Robert Edwards Auctions STILL going strong at 8:15 AM Est!!!!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jayshum

If an auction is extended a day for no good reason, then yes, the AH will likely make more money. However, when there is an issue that impacted (and likely prevented some) extended bidding, I don't think it's an indisputable fact that extending the auction a day will result in significantly different ending prices than if extended bidding was able to take place normally.

Read posts #170 and #214. Both seem to indicate that the extra day did foster additional bidding in some cases, and that is just from among the forum members that actively post on here. However, I would think the preponderance of REA bidders are not all active posters on here, and so the chance that even more instances of additional bidding on some other REA lots resulted from that added day are likely, I'm guessing, pretty darn high.

So, those two posts I referenced do seem to indicate that it is an indisputable fact that the one-day extension in this specific REA auction did lead to some additional bids. Now does that mean that such a bidding extension also resulted in additional bids in every other auction that has ever occurred where the bidding got extended for at least one additional day for whatever reason, no. But there is also no reasonable way to ever be able to prove or disprove that in every single instance.

And there is also no exact, agreed upon definition as to what constitutes a "significant" difference in an ending auction price. So, to make any such a statement that something is an indisputable fact, or not, when one of the determining parameters is such a subjective, and not objective, measure, is totally inappropriate. You can't indisputably prove or disprove anything that is a subjective measure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Read posts #170 and #214. Both seem to indicate that the extra day did foster additional bidding in some cases, and that is just from among the forum members that actively post on here. However, I would think the preponderance of REA bidders are not all active posters on here, and so the chance that even more instances of additional bidding on some other REA lots resulted from that added day are likely, I'm guessing, pretty darn high.

So, those two posts I referenced do seem to indicate that it is an indisputable fact that the one-day extension in this specific REA auction did lead to some additional bids. Now does that mean that such a bidding extension also resulted in additional bids in every other auction that has ever occurred where the bidding got extended for at least one additional day for whatever reason, no. But there is also no reasonable way to ever be able to prove or disprove that in every single instance.

And there is also no exact, agreed upon definition as to what constitutes a "significant" difference in an ending auction price. So, to make any such a statement that something is an indisputable fact, or not, when one of the determining parameters is such a subjective, and not objective, measure, is totally inappropriate. You can't indisputably prove or disprove anything that is a subjective measure.

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

Peter,

Robert's post #170 specifically says that if not for the additional day of bidding he wouldn't have had the chance to raise extra funds to bid more. I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was merely pointing out to another poster that the extended bidding did in fact result in additional bids, in this particular REA auction, that would not have occurred otherwise. I never stated, or even insinuated, that such additional bids resulted in higher ending auction prices, or that similar bids could not have come in had the original REA auction close proceeded with no glitches.

I then went even further to note and point out how the other poster's talk of "indisputable facts" was inappropriate because he was using a subjective measure ("significantly" different ending prices), which can never be definitively (and indisputably) proven or disproven. However, it was to also show support for that other poster's position that it absolutely is not an "indisputable fact" that an extended bidding period resulting from a tech glitch will automatically result in additional bids causing higher ending prices. Again, I merely noted that you can't claim something as an indisputable fact if it has any subjective component in it, which for the most part is what Jay was saying. I was responding to Steve's earlier post through Jay's response to that same earlier post, and addressing the way both of them were saying/presenting certain things.

So, "to get technical", what exactly did I say or do wrong? If you are incorrectly assuming or insinuating I stated or implied something that I did not, and just went to all the trouble to explain even more why and how I didn't, then so be it. I've already had the occasion on this forum before to go through the trouble of explaining my position and meaning on something, only to have someone come back and actively argue that I didn't mean what I had just said I meant. How the f@ck can that be, that my opinion and what I said I meant is not what I said and meant by it? Talk about trying to put words in someone else's mouth. But I digress as I'm sure that is not the case in this instance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Peter,

Robert's post #170 specifically says that if not for the additional day of bidding he wouldn't have had the chance to raise extra funds to bid more. I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was merely pointing out to another poster that the extended bidding did in fact result in additional bids, in this particular REA auction, that would not have occurred otherwise. I never stated, or even insinuated, that such additional bids resulted in higher ending auction prices, or that similar bids could not have come in had the original REA auction close proceeded with no glitches.

I then went even further to note and point out how the other poster's talk of "indisputable facts" was inappropriate because he was using a subjective measure ("significantly" different ending prices), which can never be definitively (and indisputably) proven or disproven. However, it was to also show support for that other poster's position that it absolutely is not an "indisputable fact" that an extended bidding period resulting from a tech glitch will automatically result in additional bids causing higher ending prices. Again, I merely noted that you can't claim something as an indisputable fact if it has any subjective component in it, which for the most part is what Jay was saying. I was responding to Steve's earlier post through Jay's response to that same earlier post, and addressing the way both of them were saying/presenting certain things.

