Post by: Bob33 on March 13, 2014, 11:32:38 AM
I assumed that the permits were given each year to the applicants with the most points. I assumed that 100 new applicants entered the pool each year.
The "breakeven" point for this hunt was around 9 points: applicants with less than 9 points in 2013 had odds slightly increase over the eight year period, while applicants with more than 9 points had odds decrease over the eight year period. Applicants with the highest number of points saw the greatest decrease in draw odds, and vice versa.
Here's an example from this: an applicant with 12 points in 2013 had an approximate 2.5% chance of drawing one of the 12 Dayton permits. In 2020 when he has 19 points, he will have an approximate 2.03% chance. In other words, his draw odds decreased each year over the eight year period.
"Points creep" has the greatest impact on hunts with few permits and lots of applicants.
Post by: kentrek on March 13, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
Post by: snowpack on March 13, 2014, 11:41:11 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 13, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
Post by: Bob33 on March 13, 2014, 12:12:12 PM
Why would you not do it with max points and use the real numbers for WDFW? :dunno: Just wondering. And in WA I would call it 'percentage creep' not 'point creep'. Not hatin, just sayin :twocents:18 was max points in 2013 with the exception of poacher points.
What real numbers? The 2013 data are from WDFW.
Post by: Bob33 on March 13, 2014, 12:14:20 PM
Instead of assuming 100 new applicants a year for the Dayton you can find the actual numbers on fish in game..in some of my findings most units have a increase and decreases in applicants over a period of time which really makes predicting draw odds difficult...If you can find me the actual number of new applicants in years 2014 to 2020 I'd be glad to rerun the odds.
Post by: Curly on March 13, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
Post by: kentrek on March 13, 2014, 03:28:44 PM
Using the numbers from the past would give ya a better guess of the future...
Just a suggestion,I could care less about it.....I'm in for Selkirk moose,Margaret bull and mudflow bull till I draw...then I'm out
Post by: JPhelps on March 13, 2014, 03:40:43 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 13, 2014, 03:45:13 PM
I like to look at the big picture. Your numbers tell me that I have a 21.74% chance of drawing before 2020!That's a positive way to look at it. When you apply multiple times over a period of time, odds of drawing once obviously increase.
The unfortunate part is the odds each year actually decrease on an individual basis for applicants towards the upper end of the points pool. "Points creep".
Post by: snowpack on March 13, 2014, 03:57:24 PM
Here's an example from this: an applicant with 12 points in 2013 had an approximate 2.5% chance of drawing one of the 12 Dayton permits. In 2020 when he has 19 points, he will have an approximate 2.03% chance. In other words, his draw odds decreased each year over the eight year period.Shouldn't it be going diagonally? In 2013 he had 12 points with 2.5%, 2014 13 points with 2.89% , 2015 14 points with 3.17%, ....then 2019 with 18 points and 3.72%. Odds keep increasing as he keeps applying. I don't know that you can keep applying with the same number of points, have to up them each year. He gets shortchanged in that his odds with that number of points is less than predecessors. (by 2019 his odds are 3.72% compared to the 5.55% someone with 18 points would've had in 2013)
Post by: X-Force on March 13, 2014, 04:02:06 PM
Post by: X-Force on March 13, 2014, 04:08:04 PM
Here's an example from this: an applicant with 12 points in 2013 had an approximate 2.5% chance of drawing one of the 12 Dayton permits. In 2020 when he has 19 points, he will have an approximate 2.03% chance. In other words, his draw odds decreased each year over the eight year period.Shouldn't it be going diagonally? In 2013 he had 12 points with 2.5%, 2014 13 points with 2.89% , 2015 14 points with 3.17%, ....then 2019 with 18 points and 3.72%. Odds keep increasing as he keeps applying. I don't know that you can keep applying with the same number of points, have to up them each year. He gets shortchanged in that his odds with that number of points is less than predecessors. (by 2019 his odds are 3.72% compared to the 5.55% someone with 18 points would've had in 2013)
I think Bob is trying to show that with the point creep everyone entering late to the game has a progressively smaller chance to draw with the same amount of points going forward. A person may be putting in with more points each year and slightly increasing a chance to draw but it will require greater and greater amounts of points statically to draw the same tag.
