Wine Bid anomaly (?)

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#1 Post by crickey »

Something odd happened last night to one of my bids I have never seen before. I put in bids on a two-bottle lot with a max bid of $150 (first bid was $135). Later in the week, someone bid the next increment, $145, on both bottles, but I was still winning both bottles at $145. Late on Sunday, someone bid the next increment, $155. It showed that I was winning one bottle at $145 and losing one at $155. No one else put in a bid. I was charged $150 (my max bid) for my winning bottle. Although someone did bid more for the one bottle, I don't know why the price for the bottle I won was adjusted to my max bid. I've never seen this before, but I don't think I've seen what happens when you win a partial bid before. Has anyone else seen this?
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
A. So
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 3142
Joined: July 19th, 2011, 7:58 pm
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#2 Post by A. So »

A third party could have bid $150.
エaイdドrリiアaンn (93 pts.)

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#3 Post by crickey »

There were no other bids. Anyway, the next increment was $155, so if someone else had put in a bid, I would have lost the second bottle, too.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
JulianD
Posts: 848
Joined: June 29th, 2016, 2:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#4 Post by JulianD »

crickey wrote: April 12th, 2021, 8:54 am Something odd happened last night to one of my bids I have never seen before. I put in bids on a two-bottle lot with a max bid of $150 (first bid was $135). Later in the week, someone bid the next increment, $145, on both bottles, but I was still winning both bottles at $145. Late on Sunday, someone bid the next increment, $155. It showed that I was winning one bottle at $145 and losing one at $155. No one else put in a bid. I was charged $150 (my max bid) for my winning bottle. Although someone did bid more for the one bottle, I don't know why the price for the bottle I won was adjusted to my max bid. I've never seen this before, but I don't think I've seen what happens when you win a partial bid before. Has anyone else seen this?
i think something like this happened to me.

I was bidding on a lot of three wines. Someone outbid me on two of them. I increased my max bid on the third one, and now my new max bid was the price shown. (and price I paid). The other person only bought the two (at a higher price point)
Davies

User avatar
PHuff
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 749
Joined: January 31st, 2010, 5:19 pm
Location: New Jersey
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#5 Post by PHuff »

I was looking at a few bottles to bid on in last weeks WineBid auction as well, and I had a few questions, so I went on their FAQ page. I think your question is answered there. BTW, I don't agree with their practice of increasing your bid on the one bottle that you won......

On a separate note (sorry to hijack your thread), here is the question I had:

If there is a lot of 6 bottles priced at $50/bottle, and someone bids $50 on 3 bottles, and I bid $50 on 6 bottles, do we each win 3 bottles? Or do I win all 6 bottles because I place a bid for the entire lot?
Paul

HoosJustinG
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 599
Joined: January 18th, 2020, 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#6 Post by HoosJustinG »

Paul, I believe you’d both win 3 assuming the other bidder got their bid in first.
I'm a good man ... in fact, it's my last name

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#7 Post by crickey »

I didn't see it answered per se in the FAQ. One possible explanation I came up with, though, does relate to the multi-bottle lot FAQ. Because you are deemed to have bid the same amount for each bottle in a multi-bottle lot that you bid on, my actual bid on both bottles was deemed to have been increased to my max bid in order to try to match the overbid from the new bidder on the one bottle. My max bid was not high enough to beat out the new bidder (so I lost the first bottle), but the bid on the second bottle was still raised to the new (maximum) level. If true, that is an interesting wrinkle on the max bid concept I was not aware of. That could be costly in different circumstances.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#8 Post by crickey »

A numerical example of what I think the rule is:

I bid on all six bottles of a six-bottle lot. The initial bid price is $100 per bottle, but I put in a max bid of $150 per because I really want the wine. Another bidder also really wants, the wine, but only one bottle. That bidder goes up to $150 on that one bottle before tapping out. No one else puts in a bid. I win all six bottles at $150 per because you can't win one lot at two different bid prices (the rule stated in the FAQ), so I will pay an extra $250 for the five uncontested bottles because of the one other bid. I think what happened to me (using this example, the new bidder on the one bottle bid $160, so beating my maximum) is just a variation of the first example.

If that is the rule, that doesn't really make sense. The other five bottles were uncontested; why should I pay more for the uncontested ones just because one bottle was contested?
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
RMann
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 156
Joined: June 3rd, 2019, 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#9 Post by RMann »

Hi all, just wanted to let you know that we have seen this and are looking into the log files to see if there were any anomalies. If so, we will contact you privately. FWIW, I've made it clear many times that we'd prefer to not use WineBerserkers as our public customer service forum. We have a well established email, phone number and online chat, and our team immediately picks up the phone and chat and replies. We're not a big business like Amazon, we're a small business and happy to take care of customers individually and personally!

All that said, HoosJustin is 100% correct in his example, and Crickey is correct in his. The rule makes sense in your last example because:
* You really wanted all six bottles, and you were willing to pay up to $150 for all six.
* Even though the competitive bid was $150 for only one bottle in that lot, it's not targeted at a specific bottle in the lot. Just as you note that "you can't win one lot at two different prices," you also can't lose one lot at two different prices- you had bid on the whole lot. One person can't pick off one bottle from you at $150, and then another pick off another bottle at $150, etc. All the bottles necessarily go to $150, and then to actually win something from you, someone needs to bid OVER your max bid. And then if the competitor decides to go to the next increment above your max bid on one bottle, then at that point they win one and you win the rest at your max bid.

