BuzzerBeater Forums

To verify my findings, there is one experiment I can do. Next Tuesday is my final game with a boycott (3%). I set my ticket price to the lowest possible. If my findings are correct, the attendance should be 97%: 11640, 2425, 388, 24.

Here comes the result.

Under the situation that my arena is not fully occupied, I reduced at least 20% of my ticket price, my fan boycotting rate reduced by 3%, and the result is...

My attendance raised by 3%, to 11640, 2425, 388, 24, and the arena is still not full.

So, this justified my original claim:

It was less like the fans are boycotting, it was the arena being downsized, or simply the staff refused to sell some of my tickets.

Or, is there a better explanation?


Finally, I just want to comment that, the original post was not about tanking or whether a fan boycott should be implemented. But as a GM, you dug out my record which is not relevant to the data, made the criticism that does not completely reflect the truth. Although I thank you for the attempt to read the post and make a reply, I do not think that was appropriate.

Last edited by Feizai Passing by at 8/3/2021 7:07:17 PM

Hi, thank you for noticing!

First, I totally agree with you that tanking should be countered in some way, and fan boycotting should be an effective approach. Although this is not the intention of the post, the penalty is probably too light... But let's leave it behind in this thread.


What I mean is, the way the fan boycott is implemented is counterintuitive, and the description from the manual might be misleading.

From your interpretation, when you say "the number of tickets is reduced", there could be multiple explanations when the tickets would have been fully sold if there were no boycott.

Suppose there is no boycott and the size of the bleacher is 10000. Suppose that the tickets were fully sold. Then there are two numbers involved.

1. (The supply) The actual tickets being sold. This number is always the size of the bleacher, 10000
2. (The demand) The number of fans who are willing to buy the tickets at that price. This number is hidden from the managers, but let's assume that it is 12000.

Now, suppose that there is a boycott of 10%. Assume that all other conditions are kept the same. How many tickets should be sold?

Let us apply for the two numbers in the previous paragraph.

1. If we use the actual tickets sold, then it will be 10000 x 90% = 9000.
2. If we use the actual demand, then it will be 12000 x 90% = 10800, but then restrict to the size of the arena, so it will be 10000.

After testing, the implementation used the first number, but in reality, the second number is more intuitive and realistic.

1. If the first number is used, then the outcome is that 10% of the arena will be never sold, which means that, equivalently, the arena is downsized by 10%. Even worse, it will mislead those managers who do not know the implementation. They might just feel that the 10% vacancy is caused by overpricing. They might try to lower the price, but it will not help filling up the vacancy because of the way it was implemented.

2. If the second number is used, it implies that 10% of the fans refused to show up, but a portion of the 2000 fans who were not able to get a ticket might have a chance to get a ticket and fill up the 1000 vacancy caused by the boycott.


So which is more realistic? I believe that boycott happens quite often in the NBA, and if the managers are willing to give a really big discount, they should still be able to sell up the ticket. Of course, if they decide not to give the discount, they won't sell out.

This is the reason that I think the second number (the true demand, not the arena size) should be used when calculating the fan boycott.

Last edited by Feizai Passing by at 8/3/2021 8:34:27 PM