Contributors to this thread:
Colorado weighted points worthless ptII
So last year myself and sticksender got in a good discussion about the weighted point system of Colorado. He says they give an advantage where I feel they don't do much and it comes down to your random number and the tile assignment. Since the draw is almost here, I thought it would be fun to have a survey here. No need to put unit numbers but just say if you applied and with how many points. I am in for sheep with 3 plus 10. I drew and killed a goat in 2013 with 3 plus 3 and I will not put in for them again.
I am in for sheep and goat with 3/8 for both. I have 3/12 for moose as well. Poudre
Applying for Desert since 2012. But I’ve drawn CO Ram tags with: 0, 3, 3+4
Mathematically, they without a doubt give you an advantage. It's just hard to see in reality because the odds are always terribly low. And there is a very low sample size. The random draw and conversion of the numbers is big, but those with weighted points then get to divide their final number by however many points they have. That is huge.
That said, I drew sheep with 3+0 last year, proving anyone can draw. That is what makes the hybrid system great IMO. the preference points and squared bonus point systems really put newcomers at a disadvantage. States like CO strike a decent balance between rewarding those that consistently apply vs attracting new applicants.
They can't give you an advantage if your random number is too high. Most guys with low weighted points will be the majority of tag holders because in 3 years we will see them in the pool since fronting the money has gone away. This huge influx will give them the highest chance of drawing the lowest random numbers.
Individually, everyone has the same chance of drawing the lowest number.
correct, but your weighted points have no effect on what your random number will be.
Kadbow is 100% correct. The system is very convoluted but really comes down to what random number you get. I am in with 3+11 for sheep and 3+12 for goats. Max for moose - and my odds drop every year as more people hit the magic 3 point level.
Here is an article explaining the draw. I have seen and heard a lot of misinformation lately about how the Colorado Bighorn Sheep, mountain goat, moose draw and weighted points in the Colorado system actually works. I decided to do a little research on how the process really works. What I will try to accomplish here is an explanation using real life scenarios and actual draw numbers. Here is exactly what happened to my mountain goat application in 2005 once I submitted it via the online application process. Each application, in my case mountain goat, is assigned a consecutive number from a predetermined block of numbers. Some application numbers are groups. Bighorn sheep mountain goat and desert sheep are in one block. Antelope, bear, deer and elk are in another block. Moose has its own block. It is interesting to note the CDOW processes over half a million applications for all species. My mountain goat “application number” was 704059. The next step in the draw process is to reverse or invert the application number so no matter when during the open application period a person applies has no bearing on the eventual outcome of the draw. My new or “inverted application number” was 950407. The next step in the process is to assign randomly drawn “conversion numbers” to my inverted #. The random draw takes place at the Colorado Division of Wildlife headquarters in Denver. People unrelated to the limited license department are used to draw the tiles by hand. A bin with ten tiles individually numbered 0-9 is used to randomly select new numbers. The first tile randomly drawn is now equal to 0 all the remaining tiles are drawn one at a time and replace the numbers 0-9. Each species has a separate draw for conversion numbers. Here is a visual example of how it works In 2005 CDOW mountain goat conversion draw the order of the tiles drawn was 2, 5, 1, 8, 9, 7, 4, 0, 3, and 6. So now on my inverted original application number of 950407 is converted using the following values.: 0=2 1=5 2=1 3=8 4=9 5=7 6=4 7=0 8=3 9=6 My new “converted draw number” now becomes 672920 and will be used to from here on out. Next weight points are factored in for goat, moose and sheep. In theory it is possible to draw a mountain goat, moose and bighorn sheep license with only 3 preference points and no weighted points if your “converted draw number” is low enough. Weighted points are used as a divisor of your converted draw number. Your converted draw number is divided by the number of weighted points + 1. For goats in 2005 I only had one weighted point so my draw number 672920 is divided by 1+1 or 2. My “final draw number” is 336460. These “final draw numbers” are arranged lowest to highest by hunt code choice. The quota for each hunt code is then filled with lowest to highest “final draw numbers.” In my case in 2005 my first choice hunt code GE G04 03 R had seven tags available for residents. The lowest “final draw number” in that hunt code was 005384. As you can clearly see this person’s “final draw number” is more than 330,000 less my “final draw number” Knowing this person had 3 preference points and 4 weighted points and working backwards we can determine the following. Their original draw number was 026920 (5384 x (4+1)) their converted number was 704907 there inverted application number was 709407. When compared to my application number of 704059 you can see they are very close numerically but the outcome is very different. Let me finish out the remaining six licenses so you can see the results as they play out for this one hunt code. License number one went to the lowest final draw number 005384. License number two went to final draw number 009342, a person with 3 points and 2 weighted points. License number three went to final draw number 021064, a person with 3 points and 3 weighted points. License numbers four and five went to final draw number 022765, a group of two applicants that had 3 points and 4 weighted points. Tag number 6 went to 033281, who had 3 points and 3 weighted points. The final license went to 034163, a person just like me who had 3 points and 1 weighted point. Working backwards when see why this person with 3 and 1 drew a license when I did not. Knowing this person had 3 preference points and 1 weighted point and we can determine the following. Their original draw number was 068326 (34163 x (1+1)) their converted number was 793805 there inverted application number was 508397.
great point treeline and one I was trying to convey earlier. Our odds actually go down not up the more weighted point we acquire.
