**Contributors to this thread:**

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.

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...

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.

i.e - raising the minimum of 3 PPs

The weighted points make a difference, but not as much as some people want them to.

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.

Amen brother.

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.

So “worthless” they are not.

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.

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.

Sandbrew's Link

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.

Sandbrew

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.

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.

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!

However, I am not king. :)

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?

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...

The percentage it goes up depends on how good the odds were in the first place.

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.

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

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!

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!

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 (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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I like:

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.

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

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.

Woo Hoo!

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

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.

I saw a few other 3+1s and 3+2 , 3+3. Very few drew with the most points

__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.

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.

Only thing that matters is the base number you draw.

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.

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...

Horniac

JRABQ's Link

"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.