3 ms·

The metrics that he invented to determine if it is a game of chance are contrived and outright dumb. It's not a game of chance because anyone can win if they a

The metrics that he invented to determine if it is a game of chance are contrived and outright dumb. It's not a game of chance because anyone can win if they are willing to spend more than the other bidders. Even though people can try to use bidding strategies, it is not a game of chance. Keep this terrible blog far, far away, please.

jerf 17y ago
Not so much. I wrote about this in more depth here: http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2888 http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2888 and I won't entirely repeat myself, except I would point out that they sometimes run "special" auctions where the "auction" price is free, and all you pay is the bid price. In that case there is 0 ability to "win"; it's straight-up gambling. Even in the case where you are willing to put a lot of money into a "full price" auction, the ability that someone else has to put one dollar + auction price in and defeat your 2 * auction price dollars in bidding + auction price makes it unlikely you will win without "investing" radically more than the value of the product. (Especially since they are trying to create a bidding war between 2 or more people each of which are unaware of the "sunk cost fallacy", or at least not able to act on it.) I'm not sure what metric you would prefer, but if you feel it's dumb and not gambling, I would invite you to try it. Me? I'll be over here, not trying it. I can work the math. But feel free to let us know how it goes. If you'd like an easier metric, just go to the site and find a currently active item. Simulate yourself hitting the "bid" button, and keep track of how often you do it, and whether you win the item. Until you sit there and watch the counter in real time (as I did on a couple of items), you can't feel how this site works. (And since Swoopo may end up here, I'll repeat what I said on my blog: I am completely uninterested in hearing from you, Swoopo.)
- mcargian 17y ago
  Although it may be evil and expensive, it is absolutely not gambling. The last person to bid, wins. There is no chance, no draw, no random event. The last person gets it.
  - branden 17y ago
    More accurately, you win if yours is the last bid to reach the server. You have less control over that than you think. Unless you pay for their premium service, of course.
  - diego 17y ago
    Except getting the item is not winning. It's only winning if you pay less than retail price.
    - sachinag 17y ago
      No, and this is where most people make the mistake. The winner of any auction is the last and highest bidder. Whether or not it is rational to bid more than retail is irrelevant to determining the winner of an auction. People conflate "I would never do that" with "no one would ever do that".
      - diego 17y ago
        You didn't understand my point. Winning is not getting the item. I define winning as paying less than it would cost at Amazon or wherever you would buy it. If you pay $20 in bids plus $50 for an item that costs $65 at Amazon, you lost $5 (even if your time is free). Yes, you "won" the auction but the real winner in economic terms is the house. [edit: what is the point of participating in an auction for commodity goods other than to pay less than retail? I assume that people who take part in this site do it in the hope of coming out ahead, not to win an auction at any cost even if it means paying more than the item is worth. I don't see how users of this site can confuse "winning an auction" with winning in economic terms]
        edmccaffrey 17y ago
        "I define winning as" You don't get to redefine words to support your personal opinion, and still have a valid argument.
        17y ago
- edmccaffrey 17y ago
  You are inventing absurd definitions of gambling to support your incorrect, defeated argument. The fact that one will usually lose money with that site does not change the fact that the winner is the person willing to spend the most money. "I would point out that they sometimes run 'special' auctions where the 'auction' price is free, and all you pay is the bid price. In that case there is 0 ability to 'win'; it's straight-up gambling." If there is no cost of entry then it isn't a gamble, because a gamble requires you to risk money. Quit inventing definitions to support your defeated argument. "I'm not sure what metric you would prefer, but if you feel it's dumb and not gambling, I would invite you to try it. Me? I'll be over here, not trying it. I can work the math. But feel free to let us know how it goes." That is a red herring. Correctly pointing out the fact that it is not a gamble, does not mean that I think it is a wise use of my money. Do not use such intellectually dishonest tactics to try to change the subject from your failed argument to one that I did not address. You are conflating the inability to control the price with the inability to control the outcome.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    > If there is no cost of entry then it isn't a gamble, because a gamble requires you to risk money. No. He said that they only charge you for the bids, and not for the item, in these special auctions. So if you bid twice and win, you pay only 2 x $0.15, whereas normally you would pay 2 x $0.15 + whatever your highest bid was (I hadn't heard about these special auctions before, it seems like people would just keep bidding forever.)
  - diego 17y ago
    Gambling is betting on an uncertain outcome. The uncertainty is not in whether you can the item (you can get it if you keep bidding forever). What's uncertain is whether you will get the item for less than its value. This is what makes it a gamble. You define the outcome as winning the auction. That's dishonest. The outcome is whether you'll spend more or less than buying the item outright at retail price, which is what you are competing against.
  - jerf 17y ago
    "You are inventing absurd definitions of gambling to support your incorrect, defeated argument." Are you a politician or something? That is an incredibly dishonest phrase to use and you should be downvoted for that alone. (Though I note with some pleasure it hasn't seemed to have worked.) I'm pretty comfortable with this definition of gambling. You are not in control. Part of the scam is that you think you are. But you are not. Your comprehension is being successfully hacked. Try it. Since you apparently won't understand until you do, try it. Then get back to me. See just how much control you have.

