Pwcc

[Jeff1970Red]

All 3 are bid up to the same number by the same bidder IDs. Coincidental?

[ls7plus]

Just set a realistic maximum bid reflecting what you believe is the real value of the card (and if you are value-oriented, with consideration of the upside and downside potential for appreciation/depreciation), stick with that, and you won't get cheated. If you get it fine, if you don't, you haven't lost anything except a single opportunity to acquire a desired card (in most, though not all cases, there will be others forthcoming in the future). It really is that simple, unless you think you're entitled to a bargain well below what you believe is actual market value. If you're not successful in acquiring the cards you want that way, perhaps your appraisal of real market value is inaccurate.

Just MHO and self-imposed bidding restrictions,

Larry

[swarmee]

Brent has come on here in the past and said that he will block suspicious bidders if you notify him via eBay's message function on those auctions. He says that sellers cannot see bidder history info like we can, so copy/paste that into a message for him, and you may see those bids cancelled.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

All 3 are bid up to the same number by the same bidder IDs. Coincidental?

I have relatively low feedback, 150 or so on ebay, and a high percentage with pwcc if you look me up. I will occasionally place a bid on similar or identical cards that I know won't win just so the cards show up in my bidding feed. Easier to see on my phone. This kind of activity isn't always indicative of fraud or shill bidding even though it looks suspicious.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I have relatively low feedback, 150 or so on ebay, and a high percentage with pwcc if you look me up. I will occasionally place a bid on similar or identical cards that I know won't win just so the cards show up in my bidding feed. Easier to see on my phone. This kind of activity isn't always indicative of fraud or shill bidding even though it looks suspicious.

+1

Normally, I only bid (snipe) within the final 10 seconds of an auction I'm trying to actually win. This week however, I had to "shotgun" over 50 bids on PWCC cards, just to get them on my watch list, as I had run out of allotted space on my watch list.

Given the number of auctions PWCC runs each month, I suspect many other bidders have to do the same.

Steve

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I have relatively low feedback, 150 or so on ebay, and a high percentage with pwcc if you look me up. I will occasionally place a bid on similar or identical cards that I know won't win just so the cards show up in my bidding feed. Easier to see on my phone. This kind of activity isn't always indicative of fraud or shill bidding even though it looks suspicious.

+1

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

All 3 are bid up to the same number by the same bidder IDs. Coincidental?

I'm actually thinking this might be a bidding strategy by some folks. A while ago, I was bidding on two 1975 Topps complete sets being auctioned by PWCC. I sniped both of them, and ended up being the underbidder for both of them. I checked the bid history for both sets, and I saw that I lost to the same bidder for both of them. The very next day, I received a second chance offer for one of the sets. Of course, not wanting to have been possibly shilled up, I declined.

I have no proof or evidence or anything. However, in that case, I have the feeling that the same bidder who won both 1975 sets in my case decided he only wanted one of them, and picked the one he liked better. Then he basically became a nonpaying bidder on the other set.

So my feeling is that some bidders actually think this is okay: I'll put my max bids on all of these cards that I want even though they are the same. If I win multiple ones, I'll pick the one that I like most, and then either retract my bids on the auctions for the same card still ongoing or become nonpaying bidders on those cards I don't want. Again, I have no real evidence of this, but seeing this post reminded me of that past incident for me.