Talk:Auction/Archives/2012

Split:Auction and auction theory
These is some tension in this article between the purely economic concept of an auction, and the idea of an auction as thought of by famous auction houses, and things like that. That article should serve as an introduction to the general phenomenon of auctions.

The second article can house the material on how auctions are formally classified (first price, second price, Vickrey, and so on,) strategies for auctions, collusion, bid shading, reserve prices, secondary markets, and all sorts of other technical material. All this is important, but there's no need for it to be cluttering the main article, as most people looking for information on auctions won't want that level of detail. Isomorphic 04:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding auctions and auction theory, it may also be inaccurate for this article to claim that "in economic theory, an auction is a method for determining the value of a commodity..." Only a small class of truth-revealing auctions (such as the second price "Vickrey" auction) will give bidders an incentive to bid their true values. The purpose of an auction is not to determine values but to allocate resources efficiently (to the highest valued participants). UA6 07:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Isomorphic, this needs splitting into Auction and Auction theory. Cretog8 (talk)
 * d'accord. caert go leor. hear, hear! about blanking time!(all of the preceding to be construed as a vote in favour of one or more splits.)Toyokuni3 (talk)
 * OK, I'm dopey, and removing the split recommendation. There is already an Auction theory article. It may be that some content from this page should move there, but obviously splitting is unnecessary. Cretog8 (talk)

Minimum price and reserve auction and ebay
The ebay site has some definitions that distinguish between a minimum price auction and a reserve auction, which this article does not do. I suggest the author review this article for possible clarification of defintions of auction types. 24.238.146.129 00:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * How about mentioning the existence of Ebay (and online auctions in general) in the article? It is quite astounding that there is no mention of on-line auctions here, given than the vast majority of auctions which take place in the world today are presumably taking place on line??!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.118.205.39 (talk • contribs)
 * From the article: "Internet auctions, such as eBay and eBid have become very popular with the prevalence of Internet. Other websites display live auction listings from auctioneers nationwide". --Van helsing (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

UK TV competition
I want to include something but I don't know if this article is the place, or how to do so without falling into speculation or primary research. The UK television station Hits runs a competition where viewers send a premium-rate SMS with a bid (in pennies) for a high-priced consumer item (usually stereo equipment, though last week they had a car). The lowest unique bidder wins - the person who bids the lowest amount of money that nobody else has bid. It seems to me that in practice this only works for the company where there are likely to be a large number of bidders, and from their perspective it's much like a lottery - they make their money from the SMS, rather than the winner bidder who will typically only end up paying a couple of pounds.

But from the bidders' perspective there are some interesting game theoretical issues about bidding. Probably lots of people will try bidding just a few pence, so if you bid too low you're unlikely to be a unique bidder. But bid too high and there's likely to be a lower unique bidder. The optimum bid depends on the value of the prize, the number of other bidders, and crucially, an aseessment of the state of knowledge of the other bidders. You might assess, based on the number of bidders and the value of the prize, that 350p is the optimum level to bid at. But if you think that other people have done the same analysis, then you have to change your bid, because they'll be bidding at the same level and you won't be a unique bidder. And if you think that everyone else has done the same analysis, they might all decide that a very low bid is useless, and so you might win with a bid of a penny. Unless they've thought of that as well... --ALargeElk | Talk 17:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That is indeed an interesting game. The equilibrium will involve each player randomizing over a bunch of numbers.  If I had more time, it'd be interesting to work out the actual distribution.  However, I would say that despite the use of the word "bid," this isn't an auction.  An auction is a kind of market in which the players are trying to find an efficient allocation by expressing information about their value.  In your game, a player's value for the prize don't enter into his strategy at all.  Isomorphic 00:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Values must enter the player's strategies, since no agent would bid above their value. Also, lotteries themselves may be considered "all-pay" auctions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.134.223 (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

