Expo Tags - results

[CorbLand]

I would hope so, it's a UT born 'n breed organization. It tried to take root across the Rocky Mtn west and had a good showing for a time, but I think locals directors began to use it for personal gain. NM in particular...

I do not disagree with you at all. I have always been pretty open with my opinion that most nonprofit organizations start out with good intentions and generally morph to self serving entities.

Been here for almost 8 years and have been very critical of SFW from day one. Just stating what I have seen them do. I do not donate to them financially but do help them with projects when I am able. The most money the get from me is when I go to the Expo and even then, its a relatively small amount.

 

[Trial153]

I have been pretty open about my dislike of SFW but I will give them two things.

One, they show up when its time to show up. Go watch the board meetings for Utah, they are there every single time. I listened to one of the chapter heads of RMEF complain when Utah was trying to change the OTC elk tags to a draw. RMEF still didnt show up to board meeting.

Two, they really do put their money where their mouth is. There isnt an origination that is doing more work in Utah and its not just on big name units. They were one of the biggest contributors of funds and getting volunteers to help with the feeding last year. I saw one of them at the Expo and asked if/when they were going to start feeding and how I could help? In less than 24 hours, he had me in contact with the person feeding just up the road from my house and I had 10 bags of feed in my garage. I was a member of BHA and RMEF, I asked many times to help with projects, still waiting to hear back on those.

Love them or hate them, they do show up.

Edit to add. I am not a member of SFW.

Great point. Good reminder to all of us that nothing takes place in a vacuum

 

[Steve O]

Vacuum!!!

I’ve met a couple of the local chapter heads of SFW; great salt of the earth people with nothing but the best intentions. I believe the higher up the chain you go, that’s where the problems begin…

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely; been true since the dawn of man.

 

[S.Clancy]

Your odds are you odds, they don’t go up. One chance to draw is one chance.

but they increase the odds of drawing a tag out of 200 because the outcomes are independent. It's how you can predict your probabilities of number of tags you draw a yr with all your out of state tags.

 

[S.Clancy]

I am far from a statistical genius but I ran the odds for what I applied for.

5 tags
38537 applications
.00013 is my odds of getting one of those 5 tags

Someone who applied for all 200

200 tags
463343 applications
.000432 is the odds of getting one of those 200 tags

I could be wrong, I got a C in stats and havent really used it in 7 years.

Or do you add the odds of each tag to find your odds? I dont remember.

You have to have the odds for each drawing, total applications won't give you the correct probability.

Basically it boils down to this: odds of drawing all tag (multiply all odds together, basically 0) + odds of drawing no tags (multiply the unsuccessful apps/tag to each other, almost 1) + odds of drawing at least one tag (not quite 0) = 1

For example, lets say all tags (separate tags) have a 1/5000 draw probability. There are 200 tags. So, using the above formula:

chance of drawing all tags = (1/5000)^200 = 1.6 E^-740...basically 0
chance of drawing no tags = (4999/5000)^200 = .96078

Chance of drawing 1 tag = 1- .96708 - 1.6 e ^-740 = 3.9%

Assuming the draw odds are the same for drawing one tag year to year, the odds of drawing in consecutive years because even less likely = 0.039^2 = 0.15%. Obviously, the more years in a row you draw the more obvious it becomes that something nefarious may be happening

 

[S.Clancy]

The hush guy has the tag, we're all over here doing math b/c we're jealous. That makes us look like the losers.


I wonder how many mail in tickets came in over night at the last minute?

Look like, I am a loser....

 

[roadrunner]

but they increase the odds of drawing a tag out of 200 because the outcomes are independent. It's how you can predict your probabilities of number of tags you draw a yr with all your out of state tags.

The outcomes are only different if your name is pulled out of the hat. The likelihood is equal for all the tags given for a particular hunt.

For 200 tags in a bag with all the applications in it, your name is only listed a maximum of 117 times, so the ratio is 117:463,343 you'll have your name pulled, or a 0.025% chance.

You have the same chance repeated either 6 times all the way down to only once for a particular hunt, the change only being based on the number of available tags against the total number of applicants for that particular hunt.

For a hunt like the Wasatch LE ALW Bull that had 7,921 applications, there 6 tags available. Each time they put their hand into the tumbler, there was a chance that 7,920 names could be pulled out instead of yours the first time, and then 7,919 the second time...

