JW657002 said:

No luck Austin#1 and Chicago. Gonna just hope GVF tours with their new album because they light shit on fire. Lol

chitownp76 said:

Not a single person posted the got behind the stage in Chicago. There’s got to be more to go

dougfloyd said:

chitownp76 said:

Not a single person posted the got behind the stage in Chicago. There’s got to be more to go

And I don't think anybody has posted about Noblesville lawn seats yet either.  This might still be going on for a while.

Weston1283 said:

10C management has fallen so, so far since the departure of Kelly Curtis

minidonk40 said:

Is there any detail on the fan to fan exchange?...can you send and/or swap with your friends or just put them back into the pool?

PJNB said:

marra2312 said:

machinehum said:

tylerj said:

PJNB said:

tylerj said:

CopperTom said:

tylerj said:

All, it's not totally confusing as to why someone who listed  any show as 2nd priority would get a ticket and someone with 1st priority wouldn't. My understanding is they group those in 1st priority, run the randomizer/lottery and issue tickets to those who get picked. Once that's done they do that again for 2nd, 3rd, 4th priority etc until all the allotment is gone. 

I could be wrong. Someone let me know if they know otherwise. 

No.  First priority are drawn first.  If tickets remain, they move on to second priority entries.  A first priority person should never lose and a second priority person win. 

That's not how it's worked for the last few tours I don't believe. Been multiple past examples of 2nd, 3rd priority ppl getting tickets and 1st priority ppl getting nothing. it's caused a lot of butthurt for some folks. My first priority was Chicago N1. Haven't received an email yet. Yet some people at 2nd priority have reported getting reserved tickets. 

That is the reason we put priority down. It makes no sense to have priority for pics if it was random as you said. In no way should someone that picked a show as a 2nd get it over someone that put it as a first. That is a broken system

All I'm saying is there was a person here who said they got St Paul tickets for both nights at 5th and 6th priority and then there are people who put those as 1st and/or 2nd priority and haven't heard back yet. I guess they could still get tickets if they're sending out the emails by 10c number. 

People are thinking about "priority" wrong here. This has *nothing* to do with who has "priority" to get drawn, it is *only* and *strictly* your own personal prioritization of your preference of shows to attend. How to translate those personal rankings into something that looks fair across a matrix of multiple people ranking multiple instances is an entire field of study and there are a thousand ways to do it depending on what factors are considered more important. 

Then what is the point of them asking it? Not looking for a fight, just seems to needlessly complicate things if it doesn't have any impact on what order people get drawn.

Lol right it is so simlple

5000 pairs to go out for 10C

Priority 1 is drawn

3000 people have it as a first pick. All win

Priority 2 is drawn

2500 people have it as a second pick. 2000 win. 500 lose. 

Everyone after priority 2 loses 



This is not hard. 

PJNB said:

machinehum said:

PJNB said:

machinehum said:

jimjam1982 said:

machinehum said:

Hoagie Breath said:

baldog27 said:

I got a good one (All Selections were GA/Res Option)
1.  Chi 2 Lost
2.  Chi 1 Lost
3.  Noble Lost
4.  St Paul 1 Lost
5.  Austin 1 Lost
6.  St Paul 2 Lost

7.  Austin 2 WON

Let me fix this for you.

I got a good one (All Selections were GA/Res Option)
1.  Chi 2 Lost -- LOST LOTTERY 
2.  Chi 1 Lost -- LOST LOTTERY 
3.  Noble Lost -- LOST LOTTERY 
4.  St Paul 1 Lost  -- LOST LOTTERY 
5.  Austin 1 Lost -- LOST LOTTERY 
6.  St Paul 2 Lost -- LOST LOTTERY 

7.  Austin 2 WON -- WON LOTTERY

You have to win the lottery for the show you selected FIRST to even be in the ticket pool.

If you do win , thats when priority and seniority applies. 

Been this way since 2020 tour. 

Some shows are higher in demand then others, thus the reason you won seats with 7th priority.

The only way to fix this and to erase all the confusion is to make the lottery selection a separate process and send the emails to everyone win or lose. Then everyone knows if they won or lost for that show. Then those that won, priority and seniority would then apply to the seat you get.

Yeah its an extra step, but maybe Pearl Jam could convince TM to do it in the future.

Is there a source for this? It would explain a lot if that's actually been publicly stated at some point. 

No it is a completely made up fallacy.

https://blog.ticketmaster.com/pearl-jam-tour-2023/

Go down to the how do tickets work for 10c members?  It factually states tickets are randomized with consideration based on priority. Ergo, priority 1 should always trump priority 2 and so forth.

It says "To level the playing field, ticket requests are fulfilled in a randomized selection process while still considering show priority." 

"Ergo, priority 1 should always trump priority 2 and so forth" definitely does not follow from that statement. In fact they leave it deliberately vague. 

Consider Person A, Person B, and shows GG, OK, LY. Priorities highest to lowest: 

Person A: GG, LY, OK. 
Person B. GG, OK, LY. 

GG and LY have greater demand than supply. OK does not. 

Person A gets chosen for GG, Person B does not. 

Person B gets chosen for OK and LY. Person A does not. 

Now, person B has gotten a ticket for OK at #3, whereas A did not get it at #2. According to your theory, that's definitely B A D. Furthermore, person B got two shows and Person A only got one!

On the other hand, Person A got their first choice, and Person B didn't. So maybe it all balances out? People will have different opinions, and those are the kinds of factors that go into trying to design a process for this scenario. 

If the people designing the solution make different choices, there's a world where Person A gets GG and LY, Person B gets only OK. Now Person A has their first pick (B doesn't), and more shows than B, but B has OK even though they had a lower priority on it than Person A did. Is that Bad and Wrong and Person A should definitely have gotten that seat instead, making for a clean sweep? 

I think you have some of this messed up with your example but in no way should LY hit for Person B and Person A misses. Thats not how this has ever worked or should work. 

It may be true that it hasn't worked that way before. Dunno. I respect your opinion that this isn't how it should work, I also disagree. Reasonable people can have a different opinion on that. Personally, I think that since Person A already got their first choice *and* third choice, and Person B didn't, it's more than reasonable for Person B to hit LY while Person A doesn't. And I'm not saying this exact thing is happening here. I'm just trying to illustrate that different people can reasonably have different opinions about what is most "fair", and you can't please everybody, and with a matrix of three different inputs (show, priority, GA/Reserve vs. only Reserve) across thousands of people, a lot of people are going to be unhappy and think it makes no sense no matter what you do. 

It's also possible that their selection process is entirely unfair and idiotic -- but I don't think we have the evidence to say that, and I think people are far underestimating how difficult a problem this is to solve when one requirement is a futile hope to have at least a veneer of "fairness" across the opinions of tens of thousands of people. 

Explain to me how 8 people I know put Chicago night 2 as a first and only pick. They have not heard anything yet and others put it as a 3rd pick and won. Also the people that put it as a 3rd pick won 4 other shows.