Small Traditions LLC/SCANDAL UPDATE

[Peter_Spaeth]

Absolutely there is a new generation of collectors/investors/flippers out there. Iphones and tshirts and sneakers and social media and influencers and apps and PSA 10s. And some hobby businesses have definitely done well to adapt to and cater to them.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Incidentally a purported class action suit was just filed against PWCC in Oregon federal court alleging shill bidding. The Complaint is pretty bare bones.

Hopefully this will shed some light on whether or not the shill bidding allegations made by eBay do in fact hold some teeth. Although I know next to nothing about the likelihood of how things might play out in court either way.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I have to disagree with you here. Your statement assumes that everyone is searching eBay the same way - i.e., they're all typing in '1955 Topps Roberto Clemente' into the search bar and when one shows up that they like, they just bid on it, and that furthermore, they are every bit as willing to bid the same amount regardless of who the seller is. But in practice, this is not how it works. People use eBay in very different ways.

First, there's the issue of buyer's confidence. Having nice clear images that you can zoom in on will always outsell another listing of the same card with blurry pics. Buying from a seller with supernova feedback of 100,000+ ratings will always outsell 'jimbob007' with his (18) feedback score. Obviously there's no shortage of other reputable sellers on eBay, but if you compare a company who does all of those little things right against the overall market, they're going to outsell the competition for those reasons alone. But the biggest factor in how much an item sells for is hands down the number of eyes a seller can get on that auction. And this is where sellers like PWCC and Probstein far outweigh the competition. Just click on the user name of a given seller and you can see how many followers they have. I build predictive models for a living, and I can guarantee you if I were to build a model to predict card prices on eBay, that not only would this factor correlate to auction prices realized, it would probably be the #1 most relevant factor in the model outside of the card itself and the slab it's in. Here's a quick comparison of a few consigment companies:

PWCC (312295) - 43,944 followers still today, despite no longer selling on eBay
Probstein123 (893960) - 57,861 followers
quickconsignment_802 (37054) - 2,682 followers
gregmorriscards (312064) - 13,665 followers
4sharpcorners (312086) - 9,321 followers
sportscardauctionscom (91092) - 4,046 followers
bigboydsportscards (345236) - 12,816 followers
pcsportscards (45465) - 6,371 followers

Note that PWCC, 4sharpcorners, and gregmorriscards all have ~312,000 feedback (a fun coincidence) yet PWCC has more than 3x the number of followers as GM and 4x that of 4SC! And they certainly had even more than that before being banned from eBay. Marketing matters, and PWCC has learned this far better than their competition. Many other consignment companies have not. People in social media even do live PWCC auction watch parties. I just received a PWCC auction catalog in the mail this weekend. I get notifications from Probstein and PWCC on social media all the time, showing me cards that are up for auction that I never even would have thought to look for. I get email blasts from them as well. And PWCC organized thier listings intelligently. All 1950s baseball ending together around the same time, all 1990s basketball cards together, etc. People would log in and just sort PWCC listings by themselves and see what else was up for sale. This doesn't happen with other random sellers. And most sellers have next to zero followers, or just a few dozen. The only way their cards get seen is if someone specifically searches for that card and finds their listing.

Followers matter. Setting up your auctions in an organized manner matters as well. It's all about getting the most eyes on that listing. Say what you want about PWCC, but they were masters of this aspect of selling. Everyone else should be taking notes.

I do agree with you and you are not even taking into account the amount of independent advertising PWCC did to drive people to THEIR ebay site.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Hopefully this will shed some light on whether or not the shill bidding allegations made by eBay do in fact hold some teeth. Although I know next to nothing about the likelihood of how things might play out in court either way.

I wouldn't bet on this suit going anywhere.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Can Ebay be made to share what they know due to a suit like this?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Can Ebay be made to share what they know due to a suit like this?

Non parties are always subject to discovery in civil suits, but much would depend on how the suit unfolded, if it gets dismissed on the face of the complaint, and many other things.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Wouldn't ebay's statement be at least interesting enough to the court to not dismiss the suit out of hand? At least with a good lawyer presenting the argument?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Wouldn't ebay's statement be at least interesting enough to the court to not dismiss the suit out of hand? At least with a good lawyer presenting the argument?

Interesting has nothing to do with it. The issue, or an issue, IMO, will be whether THIS plaintiff (who bought one $200 prewar card) can plausibly allege that HE was damaged. There is no class action at this stage, just an individual claim. I would argue this plaintiff has not plausibly alleged, even if you credit a vague allegation that there was shill bidding in PWCC auctions, that his card was affected. Even under the most relaxed pleading standard, and I haven't studied whether a heightened one might apply, there must be facts alleged that make the claim plausible.

If it survives a motion to dismiss I would also make arguments about sequencing of class and merits discovery, and argue for an early class decision since this case IMO is not likely to meet the criteria for class treatment, but that's for down the road.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree with you here. It is certainly frustrating that the consignment companies have almost no control over who bids on their listings (other than adding someone to their blocked bidders list, which as has been pointed above caps out at 5,000 users and is insufficient for resolving this issue).



