4 ms·

I'm not defending "you shouldn't ever need to snipe, just bid your max price" as a hard principle, just trying to explain where the idea comes from. Sniping ca

I'm not defending "you shouldn't ever need to snipe, just bid your max price" as a hard principle, just trying to explain where the idea comes from. Sniping can be strategic for lots of reasons: you don't have to commit to a bid until the last second (in case you find a similar item for cheaper elsewhere), you deny other people information, you might avoid anxiety from wondering whether your bid will win, etc. That said, the max price is supposed to be a price where you are not especially happy to get the item at that price, but not really sad either, a price where you would say "well, I hoped for better but I guess that's a fair deal". That's not realistically pinned down to the cent. But if you set a max price at $5000 and would be happy to get the item at $5000.02 (for some reason other than satisfaction from sniping), then you set your max price wrong, or at least differently from how economists expect you to set it.

mort96 8mo ago
> But if you set a max price at $5000 and would be happy to get the item at $5000.02 (for some reason other than satisfaction from sniping), then you set your max price wrong, or at least differently from how economists expect you to set it. I think this is the problem. When most sciences observe reality diverge from the model, they see that as a flaw in the model. When economists (at least you HN "economists") observe reality diverge from the model, they seem to see that as a flaw in reality. The model is wrong.
- imtringued 8mo ago
  According to you, a bidder should always be willing to extend the bid to infinity since each increment is only one cent more.
  - mort96 8mo ago
    No, I am willing to pay $0.01 more but not infinity more, there's a difference
    - chrisoverzero 8mo ago
      "I made my max bid $500.00, but I'd have paid $500.01!" "I made my max bid $500.01, but I'd have paid $500.02!" "I made my max bid $500.02, but I'd have paid $500.03!" …where does this process end?
      - pessimizer 8mo ago
        The way you've put it, always exactly 1¢ above your max bid.
      - mort96 8mo ago
        I can't give you a precise number, but it's somewhere above $0 and below $∞
- less_less 8mo ago
  This thread is pretty weird. My phrase "how economists expect you to set it" is probably wrong here, since I'm not an economist, I've just read the most basic theory about how to use this tool, and also used it myself (on eBay, you know, years ago when the site was mostly auctions). So I don't really know what "economists expect", but rather the basic guidelines for using this tool. You got me there. > I think this is the problem. When most sciences observe reality diverge from the model, they see that as a flaw in the model. When economists (at least you HN "economists") observe reality diverge from the model, they seem to see that as a flaw in reality. But like, to double-check here: "reality" means your imagined use of a tool that you do not in fact use, right? Like you say you "don't do auctions" and I'm trying to explain what that option is for, and you're countering that the basic "how to use this tool" explanation is a wrong model of reality?

mort96 8mo ago

> But if you set a max price at $5000 and would be happy to get the item at $5000.02 (for some reason other than satisfaction from sniping), then you set your max price wrong, or at least differently from how economists expect you to set it. I think this is the problem. When most sciences observe reality diverge from the model, they see that as a flaw in the model. When economists (at least you HN "economists") observe reality diverge from the model, they seem to see that as a flaw in reality. The model is wrong.

imtringued 8mo ago
According to you, a bidder should always be willing to extend the bid to infinity since each increment is only one cent more.
- mort96 8mo ago
  No, I am willing to pay $0.01 more but not infinity more, there's a difference
  - chrisoverzero 8mo ago
    "I made my max bid $500.00, but I'd have paid $500.01!" "I made my max bid $500.01, but I'd have paid $500.02!" "I made my max bid $500.02, but I'd have paid $500.03!" …where does this process end?
    - pessimizer 8mo ago
      The way you've put it, always exactly 1¢ above your max bid.
    - mort96 8mo ago
      I can't give you a precise number, but it's somewhere above $0 and below $∞
less_less 8mo ago
This thread is pretty weird. My phrase "how economists expect you to set it" is probably wrong here, since I'm not an economist, I've just read the most basic theory about how to use this tool, and also used it myself (on eBay, you know, years ago when the site was mostly auctions). So I don't really know what "economists expect", but rather the basic guidelines for using this tool. You got me there. > I think this is the problem. When most sciences observe reality diverge from the model, they see that as a flaw in the model. When economists (at least you HN "economists") observe reality diverge from the model, they seem to see that as a flaw in reality. But like, to double-check here: "reality" means your imagined use of a tool that you do not in fact use, right? Like you say you "don't do auctions" and I'm trying to explain what that option is for, and you're countering that the basic "how to use this tool" explanation is a wrong model of reality?