"Cheap auctions"
Is there any truth to those so-called free/cheap auctions that are held by government/other agencies? One sees such things in spam and eBay auctions very often, and usually there is a kernel of truth attached to them. 204.60.171.230 11:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but I think there's at least a kernel of truth there. The government does auction off, for example, confiscated property.  Sometimes few people know about them and actually show up to bid, so the prices can be cheap. Isomorphic 19:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, where can one find these 'cheap' auctions? (Same person as original poster) 01:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't know. Try the reference desk. Isomorphic 02:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commercials
I find it inappropriate for individuals and/or businesses to place commercial references to themeselves within a definition. Usayinpa 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)I concur the section regarding notable auctioneers violates the spirit of wikipedia as an encyclopedia site. UsayinpaUsayinpa 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. by that rationale, we should eliminate all references to contemporary entertainers, pro sports franchises, and who knows what else. i note that there are articles on general motors and exxonmobil, boeing, general mills and mcdonald's. need i go on?Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

100 Million Dollars
by the proposed 100 Million Dollars Wiki(pedia) should creadte an auction platform --83.171.183.131 16:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Chrisglub (Germany)

Amerikanische Versteigerung (American Auction)
In fundraising events in Germany you can often see a bidding style called Amerikanische Versteigerung (i.e. American Auction in German). Here, bidding is much like in a regular auction, but every bidder immediately pays the difference between his bid and the previous. In the end, the last bidder wins the auction, even if his contribution is very small. Technically speaking, this is not an auction, because the actual value of the object to be sold is irrelevant, it might well be e.g. an old and ugly teapot. The sum of all bids usually far exceeds the value (which is the point of a fund-raising auction), because everybody can contribute even without a big purse. I can't find anything similar to this in the article, but I might have overlooked something. Maybe it should be added (even if it is not really an auction)? I have no clue why this is called American Auction. Does the English-speaking world know of such a thing at all? --Dr. Hok 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

french revolution / 17th century
um, wasn't the french revolution at the end of the 18th century?

"During the 17th century, soon after the French Revolution, auctions came to be held in taverns and coffeehouses to sell art. Such auctions were held daily, and catalogs were printed to announce available items" —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMCHx (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Date auction
What is a date auction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.163.1 (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's simply an auction where the "item" you are bidding on is a date with some (presumably desirable) person. As far as I know it can be of any format.  --WayneMokane (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas most auctions require only seconds or minutes from the moment that the first bid is revealed until the final bid has become a binding agreement between buyer and seller there are types of auctions that last much longer, days or weeks, usually some kind of on-line auctions. If a fixed date is set, after which time no more bids will be accepted, that is a date auction. Max7437 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Digital art auction: Promotion?
As far as I can tell from googling, the digital art auction is a concept (see here). I didn't see any mention of auction houses (online or otherwise) actually holding such auctions. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -Dmh (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The digital art auction is a distinct auction. It is described in detail here. It has since been implemented completely independently by Propagate Ltd at www.propagateltd.com. Strangely, the site is not online at the time of writing (Google's cache works). This is an emerging revenue mechanism. Crosbie Fitch (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PropagateLtd is now at LiberateIP.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.59.36 (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A Mess
i am as cognizant as anyone of the need to be civil, but sometimes that is superceded by the need to be frank. this is a mess. it needs to be divided into at least 2 separate articles: one on the concept of auction in game theory, the other on auctions as a method for selling goods. there are no end of terms and ideas pertaining to the latter that aren't covered here, e.g., hammer price and buyer's premium. auctions are among the most fun you can have with your clothes on, but many people are intimidated by the idea. this article does nothing to dispel that.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that professor Milgrom's 384-page book and professor Klemperer's 256-page book were up-to-date in 2004. That is no longer quite the case. This field is growing at a furious pace. Theory and practice are closely intertwined. As long as the Wikipedia article is just a brief summary of the vast available knowledge within this field it is questionable if anything at all can be gained by having two separate articles about auctions.Max7437 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

