Do you really understand Nevada Draw Odds?

[Grundy53]

Let us know what you think. Be prepared to look up at some point and realize you've been on their site for 2.5 hours hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No kidding hahaha. It's easy to get lost down the rabbit hole. Just when you think you have one state down you start over with another.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[trail@goHunt]

No kidding hahaha. It's easy to get lost down the rabbit hole. Just when you think you have one state down you start over with another.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Hope you find value in being a member. If you ever have questions or have any input please feel free to contact me or anyone here at goHUNT and we will be happy to help you out!

 

[Grundy53]

I love it. Thanks.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[Nomad]

Hope you find value in being a member. If you ever have questions or have any input please feel free to contact me or anyone here at goHUNT and we will be happy to help you out!

Oh man... You're gonna earn your money on my sub.

 

[itsTyrtruion]

Most of my good bucks have come from tags not highly sought after in areas I could learn by hunting repeatedly. Areas that would most likely be 3rd-5th choices for many hunters.

all kidding and smart ass remarks and analogies aside...
So this thinking right here is why and how you have monsters on your wall, and lots of them. with experience and time afield, you can turn a 3rd -5th choice unit into somewhat of a home turf that you learn the niches about thus making it way more valuable to you. if you were to hit that dream unit that you are unfamiliar with you run the risk of crashing and burning due to lack of knowledge.

theres a well known non-Nevada resident that hunts successfully in an over issued area every year that has horrible success rates. And his smallest buck is bigger than my largest to date... but he knows where to go and has his spots and the drive to put in the extreme effort to be successful. no websites algorithm will ever be able to accurately account for mental toughness.

 

[robby denning]

all kidding and smart ass remarks and analogies aside...
So this thinking right here is why and how you have monsters on your wall, and lots of them. with experience and time afield, you can turn a 3rd -5th choice unit into somewhat of a home turf that you learn the niches about thus making it way more valuable to you. if you were to hit that dream unit that you are unfamiliar with you run the risk of crashing and burning due to lack of knowledge.

theres a well known non-Nevada resident that hunts successfully in an over issued area every year that has horrible success rates. And his smallest buck is bigger than my largest to date... but he knows where to go and has his spots and the drive to put in the extreme effort to be successful. no websites algorithm will ever be able to accurately account for mental toughness.

Thanks and I agree. love to draw good tags and have drawn some, but for the reasons you stated, it's hard to take advantage of all they offer in one year because I don't know the area very well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrb CO]

Haha...ok bear with me for one more post which I think will help out with some of the confusion, it may be overkill but here goes. If you aren’t the type of person that really geeks out on the nitty gritty and math involved then you might skip to the last few bullet points. But for those interested, as a team we worked with our data scientist and went though the scenario provided.

A few highlights before we get into the numbers.
1.) a formula that could result in a negative probability cannot be correct.
2.) compounding probabilities affect each other multiplicatively, not simply through addition or subtraction
3.) if you have multiple choices your overall odds of drawing one of your choices is higher than your single best choice odds.


With our calculations, our data scientist ran the scenario toprut provided through 100 million simulations just to make sure we are confident and the results listed below are solid.

1st choice odds = 0.1
2nd choice odds = 0.135
3rd choice odds = 0.153
4th choice odds = 0.153
5th choice odds = 0.138

So the first choice odds, as we both agreed are 10%. 2nd = 13.5%, 3rd = 15.3% etc…
You get a 67.87% chance for the app as a whole, meaning that once your application is being evaluated you have a 68% chance of having one of your hunts awarded to you, not simply 30%. This might sound strange, but remember the coin flip analogy. You flip a coin once, 50% odds..you flip it 5 times the odds compound that you’ll get at least one heads.

Now lets say we reversed the order (going from easiest to hardest) on that same hypothetical application. The overall odds for the application stay the same at 67.87% (which makes sense) but the odds of drawing each specific choice change significantly:

1st choice odds = 0.3
2nd choice odds = 0.175
3rd choice odds = 0.105
4th choice odds = 0.063
5th choice odds = 0.036

Now before you jump to the conclusion that you should put you best odds hunt as your first choice it’s very important that you understand…the odds of your 5th choice in the first scenario are only lower because there is a better probability that you will have drawn one of you first few choices. In the second scenario where the odds are in inverse order from how they should be, notice how poor your odds are for the good hunts at the bottom. You’re essentially wasting those because the odds of drawing your first few choices are higher.


* To maximize your odds to draw, you should use all 5 choices.
* You always have better odds overall with more choices.
* Put your most desired hunts first so you draw them if they're available..followed by your best odds hunts.

