Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 328 posts

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#291

Post by Pigo »

Arizhel wrote: post #160
lmm wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. Is it the prices you're bothered by or the phones you're bothered by? They're two very different issues. Indeed I suspect if the primary market prices were higher we'd see less use of phones.

It's not contradictory at all. He's complaining about the prices, and then pointing out that the concert experience, even after paying a boatload for tickets, is very sub-par because of the bad behavior by other concertgoers. If the high ticket prices guaranteed him a first-class concert experience (no bright cellphones in the air, etc.) then at least the high prices would have some justification. But as it is, they…

Thank you for explaining it better than I can apparently. I might have went off on a tangent, but you hit my meaning. Live events, at least where I live, have been increasingly meaningless when you go under the impression you're paying for a unique experience. I paid too much for NIN floor tickets in the past, but I walked away with no regrets.

This may be beside the point to market demand for tickets, and more of a systemic problem for lots of things. Maybe there's an increasing number of people who just need to appear awesome on social media, and are willing to pay more of a premium for second-hand, blurry proof of attendance. I know it's a cliche at this point, but with concerts it makes me particularly sad that people can't just be where they are.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#292

Post by LordKano »

ue_ wrote: post #285
LordKano wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant. The fact is that it's 2-3x the cost because someone decided to be greedy and purchase lots of tickets that people would have bought. If people stopped buying scalped tickets, scalpers would be out of business. We're not talking about a product that's of life and death scale importance. I can understand people being upset by price gouging on water and food. I have, personally, sworn off doing busin…

>If people stopped buying scalped tickets, scalpers would be out of business. That's true, but it doesn't mean that the industry is ethical. >We're not talking about a product that's of life and death scale importance. Irrelevant. Why does the vitality of the product matter? Somebody wants it; I can't see why gouging is only an issue when it's basic utilities. You probably have to get into a whole issue on what quali…

That's true, but it doesn't mean that the industry is ethical.

It doesn't mean that it's unethical either.

Irrelevant. Why does the vitality of the product matter?

We have the word "Luxury" for a reason. Items that are not vital for survival are optional. You don't have to face death as the alternative to acquisition of such items.

Somebody wants it

Irrelevant. The person who has it gets to decide what they want in order to part with it. No matter how much I may want a 72 Camaro, unless I am able and willing to give up enough money, I'll never get one.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#293

Post by Chris2048 »

austenallred wrote: post #283
ams6110 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sell by auction. Let buyers bid up to the natural market value. Avoid sniping by running it like a real auction: having no fixed ending time and only finalizing a sale when there have been no bids for a period of time to be sure everyone has a chance to bid up to whatever it's worth to them.

Ok that actually works, but market value will change drastically over time, and fans would be in an uproar

> fans would be in an uproar

fans who don't pay top-dollar. Why not focus on fans who do?

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#294

Post by Chris2048 »

simonsarris wrote: post #35
jstanley wrote: post #8

> The scourge of ticket bots and the immorality of the shady ticket scalpers using them is conventional wisdom I very much disagree. If I am willing to pay the asking price for tickets, I should be able to buy them. If you're offering them so cheaply that I will happily buy all of the tickets then you're offering them too cheap and you can't really complain if I buy them. If it weren't for ticket-scalpers, die-hard f…

You reasoning is a pretty good example of why the median person should be very wary of anyone saying that free markets and their "efficiency" are a good thing, or will result in good outcomes for them. They will result in good outcomes for the richest, sure. We can agree to that. You are conflating die-hard fans with die-hard wealthy fans which is a little silly. Not all fans have the same marginal value of pocket ch…

> are a good thing, or will result in good outcomes for them

No one says that all individuals will be benefited by an efficient market. But they are a "good thing".

> Not all fans have the same marginal value of pocket change

Yet money is worth the same to the band anyway.

I want a Ferrari, but I'm not wealthy enough to afford one - who should be discounting my Ferrari?

> One median-income fan may be easily be more die-hard than another more blasé millionaire fan, yet he is also a die-hard fan of feeding his children

millionaires are also pretty rare, are there that few bands, playing that few concerts that millionaires get all the tickets?

What is I really really want a Ferrari, more than that lackluster millionaire - then do I get a discount?

