What's the point of sniping bots when eBay has automatic bidding? Counter-sniping is essentially built-in, if your price ceiling is higher then a snipers then you're guaranteed to win even if they bid at the last millisecond.
This was my belief for many years, but then I tried sniping (with the same prices I was putting as my maximum bid before!) and my success rate skyrocketed and the prices I was paying dropped.
It seems that despite repeated reminders and explanations, there are three groups of people using eBay "incorrectly" that make the sniping strategy viable:
1) People who do not understand proxy bidding and think that they "need" to repeatedly bid in increments.
2) People who are irrational about their price ceiling and are willing to bid above their price ceiling because they want to "win".
3) People who want to drive up the price either to deprive others of a good deal, or to drive up the price on behalf of the seller by starting a bidding war with the two above groups.
From a sellers perspective it is common to deal with buyers who won't pay because they paid "more than they wanted", although this is against the eBay ToS and a bid is a contract to purchase the item, because there are few consequences for not doing so.
For some reason, auctions with more bidders seem to attract more bidders, whereas auctions with zero bids seem to go unnoticed. I wonder if this has to do with eBay's search ranking algorithm or some other irrational behavior that I don't understand. At any rate, bidding with 5 or less seconds left to go seems to defeat the above behaviors. I find it distasteful and irrational but it works so I put up with it.
eBay's reputation and trust network is really what makes it a viable product at this point. Given how unreliable Facebook Marketplace buyers are and how many scams are present, I would hesitate to conduct any major transactions beyond a local area.
Auctions are 90% bad deals because you often end up with someone getting over excited and bidding more than the next buy me now price for the same product. But 10% of the time you get lucky, particularly if auctions end at odd time of the day. So I find it's worth throwing some bids, knowing that you should almost always lose. Ebay is best when you are not in a hurry and happy to wait for the right bargain.
> you often end up with someone getting over excited and bidding more than the next buy me now price for the same product.
I don't find auctions exciting or compelling, so I doubt I'd get overly excited about bidding. I'd just set a max bid (probably about half what I would expect to pay with "buy it now", to compensate for the extra delays and hassle involved with auctions) and call it good. If I'm outbid, I'd just do the straight purchase like I would have anyway.
The reason that unnoticed auctions might be worth me looking at is to expand the pool of possible sellers to buy from. Although if my bid makes the auction suddenly attract the attention of automated bidders/snipers, then there's no point to it for me. This might be a nonstarter.
I'll probably give it a try and see how it goes, though.
I mean, an auction is something where you "win" by agreeing to pay more than anyone else. It's always going to be a bad deal for the buyer. The key with Ebay is to actually sell stuff on there too. If you're just a consumer you'll lose out on auctions in the long run.
> It's always going to be a bad deal for the buyer.
That's not true. Sometimes there's not a lot of demand and you pay much less than average market price.
If something is priced super low then someone might step in to arbitrage, but even with perfect knowledge in a perfectly efficient market, an arbitrager will only be willing to pay the true value minus the cost of relisting, the cost of reshipping, the cost of their time, the cost of tying up their money, and the cost of the risk it won't resell. If you beat that by fifty cents you'll get a great deal on the item.
Some items are poorly marketed - in the wrong category, missing a model number, listed as 1MB rather than 1GB, poorly described, poorly photographed etc.
This either limits the number of bidders though worse discoverability or just less desirability and lower prices.
Ebay has filters to display sold listings, so when you're looking to buy something, check out the closed auctions and see what they're going for. If the prices are similar, you might as well buy from fixed-price listings, but if auction prices are lower, you can save a lot by being patient.
You can also save searches for a fixed-priced listing below a specified value, and enable alerts, so that if someone lists something that's priced to sell, you can get it quickly.
i am looking for a bargain not a bidding war. i dont know what is my price ceiling but i know i will only increment twice. if someone outbids me instantly twice in a row i dont want the thing anymore.
Snipers essentially convert the ascending-bid proxy auction used in eBay into a Vickrey second-price sealed bid auction, allowing a buyer to not reveal their preferences to other participants. In theory, with rational participants, this shouldn't have any effect on revenue. In practice, buyers do not always understand auction mechanics and delay setting the highest price they're willing to pay until they are outbid. If they're outbid 3 seconds before the deadline, they lost.