I agree that the random number is a big determinant, but mathematically the weighted points help as well. I'm at 3+0 and 3+2, so I'll gladly trade with any of you high weighted point holders that think they don't matter. I think the CO system is one of the better in terms of awarding high demand species, but nothing is perfect.
The odds going down each year are directly proportional to the numbers of applicants getting above three points that are putting in for the same unit. Would be interesting to see it go to 10 preference points before the weighted points...
Not sure why they don’t just issue each applicant a random number and then divide by the weighted points. Sure a lot of trouble to get to the same result...
They truly only help if your number is within the dividing factor of your weighted points to make it the lowest number in the pool.
Right, which is what makes it a "hybrid" drawing system, based part on a random draw and part on preference points. There are some diminishing returns on each successive weighted point as going from 0 to 1 is more "valuable" than going from 9 to 10, but given a similar random draw, the higher point holder is always better off.
If you owed a guy money and he let you pick a number from 1 through 9 to divide what you owed and that would become the new number you owed, would you rather have 1 or 9?
Points matter. If you have 12 points and draw then you very well might not have drawn if you only have 3 to divide your number by, right?
Not enough sheep or goats or moose so someone is getting the tag and another 100 - 400 of us will not. I like random draws but in a point system there is always an improvement in your odds when have more points. Your odds may fall the next year if a bunch of new entrants enter the draw though that would be the case in a random draw as well.
Math is hard to follow sometimes but the CO draw math favors larger numbers even if the outcome reflects a lot of sub 5 point applicants being drawn. They did not draw because they have fewer points but in spite of having fewer points.
They drew because they were issued the lowest random number. Take S4101R for example 18 people between 3 plus 6 to 3 plus 16 applied out of 21 total applicants. 3 of them had max points. A youth with 3 plus 2 drew. So please tell me how having max points had any mathematical advantage.
the year 1997 with 6 pp I drew a big horn sheep tag in S32. Two years later 2000, I drew a mt goat tag with 8 pts. (rife unit) Maxed out with moose PP and bonus points.. A few more moose on the ground but a lot more hunters applying, like 20,000.
I fully expect an overhaul to the PPs/Weighted system in the next 5 Year Season Structure
i.e - raising the minimum of 3 PPs
The higher point holders have a statistical advantage, but the randomness doesn't guarantee that they will always draw. It's the same fallacy as saying "how come the guy that buys the most lottery tickets doesn't always win?"
in for moose at 3 +6. Head still spinning from the explanation of the draw process. Thanks for the info though.
I'm in for all three. 0 for goat (drew and killed in 2012), 3+10 for sheep, 3+8 for moose.
The weighted points make a difference, but not as much as some people want them to.
Moose = 3+17 for two in the family. When questioning CPW, the usual answer is comparing it to the lottery ball system where I get 20 balls in the machine based on the 3+17 and I have a lot better chance than someone with 3+1=4 balls to draw from. Doesn't that equate to 3+34 for the family which would be difficult to beat, in otherwords, their explanation gives us a great chance of drawing?
Depends on how many others put in with more than 3 for the unit you’re in for.
Drew my Ram tag with 3-3 Killed.... five years in the penalty box and now at 3-5??? Got my Billy tag at 3-12 killed and get out of the penalty Box this year and will try and build again... hope to draw one more in my lifetime... Maxed on Moose... I apply in five states all pretty crappy odds for the primo tags but up my odds of drawing a great tag.... it is a numbers game for sure...but a little luck never hurts...
There are a few guys on Bowsite who know and understand the draws inside and out. Wapitibob (who understands the elk drawing systems better than anyone and has more connections in the G&F depts than anyone), sticksender, drycreek, and a few others who don't post as much. If you bet against these guys, you're probably wrong.
As far as weighted points go, they work exactly how CO P&W say they do. They're not like the other CO preference points. You can't expect to see a bunch of high points folks pulling all the tags based on simple math. There are far more applicants in the lower and mid tiers than the top tiers which outweighs their advantage in points, when you look at which point demographic actually pulls the tag.
You'll see the same scenario with tag distribution in Nevada and Utah when you look at who actually gets the tags. When you look at the points, it doesn't make sense. But when you look at the math, it does.
Do you know how many points a person must have to have the best odds of drawing a tag in the random round in Utah? It depends on how you ask the question: The person with the most points in the group has the best odds of drawing. But if you were to ask out of the people with 0, 1, 2, 3, etc, all the way up to max points, which group the tag was most likely to go to, then it would be someone with 9 points going into the 2018 draw.
That's because they're part of "the class of 2009" when Utah allowed everyone to put in for every specie instead of just one. That demographic has far more apps than any other point group. So tags go disproportionately to people with that amount of points, which goes up by one point 1 every year.
It's a similar story with CO weighted points. They do actually work exactly how they're designed to work. It's just that they don't "weight" your application very much, so lots of folks with low points draw. Because there's lots of them.
I'm not defending the system, I'm just saying I believe you're prejudging the weighted point system based on being used to a view of the point system as a "whoever has the most points, gets the tags," viewpoint. That's not how the weighted point system works. It's much more like a bonus point system like the aforementioned. In which case, you don't see a lot of top point holders drawing year in, year out.
Because they're outnumbered. Which is the key to the math.