I'm a member of GoHunt. I specifically joined because I was told directly that you had the actual NV data, so odds could be given exactly and not estimated. When I look at this formula, I realized that I was duped. As a math major and hunter, your premise is flawed. You are looking at choices 2-5 in a vacuum as independent events. That is simply incorrect. This is best demonstrated in your example where the hunt with best draw odds is number 1, with choices 2-5 having sequentially harder odds. Selection bias suggests those 2-5 hunts will likely (almost certainly) already be filled by the time you actually care about them (meaning you did not draw your easier #1 hunt choice). There is no way an individual has a 37.87% chance of drawing choice 2-5 in your example. Sorry.

 

[robby denning]

I'm a member of GoHunt. I specifically joined because I was told directly that you had the actual NV data, so odds could be given exactly and not estimated. When I look at this formula, I realized that I was duped. As a math major and hunter, your premise is flawed. You are looking at choices 2-5 in a vacuum as independent events. That is simply incorrect. This is best demonstrated in your example where the hunt with best draw odds is number 1, with choices 2-5 having sequentially harder odds. Selection bias suggests those 2-5 hunts will likely (almost certainly) already be filled by the time you actually care about them (meaning you did not draw your easier #1 hunt choice). There is no way an individual has a 37.87% chance of drawing choice 2-5 in your example. Sorry.

I'm trying to process what you're saying here and not sure I get your point. I didn't see where he said choices 2-5 are independent events?
Why is there "no way" there is not a 37.87% chance on choices 2-5? Just trying to understand what you think is right way to figure it



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OG DramaLlama]

I'm trying to process what you're saying here and not sure I get your point. I didn't see where he said choices 2-5 are independent events?
Why is there "no way" there is not a 37.87% chance on choices 2-5? Just trying to understand what you think is right way to figure it



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where I get confused on Trail's example is the coin flip analogy. That is an independent event. Each event, coin flip, has no bearing result of the successive events. The chance of heads or tails is always 50% on each flip.

If the Nevada draw is a set of independent events than an application is drawn and evaluated for one choice at a time. If unsuccessful, the application would be put back into the draw for successive choices. This would change the odds dramatically. As most everything would be filled before you got to 2-5 choices.

Nevada's system is based on a set of dependent events. After the application is drawn, first event, each choice is evaluated, 2-5 events, prior to going on to the next application. Again, supporting the selection of hard to draw first but making sure you list all 5 choices for the greatest probability of hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrb CO]

I'm trying to process what you're saying here and not sure I get your point. I didn't see where he said choices 2-5 are independent events?
Why is there "no way" there is not a 37.87% chance on choices 2-5? Just trying to understand what you think is right way to figure it



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not want to bore anyone with equations, but he is taking each successive choice after #1 as another random event only influenced by the chance the applicant drew his 1st choice (in a vacuum and independent). If in fact, an applicant is unsuccessful drawing a tag with 30% odds in a system where numbers are randomly assigned to an application. Then his randomly assigned number is not in the 1st 30% of numbers drawn and likely not in the top 50%.

Choices #2-#5 are even more desirable (worse draw odds) than choice #1 in this model. Those applicants with higher numbers who got to pick ahead of him have already naturally selected those more desirable units. His equation does not account for that.

As an example, I drew an AZ archery elk tag several years ago in unit 8. My tag number was 001. It was my 2nd choice. Do you think anyone that year who did not draw unit 8 archery with their 1st choice, drew unit 10 with their 2nd choice (which was my 1st choice)? Of course not.

 

[HellsCanyon]

Tagged for info.... enjoying the thread so far


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

Thanks for the attempts guys, but I can't grasp the examples in my little mind. Not knocking your examples, just admitting how difficult this subject really is to grasp.

What I did understand from Trail, and I don't see that anyone has refuted, is that by the time you factor in the chance of drawing one of your earlier choices, it does affect (lower) your odds of drawing your latter choices.

That changed how I personally will order my application. I don't care about long shots anymore. I care about drawing the tag that best matches my goals, and offers the best odds. No sense in lowering my drawing odds with a hunt that "might "be better. This is how I view it, doesn't make it right for everyone else. But most guys going to the drawings are thinking "I just got to get the best tag out there" I don't think that way.

For me personally that was my original question. And I believe Trail answered that, and toprut confirmed it in his example. Although they disagree on particulars.

