Wine Bid anomaly (?)

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#51 Post by Alan Rath »

Here's a current bid (note that it will probably change later, so may not be pertinent to this discussion)

https://www.winebid.com/BuyWine/Item/78 ... onte-Bello

THX obviously has his max bid at the reserve. But if he did have a higher max bid, what I don't know is if all the bottles would be pushed up, or just 1. If all the bottles get pushed up to joab's bid, then I agree with you guys. But the scenario Andy laid out is different.
Last edited by Alan Rath on April 20th, 2021, 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 (?)

#52 Post by crickey »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:22 pm 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.
How many bottles did A want?

The scenario we are discussing (which is what happened to me last week, which prompted my question beginning this thread) is where bidder B wants two bottles, and bidder A wants only one. The "current" price shown is $50. A max bids $100 for one bottle; B max bids $75 on two bottles. A bid higher for the one bottle, and thus wins that bottle at $76 (i.e., beating B's max bid of $75). No one has any issues with that outcome. According to the multi-bottle lot rule, though, B wins the second bottle at $75 rather than $50, even though A did not bid on the second bottle.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#53 Post by Alan Rath »

OK, I'm wrong, I agree with you two.
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 (?)

#54 Post by crickey »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:39 pm Here's a current bid (note that it will probably change later, so may not be pertinent to this discussion)

https://www.winebid.com/BuyWine/Item/78 ... onte-Bello

THX obviously has his max bid at the reserve. But if he did have a higher max bid, what I don't know is if all the bottles would be pushed up, or just 1. If all the bottles get pushed up to joab's bid, then I agree with you guys. But the scenario Andy laid out is different.
If THX1138's max bid had been $120 (which doesn't seem to be the case) and the winning bidder for the one bottle was $130, THX1138 will pay $120 for all 16 bottles won.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#55 Post by Alan Rath »

I wonder if it was a 2 bottle lot, with 3 bidders each bidding for a single bottle, when one of them increases his bid, do all the others rise to match? Is it unique to one bidder wanting multiple bottles, so his "line" increases for all of them? Or every bid increases, regardless of quantity?
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

Jayson Cohen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3166
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm
Location: New York, NY
Has thanked: 284 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#56 Post by Jayson Cohen »

crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:21 pm
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).
I don’t think that’s right. Just last week there was a 3 bottle lot I bid on late in the auction. The bid was $45 for all 3 bottles by one person. I put in a max bid of $61 on one bottle. The lot closed at $46 for me and $45 for the other two bottles to the other bidder. His max bid was clearly $45.

If what you are saying is true, then it is messed up.
67148222-3BDB-4A2C-B59E-41112FB6F22A.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Jayson Cohen on April 20th, 2021, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

M. Meer
Posts: 755
Joined: December 28th, 2010, 7:48 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#57 Post by M. Meer »

crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:45 pm
If THX1138's max bid had been $120 (which doesn't seem to be the case) and the winning bidder for the one bottle was $130, THX1138 will pay $120 for all 16 bottles won.
I agree. That's how I would normally play multiple bottle lots, preferring to lose out on bottles than increase price per bottle.
With Porter & Mackie; prime rib and kale
Mar.kus

Jayson Cohen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3166
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm
Location: New York, NY
Has thanked: 284 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#58 Post by Jayson Cohen »

Jayson Cohen wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:02 pm
crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:21 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:12 pm
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).
I don’t think that’s right. Just last week there was a 3 bottle lot I bid on late in the auction. The bid was $45 for all 3 bottles by one person. I put in a max bid of $61 on one bottle. The lot closed at $46 for me and $45 for the other two bottles to the other bidder. His max bid was clearly $45.

If what you are saying is true, then it is messed up.

67148222-3BDB-4A2C-B59E-41112FB6F22A.png
Sorry late to this thread. I see the issue. It’s not my scenario. It’s if the second bidder in my lot had max bid $46, his bid would have come up to his max. And I would have gotten my bottle at $47 even though I only wanted one bottle.
Last edited by Jayson Cohen on April 20th, 2021, 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#59 Post by crickey »

post deleted
Last edited by crickey on April 20th, 2021, 6:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 (?)