If you set the highest price you’re willing to pay it inevitably drives the price higher up then it would otherwise go. There’s something about putting in a bid and immediately seeing that the price has increased that causes the person to bid again.
Establishing the price ceiling is difficult, though. You might arbitrarily set it as $23, but be sniped at $23.30. The sniper bot only needs to bid that small increment over your arbitrary ceiling.
Can you really say that $23 was your hard limit, or would you have paid $23.40? Unless you're buying something also available at retail, nobody can be that accurate in foresight.
Sniping removes the 'contemplation window' to reconsider your bid.
Then just put your actual hard limit in as your bid, and sleep soundly, knowing that if someone pays $0.01 more, it's OK because you wouldn't have wanted to pay that anyway.
I've never really been bothered by "sniping" in eBay. I always bid my absolute 100% maximum, and if someone bids more than me, then they can have it.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. I don't do auctions, but if I did, it would be because I want that item. When I want something, I never have an absolute hard price ceiling; if I'm willing to pay $10000, I'm willing to pay $10000.01. I can't imagine anyone who would be happy to pay $X for an item but not $X + $0.01.
Like, if I'm at a store and an item costs $500, and I bring it to the checkout and the cashier says "oh sorry that was mislabeled, it's $500.01 not $500", there is no world in which I go "okay never mind then, $500 was my max". There does not exist a situation where I've decided I want something at price $X, but would not buy it at price $X + $0.01, because $0.01 is absolutely negligible.
So where does this fantasy of an absolute max price come from?
It's not supposed to be some red line absolute max price, but rather "how much is this item worth to you?" You set that as your max bid price. If you get it at auction for less than that, you got a good deal, but if you buy it for more, you got a bad deal. If someone outbids you, then maybe it was worth it to them, but you (supposedly) would not have wanted to buy the item for that much, and would rather use your money for something else.
For tricky-to-price items like unique art pieces, the idea that you can pin this down might be a fantasy, but for commodity items it's pretty reasonable. If you can buy the same thing at costco dot com for $500, then it's probably not worth more than $500 to you, and if at auction you get outbid and it sells for $500.01 then you'll shrug and go order the same thing for a cent less, having wasted only a few minutes of your time. If the item you're bidding on is discontinued (e.g. it's last year's model) but you can buy a slightly better one for $550, and you can spare that extra $50, then again you won't be too sad about getting outbid. Online auctions are more popular for used items, but again in that case you usually still have an idea of what a used item is worth to you.
The logic of "you shouldn't ever need to snipe, just bid your max price" only works if we assume that the max price is a red line though. If I "value something" at $5000 (as in I want to buy it at $5000), and I bid $5000, and someone bids $5000.01, I would probably be happy if I sniped them and got the item for $5000.02.
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.
> 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.
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?
Your max price should be the price such that you're indifferent between buying the item at that price and not buying it at all.
At a shop, usually you're paying less than the maximum you'd be willing to pay, because the shop's prices are fixed and it would be a big coincidence if the price they set happened to match your max price exactly.[1] So even if we model you as homo economicus, it's normal that you're almost always fine with paying $X + $0.01.
In the case where $X really is your max price (i.e. it's right at your threshold of indifference), the idea of rejecting $X + $0.01 seems less silly. You were already very close to deciding $X was too much, so you're probably feeling ambivalent about making the purchase, and the trivial nudge of an extra cent being added to the price might as well be what pushes you over the edge.
[1] There are exceptions, e.g. when you have a negligible preference between brands A and B, so you're defaulting to brand A because the prices are exactly the same, but you would buy B if it were marginally cheaper. But that doesn't affect the main point here.
So it should be the highest price such that you're not indifferent, you marginally prefer to buy it. The point is that you're right at the threshold where it's just barely worth it to you.
I reckon that's empirically false. Shops set prices like $499.99 for a reason.
(And it has to be theoretically false, otherwise $X is equivalent to $X + $0.01 for all X, and so if you'd buy something at 1c you'd buy it for the contents of your bank account.)
If you still dispute this, you need to try to explain how a larger price difference can affect your decision. If you'd happily place a $1 bid, and you'd definitely not place a $100 bid, and a 1c difference could never deter you from placing a bid, then... well, how is that possible?
Regarding the last part: it's simple, $1.01 is less than $100
This process doesn't work endlessly. You can't just add $.01 a billion times and I'd still pay it. But it works once or twice.
