The future of Preference Points

[Deleted member 28227]

So that's pretty good information. But let me throw a wrench in your work just to get you thinking. Keep an open mind for a minute. Please feel free to add input. When people use random odds they think of it like 10 people 1 tag. Odds are 1 in 10. 100 people 10 tags same, 1 in 10 right?

So if you think of random draws as a giant hamster wheel full of ping pong balls. Let's say 100. And we are drawing 10. (Just keeping numbers simple.) We draw 1 ball...
His odds where 1 in 10 or 10%. (1 in 100 but 10 spins around remaining) easy.

Now we draw ball number 2. His odds were.... 1 in 11 or 9%. (1 in 99 with 9 spins to go.

Ball 3. 1 in 12.3 or 8.1%.

Wait.... it keeps getting lower.

That's how random draws work. You end with an average odds just shy of double against you compared to what most people think. 1 in 19. Which is why when you run out actual random draws in a ball pulling experiment until you've drawn everybody. At 20 years the curve almost zeros. You've pulled almost every ball after 20 years of draws. But never everyone. Some guys draw 2 or 3 times and other numbers NEVER get pulled. So your lotto line should be about 2.4 percent. Random draws are not what they are sold as either.

When I get a day off I'll graph the probabilities a little better so you can see what I mean by curves. It will take a day to do, draw, photo, and explain the process.

Yeah I understand how it works... that graph is from top rut like I said @BrentD is just showing the odds in one year of folks at every level of points there is no time component. To your point Brent to model reality you would need to take the probability curve of a random draw and then add a growth curve for the next 20 years.

@Firedude to take this one step further the reason I think we are missing each other is that I think there is a good argument for points systems over random up until a point, that's kinda what you are modeling and expressing, and I agree... but its a different argument when the odds are already long.

So 1-5 years to draw= Pref points better
1-15 years to draw = bonus or bonus squared
20+ years to draw ie once in a lifetime = random

* years to draw meaning cumulative odds over multiple years being ~95%

That all being said there is a psychology aspect in that random systems tend to not have as many players so it actually improves odds, see bear argument above, and second players don't like having multiple highly different draw systems, especially for the same species.

My preference for system has varied a bit over the years, I'm leaning towards random as it is easier for folks to understand and like I said less players, but my alternative best system would be the Colorado MSG system which is preferences points then weighted points.

 

[brocksw]

Let's not pile on, they already are the 2nd most dependent state in the union . . .

View attachment 227808

Does that count PILT payments?

 

[Firedude]

Yeah I understand how it works... that graph from top rut like I said @BrentD is just showing the odds in one year of folks at every level of points there is no time component. To your point Brent to model reality you would need to take the probability curve of a random draw and then add a growth curve for the next 20 years.

@Firedude to take this one step further the reason I think we are missing each other is that I think there is a good argument for points systems over random up until a point, that's kinda what you are modeling and expressing, and I agree... but its a different argument when the odds are already long.

So 1-5 years to draw= Pref points better
1-15 years to draw = bonus or bonus squared
20+ years to draw ie once in a lifetime = random

* years to draw meaning cumulative odds over multiple years being ~95%

That all being said there is a psychology aspect in that random systems tend to not have as many players so it actually improves odds, see bear argument above, and second players don't like having multiple highly different draw systems, especially for the same species.

My preference for system has varied a bit over the years, I'm leaning towards random as it is easier for folks to understand and like I said less players, but my alternative best system would be the Colorado MSG system which is preferences points then weighted points.

Yes! My numbers I came up with are different. Quite higher honestly. But yours aren't bad. I could see transitioning in that area.

Preference for systems will change because as time progresses the numbers change. You can improve tag distributions by changing. As I stated prior, points make sense now for a lot of stuff. So does random. It just depends. But switching all to one is not a good fix. We can evenly distribute tags.

I like putting numbers to stuff because it starts making sense to people. Everybody who just wants to can it and go to random because it sounds fair needs to know what they might be signing up for. You would probably draw 3 to 4 elk tags with points. You could draw 6 in random or never ever draw your whole life. And there are people who WILL NEVER DRAW A SINGLE TAG for anything. I've met those people.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Didn't notice this was a Montana issue. Or are you just piling on? mtmuley

I will remain silent on who may or may not be #1.

 

[rmyoung1]

No buying points only would be a start. If you want to apply you need to apply to hunt.

This only works to slow point creep if those who don’t want to hunt that year do not apply. Unfortunately, that assumption is patently false. Those who don’t want to hunt instead will apply for the hardest-to-draw unit(s), which actually accelerates point creep. Better to keep the “hopefully one day” crowd on the sidelines if you wanna slow top end point creep.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Was catching up on this thread and zoomed in on a graph and the wife goes “are you on Hunt Talk debating points again?!”

 

[Pucky Freak]

@bigfin has made the point on numerous threads that pref point systems lead to a lot of people just buying points...

CO bear is the most epic example. In 2022 there were 4 hunt codes NR drew that required more than 1 point.

1 tag for each of these units
View attachment 227770

2 tags
View attachment 227771
6tags
View attachment 227772


9507 apps... 6770 of which are preference points only... literally WHAT?

I swear if CO introduced Jackalope preference points they'd get 2000 application for preference point only.
View attachment 227773

I am now selling golden marmot PP for $5 apiece! FOMO?? PM me your credit card info today.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am now selling golden marmot PP for $5 apiece! FOMO?? PM me your credit card info today.
View attachment 227830

PPs have become NFTs for hunters.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Sort of... I'm just picturing in differently and not articulating it without being able to take pictures.

