Calculation - Odds of drawing a tag?

[antelopedundee]

For the high demand areas the odds seem to just continue to go down for the most part.

There are some lower demand units in some states that really bounce around though. You really need to look at several years worth of odds to get a feel for it especially in units where there are just a few tags. In a state like New Mexico there are some units that bounce around up to even 100% draw odds some years then drop down to under 20%. Part of this is people "chasing" the odds. They look at the draw results and see that a unit had 80% or even 100% draw odds so they think it is a sure thing so they apply for it on their 3rd choice. The problem is there were only 2 or 3 nonresident tags and 20 or 30 other people noticed the same exact thing so they applied for that unit as well. What was 80% or 100% last year all the sudden drops to 10% or 20% this year. The next year people look at it and say that it wasn't really even a good unit to start with and with 10% or 20% draw odds there are a lot of other better units to apply for so all those people who only applied for it this year because of the high draw odds don't apply and suddenly the draw odds jump back up to 60% or 70%. You can try to time it with folks jumping in and out of those type units or just be aware and stay away from the years that it spikes due to the high draw odds from the previous year.

One technique that I use and I know some others do as well is looking at what the resident draw odds for the same unit I am applying for as a nonresident. There are generally more tags available to residents and with the larger sample size you get a lot less bounce in individual years drawing odds. Sometimes you can find some hidden gems where the resident odds are even lower than the nonresident odds. That's pretty unusual though. What you can see a lot more often are the units where residents are getting really good odds and nonresidents are getting really bad odds. That tends to tell me that the unit is overrated as the residents generally know what the good units in their state are as much as the online hunting application guides do.

Generally most people have things pretty well figured out but you can see some "lucky" units like was mentioned in the Idaho OIL drawing thread going right now.

I would for sure recommend not just looking at what last years odds happened to be when picking what unit to apply for.

My 2 cents. Nathan

I would think the resident draw result would be useful also. In WY residents get 80% of the lope tags. In the area I hunt 29 there were 600 type 2 tags. Out of their 480, residents drew just 49 so 431 tags were rolled into the nonresident pool. Of course in that case access is difficult so residents likely have as much difficulty with access as nonresidents, plus most aren't willing to pay an access fee or pay much of one. The type 1s are a different story and as a nonresident I don't have much chance at one. Years ago I got lucky in area 106 getting tags 2 or 3 years in a row. Now, I likely have very little chance. Probably ok to go for a low percentage tag if plan B is a high percentage tag.

 

[antelopedundee]

I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my offer to flip coins or roll dice for money. I'd even be willing to do a combination of coin flips and dice rolls if that made a difference. That would correspond with your example of the drawing in Wyoming and New Mexico not having anything to do with each other. You pick whatever random event sequence you want and I would be willing to put money on it if you let me do some of that bogus mathematical exercise stuff on it to figure the odds and then I will give you the payout options.

The 10 to 1 odds that you will flip a coin 10 times and not come up with a single heads is WAY slanted in my favor. The actual odds are 1 in 1,064. Try it a few times and see how long it takes to throw 10 coins on the ground and have it come up just one of either heads or tails. The math says it should take a while before you see it.

So you are considering 10 tosses to be one event which if repeated 1064 times should result in at least one case of all 10 coins showing heads and one of all 10 coins showing tails? Only a fool would take that offer. Given a sufficient number of events it would likely happen eventually. Could be first try or 10th try or 100,000th try. Random events [assuming the tosses are truly random] over time tend to draw to their statistical expectations.

 

[ImBillT]

So you are considering 10 tosses to be one event which if repeated 1064 times should result in at least one case of all 10 coins showing heads and one of all 10 coins showing tails? Only a fool would take that offer. Given a sufficient number of events it would likely happen eventually. Could be first try or 10th try or 100,000th try. Random events [assuming the tosses are truly random] over time tend to draw to their statistical expectations.

He is not saying that if you repeated it 1,064 times you would be granteed to flip all tails at least once. He is saying that if you repeated the event an INFINITE number of times the coins would land on all tails .093985% of the time.

 

[antelopedundee]

He is not saying that if you repeated it 1,064 times you would be granteed to flip all tails at least once. He is saying that if you repeated the event an INFINITE number of times the coins would land on all tails .093985% of the time.

I understand that which is why I said should and not would.

 

[npaden]

So you are considering 10 tosses to be one event which if repeated 1064 times should result in at least one case of all 10 coins showing heads and one of all 10 coins showing tails? Only a fool would take that offer. Given a sufficient number of events it would likely happen eventually. Could be first try or 10th try or 100,000th try. Random events [assuming the tosses are truly random] over time tend to draw to their statistical expectations.

