Heritage February

[suspense39]

I wonder if slab bed comics contributes at all to growth in original art collecting....after all once the comic is in a case all you can do is look at the one image visible, and wouldn't you rather have the original!? slabbing comics in a sense is just framing an image.

[Bronty]

I think it contributes, but more from the liquidity of them and/or the disgust with CPR.

[heartened]

Seriously though, I think this is the fallout from going hard with three weeks to go in the auction. Sure, you scare away most of the less serious bidders. But you also give another guy time to think and rationalize the purchase while figuring out how to raise more money than he originally expected to. IMHO, early bidding is a double edged sword and I don't think it paid off this time (except for the seller).

 

Yup. Bidding begets more bidding. I don't believe in "price discovery", unless that means you hope the lot goes beyond a point that you want/can afford to pay-- which means you don't *really* want that piece at all. You just don't want to have to think about it any more. Early bidding causes the serious players to recalibrate values. I just got a PM from an underbidder on the MIRACLEMAN page. I asked him if he really thought the page was worth his bid. His answer: No, not before bidding started. But seeing the bidding hit $14K as soon as it the Internet session started caused him to believe that he would have to bid more than his initial estimate to have a shot. So all that the early bidding accomplished was for him to rationalize a higher value and increase his bid amount when the auction went live. Making the actual winner have to pay more.

 

The early bidding was great for the seller, not so great for the bidders.

 

Gene, as a vocal proponent of early bidding/price discovery, how early and often did you bid on the UXM #176 cover during the Internet session? Were you the high bidder when the Internet session ended? As I mentioned to you, I had my eye on that, even though I'm not a J.R. Jr. fan...the $8K high bid before live bidding just seemed impossibly cheap for a memorable cover. My hunch was that the serious bidders were simply laying in wait. In any case, the subdued bidding on that piece helped your cause. No one who truly wants to win is ever happy with excessive "price discovery" by thrill bidders.

 

 

I don't know, Felix. There is some truth to what you say, but desire and whether you have the funds trumps all. I have to believe at the end of the day people bid as high as they can and in general final hammer prices are usually pretty close no matter whether early bidding is robust or not. There are many examples where early bidding causes people to decide early that they won't bid anymore, as opposed to what happened to the under bidder you described. At the end of the day, I just don't think it really matters.

 

Hari

 

[delekkerste]

Gene, as a vocal proponent of early bidding/price discovery, how early and often did you bid on the UXM #176 cover during the Internet session? Were you the high bidder when the Internet session ended? As I mentioned to you, I had my eye on that, even though I'm not a J.R. Jr. fan...the $8K high bid before live bidding just seemed impossibly cheap for a memorable cover. My hunch was that the serious bidders were simply laying in wait. In any case, the subdued bidding on that piece helped your cause. No one who truly wants to win is ever happy with excessive "price discovery" by thrill bidders.

 

I didn't bid early and often on the UXM #176 cover, because I knew I was willing to break records to win this cover and I didn't want price discovery to occur! That said, it sounds like there were a number of other people who have told me here or offline that they were interested in the piece. In their case, it might have behooved them to bid the piece up before the live session, as they might have realized that it was going to sell far in excess of where it was bid up to in online bidding and they could have focused their budgets and energies elsewhere. Heck, if it had gotten bid up high enough in the online session, I might have felt compelled to get involved as well.

 

Also, while in your friend's case, sometimes bidding begets more bidding, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it shuts the door on bidders. Sometimes it has the effect of killing any possibility of strong momentum developing in the live session because the piece has already been bid up enough. If the UXM #176 cover had been bid up to $16K hammer in the Internet session (which is where it hammered in the live auction), would it have gotten more bids in the live auction? Maybe, maybe not - I've won lots based on my high Internet bid that got no further bids in the live auction.

