Bid shading

Bidding less than an item is worth in an auction

Part of a series on

Auctions
Types

* All-pay
* Chinese
* Bidding fee
* Dollar
* Amsterdam
* Anglo-Dutch
* Barter double
* Best/not best
* Brazilian
* Calcutta
* Candle
* Click-box bidding
* Combinatorial
* Common value
* Deferred-acceptance
* Discriminatory price
* Double
* Dutch
* English
* Forward
* French
* Generalized first-price
* Generalized second-price
* Japanese
* Knapsack
* Multi-attribute
* Multiunit
* No-reserve
* Rank
* Reverse
* Scottish
* Sealed first-price
* Simultaneous ascending
* Single-price
* Traffic light
* Uniform price
* Unique bid
* Value of revenues
* Vickrey
* Vickrey–Clarke–Groves
* Walrasian
* Yankee

Bidding

* Shading
* Calor licitantis
* Cancellation hunt
* Jump
* Rigging
* Sniping
* Suicide
* Tacit collusion

Contexts

* Algorithms
* Autos
* Art
* Charity
* Children
* Players
* Domain names
* Flowers
* Loans
* Scam
* Slaves
* Spectrum
* Stamps
* Virginity
* Wine
* Wives

Theory

* Digital goods
* Price of anarchy
* Revenue equivalence
* Winner's curse

Online

* Ebidding
* Private electronic market
* Software

* v
* t
* e

In an auction, bid shading is the practice of a bidder placing a bid that is below what they believe a bid is worth.[1][2]

Bid shading is used for one of two purposes. In a common value auction with incomplete information, bid shading is used to compensate for the winner's curse. In such auctions, the good is worth the same amount to all bidders, but bidders don't know the value of the good and must independently estimate it. Since all bidders value the good equally, the winner will generally be the bidder whose estimate of the value is largest. But if we assume that in general bidders estimate the value accurately, then the highest bidder has overestimated the good's value and will end up paying more than it is worth. In other words, winning the auction carries bad news about a bidder's value estimate. A savvy bidder will anticipate this, and reduce their bid accordingly.

Bid shading is also used in first-price auctions, where the winning bidder pays the amount of his bid. If a participant bids an amount equal to their value for the good, they would gain nothing by winning the auction, since they are indifferent between the money and the good. Bidders will optimize their expected value by accepting a lower chance of winning in return for a higher payoff if they win.

In a first-price common value auction, a savvy bidder should shade for both of the above purposes.

Bid shading is not only a normative theoretical construct, it was detected in the above-mentioned real world auction markets.[3][4] Previous theoretical work on sequential auctions focused either on bid shading in an exogenous sequence of auctions,[5][6] or on strategic auctioning to short-lived buyers, who never want to shade their bids.[7] This paper provides the first model of a sequential auction with both endogenous strategic selling and forward-looking longer-lived buyers who can shade their bids. The model’s contribution is the analysis of the best response of the seller to strategic bid shading, and the exposition of a market equilibrium, in which bidders do not always shade. The most related model of bidding is Jeitschko (1999),[6] who finds that relatively to exogenous and certain future supply, exogenous but uncertain future supply leads to a proportional bid increase. In contrast, high-valuation bidders shade more than low valuation bidders here. The most related model of optimal sequential auctioning by Vulcano, van Ryzin, and Maglaras (2002) (VRM),[7] who study a monopolist selling to unit-demand strategic buyers who each only lives for one period. While VRM’s bidders do not shade their bids by assumption, strategic sequential auctioning has an effect on their bidding strategy because they are forward-looking: there is an incentive to overbid and make the seller sell more units in the current period than would be optimal for her.