Before goHunt, the only info I could ever find on Nevada was first choice, then everyone bailed out after that because they couldn't explain it. Did me no good to know 1423 people applied for 10 tags first choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tilzbow]

Robbie,

Your early choices do not lower the chances of drawing your later choices in a negative way unless your preference is to hunt a "poorer" unit that you list after a "top tier" unit. Even then the impact is minimal. Let's say you list a top tier unit as your first choice and the draw odds for that choice are 1%. You have a 1% chance at drawing that tag, agreed? Since you have a 1% chance of drawing that first choice it will lower the odds that you draw your second choice by only 1% in total. In total is the key word. Let's say you list the Rubies as your second choice and the odds of drawing there are 50%, you'd then have a 49% chance of drawing the Rubies at the beginning of the draw if it's your second choice. However, once the draw begins and if you miss your first choice your odds of drawing the Rubies are now once again 50%.

Your total odds of drawing a tag in either scenario are the same however by listing a top tier unit first you now have a slim chance of Hunting in a top unit.

That's the best explanation I can give and it aligns with Top Ruts earlier post.

 

[robby denning]

Robbie,

Your early choices do not lower the chances of drawing your later choices in a negative way unless your preference is to hunt a "poorer" unit that you list after a "top tier" unit. Even then the impact is minimal. Let's say you list a top tier unit as your first choice and the draw odds for that choice are 1%. You have a 1% chance at drawing that tag, agreed? Since you have a 1% chance of drawing that first choice it will lower the odds that you draw your second choice by only 1% in total. In total is the key word. Let's say you list the Rubies as your second choice and the odds of drawing there are 50%, you'd then have a 49% chance of drawing the Rubies at the beginning of the draw if it's your second choice. However, once the draw begins and if you miss your first choice your odds of drawing the Rubies are now once again 50%.

That's the best explanation I can give and it aligns with Top Ruts earlier post.

Sure and thanks. I get that in your example.

However, many years I was not listing hunts that had a 1% chance. More like 10 to 20% chance.

So in your example, I'd drop from 50% odds to 30 or 40% odds. No thanks. I usually know the units I'm applying for well enough that I don't want to drop my odds by any significant amount, for some hail Mary that I'll likely never draw (and have not prescouted, because I don't waste time scouting units I can't draw).

$150 non-refundable license fee is still a lot of money around this house, I want to spend it wisely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tilzbow]

No, it doesn't work that way and I didn't explain it as well as intended due to a poor choice of words.The problem with the way everyone, including myself, has been looking at it is that we've all tried to apply dependent or independent probability laws to all choices and it doesn't work that way so let me try again.

Let's use the same odds I listed above. Your first choice unit has 1% odds while your second choice has 50% odds. We can all agree that your odds of drawing your first choice are 1%, right? Okay, so your chance of drawing you first choice is 1%; therefore, you've got a 99% chance of not drawing your first choice. Can we all agree on that? So, before we begin the draw we have a 99% chance of reaching our second choice, right?

Now the problem here is that everyone is trying to apply probability laws to all of the choices as if the odds of drawing an earlier choice or not have an impact on the odds of drawing your later choices but in reality they do not. The first choice odds only impact whether or not you'll make it to your next choice but the first choice has zero impact on the draw odds of the second choice, the only impact is whether or not we make it to our second choice. So you've got a 1% chance of drawing your first choice and a 99% chance of making it to your second choice. Once you miss out on your first choice, you're now at your second choice and your odds of drawing the unit are 50%. Hopefully this makes sense.

 

[robby denning]

But both Trail and Toprut agreed that you have decreased odds as you go down the list, due to your previous choices odds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tilzbow]

But both Trail and Toprut agreed that you have decreased odds as you go down the list, due to your previous choices odds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe they're both incorrect as referenced in my post above but I do believe Top Rut knows this and just didn't explain it well in the first post he made. In fact, they might both understand it but it's difficult to explain.

 

[robby denning]

OK, I missed that you disagree with them. That's fine and why I started this entire discussion.

 

[Tilzbow]

Here's another example:

Archery draw odds for residents in the Rubies are 100% so if I apply for an archery tag in the Rubies, as my last choice, my chance of drawing a tag are 100% but my chance of reaching the Rubies choice is impacted by the previous four choices. If I only apply for the Rubies I still have a 100% chance of drawing the Rubies but I have zero % chance of drawing a tag in a "better" unit.

All the guys I know who want a guaranteed tag will list the Rubies as their last choice and I've never, ever, heard of anyone not drawing a tag in NV because they listed it last.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

so an oversimplified way of saying it is your odds don't change once you get to that specific hunt, but listing your pie-in-the-sky hunts 1st and 2nd gives you a fighters chance, then listing your better-odds-hunts later as 3-5th your chances only diminish due to the 1&2 choice hunts, but the odds themselves don't change because you listed it as a 5th choice.

I'm only 1/2 done with the bottle of aspirin.