Shops set prices like $499.99 due to funny psychological effects: $499.99 is still a price "in the 400s" while $500 is "in the 500s". Nobody sits down and thinks logically about it and concludes that no, the $.01 difference between $499.99 and $500.00 crosses the line. But people see $499.99 and the brain initially goes "oh, it's only 400-something".
- agreeing there must be some threshold such that if the price is $X then you will buy(/bid on) the item, but if the price is $X + $0.01 then you won't;
- but maintaining that in a case where you have already decided to buy/bid and the price then rises by $0.01, you will always go ahead and pay the extra cent (provided this hasn't already happened a bunch of times)?
If so, then I don't see the original problem. Do your best to estimate X (or, more specifically, the value of X you actually endorse as your 'true' valuation), and put that in as your maximum bid. If you get the item at $X you'll be marginally pleased; if you get it for less then you'll be more pleased; and if you miss out on it then you shouldn't mind, as you knew it was only going to be just barely worth it at $X.
If you're actually disagreeing with the first point, then you still need to explain how that can make sense. It's coherent to say that in practice, after making the decision to buy at a given price, you would always accept a 1c price rise but at some point between the first 1c rise and the billionth you'd tell the guy to piss off. But that's not the same as saying the actual value of the item, separate from the emotions involved in the purchase process, is somehow indeterminate. If it's not worth it at $1, and it's worth it at $100, but 1c can never take it from "worth it" to "not worth it", then ?
> - agreeing there must be some threshold such that if the price is $X then you will buy(/bid on) the item, but if the price is $X + $0.01 then you won't;
No, I'm not. If I will buy an item for price $X, I will buy the item for the price $X + $.01. The decision to purchase something is more complex and cannot be encapsulated as one single dollar value.
I think something your model fails to account for is: there is friction associated with a purchase. I will not necessarily go through the process of buying something whose "value" is $0.1 even if its price is $0.09, because there is friction to making a purchase which that $0.01 profit doesn't cover.
As an example: I recently played a Pokemon ROM hack where there was an NPC selling a nugget for 4999. You can sell the nugget for 5000. That's 1 coin profit; objectively a good trade, right? But going through the process of purchasing something isn't free. So in spite of what your economic models may suggest, I did not stop everything I was doing and spend the rest of the game buying nuggets for 4999 and selling them for 5000, because that would've been boring and my time has value.
If I've already gone through a lot of the process to decide to buy something at a certain price (which includes doing research to find out that the thing suits my needs, researching how the market looks for that category of thing, then bringing the item to the cashier or engaging in the eBay auction or contacting a seller), then I've already spent some not-insignificant amount of resources on the purchasing process. A $0.01 price increase will never be enough to stop me from completing that purchase, because $0.01 is not worth going through the whole process again.
If I'm already at the point where I want to bid on an item at $X, then I have spent more than $0.01 in effort researching things to bid on, so I would also bid $X + $0.01.
> If I've already gone through a lot of the process to decide to buy something at a certain price [...] then I've already spent some not-insignificant amount of resources on the purchasing process.
Yes, that's part of what I was trying to account for with my second bullet point. But before you've made that initial decision, there must be some price that would cause you to make it a 'yes' and some marginally higher price that would cause you to make it a 'no'.
This value obviously won't be totally constant across time -- it will vary with your mental state. But at any given time (and for any given roll of the mental dice, if we're assuming there's some true indeterminism here), it must exist. So when we're translating from "what's the maximum I would pay" to "what should I bid", we can imagine that we're in our most rational and clear-thinking frame of mind, aren't seized by any strange impulses, and so on.
The time and effort of researching a different item also has a value that could be pinned down in a similar way. So it doesn't fundamentally change the arguments here; if product A would be worth $X in a vacuum, but you'd happily pay $Y to avoid going through the research process again, then you should bid $X+Y.
Before I have made that initial decision, and before I have invested resources into evaluating what I think the value of a product is, I do not have a price in mind. Deciding on a price I think is fair for a product takes effort. The more accurately I want to determine it, the more effort it is.
Could there exist some hypothetical subjective value? I mean maybe. But not one that I have knowledge of, so it's not something that can even hypothetically affect my behavior. The only time at which I could possibly be aware of my own subjective value judgement of a product necessarily has to be after I have invested time to evaluate it.