* You did help me realize that I mis-stated the rule in the other thread, reproduced and corrected below.

* With regard to the multi-bottle lot behavior: This works exactly as intended- which is exactly the same as it behaved up to 7pm, but now simply in overtime. As Alan notes, if any one bottle in a multi-bottle lot goes into overtime, it sends the whole lot into overtime, as individual bidders or trackers may at that point want to bid on the entire lot or some quantity lesser than the entirety but more than those spoken for, at a price higher than the bottom price. In order to take away one or more of the lower bottles, they need to bid at or above the current reserve. If all the bottles in the lot are at the same reserve, max bids take priority over earlier bids, and earlier bids take priority over later bids. Important point- if 4 bottles are currently sitting at $50 and you have a max bid of $55 on all 4, then if someone bids $51, it necessarily upticks all your bottles to $51. Just as it is not possible to steal (or lose) bottle with a lower bid for one bottle than the max bid set across the lot, it mathematically equates that the entire lot must uptick by $1 per bottle. However, if a bidder bids $56 on one bottle, then they win one bottle at $56 and the original bidder wins the rest at $55 [Edited- the original bidder pays their max bid on 3 of the 4]. Thus, to Wes’ question about whether to bid high on 1-2 bottles that you really want, or low across all the bottles in the lot, if you really want just one or two, then bid your max bid early on just 1-2 and you will more likely win at least one or two, and probably at much lower than your max bid, than bidding low across many and then having the reserves keep ticking up across all of them. If you are really just looking for a deal up to a certain price but then walking away, then bid lower across all lots and see if you end up with several at the price you want.
Russ Mann, CEO WineBid

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#10 Post by AndyK »

I'm not surprised you want to keep this to email/phone call, because this rule makes zero sense. I'm glad it's called out here.
k0berl

User avatar
JulianD
Posts: 848
Joined: June 29th, 2016, 2:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#11 Post by JulianD »

nevermind- addressed above
Davies

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#12 Post by crickey »

Thanks, Russ. I wasn't complaining. I genuinely didn't understand what happened (that's why I had a question mark in the title), and was curious if anyone could explain. From the responses, I was able to work out the rule.

I still don't think the rule makes sense.

This rule also undermines the argument I was making in the long thread on the OT bidding. I said that there is no downside to putting in an early maximum bid. With the rule demonstrated in this thread, there is, and a potentially costly one.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#13 Post by AndyK »

crickey wrote: April 14th, 2021, 7:06 am This rule also undermines the argument I was making in the long thread on the OT bidding. I said that there is no downside to putting in an early maximum bid. With the rule demonstrated in this thread, there is, and a potentially costly one.
This "strategy" Ross has been promoting is helping his company, the seller, and of course maximize the quantity of bottles you win. It's clearly not the best strategy to get a good price as a buyer and I find it mildly insulting Ross thinks people can't see through it.
k0berl

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5425
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#14 Post by Ken Strauss »

AndyK wrote: April 14th, 2021, 11:42 am
crickey wrote: April 14th, 2021, 7:06 am This rule also undermines the argument I was making in the long thread on the OT bidding. I said that there is no downside to putting in an early maximum bid. With the rule demonstrated in this thread, there is, and a potentially costly one.
This "strategy" Ross has been promoting is helping his company, the seller, and of course maximize the quantity of bottles you win. It's clearly not the best strategy to get a good price as a buyer and I find it mildly insulting Ross thinks people can't see through it.
Wow!
This is actually quite disturbing.
I would never think that this would be the answer. This makes no sense.
Moving the price up on bottles that weren’t bid on is wrong.
Thank you for posting!
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

User avatar
Marshall Manning
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 1104
Joined: January 31st, 2009, 1:16 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 142 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#15 Post by Marshall Manning »

Ken Strauss wrote: April 14th, 2021, 12:27 pm Wow!
This is actually quite disturbing.
I would never think that this would be the answer. This makes no sense.
Moving the price up on bottles that weren’t bid on is wrong.
Thank you for posting!
While I get the disappointment in this, I'm not sure how Winebid could figure out a way to do this short of some type of array bidding. For example, let's say there were 5 bottles of a wine starting out at $25, and you set your max bid on all 5 to $30. What you guys are wanting to happen is that one person bidding on one bottle at $26 shouldn't increase the price of the other 4. But how does Winebid do that when you have said you wanted all 5 bottles? If you really only wanted 4 bottles at up to $30, then you should have bid on that. And what if three other individual bidders come in and bid $27, $28, and $29 each. Would you be happy only winning the one bottle at $25 when it appeared to them you wanted all 5? How does Winebid know what your desired number of bottles at a particular price is if you bid on all 5?