I have to disagree with you here. Your statement assumes that everyone is searching eBay the same way - i.e., they're all typing in '1955 Topps Roberto Clemente' into the search bar and when one shows up that they like, they just bid on it, and that furthermore, they are every bit as willing to bid the same amount regardless of who the seller is. But in practice, this is not how it works. People use eBay in very different ways.

First, there's the issue of buyer's confidence. Having nice clear images that you can zoom in on will always outsell another listing of the same card with blurry pics. Buying from a seller with supernova feedback of 100,000+ ratings will always outsell 'jimbob007' with his (18) feedback score. Obviously there's no shortage of other reputable sellers on eBay, but if you compare a company who does all of those little things right against the overall market, they're going to outsell the competition for those reasons alone. But the biggest factor in how much an item sells for is hands down the number of eyes a seller can get on that auction. And this is where sellers like PWCC and Probstein far outweigh the competition. Just click on the user name of a given seller and you can see how many followers they have. I build predictive models for a living, and I can guarantee you if I were to build a model to predict card prices on eBay, that not only would this factor correlate to auction prices realized, it would probably be the #1 most relevant factor in the model outside of the card itself and the slab it's in. Here's a quick comparison of a few consigment companies:

PWCC (312295) - 43,944 followers still today, despite no longer selling on eBay
Probstein123 (893960) - 57,861 followers
quickconsignment_802 (37054) - 2,682 followers
gregmorriscards (312064) - 13,665 followers
4sharpcorners (312086) - 9,321 followers
sportscardauctionscom (91092) - 4,046 followers
bigboydsportscards (345236) - 12,816 followers
pcsportscards (45465) - 6,371 followers

Note that PWCC, 4sharpcorners, and gregmorriscards all have ~312,000 feedback (a fun coincidence) yet PWCC has more than 3x the number of followers as GM and 4x that of 4SC! And they certainly had even more than that before being banned from eBay. Marketing matters, and PWCC has learned this far better than their competition. Many other consignment companies have not. People in social media even do live PWCC auction watch parties. I just received a PWCC auction catalog in the mail this weekend. I get notifications from Probstein and PWCC on social media all the time, showing me cards that are up for auction that I never even would have thought to look for. I get email blasts from them as well. And PWCC organized thier listings intelligently. All 1950s baseball ending together around the same time, all 1990s basketball cards together, etc. People would log in and just sort PWCC listings by themselves and see what else was up for sale. This doesn't happen with other random sellers. And most sellers have next to zero followers, or just a few dozen. The only way their cards get seen is if someone specifically searches for that card and finds their listing.

Followers matter. Setting up your auctions in an organized manner matters as well. It's all about getting the most eyes on that listing. Say what you want about PWCC, but they were masters of this aspect of selling. Everyone else should be taking notes.

All due respect but you're talking about pre-war collectors who have been on eBay for 20 years. They are not strangers to the search and they've been around since the days when you misspelled words on purpose hoping a seller did too.

Modern collectors are a different story and maybe there is something to Twitter and marketing when it comes to their tastes.

But this is the pre-war board and the issues raised have been centered on pre-war cards.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

All due respect but you're talking about pre-war collectors who have been on eBay for 20 years. They are not strangers to the search and they've been around since the days when you misspelled words on purpose hoping a seller did too.

Modern collectors are a different story and maybe there is something to Twitter and marketing when it comes to their tastes.

But this is the pre-war board and the issues raised have been centered on pre-war cards.

I was talking about why PWCC listings sold for more than their competition on average. My comment didn't have anything to do with members of any specific forums. And I'm not sure how that would be relevant.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I was talking about why PWCC listings sold for more than their competition on average. My comment didn't have anything to do with members of any specific forums. And I'm not sure how that would be relevant.

It's relevant because you keep talking about followers, like Twitter or Instagram means anything to a pre-war focused audience (which, by the way, is what this page is dedicated to). These are not explanations for why one card sells for multiples of another by virtue of who's selling it. There are much more plausible explanations, none of which you will accept. This phenomenon is not new nor is it the product of some new marketing blitz or the pandemic. The same two sellers have had thread after thread posted about them for years, all which share a common theme: why did this card sell for this much? These questions date back to a time before your Twitter follower explanation. So it cannot be that and it must be something else.

The earliest threads relating to the same tired topic on this board date to 2013. I'd love to see a screenshot of the Twitter numbers then.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I was talking about why PWCC listings sold for more than their competition on average. My comment didn't have anything to do with members of any specific forums. And I'm not sure how that would be relevant.

Maybe because you are posting all this on what is specifically a, wait a second......pre-war card forum?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

It's relevant because you keep talking about followers, like Twitter or Instagram means anything to a pre-war focused audience (which, by the way, is what this page is dedicated to). These are not explanations for why one card sells for multiples of another by virtue of who's selling it. There are much more plausible explanations, none of which you will accept. This phenomenon is not new nor is it the product of some new marketing blitz or the pandemic. The same two sellers have had thread after thread posted about them for years, all which share a common theme: why did this card sell for this much? These questions date back to a time before your Twitter follower explanation. So it cannot be that and it must be something else.

