Phase 3: Profit !

Further Argument on the 1/3 payment GDKP.

If anyone got bored by this, I am sorry

Background Readings

Gevlon’s plan on improving the GDKP
solo-rewards-for-group-effort
PUG
rule-in-gold-bid

Summary :
Gevlon try to introduce an improvement to GDKP, since GDKP do not compensate the other bidder “enough” and encourage bidding. He suggest that the final bid’s 1/3 will go to the second bidder (Instead of going to the gold pool for the raid)

The Game

I’ll try to rephrase my argument.
A given loot had been auctioned
Let Player A maximum bid be 1000g (FPBP)
Let Player B maximum bid be 900g (SPBP)

Traditional GDKP

Player A would get the loot, -900g
Player B would get nothing
Raid gets 900g

Honest Gevlon’s competition,

Player A would get the loot, -900g
Player B would get 300g,
Raid gets 600g

Zekta’s Double Bidding

Player B finds a cooperator Player C. in which, he’ll always bid just before player B (With B’s Gold).

Auction will stop when Player A withdraw.
Player A bid on 1000g,
Player C bid on 1100g,
Player B bid on 1200g, and win the auction

Results:
Player A would get nothing
Player B would get loot, -1200g
Player C get 1200*1/3=400g.
Raid gets 800g

Player C gives back the gold to Player B (He’s just a bid dummy for player B)
In Summary,
Player B would get loot, -1200+400= -800g

Player A would get nothing
Player B would get loot, -800g
Raid gets 800g

In Summary

If taking my double fire bidding plan, Player B is better off in this situation, since he would want to loot for 900g, but he now get it for 800g.

In this case, the only benefactor is Player B, at the expenses of Both Player A (Getting the Loot he value 1000g with 900g) and Raid (Getting 900g pool).

The only way to counter that is player A also use “double fire” bidding plan, but then the result is the same as Traditional GDKP (with bidding on 200g).

The fallacy of Gevlon example

At his Bid Ninja assumption, he stated
“So FG offers SGBP and not a cent more. It’s unreasonable for SG to bid more now if he did not bid 20 seconds ago, and BN has no options.”

The item valued by the FP (first player) to the First Player Break Point (FPBP), state that, the player is willing to pay until FPBP. Although it provides 0 values to the NB, He also knew P1 want the item. The Trade will occur as long as SPBP < = Price <= FPBP. But not necessarily equals to SPBP.

While destroying the item provide no benefits to BN, but this option provide an effective threat to P1. Consider the similar case in Mutual assured destruction in cold war and Cuba Crisis.

• April 15, 2010 -- Making money off of Markco (and other blogs too!) (1)
• January 28, 2011 -- Sic Transit Gloria Mundi (2)
• December 23, 2010 -- Chimera’s Eye Gems, To Sell Or Not, and Inflation (4)
• November 20, 2010 -- Would You Buy A Book Of Stories? (And A Piece Of News.) (7)
• October 1, 2010 -- OT: Pulling Back The Curtain (1)