Evening Extra Magic Hours Policy Change Effective 9/7/08: Updated with Report

Too much math talk...my head hurt hurts. :ack:

Sorry. Anyway...

The thing about the off-site resorts handing out writstbands, I'm guessing that was meant to point out that Disney discovered the off-site resorts had been doing it because people showed up with the things on even though they were unnecessary. If so, that's pretty crazy and a good reason to get rid of the wristbands.

As far as people who've mentioned that you need to pull out your card plenty of other times and almost everyone can manage doing so without losing the card, I'll only retort that it's a lot easier to pull it out to buy a Coke then casually put it back in my pocket than it is when I need to show it to a cast member then dash into my Doom Buggy or Splash Mountain log or whatever. If we're showing them at the start of the queue, a'la Fastpass, then I have no problem with it.

I will agree, though, that we're kind of beating a dead horse here. The idea might be flawed but we're just going to have to live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Figment78

Which I guess brings me to the following conclusion...
To say that taking your card out more times increases your odds of losing it is not as simple as more times out = more likely to lose it. Whether your odds of losing it increase or decrease is actually a matter of your personal behavior. :mickey:

---

Actually, regardless of your personal behovior, the chances of losing something are greater if you have to handle it than if you don't. The behavior doesn't change, the number of times you have to perform those behaviors does, which WILL increase the risk.

My risk may be more than yours, but comparing your risk of losing your KTTW card if you only have to handle it once, vs your risk of losing your KTTW card if you have to handle it multiple times, and it will be higher.

Also, the problem with an increased risk of losing your KTTW card is that:

1. Some MAY have charging privledges.
and
2. Resolution is at the resort, NOT guest relations at the park.

Also, if you look at it from a time and motion studies angle, it will take much longer for many people to verify you are legitimate EMH guest than it does for one person. One might argue, they can train the one person to do a better job of accurately identifying a valid guest than having to train multiple people to perform the same job AND also perform other duties.

I really don't see any benefit from this process than the old process outside of cost cutting. They already had a CM in the queues, they just gave them another task in addition to eliminating the expense of the wrist bands. The old way, they had to staff multiple locations with several people along with the bands AND they still had to have CMs working the queues.

You can tell me it's not cost cutting, but I won't believe you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DizneyRox

You can tell me it's not cost cutting, but I won't believe you.

---

I don't know about everyone else, but I never doubted it was about cost cutting. If you can do something more efficiently, you do. What would you prefer, showing your card during EMH, or not having EMH?

Also, with the revalation of the fake wristbands, there is another logical reason to require a room key.

So now you have another choice, would you rather show your card during EMH and have lower crowds, or keep your little annoying wristband and have a lot of folks there who shouldn't be, taking your place in lines?


:sulley:

I don't doubt the fake wristbands, however I don't think that a hotel was passing out several different color bands and telling guests to watch what color other people were wearing and then put on that color. Well, I'll say I can't see a respectable hotel doing that, not one with any sort of capacity to really make a dent in the amount of people at a EMH.

And, not that I condone that at all, BUT really, if a few people do sneak through the system, disney isn't taking a loss on it. they won't add significantly to any wait times, and if anything they willsell a few more churros, etc. I do see that if you give people an inch, they take a mile, and maybe (doubtful) that factored into the decision at some point, but not to any significant amount.

Wristbands for some 20,000 people on a daily basis along with the 12-15 people they usually had manning the wristband stations was top on the list of reasons.

The issue is really the additional inconvenience placed on guests. Less value per vacation dollar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Figment78

But this is only true if you are considering the odds over a period of time. I still contend that each time you take the card out of your pocket is unrelated to the other times odds-wise. I do concede two exceptions. however. First, IF your behavior changes due to the fact that you are pulling your card out multiple times, then yes, your odds of losing it any particular time may increase (because you are getting lazy at being careful due to repetition) or they could decrease (because you may be more cognizant of it due to repetition).

Second, the odds of losing your card each time may vary each time due to any myriad of variables - maybe you were distracted by a character appearance, or maybe you are riding a ride by yourself this time because no one else wanted to ride. It can be better or worse, depending on the variables.

Which I guess brings me to the following conclusion...
To say that taking your card out more times increases your odds of losing it is not as simple as more times out = more likely to lose it. Whether your odds of losing it increase or decrease is actually a matter of your personal behavior. :mickey:

---

See, I think you're missing my point. It actually IS as simple as "take your cards out more times = more likely to lose it" (see my dice example below).

Yes, every time you take out your card, assuming you take the same care every time, the chances of losing it are the same. 1 in "whatever."

However, the more often you do an activity with "long odds", the more likely you are to have the "bad thing" or "good thing" happen. That doesn't mean it's suddenly "very likely" to happen, only that it's, relatively speaking, more likely to happen. That's a mathematical and statistical fact.

Think of rolling a die. Let's say, if you roll the number 1, you have to pay me $50. You have a one in six chance of rolling a one. That's pretty decent chance of NOT rolling a one. But, if you keep rolling a die over and over and over, you're eventually going to roll a 1. Even though your chances of rolling a 1 are always 1 in 6, the more times you roll the die, the more and more likely you are to end up paying me $50. Eventually, you WILL roll a 1. It's guaranteed that eventually you'll finally roll a 1, the more times you roll the die.

Now, the odds of losing your KTTW aren't 1 in 6. But the exact same "logic" applies. The more times you take it out, the more likely you are - in the long run - to lose it. Not more likely to lose it on that particular trial, but more likely to lose it "period." Even if nothing changes from one trial to the next, and even though you still won't be very likely to lose it, the more times you flirt with danger, the more your risk losing your card.

You can cross the street with your eyes closed and not get hit by a car. But if you cross the street 50 times with your eyes closed, you're probably in trouble.

Attempt a full court shot in basketball. You probably won't make the first one. You probably won't make one for a while. But if you keep trying, even if it takes hundreds of attempts, you'll eventually make one. If I said your life depended on making a full court shot, what would you rather have? 1 attempt, or hundreds?

The point being, that you absolutely increase your risk of a "bad event" happening the more times you do something that has long odds.

However, in the case of something like losing your KTTW, my argument is that the odds are so stacked against it in the first place, you're still not taking a big risk by pulling it out several times.

And the other aspect of my arguement is that if you're very careful, it's almost impossible for you to lose your card. So in theory, no matter how many times you take your card out, it's still almost impossible to lose it.

I think you guys need to study Bayesian math.

Like with Deal or No Deal, if you get to the last case, it's ALWAYS better to switch the cases. You would think that the chances are 50/50. But based on Bayesian math, the chances are actually around 60-70%.

It would be too complex to explain it here, but essentially, they lead you to believe that it's not the case you picked so you'll miss it.

WOW, I thought when I saw that this was 8 pages long that they had gotten rid of EMH. Just a slight change to the procedure? What is all the hububaloo about? This really seems like a minor change to me and I guess I just don't understand why everyone is getting so upset about it! :rolleyes:

My opinions aren't based on the Guests, it's coming from the operational side of it.

Which is where the problems are. Not so much the Guests losing their cards...which really isn't going to be that more common than before.

After 8 mostly off-topic pages devoted to what amounts to not much more than a very minor procedural change, I think this thred has run its course.

Topic closed.