The earliest threads relating to the same tired topic on this board date to 2013. I'd love to see a screenshot of the Twitter numbers then.

I was not talking about Twitter. I am talking about the number of followers that these sellers have on eBay (see screenshot below) and how that has a positive effect on the hammer prices of their auctions. Whether or not members of this board are interested in Twitter or Instagram has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the more eBay followers a seller has, the more views their listings will receive. Perhaps you were unaware that you can "follow" a seller on eBay? I don't know, but I assure you, this is a thing, and it's far more important than you apparently realize. This isn't rocket science. The more views a listing gets, the more money it will sell for. It's pretty simple. If you disagree with that fact, then I don't know what else to tell you. And if this point hasn't been made before in prior discussions about why PWCC listings sell for more than their competition, then those discussions were lacking one of the most important factors in that conversation, if not THE most important factor.

Originally Posted by BobC

Maybe because you are posting all this on what is specifically a, wait a second......pre-war card forum?

This is still completely irrelevant to the question of "why do PWCC listings sell for more than their competition?" This is the question I am addressing. I don't understand why anyone would think the fact that we are debating this question on a pre-war card forum has anything at all to do with what I'm saying. And even if I were talking about Twitter followers, as opposed to eBay followers, it still wouldn't negate the fact that having more eyes on your listings equates to higher prices. Whether those eyes come from members of this forum or from Twitter followers or Instagram followers or anywhere else.

I can't believe we're arguing about this. More eyes on your listings equate to higher auction prices. Please tell me you agree with this simple fact.

[packs]

Your explanation holds water only in a world where the sale prices have grown over time. The same questions have been asked for at least 8 years. All you have to do is search the acronym and hit Last. The number of followers have not created the marketplace. The marketplace created itself out of thin air, which has always been the impression the board has had, even as far back as 2013.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

Your explanation holds water only in a world where the sale prices have grown over time. The same questions have been asked for at least 8 years. All you have to do is search the acronym and hit Last. The number of followers have not created the marketplace. The marketplace created itself out of thin air, which has always been the impression the board has had, even as far back as 2013.

I don't understand what you're saying when you write "The number of followers have not created the marketplace." Who said anything about creating a marketplace? We're talking about why PWCC cards sold for more than their competition.

If you're talking about overall market prices increasing across the hobby over the past 8 years, then that's an entirely different topic. But the answer to that question is surely not that it "created itself out of thin air". New buyers and new money entered the hobby. It's pretty simple. It isn't some artificial price inflation that came from thin air. It was also predictable.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't understand what you're saying when you write "The number of followers have not created the marketplace." Who said anything about creating a marketplace? We're talking about why PWCC cards sold for more than their competition.

If you're talking about overall market prices increasing across the hobby over the past 8 years, then that's an entirely different topic. But the answer to that question is surely not that it "created itself out of thin air". New buyers and new money entered the hobby. It's pretty simple. It isn't some artificial price inflation that came from thin air. It was also predictable.

No, I'm still talking about prices increasing for a select few sellers in an otherwise common world. When I say that followers didn't create the marketplace, it's in response to you saying a seller is able to make more money selling the same cards because of their followers. But for that to be true, there would have had to have been a time when they weren't.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I was not talking about Twitter. I am talking about the number of followers that these sellers have on eBay (see screenshot below) and how that has a positive effect on the hammer prices of their auctions. Whether or not members of this board are interested in Twitter or Instagram has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the more eBay followers a seller has, the more views their listings will receive. Perhaps you were unaware that you can "follow" a seller on eBay? I don't know, but I assure you, this is a thing, and it's far more important than you apparently realize. This isn't rocket science. The more views a listing gets, the more money it will sell for. It's pretty simple. If you disagree with that fact, then I don't know what else to tell you. And if this point hasn't been made before in prior discussions about why PWCC listings sell for more than their competition, then those discussions were lacking one of the most important factors in that conversation, if not THE most important factor.



This is still completely irrelevant to the question of "why do PWCC listings sell for more than their competition?" This is the question I am addressing. I don't understand why anyone would think the fact that we are debating this question on a pre-war card forum has anything at all to do with what I'm saying. And even if I were talking about Twitter followers, as opposed to eBay followers, it still wouldn't negate the fact that having more eyes on your listings equates to higher prices. Whether those eyes come from members of this forum or from Twitter followers or Instagram followers or anywhere else.

I can't believe we're arguing about this. More eyes on your listings equate to higher auction prices. Please tell me you agree with this simple fact.