Yep, flipping 10 coins at once they should all show up tails 1 time in 1,064 and all show up heads 1 time in 1,064 tries. I'm just circumventing the 10 consecutive flips by flipping 10 coins at once. The odds of each individual coin flip are the same weather you flip them one at a time or ten at a time. Like you said, it could happen on the 10th time or the 2,000th time.

Once you start talking about more than one single coin flip (or hunting draw) you start talking about probabilities. That's when the fancy math kicks in.

If you don't want to flip coins all day you can increase the odds by changing it to 4 or 5 consecutive coin flips. 1 coin flip is 50%, 2 coin flips is 25%, 3 coin flips is 12.5%, 4 coin flips is 6.25% and 5 coin flips is 3.125%.

If you toss 4 coins at the same time there is a 6.25% chance they will all come up either heads or tails. So if you do that 100 times, you should see all heads 6 times, all tails 6 times and some other combination 88 times. When I was in high school we actually did some marathon coin flipping to prove out some of the probabilities. Once you get up to 100 events you generally get pretty dialed in to the mathematical probabilities. If you flipped 100 times you might get all heads 5 or 7 times instead of 6, but it would be highly unlikely that it would happen 10 times. If you go up to 1,000 events you are going to be getting really close. In 1,000 flips you should get all heads 62.5 times. You are most likely going to be right on the money with either 62 or 63 times. You can get some short term runs of "luck", but if you repeat the event 1,000 times it is all going to even out. It seems like some fancy hotels with flashing lights have been built on that premise out in the desert somewhere.

I get a kick out of this and it all makes sense to me, hopefully I can communicate it effectively enough where it makes some sense to others.

Nathan

 

[antelopedundee]

Yep, flipping 10 coins at once they should all show up tails 1 time in 1,064 and all show up heads 1 time in 1,064 tries. I'm just circumventing the 10 consecutive flips by flipping 10 coins at once. The odds of each individual coin flip are the same weather you flip them one at a time or ten at a time. Like you said, it could happen on the 10th time or the 2,000th time.

Once you start talking about more than one single coin flip (or hunting draw) you start talking about probabilities. That's when the fancy math kicks in.

If you don't want to flip coins all day you can increase the odds by changing it to 4 or 5 consecutive coin flips. 1 coin flip is 50%, 2 coin flips is 25%, 3 coin flips is 12.5%, 4 coin flips is 6.25% and 5 coin flips is 3.125%.

If you toss 4 coins at the same time there is a 6.25% chance they will all come up either heads or tails. So if you do that 100 times, you should see all heads 6 times, all tails 6 times and some other combination 88 times. When I was in high school we actually did some marathon coin flipping to prove out some of the probabilities. Once you get up to 100 events you generally get pretty dialed in to the mathematical probabilities. If you flipped 100 times you might get all heads 5 or 7 times instead of 6, but it would be highly unlikely that it would happen 10 times. If you go up to 1,000 events you are going to be getting really close. In 1,000 flips you should get all heads 62.5 times. You are most likely going to be right on the money with either 62 or 63 times. You can get some short term runs of "luck", but if you repeat the event 1,000 times it is all going to even out. It seems like some fancy hotels with flashing lights have been built on that premise out in the desert somewhere.

I get a kick out of this and it all makes sense to me, hopefully I can communicate it effectively enough where it makes some sense to others.

Nathan

I wish I had the luxury of being able to hunt in 20 different places every year, but I don't so my odds of getting a tag are usually 100%, since I apply for/buy tags that are pretty much guaranteed.

 

[Elkmagnet]

The whole thing doesn't make much sense since the odds of drawing a tag in Wyoming have zilch to do with the odds of drawing a tag in New Mexico. Also there are Wyoming areas where depending on the circumstances you have no chance to draw an antelope tag and other areas where you're pretty much guaranteed a tag. I suppose as a mathematical exercise it's ok, but beyond that I don't see much value, at least to me. Others' MMV.

This could also be said about the odds of each individual hunt. # of tags vs # of applications. Each tag drawn is independent of the last but looking at the draw odds is still usefully when figuring a strategy/keeping expectations within reason.
98% odds that you are arguing semantics and 80% of readers have figured it out

 

[mtmander]

Thanks for weighing in guys. I love math and I have no idea why I can't grasp an understanding of this. So if I put in for 20 different hunts and the chances of drawing each individual tag is 5% would the formula simply be .05^20? which is .358 or 36% odds of drawing one tag?

I don't think so , I think they are separate events and some other math (more than I know) needs to be applied , or I am just unlucky

 

[Elkmagnet]

This subject is known as the gambler's fallacy. I discovered it in relation to tag draws on the meat eater podcast #125 at the 20 minute mark.

"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players."

 

[Elkmagnet]

...