"There are a few guys on Bowsite who know and understand the draws inside and out. Wapitibob (who understands the elk drawing systems better than anyone and has more connections in the G&F depts than anyone), sticksender, drycreek, and a few others who don't post as much. If you bet against these guys, you're probably wrong."
What Ike said... I have lots of weighted points, but no sheep tag :-(
Idyll sez "It's much more like a bonus point system like the aforementioned".
In fact, Sticksender's analysis for goat last year showed it acted exactly like a standard bonus point system. Weighted points do very much look like the "more tickets in the hat" example, in almost all cases of interest.
BUT, they are not preference points, some people don't seem to understand the difference.
They aren't bonus points they are a dividing factor of your random number. Look at my S41 example 21 total applicants with 18 having between 3 plus 6 to 3 plus 16 weighted points, so 86 percent. Statistically one of them should have drawn, but an applicant with 3 plus 2 drew. It is because even the max point applicants random number was so high that their 16 weighted points could not bring there number down low enough to draw. 99 percent of the applicants are eliminated before the weighted points are even looked at or applied. Idyl I already said the same thing a few threads up a majority of the sheep and goat tags will go to low point holders. Especially in the next 3 to 5 years when the influx of people who are now applying because they don't have to front the fees enter the pool.
How do we find out our application numbers? For what its worth, I'm at 3+12 for sheep, 3+11 for goats and moose.
Orion I appreciate your detailed step-by-step explanation of the process. Obviously you REALLY want to convince folks weighted points are useless, but (assuming your explanation is correct) that is not true. Once the numbers go through all their machinations to a final assigned number - those with higher bonus points get an opportunity to “jump ahead” of those in front of them because of their higher divisor (giving them a lower number).
So “worthless” they are not.
You can't "jump ahead" if your random number is too high. I guess worthless is the wrong term how about not as helpful. Rusty I believe you can find out after the draw but I am not sure about that. Also, I believe the tile assignment of the numbers is changed every year.
txhunter don't want to convince anyone, but I feel guys are putting too much "faith" in their weighted points. Probably one of the reasons you see so many put in for points and not actual tags it's like they are building them for a future draw which is not the case with the way the sheep, goat, and moose draw is set up.
Orion sez; "They aren't bonus points they are a dividing factor of your random number".
Yes, you are absolutely correct. But the end result is the same, it yields a result exactly like a standard bonus point system (technically only in the low probability limit, but that is applicable to most CO species) . There is a mathematical explanation, but it's not worth getting into. Sticksender's empirical analysis demonstrated this last year, that should be good enough. Your %odds scale as (WP+1). Someone with WP=9 has 10 X better odds than someone with WP=0, but only marginally better odds than someone with WP=8.
txhunter my example is true you can pull it up on the bighorn sheep stats. It is there in black and white. I guess when you look at that example some people might say they are worthless considering they had 8 times as many weighted points as the guy who got the tag.
20+ years for sheep and goat... no tag. Now that the up front fees are gone I may never see a tag... Ed F
Here is a snippet of a popular Colorado Moose GMU 6 - 2017 Stats As you can see by the draw results, Weighted Points do in fact matter
What I see here is a lot of people don't understand math.
I hear a lot of guys say "That unit is 10% chance to draw so if I apply for 10 years I will be guaranteed a tag"
WRONG! You will have a 10% chance to draw every year. Two very different things.
Math might seem strange but numbers don't lie! You just have to know how to interpret them. Which a few guys above do by the way.
JRABQ how your odds exponentially better in this scenario
You might just link the article vs copy paste since there is a good graphic of the process as well and it doesn't appear as a just a wall of text.
The only change I can see that would make a difference is at this step -
'Your converted draw number is divided by the number of weighted points + 1"
Was changed to where your converted draw number was divided by the squared sum of your weighted points.
As an example from the actual draw data I complied for article 13 years ago. One person who drew had had 3 preference points and 4 weighted points and working backwards we can determine the following. Their original draw number was 026920 (5384 x (4+1)) their converted number was 704907 there inverted application number was 709407. If we divided their (original draw number) 026920/16 (by weighted points squared 4x4 = 16 ) =1683 so less than the 5383 number used. The true power of the squared divisor system is realized as point totals climb and your weighted point numbers at the higher end have a greater impact like (16x16=256 vs 15x15 = 240 ) vs a singe point jump.
This is an option I would like to see the CPW explore soon.
For the record- I have no species with max weighted points or anything even close. I have been very lucky in the draws but have also picked lower demand units or units where you still get a tag for beyond 1st place.
Stating simply the odds always remain 10% is as misleading as guaranteeing a tag though in that scenario Greg. If you have 10% odds of something happening, and you look at the odds of it NOT happening 10 years in a row you yield a ~35% chance. In other words, there is about a 65% chance you will draw at least once over the course of that decade.
Instead of all the convoluted math, why not just do a computer random number generator for whatever the number of weighted points are for each of the applicants and the lowest or highest numbers win? If an applicant has 1 weighted point - 1 randomly generated number, if an applicant has 20 weighted points - 20 randomly generated numbers in the pot.
Would be much simpler.
Squaring weighted points would also help the guys with the most points using the existing methodology, but the rest of the convoluted process is still kind of ridiculous.
TEmbry, unfortunately that is not the way it works. You start out with a fresh deck of cards every year for every draw.