jerf 17y ago

Not so much. I wrote about this in more depth here: http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2888 http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2888 and I won't entirely repeat myself, except I would point out that they sometimes run "special" auctions where the "auction" price is free, and all you pay is the bid price. In that case there is 0 ability to "win"; it's straight-up gambling. Even in the case where you are willing to put a lot of money into a "full price" auction, the ability that someone else has to put one dollar + auction price in and defeat your 2 * auction price dollars in bidding + auction price makes it unlikely you will win without "investing" radically more than the value of the product. (Especially since they are trying to create a bidding war between 2 or more people each of which are unaware of the "sunk cost fallacy", or at least not able to act on it.) I'm not sure what metric you would prefer, but if you feel it's dumb and not gambling, I would invite you to try it. Me? I'll be over here, not trying it. I can work the math. But feel free to let us know how it goes. If you'd like an easier metric, just go to the site and find a currently active item. Simulate yourself hitting the "bid" button, and keep track of how often you do it, and whether you win the item. Until you sit there and watch the counter in real time (as I did on a couple of items), you can't feel how this site works. (And since Swoopo may end up here, I'll repeat what I said on my blog: I am completely uninterested in hearing from you, Swoopo.)

mcargian 17y ago
Although it may be evil and expensive, it is absolutely not gambling. The last person to bid, wins. There is no chance, no draw, no random event. The last person gets it.
- branden 17y ago
  More accurately, you win if yours is the last bid to reach the server. You have less control over that than you think. Unless you pay for their premium service, of course.
- diego 17y ago
  Except getting the item is not winning. It's only winning if you pay less than retail price.
  - sachinag 17y ago
    No, and this is where most people make the mistake. The winner of any auction is the last and highest bidder. Whether or not it is rational to bid more than retail is irrelevant to determining the winner of an auction. People conflate "I would never do that" with "no one would ever do that".
    - diego 17y ago
      You didn't understand my point. Winning is not getting the item. I define winning as paying less than it would cost at Amazon or wherever you would buy it. If you pay $20 in bids plus $50 for an item that costs $65 at Amazon, you lost $5 (even if your time is free). Yes, you "won" the auction but the real winner in economic terms is the house. [edit: what is the point of participating in an auction for commodity goods other than to pay less than retail? I assume that people who take part in this site do it in the hope of coming out ahead, not to win an auction at any cost even if it means paying more than the item is worth. I don't see how users of this site can confuse "winning an auction" with winning in economic terms]
      - edmccaffrey 17y ago
        "I define winning as" You don't get to redefine words to support your personal opinion, and still have a valid argument.
        17y ago
edmccaffrey 17y ago
You are inventing absurd definitions of gambling to support your incorrect, defeated argument. The fact that one will usually lose money with that site does not change the fact that the winner is the person willing to spend the most money. "I would point out that they sometimes run 'special' auctions where the 'auction' price is free, and all you pay is the bid price. In that case there is 0 ability to 'win'; it's straight-up gambling." If there is no cost of entry then it isn't a gamble, because a gamble requires you to risk money. Quit inventing definitions to support your defeated argument. "I'm not sure what metric you would prefer, but if you feel it's dumb and not gambling, I would invite you to try it. Me? I'll be over here, not trying it. I can work the math. But feel free to let us know how it goes." That is a red herring. Correctly pointing out the fact that it is not a gamble, does not mean that I think it is a wise use of my money. Do not use such intellectually dishonest tactics to try to change the subject from your failed argument to one that I did not address. You are conflating the inability to control the price with the inability to control the outcome.
- jibiki 17y ago
  > If there is no cost of entry then it isn't a gamble, because a gamble requires you to risk money. No. He said that they only charge you for the bids, and not for the item, in these special auctions. So if you bid twice and win, you pay only 2 x $0.15, whereas normally you would pay 2 x $0.15 + whatever your highest bid was (I hadn't heard about these special auctions before, it seems like people would just keep bidding forever.)
- diego 17y ago
  Gambling is betting on an uncertain outcome. The uncertainty is not in whether you can the item (you can get it if you keep bidding forever). What's uncertain is whether you will get the item for less than its value. This is what makes it a gamble. You define the outcome as winning the auction. That's dishonest. The outcome is whether you'll spend more or less than buying the item outright at retail price, which is what you are competing against.
- jerf 17y ago
  "You are inventing absurd definitions of gambling to support your incorrect, defeated argument." Are you a politician or something? That is an incredibly dishonest phrase to use and you should be downvoted for that alone. (Though I note with some pleasure it hasn't seemed to have worked.) I'm pretty comfortable with this definition of gambling. You are not in control. Part of the scam is that you think you are. But you are not. Your comprehension is being successfully hacked. Try it. Since you apparently won't understand until you do, try it. Then get back to me. See just how much control you have.