TicketMaster's Fan2Fan is now Fan2Bot

Lost In Ohio

mr bungle said:

Zod said:

Lets go back to printed tickets you have to spend half a day lining up for, so that if you want to sell/trade your only option is in person hours before the show

I don't think TM is going to invent anything better.   All Fan2Fan is, is the regular resell portal but the price is locked.  I don't think they put too much effort into it.   It does have the advantage that we can sell without needing to raise our prices just to get our money back.  I do like that aspect of it.

I don't think they're ever going to do something sophiticated, like tie the poral into the 10c's portal, so they can restrict access to tickets.

It was only a matter of time, with more bands using fan2fan (like U2 and the cure) that scalpers would figure out work arounds.

Maybe go back to 2018, no transferability?  1 ticket of the pair can be transferred kind of thing.

Fan2Fan has also made tickets completely disposable.  Put in for everything, sell back the ones that aren't good.   Pushing many 10c'ers further back.

The last sentence is DEAD ON!  Yes, TM and the new system is totally fucked up.  But 10c members are cannibalizing each other by putting in for more tix than they actually intend to use.  Thus, boxing out members who actually want the tix, or pushing members further back than they should be.

If someone can't go, someone else is gonna go in that spot...so does it really matter if I win one show or five in the initial sale?

EH14457

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

pjl44

mpedone said:

pjl44 said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

marumaruko said:

PJNB said:

and there it is.
"Only request tickets for shows you can definitely attend" 

This should be tattooed on our arms. You don't know if you can make it happen, don't request and wait until you can be sure. 
Tickets will be eventually available if everyone follows along. 

Also, before anyone says "But no one will restrain themselves" - that's the mindset that is hindering the people. Just do what is ideal and you'll see.  

It’s kind of a non sequitur. Getting rid of priority doesn't have anything to do with choosing only shows you can definitely attend. If anything, getting rid of priority may just encourage choosing more shows, since you no longer can assume you’re likely to score a top-ranked show. Only select shows you can definitely attend is a more appropriate response to a question such as whether you could be selected and charged for numerous shows. And as someone else mentioned, we never truly know which shows we can "definitely" attend... 

With no priority AND F2F, there is no disincentive to putting in for as many shows as you can afford, or even multiplying your chances by putting in for the same shows as your spouse/concert buddy. Hell, I thought about it. I'm not likely to go to Chicago, but my brother-in-law lives there, and we've enjoyed the city. Why not secure tickets and sell them if the plans fall through? Seatlle? Never been. Might be cool to see PJ in their "home" city. Can always just sell them later. Fortunately, I wasn't comfortable spending that much money (and even more for travel costs) and restricted myself to realistic/local shows.

Bringing back priority and/or show-by-show draws could ease some of this, as you'd see a broader spread of people getting tickets, but you're still going to have a ton of people shut out of more in-demand shows like MSG and Seattle, and be in this same boat of fighting bots for tickets. Make 10C tickets non-transferable again and you'd see a lot fewer people putting in for 5+ shows they aren't really sure they can make. No, we're never 100% sure either way, but if you're faced with the choice to spend $350+ and maybe eat that money or just not get tickets to a show you're only 50% likely to actually attend, I would think most people would hold back. Unfortunately, that's not an option in NY, IL, CT, and CO, and it would only drive up the prices from the bots who snatch up the non-10C seats.

Given ticket prices being what they are, the last sentence of your first paragraph would be the disincentive for a lot of people 

That's where F2F comes in. Ticket prices SHOULD be a deterrent, but if you know that you can recoup that money if travel plans don't work out, why not take a chance?

Because of how much you have to lay out up front. Like what you had an aversion to. Unless someone would potentially use all those tickets and has it budgeted already.

leekstokie

By pure luck I just got two F2F lower bowl for Baltimore. Had tickets in my basket and gone to pay about 10 times in the last week but always lost out, I got lucky this morning.

CM189191

gotthebottle said:

CM189191 said:

danofun said:

BigRedd said:

danofun said:

The rush to judgement, screams of  "bots!", and calls to blow up the F2F system are, in my opinion, rash and misguided. The band waited longer than usual to turn on F2F, did so for both legs of the tour simultaneously, and there has been a massive rush. It's F2F day 6 for Boom's sake! The road to these shows is a long one and I for one am glad we have the chance to either get in the building or upgrade.

