So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I thought that the new (and old) information specifically stated that your priorities would be taken into account. Doesn't this argue that selection would be by show? For example, NYC 1st priorities are drawn, NYC 2nd priorities are drawn, NYC 3rd priorities are drawn... etc, until there are no mo' fanclub tickets left.
yikes MSG looking tougher and tougher. will probably end up at 50 for reserved
And 50% would be incredible IMO for MSG which was in the teens for 2016 reserved. I'm more surprised by the LA shows at 99%. The 10C layout for those shows is majority of the arena too. Where the SoCal 10Cers at?!
The surf is really good right now. We will get to the lottery by noon
So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I don't believe so, in the past the percentages were of all entries
Has there been clarity around when we'll get results? I know it said by Sunday night. But is it possible people start finding out tomorrow? Or is just Sunday?
Throughout the 4 days they said.
My best guess is they will do it show-by-show, in order.
That's my guess as well, and if that's right and they're evenly distributed, it will go:
Thursday: Canadian shows Friday: Northeast shows, Nashville & St. Louis Saturday: OKC, Denver, Phoenix, SD Sunday: Remaining CA shows
I read in one of the FAQs that confirms the drawing is going show-by-show, so it's logical to think they'd do that in chronological order of the tour dates and then notify everyone once all the entries for that show have been considered. The waiting is going to suck unless the odds remain at or near 99%.
Yes - we know they're drawing "show by show" (not sure what other way you would do it), but we're only guessing that (1) they'll be drawn in chrono order rather than some other order and (2) the drawings will be evenly distributed over the four days (maybe there will be more done Thursday and Friday than over the weekend, maybe they feel like they can do 5 per day so everything other than the last show will be done by Saturday, etc.).
And I can tell you from experience that the waiting sucks even when the odds are at or near 99%.
"Not sure what other way you would do it".... I don't know how they're going to do it, but person-by-person would be more of a genuine lottery.
So they'd randomly select a person, give them everything they requested, then move on to the next person until the tickets are gone? Not sure how the "rank your show choices" system would work if you're NOT drawing show by show.
No, they'd randomly select a person and give them whatever their top priority still available is. They're then kicked to the back of the line until everyone has received one set of tickets. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems the simplest algorithm. It's basically drawing all the numbers, putting them on a list, then going through the list top to bottom (repeatedly) until all the tickets are exhausted or all the orders are filled.
FYI: this makes "rank your show choices" work as an actual ranking (your preference) rather than some elaborate game as many here seem to treat it.
If I'm following you, I think the problem with this is that you would have people who ranked a show #2 potentially getting it in front of people who ranked it #1, right? Imagine that an overwhelming number of entries rank MSG first/Baltimore second. Once the MSG tickets are gone, when they pull another one of those entries out of the pile they'd award them Baltimore tickets, despite the fact that it's the second choice and there are people left in the pool who ranked it first, right? Doesn't seem like it works.
(And it would still be an elaborate game, just a different one).
Yes, you're exactly right, which is what makes it more like an actual lottery: you're simply waiting for your number to be drawn. When your number is drawn, you get tickets. I suppose it's a different game, but that game is....a lottery!!
They aren't, BTW, trying to evaluate how much you REALLY want to see a show with these rankings; the rankings simply exist so they know which tickets to give any individual first (according to my theory, which might not be how they do things at all).
I really don't think it will be drawn this way, pretty sure it will be show by show.
Could you describe how you picture that working? I've tried to do that for my vision of things, and I'm genuinely curious about the ramifications of drawing show-by-show, especially as it relates to others' theories on ranking. I imagine a person who has Baltimore first and gets unlucky. They have MSG second, so they're screwed. They have Nashville third, but now everyone with Nashville 1 or 2 is ahead of them? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding.
You've got it right. This maximizes everyone's chance to get their first priority, not to get any tickets whatsoever. The person you're imagining lost out to other people who ranked Baltimore first, not to people who ranked it second or lower as could potentially be the case under the system you're proposing.
Our perceptions of the lottery - how it works in practice and what would constitute a more or less "fair" outcome - are colored by the fact that we're all the type of people who spend their day posting on a dang Pearl Jam message board. You're imagining a person who would prefer Baltimore but if they don't get it would be fine with NYC or Nashville. The process is geared towards people whose closest show is Baltimore and if they don't get that they're not flying to Nashville.
