Hacker News Reader

Comment by diego | Hacker News Reader

You didn't understand my point. Winning is not getting the item. I define winning as paying less than it would cost at Amazon or wherever you would buy it. If you pay $20 in bids plus $50 for an item that costs $65 at Amazon, you lost $5 (even if your time is free). Yes, you "won" the auction but the real winner in economic terms is the house.

[edit: what is the point of participating in an auction for commodity goods other than to pay less than retail? I assume that people who take part in this site do it in the hope of coming out ahead, not to win an auction at any cost even if it means paying more than the item is worth. I don't see how users of this site can confuse "winning an auction" with winning in economic terms]

View on HN

"I define winning as"

You don't get to redefine words to support your personal opinion, and still have a valid argument.

That definition is the only one that makes sense from an economic standpoint. If you spent $100 on an item that cost $90 on Amazon, you lost. I don't care if you won the item. The winner of the auction is not necessarily the winner in economic terms, and that's all that matters.

[edit: what makes a game of chance is the point that you win or lose money, not whether you win or lose the auction. I'm not confused, I'm just not getting distracted by the semantics of "winning the auction" vs. the real objective you are after]

Do I lose when I get a soda from the soda machine at work instead of purchasing it in bulk?

Do I lose if I purchase it in bulk from costco instead of pooling the resources of my friends, starting a company, and buying directly from a distributor?

Is the soda machine a "game of chance"?

The answer to all of these questions is "no". None of them are games of chance.

This would be a game of chance if it was "pay $10 and you might win, but we won't tell you until the end" instead of "pay $10 and if somebody pays $11 we will tell you so that, if you chose to, you can bay $12. This cycle will continue until the item reaches a point that nobody is willing to spend more for the item"

This is not a game of chance because you get to CHOSE if you are going to win, and they TELL you if you will before the conclusion of the auction (or game, in your description).

You ARE simply confused about this, because it isn't possible for a rationally thinking person to make the argument that you are and mean it.

The difference is that in the cases you mention you know the price you are going to pay in advance. In this case you don't. The price changes as you spend more money to bids. You have no way of knowing what the final price will be and you are gambling on whether you'll get a good price. I repeat, if you have infinite money you will get the item if you want but that's not what you are gambling on.

In a real case, if there are two or more people as determined as you, it is impossible to predict who will get the item. All will be spending money in advance without knowing who of them will get it. That's why it's a gamble.

Does the auction keep all of your money if you lose the item?

As in...if you bid $10, then $12, then $14, are you actually spending $36 + bidding fees?

Because if you're only paying for the item once you win it, that is NOT a gamble.

Yes, there are fees involved. This is customary for EVERY auction. (I don't know about ebay, but visit a real-world auction sometime).

Each bid is an independent gamble - one bid buys you one chance of winning. Many bids increase your chance of winning, but do not guarantee it (bidding wars can be infinite).

You need to substitute "winning" for "being an idiot".

It is an english language problem...If you spend $90 on a $50 item, you lose because you are losing money.

We are talking about lose in the "win/lose" usage of the word.

You're not wrong, you're just confused.

So the lottery isn't a gamble because you could win by buying all the tickets?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com