How to combat a team maxing their ticket prices.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

True, and, in purely economic terms, the players who are not maxing out their ticket prices are acting irrationally. Or, in game theoretic terms, they are getting stuck with the "sucker's payoff." As I pointed out, the only way to change the behavior is to change the way the payoffs are structured. Right now, there's an advantage to maxing out ticket prices. The way to end the advantage that a few players have right now is for everyone to max out their prices. Either that, or figure out some way to make it less advantageous for players to do that.

Require a minimum attendance or % capacity average that if not met results in a fine that brings total gate receipts down to the same as the worst team in the league. If that is too binary make a graduated scale that varies by the amount off target. That provides a risk/reward analysis that if improperly done will hurt financially. For a league based on corporate personas it seems fitting.

Owners who wish to take the risk of maximizing gate receipts via max pricing must balance that against an honest appraisal of fan response. You must be able to project what a worse than expected team performance will do to attendance.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by RchW

Require a minimum attendance or % capacity average that if not met results in a fine that brings total gate receipts down to the same as the worst team in the league. If that is too binary make a graduated scale that varies by the amount off target. That provides a risk/reward analysis that if improperly done will hurt financially. For a league based on corporate personas it seems fitting.

Owners who wish to take the risk of maximizing gate receipts via max pricing must balance that against an honest appraisal of fan response. You must be able to project what a worse than expected team performance will do to attendance.

That's interesting, like an attendance quota?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

That's interesting, like an attendance quota?

I suppose it is. You could also exempt teams that set ticket prices at or below the league average price. That means poor teams don't get doubly penalized for poor attendance.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by RchW

Require a minimum attendance or % capacity average that if not met results in a fine that brings total gate receipts down to the same as the worst team in the league. If that is too binary make a graduated scale that varies by the amount off target. That provides a risk/reward analysis that if improperly done will hurt financially. For a league based on corporate personas it seems fitting.

Well, that's another house rule, isn't it?

Unless you're saying that a team would need to meet a minimum attendance percentage based on the team's final won-loss record, I don't think you'll get the results you want. If you just impose a minimum attendance mark, you'll penalize genuinely bad teams that can't draw fans, regardless of their ticket prices. Instead, you would need to penalize a team that fails to reach an attendance mark commensurate with its record.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Well, that's another house rule, isn't it?

Unless you're saying that a team would need to meet a minimum attendance percentage based on the team's final won-loss record, I don't think you'll get the results you want. If you just impose a minimum attendance mark, you'll penalize genuinely bad teams that can't draw fans, regardless of their ticket prices. Instead, you would need to penalize a team that fails to reach an attendance mark commensurate with its record.

So? I don't have anything against house rules.

I don't want anything or any results. Just making suggestions.

Read my follow up post. I correct for that.

[jazzrack]

hey all, again sorry for popping in and out, crazy schedule and all that. But I want to make sure my appreciation for the discussion is expressed.

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

In game theoretic terms, what you're describing is a Prisoner's Dilemma. If a player can gain an advantage by maxing his ticket prices, then he'll do it, even though everyone might be better off if nobody maxed their ticket prices. Given that payoff structure, we should expect that everyone will eventually max their prices, even if they'd prefer that nobody did it.

The way to change a game like this is to change the payoff matrix. You've done that already, to some extent, by creating an award that recognizes players for their cost-effectiveness, as well as by instituting a luxury tax. Another way is (as already discussed) is to institute a house rule regarding maximum ticket prices. You could also change the home-visitor split to 30-70 or 20-80, so that the majority of the home team's increased revenues would go to the visiting team (although that might lead to a "race to the bottom," which would be equally undesirable).

the reward is more than just bragging rights and our little statue we send around. it also sets the 3rd round draft order, so there is a real incentive to try and balance. in theory I have no problem trying to maximize revenue, but the risk/reward should balance.

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

If you look at 1954's financial report, you will see that there is no way to match revenue with a team that maxed their ticket price. Even the team that led the league in attendance still fell $1 Million short in gate revenue.

I don't think that increasing revenue sharing is the answer because half of 2,500,000 is still more than half of 1,500,000. Only if we increase revenue sharing to 100% would it make max ticket prices a non factor. If we did that then we'd have to find a different way to distribute revenue to the high performers.

if you split the gate revenue 50/50 you are essentially pulling money from one pocket and putting it in the other. and creating an even revenue stream has never been a goal. the A's will never be able to match the Yankees revenue stream, but they compete just fine on the field by playing a different type of strategy.

Originally Posted by RchW

Require a minimum attendance or % capacity average that if not met results in a fine that brings total gate receipts down to the same as the worst team in the league. If that is too binary make a graduated scale that varies by the amount off target. That provides a risk/reward analysis that if improperly done will hurt financially. For a league based on corporate personas it seems fitting.

Owners who wish to take the risk of maximizing gate receipts via max pricing must balance that against an honest appraisal of fan response. You must be able to project what a worse than expected team performance will do to attendance.

this led me to a thought, what effect does fan loyalty play into this strategy? so I checked our fan loyalty spread, and it is not very realistic. 15 teams have very good or great, 1 (shell $5) has pathetic, 1 average and 3 good. I am not sure that is a viable spread.

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Well, that's another house rule, isn't it?