What would be cool would be some type of array bidding on multiple bottle lots. For example, say there are 5 bottles of a 1975 CA Cab starting at $50. Since I might be looking for a birth year wine for my wife, I would be interested in 5 bottles at the $50 price if no one else bid. But if I really wanted at minimum one bottle of that wine, I might be willing to pay up to $100 for just one bottle. It would be nice to be able to find a way to bid where I could say I would take 5 bottles at up to $55, 3 bottles at up to $70, and 1 bottle up to $100. But I imagine that would be much more difficult to program.

If we aren't careful, Winebid may just move everything to individual bottle lots [oops.gif] .
Marshall

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#16 Post by AndyK »

Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm
Ken Strauss wrote: April 14th, 2021, 12:27 pm Wow!
This is actually quite disturbing.
I would never think that this would be the answer. This makes no sense.
Moving the price up on bottles that weren’t bid on is wrong.
Thank you for posting!
While I get the disappointment in this, I'm not sure how Winebid could figure out a way to do this short of some type of array bidding. For example, let's say there were 5 bottles of a wine starting out at $25, and you set your max bid on all 5 to $30. What you guys are wanting to happen is that one person bidding on one bottle at $26 shouldn't increase the price of the other 4. But how does Winebid do that when you have said you wanted all 5 bottles? If you really only wanted 4 bottles at up to $30, then you should have bid on that. And what if three other individual bidders come in and bid $27, $28, and $29 each. Would you be happy only winning the one bottle at $25 when it appeared to them you wanted all 5? How does Winebid know what your desired number of bottles at a particular price is if you bid on all 5?

What would be cool would be some type of array bidding on multiple bottle lots. For example, say there are 5 bottles of a 1975 CA Cab starting at $50. Since I might be looking for a birth year wine for my wife, I would be interested in 5 bottles at the $50 price if no one else bid. But if I really wanted at minimum one bottle of that wine, I might be willing to pay up to $100 for just one bottle. It would be nice to be able to find a way to bid where I could say I would take 5 bottles at up to $55, 3 bottles at up to $70, and 1 bottle up to $100. But I imagine that would be much more difficult to program.

If we aren't careful, Winebid may just move everything to individual bottle lots [oops.gif] .
It's not rocket science, what you describe is not hard to implement at all. While someone may be *willing* to take all bottles at the max bid, it doesn't mean they should have to if a different user just wants a single bottle. It just makes no sense to me at all.

In your example, why wouldn't it just raise the cost of one bottle to $26 while the rest stays at $25? If then another bidder comes in with a $27 bid, I would argue it makes most sense to take the cheapest bottle and increase the bid on that. Then you'd win three at $25, one at $26 and one at $27. Where is the problem?
k0berl

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5425
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#17 Post by Ken Strauss »

Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm
Ken Strauss wrote: April 14th, 2021, 12:27 pm Wow!
This is actually quite disturbing.
I would never think that this would be the answer. This makes no sense.
Moving the price up on bottles that weren’t bid on is wrong.
Thank you for posting!
While I get the disappointment in this, I'm not sure how Winebid could figure out a way to do this short of some type of array bidding. For example, let's say there were 5 bottles of a wine starting out at $25, and you set your max bid on all 5 to $30. What you guys are wanting to happen is that one person bidding on one bottle at $26 shouldn't increase the price of the other 4. But how does Winebid do that when you have said you wanted all 5 bottles? If you really only wanted 4 bottles at up to $30, then you should have bid on that. And what if three other individual bidders come in and bid $27, $28, and $29 each. Would you be happy only winning the one bottle at $25 when it appeared to them you wanted all 5? How does Winebid know what your desired number of bottles at a particular price is if you bid on all 5?

What would be cool would be some type of array bidding on multiple bottle lots. For example, say there are 5 bottles of a 1975 CA Cab starting at $50. Since I might be looking for a birth year wine for my wife, I would be interested in 5 bottles at the $50 price if no one else bid. But if I really wanted at minimum one bottle of that wine, I might be willing to pay up to $100 for just one bottle. It would be nice to be able to find a way to bid where I could say I would take 5 bottles at up to $55, 3 bottles at up to $70, and 1 bottle up to $100. But I imagine that would be much more difficult to program.

If we aren't careful, Winebid may just move everything to individual bottle lots [oops.gif] .
I would think there would be a way to program in order to achieve fairness.
If this is the only way I would rather that they require you bid on the entire lot or if not break the lot into 6 individual lots.
Why are you against individual lots?

Anyway most of the time the dollar amount is small. For Chris it was $5.00 not a big deal but still unfair...imo.
However in Chris’s example the difference was $250. That’s significant. Knowing the details is critical when bidding. Most of the time the rules are logical. Here they are not. Again raising the price on bottles that were not bid on is nonsensical.
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

ybarselah
Posts: 6608
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 53 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#18 Post by ybarselah »

this is even weirder than the last thread. putting aside the inevitable confusion, it's not clear what benefit anyone has to a multi-bottle lot that isn't actually a lot (if you can buy some portion of the lot but not all of it).
Yaacov (ITB)

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5425
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#19 Post by Ken Strauss »

Thinking about it.
Your exposure is the difference between your initial bid and your maximum bid.
The greater the difference the greater the exposure or risk.
Crickey example where initial bid is $100 and maximum bid is $150 exposes a $50 difference.
If the lot size is large say 6 or 12 then the exposure is large. $50 times 6 or 12 is $300 or $600.
Russ...you really need to address this!
Thanks
Ken
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#20 Post by AndyK »

