True, that would have made the deal even better (As it is, I kept the games, including the Starcross saucer, and sold the rest for about $600 more than what I paid for it all). However, "reserving" a bid isn't always the right thing to do either. I'll use myself as the example:
Let's say you tell me about a lot you plan to bid on. I hadn't seen it yet. So according to your plan I should back off. However, I run a standard series of searches once a week, and let's say it would have found that lot as well. Does that mean I should back off just because you found it a couple of days before I did? I don't think so. That is less fair than sniping. Especially since there is nothing wrong with sniping. There are only three types of people that are negatively affected by sniping: 1) Buyers who don't really put their maximum bid on the line. If you try to get a title at a bargain, and aren't willing to pony up your true maximum, you are likely to get out-sniped. Solution -- put your true maximum, then you don't have to worry about snipers. You'll either get it, or it would have cost more than you were willing to pay. This is also true when sniping. 2) Sellers. You can argue that sniping lowers the chance of inflating the price above normal auction value. When two hard-headed people get into a price war over an item it is good for the seller. Sniping also keeps the seller in the dark until the very end, causing them to be nervous about how much they will make. However, this is the nature of auctions in the real world as well. You never know what you're getting until the hammer drops. Solution -- as a seller, I say none necessary. 3) Ebay stock holders -- when items sell for more, Ebay earns more commission. Solution -- I'll leave that to eBay to figure out. Sniping is a good tool for buyers, and you should learn to use it. Regards, Hugh -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Quaresma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Sniping Jim Leonard wrote: >Hugh Falk wrote: > > Just for the record. Chris and I both sniped about the same time (just a > few seconds left). I ended up winning because my max bid was higher. Like > Jim said, that's what it really came down to. >Isn't that all it ever comes down to? It's not quite that simple. I can't remember the exact values, but let's look at the two possible scenarios: a) The highest bid was at $90. At the same time Hugh snipes for $200, Chris for $190. RESULT: Hugh takes the cake for $191 b) The highest bid was at $90. Some days before, Hugh spots the auction and lets Chris know he's going for it. Chris hadn't noticed that auction before Hugh pointed it out, so he drops it on Hugh's behalf. Hugh snipes for $200. RESULT: Hugh takes the cake for $91 So that's a $100 difference. Now, at least where I live, $100 more at the end of the month makes a hell of a lot of a difference... Pedro R. Quaresma [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] "So long, and thanks for all the fish" http://www.salvador-caetano.pt http://www.globalshop.pt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