I'm not arguing that point all. You came on here and are directing your commentary to mostly pre-war collectors on a pre-war card forum, and that audience is typically older collectors who don't really care all the much about social media and this other garbage you keep spewing out as a contrarian and opposite of everything else that anybody seems to say or think. It's like you take no position or truly give any positive information about anything, just start posting everywhere in your contrarian manner. And it seems like all you ever post are things to go against what someone was saying, yet when they call you out or try to provide evidence to the contrary, you almost always come back saying you didn't say this or that, or that you actually don't believe what most normal people feel you are touting in all your posts. I grant you this, you are very good at the way you word what you say so that after the fact you can deny things that people initially are taking from your posts. Apparently others are aware of you and your antics as well. Thought I saw somewhere about you having a meltdown and getting kicked off BODA, or something like that. And if I'm mistaking you for someone else, I apologize in advance. But if I'm not mistaken, I guess the question is, do you do what you do intentionally to irk as many people as you possibly can, or do you truly not have a clue?

And by the way, what are you exactly, a data scientist and/or some kind of programmer, right? So exactly how does that make you an expert on the effects of social media and attracting customers and the business and other aspects of having followers equate to higher sales? Have you ever actually run a business or done marketing or the like? Your statements that PWCC always seems to get higher prices is because they have more followers can't be proven, any more or less than you can actually prove (or disprove) the reason they get higher prices is due to shill bidding. For all anyone knows, it could be (and very possibly is) a mix or combination of factors and not just the one main factor you are pushing, but you certainly don't know yourself more than anyone else. The more you go on and on, the more you start sounding like that other recent poster, Directly, who's main argument over and over again was that he was right and everyone else was always wrong. You're just able to use prettier words than he is.

And by the way, your own argument about more eyes equating to higher prices has a big glitch in it. Per your own post, you showed that Probstein actually had significantly more positive feedback and followers than PWCC, yet all everyone seems to talk about (on here at least) is how PWCC always seems to get the highest prices. So please explain this for everyone how Probstein isn't getting higher prices than PWCC then.

There are a lot of factors influencing all that is happening and still evolving around us in regards to things like this, and will we ever finally get all the answers, who knows? As I've often said, only time will tell!

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

I'm not arguing that point all. You came on here and are directing your commentary to mostly pre-war collectors on a pre-war card forum, and that audience is typically older collectors who don't really care all the much about social media and this other garbage you keep spewing out as a contrarian and opposite of everything else that anybody seems to say or think.

I told myself this thread had gotten to the teaching a pig to sing mile marker and was done with it. So, it pains me to do this, but he is not making a point about social media. His claim is that there is a correlation between higher card prices realized and higher eBay follower counts. In other words, the more followers an eBay auction house has, the higher prices they will achieve, all other things remaining the same.

That is his claim, anyways, as he hasn't actually presented any proof that would substantiate it. Nor has he addressed what they teach you on the first day of Data Analysis 101: correlation is not necessarily causation.

And by the way, what are you exactly, a data scientist and/or some kind of programmer, right? So exactly how does that make you an expert on the effects of social media and attracting customers and the business and other aspects of having followers equate to higher sales? Have you ever actually run a business or done marketing or the like?

I spent the first two decades of my professional career in electronics manufacturing and the most recent decade in oil and gas. Both are industries dominated by engineers. Indeed, my background is engineering. It is my observation that folks with technological backgrounds often assume that, because they have mastered one (or several) difficult subject matters, that they can reason their way to correct answers beyond those areas. So, go easy on him because he is a victim of his programming.

On a lighter note, I thought I'd share with Snowman how us grayheads used to bid on card auctions outside our hometown back in the day,

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.

Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.

Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I told myself this thread had gotten to the teaching a pig to sing mile marker and was done with it. So, it pains me to do this, but he is not making a point about social media. His claim is that there is a correlation between higher card prices realized and higher eBay follower counts. In other words, the more followers an eBay auction house has, the higher prices they will achieve, all other things remaining the same.

That is his claim, anyways, as he hasn't actually presented any proof that would substantiate it. Nor has he addressed what they teach you on the first day of Data Analysis 101: correlation is not necessarily causation.



I spent the first two decades of my professional career in electronics manufacturing and the most recent decade in oil and gas. Both are industries dominated by engineers. Indeed, my background is engineering. It is my observation that folks with technological backgrounds often assume that, because they have mastered one (or several) difficult subject matters, that they can reason their way to correct answers beyond those areas. So, go easy on him because he is a victim of his programming.

On a lighter note, I thought I'd share with Snowman how us grayheads used to bid on card auctions outside our hometown back in the day,

I know what you are saying and understand exactly what he does. I did point out his own posted figures and asked why his own evidence doesn't support his statement that PWCC has the highest prices because Probstein actually has more followers. And there is no reason to go easy on him as he is obviously knowledgable, just doesn' t really say anything that basically ends up as anything other than he's right and you're wrong. Same thing you're pointing out. And just because he's an engineer he gets no pass from me. I've worked with many engineers and architects in the past, and engineers are typically very knowledgable and pay attention to details and facts. And my daughter is an engineer as well. Feel I'd be letting them all down if I didn't call him out.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

Well, I'll take a try at it.