I ran into this issue yesterday trying to bid on a two bottle "lot" (can't remember the exact bid amounts, so dollar values are for illustration purposes only):

I placed a bid for both bottles at $50 per bottle, but there was another bid in for one of the bottles that was higher than mine. Therefore, I was winning a partial lot (= 1 bottle) at $50. If I then increase my bid to $55 and that bid is still lower than the max bid from the other bidder, I essentially increased the price for the bottle I was already winning by the amount of the increase. In other words, I'm bidding against myself. How is this a "correct" behavior?!
k0berl

JMReuter
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 129
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 11:14 am
Location: Boston
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#21 Post by JMReuter »

The easiest way to eliminate the issue that has been flagged would be to convert multiple bottle lots into lots of single bottle lots. So, instead of 6 bottles in crickey's example, there would be 6 separate lots and that you would need to bid on separately. The downside would be extra clicking and tracking, which may reduce the number of bottles that receive bids. (Winebid has almost certainly thought this through in the past.) The upside would be that each bottle could sell for a different price if the person with the highest valuation only wants a few of the bottles, reducing the risk associated with a high max bid on all of the bottles.
J o n @ t h @ n R 3 u t 3 r

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19898
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#22 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

crickey wrote: April 14th, 2021, 7:06 am

I still don't think the rule makes sense. ...
Agree with this.

Ken Strauss wrote: April 14th, 2021, 12:27 pm
Wow!
This is actually quite disturbing.
I would never think that this would be the answer. This makes no sense.
Moving the price up on bottles that weren’t bid on is wrong.
Thank you for posting!
Agree with this, too.

Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm
While I get the disappointment in this, I'm not sure how Winebid could figure out a way to do this short of some type of array bidding. For example, let's say there were 5 bottles of a wine starting out at $25, and you set your max bid on all 5 to $30. What you guys are wanting to happen is that one person bidding on one bottle at $26 shouldn't increase the price of the other 4.
That's right. The $26 bidder didn't contest the other four bottles, so the price on the other four bottles shouldn't increase.
Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm But how does Winebid do that when you have said you wanted all 5 bottles?
Just as easily as when they accepted a $26 bid on one bottle. If you were winning all five bottles at $25, and had placed a max bid of $30 on all five bottles, then you should be winning one bottle at $27 and the other four at $25.
Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm If you really only wanted 4 bottles at up to $30, then you should have bid on that.
But that's not what "you" really wanted.
Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm And what if three other individual bidders come in and bid $27, $28, and $29 each. Would you be happy only winning the one bottle at $25 when it appeared to them you wanted all 5? How does Winebid know what your desired number of bottles at a particular price is if you bid on all 5?
In this scenario, it seems "you" should wine all five bottles: one at $25, one at $27, one at $28, one at $29, and one at $30.
Marshall Manning wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:40 pm If we aren't careful, Winebid may just move everything to individual bottle lots [oops.gif] .
Looks like that *is* what they should do.

AndyK wrote: April 14th, 2021, 1:48 pm It's not rocket science, what you describe is not hard to implement at all. While someone may be *willing* to take all bottles at the max bid, it doesn't mean they should have to if a different user just wants a single bottle. It just makes no sense to me at all.

In your example, why wouldn't it just raise the cost of one bottle to $26 while the rest stays at $25? If then another bidder comes in with a $27 bid, I would argue it makes most sense to take the cheapest bottle and increase the bid on that. Then you'd win three at $25, one at $26 and one at $27. Where is the problem?
Yep.

Ken Strauss wrote: April 14th, 2021, 2:08 pm ...
Anyway most of the time the dollar amount is small. For Chris it was $5.00 not a big deal but still unfair...imo.
However in Chris’s example the difference was $250. That’s significant. Knowing the details is critical when bidding. Most of the time the rules are logical. Here they are not. Again raising the price on bottles that were not bid on is nonsensical.
and this.

ybarselah wrote: April 14th, 2021, 3:01 pm this is even weirder than the last thread. putting aside the inevitable confusion, it's not clear what benefit anyone has to a multi-bottle lot that isn't actually a lot (if you can buy some portion of the lot but not all of it).
Agreed. Answer: apparently, it allows the auction company to increase the price on some bottles without there actually being an increased bid on those same bottles. Sounds/Feels dishonest, imo.

JMReuter wrote: April 19th, 2021, 4:17 pm The easiest way to eliminate the issue that has been flagged would be to convert multiple bottle lots into lots of single bottle lots. So, instead of 6 bottles in crickey's example, there would be 6 separate lots and that you would need to bid on separately. The downside would be extra clicking and tracking, which may reduce the number of bottles that receive bids. (Winebid has almost certainly thought this through in the past.) The upside would be that each bottle could sell for a different price if the person with the highest valuation only wants a few of the bottles, reducing the risk associated with a high max bid on all of the bottles.
This is what should be done, unless Winebid wants to royally piss-off their clients who bid on multiple bottle lots. People are going to stop bidding on multiple bottle lots if this system is allowed to continue "as is." The way the system is set-up now is to allow multiple bottle lots to function as multiple lots; the nasty, screw-the-buyer, trick here is that the current system allows a bid on one "lot" to drive-up the prices on other lots, despite those other lots not receiving a corresponding increased bid.