i disagree entirely, and i speak from personal experience. i doubt seriously if the higher-ups at christie's, sotheby's, butterfield or skinner have more than a passing familiarity with game theory.almost (?) without exception, these people's background is in art history. i regularly attend a very successful auction on the eastern shore of maryland, and i assure you they have very little familiarity with (or interest in) professor milgrom's book, or even the cambridge university press. very few of the buyers have either.moreover, and i have not read milgrom, i doubt he deals with any number of real world auction phenomena. e.g., the simplest and most common type of collusion: 2 real friends, who know each other's similar tastes and needs.'i won't bid on a, if you won't bid on b.'or the reverse: running up someone who has pissed you off.(a dangerous game of chicken).or auctioneers creating phantom bids.this is known as 'bidding against the clock', the implication being that the clock on the back wall is placing bids. i am not contending the correctness of the theory. what i am saying is that, where the rubber meets the road, the theory is more commonly descriptive.there is an article on auctioneering. perhaps that is where a more practical description belongs. i stand by my position, civilly.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Toyokuni3 is quite welcome to make additions to the article, preferably together with people from that Maryland auction company. Afterwards we can all join in and try to rearrange the material in such a way that the general public gets the most relevant information in the first few chapters, leaving the rest for those who want more information in depth. But it is not all that simple to fit the contents of 640 pages into six pages or so. But one can try. By the way, the two professors are very much concerned about collusion and they suggest what steps can be taken to keep real-life auctions nice and honest.Max7437 (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

i just realized that my 'i speak from personal experience' is subject to misinterpretation. i meant it as a statement of fact and to some degree as a disclaimer.( personal experience is by definition anecdotal.) my intent here, as no doubt is yours is to improve the article. but my only experience with auctions, although it spans many years, is as a buyer and very occasional consignor. i will be happy to make what inputs are felt helpful.if you are the original author and my initial statement gave offense, i apologize. but i do feel that the organization needs re-doing, and apparently, wikipedia agrees.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the "Split instruction" page, which says that when an article reaches the 40 to 100 KB size it may possibly become a candidate for splitting. But this article is still only 32 KB and growing slowly. So please come back in two or three years, when perhaps this article is twice the present size. Then we can talk. - Also please note that under the headings "See also", "Types of auctions", "Famous Auction Houses" and "Other topics" there is a list of 31 topics treated in more depth elsewhere. So in a sense the splt has occured already and not only in two or three parts. Whoever wishes an Auction article without the Theory part is free to start creating his own article on his private talk page for possible later unveiling and discussion before it becomes an official article. Right now we know what we have but not what we might get. The article is pretty good as it stands. Please do not spoil it by splitting it! At least not now!Max7437 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please compare this article with the article about Golf, 56 KB. In no way is that article a candidate for splitting. Quite the opposite! The Auction article is not either a candidate for splitting! Max7437 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Toyokuni3--I think we've got a bit of an imbalance here between auction-theory enthusiasts and folks who care about real-world auctions. It's also easier for me to find formal sources on auction theory. If you can fish up good references on the real practice of auctions (rather than personal experience), that would be fantastic... either to use them yourself to improve the article, or mention them here so someone else can use them.Cretog8 (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stealing
in spite of the weasel words, 'what some would compare to stealing'Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC) seems to express a pov.
 * Yep, got rid of it. Cretog8 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Auction terms
Could terms such as dummy bid and vendors bid etc be included? Cgoodwin (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions, there are some references but they should be expanded. I'll get around to it at some stage when the general cleanup is complete. In the meantime feel free to jump in and edit at any time (with sources of course!) Debate   木  06:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FBQ / FPQ
Are there any references for the terms "Final Bid Quotient" (FBQ) or "Final Price Quotient" (FPQ)?Cretog8 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that there was no response here, and a couple web searches turned up only copies of this article, I removed the section. Cretog8 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Time requirements
I find the ascii "Time requirements" plot hard to read. I lean towards removing it, pending a prettier graphic, which should also be connected to references. Any thoughts? Cretog8 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The ASCII table is almost completely unreadable, and to be honest I've been considering eliminating the whole section. If you have a way of interpreting it that is useful, however, and a good quality source I'd be happy to come up with a graphic.
 * The entire section, while broadly intuitive, is also entirely unsourced and, in my view, not particularly encyclopedic, at least in this form. Furthermore, re-listing many of the auction types already referenced in the preceding section is difficult to read. I was therefore on the verge of merging some of the more useful stuff into the earlier section and deleting the rest.
 * As an aside, however, this whole article is simply one big invitation to be bold. It's still pretty shocking and someone just needs to dive in and fix it. It doesn't seem to be widely enough edited to require extensive discussions on the talk page - controversial changes can always be reverted since they remain in history. Debate   木  22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm glad you agree and the "chart" is now gone.
 * I'm personally pretty timid. In this article particularly, that's because I do theory--I can talk "independent private values" `til the cows get sold, but know little about the actual practice of auctions. For instance, that relates closely to the timing section, on which theory is pretty much silent, but is obviously very important in practice. So my timidity is anchored in my laziness in that I don't want to do the research needed, at least right now.
 * I do agree with you, though. I heartily encourage anyone who wants to radically re-work this thing to do so, and I'll try to give constructive inputs where I'm able.Cretog8 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking price & Posted price
The page currently has: "Asking price is not an auction. This pricing method emerged about 1200 B.C. for chattel in Iraq. It is still used for chattel, second-hand cars and real estate, especially outside the metropolitan areas. (Lasting one year in a business recession). In a rising market, what starts as an Asking Price, may eventually become an English Auction, if surprisingly many bidders show up." I'm not entirely sure what it's talking about, but the asking price it links to is something else. Since it's described as not an auction in any case, I'm probably going to remove it.

