how to fix WA. OIL draw system

[WAcoueshunter]

It is 1;100 5 times but that is not the same as 5:100. It is 5:500.

https://www.quora.com/If-I-have-a-1-100-chance-of-something-happening-when-I-do-something-and-I-do-that-thing-3-times-does-it-mean-a-3-100-chance-of-that-outcome

It's not 5:500.  Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link?  The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.

[shanevg]

Wow, lots of math problems here.

Say you buy 5 Poweball tickets?  Do you have 5x the chance of winning? Yes.  Are you going to win?  No.

Except you aren't buying 5 powerball tickets to the same powerball, you are buying 5x powerball tickets to 5 different powerball lotteries.  If the odds of drawing in each lotter is 1:1,000,000 and you bought 5 tickets, you would have 5:5,000,000 odds of drawing any one of the tickets.  Granted you would also have 1:1,000,000,000,000 of drawing two winning tickets but those odds are so long that it is not even worth considering.

Sorry, just not the way you add probabilities.  Here's a pretty basic explanation that spells it out:

http://www.ehow.com/how_8087361_add-probabilities.html

If you want to make it super simple, your odds of flipping heads (versus tails) is 1:2.  Agreed?  If you flip 1,000 pennies at the same time, your odds of pulling heads in just one of those thousand "draws" is not 1,000/2,000.

Actually that's exactly what would happen.  You would have 1000/2000 odds (or 1:2 odds) of flipping a heads.  Since each event (coin flip) is mutually exclusive from the prior event, your odds of flipping a heads every single time you flip the coin is still 1:2.  it will never be worse than 1:2 and it will never be better.  +

Problem is supply and Demand  lots of folks want one, only a few given out.

Of course the problem is supply and demand, that is exactly why some of us are trying to discuss a realistic way to improve odds.  We have two options - increase number of tags or decrease number of applicants in a given category.  Since the increase in tags isn't going to happen, the only other option is decrease applicants by limiting number of applicants people can apply for.  By doing that, everyone's odds of drawing a tag in the category of their choice will actually increase.  In some categories, the odds will increase SIGNIFICANTLY!

[shanevg]

It's not 5:500.  Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link?  The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.

I haven't read the article so I can't comment on the specific article you are mentioning, but let me try to create a visualization for you.

In the WA draws as they currently stand, you have 5 different pots you are putting your name into.  (Let's forget about antlerless,etc. and just focus on quality.)  You have deer, elk, moose, goat, and sheep.

Again for simplicity sake, let's say that there are 99 names in each pot and your name will be the 100th name therefore giving you 1:100 odds of drawing any one of those 5 tags. 

The way the draw works is that a name is first picked out of pot 1 (deer).  There is a 1:100 chance that your name is drawn from that pot.  Once that draw is done they move on to pot number 2 (elk.)  Since no names have been drawn from that pot, there are still 100 names in the pot (one of which is yours) giving you 1:100 odds of drawing an elk tag.  Then pot 3 (moose) - still 1:100 odds.  Then pot 4 (goat) - still 1:100 odds.  Then pot 5 (sheep) - still 1:100 odds.  Once it's all said and done, you had 1:100 odds of drawing 5 different tags or 5:500 overall odds.  That is because each pot is "mutually exclusive" from the prior.  Your success or lack of success in drawing in Pot 1 has no impact whatsoever on your odds of drawing in pots 2,3,4,or 5. 

By implementing Pope's proposal you would be making all 100 applicants pick a specific pot to put their name into.  For arguments sake, let's assume everyone divides evenly.  Now there are 5 pots with 20 names each.  You can pick any one of those pots to put your name into therefore giving you 1:21 odds of drawing the single tag of the category of your choice.  By going with this system, you are forgoing the potential to draw two tags (which would have 1:1000 odds of happening) in order to get a significantly better chance of drawing a single tag. 

[WAcoueshunter]

It's not 5:500.  Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link?  The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.

I haven't read the article so I can't comment on the specific article you are mentioning, but let me try to create a visualization for you.

In the WA draws as they currently stand, you have 5 different pots you are putting your name into.  (Let's forget about antlerless,etc. and just focus on quality.)  You have deer, elk, moose, goat, and sheep.

Again for simplicity sake, let's say that there are 99 names in each pot and your name will be the 100th name therefore giving you 1:100 odds of drawing any one of those 5 tags. 

