Yes, I agree.
I guess its just more cut and dried now.
For example. Say, for simplicity and arguments sake, only the first 10% in the queue get tickets.
In a team of the 36. 3 (or maybe 4) people will actually get tickets. So that would only be 18 of the 36 strong group who will get tickets.
That is indeed an advantage over a group of 6 only have a 50% chance of getting tickets. But not much of one. Because the group of 36 also only have 50% chance (plus the slightly higher chance of having a 4th person in the top 10%).
[EDIT] I've changed my mind there is no advantage of a team of 36 over a team of 6. Other than the pyramid scheme advantage, ie you are at the top of the spreadsheet!!!
Whereas before it was much more nuanced, with all 36 continually trying until the tickets run out. Also they had the advantage of persistence, motivation and technical knowledge of how it all worked.
But surely before not everyone would get tickets as well. You could improve your chances by f5ing at the optimum rate but just as all 36 won’t have a guaranteed position in the queue not all 36 used to get through
Ah yes, but the probability has changed.
Assume that the 36 are spread evenly over the entire queue. Then only a certain number of these 36 have any real chance of getting tickets. Once those that could get tickets have got their tickets, that's them done, they won't be able to continue to get tickets. So there is a high chance that some of those in big groups won't get tickets.
Whereas before, not only did all 36 have a chance of getting tickets, those that did get tickets could keep trying. There is also a slight advantage in that the people in big groups knew how to tip the technicalities in their favour.
I'm sure somebody with A level maths could work out the probabilities. But certainly, the probabilities have changed.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.