 

[antelopedundee]

This could also be said about the odds of each individual hunt. # of tags vs # of applications. Each tag drawn is independent of the last but looking at the draw odds is still usefully when figuring a strategy/keeping expectations within reason.
98% odds that you are arguing semantics and 80% of readers have figured it out

Obviously it's wise to figure your odds before wasting money and time for tags you'll never get, assuming the area where you apply is where you want to go. If you have a solid plan B to fall back on, then there's nothing wrong with applying for a lower percentage draw if you'd rather have that.

 

[npaden]

This subject is known as the gambler's fallacy. I discovered it in relation to tag draws on the meat eater podcast #125 at the 20 minute mark.

"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players."

This is true, however this should not be mistaken for pure laws of probabilities of mathematics. Simply because you were unlucky the first 10 instances of something doesn't mean you are "due" for better luck the last 10 instances. You theoretically should probably recompute your probability after each instance. If you had a 25% chance to draw 1 out of 20 tags but if you are 10 drawings into it doesn't mean that you still have 25% chance to draw in one of the remaining 10 drawings. The math doesn't lie.

 

[ImBillT]

I don't think so , I think they are separate events and some other math (more than I know) needs to be applied , or I am just unlucky

Nope. He was close. It’s 1-(.95^20)=.64 or 64%. It’s not as complex as you think.

 

[ImBillT]

This subject is known as the gambler's fallacy. I discovered it in relation to tag draws on the meat eater podcast #125 at the 20 minute mark.

"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players."

What you referring to is the idea that if I drew last year, I’m less likely to draw this year, or that if I did not draw last year that I’m more likely to draw this year. This is false. However, that has absolutely no bearing on the probability that something will occur at least once over a period of time.

Assuming I apply for a hunt with 10% odds ever year my probability of drawing AT LEAST ONCE over a period of ten years is 1-(.9^10)=.65 or 65%. My probability of drawing a hunt AT LEAST ONCE over a period of nine years is 1.(.9^9)=.61 or 61%. And my odds of drawing the hunt on any given year are 10%.

If I draw on the first year, my odds of drawing again on the second year are still 10%. My odds of drawing AT LEAST ONCE in the NEXT ten years remains 1-(.9^10) or 65%, and my odds of drawing AT LEAST TWICE in the original ten years is equal to my odds of drawing AT LEAST ONCE in nine years(that’s how many are left of the original ten and I only have to draw one more time to draw at least twice) are 1-(.9^9)=.61 or 61%. According to the Monte Carlo fallacy my odds of drawing a tag after the first would have decreased, but in fact they remained exactly the same. The past has absolutely no impact on the future, yet a single event is more likely to occur if you attempt it several times than if you attempt it once.

The same can be said in reverse. If I do not tdraw a tag on the first year, the Monte Carlo fallacy suggests that I’m more likely to draw this year. 10% is 10%, so this year remains 10%. Over the next nine years(the remainder of the original ten) my odds are 1-(.9^9) or 61%, which has actually decreased from the original ten years, and my odds of drawing over a ten year period(If I apply for an eleventh year) remain at 1-(.9^10) or 65%.

The Monte Carlo fallacy arises from applying the results of finite series calculations to infinite series events. If we examine a single drawing, then each time a person is drawn who is not you, the probability that you will be drawn IN THAT DRAWING goes down, but the probability that the next name drawn will be yours goes up. This is same as placing three blue marbles in a jar of seven red marbles and drawing one at a time and discarding the drawn marbles. Before the first marble is drawn the probability of drawing a blue marble is 3/10. And the probability of drawing AT LEAST ONE blue marble over three draws is 1-(.7*.67*.625) or 71%. (7/10=.7, seven red marbles, 6/9=.67, six red marbles after one was drawn, 5/8=.625, five red marbles after two were drawn). If a red marble is drawn first, the probability of a drawing a blue next goes from 3/10 to 3/9 because the red marble was discarded. The probability of drawing AT LEAST ONE blue in the three draws goes to 1-(.67*.6.25) or 58.1%. The probability decreased because we have only two draws remaining. If we decide to draw a fourth marble the odds of drawing a blue in the three remaining draws would increase to 1-(.67*.625*.57) or 76%(which was better than in the first three draws). In this case the odds of winning increase with each passing trial because the pool gets smaller. And of course, if you draw ten marbles from the jar you will eventually draw a blue marble, even if you’re unlucky enough to draw them last. This is a finite series calculation.