 

I'd say your friend's example is the textbook example of when you don't want to run up the price beforehand, since it was a piece where the market value is not readily estimable based on a lot of prior transactions. In that case, there is a very real risk that price discovery can recalibrate other bidders' expectations, as you said - I think in that case, you have to weigh the pros and cons of that information being beneficial to you in terms of budgeting while risking supplying the same information to other bidders.

 

Finally, I'll just say that I have either won or finished as the underbidder on many lots where I have tried to encourage price discovery - I tailor my bidding strategy to the specific circumstances. There are some times where I feel that price discovery would be beneficial to me (as in many of the examples I've cited in the past, where the benefits were quite logical and obvious), and some times where I feel that it wouldn't help me (as in the UXM #176 cover). You definitely cannot make a blanket statement that either way is universally better in all circumstances.

[delekkerste]

I don't know, Felix. There is some truth to what you say, but desire and whether you have the funds trumps all. I have to believe at the end of the day people bid as high as they can and in general final hammer prices are usually pretty close no matter whether early bidding is robust or not. There are many examples where early bidding causes people to decide early that they won't bid anymore, as opposed to what happened to the under bidder you described. At the end of the day, I just don't think it really matters.

 

Hari

 

Or, what Hari said.

[lb jefferies]

Seriously though, I think this is the fallout from going hard with three weeks to go in the auction. Sure, you scare away most of the less serious bidders. But you also give another guy time to think and rationalize the purchase while figuring out how to raise more money than he originally expected to. IMHO, early bidding is a double edged sword and I don't think it paid off this time (except for the seller).

 

Yup. Bidding begets more bidding. I don't believe in "price discovery", unless that means you hope the lot goes beyond a point that you want/can afford to pay-- which means you don't *really* want that piece at all. You just don't want to have to think about it any more. Early bidding causes the serious players to recalibrate values. I just got a PM from an underbidder on the MIRACLEMAN page. I asked him if he really thought the page was worth his bid. His answer: No, not before bidding started. But seeing the bidding hit $14K as soon as it the Internet session started caused him to believe that he would have to bid more than his initial estimate to have a shot. So all that the early bidding accomplished was for him to rationalize a higher value and increase his bid amount when the auction went live. Making the actual winner have to pay more.

 

The early bidding was great for the seller, not so great for the bidders.

 

Gene, as a vocal proponent of early bidding/price discovery, how early and often did you bid on the UXM #176 cover during the Internet session? Were you the high bidder when the Internet session ended? As I mentioned to you, I had my eye on that, even though I'm not a J.R. Jr. fan...the $8K high bid before live bidding just seemed impossibly cheap for a memorable cover. My hunch was that the serious bidders were simply laying in wait. In any case, the subdued bidding on that piece helped your cause. No one who truly wants to win is ever happy with excessive "price discovery" by thrill bidders.

 

 

I don't know, Felix. There is some truth to what you say, but desire and whether you have the funds trumps all. I have to believe at the end of the day people bid as high as they can and in general final hammer prices are usually pretty close no matter whether early bidding is robust or not. There are many examples where early bidding causes people to decide early that they won't bid anymore, as opposed to what happened to the under bidder you described. At the end of the day, I just don't think it really matters.

 

Hari

 

I'm in Felix's camp here. Let's take the FF cover that hit close to 60K. With $35K after only a week of bidding that had to motivate bidders to go harder at the end. If the piece was sitting at $15K when the live auction started an underbidder may have dropped out at $40K. For him - with only seconds to think in the heat of the auction - that may have been his "above and beyond bid." Having three weeks to get his head around a much higher hammer price, rather than a few seconds, helps the final number.

 

Of course if two bidders were ALWAYS going to bid above $50K then it doesn't matter, but just that one undisputed fact (having more time to come to terms with a higher than usual price) has to make a difference in some cases.