1. What, specifically, is the shill bidding problem that you think PWCC should be responsible for preventing?

That they do as little as possible to prevent it. It is a complex problem, as there are at least a few ways to shill. Some more stoppable than others.
Bidding up to a max then retracting- Either to ensure a shill bid won't win, or to gain an advantage. They claim they were blocking people with more than a certain number of retractions with Ebays help. (Point one against the idea that they have no access to the data, which in this instance is publicly available anyway)

Bidding in increments for the same reason. This is a bit harder, since the mobile app encourages it, just keep hitting the bid button until you're winning. But someone who bids that was but doesn't ever end up with the high bid is at least a bit suspect.

The one off bid from a bidder who isn't easily connected to the seller of consignor. Like having a friend put a bid on something as a sort of reserve. (Did it once, because I actually wanted the item and did win, pay and get it. ) I'm not sure something like that could be detected at all, and it's probably not easy if it is.

The first two can be figured out from information that's available to the seller.

I don't buy some of the tells others have mentioned, like "bought widely different cards" - I have bought T206s and modern junk wax on the same day, along with stamps and bicycle parts... so no, that's not a reliable indicator.


2. What do you think the scale of that problem is?

Lets go with the old fashioned "90% of the problems are due to 1% of the people" It may be right or wrong, but it's a place to start.

3. How do you think PWCC can solve this problem?

Having at least rudimentary software that looked at the readily available information and at least flagged it for a closer look. From their own announcements Ebay was letting them do that, and helping probably by making a slightly better dataset available.

Limiting it by setting a floor value for the item bids looked at would also make it quicker.

4. How much do you think your proposed solution would cost to implement?

I suspect it would be either much more or much less than my best guess. A few years ago we were discussing something here that I didn't think would scale, and one of the software guys provided the info in less than a couple hours. I guess it did scale easily after all....
On the other hand, I've asked my wife about setting up a database for me for a card project that's way beyond what I can do myself. The response has been anywhere from "Ummm.... maybe?" to "you'll have to learn that stuff yourself. It would take too much time"

5. How effective do you believe your solution would be with respect to the percentage of reduction in shilled listings?

In the short term, probably somewhat effective. Mid term and long term, less effective since as you point out the shills can just start up another account. If it's automated, maybe more effective than I'd believe.

Now if Ebay was serious about limiting that problem across all their auctions, they could probably prevent the replacement accounts pretty easily. I'm locked out of one website that won't allow multiple accounts since I use it maybe once every few years and can't recall my username or password and starting a new account ends with "you already have an account attached to that email, log in here"

Thank you for making an honest attempt at answering my questions.

I think I will have to make a fairly lengthy post to better explain why I see this problem of how to identify and prevent shill bidding differently than everyone else in this thread, and why believe it is primarily eBay's responsibility as opposed to PWCC's. However, I don't have the bandwidth right now to explain it in detail, and anything short of that will just resort to more name calling, so I will follow up with a well explained post instead once I have the time.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I told myself this thread had gotten to the teaching a pig to sing mile marker and was done with it. So, it pains me to do this, but he is not making a point about social media. His claim is that there is a correlation between higher card prices realized and higher eBay follower counts. In other words, the more followers an eBay auction house has, the higher prices they will achieve, all other things remaining the same.

That is his claim, anyways, as he hasn't actually presented any proof that would substantiate it. Nor has he addressed what they teach you on the first day of Data Analysis 101: correlation is not necessarily causation.



I spent the first two decades of my professional career in electronics manufacturing and the most recent decade in oil and gas. Both are industries dominated by engineers. Indeed, my background is engineering. It is my observation that folks with technological backgrounds often assume that, because they have mastered one (or several) difficult subject matters, that they can reason their way to correct answers beyond those areas. So, go easy on him because he is a victim of his programming.

On a lighter note, I thought I'd share with Snowman how us grayheads used to bid on card auctions outside our hometown back in the day,

Learned specialists are aware how ignorant they are in areas outside of their expertise and tread lightly.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.

Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.

Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.

Same thing I'm seeing in many of his posts. He does know how to use prettier words, and puts them together very well. You really have to read, pay attention, and comprehend to get the gist of what he's saying, and figure out if it is meaningful or just empty words. He does make many good points, and brings up logical and thought provoking counter ideas, but forgets that at the end of the day a lot of it is nothing more than unsupported opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. And in commenting here on a pre-war forum, that is relevant and has to be taken into consideration. You always have to consider the audience you are talking to if you are looking to prove your point, especially in a back and forth type situation he often gets into.

Now based on how he typically responds, I'd expect him to answer back that he doesn't really care if others believe him and his points or not. Or that he's not really trying to change anyone's mind, but will respond in some manner usually that makes people feel he still questions why they don't just automatically acquiesce and accept his point of view on different topics like this one because of his logic and thinking. Which is why I asked the question of him if he knowingly continues on with this contrarian banter because he enjoys irking people, or if truly doesn't have a clue how he comes across.

[Peter_Spaeth]

He does have a bit of a theory of mind issue but that's not uncommon or a fault, just an observation.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.

Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.

Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.