This may well be how it's done, but I humbly suggest that it's a) less fair; and b) what invites all efforts to treat the rankings as a game. The person you describe in your last sentence, doesn't worry about rankings at all. Those who do are left (people who could/would go to different shows) with a guessing game.
Which is to say, I'm not sure rankings would be necessary if the process were geared toward the people you think it is....
Only if by "geared toward" you mean "to the exclusion of everyone else". Just because they're choosing the system that maximizes everyone's chances of getting their first choice doesn't mean that they shouldn't also allow for people to enter for multiple shows if they want.
When you say it's "less fair", you're imposing an idea of what constitutes fair - "fair" to you means nobody gets two shows before everyone gets one, but that's not the only possible definition. By Monday there might be some people who get shut out, read posts from people who got multiple shows, and think it's not fair. Under an alternative system, people could lose their only real option, read posts from people who won tickets to that show despite it being their second or third choice, and think that's not fair. Any system like this is going to violate someone's idea of fairness.
And once again, the rankings would absolutely be treated as a game under the system you're proposing. It would be just as elaborate, and just as susceptible to misunderstanding. It would just be different.
So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I don't believe so, in the past the percentages were of all entries
I agree, which--in combination with the rankings--makes the odds less than informative.
So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I don't believe so, in the past the percentages were of all entries
I agree, which--in combination with the rankings--makes the odds less than informative.
Correct. They're useful/interesting information as far as it goes (mainly setting expectations) but they do not give you all the information you'd need to make perfectly rational choices.
Has there been clarity around when we'll get results? I know it said by Sunday night. But is it possible people start finding out tomorrow? Or is just Sunday?
Throughout the 4 days they said.
My best guess is they will do it show-by-show, in order.
That's my guess as well, and if that's right and they're evenly distributed, it will go:
Thursday: Canadian shows Friday: Northeast shows, Nashville & St. Louis Saturday: OKC, Denver, Phoenix, SD Sunday: Remaining CA shows
I read in one of the FAQs that confirms the drawing is going show-by-show, so it's logical to think they'd do that in chronological order of the tour dates and then notify everyone once all the entries for that show have been considered. The waiting is going to suck unless the odds remain at or near 99%.
Yes - we know they're drawing "show by show" (not sure what other way you would do it), but we're only guessing that (1) they'll be drawn in chrono order rather than some other order and (2) the drawings will be evenly distributed over the four days (maybe there will be more done Thursday and Friday than over the weekend, maybe they feel like they can do 5 per day so everything other than the last show will be done by Saturday, etc.).
And I can tell you from experience that the waiting sucks even when the odds are at or near 99%.
"Not sure what other way you would do it".... I don't know how they're going to do it, but person-by-person would be more of a genuine lottery.
So they'd randomly select a person, give them everything they requested, then move on to the next person until the tickets are gone? Not sure how the "rank your show choices" system would work if you're NOT drawing show by show.
No, they'd randomly select a person and give them whatever their top priority still available is. They're then kicked to the back of the line until everyone has received one set of tickets. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems the simplest algorithm. It's basically drawing all the numbers, putting them on a list, then going through the list top to bottom (repeatedly) until all the tickets are exhausted or all the orders are filled.
FYI: this makes "rank your show choices" work as an actual ranking (your preference) rather than some elaborate game as many here seem to treat it.
If I'm following you, I think the problem with this is that you would have people who ranked a show #2 potentially getting it in front of people who ranked it #1, right? Imagine that an overwhelming number of entries rank MSG first/Baltimore second. Once the MSG tickets are gone, when they pull another one of those entries out of the pile they'd award them Baltimore tickets, despite the fact that it's the second choice and there are people left in the pool who ranked it first, right? Doesn't seem like it works.
(And it would still be an elaborate game, just a different one).
Yes, you're exactly right, which is what makes it more like an actual lottery: you're simply waiting for your number to be drawn. When your number is drawn, you get tickets. I suppose it's a different game, but that game is....a lottery!!
They aren't, BTW, trying to evaluate how much you REALLY want to see a show with these rankings; the rankings simply exist so they know which tickets to give any individual first (according to my theory, which might not be how they do things at all).
I really don't think it will be drawn this way, pretty sure it will be show by show.