#60 Post by crickey »

Jayson Cohen wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:12 pm
Jayson Cohen wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:02 pm
crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:21 pm

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).
I don’t think that’s right. Just last week there was a 3 bottle lot I bid on late in the auction. The bid was $45 for all 3 bottles by one person. I put in a max bid of $61 on one bottle. The lot closed at $46 for me and $45 for the other two bottles to the other bidder. His max bid was clearly $45.

If what you are saying is true, then it is messed up.

67148222-3BDB-4A2C-B59E-41112FB6F22A.png
Sorry late to this thread. I see the issue. It’s not my scenario. It’s if the second bidder in my lot had max bid $46, his bid would have come up to his max. And I would have gotten my bottle at $47.
Yes, that's correct.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#61 Post by Alan Rath »

M. Meer wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:08 pm
crickey wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:45 pm
If THX1138's max bid had been $120 (which doesn't seem to be the case) and the winning bidder for the one bottle was $130, THX1138 will pay $120 for all 16 bottles won.
I agree. That's how I would normally play multiple bottle lots, preferring to lose out on bottles than increase price per bottle.
Presumably the way to make that happen is to limit your max bid? I guess that's what someone was saying with an "array" bid, where you could vary your max bid simultaneously with the number of bottles, but that's probably too complex for your average bidder to deal with.

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, particularly if it's just a couple of bucks. If it's forcing lower bids to jump by larger amounts, unnecessarily, that's a bigger problem. But again, one solution is to limit your max bid.
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 (?)

#62 Post by crickey »

Post deleted.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

M. Meer
Posts: 755
Joined: December 28th, 2010, 7:48 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#63 Post by M. Meer »

There was one time I wanted one bottle and a bidder put in a max bid for the whole lot (let's say a case). I kept increasing my bid by $1, and each time his cost went up $12. I finally stopped around $7, feeling bad he had to pay $84 more 😬.
With Porter & Mackie; prime rib and kale
Mar.kus

User avatar
AndyK
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 571
Joined: February 17th, 2018, 4:29 pm
Location: San Francisco
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#64 Post by AndyK »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:45 pm OK, I'm wrong, I agree with you two.
I'm going to frame this [berserker.gif]
k0berl

M. Meer
Posts: 755
Joined: December 28th, 2010, 7:48 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#65 Post by M. Meer »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:15 pm But again, one solution is to limit your max bid.
Yes. In these instances, I place an opening bid for the entire lot and track it to the end, depending on my level of interest.
With Porter & Mackie; prime rib and kale
Mar.kus

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#66 Post by Alan Rath »

crickey wrote: April 12th, 2021, 6:29 pm 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?
Sorry, coming back to this original example. I agree with you Chris. The problem on winebid's end seems to be that they don't have the ability to split your bid into multiples, where you're competing for just one bottle with the other bidder. You should not have to pay that additional $250, there is no logic that makes that sensible.

My suggestion to Russ is that bidders should be allowed to enter multiple bids on a lot, for different numbers of bottles. I.e., if you are interested in 6, but maybe only 3 at a higher price, you should be able to first bid on 3 at one price, and then enter another bid for a second 3 at a lower price.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#67 Post by Alan Rath »

AndyK wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:21 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:45 pm OK, I'm wrong, I agree with you two.
I'm going to frame this [berserker.gif]
You don't have to. I'm wrong a lot, and I usually admit it ;)

And technically, I wasn't wrong, I was confused [wow.gif] I blame it on too many things going on at once here lol
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
David_K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: July 17th, 2014, 7:01 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#68 Post by David_K »

I'm beginning to think Russ is sorry he ever started posting here. [snort.gif]
K@ntrОwi╦z

User avatar
Alan Rath
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 23016
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#69 Post by Alan Rath »

David_K wrote: April 20th, 2021, 6:35 pm I'm beginning to think Russ is sorry he ever started posting here. [snort.gif]
Hope not, he's getting some pretty good feedback from dedicated buyers.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