So, "to get technical", what exactly did I say or do wrong? If you are incorrectly assuming or insinuating I stated or implied something that I did not, and just went to all the trouble to explain even more why and how I didn't, then so be it. I've already had the occasion on this forum before to go through the trouble of explaining my position and meaning on something, only to have someone come back and actively argue that I didn't mean what I had just said I meant. How the f@ck can that be, that my opinion and what I said I meant is not what I said and meant by it? Talk about trying to put words in someone else's mouth. But I digress as I'm sure that is not the case in this instance.

I wasn't attacking or disagreeing with you. I was just following up with an observation that the fact that there were additional bids on Monday -- which you had referenced -- does not, in and of itself, establish anything. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

Untrue in my case. Had the auction ended Sunday night I would not have bid higher, I had already been outbid and gone to sleep. Decided to bid higher on Monday and only had to bid one increment higher to win so there were no other bidders at that level or higher on Sunday.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Untrue in my case. Had the auction ended Sunday night I would not have bid higher, I had already been outbid and gone to sleep. Decided to bid higher on Monday and only had to bid one increment higher to win so there were no other bidders at that level or higher on Sunday.

Understood, although there likely are people in the opposite camp.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a meaningless bet because there's no way to know what would have happened had the site not had issues.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That there were additional bids proves nothing. The same bids might have come in had there been no glitches and the auction stayed open until its natural close the previous night. To get technical, you need to compare the outcome with the "but for" world, not the actual world.

Most people in this thread are only looking at it from one side depending on what they believe.

As you pointed out it's impossible to know what the difference is or would have been if there was no glitch.

Probably the closest comparison you can get is to compare the overtime bidding in recent REA auctions.

Here is a comparison of the overtime bids in this auction to the recent fall auction and last springs auction for the first 20 lots in each auction.

These are the bids in each auction in overtime when you can only bid on items that you had previously bid on. In two cases a lot didn't meet the reserve so I used the numbers from lot 21.

This auction 170 bids in overtime 71 of them on Monday
2021 fall auction 65 bids in overtime
2021 spring auction 160 bids in overtime

So there was 10 more bids in this auction than there were last springs auction on the first 20 lots. Lot number 7 the signed t202 Cobb in this auction received 42 bids in overtime 33 of them were on Monday.

[Snapolit1]

I'll stick with my original premise: if an AH took a financial hit from one of these outages/delays . . . IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Pat R

Most people in this thread are only looking at it from one side depending on what they believe.

As you pointed out it's impossible to know what the difference is or would have been if there was no glitch.

Probably the closest comparison you can get is to compare the overtime bidding in recent REA auctions.

Here is a comparison of the overtime bids in this auction to the recent fall auction and last springs auction for the first 20 lots in each auction.

These are the bids in each auction in overtime when you can only bid on items that you had previously bid on. In two cases a lot didn't meet the reserve so I used the numbers from lot 21.

This auction 170 bids in overtime 71 of them on Monday
2021 fall auction 65 bids in overtime
2021 spring auction 160 bids in overtime

So there was 10 more bids in this auction than there were last springs auction on the first 20 lots. Lot number 7 the signed t202 Cobb in this auction received 42 bids in overtime 33 of them were on Monday.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'll stick with my original premise: if an AH took a financial hit from one of these outages/delays . . . IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Based on what? Outages happen even to major companies all the time, you seem to think an AH is capable of making itself outage and glitch proof, not so.

https://www.newsweek.com/major-websi...0-2021-1640031

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Most people in this thread are only looking at it from one side depending on what they believe.

As you pointed out it's impossible to know what the difference is or would have been if there was no glitch.

Probably the closest comparison you can get is to compare the overtime bidding in recent REA auctions.

Here is a comparison of the overtime bids in this auction to the recent fall auction and last springs auction for the first 20 lots in each auction.

These are the bids in each auction in overtime when you can only bid on items that you had previously bid on. In two cases a lot didn't meet the reserve so I used the numbers from lot 21.

This auction 170 bids in overtime 71 of them on Monday
2021 fall auction 65 bids in overtime
2021 spring auction 160 bids in overtime

So there was 10 more bids in this auction than there were last springs auction on the first 20 lots. Lot number 7 the signed t202 Cobb in this auction received 42 bids in overtime 33 of them were on Monday.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'll stick with my original premise: if an AH took a financial hit from one of these outages/delays . . . IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

And I'll stick with what I said here.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

seem to indicate that it is an indisputable fact

quoting for posterity.

[Pat R]

All the people that could bid seem to be ignoring the fact that there were many people that couldn't.

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I managed to win the one card I was after.

I was the leading bidder from just after the auction opened until 11:53pm on Sunday night when i was outbid. The technical issues prevented me from increasing my bid in extended bidding, so I was happy the auction was extended.

I finally managed to win the card in last night's extended bidding.

Now, bear in mind that I'm doing this from a UK time zone. I was up to 3:00am (10pm EST) on Monday night
Then I woke up to for extended bidding at 4:45am (11:45pm EST) only to encounter technical issues. Then last night I was up to 2:30am to do it all again. But at least, I got the card.

