"Defensive Shill Bidding" Dr Jim Beckett Approves

[asujbl]

Originally Posted by sic698

Keep the blinds down and worship the status quo let’s see how long this hobby can survive with that kind of thinking.

Where did you randomly come from? I’m fascinated

[Blazed]

Originally Posted by sic698

Too many hobby gatekeepers in here replying, and Wolf of Wallstreet card pumpers/offensive card shill bidders defending the status quo. This thread is already infested with Hogwash posts.

Everyone knows shilling is widespread and wrong, but it's easy to brush off when you only bid on low end stuff

The higher the stakes climb the thinner the veil of plausible deniability gets

People who are bidding on high-end cards (5-6+ figures) are aware and watch for potential shilling on auctions

That's also why a lot of high-end deals are done privately offline or BIN/bo auctions, no shill bids, no 27% buyer’s premium, just two parties who negotiate straight to the number

Another good example, take Nat Turner, cried about upcharges as a customer, but doubled down as an owner

Different universes, same hobby

[JeffG1954]

Originally Posted by JeffG1954

I seem to recall that when eBay started sellers were allowed, if not encouraged, to bid in their own auctions.

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I don't know about that, but I remember that it was very commonplace and that account IDs were unmasked so bidders could see who was bidding up an auction -- they were usually accounts with 0 or single-digit feedback.

Well I did what people say to do, and I asked Google.....My question and the answer:

When ebay first began, did they allow sellers to bid in their own auctions? '

"Yes
Yes, eBay allowed sellers to bid in their own auctions when it first began in 1995. eBay was initially launched as an auction platform, allowing users to list items and engage in bidding. This model was designed to facilitate person-to-person transactions with transparency and trust, making it a pioneer in online commerce."

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

Originally Posted by Bosoxfan5990

Well, water isn't wet.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1618862

I can see some of those posters getting scammed.

[auctionjmm]

Originally Posted by asujbl

Where did you randomly come from? I’m fascinated

Same. Completely changed my Saturday.

[boxbuster7]

Originally Posted by junkwaxera

He does have a PHD doesn’t he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

would you let him give you a annual physical?

then he isn't a dr.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by JeffG1954

Well I did what people say to do, and I asked Google.....My question and the answer:

When ebay first began, did they allow sellers to bid in their own auctions? '

"Yes
Yes, eBay allowed sellers to bid in their own auctions when it first began in 1995. eBay was initially launched as an auction platform, allowing users to list items and engage in bidding. This model was designed to facilitate person-to-person transactions with transparency and trust, making it a pioneer in online commerce."

I'm not seeing anything about it when I do a search, but I vaguely remember that being the case. Here's a trip down eBay memory lane, if you're interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ebay/commen..._in_the_1990s/

Here's what I was talking about:

luffliffloaf
Another thing I remembered is that buyer and seller information was out in the open, so you could for example see who was the winner of an auction, and email them or email the seller if you wanted to. But what often ended up happening is that an item would sell low, and a person would email the seller saying "Hey I'll give you more money than what the buyer bid, so sell it to me instead".

71DeadHead
Made it easy to see shill bidding

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by junkwaxera

NEO and Dustin have pulled their videos on the topic. Is Jim Beckett issuing threats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably copyright claims -- I watched the NEO video and he played the entire audio segment uninterrupted. A copyright holder could claim that wasn't fair use of the video, and that it hurts the original podcast's value.

Google AI:

The four factors of fair use

Purpose and character of the use: This includes whether the use is commercial or for non-profit educational purposes. A use that is "transformative"—adding new meaning or expression—is more likely to be considered fair.

Nature of the copyrighted work: Using factual works is more likely to be considered fair than using highly creative or unpublished works.

Amount and substantiality of the portion used: Using a smaller, necessary portion of the work weighs in favor of fair use. Taking the "heart" of the work or a large portion decreases the likelihood of fair use.

Effect of the use on the potential market: This factor considers whether the new use harms the market for the original work. A use that acts as a substitute for the original work is less likely to be fair.

[JeffG1954]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I'm not seeing anything about it when I do a search, but I vaguely remember that being the case. Here's a trip down eBay memory lane, if you're interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ebay/commen..._in_the_1990s/

Here's what I was talking about:

The link is a blast from the past fun read....I can relate to most things said, been on the bay since 1998 with over 65K feedback and over 200K transactions.

