Vouchers having an expiration date will most likely have two major effects on the behavior of the buyers. Since the voucher allocation process is randomized among sellers, the seller with the lowest prices won’t necessarily have the voucher, so buyers will have to decide whether buying units of a good provided by a seller that isn’t necessarily offering the lowest price is worth receiving the voucher for future purchases. A risk neutral buyer will not take this chance, while a risk loving buyer may.
However, the voucher system is not as sophisticated and complex as it is in the real world. In the experiment, the buyers have less asymmetric information than they do in the real world. In a posted offer market, all of the sellers have their price available for the buyers to examine. While this is also true in the real-world, the buyers are not directly presented this prices and have to do price searching.
 Even by having expiring vouchers clearly defined as becoming void after a certain number of periods some buyers will be “irrational” about making purchases. I predict buyers will buy units with the voucher during the last eligible period even if they cannot reduce their cost greatly for the sake of using it or because they feel some sort of loyalty to the seller. I have observed many friends and family buy a music CD with a gift card they did not want, only to later say they if they had not used the gift card it would have expired. This logic is synonymous with the idea that something is better than nothing. However, in purchasing that CD there were costs, such as driving to the store and wasting gas.
	Loyalty is a phenomenon that will not be as prominent, because the participants in the experiment aren’t familiar with each other and there is no communication. In the case where loyalty is affected by pre game communication is discussed in the second to last paragraph in this proposal.
Also, I believe a real-world phenomenon will happen during the experiment. Dell, a large computer manufacturer and seller, occasionally offers discounts on its products. However, through observation I noticed that dell literally jacks up its prices and then applies the discount. For example, before offering a regularly priced computer for $500 dollars at 25% off, Dell will increase the original price to something like $540 to offset the lack of revenue received due to the discount. This is similar to the strategic pricing discussed in Davis and Holt ( pg. 187): “The absence of opportunities to haggle over prices within posted-offer trading periods, combined with extremely low earnings for one side of the market, suggests that agents might to attempt to manipulate prices by engaging in multi-period strategic behavior. Sellers…[can] withhold units by posting prices above the going level.”