Post by: Bob33 on March 13, 2014, 04:47:55 PM
No. Odds gets worse each year in this example for everyone who starts with more than 9 points in 2013. The person with 12 points in 2013 has a worse chance in 2014 when he has 13 points. His odds decrease each year.Here's an example from this: an applicant with 12 points in 2013 had an approximate 2.5% chance of drawing one of the 12 Dayton permits. In 2020 when he has 19 points, he will have an approximate 2.03% chance. In other words, his draw odds decreased each year over the eight year period.Shouldn't it be going diagonally? In 2013 he had 12 points with 2.5%, 2014 13 points with 2.89% , 2015 14 points with 3.17%, ....then 2019 with 18 points and 3.72%. Odds keep increasing as he keeps applying. I don't know that you can keep applying with the same number of points, have to up them each year. He gets shortchanged in that his odds with that number of points is less than predecessors. (by 2019 his odds are 3.72% compared to the 5.55% someone with 18 points would've had in 2013)
The data shown in my first post perhaps needs more explanation: the columns reflect an individual whose points increase each year. The points at the top of each column reflect the starting points the applicant had in 2013. As you go down each column, one point is added each year. The applicant with 12 points in 2013 will have 19 points in 2020, and he will have worse odds with 19 points in 2020 than he did with 12 in 2013.
Post by: snowpack on March 13, 2014, 05:38:04 PM
Post by: steen on March 13, 2014, 07:00:47 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 13, 2014, 08:16:16 PM
From what I understand the points are squared. That means if you have one point you draw with one. If you have two points you draw with 4, 10 points you draw with 100. To me it seems the more points you have the better your odds. Even if it wasn't squared your odds go up, duh!Unless you are a max point holder your odds would get worse every year if they were not squared.
And yes, they do get worse every year with the present squared system.
The only way it could ever turn around and get better is if they issued a percentage of tags to the highest applicants point count and the remaining tags went into the present draw system. Even then, I doubt it your odds would get better - minimal at best.
Good work Bob - had never gone out to the future looking at it from the perspective you did. Makes sense and shows a similar trend from the past on spread sheets for other areas that I maintain.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 14, 2014, 10:32:37 AM
Here's my sign...I'm a *censored*. I got caught up in the whole "guy with 12 points". You smart, me dumb.Why would you not do it with max points and use the real numbers for WDFW? :dunno: Just wondering. And in WA I would call it 'percentage creep' not 'point creep'. Not hatin, just sayin :twocents:18 was max points in 2013 with the exception of poacher points.
What real numbers? The 2013 data are from WDFW.
I stand by my new term (soon to be patented)... 'Percentage Creep'
Post by: MuleDeerCrazy on March 14, 2014, 11:02:44 AM
Even using your graph, the guy with 12 pnts in 2013 now has 13 pnts in 2014, 14 pnts in 2015, 15 pnts in 2016, etc... so again, all things being equal, as shown in your graph, your odds creep up each progressive year, also shown in your graph...
Maybe I'm missing something, it wouldn't even be called point creep if we're going backwards, we'd have to call it something like The Bonus Point Rip-Off Program :chuckle:
Post by: vandeman17 on March 14, 2014, 11:15:35 AM
??? all things being the same, if people keep getting drawn out of the pool there are less people in your point category each proceeding year... odds get better (not by much for popular hunts, but they are climbing).
Even using your graph, the guy with 12 pnts in 2013 now has 13 pnts in 2014, 14 pnts in 2015, 15 pnts in 2016, etc... so again, all things being equal, as shown in your graph, your odds creep up each progressive year, also shown in your graph...