 

 

 

 

[delekkerste]

I'm in Felix's camp here. Let's take the FF cover that hit close to 60K. With $35K after only a week of bidding that had to motivate bidders to go harder at the end. If the piece was sitting at $15K when the live auction started an underbidder may have dropped out at $40K. For him - with only seconds to think in the heat of the auction - that may have been his "above and beyond bid." Having three weeks to get his head around a much higher hammer price, rather than a few seconds, helps the final number.

 

Of course if two bidders were ALWAYS going to bid above $50K then it doesn't matter, but just that one undisputed fact (having more time to come to terms with a higher than usual price) has to make a difference in some cases.

 

True, but let's go back to my earlier example. Let's say my budget is $75K and I wanted both the Buscema twice-up Avengers cover and the Byrne FF cover. Before this auction started, it wouldn't have been unthinkable to think maybe the former goes for $40K and the latter for $35K (and if it is unthinkable, then let's say $85K and $45K and $40K for the two pieces).

 

So, I know that might be a little tight, but my budget is in the ballpark to be able to take both of these home. Both covers actually got bid up a lot in the online session, and that would have been very valuable information had I actually been going for those two pieces. I would have seen that my budget very likely was going to fall at least a little bit short of being able to buy two, and I could have turned my attention to the piece I wanted more (say, the Byrne cover).

 

Now, let's say there was minimal price discovery and that both pieces ended the online bidding session at $15K. OK, great, I think I'm on track to win both of these pieces, so I bid up the Buscema cover and win it at $45K and then am blown out on the FF cover with my remaining funds. I now have the cover I didn't want as much when maybe I could have taken home the one I did had I focused just on the Byrne cover.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that, with price discovery, sometimes knowing what and when you're not going to win can also be very valuable, so you can't just point to examples where people kicked it into overdrive because of the early bidding to say that it's not useful. Different information can be valuable to different people in different situations! And, likewise, some people (like those with near-unlimited bankrolls) might find that suppressing price discovery is more valuable to them. Like I said, I don't think you can make any blanket statements about it.

[lb jefferies]

I'm in Felix's camp here. Let's take the FF cover that hit close to 60K. With $35K after only a week of bidding that had to motivate bidders to go harder at the end. If the piece was sitting at $15K when the live auction started an underbidder may have dropped out at $40K. For him - with only seconds to think in the heat of the auction - that may have been his "above and beyond bid." Having three weeks to get his head around a much higher hammer price, rather than a few seconds, helps the final number.

 

Of course if two bidders were ALWAYS going to bid above $50K then it doesn't matter, but just that one undisputed fact (having more time to come to terms with a higher than usual price) has to make a difference in some cases.

 

True, but let's go back to my earlier example. Let's say my budget is $75K and I wanted both the Buscema twice-up Avengers cover and the Byrne FF cover. Before this auction started, it wouldn't have been unthinkable to think maybe the former goes for $40K and the latter for $35K (and if it is unthinkable, then let's say $85K and $45K and $40K for the two pieces).

 

So, I know that might be a little tight, but my budget is in the ballpark to be able to take both of these home. Both covers actually got bid up a lot in the online session, and that would have been very valuable information had I actually been going for those two pieces. I would have seen that my budget very likely was going to fall at least a little bit short of being able to buy two, and I could have turned my attention to the piece I wanted more (say, the Byrne cover).

 

Now, let's say there was minimal price discovery and that both pieces ended the online bidding session at $15K. OK, great, I think I'm on track to win both of these pieces, so I bid up the Buscema cover and win it at $45K and then am blown out on the FF cover with my remaining funds. I now have the cover I didn't want as much when maybe I could have taken home the one I did had I focused just on the Byrne cover.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that, with price discovery, sometimes knowing what and when you're not going to win can also be very valuable, so you can't just point to examples where people kicked it into overdrive because of the early bidding to say that it's not useful. Different information can be valuable to different people in different situations! And, likewise, some people (like those with near-unlimited bankrolls) might find that suppressing price discovery is more valuable to them. Like I said, I don't think you can make any blanket statements about it.

