You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TheOtherDave comments on Open Thread, June 2-15, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: TimS 02 June 2013 02:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (433)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 June 2013 04:49:10PM 0 points [-]

If JohnWittle is the only bidder in the auction, then in a second-bid auction he would receive gwern's soul for free,

Well, yes, technically that's true... but what prevents/discourages gwern (or his accomplice) from submitting an $N-1 bid (where N is the current sole bid amount)?

Comment author: Vaniver 10 June 2013 08:40:22PM 3 points [-]

Typically, second-bid auctions are sealed, and all opened at once at the end of the auction, so it won't be known that JohnWittle has bid, or how much he has bid, until the auction is over.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 June 2013 09:06:49PM 0 points [-]

Ah. (nods) That makes sense.

Comment author: gwern 10 June 2013 05:20:07PM 0 points [-]

If I were going to do that, I would simply have set a reserve price.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 June 2013 06:49:57PM 0 points [-]

Not the same thing, surely? Submitting an N-1 bid causes the top bidder to pay effectively their bid... in effect turning a second-bid auction into an English auction as defined above. Setting a reserve price sets a floor that has no relationship to the top bidder's bid.

But sure, the fact that you didn't set a reserve price also suggests that you wouldn't take advantage of this loophole in your counterfactual second-bid auction.