I'd caution to reserve judgement until the tour has come and gone. F2F history has shown that practicing patience and persistence will be rewarded.

You are ignoring the fact that the majority of these tickets are ending up on the secondary markets. 

Patience and persistence might get some through sure but that does not change the fact it is a broken system and in no way gives fans and not scalpers a shot at the resale market. Thats a damn lie. 

You're angry. I get it. No perfect system exists but expecting a new system to be created by TM, without additional gain, is not realistic. Every face value F2F ticket that shows up was already in the hands of a 10C member! I'll refer to my previous comment as to what is the real problem.

danofun said:

F2F is as fair as it's going to get for a resale ticket. Period. A better solution is going after the root of this issue, the initial sale. Bring back prioritizing show selections. Once selected, you're at the back of the line for other shows. This would allow for a much larger "winners" pool and significantly reduce the number of individuals holding tickets to multiple shows. Ultimately, that means less people dropping tickets and a less desirable target for brokers.

'no perfect system exists'

What if they only sold tickets at face value at the door?

No pre-orders.  No re-sales.  No tickets.  No nothing.

Wait in line, pay money, see the show.

That, in my mind, is the perfect system.



17000 in line at arena? 

you already have to wait in line at the arena to get in, no?

mpedone

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

EH14457

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

All good points. 

craigraether

Last night at 10pm did two Coordinated drops for both LA shows, both in Sec E row1, asked that the tickets be posted as singles going one by one, Show 2, then Show1, then Show2, etc. All 4 tickets were secured. BOTs not fitting singles. I figured if I lost one ticket of the pair, I would lose to fan which is fine. During that time 2 pairs of floors further back came up and sold. Just an idea for those doing seated drops in desirable locations. Maybe wait 5-10 between tickets. Any one who sees the second one might just think it's the same ticket as they pop up again after they sell before they disappear. Good Luck and Beat the BOTS... Prob not advisable for GA, but might work if you lose it would be to a fan not a BOT... 

OfThePearl

craigraether said:

Last night at 10pm did two Coordinated drops for both LA shows, both in Sec E row1, asked that the tickets be posted as singles going one by one, Show 2, then Show1, then Show2, etc. All 4 tickets were secured. BOTs not fitting singles. I figured if I lost one ticket of the pair, I would lose to fan which is fine. During that time 2 pairs of floors further back came up and sold. Just an idea for those doing seated drops in desirable locations. Maybe wait 5-10 between tickets. Any one who sees the second one might just think it's the same ticket as they pop up again after they sell before they disappear. Good Luck and Beat the BOTS... Prob not advisable for GA, but might work if you lose it would be to a fan not a BOT... 

Good to know. Glad some are going through as intended!

BRONDO

Missoula floor pair face value been up all morning sec3

craigraether

BRONDO said:

Missoula floor pair face value been up all morning sec3

they were up last night too, might be stuck in the matrix.. 

SHZA

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

mpedone

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Zod

craigraether said:

Last night at 10pm did two Coordinated drops for both LA shows, both in Sec E row1, asked that the tickets be posted as singles going one by one, Show 2, then Show1, then Show2, etc. All 4 tickets were secured. BOTs not fitting singles. I figured if I lost one ticket of the pair, I would lose to fan which is fine. During that time 2 pairs of floors further back came up and sold. Just an idea for those doing seated drops in desirable locations. Maybe wait 5-10 between tickets. Any one who sees the second one might just think it's the same ticket as they pop up again after they sell before they disappear. Good Luck and Beat the BOTS... Prob not advisable for GA, but might work if you lose it would be to a fan not a BOT... 

That's insanely clever

Plus, I think many fans also wouldn't want a single if they're trying to go someone.  Probably cuts down the odds of a real human going after them too.   

SHZA

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Maybe it's "clear" in hindsight that's what happened, but it sure wasn't clear from the communications themselves. It could have been communicated clearly in a way that there would be no assumption that the draw would be show by show. Like actually coming out and saying "unlike past years, the lottery will not be done on a show by show basis." 