 

You make a good point, Gene. I may have a mental block with price discovery because I rarely go for two (or more) big dollar pieces in any one auction. I guess for multiple pieces your argument makes a lot of sense. But if you're after one piece and one piece only do you agree that bidding early is harmful to your cause?

 

(I'm having such a deja vu right now. Like we've already had this exact conversation and I've asked this question before. Sorry, mate. My memory is not what it used to be.)

 

S

 

 

[delekkerste]

You make a good point, Gene. I may have a mental block with price discovery because I rarely go for two (or more) big dollar pieces in any one auction. I guess for multiple pieces your argument images a lot of sense. But if you're after one piece and one piece only do you agree that bidding early is harmful to your cause?

 

Actually, no, I wouldn't agree with that - in fact, I can use Felix's example against him to prove my point! He says that the underbidder on the MM page wouldn't have bid as much as he did if not for the early bidding forcing him to recalibrate the value of the piece, causing him to bid more and jacking up the final price for the winner. But, that is ONLY because there was someone else out there willing to pay one increment more than Felix's buddy, the underbidder. What if the winner hadn't been as keen to win it and had stopped one bid increment short - then the underbidder would have won it and he'd be saying, "THANK GOD for that accelerated price discovery, otherwise I would never have been prepared to bid as high as I did!"

 

It is only by virtue of the fact that there was one other person willing to go one extra increment that Felix's story became a cautionary tale against accelerating price discovery when it could very easily have the other way around! Like I said, there are some instances when it is and isn't beneficial to any given individual...your mileage may vary!

[delekkerste]

[tth2]

Seriously though, I think this is the fallout from going hard with three weeks to go in the auction. Sure, you scare away most of the less serious bidders. But you also give another guy time to think and rationalize the purchase while figuring out how to raise more money than he originally expected to. IMHO, early bidding is a double edged sword and I don't think it paid off this time (except for the seller).

 

Yup. Bidding begets more bidding. I don't believe in "price discovery", unless that means you hope the lot goes beyond a point that you want/can afford to pay-- which means you don't *really* want that piece at all. You just don't want to have to think about it any more. Early bidding causes the serious players to recalibrate values. I just got a PM from an underbidder on the MIRACLEMAN page. I asked him if he really thought the page was worth his bid. His answer: No, not before bidding started. But seeing the bidding hit $14K as soon as it the Internet session started caused him to believe that he would have to bid more than his initial estimate to have a shot. So all that the early bidding accomplished was for him to rationalize a higher value and increase his bid amount when the auction went live. Making the actual winner have to pay more.

 

The early bidding was great for the seller, not so great for the bidders.

This was my point exactly. Sort of makes you wonder if the aggressive bidding that is typically seen early on in OA auctions is because of shill bidding. After all, as you rightly point out, who benefits more from that than the seller?

 

[Nexus]

You make a good point, Gene. I may have a mental block with price discovery because I rarely go for two (or more) big dollar pieces in any one auction. I guess for multiple pieces your argument images a lot of sense. But if you're after one piece and one piece only do you agree that bidding early is harmful to your cause?

 

Actually, no, I wouldn't agree with that - in fact, I can use Felix's example against him to prove my point! He says that the underbidder on the MM page wouldn't have bid as much as he did if not for the early bidding forcing him to recalibrate the value of the piece, causing him to bid more and jacking up the final price for the winner. But, that is ONLY because there was someone else out there willing to pay one increment more than Felix's buddy, the underbidder. What if the winner hadn't been as keen to win it and had stopped one bid increment short - then the underbidder would have won it and he'd be saying, "THANK GOD for that accelerated price discovery, otherwise I would never have been prepared to bid as high as I did!"

 

It is only by virtue of the fact that there was one other person willing to go one extra increment that Felix's story became a cautionary tale against accelerating price discovery when it could very easily have the other way around! Like I said, there are some instances when it is and isn't beneficial to any given individual...your mileage may vary!

