how to fix WA. OIL draw system

[WAcoueshunter]

WAcoueshunter, what everybody is forgetting is that the draw is completely RANDOM, you could pull black marbles 5000 times before a white comes up or you could pull white 7 times before a black is pulled.  RANDOM.  The scenario you portrait is in a perfect world, not random.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that.  That's why we reference "on average" over and over again.  We're talking odds, not a guaranteed outcome.  Over a large enough sample size, the actual results will get closer and closer to the calculated odds.  But in a small sample size, there's a reason why the guy with 1 point occasionally draws a sheep tag. 

[Stein]

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

[kentrek]

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

60 people if its only one tag...lots of people in idaho never draw

I've always thought giving out more tags would help out the most....make more elk and deer areas....give out a single tag per deer area for an early rifle hunt (especially westside) same with archery during the rut...make some of these elk areas smaller and open more areas that cant be hunted for both deer an elk

Divide the oils into weapon choices and apply tags accordingly with how many critters need to be killed and success rates of the weapon/area

How many here would put in for sheep with a bow 

Seems something along this would have a pretty decent impact on things with out destroying what people have been saving up for half there life

[Magnum_Willys]

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

44

[Slow-1]

 I can hunt deer and elk every year, maybe not monster bulls behind every tree but the potential is still there, but I can't hunt the "big three" with out a tag.
30+ years with out drawing changes a point of view.

$13 per application x 5 = $65 you purchase one application for 65$ that has one hunt slot for what every you want and, 4 ghost point slots for what every you want.

[Stein]

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

60 people of its only one tag

Yep, so if you want a 50/50 chance at the tag in your life, the question is how do we reduce the number of people that apply to 60?

For goats, the least popular tag has 996 applicants.  You need to reduce that by 94%.  That's the whole point, you need absolutely brutal reductions in applicants.

Same tag, if you want a 25% chance in your life you still need to reduce applicants by 87%.

If you only want a 10% chance in your life, you need to reduce applicants by 70%

And that is the least popular goat tag.

[Curly]

Ways to fix the OIL system:

1. Revise the state wolf plan to delist wolves where the feds allow delisting.
2. Encourage coyote hunting tournaments.
3. Bring back baiting and hunting with hounds for bears.
4. Start a general spring bear season for the entire state.
5. Increase cougar quotas in all GMU's.

The above should help reduce predators and thus increase the amount of OIL species and thus increase the number of permits allocated.

[BULLBLASTER]

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

44

[kentrek]

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

60 people of its only one tag

Yep, so if you want a 50/50 chance at the tag in your life, the question is how do we reduce the number of people that apply to 60?

For goats, the least popular tag has 996 applicants.  You need to reduce that by 94%.  That's the whole point, you need absolutely brutal reductions in applicants.

Same tag, if you want a 25% chance in your life you still need to reduce applicants by 87%.

If you only want a 10% chance in your life, you need to reduce applicants by 70%

And that is the least popular goat tag.

This is why we have a bonus points and square the additional point

I think going to an idaho system now is a mute point...people with 20 pluss points would never wana go for it...

I do kind of like the idea of splitting the categorys up tho....i really don't wana draw more then one tag in a year ! Between that and more tags we could get somewhere

[WAPatriot]

If you made it a raffle/draw with points but you could pay more money to buy more points. Up to say 50 points each extra point would cost you 5 bucks. So a new person could come in the draw for 250 extra for best chance to draw and the with 25 points has to pay and extra 125 for best chance to draw

[WAPatriot]

No more point creep you got what you got. If anything it would be beneficial to people with more points. It would essential make the cost be 250 for new applicant and pro rated for people who have already been applying.  And still square the points

[huntnphool]

No more point creep you got what you got. If anything it would be beneficial to people with more points. It would essential make the cost be 250 for new applicant and pro rated for people who have already been applying.  And still square the points

 Your solution is to price people out of the competition?

[WAPatriot]

Yup in a way that is fair to people who have been applying for a long time.

[huntnphool]

Yup in a way that is fair to people who have been applying for a long time.

 Why stop at $250 then?

 Why not make it $1000 per category, or maybe $2500, that would surely eliminate all but the most deserving yes?

[shanevg]

I don't know how many different ways I can illustrate this but your math is just plain incorrect.

Go get 5 pots with 10 marbles each (9 black and 1 white.)  Pick one marble from each pot 10 different times and see how many times you actually draw a white marble.  Then go to 1 pot with 2 marbles (1 white and 1 black). 

Shane, that's what Stein, Magnum, me, and others are all trying to explain to you.   

The pots are a great example.

Each of the 5 pots, after 10 draws, should average 1 white marble per pot.  Each marble should get its turn, on average.  Some will have zero, some will have 2, but you'll average 1 white marble per pot after 10 tries in each.  Add them up, and white got drawn 5 times in aggregate.

In the single pot, after 10 draws, you should also get white 5 times.

I'm going to keep trying on this but I'm starting to think I won't be able to convince you unless I'm sitting in front of you actually showing you concrete examples.   

Let's just do the map.  We have 10 hunters, each of them with 1 marble.  Each hunter puts a marble in each of the pots.  That gives you five pots each with 10 marbles (1 white, 9 black.)  That means 5 white marbles, 45 black marbles.  That means 5:50 chance of drawing a white marble.  5/50 = 1:10.

Now make everyone choose which pot to put their marble in.  Hunter A&B put their marbles in pot 1.  Hunters C&D in pot 2.  Hunters E&F in pot 3.  Hunters G&H in pot 4.  You and hunter I in pot 5.  Even though there is only 1 white marble out of 10 total marbles, each pot only has 2 marbles.  You no longer care what happens in pots 1-4, you only care about pot 5 where there is 1 white marble and 1 black.  You have a 1:2 odd of getting drawn as opposed to a 5/50 odd in the current system.

But if you limit each hunter to applying for only one category, you now have 10,000 applications for 100 tags.  You pick the pot you put your name in and now get 20:2,000 odds or 1:100 odds of drawing.

You forgot there are only 20 tags in that single category not 100.

My math directly accounts for that in the 20/2,000 (one fifth the total number of tags divided by one fifth the total number of applicants.)  20/2,000 = 1:100 odds.

Here is something depressing...

Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year.  What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?

60 people of its only one tag

Yep, so if you want a 50/50 chance at the tag in your life, the question is how do we reduce the number of people that apply to 60?

For goats, the least popular tag has 996 applicants.  You need to reduce that by 94%.  That's the whole point, you need absolutely brutal reductions in applicants.

Same tag, if you want a 25% chance in your life you still need to reduce applicants by 87%.

If you only want a 10% chance in your life, you need to reduce applicants by 70%

And that is the least popular goat tag.

That's actually not depressing at all because that is exactly what the system Pope proposed is trying to achieve.

Keep in mind that when we apply for an OIL hunt, we each get 4 choices.  If we limited everyone to a single hunt choice within their species of choice, you would cut down the number of applicants for each hunt to roughly 25% of that or roughly 250 applicants for the goat tag you referred to.  Then by limiting everyone to choosing one of 5 categories (elk/deer/sheep/moose/goat), you reduce that number to 20% of the 250 which would leave 50 applicants for that particular tag.  Combine that with the fact that the hunt you are referring to (Avalanche Gorge) has 3 tags and you are giving 3 tags to 50 applicants.  Which is EXACTLY the entire point of refining the draw system.