The way the draw works is that a name is first picked out of pot 1 (deer).  There is a 1:100 chance that your name is drawn from that pot.  Once that draw is done they move on to pot number 2 (elk.)  Since no names have been drawn from that pot, there are still 100 names in the pot (one of which is yours) giving you 1:100 odds of drawing an elk tag.  Then pot 3 (moose) - still 1:100 odds.  Then pot 4 (goat) - still 1:100 odds.  Then pot 5 (sheep) - still 1:100 odds.  Once it's all said and done, you had 1:100 odds of drawing 5 different tags or 5:500 overall odds.  That is because each pot is "mutually exclusive" from the prior.

Sorry man, that's not how the math works.  Read the link I posted, or read the link from Bullblaster. 

[shanevg]

LOL, go test it out WAcoueshunter, I guarantee you that is exactly how math works.

Why don't you try to use a comparable analogy to explain how math "actually" works?

[WAcoueshunter]

LOL, go test it out WAcoueshunter, I guarantee you that is exactly how math works.

Why don't you try to use a comparable analogy to explain how math "actually" works?

I did, with the pennies example, and you completely missed the point, and somehow concluded that odds of flipping tails just one time out of 1,000 penny flips remains 1:2.  In other words, you're also saying that your odds of flipping heads 1,000 times in a row is 1:2.  Try it out.

Maybe you're missing that the combined odds are for pulling ANY of the five tags, not one in particular.  Your odds in any single draw (e.g. goat) are not affected by the others.  Your moose odds don't help you pull a goat tag.  But your odds of pulling ANY of the five are roughly 5:100, just like your odds of flipping tails at least once out of 1,000 (or 4) coin flips is pretty close to 1:1. 

[shanevg]

Flipping coins is not a fair analogy, at least form the perspective you are looking at it. 

If you ask what are the odds of flipping a coin 5 times and getting a heads only once then you are making the event mutually inclusive because the desired results of flip number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all dependent on each other. 

If on the other hand you ask what are my odds of flipping a heads each time I flip the coin, then the events are mutually exclusive.  Because the odds of flipping a heads in flip 1 is 1:2.  Regardless of whether you got heads or tails in flip 1, your odds in flip 2 of getting a heads is still 1:2 and so on. 

When we are talking about the draws, we are talking about the second of the above examples, not the first.  We can simplify my example even further and you can test it for yourself.  Take 5 pots and put 9 black marbles and 1 white marble in each pot.  Then pick one marble from each pot.  Whether or not you pick out a white marble in pot number 1, you still have 1:10 odds of picking out a white marble in pot 2, 3, 4, and 5.  If you'd like you can even add all the pots together into a single pot and give yourself 5 chances to draw a white marble.  Now you will have 5:50 odds (or 1:10) of drawing a marble.

[Falcon]

It's not 5:500.  Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link?  The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.

I haven't read the article so I can't comment on the specific article you are mentioning, but let me try to create a visualization for you.

In the WA draws as they currently stand, you have 5 different pots you are putting your name into.  (Let's forget about antlerless,etc. and just focus on quality.)  You have deer, elk, moose, goat, and sheep.

Again for simplicity sake, let's say that there are 99 names in each pot and your name will be the 100th name therefore giving you 1:100 odds of drawing any one of those 5 tags. 

The way the draw works is that a name is first picked out of pot 1 (deer).  There is a 1:100 chance that your name is drawn from that pot.  Once that draw is done they move on to pot number 2 (elk.)  Since no names have been drawn from that pot, there are still 100 names in the pot (one of which is yours) giving you 1:100 odds of drawing an elk tag.  Then pot 3 (moose) - still 1:100 odds.  Then pot 4 (goat) - still 1:100 odds.  Then pot 5 (sheep) - still 1:100 odds.  Once it's all said and done, you had 1:100 odds of drawing 5 different tags or 5:500 overall odds.  That is because each pot is "mutually exclusive" from the prior.  Your success or lack of success in drawing in Pot 1 has no impact whatsoever on your odds of drawing in pots 2,3,4,or 5. 