When you narrow the scope to predicting a positive result in any ONE year, yes your odds remain at 10%. When looking over the course of several events, that is exactly how it works.
Another way to point it out, the odds of flipping a coin 10 times and not getting at least one heads does not remain at 50% (the odds of getting a heads any one time).
Squared points are borderline approaching preference points in terms of deterring new applicants. I don't agree with that being the route to go.
They use to do a straight preference point draw for sheep back in the day. We are on our third or fourth different way of doing the sheep draw.
Sandbrew I have also not been picking high demand units and units with more than one tag as it should help
You were one of the guys that got lucky, Trevor! :)
Some of us are just not that lucky:(
Stinks when you think that every year, the number of applicants that are eligible for sheep, goat and moose goes up and the overall odds of your name getting pulled drops due to the influx.
The new application system in CO is going to encourage a flood of new people in the system for many of the species that they did not apply for previously because they had to front the money. In 3 years, the majority of the tags will be drawn with 0-1 weighted point under the current system as it is weighted to hit based on the applicants in the biggest pool of weighted points.
Really hope to pull that sheep and moose tag this year! Over 25 years after that moose and 14 since my last sheep tag where I didn't get one.
Still hoping to get a call from Alaska to get out of this points race mess!
If I were king every state would simply square your points and give you that # of chances in the draw. Strikes a great balance between rewarding loyalty yet still giving everyone a chance. Simple.
However, I am not king. :)
What TXHunter said... 100%. Ed F
For you math guys...
If the CPW were to raise the min 3 PPs to 5 PPs, [for S, G, M] how much better would that impact the odds?
With the new rule of no money up front... in 3 years odds will be much worse. I'd like to draw... just to get out of this. Ed F
I would bet less than a percent. All that would do would buy guys two more years before the pool is influxed with the next wave of applicants. The whole draw really boils down to your random number and if it is too high you are eliminated before your weighted points are even factored in.
They created the Weighted Points as an effort to please the high wait folks, and now that is still not much.
Personally, I did not have any issue when it was 3 PP's and then everyone was in the pool. Now, with WP's, the top guys are still not seeing a result (which will always be the case). These are NOT Preference Points after the initial 3...
cnelk - Re: going to 5 PPs, doing a quick calculation based on my having 10 wp for sheep, my odds of drawing a tag increased by a factor of about 1.3-1.4 Meaning, in unit SMS01O1R my odds went from 1.9% to 2.5%, in SMS01O2R odds went from 4.95% to 6.94%, in SMS03O2R odds went from 6.92% to 9.62%. And so on...
The percentage it goes up depends on how good the odds were in the first place.
TXHunter's option is simpler and more balanced than Colorado's messy math.
I am not sure what raising the "bar" for Colorado sheep, goat and moose and keeping the "messy math" would do other than a delay effect for 2 years.
One thing that most hunters fail to recognize is that game departments absolutely love the points games for the hard to draw species. It provides years and years of income for hunters spending the application money with no net loss of the resource. They really don't care how the system is set up as long as it encourages more applicants to spend the money to apply.
Well apparently this thread caught the attention of some DOW employees. Got a pm that apparently there might be changes coming to the draw for the big 3.
I also like squared points but long-term they do pretty much turn into a preference point system.
I agree that the current system does not favor the long term applicant that much
As many people already mentioned in a few years when all the new applicants I actually in the draw odds are going to be terrible
With square points once the system has been going on for 20 years it takes a long time to actually have a chance
Lets say you have three points which gives you 10 chances. If there are five guys with 20 points your odds are over 200 to 1
And that is after several years of you applying and only five other guys
I drew the easiest sheep tag to draw in Nevada in 2017. The people applying there with one point had odds of 52,000 to 1 and that was the easiest unit to draw as a nonresident
Reviving this thread. Had a chat with my CPW buddy who was wanting some Wyoming antelope info. Anyway this thread came up as he had heard about it. He said that CPW is aware that the weighted points are not working like they should or are working like they were explained when they implemented the system. He also said another change is coming and I believe this will be the 5th one for sheep now. The discussions they had were going back to a true preference point system like they used to have. They also discussed making all ram tags once in a lifetime kill or not. The other way they discussed doing the draw was somewhat like Utah's system. So any unit with more than one ram tag would go to the highest point holder and the others would go random like they do now. So for instance if a unit had 9 tags, 7 would go to high point holders and 2 would be random. If a unit only had 1 tag it would stay random like they do it now. This seems like the best way as high point guys could cash out, but low point holders still have chances in lots of units.
It's pretty obvious that Colo's wted system doesn't work in a system with few tags issued and extremely high level of applicants.
I really like NV's squared bonus pt system. Guys with 0 or 1 pt still have a chance to draw (and do draw) and others with high pts stand a little better chance to draw. NV system works very well in a system where very few nonres tags are issued and there is super high demand (lots of applicants).
Utah's bonus pt system with a chunk of tags issued to those with high pts and another chunk of tags in a random draw may sound good but in reality literally stinks! As an example, I've been waiting 21 years for a UT bison tag. They often only issue 1 nonres tag and it goes in the random pool tag. Although I've waited 21 years for a tag I have literally 0 chance to draw. I could wait my lifetime and never draw a bison tag unless they issue a 2nd tag that would go in the high bonus pt pool. UT's bonus system may sound great but in a system where only 1 or 2 tags are issued it stinks.