Yes, I see this as being an apples to oranges comparison. I don't believe that anyone here would honestly argue that having more eyes on an auction would not bring about higher prices. I think anyone arguing to the contrary is simply being disingenuous. I don't believe for one second that you don't accept that premise as true. Surely, the relationship is not linear though, as there would be an element of diminishing returns (i.e., having 40 million eyes on an auction is effectively equivalent to having 5 million eyes on that auction, but having 40,000 is still significantly better than having 5,000).

I shouldn't need to provide data to support that claim. It is obvious. However, I could certainly prove that it's true if I cared to mine the data. Maybe I'll do that for fun in my spare time. It could be an interesting project to understand and measure the impact that it actually has. It would probably only take a few hours to do. The most difficult and time-consuming part would be building the dataset. Doing the math from there is the easy part.

Originally Posted by BobC

I know what you are saying and understand exactly what he does. I did point out his own posted figures and asked why his own evidence doesn't support his statement that PWCC has the highest prices because Probstein actually has more followers. And there is no reason to go easy on him as he is obviously knowledgable, just doesn' t really say anything that basically ends up as anything other than he's right and you're wrong. Same thing you're pointing out. And just because he's an engineer he gets no pass from me. I've worked with many engineers and architects in the past, and engineers are typically very knowledgable and pay attention to details and facts. And my daughter is an engineer as well. Feel I'd be letting them all down if I didn't call him out.

For the record, I have always claimed that Probstein auction also outsell the competition. I don't know about PWCC vs Probstein though, but from my readings of the various forums and other online communities, most people share this belief that both Probstein and PWCC sell for more than the others. Many of the data tools out there even have options to exclude PWCC and Probstein listings from their comps because of it.

I'm not an engineer. I'm also not a data analyst or a computer programmer or a developer. There is a bit of overlap with my field to each of those skills, but a data scientist, in general, is someone with multiple degrees in either mathematics, statistics, computer science, or physics. Typically, they will have majored in at least one of those 4 disciplines in undergrad and then will have a graduate degree in at least one or more of these fields as well. There are many sub-specialties within the data science space, but my primary area of expertise is in building predictive models. I basically use complex mathematics to teach a computer to learn how to solve specific problems.

When I get the time, I will explain in more detail why this skill set is relevant to the problem of identifying shill bidders, and why I claim it would yield a far superior solution to that problem than hiring a team of data analysts or accountants to do it manually.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He does have a bit of a theory of mind issue but that's not uncommon or a fault, just an observation.

Yes, I do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's a free piece of advice. Repeatedly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or uninformed or unqualified or disingenuous is not an effective means of debate or discussion.

And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Same thing I'm seeing in many of his posts. He does know how to use prettier words, and puts them together very well. You really have to read, pay attention, and comprehend to get the gist of what he's saying, and figure out if it is meaningful or just empty words. He does make many good points, and brings up logical and thought provoking counter ideas, but forgets that at the end of the day a lot of it is nothing more than unsupported opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. And in commenting here on a pre-war forum, that is relevant and has to be taken into consideration. You always have to consider the audience you are talking to if you are looking to prove your point, especially in a back and forth type situation he often gets into.

Now based on how he typically responds, I'd expect him to answer back that he doesn't really care if others believe him and his points or not. Or that he's not really trying to change anyone's mind, but will respond in some manner usually that makes people feel he still questions why they don't just automatically acquiesce and accept his point of view on different topics like this one because of his logic and thinking. Which is why I asked the question of him if he knowingly continues on with this contrarian banter because he enjoys irking people, or if truly doesn't have a clue how he comes across.

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a free piece of advice. Repeatedly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or uninformed or unqualified or disingenuous is not an effective means of debate or discussion.

Fair point. It just makes me look like an ass.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.

Yes, as I mentioned above, the relationship is not a linear function. This is what I meant when I said, "there would be an element of diminishing returns (i.e., having 40 million eyes on an auction is effectively equivalent to having 5 million eyes on that auction, but having 40,000 is still significantly better than having 5,000)." The shape of the curve and the ceiling for a maximal benefit view count and the point at which the diminishing returns "kick in" would all be a function of both supply and demand for that individual card. We should expect to have a steeper curve for something like a Ken Griffey Jr PSA 9 Upper Deck RC than we would for something like a 1933 Goudey Lou Gherig and a shallower curve for something like a 1933 Goudey common. But the relationship between view counts and sold prices should look like some version of the plots below.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I shouldn't need to provide data to support that claim. It is obvious.

There are a lot of attorneys on this board. I wonder if they've ever tried the "Duh!" defense in court?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

No one has accused you of mincing words.
.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

I don't think there's general disagreement that more eyes equal more bids. The disagreement comes in that being a real explanation for what's going on. It has been pointed out that ever since a seller appeared on the scene, as far back as 2013, the same conversation has been had the entire time that seller has been active. Before the followers and before the vault the same issue existed and the same questions were asked.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Incidentally an interesting point was made on another forum where we were discussing what ebay meant by shill bidding by "persons associated with PWCC." Some think it only means consignors were running up their own cards, not that employees or house accounts of PWCC were involved. But as someone asked, how would ebay know who his consignors were?

