Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not a data scientist either but it seems counterintuitive to me that the best strategy is to try to win 12 lots rather than trying to win one.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not a data scientist either but it seems counterintuitive to me that the best strategy is to try to win 12 lots rather than trying to win one.

I believe most would agree with you. But given the format parameters* of this particular auction, it was the only way one could guarantee winning all 12 cards (since there wasn't enough activity on the full set auction). Otherwise you are taking a risk.

*
- Cannot raise your own bid if you are already high bidder
- Each of the 13 lots end individually
- winner of 12 cards based on higher closing price of individual lots vs set.

[oldjudge]

I feel fairly certain that one call to HA would have allowed a high aggregate bidder to raise his own bid if he was locked out by the system.

[trambo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not a data scientist either but it seems counterintuitive to me that the best strategy is to try to win 12 lots rather than trying to win one.

...but after reading this thread for the past few days, I kinda sorta want to be a data scientist!? haha

Great read and I hadn't really had anything to add to the discussion (and still don't except to joke as I just did). So I lurked.....

Sorry it worked out the way it did for Powell! If you're still reading, Powell, I do have a few cards from your t206 set that was at the DIA in my set now. They're noted so in 20-30 years when it's time for me to sell it, I can let the buyer know where it came from before me. Great knowing a small part of my t206 set came from yours!

Troy Rambo

[Edward1994]

Sad how this worked out, but very classy by everyone on here. I think letting the results stand was probably the only real choice, but how sad for Powell as he did nothing wrong, and in good faith thought he was winning.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not a data scientist either but it seems counterintuitive to me that the best strategy is to try to win 12 lots rather than trying to win one.

Bidding on the set only gives you the opportunity to win the set for less than you might otherwise have to pay were you to bid on all lots, but it also places you at risk of losing altogether since in this format, you get shut out without another set bidder to compete against. So it is optimal in the sense that it is the most likely route to the cheapest win, but it is non optimal if the goal is to guarantee a win, which it cannot do. The only way to guarantee a win is to bid on all lots on both sides like playing a game of Whack-a-Mole.

[Edward1994]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Bidding on the set only gives you the opportunity to win the set for less than you might otherwise have to pay were you to bid on all lots, but it also places you at risk of losing altogether since in this format, you get shut out without another set bidder to compete against. So it is optimal in the sense that it is the most likely route to the cheapest win, but it is non optimal if the goal is to guarantee a win, which it cannot do. The only way to guarantee a win is to bid on all lots on both sides like playing a game of Whack-a-Mole.

Thats the part that confused me. Why didn't anyone think about that before hand? From my limited experience, it seems most auctions you need someone else to bid against you to raise your bid. Wasn't it obvious there was a huge risk that it wouldn't be possible to win the set if there was only one bidder? Therefore you would have to bid on every card to make sure you won

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Edward1994

Thats the part that confused me. Why didn't anyone think about that before hand? From my limited experience, it seems most auctions you need someone else to bid against you to raise your bid. Wasn't it obvious there was a huge risk that it wouldn't be possible to win the set if there was only one bidder? Therefore you would have to bid on every card to make sure you won

Then why even have a set option? Michael pointed out how easy it is to run both fairly in an auction in a previous post, it makes no sense how one of the biggest AH would screw it up so badly with their format.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Then why even have a set option? Michael pointed out how easy it is to run both fairly in an auction in a previous post, it makes no sense how one of the biggest AH would screw it up so badly with their format.

Because the Heritage rep was operating under the false assumption that it would yield the maximum amount for the consigner, which would only be true if the bidding pool for both sides consisted of truly independent buyers. But they're not. Every set bidder would have bid on all individual lots had the set lot not been an option. It was an error on their part, and they likely still don't even know it. And they also probably still believe it netted the seller the most money, and they'll probably do it again next time.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Because the Heritage rep was operating under the false assumption that it would yield the maximum amount for the consigner, which would only be true if the bidding pool for both sides consisted of truly independent buyers. But they're not. Every set bidder would have bid on all individual lots had the set lot not been an option. It was an error on their part, and they likely still don't even know it. And they also probably still believe it netted the seller the most money, and they'll probably do it again next time.

Okay, I'm not sure I understand your poimt , are you defending Heritage for not knowing how o run an auction of this magnitude?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Okay, I'm not sure I understand your poimt , are you defending Heritage for not knowing how o run an auction of this magnitude?

No. They're idiots.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Edward1994

Thats the part that confused me. Why didn't anyone think about that before hand? From my limited experience, it seems most auctions you need someone else to bid against you to raise your bid. Wasn't it obvious there was a huge risk that it wouldn't be possible to win the set if there was only one bidder? Therefore you would have to bid on every card to make sure you won

Because there's no way the set should've closed while the individual lots were still open. That has NEVER been how this style of auction has run before. So no, it shouldn't have been obvious.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Because there's no way the set should've closed while the individual lots were still open. That has NEVER been how this style of auction has run before. So no, it shouldn't have been obvious.

Yep, this is the key. All lots should remain open together until there is no more bidding on any of the lots. And the aggregate of the individual bid amounts must act as a proxy bid that the high bidder from the set lot can bid against at all times. Without these two rules in place, the dualing auctions format fails to achieve its goal.

[mordecaibrown]

[QUOTE=Snowman;2378396]Bidding on the set only gives you the opportunity to win the set for less than you might otherwise have to pay were you to bid on all lots,

Explain to me how this is true? I must not be understanding something.

The set price cannot win if it’s less than aggregate of individual lots, so how could you win the set lot at a price lower than you’d could win the summation of each individual lot?

Based on how this auction was run, I have no idea on the purpose of the set lot ever being offered. What was the purpose?

[Snowman]

[QUOTE=mordecaibrown;2378408]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Bidding on the set only gives you the opportunity to win the set for less than you might otherwise have to pay were you to bid on all lots,

Explain to me how this is true? I must not be understanding something.

The set price cannot win if it’s less than aggregate of individual lots, so how could you win the set lot at a price lower than you’d could win the summation of each individual lot?

Based on how this auction was run, I have no idea on the purpose of the set lot ever being offered. What was the purpose?

If you can successfully shut out the bidders on the individual side by not bidding against them, and them not otherwise having enough action to overtake the full set bid, then you can win it for less if your full set high bid amount is less than the sum of the individual lots plus whatever it would take for you to take the high bid on each of those lots. This is why you only bid on one side at a time, and why you only switch sides when forced to by the other bidders.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Bidding on the set only gives you the opportunity to win the set for less than you might otherwise have to pay were you to bid on all lots, but it also places you at risk of losing altogether since in this format, you get shut out without another set bidder to compete against. So it is optimal in the sense that it is the most likely route to the cheapest win, but it is non optimal if the goal is to guarantee a win, which it cannot do. The only way to guarantee a win is to bid on all lots on both sides like playing a game of Whack-a-Mole.

Which is why, as I said in my initial post, "The aggregate total of the single lots should have been treated as another bidder in the full set auction, with the time on the full set auction not ending until no bids had been placed for 30 minutes on any of the individual or full auctions."