So what is the problem? You've done the research, and your best estimate for the value is $X. And if you had to put a dollar value on avoiding doing the research again, it would be $Y. You put in a maximum bid of $X+Y, walk away from the auction, and come back to see that you won at a lower price (great!), won at your max price (fine), or lost (also fine; $X+Y was right at the threshold of what you considered worth paying, even accounting for the extra research you'll now have to do. Maybe if you look at the final price and see that you lost by 1c, you'll feel annoyed... but if that's anything more than an irrational emotional response, then why didn't you bid 1c more in the first place? You were free to enter any number you wanted, and you knew in advance that this might happen. If it is just an irrational emotional response, you can avoid that next time by not looking at the final price unless you win.)
Neither $X nor $Y are going to be hard dollar values. If I semi-arbitrarily pick some $X and some $Y, put in $X+$Y as my max bid, and lost the item due to $0.01, I would be annoyed not due to some irrationality but because $X and $Y were never cent-accurate in the first place.
They'll never be cent-accurate, but if you've done a decent job then they should be in your zone of rough indifference. Then you can simply avoid that annoyance by not looking at the final price, safe in the knowledge that at worst you may have missed out on a marginally worthwhile purchase by marginally underestimating its value. If that's not the case, you didn't bid enough in the first place.
(But also, how is the annoyance not irrational? Your estimates weren't cent-accurate, but they were just as likely to be slightly too high as slightly too low. And you haven't learned anything new about the true values -- unless you take your emotional reaction to be new evidence. For your emotional reaction to be new evidence, it has to be somewhat unpredictable, otherwise you could have fully factored it in in advance. But you seem to be saying that you're predictably going to be annoyed by a 1c loss.)
Adding a single grain of sand to a small pile of sand never turns it into a big pile of sand, yet big piles of sand exist... well, how is that possible? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Yes of course I know the Sorites paradox (and I can give my take on it if you are interested), but what point are you making in the context of this discussion?
it's because this argument of "what is $0.01 more?" can be extended forever, implying you are willing to pay an infinite amount of money for anything. since we know this is silly, we try to understand what our "real" maximum is. this is difficult to do for exactly the reasons you mention in your comment! surely $0.01 is negligible! there is a tension here.
and so, absolute max price is not a fantasy - the world would be absurd if it were - but instead its a real and difficult to construct value
It can be extended forever in theory, and sure, that is an interesting philosophical discussion, but it isn't in practice. We're discussing sniping. That means you make the choice once: do I send in a last-second bid that's $.01 more than my "max price", or do I not?
Imagine someone wanting to pay $3.50 on an auction and them rounding up to $4 to account for cent sniping. You're saying they should bid $4.01, but the bid is already including half a hundred one cent increments beyond the price to avoid cent sniping.
You're saying it's only one cent out of 50 cents. Then you're saying it's only one cent out of 51 cents so you should keep bidding more.
The infinite budget of one cent increments that you're dreaming of is actually finite and probably easier to quantify than the absolute price itself, so you're taking a problem where the hard part has been solved and are now obsessed with the easy part that almost nobody bothers paying attention to.
Edit:
Maybe the context isn't obvious but eBay has an automated bidding system with coarse grained increments for automatic bidding like 25 cents. This means there is a finite number of increments that can be meaningfully cent sniped before getting into the next coarse grain increment. You can't actually win an auction by placing a one cent higher bid at the last minute in an unfair way. Sniping on eBay isn't about winning the item, it's about doing a sealed bid auction where others can't see your price to nibble it up since the automated bidding systems performs a snipe for you at the last nanosecond if you entered a higher bid. There is no meaningful situation where a cent or two is standing between you and the item.
Not everyone is in auctions for the game, some people want to actually get the item. Though I imagine there's less and less of them, as most figured out long ago that auctions are a stupid waste of time.
In fact, I'm somewhat angry at sellers setting up auctions if there's no other way to acquire a specific item. Why they won't put a minimum price they're happy to part with some items for, instead of wasting time of a lot of people by withholding target price and pretending they're earning premium through work?
That's exactly what automatic bidding does - it only outbids enough to beat the competing bid (up to your max) without paying any more than is needed. https://www.ebay.com/help/buying/bidding/automatic-bidding?i... (Manual bids have bid increments as well. Although others have pointed out that advance bidding might cause others to bid more than they would if they thought no one else wants the item. )
Yes, what I think happens is the following: User A's price ceiling is $10, User B's $12. When both reveal their max price early, the item will go to $10.50 ($0.50 increment over A's max price). User A then has plenty of time to notice the item being valued at $10.50 by someone. In many cases users then adjust the value they assign to the item and increase their bid. The result: User B has to pay more than $10.50 they would have paid when sniping the item seconds before auction expiration.
