Montana Drawing Statistics Data Question

[LousyResident]

What's funny about what you're saying is the results are what give us data to calculate statistical odds. We base our entire application strategies on the results of previous draws. That's how we have have such solid evidence about when we can expect to draw.

Right, but with a random draw, historical results don't really mean squat. The point pool for the current year is the only thing that can give you relevant information about your likelihood of drawing that year. With a random system, a highly prized unit could be drawn out by 0 point holders. It's just extraordinarily unlikely considering how the point system works.

To be clear, I'm not talking about MT specifically as I don't know anything about their point system. I just try and draw the combo and call it a day.

 

[brocksw]

Right, but with a random draw, historical results don't really mean squat. The point pool for the current year is the only thing that can give you relevant information about your likelihood of drawing that year. With a random system, a highly prized unit could be drawn out by 0 point holders. It's just extraordinarily unlikely considering how the point system works.

To be clear, I'm not talking about MT specifically as I don't know anything about their point system. I just try and draw the combo and call it a day.

Montana is not a random draw and that's what we're talking about. New Mexico is random draw, Idaho is random draw, and in those states you are correct. Historical data means little to nothing.

Montana is a bonus point draw. The more points you have, the more times your name goes in the hat. Historical data for MT is extremely enlightening. No one can debate this. Well apparently 8 is....But I'm just not sure how anyone can look at a decades worth of excel sheets with draw odds that are incredibly consistent and informative and then argue that from one year to the next people who had 89% odds of drawing could have 0%.

 

[LousyResident]

Montana is not a random draw and that's what we're talking about. New Mexico is random draw, Idaho is random draw, and in those states you are correct. Historical data means little to nothing.

Montana is a bonus point draw. The more points you have, the more times your name goes in the hat. Historical data for MT is extremely enlightening. No one can debate this. Well apparently 8 is....But I'm just not sure how anyone can look at a decades worth of excel sheets with draw odds that are incredibly consistent and informative and then argue that from one year to the next people who had 89% odds of drawing could have 0%.

Right. And I'm saying that even with a bonus point system there is a (slim) possibility that the stars could line up and the maximum point holders could all get stiffed in any given year. So long as there are enough people with less than max points in the draw to get all of the tags. In theory, it's (unlikely but) possible that the lowest point holders all draw in a given year. That's what I mean about the historical results don't actually mean anything. The odds are the same, but the outcome could potentially be wildly different.

 

[brocksw]

Right. And I'm saying that even with a bonus point system there is a (slim) possibility that the stars could line up and the maximum point holders could all get stiffed in any given year. So long as there are enough people with less than max points in the draw to get all of the tags. In theory, it's (unlikely but) possible that the lowest point holders all draw in a given year. That's what I mean about the historical results don't actually mean anything. The odds are the same, but the outcome could potentially be wildly different.

Yes a slim possibility. That's the beauty(well depending on your personal view I suppose), of the bonus point system. There's always a chance, no matter how low. However, I would go out on a limb here and say there are no instances where the outcome is wildly different from year to year...at least not in any unit that gives out a decent amount of tags. The historical results always mean something and will always support the previous trend, unless theres been a major change.

Bighorn tags, the 270 mule deer, many nevada units, units where there are very few tags for a large pool of applicants, you will see what appears to be complete randomness.

 

[LousyResident]

Yes a slim possibility. That's the beauty(well depending on your personal view I suppose), of the bonus point system. There's always a chance, no matter how low. However, I would go out on a limb here and say there are no instances where the outcome is wildly different from year to year...at least not in any unit that gives out a decent amount of tags. The historical results always mean something and will always support the previous trend, unless theres been a major change.

Bighorn tags, the 270 mule deer, many nevada units, units where there are very few tags for a large pool of applicants, you will see what appears to be complete randomness.

These 2 statements contradict

I'm just nit-picking for the sake of at this point. The historical results provide insight into the likely point pool for the future years, but results of the prior drawing are technically, statistically, irrelevant from year to year. There is a trend because the point pools remain similar year over year. But because of that "slim possibility" mentioned earlier, you cannot discount the possibility that the current year will be wildly different.

 

[brocksw]

These 2 statements contradict

I'm just nit-picking for the sake of at this point. The historical results provide insight into the likely point pool for the future years, but results of the prior drawing are technically, statistically, irrelevant from year to year. There is a trend because the point pools remain similar year over year. But because of that "slim possibility" mentioned earlier, you cannot discount the possibility that the current year will be wildly different.

Let's put some money on it. I would bet any amount of money that next year's MT bonus point statistics will look wildly similar to this years, and last years, and the year before.

Barring any major changes of course...

 

[brocksw]

But because of that "slim possibility" mentioned earlier, you cannot discount the possibility that the current year will be wildly different.

We have a decades worth of data that tells us otherwise. So I feel pretty confident about discounting something with a .000000001% chance of happening.

Again, barring any major changes.