[Asian62150]

Shilling has been around for as long as I can remember.

What's sad about the OP's link is the way these guys think of the common collector. They don't want Joe Schmoe (an "idiot") to get a good deal.

They are so out of touch with reality that they justify their fraudulent behavior by making up new phrases in hopes they will pull wool over our eyes. These guys have no humility and it's sad that people look up to them at all for anything.

They have an opportunity to set a good example and help the hobby but instead are open about trying to cheat people while thinking they are white knights.

[junkwaxera]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

would you let him give you a annual physical?

then he isn't a dr.

You haven’t been to college have you? Professors generally go by Dr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

I don’t condone this but it’s not like some of our leaders set a good example. Looking at you Nancy and your 16,930% stock return.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

would you let him give you a annual physical?

then he isn't a dr.

Maybe. How much?

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHatesJazz

I don’t condone this but it’s not like some of our leaders set a good example. Looking at you Nancy and your 16,930% stock return.

I think one thing the right and left can agree on is they don't want the public looking too closely at their investments/stock portfolios.

[majestik101]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHatesJazz

I don’t condone this but it’s not like some of our leaders set a good example. Looking at you Nancy and your 16,930% stock return.

That buys a LOT of ice cream! Right?

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

I think one thing the right and left can agree on is they don't want the public looking too closely at their investments/stock portfolios.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter. In the eyes of the law they are beyond reproach.

[JohnnyHatesJazz]

Originally Posted by majestik101

That buys a LOT of ice cream! Right?

Not just any ice cream. It’s Jeni’s ice cream.

$$$$$

[majestik101]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHatesJazz

Not just any ice cream. It’s Jeni’s ice cream.

$$$$$

Oh. Well, excuse me all to hell

[tnvolfan16]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

the people at the top of the industry are all scumbags

move along

honestly, you dont have to go very far up the chain to start finding the true scumbags.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by junkwaxera

NEO and Dustin have pulled their videos on the topic. Is Jim Beckett issuing threats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NEO apologized on his Sunday weekly recap video -- he said the 2-to-3 minute audio clip he included in his original video was edited and could be taken out of context. I guess he was afraid of getting sued -- he was forced to apologize and discredit himself.

[fabiani12333]

I haven't listened to the full podcast yet, but am I the only one who thinks it was meant to encourage others selling high-end cards to do the same thing?

Are some of the biggest sellers of high-end cards in the hobby afraid of a large sell-off of high-end cards in the coming months and want sellers to prevent cards from selling at low prices?

[sic698]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I haven't listened to the full podcast yet, but am I the only one who thinks it was meant to encourage others selling high-end cards to do the same thing?

Are some of the biggest sellers of high-end cards in the hobby afraid of a large sell-off of high-end cards in the coming months and want sellers to prevent cards from selling at low prices?

After you watching both episodes from the Beckett Podcast you can watch the analysis done on the Because im Carlos show and come to your own conclusions.

[discodanman45]

I respected Beckett before this PRyan nonsense and now I never want to see him again in the hobby. Trying to defend this scammer and boasting about their wealth was disgusting. I should have known. Every single person I know that insists of using Dr. in their title from academics is a fraud, insecure, or just uses it to look down on people. I have interacted with people who have won Nobel prizes in physics and none of them want you to call them Dr. I hope this continues to blow up in his face.

[Blazed]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Shilling has been around for as long as I can remember.

What's sad about the OP's link is the way these guys think of the common collector. They don't want Joe Schmoe (an "idiot") to get a good deal.

They are so out of touch with reality that they justify their fraudulent behavior by making up new phrases in hopes they will pull wool over our eyes. These guys have no humility and it's sad that people look up to them at all for anything.

They have an opportunity to set a good example and help the hobby but instead are open about trying to cheat people while thinking they are white knights.

Because the common collector is an idiot and that's what they're counting on

The entire influencer ecosystem runs on fomo and belonging

The audience they're targeting isn't confident collectors who know what they want, they seek out people who desperately want validation more than the actual item

Acknowledging their game would collapse the whole pyramid, so the common collector just keeps their head buried

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by sic698

After you watching both episodes from the Beckett Podcast you can watch the analysis done on the Because im Carlos show and come to your own conclusions.

Thanks for the video link -- Dan and Carlos seem like a pair of decent guys.