If you take a look at nonres tags issued for moose, sheep, and goats in Colo there often is only 1 nonres tag issued in most units. A draw system with straight pref pts (tag goes to guys with highest pts) or split into high/random draw would be a mistake! If you take a look at Wyo's sheep pref pt system where tags go only to those with high pref pts...it is a total joke! Most guys are getting out of the Wyo sheep system because they know they will never draw a tag in their lifetime!
A system similar to NV's squared pts would be a very good option in Colo for moose, sheep, and goat! UT's split bonus pt system would not be a good option...especially for nonres!
Weighted points are less useful than Chuck E Cheese tokens. At least you can use the tokens (for quarters) in a car wash.
I think the website Toprut.com summed up the impact of weighted points on draw odds nicely with the statement "In terms of increasing your random draw chances over time, Colorado's weighted point system is somewhere between traditional bonus point systems like Utah and squared bonus point systems like Nevada". Really this and relative draw difficulty of the different units and weapon types are all you need to know to figure out what hunts you should apply for taking into consideration the number of weighted points you have.
That many applicants with low or no or low weighted points draw and many applicants with a "bunch" of weighted points don't draw is not indicative of the impact of weighted points on draw odds. The sample size is too small to determine relative draw odds by weighted point totals from actual draw patterns. If the draw where to be run a couple of hundred thousand times a discernible pattern would emerge that would show a clear pattern of increased draw odds with increased weighted point totals.
An applicant with zero weighted points and two leading zeros in their random number has a possible random number range of between 1,000 and 9,999. An applicant with max weighted pts (17 this year I believe) and no leading zeros has a random number range between 5,555 and 55,555. (100,000/18 and 999,999/18). There is a lot of overlap in those ranges where either applicant can "win" even though the applicant with two leading zeros in their random number has no weighted points. Some conclusions are that leading zeros can really help an applicant with low weighted points at the same time many weighted points can help an applicant with no leading zeros overcome the advantage of leading zeros.
If you have lots of weighted points and you get a leading zero or two in your random number you better get into sheep shape!
You also didn't factor in that your random number is reversed and then tiles are drawn to revalue your random number. So two things in play here, everyone with 3 points has the same odds of drawing a low random number and the tiles change value every year.
This is like trying to explain to a liberal that opportunity doesn't equal outcome...
Bottom line is this, weighted points are not worthless, they just don't affect outcome as much as some would like, and it is more likely that you will never draw a tag than it is that you will.
Yes, everyone with 3 points has the same chance of getting a low random number, but with elk points, everyone in the same point pool has the same chance of drawing a low number. It works the same way. The difference is that even though you've been putting in for 17 years and I've been putting in for 6, we are in the same point pool, and your weighted points give you better odds, period. Not everyone can win the powerball...
If they change the system, I hope they go straight bonus points, once in a lifetime draw, retroactive to past tag holders. If they do some other modified preference point scheme, 90% of applicants will go from .1-3% odds to exactly 0% odds and should therefore never apply...
I hope they don't change it all. It's all luck anyways. At least with 3 you have a chance.
I (for selfish reasons) hope they don't go back retroactive. I'd like to hunt sheep one more time if possible. I also think people that have sat on the bench and started acquiring points again wouldn't be too happy knowing they've been putting in for x number of years only to find out their apps are now worthless when they could have been putting in for something else.
It always seems like "we" want to fix something that isn't broken to suit our needs no? The no upfront cost will affect odds however, no question about that.
I should add that when i say “if” they change the system I hope they go straight bonus points, I also hope they don’t change the system at all, but if they do make a change, a name in the hat for every point you have, and once in a lifetime opportunity seems to me like the best way to balance opportunity across all interest groups...
I just don't see how people can complain about the system. I surely can't positives for me, two ram tags in 12 years, negative no goat tag in 19. It is what it is. Someday.
Orion. Not to be flip and without any intention of being rude, what you said in your last post is true but its not important. Here is why. it does not matter how applicants are assigned random numbers. All that matters is that applicants do in fact receive random numbers. Meaning that all applicants have the same chance of receiving a good application sequence in the randomization phase of the drawing. Colorado's system is just a unique and effective way to do that. It accomplishes the randomization task very well. Problem solved.
Once the random numbers are effectively assigned the question is how much preference, if any, to give to applicants that have applied for many years. That is a policy question. Colorado has decided to use weighted points. It is a perfectly acceptable and effective means to give preference to applicants with lots of weighted points. To paraphrase JRABQ an applicant with 15 WP doesn't have much better of a chance of drawing than someone with 14 WP. But all those applicants with 15 or 14 WP have a much better chance of drawing than someone with 0 or 1 WP.
There are many different ways the various states give preference. Arizona makes bonus points work like preference points but only for 20% of the permits in a given hunt code (or all hunt codes across the state for a few species like Sheep and Bison). And also gives applicants some preference for the remaining 80% of permits by awarding an extra random number for each bonus point. New Mexico doesn't give any preference whatsoever. Utah uses bonus points that work like preference points for 50% of the permits. NV and MT square bonus points for all the permits. They all work a little different and cause the magnitude of the preference (if any) to vary. Colorado's weighted point system is middle of the pack as far as giving preference and it absolutely does give preference. There aren't enough permits issued to see this mathematical preference but it is there.