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

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#70 Post by D. HEIN »

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, sex or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."
Hunter S. Thompson
Donn Hein

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#71 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:22 pm 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.
Alan, here is how WineBid current operates (assuming *I* am understanding this correctly):
-- 4 bottle "multiple quantity" lot
-- $50/bottle reserve
-- A and B are the only bidders

1. A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $100 each for 4 bottles, for a maximum spend of $400 for all four bottles)
2. A is currently winning all 4 bottles for $50 apiece
3. B then comes along and places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $125 each for 2 bottles, for a maximum spend of $250 for two bottles)
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $100 apiece.
--- 4. is where folks are having complaints

Many folks, such as myself, believe 4. should be as follows (and, if I read you correctly, this is what you would expect, too):
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $50 apiece.
“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

Jayson Cohen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3166
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm
Location: New York, NY
Has thanked: 284 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#72 Post by Jayson Cohen »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 20th, 2021, 11:05 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:22 pm 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.
Alan, here is how WineBid current operates (assuming *I* am understanding this correctly):
-- 4 bottle "multiple quantity" lot
-- $50/bottle reserve
-- A and B are the only bidders

1. A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $100 each for 4 bottles, for a maximum spend of $400 for all four bottles)
2. A is currently winning all 4 bottles for $50 apiece
3. B then comes along and places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $125 each for 2 bottles, for a maximum spend of $250 for two bottles)
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $100 apiece.
--- 4. is where folks are having complaints

Many folks, such as myself, believe 4. should be as follows (and, if I read you correctly, this is what you would expect, too):
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $50 apiece.
Yes. A should not have to compete with B for the 2 bottles B doesn’t want even if A committed to go to $100 against a bidder (or bidders) for all 4 bottles.

TGigante
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 634
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 pm
Location: BURGHen County, NJ
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#73 Post by TGigante »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 20th, 2021, 11:05 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:22 pm 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.
Alan, here is how WineBid current operates (assuming *I* am understanding this correctly):
-- 4 bottle "multiple quantity" lot
-- $50/bottle reserve
-- A and B are the only bidders

1. A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $100 each for 4 bottles, for a maximum spend of $400 for all four bottles)
2. A is currently winning all 4 bottles for $50 apiece
3. B then comes along and places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $125 each for 2 bottles, for a maximum spend of $250 for two bottles)
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $100 apiece.
--- 4. is where folks are having complaints

Many folks, such as myself, believe 4. should be as follows (and, if I read you correctly, this is what you would expect, too):
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $50 apiece.
Brian
I don’t think either scenario 4 is correct
Assuming a $10 bid increment, in scenario one all four bottles would hammer at $60

What we would like in scenario 2 is that the second bidder wins two at $60 and original bidder wins two at $50
Cheers,
Tony

User avatar
JDavisRoby
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 1739
Joined: June 19th, 2018, 12:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 63 times
Contact:

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#74 Post by JDavisRoby »

Is it an anomaly or a feature?
Joshu@

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

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#75 Post by crickey »

It's a feature that is a bit of an anomaly.

In trying to think through how to write the code for a winning bid in a multi-bottle lot, I think I figured out the logic of why it's done the way they did it. Using my earlier illustration (six bottle lot, $100 minimum), Bidder A max bids six bottles at $150. Bidder B subsequently max bids one bottle at $160. B's bid begins with bottle #1 at the first increment ($110). B's bid does not win, and moves to bottle #2 at $110, loses, and so on. At each step, A's bid goes to the matching bid of $110 for each bottle B's bid tests. Once B's bid reaches and loses on bottle #6 at $110, it goes back to bottle #1 at $120, loses, and so forth. A's bids also cycle through the matching bids on each bottle as B's bid cycles through them. B's bid cycles through until it finally reaches its winning bid of $160. A's bids have also cycled through matching B's bids until the bids reached the max bid of $150. Thus, A has won the remaining five bottles at $150.

