ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I have a 1x ticket stub - Roger Waters 5th row center, won in a tm auction.
just because the better tickets have lower numbers doesn't prove this theory... the x's could mean the order in which they were sold... whereas the better seats would obviously sell first, thus having higher "x" numbers.
That's certainly not true, because I got three D-Bag seats in Chicago I about three minutes after the first presale began with a higher X number than the single Houston D-Bag seat I got two days before the show.
Hmm... I've never seen an official source... it's just something that Interference generally believes is true that has always proven correct in my experiences, and, I believe, everyone else's.
Hence it is fact!
I keep all of my stubs, and never knew about this "x" business until I saw this thread 4 days ago. Going through them, I can confirm that the best "seats" (including standing room only) have low "x" numbers. The worst seats, in terms of distance from the stage, have the highest.
Obviously, not every seat will have its own individual x number. Certain sections, for the purposes of ticket sales are "the same" and will have the same x number (e.g. Rows 20-30 of section 140 will have the same x number as rows 20-30 in section 110 in some stadiums).
Why is this so hard to believe?
I think it's not made public because it's a TM proprietary thing. For the record, I think the "X number" is the order in which the ticketing system should present available seats when a customer selects "best available", as opposed to the best view. Both are probably roughly the same though. When there's a starting public sale on TM with hundreds or thousands of sessions, the system needs a very fast way to pull up the "best seats". And it's a lot faster to search that one pre-calculated data element compared to running a seating algorithm .
Great - my Seattle tickets say 536,236X. I bet I'm sitting on top of the Space Needle.