 

[Beignet]

Out of intellectual curiosity, would someone with more experience in running quantitative data analysis pick a popular unit for the 2020 MT results and determine what the percentage of chance would hypothetically be per individual point based on the number of applicants, tags available, and point squaring? All assuming a perfect statistical distribution.

I tried to run this last night but my college level quant 101 class was a loooooong time ago. For a sheep unit I was coming up with each resident point being something like a 0.0054% chance.

And yeah, I know the actual odds are pretty random, but this stuff is kind of fun to mess with.

 

[8andcounting]

I feel like @8andcounting is talking about actual results while the rest of the group is talking statistical odds. . . .

Yes I have been for 2 days

 

[8andcounting]

Let's put some money on it. I would bet any amount of money that next year's MT bonus point statistics will look wildly similar to this years, and last years, and the year before.

Barring any major changes of course...

Overall they will yes . But point by point some units will be all over the board but yes the bottom line number won’t change much . Just answer yes/no for me on one question then let’s end this stupid debate . Could 6 bonus points that was 100% draw in a LE hd this , be 0%, 10% or any other number other than 100 next year ? Yes or no ? I don’t care about likely , could it be a lower % next year ???

 

[8andcounting]

I’ll help you out with the point I’ve been trying to make for now the third day . The answer is yes . Have a good weekend everyone !

 

[brocksw]

Have a good weekend everyone !

You too

 

[BuzzH]

Right. And I'm saying that even with a bonus point system there is a (slim) possibility that the stars could line up and the maximum point holders could all get stiffed in any given year. So long as there are enough people with less than max points in the draw to get all of the tags. In theory, it's (unlikely but) possible that the lowest point holders all draw in a given year. That's what I mean about the historical results don't actually mean anything. The odds are the same, but the outcome could potentially be wildly different.

Correct, and it happens a majority of the time and as time goes on, and applications for sheep, moose, goat increase...the max point holders have diluted odds.

The bonus point systems favor higher point pools in the first few years...over time, that simply isnt true. Look at the number of applicants in each point pool for sheep in Montana. The max point pool of applicants is dwarfed by those with 1-20 points.

I think what a lot of the disconnect on odds is that there's a big difference between how bonus points impact a draw with 2,000 tags, 4,000 applicants a year, and large parts of the point pools clearing each year.

Its a whole different deal when you have 10,000 applicants with 2 available tags and you're 21-22 years into a bonus system. Your squared max points mean less and less over time, in particular when the point pools and total applicants behind you are increasing each year.

As an example....if you're the lone max bonus point holder with 20...square them, 400 names in the hat. Then you have 100 guys with 19 and they square their points, and another 100 with 18...square those, and another 100 with 17, square those...all the way down to 1.

The odds are infinitely more likely that the 2 tags are going to be drawn by the guys in the 1-19 squared pool than the lone guy with 400 chances in the hat.

That's what is going on with hard to draw tags in NV and MT with squared bonus point systems...so many new applicants entering the draws that its diluting the top point pools. The lower applicant pools outnumber the top point pools, both in applicants and "squared chances", by huge amounts.

Another way to look at it (a unit with 1 available sheep tag), a lone applicant with 10 points squared, has 100 chances in the hat. Which is 100 times better odds than any single applicant with only one chance in the hat. But, if there are 1000 one point applicants...that pool of 1 point applicants has a 90% probability that one of them is drawing that single tag. There's also a 90% chance that Mr. 10 bonus point squared guy is going to have 11 points, no tag, and looking at pictures of a ram a 1 point holder shot.

 

[Tomahawk]

but this stuff is kind of fun to mess with.

I've tried to build accurate draw odds spreadsheets before and always run into the same problem. The odds for the first tag drawn are straightforward, but what about the second? Your odds of drawing the second tag depend on how many bonus points that first guy had as all his points are now removed from the pool. If he had 1 point no big change, but what if he had 20^2?

In some cases with many applicants (MT resident bighorn for example) it doesn't end up mattering that much, but other draws with smaller numbers of applicants and squared or cubed points (ND nonresident Badlands mule deer) are impacted in a big way.

Anyone know how to properly account for that?

 

[brocksw]

Correct, and it happens a majority of the time and as time goes on, and applications for sheep, moose, goat increase...the max point holders have diluted odds.

The bonus point systems favor higher point pools in the first few years...over time, that simply isnt true. Look at the number of applicants in each point pool for sheep in Montana. The max point pool of applicants is dwarfed by those with 1-20 points.

I think what a lot of the disconnect on odds is that there's a big difference between how bonus points impact a draw with 2,000 tags, 4,000 applicants a year, and large parts of the point pools clearing each year.

Its a whole different deal when you have 10,000 applicants with 2 available tags and you're 21-22 years into a bonus system. Your squared max points mean less and less over time, in particular when the point pools and total applicants behind you are increasing each year.

