Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steven Bowen who wrote (10124)	1/22/1999 2:06:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12468

<..I was afraid I'd lose support here if I continued any longer...> Well, NOW you KNOW better <g> <..And I promise, I won't keep this up...> Dang it Bow, what'll it take to get you to promise to KEEP it up? Who ELSE will take your pole and one way or another flush these issues into the light of day, pursuing what to a number of us here still SEEMS like a tainted auction? <..So what, you're the lawyer now :-)..> Nope, still the scientist. <..But as has been pointed out, what with the bidding credits, activity requirements, bidding waivers, etc, it is very difficult to reconstruct exactly what happened and why...> Isn't there an official record of the bidding sequence somewhere? At least, didn't you and Fink keep up a pretty thorough play-by-play on SI? <..WNP had the high bids (and hence used their bidding credits) after round one for LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, and about 5 others, that in the end, they did not win. They COULD have continued bidding on these markets without needing anymore bidding credits. Why they switched to not bidding, or bidding on other markets is anyones guess...> Zorro/WW, happenstance or coincidence notwithstanding, is there a compelling reason that you guys could offer for this apparent disparity? <..But I really don't see where they were constrained by the bidding credits...> As well as here and the rest of Bow's stated points? <..See, there you go, keeping me open now to the continuing debate I was trying to avoid...> Look, who else is willing and able to grab hold and play out the contrary side? And if it turns out to NOT be compelling enough of a case, at least this thread will be significantly smarter about auction gaming details. Von Neumann's "game theory", a branch of applied math, is central to determining optimal strategies within rule based constraints, using probability theory. Understanding some of the intricacies of these auctions offers a real world practicum into this fascinating field. OK, I admit I am also academically motivated. When I was a grad student, I took an intro course in game theory from UC Irvine philosophy prof Brian Skyrms, who has been one of the leaders in extending this field. I never pursued it further, but would LOVE to find the time to revisit it. But beyond being simply an intellectual pursuit, understanding the parameters and strategies of this auction WILL likely come in handy as we consider future auctions as pertains to WCII, both here and abroad. (and some of us possibly even as investing bidders). In fact, some of the posters here HAVE experience with this. As a non-zero-sum game, the game-theoretic inclinations toward some degree of collusion can be strong. That's part of why I think you may well be onto something. So thanks again for your, WW, Zorro and other participant's time and effort. IMO, we're all clearly smarter as a result.