machinehum said:

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. 

Good question. I don't know. I also don't know that all of those assertions are true (and neither do you), which makes it a tough discussion to have. We also don't know what selections they all made beyond show date, nor do we know that the people who haven't heard anything yet won't hear anything, nor do we know that the people who made it their first and only pick weren't disqualified (correctly or incorrectly) for some perceived attempt to game the system (which is a stated policy), nor do we know a thousand other things. Which is annoying. But also makes me not super keen on making judgements just yet, when the process hasn't even completed. 

I got notified of the tickets I won in reverse order of the priority I ranked them in. I see that a lot of people are reporting that they have gottten their 3rd, 4th, 6th choices but not their 1st or 2nd. I think their 1st and 2nd choices are forthcoming, and they just have not gotten those emails yet, especially in the case of Chicago, that involves the largest # of tickets. Also, it seems lower member #s started being notified first, so higher #s may have to wait longer to get their final confirmations. The process isn't over yet, so many of these situations that seem like discrepancies, may actually resolve as the process completes.

That said, Austin1 was my #1 priority and last to be confirmed. I also was one of those that got a second ticket confirmation for that show (a worse ticket, that they reversed a few minutes later). So I see that glitches can arise that don't exactly inspire confidence. Hopefully they will continue to tweak and improve our system.

I love the fact that we know our seat assignments right away, a huge improvement. I'm sure the whole system is more complex than meets the eye.

* IT IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO EDIT THIS.
  I WROTE IT BEFORE I HAD TIME TO TRUDGE THROUGH 40 + PAGES OF THIS NIGHTMARE, AND NO LONGER WISH TO COMMENT.

@kat

PLEASE DELETE POST