Signed,
Mr. Tired But Happy

Originally Posted by jhs5120

The site running slow for anyone else?

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Yup can't place a bid

Originally Posted by wondo

It has timed out numerous times for me.

Originally Posted by glchen

I can't bid on REA right now.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Yes, it won't let me on to bid. Annoying as hell. Get your shit together REA

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

At midnight Eastern sharp it stopped taking my bids, cannot currently get back into auction. Seems the 10-minute rule is overwhelming the server(s).

Originally Posted by Northviewcats

The wheel is spinning. I think it is going to be a long night.

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

Will not load for me. Thomas Church

Originally Posted by wondo

Now service is unavailable (sigh)

Originally Posted by MR RAREBACK

I can’t bid

Originally Posted by orioles70

Yep, got booted off and can't get back in

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

quoting for posterity.

Scott,

Is that supposed to be some type of funny joke or an attempt at sarcasm? Aside from being a classic example of someone taking something out of context, that was stated by me in regards to others who posted on here in this thread about how they did in fact end up making additional bids in this recent REA auction because of the closing glitch, and subsequent one-day extension to the auction. I used that language to go along with and parody others who had been saying some things involved in this thread discussion were undisputable facts, when they quite frankly clearly were not. That excerpt you are "saving for posterity" was part of a much longer statement I made showing how there apparently was in fact something in this thread that actually was an indisputable fact, that the glitch in REA's auction closing did in fact lead to some additional bids in this one particular REA auction. And that statement by me was even re-affirmed in later post #239 by one of the parties I had based my original statement on.

So please explain to me why out of all the other statements in this thread claiming to be indisputable facts that clearly were not, you decided and saw fit to "save for posterity" an out of context quote from me about one thing in this thread that actually is an indisputable fact? Especially when the post of mine you are quoting from was already quoted and saved for posterity by someone else in post #225. Seems to make your post totally redundant then. So, I'm just trying to make some sense as to why you still needed to post what you did then, because forgive me, I sure can't make any sense out of it at all.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Sorry I thought you were serious. Taking it in the spirit it was intended I couldn't agree more. The phrases "seem to indicate" and "indisputable fact" just made me laugh as they kinda don't go together.

Originally Posted by BobC

Scott,

Is that supposed to be some type of funny joke or an attempt at sarcasm? Aside from being a classic example of someone taking something out of context, that was stated by me in regards to others who posted on here in this thread about how they did in fact end up making additional bids in this recent REA auction because of the closing glitch, and subsequent one-day extension to the auction. I used that language to go along with and parody others who had been saying some things involved in this thread discussion were undisputable facts, when they quite frankly clearly were not. That excerpt you are "saving for posterity" was part of a much longer statement I made showing how there apparently was in fact something in this thread that actually was an indisputable fact, that the glitch in REA's auction closing did in fact lead to some additional bids in this one particular REA auction. And that statement by me was even re-affirmed in later post #239 by one of the parties I had based my original statement on.

So please explain to me why out of all the other statements in this thread claiming to be indisputable facts that clearly were not, you decided and saw fit to "save for posterity" an out of context quote from me about one thing in this thread that actually is an indisputable fact? Especially when the post of mine you are quoting from was already quoted and saved for posterity by someone else in post #225. Seems to make your post totally redundant then. So, I'm just trying to make some sense as to why you still needed to post what you did then, because forgive me, I sure can't make any sense out of it at all.

[perezfan]

It would be interesting to conduct a poll asking forum members who was still able to bid, and who was shut out in the original overtime session.

My experience was roughly 10 minutes of outage (12:06 - 12:16), and then it resumed full bidding capabilities throughout the repeated extensions (which seemed like about an hour in duration). Lots with no activity were extended 4-5 times, as the countdown clock could not effectively close them out.

In retrospect, I think REA had no choice but to extend it to the next day. However, I felt (since the auction shut down in the overtime session), it should have resumed Monday at 9 PM EDT with the 10 minute lot-by-lot overtime. I don't think it should have re-opened for the entire Monday.

Just my two cents regarding the most fair solution.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by perezfan

It would be interesting to conduct a poll asking forum members who was still able to bid, and who was shut out in the original overtime session.

My experience was roughly 10 minutes of outage (12:06 - 12:16), and then it resumed full bidding capabilities throughout the repeated extensions (which seemed like about an hour in duration). Lots with no activity were extended 4-5 times, as the countdown clock could not effectively close them out.

In retrospect, I think REA had no choice but to extend it to the next day. However, I felt (since the auction shut down in the overtime session), it should have resumed Monday at 9 PM EDT with the 10 minute lot-by-lot overtime. I don't think it should have re-opened for the entire Monday.

Just my two cents regarding the most fair solution.

Agree that would have been a fairer solution. All of the lots but one that I was bidding on went way higher Monday. Would be a tough argument to say that an issue during extending bidding of the announced close let the AH extend a full day and then have another extending bidding period somehow decreased prices rather than increased them. I know the side I’d rather defend.