Much like with underutilized amusement park rides, the system must accept 'negative' value on some queues (lost guest displacement time in that case) to correct

Much like with underutilized amusement park rides, the system must accept 'negative' value on some queues (lost guest displacement time in that case) to correctly price the value of the desired outcomes. As far as the 'sewer room' option goes, I think it would have to be priced at the cost of renting somewhere else; so a negative value. For the split on the surplus rent there are a couple solutions to this. IIRC it might be a dutch auction rule? The one where if N of a thing are available a there are N winning bidders all the winning bidders pay the lowest price? Take that rule except apply it to the lowest choice total among the set that yields a full rent. There's also an argument about how to split the savings. In the 10 + 9 * 1 scenario the portion of the total rent the distribution of savings might be better split up as: 'refund' = SURPLUS * nROOM / (RENT + SURPLUS) nRENT = nROOM - SURPLUS * nROOM / (RENT + SURPLUS) If A = 10 and B..J are all 1 5.263... = aRENT = 10 - 9 * 10 / 19 0.526... = xRENT = 1 - 9 * 1 / 19 Rent (10) == A (5.26315789474) + Everyone else (4.73684210526) Even in the pathological case offered this works well enough.