 

The guy who PM'd me was actually the second underbidder. In this case, I don't think anyone, even Hari, thought this page would go so high. The winner was clearly all-in (who knows how high he was willing to go?); it was a gut-check for everyone else. And I can say that, unlike your UXM cover, there are no regrets today from any underbidders. The only result is that one guy has a very expensive MM page (just as someone has a very expensive Byrne FF cover) that may not have been so expensive if the price discovery/thrill-bidding hadn't been so aggressive right off the bat.

 

Even if my friend did end up "winning", it would have been for a much higher price than he had originally estimated...thanks to the early bidding.

 

And anyway, my point (again) was that buyers who truly want to win a lot, don't bid early and aren't concerned with price discovery. For lots you're casually interested in, sure, throw down a few bids for and giggles. Bid 'em up and cross them off early (odds are you didn't really want them anyway). But for that one lot you ARE serious about? No way. As you yourself proved by NOT wanting price discovery for, and not bidding early on, the UXM #176 cover...the one lot you were in to win. That's all that needs to be said.

[Nexus]

Seriously though, I think this is the fallout from going hard with three weeks to go in the auction. Sure, you scare away most of the less serious bidders. But you also give another guy time to think and rationalize the purchase while figuring out how to raise more money than he originally expected to. IMHO, early bidding is a double edged sword and I don't think it paid off this time (except for the seller).

 

Yup. Bidding begets more bidding. I don't believe in "price discovery", unless that means you hope the lot goes beyond a point that you want/can afford to pay-- which means you don't *really* want that piece at all. You just don't want to have to think about it any more. Early bidding causes the serious players to recalibrate values. I just got a PM from an underbidder on the MIRACLEMAN page. I asked him if he really thought the page was worth his bid. His answer: No, not before bidding started. But seeing the bidding hit $14K as soon as it the Internet session started caused him to believe that he would have to bid more than his initial estimate to have a shot. So all that the early bidding accomplished was for him to rationalize a higher value and increase his bid amount when the auction went live. Making the actual winner have to pay more.

 

The early bidding was great for the seller, not so great for the bidders.

This was my point exactly. Sort of makes you wonder if the aggressive bidding that is typically seen early on in OA auctions is because of shill bidding. After all, as you rightly point out, who benefits more from that than the seller?

 

There may be shill-bidding. But I believe that a large part can be attributed to thrill-bidding, or its classier variant, price discovery. It's strictly anecdotal, but I've talked to a lot of collectors about their bidding habits. Some readily admit to bidding early to protect the markets of certain artists/titles. Some bid early just so they can say they placed a bid on a trophy piece. None of them truly expect to win or really have any intention of winning when they bid early. For lots that they DO want to win, everyone waits until the actual auction begins. Even Gene!

 

I suppose if one has a large want list and/or a scattershot approach to collecting, then using price discovery to winnow down the candidates can be useful. But I think most of us can identify pieces that are special for us. In those cases, throw price discovery out the window. Because price discovery = bidding, and bidding begets more bidding. And more bidding = more $$$. What buyer wants that?

[comix4fun]

I actively encourage anyone who wants to perform "price discovery" on any of my pieces.

 

I will be sure to let you know when you've struck pay dirt.

[delekkerste]

And anyway, my point (again) was that buyers who truly want to win a lot, don't bid early and aren't concerned with price discovery. For lots you're casually interested in, sure, throw down a few bids for and giggles. Bid 'em up and cross them off early (odds are you didn't really want them anyway). But for that one lot you ARE serious about? No way. As you yourself proved by NOT wanting price discovery for, and not bidding early on, the UXM #176 cover...the one lot you were in to win. That's all that needs to be said.

