Any serious talk about squaring bonus points?

[txhunter58]

I know in some states, your bonus points get "squared" to arrive at how many chances you have in the drawing. Anyone thrown that idea around in Utah? If so, what was the reception for that idea? Not sure how it would be for residents, but as a NR, it seems pretty attractive since each year, your chances would actually get better rather than remaining pretty level.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[264mag]

Nv.has it and I think it is the fairest way, it gives everyone a chance.

 

[dillon]

I live in Nevada and it seems like a better system than the Utah system. I lived in Utah up until two years ago. I am also a fan of the "no point" states because they don't place new hunters at a disadvantage from day one. Granted hunters don't have an incentive to apply every year or for every available species when they don't receive a point for each unsuccessful year.

Utah will not become a no point state because thousands of hunters already feel entitled to draw a tag because they have been applying for decades. I don't recall the Utah Wildlife considering the "point squared system." Point creep is a nightmare in the Utah system.

Dillon
www.dillonhoyt.com

 

[grizzly]

No offense to the guys that like point squaring, I just feel differently and here is why...

Point squaring does not increase odds. If your points get squared and so does the other guy in your point pool, your odds did not increase in relation to the other guy. And if you have 6 points then you gain on guys with fewer points, but you lose exponentially in relation to the guys with 7,8,9, etc...

True odds are the number of permits divided by applicants. It doesn't matter how many times each person's name is in the hat, it doesn't change odds.

All point systems do is make the probability of drawing a tag more predictable... it doesn't change odds.

For everybody who sees their chance of drawing increase, another decreases by an equal value... but overall they do not change. They can't. It is mathematically impossible.

All this idea does is continue to promulgate the fallacy of bonus/preference points which are really an excuse to increase revenue.

Let's talk about Obamacare for a second... The only way Obamacare passed is because 1/2 of Americans were told they would benefit with cheaper healthcare and they didn't care that the rest of us had to pay more money to cover that cost. The overall cost of healthcare didn't change, they just moved money from one guy and charged it to another. The same thing is happening with point systems, odds don't change they just move them from one column to another.

The other similarity is that the people who benefit from Obamacare today are building debt that their children will inherit. Point systems do the same thing by starting the children in a hole that they can't possibly climb out of. This is not the way to bring more hunters into the fold.

But I agree that change will be very difficult now that hunters feel they have over a decade of "ownership" in their points.

Grizzly

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-15 AT 08:51PM (MST)[p]"True odds are the number of permits divided by applicants. It doesn't matter how many times each person's name is in the hat, it doesn't change odds."

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but as written, I disagree. What I am trying to do is increase is MY odds of drawing with each subsequent year of application. And don't see the correlation to Obama anything. Obamacare etc promotes the idea that you should have equal opportunity no matter if you worked or sat on your duff. In my mind that would be a "no point system". Someone who just on a lark happens to apply this year would have as much chance of drawing as a guy who puts in for 20 years. Not fair in my book. Would seem like having a random lottery for tickets to an event after people spent the night in line waiting

So, the more times my name is in the hat the better odds I have of drawing in relation to the entire pool of applicants. Yes, the guys above me with more points have even better odds, but that is as it should be and my odds would go up in relation to the guys below me. Odds are, there would be less guys with 0 points getting picked. Not so good if you are just starting out.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[grizzly]

txhunter58, my comparison to Obamacare was in the method used to get it passed and implemented... not the intricacies of the law itself. I am referring more to the "stupid American" concept of the Obama administration (think Jon Gruber).

As for the fact that overall odds aren't changed by a point system, that is not up for debate. It is mathematical fact. Think of it like the "equal and opposite reaction" theory applied to math. For every smidgen that your likelihood of drawing increases, somebody else sees an equal decrease, but overall the odds remain identical.

Here is another way to look at it: If 100 guys are standing around a bucket waiting for 1 name to be drawn out of a bucket containing 100 pieces of paper, then the odds of drawing any one guy is 1:100. If every guy puts in 82 pieces of paper (say they each had 9 Nevada points) there are now 8200 pieces of paper in the bucket instead of only 100. But the odds of any one guy having his name drawn is still 1:100.