This absolutely reeks, and may amount to fraud if WineBid's notice of this practice is ultimately found to be legally insufficient.
Last edited by Brian G r a f s t r o m on April 20th, 2021, 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“All these characters spend their time explaining themselves, and happily recognizing that they hold the same opinions … how important they consider it to think the same things all together.” --- A.R.

CT: grafstrb

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#23 Post by AndyK »

JMReuter wrote: April 19th, 2021, 4:17 pm The easiest way to eliminate the issue that has been flagged would be to convert multiple bottle lots into lots of single bottle lots. So, instead of 6 bottles in crickey's example, there would be 6 separate lots and that you would need to bid on separately. The downside would be extra clicking and tracking, which may reduce the number of bottles that receive bids. (Winebid has almost certainly thought this through in the past.) The upside would be that each bottle could sell for a different price if the person with the highest valuation only wants a few of the bottles, reducing the risk associated with a high max bid on all of the bottles.
I don't think we need to highlight to WineBid *how* to fix this, there are smart enough people working there. We need to convince them that it's wrong and needs to be fixed.
k0berl

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5425
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#24 Post by Ken Strauss »

Brian,
You certainly understand what is going on.

“This absolutely reeks of fraud.”

I am not sure this reaches the level of fraud.
That said it seems dishonest. I have been hurt by this method and really didn’t know it. The wine I purchased was bid up in $1 increments so I didn’t investigate why. For us bidders the $$ for the most part are small. For Russ the incremental $$ for hundreds of lots add up.

I am sure most bidders have no idea that this is happening.
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5425
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#25 Post by Ken Strauss »

AndyK wrote: April 19th, 2021, 5:04 pm
JMReuter wrote: April 19th, 2021, 4:17 pm The easiest way to eliminate the issue that has been flagged would be to convert multiple bottle lots into lots of single bottle lots. So, instead of 6 bottles in crickey's example, there would be 6 separate lots and that you would need to bid on separately. The downside would be extra clicking and tracking, which may reduce the number of bottles that receive bids. (Winebid has almost certainly thought this through in the past.) The upside would be that each bottle could sell for a different price if the person with the highest valuation only wants a few of the bottles, reducing the risk associated with a high max bid on all of the bottles.
I don't think we need to highlight to WineBid *how* to fix this, there are smart enough people working there. We need to convince them that it's wrong and needs to be fixed.
Yes 100%!
Russ already acknowledged we have the correct interpretation.
Obviously at this point he doesn’t have any intention of fixing this issue.
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19898
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#26 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

I will say this: my objections are contingent upon the lots being of identical bottles.
“All these characters spend their time explaining themselves, and happily recognizing that they hold the same opinions … how important they consider it to think the same things all together.” --- A.R.

CT: grafstrb

D. HEIN
Posts: 276
Joined: September 21st, 2013, 7:41 pm
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#27 Post by D. HEIN »

WOW, if , I am understanding the premise, and if, there is no basis for increasing the price of identical bottles in the same (one) lot, consistently, then the increased cost in ALL lots, by winners, of this scenario, could possibly be massive, since the inception of W/B. If this indeed, as suggested by previous posts, is fraud, it appears W/B could possibly have criminal and civil litigation exposure. Class action?

Where is Don Cornwell????
Donn Hein

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19898
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#28 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

D. HEIN wrote: April 20th, 2021, 12:03 pm WOW, if , I am understanding the premise, and if, there is no basis for increasing the price of identical bottles in the same (one) lot, consistently, then the increased cost in ALL lots, by winners, of this scenario, could possibly be massive, since the inception of W/B. If this indeed, as suggested by previous posts, is fraud, it appears W/B could possibly have criminal and civil litigation exposure. Class action?

Where is Don Cornwell????
If WineBid put buyers on Notice, and that Notice is legally-sufficient, then it's not fraud. But regardless of any such Notice, we all know most people don't read the fine print, and many folks likely are unaware of this dynamic. And then there's the whole absurdity and nonsensical nature of the practice, too ...
“All these characters spend their time explaining themselves, and happily recognizing that they hold the same opinions … how important they consider it to think the same things all together.” --- A.R.

CT: grafstrb

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19898
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#29 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

I found the following on the WineBid website, in the FAQ section:
WHY AM I ONLY “PARTIALLY WINNING” MY BID?
This means, when you bid on multiple items in a lot, other buyers have outbid you on a portion of those bottles. You can increase your max bid if you’d like. When a lot contains multiple items, your bid will increase automatically on all items in that lot that you have bid on. Bidders cannot win bottles at different amounts within the same lot.
Really, that should be posted right next to the Place Bid button/field on *every single multiple item lot where "partial winning" is a possibility." Displaying it only in the FAQ section, and perhaps also in the Terms and Conditions section (I didn't bother looking there once I found it in FAQ), may very well be deemed not good enough if this were to be brought into a court. EDIT: I just checked WineBid "Multiple Quantity Lot" --- no such notice appears anywhere on the page for the lot. If WineBid refuses to put this Notice on the page for each and every Multiple Quantity Lot then it would be reasonable to conclude that WineBid is trying to pull a fast one on their bidders.

