By: Real_per 1609033.2 as reply to 1609033.1 11/8-2004 at 2035
Her er nogle tal der tager højde for vejret:

Så er alle beregninger foretaget, og så er det vist på tide at offentliggøre resultatet. Beregningerne er foretaget ud fra et beregningsgrundlag på ca 600 kampe. Jeg har afrundet til 3 decimaler.

Først har jeg regnet gennemsnitsfordelingen ud for hver enkelt vejr-type på hver enkelt type plads.

Herefter har jeg lavet en beregning af, hvor tit man spiller i de forskellige slags vejr. Jeg har simpelthen taget 2000 tilfældige kampe fra forskellige regioner og fundet en estimeret procentfordeling af vejret. Det viser sig, at man med rette kan tude lidt over, hvor lidt solen skinner.

Vejret fordeler sig således:
Sol: 11,8% Delvist skyet: 34,8% Skyet: 34,8% Regn: 18,6%

Procentfordelingen i de forskellige slags vejr ser således ud:
Sol:           Terr: 63,473 Basic: 25,810 Under R: 8,608 VIP: 2,109
Delvist skyet: Terr: 63,566 Basic: 25,340 Under R: 8,830 VIP: 2,264
Skyet:         Terr: 63,103 Basic: 24,907 Under R: 9,428 VIP: 2,563
Regn:          Terr: 62,215 Basic: 24,228 Under R: 9,874 VIP: 3,683

Herefter har jeg så kunnet vægte de fundne gennemsnit udfra fordelingen af vejret, og den endelige fordeling skal se således ud:

Terr: 63,143 Basic: 25,038 Under R: 9,206 VIP: 2,614

Hvis man ikke tror på vejrberegningen, kan man bruge de oprindelige procenter og vægte dem, som man vil.
Tusind tak til alle, der har sendt data og medvirket til, at jeg kunne lave denne undersøgelse!
Dem bruger jeg selv...

By: Tviorr 1609033.15 as reply to 1609033.2 13/8-2004 at 03.53 
Det er en fed liste og et godt stykke arbejde. Jeg har set lignende ting på f.eks. stepone.- Måske tidligere udgaver af listen "undervejs".-

Der opstod en diskusion på stepone, da en eller anden tog en alternativ vejr problematik op.- Den vil jeg da meget gerne have dit syn på.

Pointen er.- Bør man ikke bygge ret tæt på sol-fordelingen og vægte den højere end hvor tit solen rent faktisk skinner eftersom stadion vel alligevel ikke bliver fyldt ud i regnvejr.

Dette forudsætter naturligvis dels at man kører med et stadion der kan blive solgt ud og altså ikke er meget for stort og dels (og noget vigtigere) at der kommer generelt færre tilskuere i regnvejr end solskin, så et passende størrelse stadion alligevel ikke får udsolgt i flaskehalssæderne...

Er det en rigtig og brugbar måde at anskue tingene på.- Det giver for mig at se bedre mening end bare at vægte de forskellige tal efter hvor tit det er solskin, regnvejr osv....????

Edit: Ovenstående forudsætter naturligvis tillige at man heller ikke spiller på et for lille stadion hvor man meget tit har udsolgt.

By: HT-Bjorn 1636437.25 as reply to 1636437.20 20/8-2004 at 15.57 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no answer on where HT stand other than the "formula" for calculating crowds to games has not changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the case, how could we answer differently? We can't should say A when it is B, just for the sake of populism, to appease those who say "It is not A, it is B".

It has not changed.

Also, these threads tend to mix a whole bunch of completely different things.

I'll here just comment the complaining about losing supporters, which is what this thread was orinigally about, until it was hijacked by users who prefer spreading sarcasms about "intelligent fans" (taking things badly out of context while so doing) and complain about their spectator outcome in general

Losing supporters: The complaints tend to be founded in a complete lack of understanding how the fanclub size relates to what league level you are in. Many people think that just because it worked fine to pile up fanclub members early in their HT career, then it will remain linear like that forever. However, as I've repeatedly tried to get the message through: the size of your fanclub is strongly related to what level you are in.

There is a "balance size" for each division level. If you're doing OK, then you will reach this level and neither lose nor gain supporters a typical week. However, it is possible to be doing "above average" for a while (including using press spokesmen and similar means to boost fans mood). If you manage to maintain this "enhanced" situation for some time, your fanclub size will grow beyond the balance level.

But when your team then screw things up (lose in the cup against a worse team, for instance, or lose 5-0 in an important series match), then so much worse the fall is: You fall from an enhanced state.

Here's an example (hypothetical, and with dummy values NOT taken from the actual formula): Let's say a certain division has a balance level of 2000 fans. your team has 1900. For some time your team starts doing well and the fans stay happy. You will reach 2000 at an "accelerated speed" because you are currently below the balance level. However, the further beyond 2000 you go, the harder each new recruitment gets. And when finally, bad luck strikes and things start going wrong with the team, you will lose quite a lot, say lose 100 withing a few weeks, going from the exhanced level of 2200 to 2100.

Does this mean that it is meaningless to gain fans? No. If you stay at 2200 for some time, you will still have had 10% more income (although for a limited time) from the things depending on fanclub than you would have had otherwise. Just because it doesn't last forever, you'll still have gained more money than if you had stayed at 2000 all the time.

So, there are a few things to note: The 10% fanclub gain when you go up to higher division is not the big advantage of promoting. The big advantage is that you'll have a higher balance level. In fact, the 10% you gain may (or may not) bring you above the balance level of the new division. This is what some users have experienced as a drop of fanclub size early in the new season after promoting.

Why do we have a balance level? For starters, this rewards promotion somewhat. It is also an element of realism (yeah-yeah... I know, we have limited the realism on the whole on the matter of spectator sizes, but let's not take up that discussion here, I've answered that elsewhere).

Furthermore, it prevents the early starters from benefiting eternally from "a head start". I mean like this: If supporter gain had been linear, so you keep gaining fans as long as you win, then we could easily have had a situation where the oldest teams had fanclubs of 20.000 rather than 2000 members. So there has to be a limitation, although, we ALWAYS shun strict limits, we've made the limit "soft" (so you can cross it, but only temporary).

Over and out,