Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 06:50:24 03/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2005 at 23:22:01, Bob Minge wrote: >On March 20, 2005 at 22:41:19, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On March 20, 2005 at 22:31:42, Steve B wrote: >> >>>>congrats , that was good price, >>> >>> >>>i was not a bidder on this auction >>>another member here won it >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> we do know for sure that the winning bid relected the top bids for both >>>>bidders -> they both bid the exact same amount -- winnings bid that are tied >>>>reflect the top bids from both bidders...230.03 would have won here by either >>>>bidder ... >>> >>>not exactly.. >>>if the earlier bid was $250 with a MAX bid of say $300 and the later bid was a >>>max of $250 then we will only see the two $250 bids >>>the winning bidder could have had a higher max but it was not invoked because >>>the second place bidder only maxed at $250 >>>we would not see the winning bidders max as this would mean he would have to pay >>>that amount to the seller >>>and noone pushed him higher then $250 >>> >>>Best Steve >> >>you are mistaken, if some had bid $250, we would have one bid at 230 and the >>next bid at $231 (or whatever the was next increment was)... in this auction >>they both had bid $230 -- there is no doubt ... whenever a auction ends in a >>tie, they bod had bid the exact same amouunt and the earlier bidder wins... >> >> >>Ebay 101 ;>) Regards, >> >>Michael > >It only would have gone to $231.00 if the 2nd bidder had bid $230.01 or higher. >As long as the bid is less or *the same but made at a later time* the original >or winning bid does not have to go higher because it is still the winning bid. >So we do not know if the winner had a higher max bid or not. I stand corrected! Once again Steve B has shown that HE is the Ebay Master. Corrected and Apologetic Regards, Michael
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.