Unless you're saying that a team would need to meet a minimum attendance percentage based on the team's final won-loss record, I don't think you'll get the results you want. If you just impose a minimum attendance mark, you'll penalize genuinely bad teams that can't draw fans, regardless of their ticket prices. Instead, you would need to penalize a team that fails to reach an attendance mark commensurate with its record.

we are a simple bunch. we try to live by KISS as much as possible. even our owner score formula is simplistic, but still accurate. so while we are averse we are not opposed to external rules. we just need to keep them easy to comply and police. that's why I prefer to find a way through game settings.

In this case I am wondering how big a role fan loyalty can play? if we set everybody to the same, say normal & adjust the gate share to 50, thus creating a more solid floor while still allowing for attempted maximization of profit, but with a more realistic risk?

in theory

[USF]

Very interesting find!

I hope this is fixed in OOTP16.

[jpeters1734]

[quote]if you split the gate revenue 50/50 you are essentially pulling money from one pocket and putting it in the other. and creating an even revenue stream has never been a goal. the A's will never be able to match the Yankees revenue stream, but they compete just fine on the field by playing a different type of strategy.[\quote]

The A's will never beat the Yankees in payroll because of their market size. The market size is a non-factor in the CLB. A 50/50 split still doesn't solve anything. My 50% will still be larger than everyone else's with my ticket prices maxed.

In this case I am wondering how big a role fan loyalty can play? if we set everybody to the same, say normal & adjust the gate share to 50, thus creating a more solid floor while still allowing for attempted maximization of profit, but with a more realistic risk?

The problem is the minimum attendance threshold. If my ticket prices are maxed then I will draw 10% of my capacity whether my fan loyalty is 0 or 10. I ran a few tests and I have some recommendations which is listed in the linked thread.

[jpeters1734]

A couple posts from the thread:
"Here's test 2. For this test I increased the attendance baseline to 25000, then 21000. I made all the ballparks 30,000 in capacity. That makes the gap between baseline and minimum attendance larger. I set the ticket price to a baseline of $1.

Everything was about the same from $10 - $2. Once I moved it to 1.50, attendance jumped to 95%. Also, for a team 7th place in attendance, 95% of capacity is too high. It was at this point, I realized the baseline should go down. The average MLB attendance last year was about 70%. I moved the baseline to 21,000(70%). I also, set the ticket price 30% above baseline, to $1.30. The numbers came out really good after that. A top team still had decent attendance. A low team had bad attendance and bad revenue.

After this test, I've reached the following:
1. All stadiums should be set at 30,000 capacity. It gives an unnecessary advantage to those with bigger stadiums.

2. Media contracts are not needed with this setup. The gate profit alone will match with our current profits.

3. The house rule should be ticket prices cannot be more than 30% higher than the baseline. It gives the user flexibility but removes the ability to game the system. It's also much more realistic. Setting the baseline a an even $1 works perfect for this. $1.30 is the max.

4. A baseline attendance of 21000 creates a realistic attendance percentage.

Some other thoughts:

5. I suppose we could not change anything and just implement the 30% rule, though I didn't test that specifically.

6. I am really starting to like my no contract extensions idea. It will add a whole new layer of strategy to contract negotiations.

7. I think max cash is little high. Maybe a discussion for another time.

Brainstorming:
8. We could just not change anything and go with 100% revenue sharing. That way, it wouldn't matter what the prices are at because it would all go to the same pool. Then you could take the order of the attendance rankings and distribute the pool in proportion to their rank. It would be like a performance bonus or commission. Very corporate like.

9. We could impose a stadium size penalty and bonus. Every season your stadium capacity is 30% larger than your average attendance the year prior. Do that, then every season you minimum 10% attendance will get smaller and smaller. There would have to be a cap for gains though. 30000 would probably work. This will encourage getting fans to the park."

[jpeters1734]

Here is the post from my first test.

"I did this test about a week ago but I lost access to this file until now. I ran the sim 12 years and changed the ticket prices each year and recorded the results. The ticket baseline was $1.28. The league was a default 16 team league. The team was near the top of the standings every year. Some of my conclusions:

1. Average attendance will never fall below 10% no matter the stadium size or ticket prices.
2. The max ticket prices you can set is 10 times the baseline.
3. At 10 times the baseline ticket price, you will be dead last in attendance and you will double the gate revenue of the team below you.
4. At 4 times the baseline, you will be almost last in attendance and still be at the top in revenue.
5. A top team should always be near the top in attendance, unless you are the Rays. It was't until I got to $1.50 where I was near the top.
6. The team that is ranked 1st in attendance should be filling up more than 56%. See year 10.
7. In year 11, I lowered ticket prices below the baseline and attendance went up but only to 71%. Revenue was not impacted.
8. Even if we set the cap at $2, there is no incentive to ever set it below that. I was 9th in attendance and still gained the most revenue.
9. If we want to tie attendance to success, I would recommend that we remove the option for owners to change ticket prices.

It is entirely possible that I didn't analyze this properly. If anyone has questions or has a different method, let me know."

[jpeters1734]

Friendly bump. I hope this gets fixed

[Honorable_Pawn]

bump.

[Le Grande Orange]

Just wondering, can you post the ticket prices for each club?

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Just wondering, can you post the ticket prices for each club?

I'm sorry, I don't have that information any more. But I would imagine that the ai teams would keep it close to the baseline. I checked a few times during the test, but I never kept record.