Could you describe how you picture that working? I've tried to do that for my vision of things, and I'm genuinely curious about the ramifications of drawing show-by-show, especially as it relates to others' theories on ranking. I imagine a person who has Baltimore first and gets unlucky. They have MSG second, so they're screwed. They have Nashville third, but now everyone with Nashville 1 or 2 is ahead of them? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding.
You've got it right. This maximizes everyone's chance to get their first priority, not to get any tickets whatsoever. The person you're imagining lost out to other people who ranked Baltimore first, not to people who ranked it second or lower as could potentially be the case under the system you're proposing.
Our perceptions of the lottery - how it works in practice and what would constitute a more or less "fair" outcome - are colored by the fact that we're all the type of people who spend their day posting on a dang Pearl Jam message board. You're imagining a person who would prefer Baltimore but if they don't get it would be fine with NYC or Nashville. The process is geared towards people whose closest show is Baltimore and if they don't get that they're not flying to Nashville.
This may well be how it's done, but I humbly suggest that it's a) less fair; and b) what invites all efforts to treat the rankings as a game. The person you describe in your last sentence, doesn't worry about rankings at all. Those who do are left (people who could/would go to different shows) with a guessing game.
Which is to say, I'm not sure rankings would be necessary if the process were geared toward the people you think it is....
Only if by "geared toward" you mean "to the exclusion of everyone else". Just because they're choosing the system that maximizes everyone's chances of getting their first choice doesn't mean that they shouldn't also allow for people to enter for multiple shows if they want.
When you say it's "less fair", you're imposing an idea of what constitutes fair - "fair" to you means nobody gets two shows before everyone gets one, but that's not the only possible definition. By Monday there might be some people who get shut out, read posts from people who got multiple shows, and think it's not fair. Under an alternative system, people could lose their only real option, read posts from people who won tickets to that show despite it being their second or third choice, and think that's not fair. Any system like this is going to violate someone's idea of fairness.
And once again, the rankings would absolutely be treated as a game under the system you're proposing. It would be just as elaborate, and just as susceptible to misunderstanding. It would just be different.
Here’s a question, every time I login to check the odds on the tickets today site does that void my ticket request that I got the email confirmation with. Or no it has no affect on my order so I can check it as many times as I please ?
Here’s a question, every time I login to check the odds on the tickets today site does that void my ticket request that I got the email confirmation with. Or no it has no affect on my order so I can check it as many times as I please ?
I think your ok as you would have to go through the 5 steps and punch in credit card info again.
MLPS: 6-30-98 ; East Troy: 10-8-00 ; St. Paul: 6-16-03 ; East Troy: 6-21-03 ; Camden: 7-5-03 ; Grand Rapids: 10-3-04 ; Thunder Bay: 9-9-05 ; East Rutherford: 6-1-06; East Rutherford: 6-3-06 ; St. Paul: 6-26-06 ; St. Paul: 6-27-06, Chicago 8/23/09, Chicago 8/24/09, EV MLPS 7-2-11, PJ20 Alpine Valley 9-3-11, PJ20 Alpine Valley 9-4-11; Wrigley 7-19-13, St Paul 10-19-14; Wrigley 8-22-16; Seattle 8-8-18, Seattle 8-10-18; EV NY 2-4-22
Here’s a question, every time I login to check the odds on the tickets today site does that void my ticket request that I got the email confirmation with. Or no it has no affect on my order so I can check it as many times as I please ?
I think your ok as you would have to go through the 5 steps and punch in credit card info again.
Yeah I hope so. 12 hours can’t come soon enough so we know the final odds. I’m assuming MSG will go down to 50% which would be in my opinion great since in 2016 it was like 17% haha
So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I don't believe so, in the past the percentages were of all entries
I agree, which--in combination with the rankings--makes the odds less than informative.
Correct. They're useful/interesting information as far as it goes (mainly setting expectations) but they do not give you all the information you'd need to make perfectly rational choices.
YES! that's why I say don't sweat the odds, just ask for what you want and you'll be surprised. They don't tell the whole story, only that a lot of people are asking for certain shows, and not as much a few others.
So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I don't believe so, in the past the percentages were of all entries
I agree, which--in combination with the rankings--makes the odds less than informative.
Correct. They're useful/interesting information as far as it goes (mainly setting expectations) but they do not give you all the information you'd need to make perfectly rational choices.
YES! that's why I say don't sweat the odds, just ask for what you want and you'll be surprised. They don't tell the whole story, only that a lot of people are asking for certain shows, and not as much a few others.
