A possible way to make the lottery more equitable - thoughts

frisbiec

I have stated in several threads, that although on the surface, the lottery system seems "equitable & fair" to some, it truly isn't. People who can afford the money or time to run the risk of getting selected for multiple shows if they prioritize several shows have a greater chance at gain access to at least one show. In other words, more resources to play = greater chance at getting at least 1 show.

Although, I personally preferred the index card and one show per member policy of the past, I realize this is not coming back.

Moreover, although I am a "senior member," I don't think I deserve "loyalty" privileges as some have suggested. We all deserve equal access. How do we do this if we have to have a lottery system? Simple.

Every member gets X number of entries in the lottery, for simple math, lets say 10. It is up to the member if they want to put all 10 of their entries toward gaining access to one specific show or if they want to be a little more adventurous and try for several. Either way, each member has the same number of entries in the initial pool.

Zod

Sounds complicated. I think any proposals need something simple to implement.

A few minor changes I would sugguest:

1) Consolidate the lotteries. One lottery per show. Have a click box were people can opt out GA if they don't want it. Then randomly give out GA tickets during the regular allocation process. This would prevent people from doing what I tried Which was Vancouver GA, Seattle Reserved (which failed btw). I was attempting to split my preferences to get tickets to both.

2) Implement a Max # of shows option. IE say you only want 1 pair. Make your pref list, and once you get your pair your done. If your willing to travel to a show, but only one show, and you don't care where, you could pref everything and take what you get

frisbiec

Zod wrote:

Sounds complicated. I think any proposals need something simple to implement.

A few minor changes I would sugguest:

1) Consolidate the lotteries. One lottery per show. Have a click box were people can opt out GA if they don't want it. Then randomly give out GA tickets during the regular allocation process. This would prevent people from doing what I tried Which was Vancouver GA, Seattle Reserved (which failed btw). I was attempting to split my preferences to get tickets to both.

2) Implement a Max # of shows option. IE say you only want 1 pair. Make your pref list, and once you get your pair your done. If your willing to travel to a show, but only one show, and you don't care where, you could pref everything and take what you get

I agree on limiting shows, but many seem to not want to give up the ability to request multiple shows. In regards to complexity, the current system is pretty convoluted as well with priority, etc.

ejb770

I actually LOVE this idea. Seems more fair to me.

I did well though, I got tix to Portland and Seattle, the only 2 I was trying for.

RedMosquito22

Limiting shows just switches which segment of the fanbase that will be unhappy. It doesn't solve anything.

Zod

frisbiec wrote:

Zod wrote:

Sounds complicated. I think any proposals need something simple to implement.

A few minor changes I would sugguest:

1) Consolidate the lotteries. One lottery per show. Have a click box were people can opt out GA if they don't want it. Then randomly give out GA tickets during the regular allocation process. This would prevent people from doing what I tried Which was Vancouver GA, Seattle Reserved (which failed btw). I was attempting to split my preferences to get tickets to both.

2) Implement a Max # of shows option. IE say you only want 1 pair. Make your pref list, and once you get your pair your done. If your willing to travel to a show, but only one show, and you don't care where, you could pref everything and take what you get

I agree on limiting shows, but many seem to not want to give up the ability to request multiple shows. In regards to complexity, the current system is pretty convoluted as well with priority, etc.

I think this was misread. I meant the 10c member sets a maximum limit, not the 10c. This way if you only want 1 pair, you can list a number of preferences and take the first one you get tickets for. Its a voluntarily limit to ensure you don't get saddled with all your preferences. That way you could stick on the out of the way shows on the end and if you don't get anything, it might work as a failsafe (but involves travel).

know1

How much time do we think the Club has on its hands to sort through all that mess?

ejb770

I'd say you get as many entries as there are shows on the tour.

i.e. if there are 15 shows on the tour, then you get 15 entries. You can put one entry in per show or 15 entries in for the show you really want or whatever you want to do.

BE9456

know1 wrote:

How much time do we think the Club has on its hands to sort through all that mess?

