spikeithard
Flush
Should have been 2 of hearts for the sweat. Congrats on a super set
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
GCOP group buy/sale (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BGinGA
- Start date
- Status
Nice one @Tommy @Jackstraw @SpaceMonkey
I only now saw the deal. Once more congrats SpaceMonkay and sorry Jackstraw. I hope you will snatch some of these at some point.
I only now saw the deal. Once more congrats SpaceMonkay and sorry Jackstraw. I hope you will snatch some of these at some point.
SpaceMonkey
Pair
Wow! A huge thanks to Puggy! And BGinGA for running this sale. Still can't believe it. ATHY? Puggy did an amazing job creating these chips and running the group buy. If I hadn't taken a hiatus from CT and the community back in 2010, I surely would have been part of the original GB. Very excited that I get to be part of the GCOP family now. Thank you.
vapourtrail1
Pair
Bravo on how this sale was conducted(y) :thumbsup:
Recently there have been some "auctions" that also allowed PMs to be sent in with an offer. Which creates the question, is it an auction or a sale to the best offer?
This sale was totally transparent, which is how it should be.
And with the classified being open for a week, almost everybody had a chance to see it.
Good job BGinGA
Recently there have been some "auctions" that also allowed PMs to be sent in with an offer. Which creates the question, is it an auction or a sale to the best offer?
This sale was totally transparent, which is how it should be.
And with the classified being open for a week, almost everybody had a chance to see it.
Good job BGinGA
JFCJ
Full House
I liked how the lottery was settled. I had a favorite, but thought it went very well and transparent.
Congrats to all. I only wish I could have made it three handed.
Congrats to all. I only wish I could have made it three handed.
OP
OP
It is unfortunate that every interested buyer cannot end up with chips they desire. I too have fallen into that category many times myself. I've also found myself 'getting lucky' and snagging something because I was in the right place at the right time. The latter seems to occur much less frequently than the former.
I dislike all of the following approaches to selling, for various reasons: the first-to-see 'dibs' concept, the 'make offer' approach, the blind auction (which is actually just a version of 'make offer'), the 'last-second-snipe' auction format, the "when-I-like-the-current-price-it-ends" auction and make-offer variations, and the 'volume-buyer-preference' approach. Each has significant drawbacks.
I firmly believe that the fairest way to conduct a sale is to establish a set price, run the sale for announced predetermined length of time, and if more than one party is interested in the item for the said price, determine the buyer via a random method where each party has an equal chance of winning. This eliminates a number of variables that really have nothing to do with the fair re-allocation of chip assets: net worth/income, amount of free time to browse the classifieds, keyboard dexterity, speed/reliability of internet connection, etc. It is fair to everybody, regardless.
There is nothing wrong with an open bid auction, either -- although two or more equal bids can be decided in the same way, via random selection of winning bidder. For example, if the seller sets a minimum bid, there is no real reason that more than one bidder shouldn't be allowed to make the same minimum bid offer. Maybe that's all the item is worth, or all that anybody is willing to pay. And if more than one person falls into that category, there is no reason that the 'first in' bidder should have an advantage (unless perhaps the auction start is advertised well in advance, giving everybody the same opportunity to be 'first-in'). Or maybe the item is generally accepted to be worth $xxx and several people would be willing to pay that amount, but no more -- all of those interested at that price point should have an equal opportunity to purchase, unless somebody is willing to bid/pay more.
An auction that runs for a specified length of time (giving nearly everyone the opportunity to bid) can remain open so long as there are active bids (no hard cut-off). Keeping an auction open for 'last bid plus xx minutes/hours" gives everyone a chance to place their final bid(s), regardless of bidding activity.
One thing I would do differently in the future with this particular sale (the GCOP chips in the OP) -- had it evolved into a group buy with several parties interested in only smaller parts of the set -- is that each component would have been up for sale individually in the same manner as was the whole set. Not to the first-to-respond, but instead where 'ties' in interest in an item would be randomly decided with all interested parties on equal footing. Live and learn, although it didn't come down to that in this case.