For "Posted price", according to auction theory that could even be considered an auction, but obviously isn't in the common usage. And since it's described as not an auction, I'll probably remove it to.

Thoughts?Cretog8 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From Catharreign@yahoo.fr Could I add (and I am inexpert with how to handle discussions here and actually wanted to come in independently) that there is an increasing use of asking price as a an invitation to a pseudo auction without the protection auctions can offer and under law must offer. This has emerged through Real Estate agents promulgating a system of "starting prices" or "more than" or "between price "x" and price "y". An offered price is not often realised,may be an "invitation to treat"...Commonly "asking price" this worked thus...you offer a lower price and the vendor can say 'no', hoding to his pice or he may relent and come to terms, even terms not announced or even cosidered (perhaps) when the price was offered. The reality in (our) law isd this. If you make an offer on an asking price then the asking price does not have to be maintained. The vendor can immediately increase the "asking price" if he or she wishes. He or she may eventually negotiate back to the asking price but an invitation to "treat" is an invitation to negotiate and can work against you if you do not take up the asking price.One might ask a vendor "if I make an offer, will the asking price stay the same?"

Real Estate agents have, and it is very widespread..perverted this tenet in law to conduct a melange of tender system and auction system. You might make an offer(tender) above the "asking price" and it might be successful or might not and you are left in the dark for a while. On the other hand they may get back and say "another interested party has outbid you...do you want to increase your bid" again a pseudo auction without legal protection which used to be loosely called  "gazumping". This infuriating system was outlawed for a short time and then the embargo lifted under some legal hypotheticals.

Real estate agents are typically ignorent of more than the most basic law and prefer to follow fashion. The glee with which terms such as "English Auction" or "American Auction" or "Dutch Auction" are seized upon are again owing to the boredom and linguistic ignorence of our era.When one gets down to facts, Dutch auctions are not auctions at all but a game played or a method to achieve a price, an invitation to treat in which no penalty emerges for making a lower offer. That is NOT an auction. It is seen when an auctioneer loers the opening price toachieve a bid...that is not an auction!!..the auction begins when the bid is increased, not when met at a point lower than the opening price. Few auctioneers would comprehend that point of subtlety as so many are not educated except by experience and time passing and were accredited with auctioneer status. Some conduct auctions without qualifications.