My bell curve in my head is 100 guys over time adding back in previous successful applicants as they draw again. The line being first time someone draws the tag. So yes you are correct but I'm just graphing it with different parameters.

Perhaps this is what you have in mind? Below is the binomial probability distribution of drawing a tag with 10% odds per year "x" times over 20 years. The general formula is:

P=p^x*(1-p)^(n-x)*n!/x!(n-x)!​

n = number of attempts​

x = number of occurrences​

p = probability per attempt​

Excel's "BINOM.DIST" function also works.

 

[rogerthat]

Yes! My numbers I came up with are different. Quite higher honestly. But yours aren't bad. I could see transitioning in that area.

Preference for systems will change because as time progresses the numbers change. You can improve tag distributions by changing. As I stated prior, points make sense now for a lot of stuff. So does random. It just depends. But switching all to one is not a good fix. We can evenly distribute tags.

I like putting numbers to stuff because it starts making sense to people. Everybody who just wants to can it and go to random because it sounds fair needs to know what they might be signing up for. You would probably draw 3 to 4 elk tags with points. You could draw 6 in random or never ever draw your whole life. And there are people who WILL NEVER DRAW A SINGLE TAG for anything. I've met those people.

This is spot on. Hard to tell some of these tag drawin sum bucks they got luckier than shit or that there are people like myself that can’t draw crap with a crayon

 

[BenInMT]

End unguided non-resident hunting. Decrease outfitter tags but make those the only vehicle by which a person can travel halfway around the world to quench his blood thirst. This is the way. Our wildlife are not your playthings or social media content.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Counter point: No preference or bonus points at all. Have a real democratic allocation of the resource: 1 application - 1 chance. No more buying your way to the front of the line, etc.

Just a straight up random draw for everything. Resident/NR split still remains negotiable within the wide range of 90/10.

Yes, for EVERY state and every species. No more "landowner tags" or "commissioner tags" or "giveaway tags". Equal chance for everyone. Let the Fish and Game Biologists set the quotas with no Commisioner intervention. Prosecute poachers with heaftier fines/loss of hunting privledges.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Great, I’ll just keep holding out for that elusive Kentucky elk tag…

Or worse, the TN Elk tag.

 

[TN2shot07]

Or worse, the TN Elk tag.

I don’t think my calculator even pushes a decimal point out far enough for those odds…

On the bright side, VA is handing out a tag now so there’s always a chance!

 

[Bigjay73]

End unguided non-resident hunting. Decrease outfitter tags but make those the only vehicle by which a person can travel halfway around the world to quench his blood thirst. This is the way. Our wildlife are not your playthings or social media content.

 

[VikingsGuy]

End unguided non-resident hunting. Decrease outfitter tags but make those the only vehicle by which a person can travel halfway around the world to quench his blood thirst. This is the way. Our wildlife are not your playthings or social media content.

OK - but then (1) no hunting on federal land by in-state residents without an outfitter, (2) no taking of animals that spend at least 25% of the time on federal lands, (3) zero federal funding for in-state wildlife or conservation activities, (4) zero share of Pittman Robertson funds generated outside your state, (5) no federal tax deductibility for conservation charitable donations that are spent in your state, (6) no upland/waterfowl hunting or fishing outside of your state, (7) your children may not attend state funded universities or colleges out of state, and (8) reduction of all federal funds to median level of other 49 states. Feel free to run your state as an island if you wish, but stop spending dirty NR money doing so. Either you are part of the republic or you are not. Our money and other resources are not your plaything.

 

[Big Fin]

Does that count PILT payments?

Yup. And SRS. And revenue share on gas/minerals/timber/grazing.

 

[Nick87]

End unguided non-resident hunting. Decrease outfitter tags but make those the only vehicle by which a person can travel halfway around the world to quench his blood thirst. This is the way. Our wildlife are not your playthings or social media content.

No

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes! My numbers I came up with are different. Quite higher honestly. But yours aren't bad. I could see transitioning in that area.

Preference for systems will change because as time progresses the numbers change. You can improve tag distributions by changing. As I stated prior, points make sense now for a lot of stuff. So does random. It just depends. But switching all to one is not a good fix. We can evenly distribute tags.

I like putting numbers to stuff because it starts making sense to people. Everybody who just wants to can it and go to random because it sounds fair needs to know what they might be signing up for. You would probably draw 3 to 4 elk tags with points. You could draw 6 in random or never ever draw your whole life. And there are people who WILL NEVER DRAW A SINGLE TAG for anything. I've met those people.

Counter point: nobody owes you a tag. You don't draw, you don't draw. There are still ample opportunities to hunt w/I pulling a LE permit. Cows, does, bear, OTC units, etc.

This is why PP are participation trophies.

 

[rogerthat]

Counter point: nobody owes you a tag. You don't draw, you don't draw. There are still ample opportunities to hunt w/I pulling a LE permit. Cows, does, bear, OTC units, etc.

This is why PP are participation trophies.

Counter point to your counter point: some point systems have worked as intended when demand has not outstripped supply allowing a wide distribution of tags to more than just “you lucky sob’s”. I know of an MT rifle elk unit of around 10% draw odds that everyone I know drew after 10-15 years or less of putting in. Would that have been the case random? I suspect not