CO moose draw stats

COLOelkman

COLOelkman

Very Active Member
Messages
1,032
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-19 AT 05:41PM (MST)[p]Below are last years odds for residents to draw a moose tag (bull and cow combined). They do not separate out the numbers for bull tags but generally speaking, odds are a lot better to draw a cow tag than a bull tag.

2018 CO Resident Moose draw odds via CPW website
Weighted Res Res Draw/Apps
W Ppts Apps Draw (% odds)
17 608 38 6.25
16 368 10 2.72
15 516 14 2.71
14 474 10 2.11
13 499 12 2.40
12 645 19 2.95
11 538 12 2.23
10 618 10 1.62
9 689 13 1.89
8 697 25 3.59
7 774 20 2.58
6 997 30 3.01
5 1024 27 2.64
4 1164 21 1.80
3 1318 29 2.20
2 1621 25 1.54
1 1984 46 2.32
0 2460 35 1.42

So here's my question/problem with the current moose draw system. Next year, they've added a $50 fee to apply for moose. I have a lot of moose points but there is really no better odds if you have high points or low points. I discussed the moose odds with a CPW officer at the Denver ISE and he claimed that those with high points have a "significantly" greater chance to draw. As my instincts told me that was not true, the numbers confirm my suspicion that points don't really matter. You kinda hafta understand the draw system a little to understand why. So, trying to decide whether to now shell out $50 every year for about a 2% chance to draw (prolly much lower for a bull tag). I plan to at least comment to the CPW on their current system to see if they might consider modifying it some to provide a little more favor to those that have been applying for many years. Any comments?

******************
Note the table above got reformatted once it posted so you basically need to know the 1st column is weighted Pref points and the last column are the odds.
 
Isn't there a slight chance that someone with no preference points and weighted points can still draw a moose tag?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-19 AT 09:30AM (MST)[p]I'm sure that those odds are somewhat skewed as they include antlerless moose tags, which are usually drawn by those with significantly lower point totals. That being said it still isn't like weighted points offer any significant advantage, its still a random draw, weighted points may shift the odds my a couple percent, but its is still possible to draw with 3 and 0...

Personally I'd like my random number divided by 18 rather than 1..

http://fenderimages.com
 
>Wouldn't mind if they jacked up
>non resident fee's to $200
>or more if it significantly
>improved draw odds.

Wyoming keeps raising the costs and odds haven't got much better, so be careful what you wish for.
 
The big question is "why pay $50 for res and $100 for nonres wted pref pts each year if it really doesn't help your chance to draw by having more pret pts? You can still apply each year and "opt out" of getting an additional weighted pref pt.
 
I was thinking this over last night and am somewhat amazed that the CPW offered the "opt out" option. It makes no sense!

Hopefully the CPW realizes that their statement in the regs that "weighted pts increases the probability of drawing moose, bighorn, and mtn goat tag" for those that "opt in" is totally false!

Someone ought to sue the CPW to recover all the $ lost over the years buying weighted pref pts! If you add up all the applicants over the years that have applied for weighted pts this is a major chunk of change!
 
I think technically weighted points do increase your odds statistically however since the system is really founded on a random number process, the weighted points are a very small factor in the process. The current system actually helps those with lower points increase odds faster than those with high points. I've been exchanging emails with the guys at Toprut.com who are into statistics and they confirmed my suspicions.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-19 AT 09:24AM (MST)[p]With so many applicants vying for so few sheep, goat, and moose tags I have a tough time believing that there is any significant statistical differences between those with 3 vs max weighted pref pts. Is there really a difference between 1 and 3% chance of drawing a tag?

With that said, if you compare Colo's weighted pt system with Nevada or Utah's bonus pt systems there tends to be significant differences between the low and max pt applicant draw odds....which is like splitting hairs with Colo's current system!

It would be interesting to have one of the Toprut.com statisticians chime in to explain if there truly is a difference between the 2 systems. It would put to rest a lot of the confusion with the Colo system and answer the question if it truly is worth opting in or out!
 
Agreed. There is diminishing marginal value to each successive weighted point, but the value is still positive. In other words, your odds keep improving, but not by as much each year, especially when you get to exceedingly high weighted point levels.
 
