Subject:
|
Re: Proxy bidding mechanics questions...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:46:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
274 times
|
| |
|
|
First off -- thanks to everyone for their help on this!...
In lugnet.market.theory, Will Hess writes:
> CORRECT: 1. The brick opens at a base of $1.00. Rae places a proxy bid of
> $3.00 on the brick. The system shows her the message: "Proxy bid of $3.00
> was recorded. Current bid is $1.10"
>
> I hope Rae isn't the first bidder here. If she is then the current bid
> should be $1.00.
Jon Hayward noticed this too. Example 1 is how my auction has always worked
in the past -- that you have to bid one increment above the opening price.
The opening price + 1 increment bid is relative to what I want to sell the
piece at. IE. If I want to get $1.00, with your logic I would open at $1.00
and allow a bid of $1.00, with my logic I open at $0.90 and allow a bid of
$1.00
While neither logic is "wrong", yours is simpler and used more often -- it
just happened that when I was programming my auction system it ended up
working easier for me to do it my way.
> CORRECT: 2. Chris sees Rae's bid of $1.10, and bids $2.00. The system
> shows him: "Your proxy bid of $2.00 did not beat rae's earlier proxy.
> Current bid is $2.10 for rae". Chris did not beat Rae's bid, and her bid
> was bumped up by the standard $0.10 increment to be greater than Chris' bid.
>
> IMHO the system message to Chris should't mention names. Also, I think that
> in the case of a proxy bid Rae should only have to equal Chris' bid, as her
> bid (as long as she proxied more than Chris) was placed before his.
If I don't show the names in that message, then the user can always go back to
that category listing and see who has the high bid on the items anyway...
> QUESTIONABLE SCENARIO: 3. Chris still wants that brick, so he enters a
> bid of $3.00. The system shows him: "Your proxy bid of $3.00 did not beat
> rae's earlier proxy. Current bid is $3.00 for rae". Chris' bid was equal to
> Rae's earlier proxy, but since her bid was earlier she is put in at $3.00.
> Chris now sees that her bid was not incremented higher than his so he knows
> that her max is $3.00. Is it wrong for him to know this? Is this the right
> way to do things?
>
> Again, I don't think names should be mentioned in the message to Chris.
> Aside from that, I'd have to agree with the rest of the scenario. As an
> aside, if you were to implement my suggestion regarding scenario 2 Chris
> wouldn't know that Rae's max was $3.00 until he places another bid and is
> unchallenged by her.
Tom Stangl and Steve Bliss seemed to agree with this, that Rae's bid should
only be increased to equal, not exceed Chris', thus eliminating situation 3.
Franz Filz seemed to disagree with Tom on this point, which makes me wonder
which way I should run it. Automaticly increasing the proxy bidder's bid one
increment above the contender's seems advanantageous to the auctioneer, but I
think I might go with making it equal to the contender's bid because that
seems to be the fairest to everyone...
Thanks again for everyone's help on this!
Chris Busse
cbusse@infi.net
http://www.bussetech.com/auction
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Proxy bidding mechanics questions...
|
| (...) of (...) was (...) I hope Rae isn't the first bidder here. If she is then the current bid should be $1.00. (...) shows (...) bid (...) up by (...) IMHO the system message to Chris should't mention names. Also, I think that in the case of a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