MSG at 13/74. Do you think NYC Reserved as a 2nd choice will strike me out?
what's your first choice?
Buddy and I are thinking Baltimore GA as 1st choice. It’s the only show we have in common. It’s at 19% atm... I’m just concerned I’ll strike out in both if I go Baltimore GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2.
You do cities as priorities not sections for those cities.
So I'm sorry if I'm being slow. I guess I'm getting old. In the "old" system", I would have done 1- Baltimore GA 2- NYC Reserved 3- Baltimore Reserved
In this new system, if I were to put best available for both shows, it would look something like this: 1- Baltimore GA 2- Baltimore Reserved 3- NYC GA 4- NYC Reserved
My concern is that if I put best available for Baltimore and don't get GA, I would get my "second choice" (by default) which is Baltimore Reserved. Let's say that someone has Quebec GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2. Would he/she/they have better odds than me to get NYC reserved?
I'm sorry if I'm making it more complicated than it is. Thank you.
No, it would be 1. Baltimore Best Available 2. NYC Best Available
If you are selected, they will check to see if there are GA tickets left, if so you get them, otherwise you get Reserved
I feel like you're both saying the same thing
Can you elaborate please?
The reason I think you're saying the same thing is that 10C has told people they draw the lottery person by person from the lottery pool which would imply that if your name is drawn they go to your first choice that is available. So you if you have Baltimore GA ranked as your first choice and it is available, you get that. If your first choice is not available, they go to your second choice which would be Baltimore Reserved. If that's not available, they move down the list. People have won the lottery for 3rd or 4th choices which were lower odds and earlier shows than their 1st or 2nd choices which they lost, so it would seem to confirm that 10C goes by person-to-person rather than show by show. They have also stated that they consider GA to be best available over reserved seats.
So putting 1) Baltimore Best available would be no different than having 1) Baltimore GA and 2) Baltimore Best Available
A lot of confusing replies to this. I believe they are picking round by round. If you put NY GA as your first round pick (let's say those odds drop to 5%) there is a 95% chance you are not getting US tickets east of the mississippi.
"During the drawing, we will randomly draw members who have made that show their #1 priority. If any tickets remain, the system will randomly draw names of members who have chosen that show as their #2 priority"
If you really could see any show, picking NY first runs the risk of eliminating any chance at GA for every show.
Where did you find that quoted language?
It sorta looks like an older page but it says 2020 at top and "updated monday 13:05"
MSG at 13/74. Do you think NYC Reserved as a 2nd choice will strike me out?
what's your first choice?
Buddy and I are thinking Baltimore GA as 1st choice. It’s the only show we have in common. It’s at 19% atm... I’m just concerned I’ll strike out in both if I go Baltimore GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2.
You do cities as priorities not sections for those cities.
So I'm sorry if I'm being slow. I guess I'm getting old. In the "old" system", I would have done 1- Baltimore GA 2- NYC Reserved 3- Baltimore Reserved
In this new system, if I were to put best available for both shows, it would look something like this: 1- Baltimore GA 2- Baltimore Reserved 3- NYC GA 4- NYC Reserved
My concern is that if I put best available for Baltimore and don't get GA, I would get my "second choice" (by default) which is Baltimore Reserved. Let's say that someone has Quebec GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2. Would he/she/they have better odds than me to get NYC reserved?
I'm sorry if I'm making it more complicated than it is. Thank you.
No, it would be 1. Baltimore Best Available 2. NYC Best Available
If you are selected, they will check to see if there are GA tickets left, if so you get them, otherwise you get Reserved
I feel like you're both saying the same thing
Can you elaborate please?
The reason I think you're saying the same thing is that 10C has told people they draw the lottery person by person from the lottery pool which would imply that if your name is drawn they go to your first choice that is available. So you if you have Baltimore GA ranked as your first choice and it is available, you get that. If your first choice is not available, they go to your second choice which would be Baltimore Reserved. If that's not available, they move down the list. People have won the lottery for 3rd or 4th choices which were lower odds and earlier shows than their 1st or 2nd choices which they lost, so it would seem to confirm that 10C goes by person-to-person rather than show by show. They have also stated that they consider GA to be best available over reserved seats.
So putting 1) Baltimore Best available would be no different than having 1) Baltimore GA and 2) Baltimore Best Available
A lot of confusing replies to this. I believe they are picking round by round. If you put NY GA as your first round pick (let's say those odds drop to 5%) there is a 95% chance you are not getting US tickets east of the mississippi.