What seems to be missing in the cycle is a reset: as A's bid moves to the next bottle to test, why does the bid on the old bottle not reset to the original level? I suspect resetting the uncontested bottles creates a circular logic problem; if A's bids reset, the program would never get off the $110 level.

A different example may illustrate the principle more clearly. A, B, C and D have each put in one bid for one bottle on a four bottle lot at $50, $55, $60 and $65, respectively. Each are winning at $50. Bidder E swoops in with a bid for four bottles at $70. If the four bottles were in separate lots, E would win four bottles at $51, $56, $61 and $66, respectively. I sometimes see a result like this, where different lots of the same wine have very different winning bids, depending on the earlier max bids. That is also the outcome I had expected in the multi-bottle lot. In the multi-bottle lot, though, we now know that E would wine four bottles at $66 each. I think the intuitive logic begins with the losing bids. If multi-bottle lots functioned as separate lots, and E would have all four bottles at $51, $56, $61 and $66, B, C and D would have looked at the $51 bid and said, but I bid more than $51, why didn't I win that bottle?. The only way to placate B is to point out that someone bid $56 on all of the bottles. That logic continues until the only way to placate D is to point out that someone bid $66 on all of the bottles, meaning there were no bottles left that D could have won at D's maxbid.

I think that is what Russ meant when he said on this thread that the bid isn't for a particular bottle.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#76 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

TGigante wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:04 am
Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 20th, 2021, 11:05 pm
Alan Rath wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:22 pm 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.
Alan, here is how WineBid current operates (assuming *I* am understanding this correctly):
-- 4 bottle "multiple quantity" lot
-- $50/bottle reserve
-- A and B are the only bidders

1. A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $100 each for 4 bottles, for a maximum spend of $400 for all four bottles)
2. A is currently winning all 4 bottles for $50 apiece
3. B then comes along and places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $125 each for 2 bottles, for a maximum spend of $250 for two bottles)
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $100 apiece.
--- 4. is where folks are having complaints

Many folks, such as myself, believe 4. should be as follows (and, if I read you correctly, this is what you would expect, too):
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $50 apiece.
Brian
I don’t think either scenario 4 is correct
Assuming a $10 bid increment, in scenario one all four bottles would hammer at $60

What we would like in scenario 2 is that the second bidder wins two at $60 and original bidder wins two at $50
my first number 4 is what WineBid currently does. My second number 4 is what folks believe should be happening. Just want to make sure that's clear.

Now, regarding what WineBid is doing: I stand by my original post. You're overlooking the part where A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles, and B subsequently places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles. Why would *any* bottles hammer at $60 here, let alone all four?

If the bid increment is $10, then this is the result pursuant to:
1. the way WineBid currently does it: B wins 2 bottles at $110 and A wins 2 bottles at $100
2. the way many folks think it should be: B wins 2 bottles at $110 and A wins 2 bottles at $50.

We could break it down by bottle (i.e.: Bottle 1; Bottle 2; Bottle 3; and Bottle 4), if need be, as that might make things more clear. But that post would be a lot of work, so I'm passing on that for the moment.
“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: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#77 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

crickey wrote: April 21st, 2021, 7:33 am It's a feature that is a bit of an anomaly.

In trying to think through how to write the code for a winning bid in a multi-bottle lot, I think I figured out the logic of why it's done the way they did it. Using my earlier illustration (six bottle lot, $100 minimum), Bidder A max bids six bottles at $150. Bidder B subsequently max bids one bottle at $160. B's bid begins with bottle #1 at the first increment ($110). B's bid does not win, and moves to bottle #2 at $110, loses, and so on. At each step, A's bid goes to the matching bid of $110 for each bottle B's bid tests. Once B's bid reaches and loses on bottle #6 at $110, it goes back to bottle #1 at $120, loses, and so forth. A's bids also cycle through the matching bids on each bottle as B's bid cycles through them. B's bid cycles through until it finally reaches its winning bid of $160. A's bids have also cycled through matching B's bids until the bids reached the max bid of $150. Thus, A has won the remaining five bottles at $150.