I don't think the fact that you couldn't edit a request and had to redo it entirely is significant. I believe the ticketstoday entries have always worked that way even when show by show priority mattered. 

JimmyV

You always needed to redo your entire entry if you wanted to make a change. They never looked at anything other than your final entry in any draw. 

EH14457

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Maybe it's "clear" in hindsight that's what happened, but it sure wasn't clear from the communications themselves. It could have been communicated clearly in a way that there would be no assumption that the draw would be show by show. Like actually coming out and saying "unlike past years, the lottery will not be done on a show by show basis." 

I don't think the fact that you couldn't edit a request and had to redo it entirely is significant. I believe the ticketstoday entries have always worked that way even when show by show priority mattered. 

It's at least worth acknowledging, regardless of speculation on the process, that better communication ahead of time likely wouldn't have impacted the results, right? It just would have raised fewer eyebrows when the results were announced? I mean, there could be something I'm not considering, but whether 10c was drawing entire forms or show-by-show... the only appropriate course of action was to submit your one allowable entry with all the shows you wanted. People just would have known to expect feast or famine.

mpedone

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Maybe it's "clear" in hindsight that's what happened, but it sure wasn't clear from the communications themselves. It could have been communicated clearly in a way that there would be no assumption that the draw would be show by show. Like actually coming out and saying "unlike past years, the lottery will not be done on a show by show basis." 

I don't think the fact that you couldn't edit a request and had to redo it entirely is significant. I believe the ticketstoday entries have always worked that way even when show by show priority mattered. 

That is entirely fair. My guess is that it simply didn't occur to anyone involved that we would make that assumption. To them, it was obvious, and they didn't realize that it wouldn't be to us.

I am genuinely curious as to how strategies would have changed. I'm not great with strategizing, so I'd love to hear thoughts. With priority, obviously you want to prioritize lower odds first (or just not bother and focus on better odds) and better odds 2nd or 3rd. Without priority, is there really a strategy? And does it change if the draw is show-by-show or entry-by-entry?

PJNB

I refuse to believe 10C would sign off on something that you have a chance on winning every GA you put in for if you are selected close to the first. 

JimmyV

I have wondered how fully 10c understands or is aware from year to year how TM plans to conduct these draws. 

EH14457

PJNB said:

I refuse to believe 10C would sign off on something that you have a chance on winning every GA you put in for if you are selected close to the first. 

JimmyV said:

I have wondered how fully 10c understands or is aware from year to year how TM plans to conduct these draws. 

Not sure if the bottom post was meant to be a reply to the top, but yes.

JimmyV

EH14457 said:

PJNB said:

I refuse to believe 10C would sign off on something that you have a chance on winning every GA you put in for if you are selected close to the first. 

JimmyV said:

I have wondered how fully 10c understands or is aware from year to year how TM plans to conduct these draws. 

Not sure if the bottom post was meant to be a reply to the top, but yes.

I didn't see Jeff's post till after mine, but I 100% agree. 

PJNB

So they only allowed 1 pair to be won for both MSG shows but are ok with you winning everything else and someone else missing everything else. 

Does not make any sense to care about one thing and not the others for fairness. 

jimjam1982

Long thread to catch up but at the end of the day...there is no way to 100% put a stop to scalpers/bots outside of unified laws and restrictions.

The current system is the best in a long time.  yes you have to be fast to get F2F.  yes it sucks that bots gobble up non-transferable tickets and put them on resale sites and sell TM login in info. Is it overwhelming and near impossible for 10c to manage - yes, can't hold it against them for not browsing those sites and revoking tickets it would be a never ending battle. it sucks more that no legislation exists to end scalping as its been a problem since the 19th century...

This still beats the crap out of of post cards and camping out overnight.

TM/Seat Geek/Vivid/Stub Hub whatever, they don't care because they charge fees based on % so they will never try to stop it. 

The rabbit hole to resolving the scalping/resale issue is deep indeed.

SHZA

EH14457 said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Maybe it's "clear" in hindsight that's what happened, but it sure wasn't clear from the communications themselves. It could have been communicated clearly in a way that there would be no assumption that the draw would be show by show. Like actually coming out and saying "unlike past years, the lottery will not be done on a show by show basis." 