"During the drawing, we will randomly draw members who have made that show their #1 priority. If any tickets remain, the system will randomly draw names of members who have chosen that show as their #2 priority"
If you really could see any show, picking NY first runs the risk of eliminating any chance at GA for every show.
Where did you find that quoted language?
It sorta looks like an older page but it says 2020 at top and "updated monday 13:05"
Fascinating. Thank you. Even if it doesn't apply to this tour, it does explain why so many people stress about the rankings, etc. It never occurred to me they'd do it that way until I saw posts here. Definitely makes me reconsider my own rankings.
MSG at 13/74. Do you think NYC Reserved as a 2nd choice will strike me out?
what's your first choice?
Buddy and I are thinking Baltimore GA as 1st choice. It’s the only show we have in common. It’s at 19% atm... I’m just concerned I’ll strike out in both if I go Baltimore GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2.
You do cities as priorities not sections for those cities.
So I'm sorry if I'm being slow. I guess I'm getting old. In the "old" system", I would have done 1- Baltimore GA 2- NYC Reserved 3- Baltimore Reserved
In this new system, if I were to put best available for both shows, it would look something like this: 1- Baltimore GA 2- Baltimore Reserved 3- NYC GA 4- NYC Reserved
My concern is that if I put best available for Baltimore and don't get GA, I would get my "second choice" (by default) which is Baltimore Reserved. Let's say that someone has Quebec GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2. Would he/she/they have better odds than me to get NYC reserved?
I'm sorry if I'm making it more complicated than it is. Thank you.
No, it would be 1. Baltimore Best Available 2. NYC Best Available
If you are selected, they will check to see if there are GA tickets left, if so you get them, otherwise you get Reserved
I feel like you're both saying the same thing
Can you elaborate please?
The reason I think you're saying the same thing is that 10C has told people they draw the lottery person by person from the lottery pool which would imply that if your name is drawn they go to your first choice that is available. So you if you have Baltimore GA ranked as your first choice and it is available, you get that. If your first choice is not available, they go to your second choice which would be Baltimore Reserved. If that's not available, they move down the list. People have won the lottery for 3rd or 4th choices which were lower odds and earlier shows than their 1st or 2nd choices which they lost, so it would seem to confirm that 10C goes by person-to-person rather than show by show. They have also stated that they consider GA to be best available over reserved seats.
So putting 1) Baltimore Best available would be no different than having 1) Baltimore GA and 2) Baltimore Best Available
A lot of confusing replies to this. I believe they are picking round by round. If you put NY GA as your first round pick (let's say those odds drop to 5%) there is a 95% chance you are not getting US tickets east of the mississippi.
"During the drawing, we will randomly draw members who have made that show their #1 priority. If any tickets remain, the system will randomly draw names of members who have chosen that show as their #2 priority"
If you really could see any show, picking NY first runs the risk of eliminating any chance at GA for every show.
Where did you find that quoted language?
It sorta looks like an older page but it says 2020 at top and "updated monday 13:05"
From what I've read over the years what you put in priority 1 has always been the most important factor.
The way this leg shaped up its rough reading so many say "hey im from Antarctica maybe I'll throw in a chance for MSG "
If fans want a decent chance to see this band and dont live anywhere near MSG, that should be the last show they consider for this lottery. Especially GA. Especially this tour with so few shows in the east.
So the percentage is only the percent of your first pick? Like if oakland is 46/99. I have a 46% chance of getting the floor if its my first choice? If its my second choice it's basically impossible to get the floor?
I don't believe so, in the past the percentages were of all entries
I agree, which--in combination with the rankings--makes the odds less than informative.
Agree! Personally, I don’t see any other way of doing the odds without making the data meaningless. People who choose popular shows as low priority and thus having zero chance, would skew the numbers down. My guess is that the percentages actually ARE for people who choose that show as top priority. But I am not certain!
From what I've read over the years what you put in priority 1 has always been the most important factor.
The way this leg shaped up its rough reading so many say "hey im from Antarctica maybe I'll throw in a chance for MSG "
If fans want a decent chance to see this band and dont live anywhere near MSG, that should be the last show they consider for this lottery. Especially GA. Especially this tour with so few shows in the east.
Why would you put them last if you want to travel?