Personally I like Arizona's bonus point system the best.
I agree Caz, the system now leaves very little to complain about when you understand that demand far surpasses supply, and most people will never draw a tag. It is nice to have an opportunity...
ABQBW that is where we disagree in that the weighted points give preference when in fact they don't. Your random number plays a bigger role then the amount of weighted points you have. Again look at the S41 example I posted. 86% of applicants had 3 plus 6 or higher with 3 applicants having max so 3 plus 16. Yet an applicant with 3 plus 2 drew. It just goes to show you that your weighted point are in effect worthless if your random number is too high. In this case even with a dividing factor of 17 the max point guys couldn't get their random number low enough to draw.
Weighted points don’t trump the random numbers, they just help tip the scales slightly in your favor.
To argue that point means you either don’t understand the process of how they actually do the draw or you don’t understand the math. Those aren’t meant to be negatives, just pointing out the facts. You can disagree that they don’t give as much preference as you think they should, but you can’t argue that they are worthless and give no preference as that is a false assessment.
“In that the weighted points give preference when in fact they dont.”
There’s no point in arguing when you “in fact” can’t be reasoned with. In fact, there’s no argument to be had, because in fact, the math doesn’t lie.
Weighted preference points don’t give AS MUCH preference as you would prefer, and that’s the rub. I suspect you would not be happy with any draw system until a tag was awarded to you. I sure hope this thread is not enough to influence anyone at cpw making decisions on the draw process...
In any case, good luck in the draws...
Trevor is correct. Orion, you just can't seem to get past the fact that it's possible for someone with lower points to win because you're stuck in a Preference Point mindset. The points do help. They just don't help as much as you'd like them to.
The fact of the matter is, demand is far greater than supply so the bulk of people are going to have to apply their entire lives and not actually draw. This fact makes a pure preference point system the MOST ridiculous because it assures that those who get in year 1 get a ridiculously increased odds of drawing their entire lives and everyone who comes after that only have a chance of drawing if they start as a child and draw when they're old men. For these types of hunts - that's just asinine.
Good points. I used to think about this a lot and debate it here often. Still not sure what I like.
Some of my thoughts:
1. Making ram tags oil will not help nr odds much
2. Squared points I like it and looked at it closely after I drew nv sheep. In 20 years nv will be as close to a preference point system as you can be without being one. Look above first time nr applicants in nv last year had odds of 52,000:1 in the easiest unit to draw. Imagine in 20 more years. Guys with 30 points get 900 chances. Yes as time goes on you build but it takes only a small number of guys who have been in 20 years longer then you to make your odds astronomical.
True prefence points and squared points basically create nr odds where you are waiting for guys to die or give up. Your long term odds increase far more by death/surrender then guys drawing tags.
Either way is rough.
More $$$ into habitat and research - more auctions tags to raise the money. Long term everyone wins.
More archery only tags.
Front entire tag fee no credit card apps. Never happen but I can dream.
Take a look at the “easier” NR hunts in nv and carry the numbers out 20 years. Assume 2% drop each year and look at odds for guys with 1 point now. There odds in 20 years are still extremely poor.
Bottom line is mags and the net attracted a lot of attention and the demand far exceeds supply. No good solution.
Mark my words WY feed will influence other states- significantly.
Good luck! For the most part I’m trying for the easiest sheep tags to draw across the board.
Not really hoot I've drawn goat my dad has drawn goat, rocky, and desert so plenty of tags have come our way. Tembry I know exactly how the draw works and posted it above. Here is the readers digest version let me know if I missed anything. You are given a random number, it is then reversed, tiles are then selected changing the value of your random number then that number is divided by your weighted points plus one. Lowest number gets a tag. Therefore, if your random number is too high the weighted points play no role.
All the weighted points are is a dividing factor to your reassigned random number after the tiles have been applied. What I am saying is that at that point in the draw your weighted points only help you if their dividing factor lowers your random number enough to get a tag. Most people are already eliminated from the draw after the tiles reassign their random number and their weighted points never come into play. I would like to see a model like Utah where units with multiple tags give some to the highest point holders and the others go randomnly to the rest of the applicants. Therefore everyone still has a chance, yet the max point guys can find units to cash out on.
Just because someone with lower weighted points ended up with a lower finnal number and drew the tag doesn't mean they had the same chance of ending up with that lower final number as the person with more weighted points. To assert that is ridiculous.
“To assert that is ridiculous.”
Yea you think that until you see how many guys with 3+0 and 3+1 draw tags. And how many max point holders don’t draw tags. Sure makes me think weighted points don’t matter much. Makes you wonder if a lowere number is better haha
Yellowjacket no it is not as the weighted points play no role in the assignment or the rearrangement of your number from the tiles. So yes you can have no weighted points and receive the lowest random number and get a tag. It happens all the time.
Yellowjacket if you put in with 3 plus 16 and I put in with 3 plus 2 that has no bearing on our random numbers nor does it have any affect on the tile values to change our random number. It only means your random number is divided by 17 and mine by 3, but if your number ends up being 999999 before dividing your weighted points and mine is 000214. I will get the tag even after your weighted points are factored in.
That's a big "IF". So answer me this, would you rather have your random number divided by 17 or 3?