I don't think the fact that you couldn't edit a request and had to redo it entirely is significant. I believe the ticketstoday entries have always worked that way even when show by show priority mattered. 

It's at least worth acknowledging, regardless of speculation on the process, that better communication ahead of time likely wouldn't have impacted the results, right? It just would have raised fewer eyebrows when the results were announced? I mean, there could be something I'm not considering, but whether 10c was drawing entire forms or show-by-show... the only appropriate course of action was to submit your one allowable entry with all the shows you wanted. People just would have known to expect feast or famine.

I think I would have submitted a different entry, although I suppose it wouldn't have made me more likely to be among the "winners" who got GA across the board. I limited my entry to what I expected to be the shows with the lowest odds, hoping to get 1-2, and expecting to rely on F2F for lower demand shows for which I didn't want to have to worry about trying to get rid of mediocre 10c seats. If I knew that the entire multi-show entry could be granted--and all GA at that--I would have rolled the dice and put in for GA/P1 for the entire tour probably, because the chance of winning all GAs at the start would have saved me many hours on F2F 

P-Town-P-Jam-Fan

craigraether said:

Last night at 10pm did two Coordinated drops for both LA shows, both in Sec E row1, asked that the tickets be posted as singles going one by one, Show 2, then Show1, then Show2, etc. All 4 tickets were secured. BOTs not fitting singles. I figured if I lost one ticket of the pair, I would lose to fan which is fine. During that time 2 pairs of floors further back came up and sold. Just an idea for those doing seated drops in desirable locations. Maybe wait 5-10 between tickets. Any one who sees the second one might just think it's the same ticket as they pop up again after they sell before they disappear. Good Luck and Beat the BOTS... Prob not advisable for GA, but might work if you lose it would be to a fan not a BOT... 

Fantastic idea and would 100% recommend if you are trying to drop your tickets for someone specific.

Zod

PJNB said:

I refuse to believe 10C would sign off on something that you have a chance on winning every GA you put in for if you are selected close to the first. 

I feel the same way.  The farmed out the lottery, and I'm thinking they just assumed it would be well run.

I sort of feel like the way we want 10c lotteries to be run, an the way 10c ran them in the past is more complicated than most other fan clubs.  Ticketstoday/TM tries to simplify, and what not (I bet the seniority thing drives them crazy).

On the flip side, I don't think that many people were vocal that doing it by show and preference was that complicated.   At least most of us on here appreciated the preference system?  Found it odd when they put the info on the ticketing they said they stopped it to due people complaining... how loud do we complain to get it back?

mpedone

SHZA said:

EH14457 said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

SHZA said:

mpedone said:

EH14457 said:

mpedone said:

I do enjoy that some people are hell-bent on this being a conspiracy and refuse to believe the answer that fits the evidence.

Saying that it was poorly done is not the same as calling it a conspiracy. There are perfectly rational explanations for how the lottery results (even accidentally) could have shifted from benefiting a greater number of people to greatly benefiting a smaller number of people. Poor design, poor implementation, miscommunication either internally or across parties... if you go back to my post earlier referencing entry-centric distribution (rather than show-centric), it's definitely at least though-provoking. And it shifts the rationale for ditching show priority from 10c's explanation ("people found it confusing") to something which seems more plausible... changes under the hood (beyond 10's control) made it impossible to honor show priority without considerable additional work.

Sure, and I'm on record as believing it was entry-centric as it fits what we've seen really well. I'm referring to the people who keep saying "Well, it might have been rigged" and the like.

I totally think doing away with priority was because people found it confusing, just that the people being referred to are TM themselves, not the customers. Actually, I think they just found it to be too much work and took the easier/faster route of just picking numbers and fulfilling the entire entry.

I also don't think it was that poorly communicated. I think most of us just interpreted it the way we wanted to.