What seems to be missing in the cycle is a reset: as A's bid moves to the next bottle to test, why does the bid on the old bottle not reset to the original level? I suspect resetting the uncontested bottles creates a circular logic problem; if A's bids reset, the program would never get off the $110 level.

A different example may illustrate the principle more clearly. A, B, C and D have each put in one bid for one bottle on a four bottle lot at $50, $55, $60 and $65, respectively. Each are winning at $50. Bidder E swoops in with a bid for four bottles at $70. If the four bottles were in separate lots, E would win four bottles at $51, $56, $61 and $66, respectively. I sometimes see a result like this, where different lots of the same wine have very different winning bids, depending on the earlier max bids. That is also the outcome I had expected in the multi-bottle lot. In the multi-bottle lot, though, we now know that E would wine four bottles at $66 each. I think the intuitive logic begins with the losing bids. If multi-bottle lots functioned as separate lots, and E would have all four bottles at $51, $56, $61 and $66, B, C and D would have looked at the $51 bid and said, but I bid more than $51, why didn't I win that bottle?. The only way to placate B is to point out that someone bid $56 on all of the bottles. That logic continues until the only way to placate D is to point out that someone bid $66 on all of the bottles, meaning there were no bottles left that D could have won at D's maxbid.

I think that is what Russ meant when he said on this thread that the bid isn't for a particular bottle.
That makes sense and is a different scenario than that which has been discussed, mainly, in this thread where there are only 2 bidders, such as in my example.

This also illustrates how "Multiple Quantity" lots will yield more money to the seller than individual one bottle lots of the same bottles that comprised the "Multiple Quantity" lot.

Now, what if Bidder E bids for 3 bottles at $70? Bidder E should win 3 at $61 and D should win one at $61. But that's not how WineBid currently runs it: the current WineBid format (I believe) has Bidder E winning 3 at $66 and Bidder D winning one at $65. Bidder E's $70 bid on 3 of the 4 bottles represents the top bid on those three bottles and removes them from the equation as far as Bidders A through D are concerned. Bidder E shouldn't be involved with bidding on the 4th bottle because they only expressed interest in 3 of the 4 bottles. Bidder E's bid was the top bid for 3 bottles, so E's bid represents the top price 3 of the 4 bottles can fetch. Then we have one bottle leftover. We now look to other bidders to see who had the highest bid for the other bottle. A's $50 bid loses to B's $55 bid. B's $55 bid loses to C's $60 bid. C's $60 bid loses to D's $65 max bid, but -- because bid increments are $1 -- D wins the last bottle at one bid increment above C's $60 bid, which is $61. D should win the last bottle for $61.
Last edited by Brian G r a f s t r o m on April 21st, 2021, 11:07 am, edited 2 times 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

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

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#78 Post by crickey »

I think in the scenario where E bids on three rather than four bottles, D and E each win at $61. The way I am imagining the bid logic, each bid seeks to be a winning bid, so it will search through the lot (one increment at a time) until it reaches a level where it is either a winning bid or at its maximum. Once it reaches a winning bid level or the maxbid, it stops. Because of the matching principle, other bids are forced to match the seeker (or can be described also as seekers themselves searching for the winning bid level). Once D and E have reached $61, they are both winning their bids (one and three bottles, respectively) and stop seeking higher bid amounts.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

TGigante
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 634
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 pm
Location: BURGHen County, NJ
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#79 Post by TGigante »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 21st, 2021, 9:46 am
TGigante wrote: April 21st, 2021, 4:04 am
Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 20th, 2021, 11:05 pm

Alan, here is how WineBid current operates (assuming *I* am understanding this correctly):
-- 4 bottle "multiple quantity" lot
-- $50/bottle reserve
-- A and B are the only bidders

1. A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $100 each for 4 bottles, for a maximum spend of $400 for all four bottles)
2. A is currently winning all 4 bottles for $50 apiece
3. B then comes along and places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles (i.e.: is willing to pay $125 each for 2 bottles, for a maximum spend of $250 for two bottles)
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $100 apiece.
--- 4. is where folks are having complaints