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Incidentally an interesting point was made on another forum where we were discussing what ebay meant by shill bidding by "persons associated with PWCC." Some think it only means consignors were running up their own cards, not that employees or house accounts of PWCC were involved. But as someone asked, how would ebay know who his consignors were?

There are third party providers that provide store management capabilities that complement eBay's service. Without actually checking, it does seem reasonable that those services would include the capability to associate specific listings with the consignor. And, if eBay had been subpoenaed, you can pretty much bet whomever was PWCC's store provider was also.

[SteveS]

Peter, that phrasing by eBay does leave it open to interpretation. But there's another interesting phrase they used: "If we determine that a buyer or seller is not acting in good faith, eBay takes this seriously and takes action." To me, that would seem to indicate that they believe PWCC is complicit in the shill bidding, as the action they took was to ban them. I would also think that if they felt the consignors were behind the shilling, they would at least attempt to work with a seller that large to resolve the issue. It will be interesting to find out whether eBay ever contacted PWCC to say something like, "Hey, we're noticing some suspicious activity in your auctions involving shill bidding. Let's try to figure this out and stop it." But based on PWCC's response to the ban, it seems as though they were completely surprised by it, which would seem to indicate that eBay feels that PWCC are the ones acting in bad faith.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

There are third party providers that provide store management capabilities that complement eBay's service. Without actually checking, it does seem reasonable that those services would include the capability to associate specific listings with the consignor. And, if eBay had been subpoenaed, you can pretty much bet whomever was PWCC's store provider was also.

That still doesn't explain I don't think how EBAY would know the information so as to accuse PWCC of allowing consignors to bid on their own items.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's more than I'm struggling with whether or not people are being disingenuous and just trying to get under my skin, or if they honestly believe what they're saying sometimes. My above claim that more eyes on a listing leads to higher prices is a prime example. I don't know if people are just messing with me when they challenge that claim or if they honestly believe that it's not true.

I care more about whether or not I'm making my points clearly than I do about whether or not they are understood clearly. But I do at least attempt to speak with intention and I try not to mince words so that there is no confusion about what I'm trying to say. I do get frustrated, however, when someone takes something I've said and completely twists it around and then puts their own words back into my mouth which I then have to spit back out because they want to manipulate my viewpoint.

I will try to be more clear about why I believe something is true in the future rather than just claiming it's true and expecting everyone to believe me.

Maybe try posting some cards and joining the discussion rather than showing up at a party already in progress and pissing in the punch bowl. Just an idea.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That still doesn't explain I don't think how EBAY would know the information so as to accuse PWCC of allowing consignors to bid on their own items.

It isn't a direct analogy, but the company I work for uses a lot of software. A fair amount is just purchased, but there is a fair amount that is Software as a Service (Saas) Even within SaaS, there are programs that require their own login credentials and others that can be accessed through single sign-on. I do negotiate contracts, though not those associated with software. But, it is my understanding that as the level of integration increases, so does the level of complexity in the agreements. It is not unreasonable to expect that in any agreement between eBay and a third party company, there is a provision that eBay must be notified of any fraud or criminal activity associated with their service.

I realize this is just speculation, but that does seem to be the currency here, so....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Fair enough but I still think ebay was referring to employees or house accounts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

Peter, that phrasing by eBay does leave it open to interpretation. But there's another interesting phrase they used: "If we determine that a buyer or seller is not acting in good faith, eBay takes this seriously and takes action." To me, that would seem to indicate that they believe PWCC is complicit in the shill bidding, as the action they took was to ban them. I would also think that if they felt the consignors were behind the shilling, they would at least attempt to work with a seller that large to resolve the issue. It will be interesting to find out whether eBay ever contacted PWCC to say something like, "Hey, we're noticing some suspicious activity in your auctions involving shill bidding. Let's try to figure this out and stop it." But based on PWCC's response to the ban, it seems as though they were completely surprised by it, which would seem to indicate that eBay feels that PWCC are the ones acting in bad faith.

Hopefully somehow we'll find out what it all means. As to your last point, I wouldn't take anything PWCC says at face value. Anything. This is a man who claimed on this forum I was the first one ever to raise a question about his scans (many years ago when they were thermonuclear), when just a few months before he himself had responded at length to such a claim on CU. This is a man who told me flat out in 2016 or 2017 that Gary M. had retired. I could go on and on and on. His public statements are all self-serving spin IMO.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Incidentally an interesting point was made on another forum where we were discussing what ebay meant by shill bidding by "persons associated with PWCC." Some think it only means consignors were running up their own cards, not that employees or house accounts of PWCC were involved. But as someone asked, how would ebay know who his consignors were?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That still doesn't explain I don't think how EBAY would know the information so as to accuse PWCC of allowing consignors to bid on their own items.

They likely wouldn't know in all cases, or perhaps even most cases, who the consigners were without some level of cooperation with the consignment companies. However, they can be reasonably certain in many cases. Here's one example of how they could predict who might be shill bidding on their own items.