Maybe I'm missing something, it wouldn't even be called point creep if we're going backwards, we'd have to call it something like The Bonus Point Rip-Off Program :chuckle:
I believe the point being is that 12 points this year is better odds then if you had 12 points the following year and put in for the same permit. The point creep is similar to inflation where a dollar today is worth more then a dollar next year and so on.
Post by: MuleDeerCrazy on March 14, 2014, 11:30:37 AM
Thanks!
Post by: TheHunt on March 14, 2014, 11:57:10 AM
Post by: autodink13 on March 14, 2014, 03:56:37 PM
I think we should have to choose which category we apply for :twocents:
Post by: shanevg on March 14, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
For those of you confused on how to read Bob's chart, you are supposed to pick your point category for this given year and then read straight down from there. If you had 12 points this year you have a 2.5% chance of getting drawn. If you want to see your odds for next year, read straight down that column. The following year you will have 2.49% chance with 13 points. The following year would be 2.43% and so on.
The graph is designed to be easy to read without overwhelming with numbers on the chart, take your points this year and read straight down of the following 7 years. Unfortunately it seems to have confused people more than anything else.
Post by: actionshooter on March 14, 2014, 10:46:53 PM
At least in this case...
Post by: trophyhunt on March 14, 2014, 10:54:39 PM
Post by: kentrek on March 14, 2014, 11:26:23 PM
Bob's math is correct. Your odds are going down every year despite the addition of one more point. If you have 12 points this year, your name is in the hat 144 times, next year with 13 points it will be in the hat 169 times. Despite the increase in number of times your name is in the hat, he pool of applicants increases so much that your odds actually decrease.
For those of you confused on how to read Bob's chart, you are supposed to pick your point category for this given year and then read straight down from there. If you had 12 points this year you have a 2.5% chance of getting drawn. If you want to see your odds for next year, read straight down that column. The following year you will have 2.49% chance with 13 points. The following year would be 2.43% and so on.
The graph is designed to be easy to read without overwhelming with numbers on the chart, take your points this year and read straight down of the following 7 years. Unfortunately it seems to have confused people more than anything else.
Thanks I was reading it wrong :tup:
Post by: elk247 on March 14, 2014, 11:37:42 PM
Post by: kentrek on March 14, 2014, 11:42:05 PM
Drawing a quality Westside tag or shooting a quality tag size bull in a general unit :dunno:
Something the state should prolly think about if they wana continue making money off us
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 15, 2014, 01:22:48 AM
I like to look at the big picture. Your numbers tell me that I have a 21.74% chance of drawing before 2020!
Unless you draw your third or fourth choice first. Then you go back to the back of the line. And it keeps getting worse. :sry:
Post by: Clearcut on March 15, 2014, 04:06:11 AM
Post by: Killmore on March 15, 2014, 08:41:03 AM
Post by: Curly on March 15, 2014, 08:47:38 AM
But according to the chart, my odds are slightly increasing each year........... :IBCOOL: :brew:
Actually, I'm not that optimistic about the system. I still think it sucks. I still blame Dave Ware for it and I'm bitter about the whole permit system. And I'm mad at myself too for being a chump and buying permit apps still even though I hate the system. :bash:
Post by: NWWA Hunter on March 15, 2014, 09:06:49 AM
Impressive system huh? :dunno: while I would jump at the chance to hunt branched bulls on the eastside (my ideal hunt) I will have to stick with otc opportunity to annually harvest monsters on the westside. Although I would dig an opportunity at one of the nooksack booners.
Nooksack elk are classified by b&c as Rocky Mountain elk so the minimums are higher. I doubt anyone has killed a booner there. Just real nice elk.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 15, 2014, 01:28:41 PM
I'm one of the guys that got screwed when this category system went into effect; I'd just drawn a cow permit the year before the new system started so I went into the category system zeroed out. :(
Everybody got screwed. If they had to change it, (which I say they didn't) they should have zeroed out everybody and started fresh. Or, they should have allowed you to keep your points but not give them to you in each new category. You should have been forced to pick a category that you kept your points in or allowed you to spread your total points out in different categories.