 

[S.Clancy]

The outcomes are only different if your name is pulled out of the hat. The likelihood is equal for all the tags given for a particular hunt.

For 200 tags in a bag with all the applications in it, your name is only listed a maximum of 117 times, so the ratio is 117:463,343 you'll have your name pulled, or a 0.025% chance.

You have the same chance repeated either 6 times all the way down to only once for a particular hunt, the change only being based on the number of available tags against the total number of applicants for that particular hunt.

For a hunt like the Wasatch LE ALW Bull that had 7,921 applications, there 6 tags available. Each time they put their hand into the tumbler, there was a chance that 1,319 names could be pulled out instead of yours.

That would be true if it was one drawing. If it was 117 separate drawings (one for each unit) than you would to multiply the probabilities of all those drawings and subtract from 1 to get the true probabilities of drawing at least 1 tag.

 

[roadrunner]

That would be true if it was one drawing. If it was 117 separate drawings (one for each unit) than you would to multiply the probabilities of all those drawings and subtract from 1 to get the true probabilities of drawing at least 1 tag.

No, because each drawing is separate by itself, so each has a separate outcome. Hunts with more tags have a higher weighting number. The draw only happens once, not a combination of scenarios. The middle number of 0.027% is how it stacks up each time they pull a name out of the hat across the board fir each hunt.

Regardless, you still only have your name in the hat once, sometimes you get more chances of having it pulled out because their are more tags for that particular hat, but it's way too small to matter.

Your name isn't in there multiple times.

 

[maxx075]

Maf hard

 

[S.Clancy]

No, because each drawing is separate by itself, so each has a separate outcome. Hunts with more tags have a higher weighting number. The draw only happens once, not a combination of scenarios. The middle number of 0.027% is how it stacks up each time they pull a name out of the hat across the board fir each hunt.

Regardless, you still only have your name in the hat once, sometimes you get more chances of having it pulled out because their are more tags for that particular hat, but it's way too small to matter.

Your name isn't in there multiple times.

You are saying 2 different things. If the outcomes of the unit draws have separate outcomes it is not the same as having 1 drawing...

 

[timberland]

I thought this was a NM elk draw thread until I ran headlong into a bunch of Bigfoot lingo.

 

[WCB]

You guys and your math are all wrong....it figures out like this:

You either draw a tag or don't....that equals 50-50 in my book.

 

[roadrunner]

You are saying 2 different things. If the outcomes of the unit draws have separate outcomes it is not the same as having 1 drawing...

One set of tags for any one hunt has zero effect on the likelihood of the next you're in the pool for. Once all the tags are given out, the likelihood of the next batch is its own. If there are 5 tags with 6,000 applicants, for each tag you have a 1/6,000 chance of winning. The next tag is 1/5,999. Tags 3 - 5 follow the same sequence. For each "draw", your odds of drawing a tag do not increase by a multiplier.

You can't assume the same multiplier for each hunt type because the tag count for each is different. It's a far cry easier to draw a lesser sought after archery deer than a premium ALW Henry's.

If you have 1 app for each hunt, there is an avg likelihood that 3,959 other names will be drawn instead of yours. Everyone is in the same boat. This number varies in reality based on tag numbers and applicants for that hunt, some are better while others are way worse.

 

[S.Clancy]

One set of tags for any one hunt has zero effect on the likelihood of the next you're in the pool for. Once all the tags are given out, the likelihood of the next batch is its own. If there are 5 tags with 6,000 applicants, for each tag you have a 1/6,000 chance of winning. The next tag is 1/5,999. Tags 3 - 5 follow the same sequence. For each "draw", your odds of drawing a tag do not increase by a multiplier.

You can't assume the same multiplier for each hunt type because the tag count for each is different. It's a far cry easier to draw a lesser sought after archery deer than a premium ALW Henry's.

If you have 1 app for each hunt, there is an avg likelihood that 3,959 other names will be drawn instead of yours. Everyone is in the same boat. This number varies in reality based on tag numbers and applicants for that hunt, some are better while others are way worse.

I think we are saying the same thing, or at least something close.

Anyway, I ran the math of your chances of drawing a tag if you put in for every option. They are surprisingly high, 7.5 - 7.85% depending on how they actually run the draw. Still, drawing consecutive years, or more than that, is extremely unlikely.

 

[roadrunner]

Still, drawing consecutive years, or more than that, is extremely unlikely.

Agreed