Why are music concerts different to any other limited-supply product? It's entirely fair that "the fan who wants to see the gig the most" is not considered, because how, exactly, does anyone prove this is actually true?

> the person with the most money gets to make all of the decisions

The person willing to risk the most value. You want to make decisions without risking anything? Without having to work in advance to have enough to risk?

> because he has so much of it relative to the median person.

A wealthy person's money should only be able to buy things no one cares about?

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#295

Post by TwiztidK »

ams6110 wrote: post #272
TwiztidK wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never yet seen a system that cannot be beat by scalpers, including paperless ticketing, I have seen such a system. A festival near me has a limited number of tickets available each year (due to site and staff restrictions) with surprisingly high demand. Their solution is to do a lottery that gives people an opportunity to buy tickets, requiring the name of each individual ticket recipient at purchase, then t…

Sell by auction. Let buyers bid up to the natural market value. Avoid sniping by running it like a real auction: having no fixed ending time and only finalizing a sale when there have been no bids for a period of time to be sure everyone has a chance to bid up to whatever it's worth to them.

Sure, but the group that runs the festival doesn't want to raise ticket prices.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#296

Post by tveita »

jstanley wrote: post #31
vertex-four wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? The only reason to believe this is to believe that having more money means you're inherently more deserving of things, no matter the wishes of the people providing those things.

It's not about deserving in any sort of moral sense. If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? He obviously is willing to give you more, so give it to him. That's fair. That's life. EDIT: And if you sell it to me for $1000, don't be surprised if I turn around and sell it to the $2000 guy. He wants it more than I do, and he's going to get it one…

> If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to?

But audience are not fungible. If you are to spend an evening with someone there are more important considerations involved than who will pay you the most money to do it, and trying to buy their way to that privilege could be a strong negative indicator.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#297

Post by Chris2048 »

mikeash wrote: post #83
OJFord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're too cheap, then it would be everyone with enough disposable time to sit in queue and grab them before they sell out.

Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money, so people tend to find this sort of thing to be more fair.

> Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money

How so?

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#298

Post by rhcom2 »

antisthenes wrote: post #250
rhcom2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People without money get screwed out of entertainment? Boo Hoo. How about Healthcare or housing? You know, actual essential things. These things aren't mutually exclusive. I think most people would think it is unfair if only people who can pay 2-4x the ticket price are able to see an event. Hell scalping for more than the original price isn't even legal some places.

They aren't exclusive, but one is essential and the other is not. Especially in the age of internet, no one owes you a very specific particular type of entertainment. I would argue, however, that the social contract does owe you at least some modicum of healthcare and housing assistance, which is why I see absolutely no problem with scalping, but for-profit healthcare abhorrent. > I think most people would think it i…

> It is still possible to get tickets by buying them as early as you possibly can. You trade your time for money that you would have otherwise paid the scalper.

That's what this article is about though, that it isn't possible to compete when scalpers have bots, no matter how early you try to buy them.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#299

Post by mikeash »

Chris2048 wrote: post #297
mikeash wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money, so people tend to find this sort of thing to be more fair.

> Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money How so?

If you compare the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile of "wealth," when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7 for Americans (the 10th percentile male lives about 55 years, female 62 years; the 90th percentile is 93/96). If you look at income, the ratio between 90th and 10th percentile is over 10. If you look at net worth, the ratio is actually negative, because the 10th percentile has less than zero net worth.

If you expand it out to the 100th percentile then the difference is even more stark. The 100th percentile income is many orders of magnitude higher than the 10th percentile, while the 100th percentile time is less than 3x higher than the 10th percentile.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#300

Post by Chris2048 »

mikeash wrote: post #299
Chris2048 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time is distributed a lot more equitably than money How so?

If you compare the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile of "wealth," when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7 for Americans (the 10th percentile male lives about 55 years, female 62 years; the 90th percentile is 93/96). If you look at income, the ratio between 90th and 10th percentile is over 10. If you look at net worth, the ratio is actually negative, because the 10th percentile has…

> when it comes to time then that ratio is around 1.5-1.7

If I employ someone, their time was mine; If it wasn't, they could use it to stand in line for tickets. This is a different thing from 'mortality', although I assume the wealthy have both better medical care, and quality of life beyond average male/female lifespans.

Post reply on HN