Many folks, such as myself, believe 4. should be as follows (and, if I read you correctly, this is what you would expect, too):
4. B is now winning 2 bottles for (one bid increment above $100) apiece, and A is winning 2 bottles for $50 apiece.
Brian
I don’t think either scenario 4 is correct
Assuming a $10 bid increment, in scenario one all four bottles would hammer at $60

What we would like in scenario 2 is that the second bidder wins two at $60 and original bidder wins two at $50
my first number 4 is what WineBid currently does. My second number 4 is what folks believe should be happening. Just want to make sure that's clear.

Now, regarding what WineBid is doing: I stand by my original post. You're overlooking the part where A first places a $100 max bid for 4 bottles, and B subsequently places a $125 max bid for 2 bottles. Why would *any* bottles hammer at $60 here, let alone all four?

If the bid increment is $10, then this is the result pursuant to:
1. the way WineBid currently does it: B wins 2 bottles at $110 and A wins 2 bottles at $100
2. the way many folks think it should be: B wins 2 bottles at $110 and A wins 2 bottles at $50.

We could break it down by bottle (i.e.: Bottle 1; Bottle 2; Bottle 3; and Bottle 4), if need be, as that might make things more clear. But that post would be a lot of work, so I'm passing on that for the moment.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting how max bid works. I'm assuming with a $50 standing bid holding the full 4 bottle lot by A, a new $125 max bid by B on two out of the 4 bottles only drives the bid up one $10 increment to $60. The rest of the max bid is held back to trump a new $70 or $80 bid. If there is no incremental bidding, then A wins two at $100 (their max bid) and B wins two at $110
Cheers,
Tony

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#80 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

crickey wrote: April 21st, 2021, 10:35 am I think in the scenario where E bids on three rather than four bottles, D and E each win at $61. The way I am imagining the bid logic, each bid seeks to be a winning bid, so it will search through the lot (one increment at a time) until it reaches a level where it is either a winning bid or at its maximum. Once it reaches a winning bid level or the maxbid, it stops. Because of the matching principle, other bids are forced to match the seeker (or can be described also as seekers themselves searching for the winning bid level). Once D and E have reached $61, they are both winning their bids (one and three bottles, respectively) and stop seeking higher bid amounts.
Good point. I think you're right. I will edit my post accordingly. Thanks.

In a lot of x number of bottles, those x bottles should sell at the price bid by the last x uncontested bids.

Here, once all four bottles are at $61 there is no more contest. It makes no logical sense that either D or E would have to bid any higher than $61.

That's what you're saying, right?
“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
David_K
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: July 17th, 2014, 7:01 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#81 Post by David_K »

This has been an interesting thread. One thing I thought about is that this 'anomaly,' or whatever you want to call it, creates a tremendous opportunity for shill bidding. A shill bidder can increase the selling price on many bottles in a multi-bottle lot while only having skin in the game for one of them.
K@ntrОwi╦z

User avatar
Craig G
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 17008
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 10:57 am
Location: Town of Cats
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#82 Post by Craig G »

Let’s say my wife and I each have an account. I make my lower bid on whatever number of bottles I want. Then when someone outbids me on a single bottle, I say, “honey, why don’t you put in a higher bid on this one bottle?”

Edit: Never mind, I think I misunderstood how you bid on these lots. I believe that would just raise our price for one bottle. The part below stands, though.

This rule is dumb. Winebid should just fix it.
Last edited by Craig G on April 21st, 2021, 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“You need to look down to the bottom shelf where they keep the Fighting Cock” — Corey N.

C. Gle@son

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#83 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

I highly doubt WineBid will see bidding on Multiple Quantity lots by anyone who has read this thread unless they fix this situation. Of course, Russ has already made it clear that Wine Berserkers comprise an insignificant portion of WineBid's clientele, so ...
“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 (?)