Quote: "Is there really a difference between 1 and 3% chance of drawing a tag?"

Yes, the guy at 3% probability is three times more likely to draw than the guy at 1%. I will always choose better odds, given the choice. When applying for 70-80 different hunts per year, those seemingly small differences matter, a lot. But like my friend from Texas always says....I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
 
3107mooseodds.jpg
 
I've enclosed another table a guy from another website posted. According to the table and error bars there is no significant difference between any of the 5 to 16 pref pt years even though the table shows an upward trend. Even though 5 years may have 2.02% draw odds and 16 pts has 3.4% draw odds there is no significant difference between them. Take a look at the error bars and they are roughly 1 1/2 to 2 years wide!


If you think about it 2% is 2 in 100 draw odds and 4 is 4 in 100 draw odds. Someone mentioned that someone with 4 vs 2% draw odds has twice the chance of drawing a tag. Does a person with 4% draw odds stand a very good chance of drawing a tag in their lifetime...heck no! If a person applies for 100 years their are only 4 out of the 100 years he would draw a tag....horrible odds!


According to the table the error bars are wide and there is no signifant difference between draw odds in years 5 through 16. Years 3 and 4 have SLIGHTLY less draw odds.


It's up to everyone to decide if it's really worth opting in or out. If it were me and I was a nonres it definitely wouldn't be worth it to opt in once I have 3 pts since draw odds are so horrible with the present system.


If you think about it there are more applicants starting off applying for these tags than tags issued so your draw odds are actually decreasing every year! If you apply for sheep, goat, and moose it is $300/year plus other fees to opt in. If a person applies for 30 years x $300 it would cost $9,000 with still horrible odds of drawing a tag in 30 years. The same person could put that $9,000 towards a sheep, goat, or moose Alaska or Canada hunt and be guaranteed a hunt! There is no guarantee the $100/species fee may go up in fugure years.


I really think it is ridiculous that the CPW has opting in and out options. There is no significant increase in draw odds in years 5 to 16 for moose. The weighted pref pt system is a joke!
 
Maybe another way to look at it.

The subset of applicants that had 0-4 weighted points is almost the same size group as those that had 5-17 weighted points. According to the first chart, the folks in the 0-4 bucket drew 156 tags while the group with 5-17 weighted points drew 240 tags. With that crude view, being in the group with "more" weighted points drew about 60% of the total tags or had a +/-50% better outcome. Probably still not as big a difference for most people's taste but definitely an advantage.
 
I'm not sure how this ties into it but hunters don't start earning weighted pref pts until after they reach 3 pts?
 
Here's another example to consider:
Hunter A has 0 pts, Hunter B has 14 pts (weighted)
Since your final number before it's reduced by your points is random everyone's odds are the same to draw the same random number.
So to illustrate, I'll pick 100,000 as the random number
In year 1, Hunter A's lowest number he could end up with would be 100,000/1 (pts+1) = 100,000
In the 3rd year, the lowest number would be 100,000/(3+1)=25,000
So A's final number is reduced by 75% (100,000-25,000/100,000)
Hunter B's 1st year would be 100,000/(14+1)= 6,667
Hunter B's 3rd year would be 100,000/(17+1)= 5,556
Then Hunter B's final number reduction is 6,667-5,556/6,667= 17% reduction.
So the more points you have, results in your odds increasing at a lower percentage than those in the lower end of the points scale. So, even though your odds are better with more points, the incremental gain you get each year becomes less and less significant. The only reasons I'm considering paying for a point this year would be the hope that they might change the draw system in the 2020-2024 season. If not, I'd be done contributing $50.
 
You also forgot that your number gets reversed and then reassigned by a tile drawing. You left out three other steps of the draw before weighted points even get figured in.
 
You also forgot that your number gets reversed and then reassigned by a tile drawing. You left out three other steps of the draw before weighted points even get figured in.
*************************************************
The example I gave assumes the correct process as the number arrived at before considering points is basically a random number. Thus it doesn't matter how many steps it takes to get there as the end result is each person gets a random number before dividing by their points. Everyone has the same odds for every 6 digit number, so to compare odds I'm using the same number for Hunter A and B.
 