By implementing Pope's proposal you would be making all 100 applicants pick a specific pot to put their name into.  For arguments sake, let's assume everyone divides evenly.  Now there are 5 pots with 20 names each.  You can pick any one of those pots to put your name into therefore giving you 1:21 odds of drawing the single tag of the category of your choice.  By going with this system, you are forgoing the potential to draw two tags (which would have 1:1000 odds of happening) in order to get a significantly better chance of drawing a single tag.

Shane
After reading your post thru 2 times, I now totally get it.  Couple of questions.
1. Do you let people build points in the other categories that are not in their 1 chosen pick.
2. Do you continue to let applicants pick up to 4 choices, or limit it to 1 or 2?

Also, in some states they require you to sit out 2 to 3 years after drawing a quality tag.  That also
May help the odds for the majority of guys putting in.

[shanevg]

Shane
After reading your post thru 2 times, I now totally get it.  Couple of questions.
1. Do you let people build points in the other categories that are not in their 1 chosen pick.
2. Do you continue to let applicants pick up to 4 choices, or limit it to 1 or 2?

Also, in some states they require you to sit out 2 to 3 years after drawing a quality tag.  That also
May help the odds for the majority of guys putting in.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to those questions.  Personally I would like to see people continue to build points in all categories for a couple reasons. 
1. It makes people more psychologically likely to accept the new system as they won't feel like they are completely "losing" their points in all those other categories.
2. It allows people to jump from category to category in a given year without falling out of the game.
Ultimately allowing people to continue applying for points in all categories eats up some of the advantages of splitting up the categories as it allows the current max point holders essentially remain max point holders in all categories until they draw for the rest of their life.  Ideally you'd want to allow other hunters "catch up" in their chosen category by not allowing others to stay in the game.  On the flip side, it will certainly help WDFW maintain revenue as people will just continue applying for points.

I'm also a huge fan of limiting everyone to a single choice in every category.  Also, in my opinion you should have to choose when you apply for deer/elk whether you want to apply for antlerless or buck/bull categories, not both. 

One option I've heard floated is allowing elk/deer applicants to apply for the buck/bull permits and the OIL applicants apply for the antlerless permits therefore giving those OIL applicants a chance of actually drawing something. 

I also don't mind having successful applicants sit out 2 or 3 years. 

[kentrek]

I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol

[Stein]

If you limit it to one category, your odds of drawing THAT tag go up, but your odds of drawing A tag are the same.  Just think about it, same number of tags and same number of hunters.  Divide total tags by total hunters and the odds simply cannot change unless you reduce hunters or increase tags.  It's just playing games.

The only people that would benefit are the ones that only want to hunt a single species.  If you put in for them all every year it won't matter.

The problem is still numbers.  It isn't 100 people, it is 15,000 and counting.  If there isn't enough tags to clear the top points, point creep will continue to get worse. Limiting it to one category only delays the inevitable truth and it doesn't even fix it in the short term.

There would still be about 3,000 people in each draw with a bunch over 20 points.  Me sitting here with 6 won't ever have any reasonable chance of drawing.  Too few tags.

The only realistic fix is to combine all points into one category.  You can only put in for one including cow and doe tags.  Guys like me will bail on OIL and get our points cleared out frequently.  Guys staying with OIL will have better odds with the downside of not ever drawing any deer/elk/bear tags.  You would have to pick what you want and stick with it.  Incentivize hunters to pull out of the oil draw with easier to draw regular tags.

[Duckslayer89]

I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol

In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653

[kentrek]

I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol

In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653

I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple

So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!

[WAPatriot]

Eliminate youth, disabled and over 65 hunts

There is nothing better then youth hunts to get our youth into the sport. Disabled and 65 and over hunts make me proud to be part of the sport. if nothing else provide more opportunity for the youth. Both my sons took a couple deer when they were youth and it was some of the best times of my hunting career. If I could gift my moose tag for this season to my son I would in a minute.

A deer is one thing but a moose. Society is too entitled these days if anything it probably ruins kids from hunting. Kids should be thrilled to get the opportunity to sit in the duck blind with there old man. When they get to shoot moose when there 11 what more do they have to look forward to in the sport.

[Karl Blanchard]

I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol

In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653

I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple

So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!

  I seem to remember ready somewhere that washington has the highest goat population in the lower 48 states, but hands down has the fewest tags than any state and by a large margin.  Can't remember for the life of me where I read it though