Notwithstanding the disclosure, it still feels terribly dirty and snakey to say "bidders cannot win bottles at different amounts within the same lot" while simultaneously allowing different bidders to wine bottles at different amounts within the same lot." Dirty dirty dirty, and an extremely off-putting, non-sensical/counterintuitive money grab by WineBid.

Besides, the whole idea of being able to bid on only some bottles in a lot really runs counter to the usual notion of what a "lot" is. One lot = one winning bid. Anything other than that really isn't "a lot," but rather the potential to have multiple lots from a single "lot."
“All these characters spend their time explaining themselves, and happily recognizing that they hold the same opinions … how important they consider it to think the same things all together.” --- A.R.

CT: grafstrb

Tom R W
Posts: 236
Joined: February 11th, 2021, 2:55 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#30 Post by Tom R W »

It seems odd that one bidder has the ability to bid on and win an individual bottle of a multiple bottle lot, but another bidder -who is bidding on all the bottles in a multiple bottle lot- does not have the same ability.
W a r r e n

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#31 Post by AndyK »

I would be careful throwing around "fraud" or "criminal", as highlighted above it's clearly in the FAQ and you have to read the fine print, as Brian pointed out.

However, it doesn't make this practice right.
k0berl

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#32 Post by Alan Rath »

Can someone give me the tldr summary? Is it that, in a multi bottle lot, if someone bids up fewer than the total bottles, the price for all bottles is bumped up to that new amount? And that’s a recent change? Because I don’t believe it used to work that way. Btw, I’m pretty sure the old wine commune auctions used that methodology.

But looking at some lots, they are not behaving that way, so I’m obviously missing the issue.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#33 Post by AndyK »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 3:56 pm Can someone give me the tldr summary? Is it that, in a multi bottle lot, if someone bids up fewer than the total bottles, the price for all bottles is bumped up to that new amount? And that’s a recent change? Because I don’t believe it used to work that way. Btw, I’m pretty sure the old wine commune auctions used that methodology.

But looking at some lots, they are not behaving that way, so I’m obviously missing the issue.
I was just on the phone with WineBid customer service (very professional, prompt, friendly, by the way!) and they explained that this is intended to work this way, there is internal discussion about this (as they probably have received multiple complaints), they understand my frustration, and it has been like this for a long time (as explained in their FAQ, although, obviously, without examples how this can bite you).

The TL;DR is that multi bottle lots can only be one at the same price for all bottles. The result of that is that you can essentially bid against yourself because you have no knowledge of the other bidder's maximums. For example on a two bottle lot sitting at $30 reserve, one person (bidder A) puts in a max bid for $100 for one bottle (at the time winning at $30), the other (bidder B) $50 for both bottles. After the second bid, each would win one bottle at $50. If now bidder B raises their max bid by $25 in hopes to get both bottles, both bidders end up getting *one* bottle at $75 each. So bidder B still gets just one bottle, but now has to pay more for it without bidder A or another bidder interfering. Bidder B essentially bid against themselves. (If bidder A only bid $51, bidder B would now get *both* bottles for $52 each.)

I'm arguing that the "correct" behavior in the above example after the raise to $75 should be that bidder A wins one bottle at $75 and bidder B one bottle at $50.

This can obviously get quite nasty for large lots of expensive bottles (hypothetically, at least).
k0berl

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19898
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#34 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

It's a snakey way to make an increased bid on one lot to also increase the price of another lot. Very sneaky with this "multiple quantity" lots "feature" --- it's not "multiple quantity," it's multiple lots!
“All these characters spend their time explaining themselves, and happily recognizing that they hold the same opinions … how important they consider it to think the same things all together.” --- A.R.

CT: grafstrb

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#35 Post by crickey »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 3:56 pm Can someone give me the tldr summary? Is it that, in a multi bottle lot, if someone bids up fewer than the total bottles, the price for all bottles is bumped up to that new amount? And that’s a recent change? Because I don’t believe it used to work that way. Btw, I’m pretty sure the old wine commune auctions used that methodology.

But looking at some lots, they are not behaving that way, so I’m obviously missing the issue.
For multi-bottle lots, if you set a maximum bid on more than one bottle in the lot, and someone else bids on one bottle, it has the effect of increasing your bid on all of the bottles you bid on to MAX(your maxbid,second party bid), even if the other party only bid on one bottle. By contrast, if the bottles were in separate lots but otherwise the same scenario as the foregoing, your bids would be MIN(your maxbid,second party bid+minimum increment) on one bottle and MIN(your maxbid, MAX(minimum bid,second party bid + minimum increment = 0)) on the other bottles on which you had bid. The basic objection is why should your bid on the other bottles be increased in the multi-bottle lots, since they would not be so affected in the separated lots.
Last edited by crickey on April 20th, 2021, 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#36 Post by Alan Rath »

Huh, I just took a quick glance, looking for a lot with multiple bottles and bidders, and quickly found one with different bid amounts on two different bottles. Ah, what you describe can only happen if the lower bidder had previously placed a higher max bid.

