Thread
Daystar 100mhz 601!
You are re-iterating what I have already suggested is unnecessary in the 'blind' circumstances of on-line bidding. I know how live auctions work, and the circumstance of having all parties together makes that system possible, and, it has to be added, confers no advantage on any party. Even then, auction houses will often accept smaller (but not piffling) increments towards the end. It is, after all, to the auction house's advantage to have as high a price as possible bid at fall of hammer, which happens when no further bid is forthcoming.
On-line auctions have no true 'fall of hammer'. The end is at an arbitrary time. Individual bidders cannot know what bids have been made at every moment unless eBay devises a way to show them second-by-second. If eBay were to do so, it might be rational to insist on a formulaic bid increment, but at the moment it is not rational. The only rational alternative is the simple 'first-past-the-post' approach.
However, as I wrote several posts ago, real-world eBay winners don't deal in minimal increments anyway. They decide their limits, and bid those at the last convenient moment. If they win, they win. If they are outbid, c'est la vie.
de
On-line auctions have no true 'fall of hammer'. The end is at an arbitrary time. Individual bidders cannot know what bids have been made at every moment unless eBay devises a way to show them second-by-second. If eBay were to do so, it might be rational to insist on a formulaic bid increment, but at the moment it is not rational. The only rational alternative is the simple 'first-past-the-post' approach.
However, as I wrote several posts ago, real-world eBay winners don't deal in minimal increments anyway. They decide their limits, and bid those at the last convenient moment. If they win, they win. If they are outbid, c'est la vie.
de