But if that someone isn't rational it is better to not give him the time to react to your highest bid.
Also some sellers seem to use some fake accounts to bid high on their own item, revealing your max bid, then cancel their bid, then bid right under your max bid to maximise their sell price. Happened to me twice, and now no longer setting my max bid in advance since.
It does. You can argue you bid a wrong amount by mistake. It's necessary because mistakes do happen, and it even happened to me to retract a mistake once (was bidding on two items simultaneously in two tabs and mixed them up). But it gets abused.
It gets into the nature of "Which grain of sand makes it a pile?"
Knowing people bid snipe by bidding one cent over whole dollars, would you consistently bid two cents over if it meant you would win more of your auctions?
One cent is negligible. If you asked me if I would have paid $10.01 instead of $10.00, I'd probably say "Sure". $10.02? $10.03? Like, where does the line get drawn?
And then you come at it from the other way. Let's say I'd pay $10, but not $11. But what about $10.50? $10.25? Or we can go down by pennies again.
I agree, put in your limit and walk away. If you get overbid, even by a cent, don't sweat it. That's the game. But I can see why people get frustrated when they lose an auction by one cent.
Maybe eBay should publish the price the winning bidder actually bid.
This would let people stop thinking "I lost by one cent" in that situation. It also has a marketing benefit: look at all these people who got great bargains relative to what they would have paid. And it's not an unreasonable amount of transparency: in second price auctions e.g. for stamps or electricity, it's normal to publish the details of all the bids.
Of course eBay has already thought about this more deeply than me and perhaps trialled it and decided they didn't like it. Maybe it's off-putting to sellers to see they lost something for $10 to a buyer who would have paid $30?
The only way to win by a cent is to put your bid at that.
If the current price is $5 and your max bid is $30 and I put a max bid of $100, it will make the current price $31 - $35, whatever the increment is.
To get ebay to accept a bid of one cent over, you have to explicitly set that. Let's say, I'd actually pay $30 as well. $30.01 isn't materially different. So if I put in $30.01, my bid becomes higher than yours.
Exactly. I could put $100,000 as my max bid, but if second place only bids $10, then all they know is I bid $11 (or whatever the increment is). eBay doesn't tell anyone my max is $100K.
I think the reasoning is that people are irrational, and people don't actually have "hard limits' so others will bid in increments to exceed it. So in aggregate you will end up hitting your max more often because of others' irrationality than if it was a sealed auction and you don't give them that chance.
This is my point. If you look at the actual behavior and read people's comments in forums you'll see that almost no one sticks to their "hard limit". Including me!
People's competitive behavior, or "you're not taking this from me," or "I've definitely got this item and have made plans" or any number of other emotional behaviors take over.
People's railing against sniping also demonstrates this.
The act of viewing the item page in itself demonstrates activity and is relayed to other users; leaking information about, not necessarily intent, but awareness. If you want something, figure out the details without actually clicking on it.
Auto bid raises the price to the second highest price among auto bidders, basically running an instant second-price auction. Sniping avoids running these pre-close auctions.
From what I understand, the reasoning behind the snipe method of bidding is to avoid showing to other bidders that there is interest, leading to the, supposed, outcome of more likely being the only bidder and thereby receiving the item at the sellers starting bid price (or slightly above) rather than at the "max one was willing to pay" price.
- bidding more than once and allowing time for others to counter bid drives up the price through competition for the item. Sniping also removes the temptation to counter bid, rather than to stick to your maximum bid.
- not sniping allows the seller to do ghost bidding, letting them discover your maximum price (including counter bidding). Here someone always out bid you (the ghost bidder) but the seller says the winner didn't complete the sale so offers it to you at your highest bid.
Auto bid does not hide any information even with one bidder, as ebay indicates that "1 bid" has occurred.
The only way auto-bid could hide information is if eBay treated auto bid as "silent auction" style. Show "zero bids" all the way to the end, then once closed, see which 'auto-bid' came in highest and declare that bidder the winner.
Sniping is attempting to recreate 'silent auction' style bidding, with a bid system that is not 'silent'.