Not really a big if its the way it is. Everyone with 3 plus zero to max has the same chance for a low random number. Look at the draw stats plenty of low point holders out drawing mid to high point holders. I would rather have mine divided by 17 as most guys would, but I would give all my weighted points for a random number that begins with 3 zeros.
I get it, if by shear luck anyone with 3 points or more could draw. But, if the weighted points made no difference I would expect more guys to be drawing with 3+0. I looked at last year's stats for bull moose and no residents drew with 3+0 or 3+1 in any unit.
Based on the CPW Statistics for moose for 2017:
25 people drew with 3+16 or maximum points.
There were several point totals that drew more people than the maximum pool and all were in low weighted point groups.
At 3+0, there were 21 Resident adult (R's), 2 Non-Residents (NR's) and 3 Youths (Y). That is a total of 26 drawn out at 3+0.
At 3+1, there were 32 R's, 2 NR's, and 4 Y's. This is a total of 38 drawn out at 3+1.
At 3+2, there were 34 R's, 2 NR's and 2 Y's. This is a total of 38 drawn out at 3+2.
At 3+3, there were 43 R's and 2 NR's. This is a total of 45 drawn out at 3+3.
At 3+4, there were 28 R's drawn for moose. This was the last point level that drew out higher than the max point holders.
The 3+5 and 3+6 levels almost got to the max point level with 24 drawn at both of those point levels.
These lower point draw outs seem to be disproportionately drawing out moose tags. The disproportionate draw-out is due to the numbers of applicants at those weighted point levels that are pulling lower random numbers than the higher weighted point holders. There are over 1,000 applicants at each level from 3+4 down to 0+0 and over 2,000 applicants from 2+0 to 0.
The system is working the way it was set up to. The random number (with all the screwy gyrations) rules. More tags being drawn out of the larger groups indicates that there is a better chance of pulling a lower starting number out of one of the larger groups. The divisor in the equation does not overcome the random number that often, but can potentially help.
I don't have the answer, but it sure makes me wonder why I have been giving CO my money all these years as I stand on the sideline every year watching people with fewer (most years - a lot fewer) points draw. If I ever draw, I am done. Won't live long enough to draw another one anyway.
Just assuming the draw % stays the same, there are over 600 people with max points. At 25 pulled out a year, in 25 more years, they’ll all be out!
We need more moose!
Oh wait, the wolfies want to bring in cute little wolves to maintain a “natural balance “ and knock the moose population down by 90% like they did in Wyoming.
It’s a lottery and donation to CPW... When we get a pile of off limits wolves, it will be a donation and an even lower chance for a tag
Tom, the reason you've been doing it is because you want to hunt moose in CO and if you don't apply, you won't draw :)
The points are working as intended. It's not a pure preference point system. The system was implemented to give people with more points a higher chance of drawing and people with less points, some, but not as high a chance at drawing. You cannot have a pure preference point system when demand so greatly outstrips supply. Otherwise, only the people applying on year 1 get a tag and everyone else has zero chance till they're in their 80s. That type of system eventually fails because the lower point folks won't prop up the system.
Yellow jacket- actually false. Couple different people drew bull moose with 3+1. One being one of my family members as a 16 years old.
I saw a few other 3+1s and 3+2 , 3+3. Very few drew with the most points
3+17 sheep, 3+17 Moose, 3+0 Goat....C'mon Billy Goat!!
Where some get confused about the odds of drawing
is by looking at the complex method CDPW uses for generating random application numbers, and mistakenly thinking the particular details of this process influence their odds to draw
. As long as the system has been shown to be truly random (which it certainly has, otherwise CDPW would have been sued long ago) then the particulars of that process will have absolutely zero effect on your odds to draw
. It matters nada what specific method CDPW utilizes to generate and assign a random number to your application, before weighted points are applied. It only matters that this method meets the requirements for being statistically random. Your calculable odds to draw
are set in stone, mathematically, the moment the last applicants for your unit are entered into the database, and before any random numbers are generated & assigned.
That concept must be fully understood before one can grasp what is meant by "draw odds"
. It helps to be able to differentiate between "Your Odds to Draw", and "Your Draw Results" for any given year. The former is a fixed & incontrovertible mathematical expression, whereas the latter is a highly variable random result, biased only by your WP status. These statistics of course have only a limited usefulness for any given year, but can be used to ply long-term advantage, if you know what to do with them.
Right Sticksender. All applicants are properly assigned a truly random number through a fair and remarkably transparent. End of story, no discussion necessary.
But, if I understand what you are saying about the statistics having limited usefulness for a given year I don't agree. If I don't have many WP I may choose to apply for a hunt that is less desirable because the odds are better. If I have many weighted points I may apply for a more desirable hunt that with lower draw odds knowing that my weighted points help my odds relative to applicants with less weighted points. If I was a flat-earther like some of the people on this thread I might think my weighted points don't matter and make a different decision. Actually, now that I think about it maybe that is what you are saying. As I accumulate more points over the years I may make different hunt choices because I know they will help my odds.
Yep flat earther here. Heck ABQBW let me know when you actually draw something. Your analysis on how to apply does not reflect the draw stats at all. If it did low point holders would not be drawing units with high applicants, but that is not the case. Again, your weighted points only matter if their dividing factor lowers your random number enough for a tag, but if your screwed with a super high number they are no help at all. Sticksender there is no way to determine your calculable odds to draw because no one knows how many applicants will apply for a certain unit. Some units have jumped by 100 applicants when a big ram shows up on the horn measurement stats.