#84 Post by D. HEIN »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 21st, 2021, 5:39 pm
I highly doubt WineBid will see bidding on Multiple Quantity lots by anyone who has read this thread unless they fix this situation. Of course, Russ has already made it clear that Wine Berserkers comprise an insignificant portion of WineBid's clientele, so ...
This has been an incredible financial gain for W/B & consignors, in my opinion! The W/B gain is the actual increase in hammer price, the 17% increase in buyers premium and the increase of local and stare tax assessment on the possible manipulated increase of the winning bid for Napa and the state of California.

Unless it has been legally revealed to bidders, under all circumstances and locations on W/Bs' website, it seems there may be legitimate claims which should be re-funded to winning bidders by WineBid, including taxes assessed.

Brian Grafstrom has been fabulous in his commitment to research this issue, on behalf of us all!

Thank You Brian!!!!!!!!!!!
Donn Hein

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 (?)

#85 Post by JulianD »

Having to bid against yourself on every bottle if someone bids on just 1 bottle of a lot is wild.
Davies

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

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#86 Post by crickey »

I don't think you are bidding against yourself; it's just that the new bid on one bottle is treated as contesting all of the bottles in the lot. As I tried to explain in post #75 above, I think each bid is programmed to run until MAX(winning bid,maximum bid) is satisfied, and thus each bid will contest all of the bottles in the lot until the bid reaches its end. I agree that the result of this program is counterintuitive, in that a bid for one bottle can result in the price of all of the bottles of the lot being raised because they are all being treated as contested by the one bottle bid.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

M. Meer
Posts: 755
Joined: December 28th, 2010, 7:48 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#87 Post by M. Meer »

Much like the phasing out of $5 wines and being able to claim an entire lot for the opening bid after less than that amount had been bid up by a single bidder, things have seemingly changed again. In response, people can make small adjustments to their bidding habits if they are price conscious.

#BringBack$5Wines [snort.gif]
With Porter & Mackie; prime rib and kale
Mar.kus

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 (?)

#88 Post by JulianD »

crickey wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 7:01 am I don't think you are bidding against yourself; it's just that the new bid on one bottle is treated as contesting all of the bottles in the lot. As I tried to explain in post #75 above, I think each bid is programmed to run until MAX(winning bid,maximum bid) is satisfied, and thus each bid will contest all of the bottles in the lot until the bid reaches its end. I agree that the result of this program is counterintuitive, in that a bid for one bottle can result in the price of all of the bottles of the lot being raised because they are all being treated as contested by the one bottle bid.
No, I get it, just that 'raising your max bid' on bottles you are already be leading for raises the price for yourself (so you can't preemptively raise your max bid without bidding vs yourself)
Davies

User avatar
brigcampbell
Moderator
<dfn>Moderator</dfn>
Posts: 18440
Joined: April 7th, 2010, 12:17 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#89 Post by brigcampbell »

You know there's a problem when a lot of bright people can't figure out the problem...
Don't hate me just because I'm rich and drive a Ferrari. I could buy this wine board. - Cash Steele

User avatar
Brian G r a f s t r o m
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#90 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

brigcampbell wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 10:55 am You know there's a problem when a lot of bright people can't figure out the problem...
The problem has been clearly identified and illustrated in exquisite detail by many.
“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

Dale Williams
Posts: 1332
Joined: April 27th, 2009, 10:19 am
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#91 Post by Dale Williams »

crickey wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 7:01 am I don't think you are bidding against yourself; it's just that the new bid on one bottle is treated as contesting all of the bottles in the lot. As I tried to explain in post #75 above, I think each bid is programmed to run until MAX(winning bid,maximum bid) is satisfied, and thus each bid will contest all of the bottles in the lot until the bid reaches its end. I agree that the result of this program is counterintuitive, in that a bid for one bottle can result in the price of all of the bottles of the lot being raised because they are all being treated as contested by the one bottle bid.
I certainly would be upset if a bid on one bottle raised the price on 6. I can also see that from the flip side, if a bidder#2 put a high ball bid on 1 bottle, and WB raised the price on only one to beat previous bidder #1 's high bid, that bidder#2 would question (since they can't know other's secret max) why they are paying so much more for bottle A, as they don't care which bottle they get. I don't think any other site I visit has multiple bottle lots that are sold separately,, certainly not the traditional houses. A Dutch auction (descending price) is a cleaner way to sell multiples, but have never seen with wine.