Say you had 16 points. You could have put those points all in Quality Bull, or taken 10 points in Quaility Bull and 6 points in Cow. Or some other configuration. But you should have been stuck with your 16 points. You shouldn't have been given 16 points in every category so you were at the front of the line in every category.
But preference points in general are a scam to make you think they up your odds so you'll apply more often and spend more money. They aren't about fairness.
Post by: Curly on March 15, 2014, 02:51:00 PM
I'm one of the guys that got screwed when this category system went into effect; I'd just drawn a cow permit the year before the new system started so I went into the category system zeroed out. :(
Everybody got screwed. If they had to change it, (which I say they didn't) they should have zeroed out everybody and started fresh. Or, they should have allowed you to keep your points but not give them to you in each new category. You should have been forced to pick a category that you kept your points in or allowed you to spread your total points out in different categories.
Say you had 16 points. You could have put those points all in Quality Bull, or taken 10 points in Quaility Bull and 6 points in Cow. Or some other configuration. But you should have been stuck with your 16 points. You shouldn't have been given 16 points in every category so you were at the front of the line in every category.
But preference points in general are a scam to make you think they up your odds so you'll apply more often and spend more money. They aren't about fairness.
Exactly.
And just think of this one too. When I get to be a senior and qualify for applying in that category, there will be guys my age that will already have 16 points in that category compared to my zero. How is that fair? The only ones with that many points in that category should be guys in their 80's; they are the ones that deserve to draw. Why would I apply in that category when there will be so many other guys with lots of points?
This whole deal still pisses me off today almost as much as when they implemented it. The category thing wouldn't have been such a bad idea if they would have made everyone choose what category their points were to be placed. I still wouldn't care much for it, but I can see some benefit for allowing guys to apply for cow or doe permits without losing bull or buck points, but the way they went about it just sucks.
This category system got implemented much like ObamaCare. It got pushed down our throats with little to no time to comment on it. And when we did comment, they had already spent so much money on the system, there was no way they were going to wait or change it.
The problem I see is they have too many categories, too many people with lots of points, and too few permits available. (I agree that the points really should have been zero'd out......and actually, they really should have just gotten rid of the point system altogether, but I'm sure they would have thought that would lose money).
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on March 15, 2014, 10:45:41 PM
It looks like they saved time and money by just giving you points across the board. I have points in the disabled and 65 and over categories. It is the same amount of points i had when the new system was implemented.
I am not sure anything will ever change. They are in to deep, and they rely on the money the points bring now. It would be like kicking someone off welfare before they found a means to replace that lost income. Not going to happen.
Post by: snowpack on March 15, 2014, 11:32:32 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on March 20, 2014, 11:08:52 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JLS on March 20, 2014, 11:19:58 PM
Everybody got screwed. If they had to change it, (which I say they didn't) they should have zeroed out everybody and started fresh. Or, they should have allowed you to keep your points but not give them to you in each new category. You should have been forced to pick a category that you kept your points in or allowed you to spread your total points out in different categories.
....and can I get an AMEN. Spot on right here. A lot of folks really got screwed by people all of a sudden jumping in line with 12 points out of nowhere.
Here are the cliff notes of what Bob is saying: Your odds may suck, really suck, or totally suck and can suck more, the same, or less depending on how many points you have.
Post by: JLS on March 20, 2014, 11:23:56 PM
I am not sure anything will ever change. They are in to deep, and they rely on the money the points bring now. It would be like kicking someone off welfare before they found a means to replace that lost income. Not going to happen.
Not to mention the uprising by folks that do have a fair number of points that are still wondering why they don't draw a Wenaha tag. Too many folks are too vested in this system to ever buy off on changing it.
I have very few points and don't lose any sleep over it. I would just as soon pull a few overtime shifts and do an out of state hunt as wring my hands over why I didn't draw a needle out of a haystack.