I know there are people who put MSG as like...their 6th choice as a "What the hell, i probably wont get it, but lets give it a shot"...for GA. That is messing with the odds.
I know there are people who put MSG as like...their 6th choice as a "What the hell, i probably wont get it, but lets give it a shot"...for GA. That is messing with the odds.
Which is why odds should be for 1st priority only. Otherwise they are largely meaningless.
MSG at 13/74. Do you think NYC Reserved as a 2nd choice will strike me out?
what's your first choice?
Buddy and I are thinking Baltimore GA as 1st choice. It’s the only show we have in common. It’s at 19% atm... I’m just concerned I’ll strike out in both if I go Baltimore GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2.
You do cities as priorities not sections for those cities.
So I'm sorry if I'm being slow. I guess I'm getting old. In the "old" system", I would have done 1- Baltimore GA 2- NYC Reserved 3- Baltimore Reserved
In this new system, if I were to put best available for both shows, it would look something like this: 1- Baltimore GA 2- Baltimore Reserved 3- NYC GA 4- NYC Reserved
My concern is that if I put best available for Baltimore and don't get GA, I would get my "second choice" (by default) which is Baltimore Reserved. Let's say that someone has Quebec GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2. Would he/she/they have better odds than me to get NYC reserved?
I'm sorry if I'm making it more complicated than it is. Thank you.
No, it would be 1. Baltimore Best Available 2. NYC Best Available
If you are selected, they will check to see if there are GA tickets left, if so you get them, otherwise you get Reserved
I feel like you're both saying the same thing
Can you elaborate please?
The reason I think you're saying the same thing is that 10C has told people they draw the lottery person by person from the lottery pool which would imply that if your name is drawn they go to your first choice that is available. So you if you have Baltimore GA ranked as your first choice and it is available, you get that. If your first choice is not available, they go to your second choice which would be Baltimore Reserved. If that's not available, they move down the list. People have won the lottery for 3rd or 4th choices which were lower odds and earlier shows than their 1st or 2nd choices which they lost, so it would seem to confirm that 10C goes by person-to-person rather than show by show. They have also stated that they consider GA to be best available over reserved seats.
So putting 1) Baltimore Best available would be no different than having 1) Baltimore GA and 2) Baltimore Best Available
A lot of confusing replies to this. I believe they are picking round by round. If you put NY GA as your first round pick (let's say those odds drop to 5%) there is a 95% chance you are not getting US tickets east of the mississippi.
"During the drawing, we will randomly draw members who have made that show their #1 priority. If any tickets remain, the system will randomly draw names of members who have chosen that show as their #2 priority"
If you really could see any show, picking NY first runs the risk of eliminating any chance at GA for every show.
Where did you find that quoted language?
It sorta looks like an older page but it says 2020 at top and "updated monday 13:05"
Fascinating. Thank you. Even if it doesn't apply to this tour, it does explain why so many people stress about the rankings, etc. It never occurred to me they'd do it that way until I saw posts here. Definitely makes me reconsider my own rankings.
Yeah, seems like a crummy/less fair way to run it because it reduces people chances of getting multiple shows and particularly if you live in NYC or other difficult to get shows. And would make it seem nearly impossible to get more than one show of GA tix. If you rank any of the GA options that are less than 50% below 1st choice (say MSG), you have a very limited chance of getting anything lower on your list because it'll be your 2nd or 3rd choice and all the GA tix will have gone to people who ranked it 1st choice. Now you've missed out on your 1st choice of MSG and it's virtually impossible to get anything below 1st choice for GA seats. That's a bummer, but with the reserved seats so high, I guess it's less painful. Seems like going round-by-round makes much more sense and is more fair, overall.
I know there are people who put MSG as like...their 6th choice as a "What the hell, i probably wont get it, but lets give it a shot"...for GA. That is messing with the odds.
Which is why odds should be for 1st priority only. Otherwise they are largely meaningless.
Yeah, it would be good to know your 1st priority is safe.
That said...you can KINDA figure out a bit...if the odds are like...11%, if you put that in as your 5th choice, its probably not going to happen.
MSG at 13/74. Do you think NYC Reserved as a 2nd choice will strike me out?
what's your first choice?
Buddy and I are thinking Baltimore GA as 1st choice. It’s the only show we have in common. It’s at 19% atm... I’m just concerned I’ll strike out in both if I go Baltimore GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2.
You do cities as priorities not sections for those cities.