As an example....if you're the lone max bonus point holder with 20...square them, 400 names in the hat. Then you have 100 guys with 19 and they square their points, and another 100 with 18...square those, and another 100 with 17, square those...all the way down to 1.

The odds are infinitely more likely that the 2 tags are going to be drawn by the guys in the 1-19 squared pool than the lone guy with 400 chances in the hat.

That's what is going on with hard to draw tags in NV and MT with squared bonus point systems...so many new applicants entering the draws that its diluting the top point pools. The lower applicant pools outnumber the top point pools, both in applicants and "squared chances", by huge amounts.

Another way to look at it (a unit with 1 available sheep tag), a lone applicant with 10 points squared, has 100 chances in the hat. Which is 100 times better odds than any single applicant with only one chance in the hat. But, if there are 1000 one point applicants...that pool of 1 point applicants has a 90% probability that one of them is drawing that single tag. There's also a 90% chance that Mr. 10 bonus point squared guy is going to have 11 points, no tag, and looking at pictures of a ram a 1 point holder shot.

Yes. 2 totally different animals with bonus points. The more tags drawn the more the data will support the predicted statistical trend. But the thing is, there really aren't that many bonus point tags like that.

Nevada has some and MT has a few, and unless I'm forgetting some, after that everything is either completely random, a preference point draw, or theres enough tags to make the majority of bonus point results very predictable.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I've tried to build accurate draw odds spreadsheets before and always run into the same problem. The odds for the first tag drawn are straightforward, but what about the second? Your odds of drawing the second tag depend on how many bonus points that first guy had as all his points are now removed from the pool. If he had 1 point no big change, but what if he had 20^2?

In some cases with many applicants (MT resident bighorn for example) it doesn't end up mattering that much, but other draws with smaller numbers of applicants and squared or cubed points (ND nonresident Badlands mule deer) are impacted in a big way.

Anyone know how to properly account for that?

I do not that is definitely an issue I have struggled with though, I've also run into how to account for people dropping out of the system when they draw.

So for instance, I know I won't draw 680-20 in any given year with minuscule odds, but what are my total odds of drawing it in my lifetime if I put in every year for 30 years and each year buy a bonus point.

 

[brocksw]

I've tried to build accurate draw odds spreadsheets before and always run into the same problem. The odds for the first tag drawn are straightforward, but what about the second? Your odds of drawing the second tag depend on how many bonus points that first guy had as all his points are now removed from the pool. If he had 1 point no big change, but what if he had 20^2?

In some cases with many applicants (MT resident bighorn for example) it doesn't end up mattering that much, but other draws with smaller numbers of applicants and squared or cubed points (ND nonresident Badlands mule deer) are impacted in a big way.

Anyone know how to properly account for that?

I'm guessing you'd have to develop code for an application that would run a model a thousand times over (maybe more) to calculate percentages for each scenario. Certain point totals would have a tendency to come out of the pool in a certain order and those trends would get ranked. Every time a point holder comes out of the pool with a successful application, the table is shifted to the next scenario and so on.

 

[brocksw]

.... but what are my total odds of drawing it in my lifetime if I put in every year for 30 years and each year buy a bonus point.

low

 

[BuzzH]

Yes. 2 totally different animals with bonus points. The more tags drawn the more the data will support the predicted statistical trend. But the thing is, there really aren't that many bonus point tags like that.

Nevada has some and MT has a few, and unless I'm forgetting some, after that everything is either completely random, a preference point draw, or theres enough tags to make the majority of bonus point results very predictable.

Right, and the thing is, the reason that point schemes are started, is NOT because of tags that would have 50%+ drawing odds under a total random system.

These schemes are started because of things like sheep tags, moose tags, goat tags, breaks rifle tags, etc. where the odds are still going to suck, unless you have true preference for a portion of the tags (which nobody likes either).

That said, I still keep acquiring points in Montana and Nevada and shelling out the money for worse chances each year. And I'm outnumbered by those behind me that suck at math even worse than I do, who statistically have a better chance as a group at drawing the tag I'm after.

But the only statistic that is most important, if you don't apply your odds are zero...and I like .5% odds over 0.

 

[brocksw]

Right, and the thing is, the reason that point schemes are started, is NOT because of tags that would have 50%+ drawing odds under a total random system.

These schemes are started because of things like sheep tags, moose tags, goat tags, breaks rifle tags, etc. where the odds are still going to suck, unless you have true preference for a portion of the tags (which nobody likes either).

That said, I still keep acquiring points in Montana and Nevada and shelling out the money for worse chances each year. And I'm outnumbered by those behind me that suck at math even worse than I do, who statistically have a better chance as a group at drawing the tag I'm after.

But the only statistic that is most important, if you don't apply your odds are zero...and I like .5% odds over 0.

How much money do those Bighorn bonus points generate? Only a small fraction of them are ever used.

In a way, the bonus point system is good system. There is a minor element of randomness or "getting lucky", but overall it still favors those who've been applying longer, and it generates a metric shit ton of money for management.