ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So Bob and Mark, were the victims of shill bidding in Mastro at fault themselves for overpaying?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob and Mark, were the victims of shill bidding in Mastro at fault themselves for overpaying?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob and Mark, were the victims of shill bidding in Mastro at fault themselves for overpaying?

Peter, I agree with you wholeheartedly that that was wrong. However, by doing what they did, it ended up showing what many bidders had set as their max amounts to pay, which I think is a more accurate indicator of true FMV for a lot of those items being auctioned. I am definitely against shill bidding and market manipulation as well, and only reference it as it tends to end up showing the max amount someone was willing to pay. Do not condone or support any of those shenanigans at all.

The difference I'm talking about relates to differences in how people perceive FMV for a a particular card. It seems that a very common, accepted thinking is to look at recent past auction and Ebay data as current market value indicators, which it most certainly helps point to. But I'm also saying you can't just look at the last auction sale and emphatically state that is the current market for a specific card. There are too many variables, as I've already alluded to in previous posts, and that the majority of thinking seems to base a card's value not on the most someone will pay, but the second most someone who just happens to be participating in that particular auction will pay. I don't feel that thinking is all that accurate, plus by following that thinking it makes someone more susceptible to being taken in by the adverse effects of shilling and market manipulation.

Another thing with the recent surging in card prices is the volatility in prices on almost a daily basis it seems anymore. So to base decisions on past transactions may not be that smart. I think about how they price gasoline at the pump. My understanding is the price you pay is what they expect it will take to replace the gallon of gas you just bought, and is altogether not based on the actual cost of the gas you just pumped. So if you know someone was willing to pay $100 for a card that recently had a reported sale at $50, that might prove helpful in knowing the next time that same card comes up for sale or auction. Doesn't necessarily protect you from shill bidding and market manipulation, but at least gives you more information on which to decide for yourself what to pay for a card you are interested in.

I've never said being manipulated into overpaying for a card at auction is right. But it doesn't change the fact of what someone was willing to pay, which indicates what their perception of a card's FMV was. I feel you have to look at your own finances and card needs/wishes in deciding what your own perceived value of a card is, and bid/pay accordingly. Go back and look at that recent thread about the M101-2 Sporting News Supplements in the last Memory Lane auction about some truly head scratching prices paid to see an example of what I'm talking about. Can't believe those are sustainable prices given my knowledge about that issue and what else is out there, but can also believe many people just looking at those most recent sales to determine FMV will believe those are now gospel. I am strictly a collector though, and these flippers/investors taking over the market have their own needs and ways of looking at things such as FMV, and good for them. I have already concluded there are a good many sets I'll never complete now because I won't pay the asking prices today of many of the key cards I'm still missing. Time will tell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why is FMV in your example only defined by the one human being willing to pay the most? Suppose a card in auction where one guy puts in a ceiling of 100, the next highest real bid is 50, and the auctioneer drives it up to 100. Nobody else on earth thought it was worth more than 50. So did one guy, assisted by the criminal auctioneer, now define a new FMV?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why is FMV in your example only defined by the one human being willing to pay the most? Suppose a card in auction where one guy puts in a ceiling of 100, the next highest real bid is 50, and the auctioneer drives it up to 100. Nobody else on earth thought it was worth more than 50. So did one guy, assisted by the criminal auctioneer, now define a new FMV?

Didn't say it defines it, just that you need to consider it as maybe a more true reflection of FMV, as opposed to simply accepting the underbidder as setting the market value. There's no way to know that high bidder is a sole outlier, or if for whatever reason a number of serious and financially capable collectors who maybe wanted that same card as much as, or more than, the evental winner, didn't even know of the auction or couldn't participate in it.

Peter, in your example when you say no one else on Earth thought that particular card was worth more than $50, you are literally assuming that every person on the planet looked at the auction, and passed on that card. I would guess that most auctions have several hundred to maybe a few thousand bidders in them, at most. I would speculate that not every auction house or dealer has access to every possible collector that is out there. Heck, I've been collecting for 30+ years and can't begin to tell you how many auctions I've never looked at or bid in, and I know I'm not alone in that. So that is why I'm saying past auction sales can be a good indicator towards what a card's current FMV is, but shouldn't always be taken as the only major component or as a sole final answer. You even responded to someone on how you set prices for cards you put on the BST forum and said yourself you don't just look at recent auction sales, so basically we have agreed all along. Just maybe a differecnce in the weighting of factors you may choose to look at. Again, to me the definition of FMV is what a willing buyer agrees to pay an unrelated and willing seller for an item in an open, arms length transaction. Not what an underbidder was willing to pay in a particular auction.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Didn't say it defines it, just that you need to consider it as maybe a more true reflection of FMV, as opposed to simply accepting the underbidder as setting the market value. There's no way to know that high bidder is a sole outlier, of if for whatever reason a number of serious and financially capable collectors who maybe wanted that same card as much as, or more than, the evental winner, didn't even know of the auction or couldn't participate in it.

Peter, in your example when you say no one else on Earth thought that particular card was worth more than $50, you are literally assuming that every person on the planet looked at the auction, and passed on that card. I would guess that most auctions have several hundred to maybe a few thousand bidders in them, at most. I would speculate that not every auction house or dealer has access to every possible collector that is out there. Heck, I've been collecting for 30+ years and can't begin to tell you how many auctions I've never looked at or bid in, and I know I'm not alone in that. So that is why I'm saying past auction sales can be a good indicator towards what a card's current FMV is, but shouldn't always be taken as the only major component or as a sole final answer. You even responded to someone on how you set prices for cards you put on the BST forum and said yourself you don't just look at recent auction sales, so basically we have agreed all along. Just maybe a differecnce in the weighting of factors you may choose to look at. Again, to me the definition of FMV is what a willing buyer agrees to pay an unrelated and willing seller for an item in an open, arms length transaction. Not what an underbidder was willing to pay in a particular auction.

I think this is a good point about auctions not always being a good measure of the true market value of an item. It really depends on what that item is and how much current demand and supply exist in the marketplace. For something that gets traded often with both abundant supply and demand like a Shohei Ohtani Topps Chrome rookie card, recent auction prices are a pretty good predictor of what the next one will sell for because there are enough buyers out there for the card to be reliably bid up to its full potential, but also enough copies of the card to ensure that if someone misses out on it they won't be upset because they can easily just buy the next one.

However, for cards that are more rare, or that have a much smaller market, like say cards that sell for between 5k-25k, an auction is usually a terrible way to sell it unless you're really hard up for cash. You could make a pretty good living just by buying rare cards like these at auction and then selling them as 'buy-it-now' options if you're patient enough to wait for the right buyers to come along later. It's pretty common for a 20k card to only sell for 15k at auction because it just didn't happen to get enough exposure that particular week. For the really high end cards though, say 25k+, those usually get enough exposure from the large auction houses for auctions to bring in true market values again. But I would almost never sell a rare 10k card at auction on eBay without setting a reserve price. The risk that it sells below market is just way too high.

[Snowman]

I also think the fact that eBay charges you so much to set a reserve price on your auctions is a big part of why there's so much shill bidding on their platform. It costs them nothing to allow you to set a reserve price, yet if you want to place a $10k reserve on an auction, they charge you a $250 fee lol. That's so ridiculous. They're practically begging people to shill bid with a burner account instead. If they just allowed it for free, or for a $1 fee or something like that, then it would get rid of the vast majority of shill bidding. But ebay makes more money by charging for it and allowing people to shill bid instead, so the current shill-bids-a-plenty landscape at eBay shouldn't be a surprise.