One trend I frequently see is the "bidder" who comes in and ramps up the bidding $3 at a time - 10 or 15 times. Then another bids $5 each, multiple times, etc. For some lots just look a the total number of bids.
When you post a bid that is low, eBay
so advises and then gives you three bid amount button to use and a fill-in space. For lower level prices, the three bids are the next whole dollar amount, three over and five over. Thus it is a simple way to bid which produces multiple bids.
Some folks don't shill, they just run a bidder up out of spite.
Now if I am selling a #whatever, at $10 to open, and seller sees some other seller with a #whatever at $8 the seller may be inclined to run up the price so the sellers $10 #whatever looks cheaper.
Quote @parcelpostguy: 9. I bid to support the market without a concern of winning or not winning. In stock terms that would be similar to dollar cost averaging.
With all due respect, that is in no way a description of dollar-cost averaging. What you've described is more akin to price-fixing, which, itself is akin to shill bidding, as you are not allowing "the market" to establish the value.
Well I though floortrader would slam me, but you did. What I am saying that once I have an item at a price, if a similar one can be had for 1/2 that price, I may buy it to average my cost for the pair, or three, or however many. This gives me a idea of the level for which to sell or trade the "average" item of similar items. Would a better term be buy on the dip?
By the way "the market" is not defined as everyone else who is playing except for me. Everyone is in the market and everyone plays games for their best interest based upon their situation (think game theory as mention before). Musk says he is going to sell a million units of stock, people will react. People heard Buffet takes a 5 or 10% stake, people react.
A share of stock is worthless until the company either buys it back or pays a cash dividend. Until that is happening people are assigning a mythical, but hoped for, "value" to a share. Collective fantasy keeps prices on non-dividend where they are. All a share of stock represents is someone some time loaned the company money with no guarantee of payback. Even then the first price was "fixed" when offered as an IPO. A floor price is fixed for the folks wanting to buy (loan the company money). If stocks and thus the market were not fixed, the stock would be offered at a penny or a dollar at an IPO and allow to set its own level but of course, that would kill the reason for stock in the first place, the company raising money via folks loaning money.
When the government limits a company's ability to buy back its stock that is price control (fixing). When the Hunt brothers legally
purchase silver futures and then actually took delivery on the silver and prices shot up, the market cried foul and the government changed the rules because the "market" does not like someone smarter who takes control. (That is like the casinos providing '21' game tables but when there are folks smart enough to understand and beat the house, they bar the good players from the game.) The philatelic market can be controlled with just a small fraction of the Hunt's position in silver. Lastly when the government limits short selling, or high-speed computer programs, that too is "fixing" the market. The goal of the market and market regulation is to keep the fantasy value alive on the shares not yet bought back nor are paying a dividend. Markets are fixed by design.