The Monte Carlo fallacy is applying the observation that the results of the drawing at any point in a single finite draw(which are all dependent events) are impacted by the known outcomes that have already taken place within that draw to a situation involving independent events. Independent events can be modeled using limits and infinite series. In the independent, or infinite drawing, you simply replace the marble after drawing it from the jar. So, the odds of drawing a blue on any given draw is 3/10. The odds of drawing AT LEAST ONE BLUE in three drawings is 1-(.7*.7*.7) or 66%(down from 71%) in the finite draw. If you draw a red marble and replace it in the jar, the Monte Carlo fallacy suggests that you are more likely to draw a blue marble on the next attempt because the Monte Carlo fallacy is based on using the finite draw calculations, but this is an infinite draw. The odds of drawing a blue on the next draw remain 3/10 because we put the red marble back in the jar. The odds of drawing AT LEAST ONCE over the NEXT THREE remains at 66%. The odds of drawing at least once in the original three draws drops to 1-(.7*.7) or 51%, but only because we are down to two draws. The decrease in odds odds actually has nothing at all to with the past, and is only limited by the fact that only two draws remain. To illustrate the infinite part of the issue better, this example is the same as having a jar with an infinite number of marbles in which 70% are red and 30% are blue. Removing a red marble from the jar doesn’t improve your future odds of drawing a blue marble because infinite red marbles remain in the jar, and thus the odds of drawing a blue marble remain at 30%. However, if we draw three marbles at a time, the odds of drawing AT LEAST ONE BLUE marble will obviously increase.

The Monte Carlo fallacy is a fallacy because it uses the wrong calculations to asses probability, not because the odds are incalculable.

 

[hank4elk]

I now have a headache just reading this...LOL.
I agree with BF..... & Npaden for most part. Until he gets to the math....lol
My secret NM units are no more... or bounce around too much for odds figuring.
My dream of ever drawing a true Gila unit are pretty much gone too.
I hope I draw a tag next week. LOL

 

[EYJONAS!]

BillT can I ask what it is you do or have done for a career. I gotta admit this is one of the more challenging threads to follow but it was pretty damn fun at the same time. Alls I know is odds suck no matter how you look at it. In mt when we look at the " big 3" a 1% draw for sheep is considered "pretty good chance" when really that's pretty damn sad. It's still only one percent. I guess you gotta play the game though. Someone is gonna draw might as well be you or me.

 

[ImBillT]

BillT can I ask what it is you do or have done for a career. I gotta admit this is one of the more challenging threads to follow but it was pretty damn fun at the same time. Alls I know is odds suck no matter how you look at it. In mt when we look at the " big 3" a 1% draw for sheep is considered "pretty good chance" when really that's pretty damn sad. It's still only one percent. I guess you gotta play the game though. Someone is gonna draw might as well be you or me.

I have math minor, 3/4 of a mechanical engineering degree, and half a music performance degree. I’m self-employed and do lawn and landscape work. I have ADHD and don’t medicate. I can perform at a high level under highly structured environments for periods of time, but am far and away happiest when I’m allowed to follow the path my mind wonders. I don’t do well working for others, and despite near straight A’s and being s two time all-state musician in highschool, I did not do well in a college environment.

To put it simply. I’m a bit dysfunctional.

 

[EYJONAS!]

I have math minor, 3/4 of a mechanical engineering degree, and half a music performance degree. I’m self-employed and do lawn and landscape work. I have ADHD and don’t medicate. I can perform at a high level under highly structured environments for periods of time, but am far and away happiest when I’m allowed to follow the path my mind wonders. I don’t do well working for others, and despite near straight A’s and being s two time all-state musician in highschool, I did not do well in a college environment.

To put it simply. I’m a bit dysfunctional.

Good on ya man, sounds like you make lemonade outta lemons when needed.

 

[Irrelevant]

While I agree with the math, my heart prefers the gamblers fallacy. I have a very simply method that only looks at the last years #. I don't factor in trends as I shift units too much, and have too much other stuff to consider. Here in WA we use a bonus point system. The state publishes # of applicants and average # of bonus point of those applicants. If you assume all the applicants have the average # of points you can greatly simplify calc-ing you draw odds. The result isn't quite accurate, but it's close enough to justify vs actually entering in every actual applicant last year, because like many others have pointed out, last year is just that... last year. Ain't no one predicting the future. I find this works well the best to evaluate one hunt vs another.

 

[ImBillT]

^^^For a preference point state, the average number of points, multiplied by applicants, then divided by tags, underestimates draw odds dramatically in hunts with more than one available tag. If there are ten applicants averaging ten points and two tags available, and if an applicant with 20 points is drawn first, then twenty names come out of the hat, but only on tag was issued. Now there are only 80 names left in the hat. On the other hand, if the first name drawn had only one point, then there are 99 names left in the hat. In this case you first calculate the probability of a name having each possible number of points before you can move on to the remaining probability. It becomes dramatically easier to use a computer simulation repeated thousands of time. GoHunt claims to do this. I did it the long way for hunt in Utah, compared to GoHunt, and said “yep that was money well spent”.

In Nevada if a person with 20pts is drawn, 400 raffle tickets are removed from the pot! Unfortunately even taking this into account the odds for most hunts in NV are pretty poor.