I think the interpretation of your example is incorrect. B was willing to pay 75 for 2 bottles, so A has to pay that much for his one bottle (actually, I would assume his bid would go to 76, not 75, since he has to outbid B for the single bottle). In your example, it makes no sense for B to win at 50.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#37 Post by crickey »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 4:44 pm Huh, I just took a quick glance, looking for a lot with multiple bottles and bidders, and quickly found one with different bid amounts on two different bottles. Ah, what you describe can only happen if the lower bidder had previously placed a higher max bid.

I think the interpretation of your example is incorrect. B was willing to pay 75 for 2 bottles, so A has to pay that much for his one bottle (actually, I would assume his bid would go to 76, not 75, since he has to outbid B for the single bottle). In your example, it makes no sense for B to win at 50.
In your example, B should lose one bottle, since B was outbid. The point is, B will pay $75 for the uncontested bottle that A did not bid on, rather than $50.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#38 Post by AndyK »

^ this

Bidder B pays a higher amount on an uncontested bottle. Just because they were willing to pay higher, doesn't mean they should have to if nobody else wants the second bottle. But the way the system is set up, doesn't work that way.
k0berl

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#39 Post by Alan Rath »

crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 4:49 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 4:44 pm Huh, I just took a quick glance, looking for a lot with multiple bottles and bidders, and quickly found one with different bid amounts on two different bottles. Ah, what you describe can only happen if the lower bidder had previously placed a higher max bid.

I think the interpretation of your example is incorrect. B was willing to pay 75 for 2 bottles, so A has to pay that much for his one bottle (actually, I would assume his bid would go to 76, not 75, since he has to outbid B for the single bottle). In your example, it makes no sense for B to win at 50.
In your example, B should lose one bottle, since B was outbid. The point is, B will pay $75 for the uncontested bottle that A did not bid on, rather than $50.
Are there 2 bottles, or 3 bottles in this theoretical lot? If 2, then the value of both bottles is clearly 75.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#40 Post by AndyK »

If these were two individual lots (say one bottle had a tiny nick in the label, so it doesn't make the "lot") and nobody else was interested, bidder B would win the second lot at reserve price of $30 and bid up the first lot to his maximum bid $75. Why shouldn't that be the correct behavior? Creating a "fake lot" where you make a partial bid on is just hiding information and can result in not just overpaying, but increasing your own bid when you were already winning...
k0berl

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#41 Post by Alan Rath »

AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 4:52 pm ^ this

Bidder B pays a higher amount on an uncontested bottle. Just because they were willing to pay higher, doesn't mean they should have to if nobody else wants the second bottle. But the way the system is set up, doesn't work that way.
Andy, in your example, A *was* willing to pay higher. So, to win even one bottle, he has to meet B's max price. If A's max was only 50, he would have lost both bottles (and B would have won both at 51).
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#42 Post by Alan Rath »

AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:04 pm If these were two individual lots (say one bottle had a tiny nick in the label, so it doesn't make the "lot") and nobody else was interested, bidder B would win the second lot at reserve price of $30 and bid up the first lot to his maximum bid $75. Why shouldn't that be the correct behavior? Creating a "fake lot" where you make a partial bid on is just hiding information and can result in not just overpaying, but increasing your own bid when you were already winning...
I think, in this example at least, that's a straw man. B was willing to pay 75 each for two bottles, regardless if they were in a lot of 2, or 2 individual lots of 1.

If there is a different example that illustrates your critique, I'm open to it, but your interpretation of this one is wrong, IMO.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#43 Post by AndyK »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:04 pm
AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 4:52 pm ^ this

Bidder B pays a higher amount on an uncontested bottle. Just because they were willing to pay higher, doesn't mean they should have to if nobody else wants the second bottle. But the way the system is set up, doesn't work that way.
Andy, in your example, A *was* willing to pay higher. So, to win even one bottle, he has to meet B's max price. If A's max was only 50, he would have lost both bottles (and B would have won both at 51).
A got one bottle, but wanted the second one. So A had to pay a higher price for that one bottle. Great logic.
k0berl

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#44 Post by crickey »

I guess the "anomaly" for me was learning how the multi-bottle lot rule actually functioned in practice. In most auctions, if there is a multi-bottle lot, you are bidding on the lot as a whole, not parts: you either win all of the bottles at the winning bid, or you lose all of the bottles at a losing bid. Wine Bid permits partial bids, so you can bid on any where from one to all of the bottles in the lot. That seemed all to the good to me. It's just that Wine Bid had a different rule for winning in multi-bottle lots than I had expected. I had expected the winning bid to function as if the bottles were in separate lots, since the partial bidding possibility suggests that would be the case, but it does not so function.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#45 Post by Alan Rath »

AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:06 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:04 pm
AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 4:52 pm ^ this

