  In a two-player zero-sum graph game the players move a token throughout a
graph to produce an infinite path, which determines the winner or payoff of the
game. Traditionally, the players alternate turns in moving the token. In {\em
bidding games}, however, the players have budgets, and in each turn, we hold an
"auction" (bidding) to determine which player moves the token: both players
simultaneously submit bids and the higher bidder moves the token. The bidding
mechanisms differ in their payment schemes. Bidding games were largely studied
with variants of {\em first-price} bidding in which only the higher bidder pays
his bid. We focus on {\em all-pay} bidding, where both players pay their bids.
Finite-duration all-pay bidding games were studied and shown to be technically
more challenging than their first-price counterparts. We study for the first
time, infinite-duration all-pay bidding games. Our most interesting results are
for {\em mean-payoff} objectives: we portray a complete picture for games
played on strongly-connected graphs. We study both pure (deterministic) and
mixed (probabilistic) strategies and completely characterize the optimal sure
and almost-sure (with probability $1$) payoffs that the players can
respectively guarantee. We show that mean-payoff games under all-pay bidding
exhibit the intriguing mathematical properties of their first-price
counterparts; namely, an equivalence with {\em random-turn games} in which in
each turn, the player who moves is selected according to a (biased) coin toss.
The equivalences for all-pay bidding are more intricate and unexpected than for
first-price bidding.