User avatar
Joe G a l e w s k i
Posts: 1327
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 9:41 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#92 Post by Joe G a l e w s k i »

To put it plainly, if you have the highest bid but only want 2 bottles, it should not raise the bid on more than 2 bottles, since you are only bidding on 2 bottles. I know several software engineers that could elegantly implement that. I'd be happy to provide references.

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#93 Post by Ken Strauss »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 11:50 am
brigcampbell wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 10:55 am You know there's a problem when a lot of bright people can't figure out the problem...
The problem has been clearly identified and illustrated in exquisite detail by many.
Yes it has been.
The problem is that even with the explanations it remains illogical.
Most people don’t read the details. I certainly didn’t. I was shocked to read how the WineBid bidding works.
I am not aware of any other auction site that works like WineBid.
Really shameful!
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

Dale Williams
Posts: 1332
Joined: April 27th, 2009, 10:19 am
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#94 Post by Dale Williams »

Ken Strauss wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 7:17 pm Yes it has been.
The problem is that even with the explanations it remains illogical.
Most people don’t read the details. I certainly didn’t. I was shocked to read how the WineBid bidding works.
I am not aware of any other auction site that works like WineBid.
Really shameful!
Is there any other wine auction site that list a "lot" of multiple bottles that allows partial bidding? How do they handle it?

User avatar
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#95 Post by Ken Strauss »

Dale Williams wrote: April 24th, 2021, 11:09 am
Ken Strauss wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 7:17 pm Yes it has been.
The problem is that even with the explanations it remains illogical.
Most people don’t read the details. I certainly didn’t. I was shocked to read how the WineBid bidding works.
I am not aware of any other auction site that works like WineBid.
Really shameful!
Is there any other wine auction site that list a "lot" of multiple bottles that allows partial bidding? How do they handle it?
I am not aware of any auction house that sells wines like this.
I sure would like an explanation from Russ. They could make it 1 lot or 2 lots of 3 or 3 lots of 2 or single bottle lots.
"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: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#96 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

We already have the explanation, Ken.
“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
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#97 Post by Ken Strauss »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:11 pm We already have the explanation, Ken.
We have an explanation of how the bidding works.
I would like an explanation for why WineBid has lots that are not bid on in whole. They are the only auction site that operates like this.
"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: 19899
Joined: February 3rd, 2009, 12:54 am
Location: westside
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#98 Post by Brian G r a f s t r o m »

Ken Strauss wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:26 pm
Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:11 pm We already have the explanation, Ken.
We have an explanation of how the bidding works.
I would like an explanation for why WineBid has lots that are not bid on in whole. They are the only auction site that operates like this.
Money, Ken. Money.
“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
Ken Strauss
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: November 22nd, 2015, 9:03 am
Location: Sunny South Florida
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#99 Post by Ken Strauss »

Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Ken Strauss wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:26 pm
Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:11 pm We already have the explanation, Ken.
We have an explanation of how the bidding works.
I would like an explanation for why WineBid has lots that are not bid on in whole. They are the only auction site that operates like this.
Money, Ken. Money.
Well...It seems like that.
That said I would like to give Russ a chance to explain.
"Explaining is not supporting."

"Independence is a state of mind"

Mike Evans
Monopole Crü
Monopole Crü
Posts: 3657
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Wine Bid anomaly (?)

#100 Post by Mike Evans »

Ken Strauss wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:26 pm
Brian G r a f s t r o m wrote: April 25th, 2021, 4:11 pm We already have the explanation, Ken.
We have an explanation of how the bidding works.
I would like an explanation for why WineBid has lots that are not bid on in whole. They are the only auction site that operates like this.
They’ve been doing severable lots for 20 years, it has been part of their appeal. If it is a surprise, then maybe you need to pay better attention instead of bleating for an “explanation.”

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”