Bidder B pays a higher amount on an uncontested bottle. Just because they were willing to pay higher, doesn't mean they should have to if nobody else wants the second bottle. But the way the system is set up, doesn't work that way.
Andy, in your example, A *was* willing to pay higher. So, to win even one bottle, he has to meet B's max price. If A's max was only 50, he would have lost both bottles (and B would have won both at 51).
A got one bottle, but wanted the second one. So A had to pay a higher price for that one bottle. Great logic.
What am I missing? B wants both bottles, up to $75. A is willing to pay $100 for 1. What conditions would win A a bottle at $50?
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 568
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#46 Post by AndyK »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:05 pm
AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:04 pm If these were two individual lots (say one bottle had a tiny nick in the label, so it doesn't make the "lot") and nobody else was interested, bidder B would win the second lot at reserve price of $30 and bid up the first lot to his maximum bid $75. Why shouldn't that be the correct behavior? Creating a "fake lot" where you make a partial bid on is just hiding information and can result in not just overpaying, but increasing your own bid when you were already winning...
I think, in this example at least, that's a straw man. B was willing to pay 75 each for two bottles, regardless if they were in a lot of 2, or 2 individual lots of 1.

If there is a different example that illustrates your critique, I'm open to it, but your interpretation of this one is wrong, IMO.
The problem is that lots are not getting split up if there are multiple bids. So in the example above, there's no way for A to get both bottles other than paying $101 for each. But there's a way to get one bottle for $50. I'm not saying that the system works not as intended, I'm saying it shouldn't work that way in the first place.


I know you've been on WineBid's side in both threads, but if you were at my point in your "wine career" you'd see it differently neener
k0berl

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#47 Post by Alan Rath »

crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:07 pm I guess the "anomaly" for me was learning how the multi-bottle lot rule actually functioned in practice. In most auctions, if there is a multi-bottle lot, you are bidding on the lot as a whole, not parts: you either win all of the bottles at the winning bid, or you lose all of the bottles at a losing bid. Wine Bid permits partial bids, so you can bid on any where from one to all of the bottles in the lot. That seemed all to the good to me. It's just that Wine Bid had a different rule for winning in multi-bottle lots than I had expected. I had expected the winning bid to function as if the bottles were in separate lots, since the partial bidding possibility suggests that would be the case, but it does not so function.
If it's a larger lot (say 4 bottles), and someone bids higher on only 2 of them, my experience is that the other two don't get pushed up. Am I wrong? But if someone bids for all 4 bottles, the price has to rise to at least that bid amount for anyone else to take a bottle.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#48 Post by crickey »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:05 pm
AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:04 pm If these were two individual lots (say one bottle had a tiny nick in the label, so it doesn't make the "lot") and nobody else was interested, bidder B would win the second lot at reserve price of $30 and bid up the first lot to his maximum bid $75. Why shouldn't that be the correct behavior? Creating a "fake lot" where you make a partial bid on is just hiding information and can result in not just overpaying, but increasing your own bid when you were already winning...
I think, in this example at least, that's a straw man. B was willing to pay 75 each for two bottles, regardless if they were in a lot of 2, or 2 individual lots of 1.

If there is a different example that illustrates your critique, I'm open to it, but your interpretation of this one is wrong, IMO.
In the multi-bottle scenario, B max bids $75 on two bottles, loses one bottle to A, and wins one bottle at $75. If they were separate lots and B max bids $75 on both lots, B loses one bottle to A and wins the second bottle at $50 (or whatever the next highest bid is in the example). It's the exact same bidding behavior, but with two different outcomes for B, based solely on the application of the multi-bottle lot rule vs. the individual lot rule.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

crickey
Posts: 753
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#49 Post by crickey »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:12 pm
crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:07 pm I guess the "anomaly" for me was learning how the multi-bottle lot rule actually functioned in practice. In most auctions, if there is a multi-bottle lot, you are bidding on the lot as a whole, not parts: you either win all of the bottles at the winning bid, or you lose all of the bottles at a losing bid. Wine Bid permits partial bids, so you can bid on any where from one to all of the bottles in the lot. That seemed all to the good to me. It's just that Wine Bid had a different rule for winning in multi-bottle lots than I had expected. I had expected the winning bid to function as if the bottles were in separate lots, since the partial bidding possibility suggests that would be the case, but it does not so function.
If it's a larger lot (say 4 bottles), and someone bids higher on only 2 of them, my experience is that the other two don't get pushed up. Am I wrong? But if someone bids for all 4 bottles, the price has to rise to at least that bid amount for anyone else to take a bottle.
You are partially wrong. If the first bidder bid on all four, that person's bids on the other two bottles get pushed up. If there are four individual bidders on each bottle, and someone bids higher on one, you are correct that it would function like the "normal" rule where essentially the new highest bid would force out the lowest bid.

[Edit]: Actually I think they all get pushed up. Let's say four bottles, four bidders, one bottle each. Max bids for the four are: $50, $60, $70 and $80. Currently, all are winning at $50 (the minimum bid). A new bidder enters, max bidding $70. I think what happens is that the winning bid on all four bottles is $51 (or whatever the next increment is above the previous winning bid).
Last edited by crickey on April 20th, 2021, 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23001
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#50 Post by Alan Rath »

Chris, I'm still missing something. A placed a 100 max bid, B bids 75, so A has to pay 75. I'm either misunderstanding the problem, or your and Andy's logic is wrong.

This is all dependent on B wanting 2 bottles. If B only wants 1, then I may agree with you two.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”