Jeff Greene wrote:
Endgame wrote: I felt that way, until I had a 3.50 bid on 100 dwarven steel and my bid amount was at 1.75. The final bid that closed the auction was 5 dwarven steel at some value over 3.50, thus doubling the amount I had to pay.
Now, when I bid on something in large quantities, I do something like this:
Bids for Auction X:
40 Dwarven steel at 3.50
20 Dwarven steel at 3.25
20 Dwarven steel at 3.00
10 Dwarven steel at 2.75
5 Dwarven steel at 2.50
5 Dwarven steel at 2.25
This way I can take a chance at getting a good deal, but someone bidding $5.00 on 1 Dwarven Steel (possibly trying to manipulate the auction a bit to close it by causing 1 bid to increase total amount bid quite a bit) doesn't cost me like it would with 100 @ 3.50.
Its more work for me to compose the bid, and its more work for the auction runner to handle it, but its the only way to protect yourself from one bid for a small number of items dramatically spiking the price for all your items.
I am still trying to understand all this. In your scenario, if you are the leading bidder with 100 dwarven steel at $1.75 (max bid $3.50) and someone comes along and places a bid for 5 dwarven steel at max bid $5, wouldn't the outcome be:
New lead bidder - 5 units at $2 (I assumed $0.25 as the bid increment)
You - 95 units at $1.75
You will lose units to the competition, but I wouldn't think your price would rise until more bids were applied at which point the auction would reach new equilibrium at the max price set by the highest person that does not get any units.
Am I close?
Nope, in the way the auctions are actually run:
100x. Bidder A has submitted a max bid of 3.50 on 100x items where the bid increment is 0.25. The current bid is 1.75 on 100x items.
Bidder B bids $4 on 1 unit.
For some reason that I don't really follow why people think its a good idea, the logical flow is this.
Bidder B "effectively" bids 2.00 on each item, just in case they can win with a bid of $2. When this does not occur, Bidder B then bids 2.25 on each item, just incase they would win with 2.25. This continues until they have raised the price on the entire lot to 3.50. Bidder B then submits a bid for 3.75 and wins 1 unit.
IMO, the best way for the auctioneer to handle this that yields the lowest price for Bidder A is for the auctioneer to direct Bidder B to the lowest price item (in the above scenario all are at the same bid). Bidder B then runs up that single item until he is either outbid or wins a bid. In this scenario, the Bids would be:
Bidder B: 1x @ 3.75
Bidder A: 99x @ 1.75.
This requires trust in the Auctioneer, but I don't think its really any more trust than any other scenario.
Note, in the way things work now in most auctions, its possible to manipulate the auction to a certain degree to close it.
Example auction:
Auction is at 7475/7,500. I have 4 PYPs currently at $90, which is a fantastic price that I would really like to lock in. I see someone with the entire lot of a trade good at a very good price (say 125 mystic silk at .50). I can bid $1.25 on 1 mystic silk, hoping the bidder has bid at least .75 on all 125 silk. If they have bid .75 on all of them, my single bid will raise the price of the auction 31.25 and close it, thus "locking in" my 4 pyps at 90 each