling bid is very, very wrong and would result in artificially high prices.

I would agree. That would be one of the most egregious acts an AH could commit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I would agree. That would be one of the most egregious acts an AH could commit.

Could and did at least in some cases.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why? They paid voluntarily. Nobody made them leave a ceiling bid.
But beyond that, that describes only a small part of the transactions identified in Mastro. Most were people placing bids with the intention of driving up the price and, allegedly, as a result the winners paid more, just like my example where you said I manipulated myself.

Frank, sorry for one more response to Peter.

Peter, you and Mark going back and forth about running up bids, and what difference it makes if a person's max bids are known are i think very different issues as well. The idea of bidding someone up is a little like playing poker where I'm trying to bluff to win the pot. I assume you'll eventually get scared off and fold, and I win the pot. But if you have a decent hand and don't take my bluff and end up calling me, I'll likely lose, and it will end up costing me what I had put into the pot. That is simply considered gamesmanship and an accepted part of poker. Kind of like if you try bidding someone up, and they suddenly stop bidding. You now end up overpaying for a card you never really wanted.

Now assume in that same hand I somehow knew exactly what cards you had, and even though I had a nothing hand myself, I knew your hand was even worse. So I again go to bluff you out of the pot, all the while knowing that whatever you do, I'll still end up winning the hand regardless. So now I have no fear of chickening out and letting you bluff me out of the pot, or of losing it should you end up calling me. Now that is outright cheating and illegal. And to me that would be the same as shill bidding in an auction where I know your max bid. I'd bid right up to your max amount, and then stop. I'd never have to worry about winning the auction by accident, and you'd end up paying the max amount possible. Again, cheating and illegal.

To me, that is a huge night and day difference between the act of shill bidding someone up.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Frank, sorry for one more response to Peter.

Peter, you and Mark going back and forth about running up bids, and what difference it makes if a person's max bids are known are i think very different issues as well. The idea of bidding someone up is a little like playing poker where I'm trying to bluff to win the pot. I assume you'll eventually get scared off and fold, and I win the pot. But if you have a decent hand and don't take my bluff and end up calling me, I'll likely lose, and it will end up costing me what I had put into the pot. That is simply considered gamesmanship and an accepted part of poker. Kind of like if you try bidding someone up, and they suddenly stop bidding. You now end up overpaying for a card you never really wanted.

Now assume in that same hand I somehow knew exactly what cards you had, and even though I had a nothing hand myself, I knew your hand was even worse. So I again go to bluff you out of the pot, all the while knowing that whatever you do, I'll still end up winning the hand regardless. So now I have no fear of chickening out and letting you bluff me out of the pot, or of losing it should you end up calling me. Now that is outright cheating and illegal. And to me that would be the same as shill bidding in an auction where I know your max bid. I'd bid right up to your max amount, and then stop. I'd never have to worry about winning the auction by accident, and you'd end up paying the max amount possible. Again, cheating and illegal.

To me, that is a huge night and day difference between the act of shill bidding someone up.

Good analogy. I definitely agree. While both are illegal, there's a big difference in my eyes too between someone who shill bids their consignment with what is effectively a 'reserve price' and a seller like 'aj_wag' who shills people up to find out what their max bid is, then cancels his shill bid and then with 1 second remaining, shill bids again just below the other person's max bid to extract maximum value from them. He's basically looking at his opponent's hole cards. The fact that this behavior is even possible, let alone repeatable across hundreds of listings by the same 2 accounts on ebay is either mind-blowing incompetence or intentional enablement/looking the other way by eBay. And the fact that this behavior is allowed to continue despite people repeatedly reporting them for it (everyone here should report 'aj_wag' and his 'rywag123' account BTW) tells me that it's much more likely to be the latter than the former.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If someone had access to bidders' secret maximum bids and manipulated them upwards, that would be a completely different scenario than what we have been discussing, and that would certainly result in artificially inflated prices.

Why isn't someone placing a bid in my example with the intention of driving up the price and making me pay more just as artificial?