## See also

[edit]

* Jump bidding

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Hortaçsu, Ali; Kastl, Jakub; Zhang, Allen (1 January 2018). "Bid Shading and Bidder Surplus in the US Treasury Auction System" (PDF). American Economic Review. 108 (1): 147–169\. doi:10.1257/aer.20160675.
2. ^ Nautz, D.; Wolfstetter, E. (October 1997). "Bid shading and risk aversion in multi-unit auctions with many bidders". Economics Letters. 56 (2): 195–200\. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(97)81900-3.
3. ^ Jofre-Bonet, Mireia; Pesendorfer, Martin (September 2003). "Estimation of a Dynamic Auction Game" (PDF). Econometrica. 71 (5): 1443–1489\. doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00455.
4. ^ Zeithammer, Robert (August 2006). "Forward-Looking Bidding in Online Auctions". Journal of Marketing Research. 43 (3): 462–476\. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.462.
5. ^ Milgrom, Paul R.; Weber, Robert J. (1982). "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding". Econometrica. 50 (5): 1089–1122\. doi:10.2307/1911865. hdl:10419/220807. ISSN 0012-9682. JSTOR 1911865.
6. ^ a b Jeitschko, Thomas D (July 1999). "Equilibrium price paths in sequential auctions with stochastic supply". Economics Letters. 64 (1): 67–72\. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00066-X.
7. ^ a b Vulcano, Gustavo; van Ryzin, Garrett; Maglaras, Costis (November 2002). "Optimal Dynamic Auctions for Revenue Management". Management Science. 48 (11): 1388–1407\. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.11.1388.269.

* v
* t
* e

Game theory

* Glossary
* Game theorists
* Games

Traditional game theory

| Definitions|

* Asynchrony
* Bayesian regret
* Best response
* Bounded rationality
* Cheap talk
* Coalition
* Complete contract
* Complete information
* Complete mixing
* Confrontation analysis
* Conjectural variation
* Contingent cooperator
* Coopetition
* Cooperative game theory
* Dynamic inconsistency
* Escalation of commitment
* Farsightedness
* Game semantics
* Hierarchy of beliefs
* Imperfect information
* Incomplete information
* Information set
* Move by nature
* Mutual knowledge
* Non-cooperative game theory
* Non-credible threat
* Outcome
* Perfect information
* Perfect recall
* Ply
* Preference
* Rationality
* Sequential game
* Simultaneous action selection
* Spite
* Strategic complements
* Strategic dominance
* Strategic form
* Strategic interaction
* Strategic move
* Strategy
* Subgame
* Succinct game
* Topological game
* Tragedy of the commons
* Uncorrelated asymmetry

|

Equilibrium
concepts|

* Backward induction
* Bayes correlated equilibrium
* Bayesian efficiency
* Bayesian game
* Bayesian Nash equilibrium
* Berge equilibrium
* Bertrand–Edgeworth model
* Coalition-proof Nash equilibrium
* Core
* Correlated equilibrium
* Cursed equilibrium
* Edgeworth price cycle
* Epsilon-equilibrium
* Gibbs equilibrium
* Incomplete contracts
* Inequity aversion
* Individual rationality
* Iterated elimination of dominated strategies
* Markov perfect equilibrium
* Mertens-stable equilibrium
* Nash equilibrium
* Open-loop model
* Pareto efficiency
* Payoff dominance
* Perfect Bayesian equilibrium
* Price of anarchy
* Program equilibrium
* Proper equilibrium
* Quantal response equilibrium
* Quasi-perfect equilibrium
* Rational agent
* Rationalizability
* Rationalizable strategy
* Satisfaction equilibrium
* Self-confirming equilibrium
* Sequential equilibrium
* Shapley value
* Strong Nash equilibrium
* Subgame perfect equilibrium
* Trembling hand equilibrium

Strategies|

* Appeasement
* Bid shading
* Cheap talk
* Collusion
* Commitment device
* De-escalation
* Deterrence
* Escalation
* Fictitious play
* Focal point
* Grim trigger
* Hobbesian trap
* Markov strategy
* Max-dominated strategy
* Mixed strategy
* Pure strategy
* Tit for tat
* Win–stay, lose–switch

Games|

* All-pay auction
* Battle of the sexes
* Nash bargaining game
* Bertrand competition
* Blotto game
* Centipede game
* Coordination game
* Cournot competition
* Deadlock
* Dictator game
* Trust game
* Diner's dilemma
* Dollar auction
* El Farol Bar problem
* Electronic mail game
* Gift-exchange game
* Guess 2/3 of the average
* Keynesian beauty contest
* Kuhn poker
* Lewis signaling game
* Matching pennies
* Obligationes
* Optional prisoner's dilemma
* Pirate game
* Prisoner's dilemma
* Public goods game
* Rendezvous problem
* Rock paper scissors
* Stackelberg competition
* Stag hunt
* Traveler's dilemma
* Ultimatum game
* Volunteer's dilemma
* War of attrition