It may well have been a single tour-level lottery rather than numerous show-level lotteries, but it was not communicated well. If it was, there would have been discussion of that aspect before the draw, in formulating entry strategies. I never heard the tour-level theory floated until the results came out showing what would be exceedingly impropable results of numerous people seemingly having all won multiple show-level draws for east coast shows that had less than 10% odds to win on past tours. Show-level is what people understood from the way it was communicated and past practice 

You're not wrong - it was never explicitly stated how the draw would work, but there were numerous references to your request being fulfilled and being charged for every ticket requested. I think most of us (myself included) interpreted that as each show was a different request, but looking back, I think it's clear that it meant that if your number came up, your entire request was fulfilled. This was why you couldn't just add or remove shows from your request, you had to submit an entirely new request (and why they stressed that they'd only look at your most recent request when the draw happened). 

What is also notable is a line in the instructions/info that had appeared in previous announcements: "Ticket Requests will be confirmed for each show taking your priority into consideration, but it is not guaranteed you will get your first priority." Granted, there was no priority for this tour, but no version of this sentence appears in the 2024 announcement.

I really think we just assumed the draw would be show-by-show because that's what they used to do.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe it was rigged (for some reason), maybe they did something dumber than what I've described, or maybe TM just simply screwed up. If so, gives me/us more reason to hate TM. I just don't think that's the case here.

Maybe it's "clear" in hindsight that's what happened, but it sure wasn't clear from the communications themselves. It could have been communicated clearly in a way that there would be no assumption that the draw would be show by show. Like actually coming out and saying "unlike past years, the lottery will not be done on a show by show basis." 

I don't think the fact that you couldn't edit a request and had to redo it entirely is significant. I believe the ticketstoday entries have always worked that way even when show by show priority mattered. 

It's at least worth acknowledging, regardless of speculation on the process, that better communication ahead of time likely wouldn't have impacted the results, right? It just would have raised fewer eyebrows when the results were announced? I mean, there could be something I'm not considering, but whether 10c was drawing entire forms or show-by-show... the only appropriate course of action was to submit your one allowable entry with all the shows you wanted. People just would have known to expect feast or famine.

I think I would have submitted a different entry, although I suppose it wouldn't have made me more likely to be among the "winners" who got GA across the board. I limited my entry to what I expected to be the shows with the lowest odds, hoping to get 1-2, and expecting to rely on F2F for lower demand shows for which I didn't want to have to worry about trying to get rid of mediocre 10c seats. If I knew that the entire multi-show entry could be granted--and all GA at that--I would have rolled the dice and put in for GA/P1 for the entire tour probably, because the chance of winning all GAs at the start would have saved me many hours on F2F 

Ah, that is a nuance I have missed (ignored?) - if you put in for GA and got picked early, you'd likely get all GA, whereas had the draws been by show, you might still get a bunch of shows, but some you might get picked after GA is gone. Sorry that it took me so long to see that issue. It is a big problem with this method!

PJNB

Zod said:

PJNB said:

I refuse to believe 10C would sign off on something that you have a chance on winning every GA you put in for if you are selected close to the first. 

I feel the same way.  The farmed out the lottery, and I'm thinking they just assumed it would be well run.

I sort of feel like the way we want 10c lotteries to be run, an the way 10c ran them in the past is more complicated than most other fan clubs.  Ticketstoday/TM tries to simplify, and what not (I bet the seniority thing drives them crazy).

On the flip side, I don't think that many people were vocal that doing it by show and preference was that complicated.   At least most of us on here appreciated the preference system?  Found it odd when they put the info on the ticketing they said they stopped it to due people complaining... how loud do we complain to get it back?

It has been mentioned before but removing priority, aside from making to easier for them to draw, also makes it harder for us to see flaws and mistakes made in the lotto.

In the past when 10C ran the lotto there were little to no errors reported when keeping priority in mind from 2013 to 2018 shows that I followed. 

In 2020 there were a few and in 2022/2023 we all know how they went. 

Taking priority out we do not have that as a measure now to see if it was done fairly. All we have is a list of shows won and lost for each account. 

Even that is not passing the fairness sniff test but what do you have to prove it and is anyone even listening or care? 

JimmyV

2023. TM trying to assign seats by seniority AS WINNERS WERE DRAWN will always blow my mind. It can't be done and there is no way 10c agreed to it. Debacle.