This is why squaring points doesn't really increase odds, it would work if you were the only one getting squared points, but since everybody is equal, nobody benefits... it just puts more pieces of paper in the bucket and makes people think, "Wow, I have 82 names in the hat instead of 1, I've got a good shot this year." But so does everybody else so it is all a farce.

You can assign any number of tickets to each of the 100 guys that would increase the probability of a specific individual, but the overall odds would remain the same... 1 in 100. After the name is drawn there will always be 1 happy hunter and 99 unhappy hunters.

The main proponent theory is that it rewards those that have applied the longest, almost all of which would cry foul if DWR arbitrarily changed the system and wiped all points clean. The hunters would feel cheated and robbed, "We've waited so long", they'd say. But lets look at this another way. The 15-year old kids could argue the same arbitrary decision was made 20 years ago, a decision they couldn't possibly control and now they have a near-zero probability of drawing a quality tag in their actionable lifetime. Which is more fair? I argue neither.

My final thought... What people confuse as increased odds is actual the averaging of probability. What point systems do is increase (but not eliminate) the likelihood that everybody hunts once before any individual hunts twice. It allows some semblance of an ability to predict the year of success, but this is actually do to the point system switching from a bonus point to a preference point for the 50% of hunters that have waited the longest. If Utah switched to Nevada system, we would lose the latter benefit altogether.

Grizzly

 

[jester]

Square points or luck?
I would like to just get a few tags added
to have a better chance!
Jester

 

[nebo12000]

Just remember that there are a number of "youth only " tags. Also, if they draw a general season deer tag they can hunt all 3 seasons. The odds of drawing elk, deer tags for youth 12 to 18 is a lot better than for 18+ age.
Unfortunately, I don't see Utah ever getting to 1,000,000 deer. I'm not sure that was ever the case. The last 2 winters, and it looks like this winter, has and will do more to increase deer numbers than anything else. Much of the habitat projects that have been done has not increased the deer population in those areas ( according to the info I have seen) It will be interesting to see if those areas will be utilized by the increasing deer numbers and will yet prove to be a valuable part of the growth curve. For years we have heard that its all about the habitat. In some areas of the state the habitat is as good as it has ever been but the deer population was still not growing-- it seem as though the predators were essentially wiping out any of the growth every year, but mother nature has seemed to give us a break and the herds are increasing. Lets not be too anxious to keep populations "under control". Lets give it a couple more years or so and see what mother nature might throw at us.

 

[txhunter58]

"This is why squaring points doesn't really increase odds, it would work if you were the only one getting squared points, but since everybody is equal, nobody benefits... it just puts more pieces of paper in the bucket and makes people think, "Wow, I have 82 names in the hat instead of 1, I've got a good shot this year." But so does everybody else so it is all a farce.

You can assign any number of tickets to each of the 100 guys that would increase the probability of a specific individual, but the overall odds would remain the same... 1 in 100. After the name is drawn there will always be 1 happy hunter and 99 unhappy hunters."

I think I understand what your are saying, but I still say that I have in increased probability of drawing compared to guys with less points under the squaring system.

Example 1:

5 guys for 1 tag: no preference points.
Probability of any guy drawing is 1 in 5 = (20%)

Example 2:

5 guys: 1 with 1 points, 1 with 2 point, 1 with 3 points, 1 with 4 points, 1 with 5 points.

Current system:
Guy with 1 = 1 chance
guy with 2 = 2 chances
guy with 3 = 3 chances
guy with 4 = 4 chances
guy with 5 equals 5 chances

Total pieces of paper in hopper is 15:
Probability of drawing for
guy 1 = 1 in 15 = 7%
guy 2 = 2 in 15 = 13%
guy 3 = 3 in 15 = 20%
guy 4 = 4 in 15 = 27%
guy 5 = 5 in 15 = 33%

Example 3:

5 guys: 1 with 1 points, 1 with 2 point, 1 with 3 points, 1 with 4 points, 1 with 5 points.