The word "auction" is derived from the Latin word which in English today has become "augmentation". The original word makes it quite clear that "ascension" is the intention and the derivation and therefor only bidding which is "increasing" (in the positive domain please, mathematicians!)is, and has the right to be titled "an auction". Once you grasp that you can realise that all the rest of it is "aberration". One needs to know however what a person means when calling their process for example a "Dutch Auction" and eBay vendors and eBay itself are the most outstandingly ignorent and arrogant of all malpracticians. Always make sure you know the rules of the 'game' before bidding.

The French word for an auction is "l'encher"and the word "cher" meams (in money terms) "dear" and the inference is clea...augmentation.The word "en" has various meanings but here it means in my view "of it" which amounts to "it beconing more dear" or "l'amelioration du prix" The term may be an abbreviation of "faire l'encher"...to make a bid....Il a encheri de mon offre" ...he ha bid higher than me (I did) and always in the sense of "increasing") finally "encher sur un somme" ...increase the bid...  or "encher sur un autre" ..bid higher than someone else...also are used in the sense of augmentation or increasing the amount offered, not reducing it, Voila!!""""

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.50.204.159 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

revenue equivalence
I took out a brief reference to revenue equivalence. It should definitely be in the Auction theory article, but is far from complete there. Here, assuming it should be more practical, revenue equivalence would need oodles of caveats--essentially, it requires a lot of assumptions, and it's really unclear how much it applies in the real world. So I think it's best left out here, until it's properly developed in Auction theory, and then maybe linked from here.Cretog8 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Stockholms Auktionsverk
I moved Stockholms Auktionsverk to Stockholm Auction House. Not sure if we want to keep the Swedish name here.Cretog8 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Iraqi Auction
I have nominated the article Iraqi auction for deletion. Anybody who wants to take part in the discussion can do so at the AfD talk page.Cretog8 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Other auction terminology
Right, it's time for some bold action. Everything under "Other auction terminology" ending in "auction" (ie everything) has been moved to "Secondary types of auction" or deleted. At some stage in the future "Auction terminology" will be resurrected in some form for real auction-related terminology such as vendor bids. At present, all blue links have been kept, while red links have either been deleted or kept based entirely on my judgment call and almost no research. All deleted entries are included below, so if you think something is significant enough to keep simply drop it back into the article with in-line references to back it up. This is not the end of the cull, if I've kept something in the article I will try to find a source for it, however if I cannot it will still be deleted, blue link or not. If you want to save anything particular please have a go at finding some reliable sources and put them in the article. Debate  木  10:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

These are the deleted entries:


 * Deleted as trivial:
 * Digital art auction


 * Deleted as insufficiently distinct from a traditional English Auction:
 * Open outcry auction


 * Deleted as definitions so obvious they do not need to be spelled out here:
 * private auction
 * public auction


 * Deleted for questionable utility as a distinct category:
 * exchange auction
 * sale auction


 * Deleted completely random, orphaned stuff mostly on the Vickrey auction. Not sure why it ended up here... some of it may come back at a later date.

sealed-bid redirect
I just created sealed-bid auction as a redirect to sealed first-price auction. This obviously isn't exactly correct, but I thought it should exist and redirect somewhere. What do y'all think? Should I redirect it here instead? Something else? C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Website advert
I just removed the following line:
 * If you want to advertise your great auction company list in the directory of http://www.auctioneerlistings.com/ where it is cheap and easy to gain tons of business leads.

At best, this site might be included in the external links section, but even that is highly questionable. Including it in the article body &mdash; especially the opening summary section &mdash; is completely inappropriate. EJSawyer (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A very clear case of wp:spam. There is no possible instance where the edit might have conceivably complied with wp:mos. Such edits by IPs/SPAs can simply be undone without further discussion on talk. This article is a spam magnet. Debate   木  12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested listing of "Uniform price auction" and "Generalized second-price auction"
Seems like it would be useful to have descriptions and links to Uniform price auction and/or Generalized second-price auction. I started here looking for redirects to information about these types of auctions and only found it by clicking through Vickrey auction. Seems to me like they're distinct and prominent enough (especially given their use in on-line keyword auctions, e.g. Google) to merit direct listing here.