 

There may be shill-bidding. But I believe that a large part can be attributed to thrill-bidding, or its classier variant, price discovery. It's strictly anecdotal, but I've talked to a lot of collectors about their bidding habits. Some readily admit to bidding early to protect the markets of certain artists/titles. Some bid early just so they can say they placed a bid on a trophy piece. None of them truly expect to win or really have any intention of winning when they bid early. For lots that they DO want to win, everyone waits until the actual auction begins. Even Gene!

 

Felix, I think you're projecting again.

 

In this particular case, I didn't bid early because I knew that I held the strongest hand and that any price discovery could only hurt me. In cases where I don't necessarily know I am the guy to beat, and the information value of price discovery is net positive to me, I absolutely will ramp up the bidding to draw out other bids. I was the underbidder on the ASM #121 cover, a piece where I bid more than I have on any other piece in my life. I was the high bidder going into the live session, bid again in the live session and was a half bid increment away from taking it home. Hardly thrill-bidding or bidding on a piece I didn't really care about winning. In case you're wondering, that "POOF" sound you just heard was all of your theories about price discovery going up in smoke!

 

I can assure you that this is far from the only example of a piece that I really wanted where I've accelerated price discovery in the online session and ended up either the winner or the underbidder. Pieces I really wanted. Pieces that I often won with no further bids in the Internet session! Bottom line: there are times when the value of accelerated price discovery is a net positive and times when it can be a net negative. In fact, it can be a net positive for one bidder and a net negative for another for the same lot depending on the cards they are holding and their respective situations.

 

Also, while price discovery may have hurt the eventual winner of the MM page, ex ante, the 2nd underbidder did not know there was someone who was going to the mat for this one and benefited from the knowledge that, to win this, he would have to up his game. And, in some cases like this, he probably would have won, because there won't always be someone(s) else topping his bid that was raised because of price discovery. I think it's important not to take the ex post outcome of the winner paying more and the underbidders not winning as some kind of validation that the information was not worth having ex ante, because it clearly was. If there were 100 scenarios like the one you described, the underbidder would end up winning at least some of those times because price discovery recalibrated his bidding strategy. Without price discovery, he would have lost every time. It's also important to remember that the value of information is not symmetrical; for the same lot, it can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on the bidding strategy and situation of each individual.

 

I really hope that settles the argument against making any blanket statements suggesting that it is always bad to accelerate price discovery or that it is only useful when you're bidding on pieces you don't really care about, as that could not be more wrong. The correct answer is that it depends. For some people, it may never behoove them to accelerate price discovery; for others, including myself, there can often be value in that information.

[Nexus]

Gene, you champion "price discovery"...unless it's for something you really want (e.g. UXM #176). Then no price discovery. So what does that say about the pieces you DO bid early on? Do you *really* want those? (And yes, you can easily backfit any previous auction to help your argument but when it comes down to the test (UXM #176), action speaks louder than words.) So what's the point?

 

And there's no way you could know for sure that you had the "strongest hand" for the UXM #176 cover. How do you know there wasn't a "Ron" out there who would have bid this up like the X-MEN ANNUAL #5 cover? As you yourself say, you'll only pay so much for nostalgia...that does not say win at all costs. There are clearly guys in this hobby who will win at all costs. So, if you really believe in price discovery, you should have employed it here, as well, to feel out potential competition.

 

That flushing sound you hear is your price discovery concept going down the toilet. ( )

[TMNT]

In this particular case, I didn't bid early because I knew that I held the strongest hand and that any price discovery could only hurt me.

 

These discussions always fascinate me from the sidelines, but I had to ask, how did you know, for certain, that you held the strongest hand? Considering the interest in the piece wasn't there a chance someone else could have gone to bat? And along those lines, if you weren't certain, would that have changed your strategy?

 

 

[delekkerste]

Gene, you champion "price discovery"...unless it's for something you really want (e.g. UXM #176). Then no price discovery. So what does that say about the pieces you DO bid early on? Do you *really* want those? (And yes, you can easily backfit any previous auction to help your argument but when it comes down to the test (UXM #176), action speaks louder than words.) So what's the point?