Let's say eBay user 'goneFishing64 (18)' had 7 PSA graded cards for sale as 'buy-it-now' listings with his PSA certification numbers entered in the listings but wasn't getting any bites. He decides he really needs the money but knows that if he auctions them off himself, he wouldn't do as well since he only has a feedback score of (18), so he ends the listings and sends the cards off for consignment. Two weeks later, those same certification numbers get entered by the consignment company and one week after that, his eBay ID places a bid on all 7 listings, or a different eBay ID that shares an IP address with 'goneFishing64' places bids on those 7 listings. eBay would have all of this data at their fingertips and it would be easy to write a query to flag all similar cases. It would also probably find a lot of people doing this (albeit a small percentage of the total pool of shill bidders). But that's at least one way that eBay could be reasonably certain that a consignor has placed shill bids on their consignments with a company like PWCC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The hypothetical makes sense, thank you, although I still don't think that's what they are referring to.

[SteveS]

For legal, business, and practical reasons, I don't think that eBay would ban PWCC without having sufficient evidence that they were involved in the shill bidding and/or they knew or it was brought to their attention that consignors were engaged in shill bidding and they did nothing about it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SteveS

For legal, business, and practical reasons, I don't think that eBay would ban PWCC without having sufficient evidence that they were involved in the shill bidding and/or they knew or it was brought to their attention that consignors were engaged in shill bidding and they did nothing about it.

I agree, although the counterpoint has been raised by several that ebay is a vindictive ruthless company and may have done this solely because PWCC was threatening to move to its own platform.

[SteveS]

Oh, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to think that eBay knew exactly what was going on and rode the wave while the bucks were pouring in, then took action when it looked as though the money train was about to go off the tracks. But still, I have to think that they have evidence of wrongdoing by PWCC, as banning them solely out of vindictiveness would have costly consequences.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by SteveS

For legal, business, and practical reasons, I don't think that eBay would ban PWCC without having sufficient evidence that they were involved in the shill bidding and/or they knew or it was brought to their attention that consignors were engaged in shill bidding and they did nothing about it.

In general, I think that would be a pretty safe assumption to make. What complicates this issue for me though, is that both eBay and PWCC have demonstrated having questionable integrity at best in the past.

Neither outcome would be all that surprising to me (the 'individuals associated with PWCC' being actual employees or just consignors). Although if it ever does get shown that PWCC employees themselves placed these shill bids, my money would be on that being something like Brent shilling his own cards or someone on the inside shilling a close friend's cards or something like that. I just can't imagine a scenario where PWCC was involved in widespread shilling of auctions in general. From a game theory perspective, it would be remarkably stupid (with a 'risk of ruin' very near 100%). It would be acting against their own best interests. Although, stranger things have happened, and people do dumb shit every day, so who knows.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

In general, I think that would be a pretty safe assumption to make. What complicates this issue for me though, is that both eBay and PWCC have demonstrated having questionable integrity at best in the past.

Neither outcome would be all that surprising to me (the 'individuals associated with PWCC' being actual employees or just consignors). Although if it ever does get shown that PWCC employees themselves placed these shill bids, my money would be on that being something like Brent shilling his own cards or someone on the inside shilling a close friend's cards or something like that. I just can't imagine a scenario where PWCC was involved in widespread shilling of auctions in general. From a game theory perspective, it would be remarkably stupid (with a 'risk of ruin' very near 100%). It would be acting against their own best interests. Although, stranger things have happened, and people do dumb shit every day, so who knows.

Hubris explains more than stupidity sometimes. From my dealings with him he did not believe he was at any risk.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Thank you for making an honest attempt at answering my questions.

I think I will have to make a fairly lengthy post to better explain why I see this problem of how to identify and prevent shill bidding differently than everyone else in this thread, and why believe it is primarily eBay's responsibility as opposed to PWCC's. However, I don't have the bandwidth right now to explain it in detail, and anything short of that will just resort to more name calling, so I will follow up with a well explained post instead once I have the time.

It is a complex topic, and waiting to do it justice seems fair.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.

It can be about getting more eyes on stuff, which is Ebays most solid contribution.

But it's more about getting the right eyes on stuff.

A friend collects 16mm films, and is I think pretty well known in that hobby.
I tried helping him sell some of the cheaper stuff.. Had a print of a pretty decent school film of a famous story. It was everything you could ask for, low fade emulsion on Mylar, and looked like it had hardly ever been used. Maybe even a couple B or C list actors too. Not super valuable, but very nice.
I listed it twice at 24.99, no bidders. Told him I couldn't see letting it go for less. He listed it higher, using my description and pictures. Sold in under a day at fill price, Maybe 40?
On the other hand, I would list stuff that was practically junk, with an accurate description of its faults, and for me that stuff sold.

[drcy]

When I used eBay way back when, I'd have my bookmarked sellers. I collected unusual and rare items (photos, autographs, memorabilia), and I bookmarked them because I knew they were experts (authenticity), would have interesting stuff and were reliable. Others used them similarly and I'm sure the sellers got healthy prices.

However, that's different than selling a readily available 1990 Leaf Frank Thomas for 2x the price.