Hey ABQBW please tell the double digit weighted point guys who applied for this unit last year how much their weighted points mattered.
Drew sheep with 2, 3, 3+1. Goat with 3+1. Have 3+16 moose.
Only thing that matters is the base number you draw.
Weighted points help, just not as much as most people assume before they learn the facts about the system. Its that simple. Being surprised or upset when a 3 + 1 applicant draws or upset when a 3 + 16 applicant doesn't draw is common but thinking the system isn't working as intended would be incorrect.
Once an understanding of the system is gained. The surprise at either scenario should be gone because both are very possible and happen all the time.
Many (less than before) people think your name goes in the "hat" and extra time for each weighted point. That would actually be a far more understandable system and would give more weight to weighted points, but that isn't what we have.
I’m with Orion on this one. It all comes down to gettng a low random number out of the chute. It doesn’t matter how many weighted points you have if you don’t have a low enough random number for your weighted point divisor to do you any good.
Each year another pool of applicants become eligible for the draw and your overall odds for M,G,S go down even more because there are more tag applicants coming into the drawing pool than those exiting by successfully drawing a tag. With the change this year not requiring tag fees up-front, there will be a tidal wave of new applicants in the 2021 draw making odds even that much worse.
With that being said, I was fortunate enough to get a low random number last year and draw a NR mountain goat tag with 3+14...
ABQBW, yes the comment "the statistics have limited usefulness for any given year" means no matter whether we pick a hunt with 300:1 odds or 40:1 we're still unlikely to draw in a given year. But a score can be made by hanging in there with smart play over the long haul. I also believe there's something to be said for Sheep karma....so donating to the RMBS is strongly recommended ;-)
The more I read the posts above trying to explain wted pts the more confused I get! It seems pretty simple with a bonus pt system similar to NV where they just square bonus pts! Those that apply longer have a little better draw odds than those that first start off. No need to be lucky and get a low random number out of the chute and a system that is super simple for everyone to understand!
Jims, go read sticksender's original post from last year (but don't read past the first post!). He demonstrated that CO weighted points act just like standard (not squared) bonus points. In any bonus point system you still "need to get lucky", to varying degrees. Having more chances will increase your odds of getting a low random number, but it never completely guarantees it. In NV there are some deer hunts where a bunch of points will get you >90%, even 98%, but the sheep odds are still single digits even with 20+ pts.
Jrabq your post shows you don't even know how the draw works. Your weighted points have no effect on your initial random number. Everyone with 3 plus zero to Max has the same odds of getting a low number.
He means your "final" number after you get a random number, tiles are reversed, AND it is divided by your number of weighted points +1.
My moose points are 3 - 16 going into this years draw. I changed the unit for which I have been applying for (Sorry Brandon) in hopes that I can finally draw before they put me in a coffin. I will either be very happy or very pissed off, again.
Good luck, Merle! Hope you draw and get a big one!
Ok, let me know if I got this straight.....If I get a final number after my random number and stack and reverse my tiles so they all line up and the divide by the number of weighted points then add 1 I'm set? Opps maybe I have that all reversed?
Jim, it used to be so simple. Just slip in an extra $100 bill with your paper application and you were moved to the top of the pile! All these gyrations and online apps make it impossible to get a tag unless you’re related to the right person in the right government office!
"Jrabq your post shows you don't even know how the draw works. Your weighted points have no effect on your initial random number. Everyone with 3 plus zero to Max has the same odds of getting a low number. "
I'll just ignore your first sentence.
But you are correct about the next two sentences! Yippie! I agree, you are correct, weighted points have no effect on your initial random number!
But that's not the point! It is your final number after they do the division that determines your final place in the list, and that is how weighted points will affect your odds. If you have a bunch of weighted points you still need a good initial random number, but it can be multiple times larger than the guy with zero points and you will often jump ahead of him. That is where the advantage come from.
If your initial number is too high (which will be the case for 90-99% of the people in high demand draws) then of course you will not draw, not matter how many points you have. You seem to be fixated on this point. Yes, if someone has a high initial random number then weighted points cannot help them; so therefore you conclude that points are "worthless". But you ignore the situations where someone has a small initial random number, but it just wasn't "small" enough until it was divided by WP+1. Those are the situation where points really matter.
Just to review, again, there is nothing in the weighted point scheme (or any bonus point scheme) that will guarantee you a tag, it can only increase the odds in your favor. The link I posted from sticksender's analysis showed that your odds scale with WP+1. [This behavior is exactly like a standard bonus point system, which is what I was discussing in my previous post]. You either do not understand stick's analysis or you refuse to believe the results. My odds with 9 weighted points will be ~10 X larger than some guy with zero points. If the zero point guy odds are 1%, then mine will be 10%. In no way am I guaranteed a tag, the odds I will NOT draw are still 90%. I still have to get "lucky", just not near as "lucky" as the guy with zero points. I'll take 10% over 1% all day.
Just one other point on the topic that never dies; finding examples where people drew with few or zero points proves nothing [and finding examples where people with max points drew also proves nothing]. Given the random nature of the draw you must analyze a large number of possible outcomes to come up with a statistically valid conclusion, which is what sticksender did.