 

And there's no way you could know for sure that you had the "strongest hand" for the UXM #176 cover. How do you know there wasn't a "Ron" out there who would have bid this up like the X-MEN ANNUAL #5 cover? As you yourself say, you'll only pay so much for nostalgia...that does not say win at all costs. There are clearly guys in this hobby who will win at all costs. So, if you really believe in price discovery, you should have employed it here, as well, to feel out potential competition.

 

That flushing sound you hear is your price discovery concept going down the toilet. ( )

 

C'mon, Felix - you're just creating straw men arguments at this point. I don't "champion" price discovery and say that it is always better to bid early and often (though, like Hari, I believe that in many/most cases it doesn't really matter). I've NEVER said that. What I have said, and provided both concrete evidence of, is that there are instances when it is unquestionably beneficial, such as the example above where one has a fixed budget and is trying to acquire two items that are potentially on the borderline of that budget. To downplay this inconvenient truth, you just say that, well, if you have to choose, you don't really want both pieces. Of course, that's just projecting your own views onto the matter. It may never behoove, say, The Vacuum, to accelerate price discovery. But for people who have limited resources and must occasionally make trade-offs, the information gained from accelerating price discovery can be very valuable. I seriously don't know how you can question that.

 

And, again, your examples are mess! You point to one single instance where it didn't behoove me to accelerate price discovery and make a blanket statement based on that, when I have, on more occasions than not, accelerated price discovery to my benefit. I would say that, in the majority of cases where I've won at Heritage or CLink, I was the high bidder going into the live session (HA) or had placed my high bid in well before the auction close (HA/CL). That's not back-fitting, that's just a fact. And, again, I've clearly demonstrated that your MM example can clearly be turned around against you. Others have attested in various threads that they either believe that, in most instances, it doesn't matter when you place your bids, or that they sometimes engage in price discovery themselves for the same beneficial reasons as I will do it.

 

There is really no way you can be right in this argument, because you've taken an absolutist stance that price discovery is always harmful (with the caveat that it's OK if you don't really want the piece ), and I've already peppered many holes in that - I only have to be right once for you to be proven wrong!

[Bronty]

[delekkerste]

In this particular case, I didn't bid early because I knew that I held the strongest hand and that any price discovery could only hurt me.

 

These discussions always fascinate me from the sidelines, but I had to ask, how did you know, for certain, that you held the strongest hand? Considering the interest in the piece wasn't there a chance someone else could have gone to bat? And along those lines, if you weren't certain, would that have changed your strategy?

 

 

I didn't mean to imply that I knew for certain. But I knew that I was holding a straight flush and that it was unlikely that someone would pull a higher straight flush or a Royal Flush on me. How did I know this? Well, let's just say that I knew for certain that some likely bidders were not in the running. And that I was highly confident that at least one of the two remaining likeliest bidders wouldn't go as high as I was willing to go. And that I had a totally out of the box ace up my sleeve in case the one remaining guy decided to really throw down for it. Felix mistakenly assumed that, just because I said I wasn't willing to bid as high as the X-Men Annual 5, it meant that I'd give up on it past a certain point. Let's just say...not exactly.

 

In any case, let's just say I knew I was in a very strong position and that, in THIS particular instance, there would be no advantage to providing others with any incremental information through accelerated price discovery. In other instances, there might be incremental benefit to me to bidding early and often. I will say that Felix is totally wrong about my own strategy, because I have won far, far, far more auctions being out loose on the lead than playing the closer like I did in this sale.

 

Anyway, I eat this shizzle up - game theory, information asymmetry, informational role of prices, signalling effects, etc. - just like Felix gobbles up baseball stats and Moneyball. All I'm saying is that some participants can find it useful in particular circumstances. Not all the time. But certainly and unquestionably not never, and not just in cases where you don't really want something. That's just projecting a framework onto the situation that does not stand up to close scrutiny.