$20 a member times 50,000 members = $1,000,000

ejb770

know1 wrote:

How much time do we think the Club has on its hands to sort through all that mess?

Really not that complicated. No more complicated than the show priority thing they are doing now. And much more straightforward. I don't really known what ranking a show #1 vs. #2 does to my chances but this I know for a fact that putting 2 of my entries into a certain show doubles my chances as opposed to putting in 1

jamburger

know1 wrote:

How much time do we think the Club has on its hands to sort through all that mess?

How many albums do we think this group has left in them as a band for any of this to matter?

RedMosquito22

jamburger wrote:

know1 wrote:

How much time do we think the Club has on its hands to sort through all that mess?

How many albums do we think this group has left in them as a band for any of this to matter?

Not many at 1 every 4 years.

pjsteelerfan

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

RedMosquito22

pjsteelerfan wrote:

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

Agreed

front spacer

pjsteelerfan wrote:

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

The places where people got shut out extend beyond just those cities.....I got shut out of Pittsburgh AND Buffalo, for crying out loud! :x

pjsteelerfan

front spacer wrote:

pjsteelerfan wrote:

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

The places where people got shut out extend beyond just those cities.....I got shut out of Pittsburgh AND Buffalo, for crying out loud! :x

I was just using the biggest examples. There are still going to be people shut out no matter the venue. Or the system used.

front spacer

pjsteelerfan wrote:

front spacer wrote:

pjsteelerfan wrote:

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

The places where people got shut out extend beyond just those cities.....I got shut out of Pittsburgh AND Buffalo, for crying out loud! :x

I was just using the biggest examples. There are still going to be people shut out no matter the venue. Or the system used.

I've got a solution.....just make the GA bigger, like the entire floor. And then pack that shit in tight! The more, the merrier...and the more winners, right?

ejb770

pjsteelerfan wrote:

front spacer wrote:

pjsteelerfan wrote:

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

The places where people got shut out extend beyond just those cities.....I got shut out of Pittsburgh AND Buffalo, for crying out loud! :x

I was just using the biggest examples. There are still going to be people shut out no matter the venue. Or the system used.

Of course there will still be people getting shut out. However, if there is one show you really want to go to, and you put all of your entries into that show, chances are slim that someone who put one entry in will get it before you. As it were, I saw lots of examples of people getting drawn for their 4th or 5th priority over someone who had the same show as their 1st priority.

Of course, it could still happen. I like it though as it gives the 10 clubber more control over prioritizing.

concertaholicshirt

pjsteelerfan wrote:

This still won't solve the supply and demand issue. Nothing is going to. People are still going to be shut out of NYC, Boston, Philly, Seattle, LA, etc no matter if it is one show per member or multiple, what ever method is used.

Agreed.. by design, lotteries are not equitable. This newest system sucked when I got shut out on Wriggly GA, and it sucks for me not getting any local shows even though a PJ friend got 2. However, it's the best system evah now that I found out this morning that my Seattle GA went through. No matter what plan is in place... people are gonna win and people are gonna lose.

I'm a ticket buying StudMonkey... 3rd row between Eddie & Dave for VH at MSG, 1st row for Carlos in CO, 5th Row AC/DC, etc all on public sales. I loved the old F5 system, cuz I'll take down all y'all mutherfreakers, but it's gone. And if Seattle is the last time I ever win a seat, so be it... I got the Last Spectrum, MSG2 2010, Missoula GA and now Seattle GA.

THANK YOU 10C... THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!

frisbiec

ejb770 wrote:

Of course there will still be people getting shut out. However, if there is one show you really want to go to, and you put all of your entries into that show, chances are slim that someone who put one entry in will get it before you. As it were, I saw lots of examples of people getting drawn for their 4th or 5th priority over someone who had the same show as their 1st priority.

Of course, it could still happen. I like it though as it gives the 10 clubber more control over prioritizing.

Precisely what I was trying to say.

backseatLover12

Ya know what fair would be? Allowing everyone *one* show w/ 10c tix. After that, then have a lottery...

Everyone would have at least one set of tix, no one would lose.