Theorems|

* Arrow's impossibility theorem
* Aumann's agreement theorem
* Brouwer fixed-point theorem
* Competitive altruism
* Folk theorem
* Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem
* Gibbs lemma
* Glicksberg's theorem
* Kakutani fixed-point theorem
* Kuhn's theorem
* One-shot deviation principle
* Prim–Read theory
* Rational ignorance
* Rational irrationality
* Sperner's lemma
* Zermelo's theorem

Subfields|

* Algorithmic game theory
* Behavioral game theory
* Behavioral strategy
* Compositional game theory
* Contract theory
* Drama theory
* Graphical game theory
* Heresthetic
* Mean-field game theory
* Negotiation theory
* Quantum game theory
* Social software

Key people|

* Albert W. Tucker
* Alvin E. Roth
* Amos Tversky
* Antoine Augustin Cournot
* Ariel Rubinstein
* David Gale
* David K. Levine
* David M. Kreps
* Donald B. Gillies
* Drew Fudenberg
* Eric Maskin
* Harold W. Kuhn
* Herbert Simon
* Herbert Scarf
* Hervé Moulin
* Jean Tirole
* Jean-François Mertens
* Jennifer Tour Chayes
* Ken Binmore
* Kenneth Arrow
* Leonid Hurwicz
* Lloyd Shapley
* Martin Shubik
* Melvin Dresher
* Merrill M. Flood
* Olga Bondareva
* Oskar Morgenstern
* Paul Milgrom
* Peyton Young
* Reinhard Selten
* Robert Aumann
* Robert Axelrod
* Robert B. Wilson
* Roger Myerson
* Samuel Bowles
* Suzanne Scotchmer
* Thomas Schelling
* William Vickrey

Combinatorial game theory

| Core
concepts|

* Combinatorial explosion
* Determinacy
* Disjunctive sum
* First-player and second-player win
* Game complexity
* Game tree
* Impartial game
* Misère
* Partisan game
* Solved game
* Sprague–Grundy theorem
* Strategy-stealing argument
* Zugzwang

|

Games|

* Chess
* Chomp
* Clobber
* Cram
* Domineering
* Hackenbush
* Nim
* Notakto
* Subtract a square
* Sylver coinage
* Toads and Frogs

Mathematical
tools|

* Mex
* Nimber
* On Numbers and Games
* Star
* Surreal number
* Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays

Search
algorithms|

* Alpha–beta pruning
* Expectiminimax
* Minimax
* Monte Carlo tree search
* Negamax
* Paranoid algorithm
* Principal variation search

Key people|

* Claude Shannon
* John Conway
* John von Neumann

Evolutionary game theory

| Core
concepts|

* Bishop–Cannings theorem
* Evolution and the Theory of Games
* Evolutionarily stable set
* Evolutionarily stable state
* Evolutionarily stable strategy
* Replicator equation
* Risk dominance
* Stochastically stable equilibrium
* Weak evolutionarily stable strategy

|

Games|

* Chicken
* Stag hunt

Applications|

* Cultural group selection
* Fisher's principle
* Mobbing
* Terminal investment hypothesis

Key people|

* John Maynard Smith
* Robert Axelrod

Mechanism design

| Core
concepts|

* Algorithmic mechanism design
* Bayesian-optimal mechanism
* Incentive compatibility
* Market design
* Monotonicity
* Participation constraint
* Revelation principle
* Strategyproofness
* Vickrey–Clarke–Groves mechanism

|

Theorems|

* Myerson–Satterthwaite theorem
* Revenue equivalence

Applications|

* Digital goods auction
* Knapsack auction
* Truthful cake-cutting

Other topics

* Bertrand paradox
* Chainstore paradox
* Computational complexity of games
* Helly metric
* Multi-agent system
* PPAD-complete

* Mathematics portal
* Commons
* WikiProject
* Category

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template