Bighorn sheep increase to apply

[Antlershed]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

Yup
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.

My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.

[idahohuntr]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

Yup
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.

My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.

19 points would have 361x greater chance of drawing than the guy with 1 pt.

[notsosneaky]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

Yup
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.

My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.

19 points would have 361x greater chance of drawing than the guy with 1 pt.

Not exactly
The "double draw" is much more complex than that

[idahohuntr]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

Yup
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.

My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.

19 points would have 361x greater chance of drawing than the guy with 1 pt.

Not exactly
The "double draw" is much more complex than that

19x19 = 361.  1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you? 

[notsosneaky]

19x19 = 361.  1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?

Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16

[Katmai Guy]

Where is this "lower number" coming from?  My understanding is that the first draw is just to assign numbers to each of your points/applications and then the actual draw picks from those numbers.  They are not all picked at once and then the guy with the lower number for each hunt wins.  Please explain if I'm wrong and provide where I can find this info.  I've looked.

[LabChamp]

Where is this "lower number" coming from?  My understanding is that the first draw is just to assign numbers to each of your points/applications and then the actual draw picks from those numbers.  They are not all picked at once and then the guy with the lower number for each hunt wins.  Please explain if I'm wrong and provide where I can find this info.  I've looked.

All hunters go into a big draw for overall "placement" for example in Quality deer everyone is grouped together, all hunt choices, and your points are assigned and then the "draw" happens. Everyone is assigned however many numbers that they have points squared, and they keep their lowest number. Starting with the lowest number applicant, their first hunt choice is brought up and if there are tags left they are awarded that tag. If no tags are left with their first choice, they move to your second choice and if there are any tags left you are awarded that choice, and so on until you're out of choices.

[idahohuntr]

19x19 = 361.  1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?

Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16

ok...then show your work.  If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?

[notsosneaky]

19x19 = 361.  1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?

Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16

ok...then show your work.  If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?

There is no way to assign an absolute statistical value to a process in which randomness is the basis.
But all data suggests you have terrible odds of drawing an oil tag made slightly less terrible by having more points, but still statistically terrible

[idahohuntr]

19x19 = 361.  1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?

Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16

ok...then show your work.  If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?

There is no way to assign an absolute statistical value to a process in which randomness is the basis.
But all data suggests you have terrible odds of drawing an oil tag made slightly less terrible by having more points

You are making this far more complicated than it actually is.

[Katmai Guy]

All hunters go into a big draw for overall "placement" for example in Quality deer everyone is grouped together, all hunt choices, and your points are assigned and then the "draw" happens. Everyone is assigned however many numbers that they have points squared, and they keep their lowest number. Starting with the lowest number applicant, their first hunt choice is brought up and if there are tags left they are awarded that tag. If no tags are left with their first choice, they move to your second choice and if there are any tags left you are awarded that choice, and so on until you're out of choices.


Yep, you are correct.  Found after digging deeper.  So realistically, everybody has 1 chance in every draw they put in for.

[Antlershed]

19x19 = 361.  1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?

Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16

ok...then show your work.  If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?

There is no way to assign an absolute statistical value to a process in which randomness is the basis.
But all data suggests you have terrible odds of drawing an oil tag made slightly less terrible by having more points, but still statistically terrible

This nails it.

I get 361 numbers, but there is no way to put an actual value/odds on the chances of me getting relatively low numbers. I only get to keep my lowest number. I don't get to go to the draw with 361 "chances" of drawing. 

[Katmai Guy]

Which blows, you should get 361 chances in the bucket for the final draw.  That would bring the benefit of putting for longer where it should be.

[notsosneaky]

Which blows, you should get 361 chances in the bucket for the final draw.  That would bring the benefit of putting for longer where it should be.

Correct
A model like that would really add statistical weight to having high points. But it would be a nightmare for recruitment of new or low point holders. Which is why for all the bitching we do, the system in place does actually "work", though I'd still like to see OIL tags go to a lottery because they statistically already are. Except issuing people points makes them feel like they deserve a tag.

[bobcat]

I don't think some of you really understand how the draw works. Try reading this:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/214/How+does+the+special+permit+drawing+work%3F+I+heard+you+square+points.+Does+that+improve+my+drawing+odds%3F