So guy 1= 1 squared = 1 chance
guy 2= 2 squared = 4 chances
guy 3= 9 chances
guy 4 = 16 chances
guy 5 = 25 chances

Total pieces of paper in the hopper is 55
Odds (probability) of guy 1 drawing 1 in 55 = 2%
guy 2 = 4 in 55 = 7.2%
guy 3 = 9 in 55 = 17%
guy 4 = 16 in 55 = 29%
guy 5 = 25 in 55 = 45%

So, yes, it is true that only 1 in 5 will be selected, but there is less probability that the low point guys will be selected and a higher probability as you increase.

In the illustration above, you would have to be in the top 40% of the points to increase your odds over the other 2 systems.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[txhunter58]

But to be honest, not sure how my probability would be affected. With 10 elk points and 9 deer points, I am pretty much in the middle of the pack. So, in reality, my probability might go down. LOL


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[grizzly]

txhunter58, it's been good talking with you about this. I like when people with different viewpoints can have a constructive discussion and respect others views. I wish there was more of it on MM.

I pulled numbers for Book Cliffs North - Any Weapon for last year. I chose this one because I feel it is somewhat "middle of the road" for deer hunts... not the best and not the worst.

Here are applicant numbers:

0 points - 374
1 points - 294
2 points - 344
3 points - 255
4 points - 277
5 points - 239
6 points - 181
7 points - 168
8 points - 159
9 points - 134
10 points - 69
11 points - 10
12 points - 5
13 points - 2
Total applicants - 2,511

With the Nevada system, using these numbers, the benefit to the top guys would be incremental and barely beneficial (since it is spread among 2,500 hunters) while the bottom guys would have even less chance of drawing (it currently sits at .7% for bottom guys).

What are we actually accomplishing by that system? Especially when you consider that it would almost certainly be accompanied with getting rid of the 50% of tags for guys with the most points, thus causing point creep to keep climbing since the top guys aren't guaranteed to draw and be removed from future years.

I just see it as a ruse to make people think they improved their odds of drawing without really helping anybody.

Also, I try and avoid the "fairness" argument since I find it can easily come off as whiny... but, like I mentioned above, "What is fair about the year they decided to implement bonus points anyway?" I was too young to get in on the ground floor, but still have 15 desert sheep points so I'm not sitting that badly. However, my younger siblings have points in the single-digits due to no fault of their own... just bad luck. I don't see why we should handicap them (and future generations) further when it really offers no significant benefit to anybody.

Just my take on it.

Grizzly

 

[txhunter58]

Yep, big numbers certainly dilute any gains. And I would be against losing the max points tags, so I am coming around to thinking we may have it as good as it gets.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[grizzly]

>Yep, big numbers certainly dilute any
>gains. And I would
>be against losing the max
>points tags, so I am
>coming around to thinking we
>may have it as good
>as it gets.
>
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

txhunter58, I really don't like the current system but I don't know of a better one.

Like you, I can see the benefit of rewarding those that have applied the longest, and I believe there are too many people with too many points to tear the system down now.

I don't know the best thing to do, maybe somebody will come up with something innovative someday. I guess we just play the cards we are dealt and hope for the best.

Good luck in the draws this year. It was nice talking to you.

Grizzly

 

[fullthrottle]

I can't see how anybody can think a completely random draw is more fair than a points system. Random you might never draw and the guy next to you might draw a number of times. What's fair about that? Just cause one person is luckier then another. Atleast with points you have an opportunity to diligently apply just like everyone else and one day draw something decent. I think Utahs points system is pretty fair. A percentage goes to the highest point holder and the remaining percent is random, best of both worlds, but atleast you feel like your working towards something.

 

[Servehim]

I see this a little differently than most here posting . I'm a NM res and love our clean slate approach to the drawing each year . Make your 3 choices with priority on My Dream hunt to just get me out there tag in hand. In states where pref points are in effect the Nev system is the best IMHO . No one guaranteed but those spending $ each year have much better chances . As I look at Colo for example a young man finally able at age 25 to start applying and building points (today) will probably be able to hunt elk in unit 2, 61 etc by age 60 with points creep and the masses in front of him. Not much incentive to participate in that losing game. Money from the yearly applicants will be reduced to state Game/ Fish depts if the hunters see no realistic chance of hunting quality units. Nev system reduces that sense of hopelessness IMHO