So I'm sorry if I'm being slow. I guess I'm getting old. In the "old" system", I would have done 1- Baltimore GA 2- NYC Reserved 3- Baltimore Reserved
In this new system, if I were to put best available for both shows, it would look something like this: 1- Baltimore GA 2- Baltimore Reserved 3- NYC GA 4- NYC Reserved
My concern is that if I put best available for Baltimore and don't get GA, I would get my "second choice" (by default) which is Baltimore Reserved. Let's say that someone has Quebec GA as option 1 and NYC Reserved option 2. Would he/she/they have better odds than me to get NYC reserved?
I'm sorry if I'm making it more complicated than it is. Thank you.
No, it would be 1. Baltimore Best Available 2. NYC Best Available
If you are selected, they will check to see if there are GA tickets left, if so you get them, otherwise you get Reserved
I feel like you're both saying the same thing
Can you elaborate please?
The reason I think you're saying the same thing is that 10C has told people they draw the lottery person by person from the lottery pool which would imply that if your name is drawn they go to your first choice that is available. So you if you have Baltimore GA ranked as your first choice and it is available, you get that. If your first choice is not available, they go to your second choice which would be Baltimore Reserved. If that's not available, they move down the list. People have won the lottery for 3rd or 4th choices which were lower odds and earlier shows than their 1st or 2nd choices which they lost, so it would seem to confirm that 10C goes by person-to-person rather than show by show. They have also stated that they consider GA to be best available over reserved seats.
So putting 1) Baltimore Best available would be no different than having 1) Baltimore GA and 2) Baltimore Best Available
A lot of confusing replies to this. I believe they are picking round by round. If you put NY GA as your first round pick (let's say those odds drop to 5%) there is a 95% chance you are not getting US tickets east of the mississippi.
"During the drawing, we will randomly draw members who have made that show their #1 priority. If any tickets remain, the system will randomly draw names of members who have chosen that show as their #2 priority"
If you really could see any show, picking NY first runs the risk of eliminating any chance at GA for every show.
Where did you find that quoted language?
It sorta looks like an older page but it says 2020 at top and "updated monday 13:05"
That's definitely old info from a 10C run lottery. Ticketmaster is running this one.
Old info or not, the email from TM/10c/whomever for this tour specifically states that logic and rules will be the same for this as they have always been for previous ten club lotteries, so it's still valid.
2003 Clarkston MI #2 | 2004 Grand Rapids MI | 2013 London ON | 2014 Detroit MI | 2016 Toronto ON #1
Comments
When you say it's "less fair", you're imposing an idea of what constitutes fair - "fair" to you means nobody gets two shows before everyone gets one, but that's not the only possible definition. By Monday there might be some people who get shut out, read posts from people who got multiple shows, and think it's not fair. Under an alternative system, people could lose their only real option, read posts from people who won tickets to that show despite it being their second or third choice, and think that's not fair. Any system like this is going to violate someone's idea of fairness.
And once again, the rankings would absolutely be treated as a game under the system you're proposing. It would be just as elaborate, and just as susceptible to misunderstanding. It would just be different.
we know the final odds. I’m assuming MSG will go
down to 50% which would be in my opinion great since in 2016 it was like 17% haha
It sorta looks like an older page but it says 2020 at top and "updated monday 13:05"
https://help.pearljam.com/hc/en-us/articles/205143590-Pre-sale-Drawing?mobile_site=true
Ticketmaster is running this one.
you're the only one who can forgive yourself oh yeah...
makes much more sense to live in the present tense...
2009: 8/23, 8/24 (Chicago) 2010: 5/9 (Cleveland) 2013 7/19 (Chicago) 2016: 4/9 (Miami), 5/1 (NYC), 8/20 & 8/22 (Chicago)
2018: 8/18 (Chicago) & 8/20 (Chicago) 2022: 9/11 (NYC), 9/18 (STL) 2023: 9/5 (Chicago), 9/7 (Chicago)
The way this leg shaped up its rough reading so many say "hey im from Antarctica maybe I'll throw in a chance for MSG "
If fans want a decent chance to see this band and dont live anywhere near MSG, that should be the last show they consider for this lottery. Especially GA. Especially this tour with so few shows in the east.
Nuclear fission
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
That said...you can KINDA figure out a bit...if the odds are like...11%, if you put that in as your 5th choice, its probably not going to happen.
Nuclear fission