Thanks to all that participated, considered participating, or merely enjoyed following the thread and drooling over some of the nicest chips on the planet.
I dislike all of the following approaches to selling, for various reasons: the first-to-see 'dibs' concept, the 'make offer' approach, the blind auction (which is actually just a version of 'make offer'), the 'last-second-snipe' auction format, the "when-I-like-the-current-price-it-ends" auction and make-offer variations, and the 'volume-buyer-preference' approach. Each has significant drawbacks.
I firmly believe that the fairest way to conduct a sale is to establish a set price, run the sale for announced predetermined length of time, and if more than one party is interested in the item for the said price, determine the buyer via a random method where each party has an equal chance of winning. This eliminates a number of variables that really have nothing to do with the fair re-allocation of chip assets: net worth/income, amount of free time to browse the classifieds, keyboard dexterity, speed/reliability of internet connection, etc. It is fair to everybody, regardless.
There is nothing wrong with an open bid auction, either -- although two or more equal bids can be decided in the same way, via random selection of winning bidder. For example, if the seller sets a minimum bid, there is no real reason that more than one bidder shouldn't be allowed to make the same minimum bid offer. Maybe that's all the item is worth, or all that anybody is willing to pay. And if more than one person falls into that category, there is no reason that the 'first in' bidder should have an advantage (unless perhaps the auction start is advertised well in advance, giving everybody the same opportunity to be 'first-in'). Or maybe the item is generally accepted to be worth $xxx and several people would be willing to pay that amount, but no more -- all of those interested at that price point should have an equal opportunity to purchase, unless somebody is willing to bid/pay more.
An auction that runs for a specified length of time (giving nearly everyone the opportunity to bid) can remain open so long as there are active bids (no hard cut-off). Keeping an auction open for 'last bid plus xx minutes/hours" gives everyone a chance to place their final bid(s), regardless of bidding activity.
One thing I would do differently in the future with this particular sale (the GCOP chips in the OP) -- had it evolved into a group buy with several parties interested in only smaller parts of the set -- is that each component would have been up for sale individually in the same manner as was the whole set. Not to the first-to-respond, but instead where 'ties' in interest in an item would be randomly decided with all interested parties on equal footing. Live and learn, although it didn't come down to that in this case.
Thanks to all that participated, considered participating, or merely enjoyed following the thread and drooling over some of the nicest chips on the planet.
ssanel54
Flush
I think the pros and cons of different selling methods have been covered exhaustively. What really made this sale work was that the winning bidder had the option to add chips from a different seller to enhance a less than stellar breakdown. Kudos for getting creative!
Out of curiousity, what was the course if not all of the racks were spoken for, or there were no single buyers at that price? Would you have lowered the price and started over, or would you have just extended the buying period and made it first come first serve? Or back in the vault. Im assuming this situation will come up at some point when someone prices a set too high.
OP
OP
I don't want to speak for Pasi, but I believe his intention was all or nothing. I honestly cannot say whether he would have lowered prices or pulled the sale, but I suspect the latter.
Personally, I expected it to sell as a complete set at his asking price.
Personally, I expected it to sell as a complete set at his asking price.
+1 to this. I would like to see more sales in the classified section done in this manner. If I played more than 1 tournament a year I would've thrown my hat in the ring, but I couldn't justify the price for hosting one crazy ass $10 holiday tournament.
slisk250
Straight Flush
I have no understanding of this logic. I'm sick.
Clearly, with the number of sets you've purchased in the last year I believe it. You should probably just send me some of your chips and I'll take some of the burden of your sickness. You can thank me later.
Psypher1000
Straight Flush
I have dibs. Hopefully his illness isn't contagious.
*Goes in and looks at the vault*
Meh. I guess it doesn't matter. I'm already terminal.
ssanel54
Flush
Will these arrive by Friday?
SpaceMonkey
Pair
I wish!! But doubtful.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
