Subject:
|
Re: Pulled off a snipe.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:19:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.comNOMORESPAM
|
Viewed:
|
647 times
|
| |
|
|
Hao-yang Wang wrote:
>
> In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I was ready to go 100 and if it wasn't for sniping, I would have. But
> > why go 100 if you can steal it away for 96 by a little sniping, that's
> > what I'm saying.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> You could have just bid $100, and since the second-highest bidder bid $95, you
> would still get the item for $96.
IF they didn't decide to go 101. By sniping, they didn't get the chance
to decide to do that. They tried to snipe me at 95 with 20 seconds
left... I sniped back and it was in fact the fact that I did it with
only 10 seconds left that denied them the chance to decide if they
wanted to go higher or not.
That's my point. Sniping distorts the market in that it denies the
leisurely contemplation of what something is worth, it requires snap
decisions. Sometimes that means overpayment (as when Ali V sniped a lot
up to 1000 more than it was really worth), sometimes under.
Now, I benefitted from it, this time. But I still don't like it and
won't.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pulled off a snipe.
|
| (...) I don't get it. You could have just bid $100, and since the second-highest bidder bid $95, you would still get the item for $96. If the other bidder really wanted this item as bad as you did, s/he should have set a higher maximum bid up front, (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