I would have added these myself, but this is definitely not my area of expertise, so thought it best to leave the ultimate decision of whether or not this is really appropriate to others. 67.164.61.68 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What is an auction house?
The Wikipedia link for auction house is a redirect to this article, but unfortunately I see no explanation of the phrase here. Is it the entity organizing auctions? Is it the building where auctions are held? Is it both? None of the above and something else entirely?--82.92.181.129 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for...
primary vs. secondary types of auctions? What's the key distinction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.138.152 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of SOB
this is just a minor grammatical note. I personally have never heard the acronym in use, but if it's pronounced es-oh-bee, then it should be referred in the article as "an SOB" rather than "a SOB," while it is correct if the word is pronounced like the word sob. Unfortunately the word is not listed in the OED so it does not seem to be a generally recognized acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.130.167 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Polish Auction ?
I am looking for any published information on a variant type of auction that has often been called a "Polish Auction" although that term is very politically incorrect since the word "Polish" in this context implies "crazy" or "stupid". The way this auction works is a bit crazy and frequently leads to laughter causing this form of auction to be sometimes used by charitable or fraternal type organizations as a fun and friendly way of raising small amounts of money internally.

I will describe here the way it works in the hopes it may help to identify other names for this type of auction and any known sources:
 * The pending auction is announced and an item to be bid for is revealed.


 * The auctioneer is introduced along with a "time-keeper" and one or more "runners". In a very small group the auctioneer may be the runner too but it is generally better if someone else does that.


 * The time-keeper secretly predetermines how long the auction will last in minutes and seconds. The auctioneer may be consulted to estimate how much minimum time will be needed for a "good" auction depending on what is being auctioned off, but the exact duration is known only to the time-keeper.


 * A countdown timer device with a loud alarm sound may be substituted for the time-keeper but must be kept out of sight of the audience. If done this way the auctioneer may be aware of the duration as they will have to set and start the device.


 * The rules of the auction are explained to those present for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar.


 * Rule #1. All bids will be $1 exactly (U.S. rules, variants in other countries would use similarly small denomination note).


 * Rule #2. You may cast a bid by holding up a $1 bill. No other method of bidding is accepted.


 * Rule #3. All bids are final. Once you have "bid" you may not withdraw your dollar. Keep your hand in the air until a runner collects your dollar.


 * Rule #4. People may bid more than once without limit providing they have another dollar to hold up.


 * Rule #5. The auction is over instantly when the time-keeper (or the timing device) calls "TIME!" or otherwise signals the predetermined duration has been reached.


 * Rule #6. The owner of the last dollar collected before/as time ran out is the winner of the auction. Thus the outcome as winner is mostly just a matter of luck. Bidders try to guess when they think the bell will ring ... in some auctions the time-keeper may randomly call out "ALMOST TIME" to cause a bidding storm but such a call can be very difficult to interpret (and at times quite funny).

All of the dollars collected belong to the organization hosting the auction. Such an auction is rarely the reason for the meeting of the organization, but rather is simply a small part of a larger activity or agenda.


 * NOTE: Typically items to be auctioned are similar to door prizes, small simple items like a box of candy or a pair of local event tickets. Occasionally the item may be a "hostage". An example of a hostage item might be the gavel of the organization's president (who is not supposed to leave such an item unattended). Instead of collecting a cash fine from the president for such carelessness, the winner of the auction is obliged to return the hostage item to the president (the rightful owner) but may do some creative bartering to forfeit something funny (the president must take a pie-in-the-face) or some small labor item (the president must massage the winning bidder's feet).

Does this type of auction sound familiar? 66.97.213.94 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)