On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
There's definitely something funny going on, yes.
-Dave
On 06/15/2016 01:09 PM, Alan Hightower via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Not contesting the rule, but it seems odd. The $4K value is a reflection of the next highest bidders high bid. The bid that was retracted was for an amount just over or substantially over $4K. With it retracted, don't we now know what the second highest bidder's maximum bid currently is / always has been (eg $4K)? This seems a bit unfair to the new high bidder (previously second). The current $1340 price is actually determined by the next-next highest bidder (3rd in line over all) and not the current high bid holder.
It's an odd (and seemingly unfair) rule.
-Alan
On 2016-06-15 11:35, Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Sellers do not have to approve bid retractions.
-Dave
-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
Could have been two people who both retracted their bids. But it's not an unfair rule, it's actually brillant. You always get the 2nd highest bid. The guy (forget?) won a Nobel prize in economics for inventing this form of auctioning. -- @ BillDeg: Web: vintagecomputer.net Twitter: @billdeg <https://twitter.com/billdeg> Youtube: @billdeg <https://www.youtube.com/user/billdeg> Unauthorized Bio <http://www.vintagecomputer.net/readme.cfm>