Trab ski auction: your input wanted

A raffle wouldn't have sniping and I can afford a $20 raffle ticket as opposed to a few hundred in an auction. But then you'd have multiple money streams to manage...

...besides if 50 people joined in a raffle at $20/pop, you'd make too much money ; )

-Dave

Dave, yes, I think a raffle would be a hassle on my end. Plus, as I mentioned before, I'm not looking to make the absolute most possible on this - just hoping to at least match the advertising credit the skis represent, and if someone gets a good deal, that's great.

What about a variation on lordhedgie's rolling bidding idea: run a standard auction (7 days?) with a fixed closing time. Then, everyone who has made a bid is allowed to make one more bid over the next 24 hours (again, with a fixed end time). All last chance bidders would have an idea of where the final price was headed based on the action of the first 7 days. This last chance bid might work best to be "silent" - it could be done by PMing me with the final bid. This last chance method would seem to reduce the problem of sniping.

Any thoughts?

New, original, unique... I like it.

I also agree with Dave_R -- between my wife and I we've obtained four pairs of skis this summer, so I'm not really prepared to justify buying another pair right now. But a raffle... Heck, I could do that.

Aside from the bookkeeping hassle for me, I agree that a raffle would be a good way to go because it would allow people to participate who otherwise wouldn't (eg. lordhedgie, already has spent enough on skis this year). I thought I remembered that raffles might have some special regulations, so I checked WA gov websites, and this does seem to be the case.

Raffles are considered a form of gambling (game of chance) in this state, and therefore regulated. The RCW chapter is 9.46 , and the specific subsection for raffles is 9.46.0277 :
""Raffle," as used in this chapter, means a game in which tickets bearing an individual number are sold for not more than twenty-five dollars each and in which a prize or prizes are awarded on the basis of a drawing from the tickets by the person or persons conducting the game, when the game is conducted by a bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization, no person other than a bona fide member of the organization takes any part in the management or operation of the game, and no part of the proceeds thereof inure to the benefit of any person other than the organization conducting the game," [the emphasis is mine].

From UW website with info for student groups:
"Raffles are strictly regulated in the State of Washington under the Washington State Gambling Act. Only certain charitable or nonprofit organizations can conduct raffles without first obtaining a gambling license."

Because TAY is not a nonprofit or charitable organization, it looks like TAY would have to obtain a gambling license in order to lawfully conduct a raffle. This means that a raffle for the Trab skis is not going to work.

I like the modified lordhedgie auction that I described above. As far as I can figure, it would pretty much remove the issue of sniping from the auction process. I realize that it would prevent some (many?) people from participating compared to a raffle, but it seems like the only real way to get the skis to someone and cash to TAY.

I'd like to start getting an auction organized, but am still interested in opinions and possible alternatives.

Hmmm, after working on setting up a thread for this auction and trying to specify all of the details, I'm having some second thoughts about the "last chance" part of it. Adding this last chance extension adds considerable complexity, and all just to try to avoid last minute sniping, which people who have eBay experience should be used to by now.

With the last chance extension as I was imagining it (and described it above), I now see that the regular 7 day bidding period will not necessarily end with a price that gives good guidance for last chance bidders. That's because all someone has to do to qualify for a last chance bid is put in a bid at anytime during the 7 days. They don't have to keep coming back and upping their bid, which I think is what drives the price toward the limit of what the bidding population is willing to pay.

A way around this problem would be to offer the last chance bidding not to ALL previous bidders, but to only some top tier of them. For example, the top five bidders, or the top 25% of bidders, etc. This would force bidders to stay in the process if they wanted to make the cut and have a last chance, and seems like it would be more likely to result in a 7 day price that was a more accurate guide for what the final price might be. This arrangement, however, would then be likely to result in sniping to make the cut!

I can set up the auction with some kind of cut for last chance bidding, but I guess I'm wondering if this is really worth it versus just going with a straightforward auction and letting sniping occur?

I dunno Charles. I don't really think you're going to have to deal with malicious sniping activity here at TAY, we're all nice guys. I just worry about someone who isn't going to be around on the final day because, well, maybe it's snowing . Left in the position of making a insanely high over-bid or just putting in a low bid and hoping to get lucky, I'd imagine most people would put in the low bid and just resign themselves to not winning. By giving people second chances, you're going to drive up the final price considerably.

I don't agree that eBay's made us all used to sniping -- if anything, eBay has greatly reduced my tolerance for it, since they've effectively made sniping pointless. While there is still occaisional sniping on eBay, it's idiotic. Place your maximum bid, and the computer does your bidding for you. If anyone complains that they got sniped, it's only because they were too dumb to read the instructions.

Alright, I've got a new idea... Run an auction eBay-style, where the winner pays one increment ($10) over the 2nd highest bid... But have bids placed privately through PM. Once a day you could post the current going price, which would give folks an idea of where bids ought to be, plus help drum up more interest in the bidding process.

I think that's the most fair way, although not the easiest. I can't think of any way to cheat by that method, and it seems like there is only a slight advantage to being around on the last day.

Mind you, my interest stems mostly from an interest in game theory. I love problems like this -- trying to find the fairest method of solving a complicated problem. Simplicity rarely enters my mind. Maybe an understanding of how many folks are bidding would help -- if only five TAY'ers plan to participate, then we may be able to rely on the good nature of TAY to just "be fair" about it. If we're going to have a hundred lurkers playing, well then, we might just see the worst half of a few of them. It only takes one stinker to ruin it...

* No offense to the lurkers intended -- many of them are great people. Just implying that a smaller closer-knit group is less likely to get upset at each other, or do things that might upset one another.