True, and that is why JRAB is wrong. It doesn't matter if you have zero weighted points or max everyone has the same odds of getting the lowest random number. People need to realize that after the initial three points it is a lottery. People also need to realize that 99.9% are eliminated before weighted points are even looked at, thus CPW giving the opt out option to applicants.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-19 AT 01:35PM (MST)[p]I doubt the opt out option sticks around long, and I doubt free pp points for the other species remains the norm much longer either. I'm also smart enough to know sticksender and jrabq made it a little farther in math than I did. I will continue to buy points for that ever so slight increase in odds, but mainly in hopes the system is changed in the future. Theres really only one constant in CP&W's drawing process and that is its constantly changing these days.



#livelikezac
 
DW I agree at some point it will change, heck sheep and goat has changed two or three times that I can remember. Hopefully it goes to a bonus point style where everyone has a shot but their is much more preference to the high point holders
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-19 AT 07:26PM (MST)[p]>But like my friend from Texas always says....I can
>explain it to you, but I can't understand it for
>you.

That's a good one sticksender, and very applicable to this subject matter!
 
They may change the system, but I can't see them changing to a true preference draw. I think a lot of people will opt out and that option will be removed soon. Probably application numbers will drop, especially non-resident, of those who jumped in just because you didn't have to front the cash and it was cheap. I'm not thinking they would address that with reducing the point fee next year.

Right now, I have to go with division of my number by 19 or 20 next year not being worth $100 extra now.
 
JRABQ please tell me what statistical advantage someone with max weighted points has over someone with none on their random number draw? Then tell me what advantage they have over their numbers being reversed and the tile assignment? That's right their is none everyone after three points has the same chance of drawing the lowest random number, thus making it a lottery. Also please tell me how weighted points matter when your random number is so high you are mathematically eliminated before they are even part of the equation?
 
JRABQ you always like to post odds tell me who had better odds the three max weighted guys or the kid with three plus two? Also explain to me how the three plus zero to three plus seven applicants are out drawing the three plus eight to max guys in the sheep draw if weighted points are so helpful?


76212jrabqsheep.jpg
 
Orionthehunter.....I think you are confusing "odds" with "results". In your example, the "odds" of an applicant with 8 or more weighted points drawing a sheep tag are materially higher. (Keep in mind, "materially" is a subjective term and may mean something very different to you than it does me.) That is, however, mutually exclusive as to whether that subset of applicants actually draws more/the same/less tags, especially with such a small random sampling. For the math to be statistically credible, you would need many thousands of results (tags drawn not applicants). Referencing 1 tag, 1 year's worth of data for all tags in CO, etc....is simply not sound from a statistical perspective.

In your example, the major variable that influences results is how many applicants put in for the 2 subsets you are referencing. If you had 99 applicants applying with 3 weighted points and 1 applying with 17 weighted points, you'd see the folks with 3 weighted points draw the tag almost every time you ran a simulation. That doesn't mean they have better odds. Actually the 1 person with 17 weighted points has better odds. Without running the numbers, let's assume he has a 2% chance of drawing. That would means his odds are twice as good as the other 99 applicants. Still doesn't mean he'd even draw the tag once if you conducted the draw 100 times, nor does it mean he'd draw it 10 times, etc.

I assume you are conflating these 2 issues by accident and hopefully this helps.

Good luck in your draws.
 
Nope not confused. I think you are proving my point. One, that yes the low point holders draw a majority of the tags and will continue to do so because there is a higher number of them and they have a higher chance of pulling the lowest random number. And two, there really are no odds after three points because everyone has the same "odds" of getting a low random number. My reference is just one of many examples. Heck I ran 2015 through 2018 to see how many drew with 3 plus 0. Here you go:
2015-7
2016-3
2017-10
2018-5
 
Live4 in your example how can you say the guy with many weighted points has a 2% chance to draw. What advantage does he have over the 99 other applicants to pull a low weighted number? The draw assigns a number, then reverses it, then draws tiles to reassign your original numbers values. Then it is divided by your weighted points. Mathematically 99% of the applicants are eliminated before weighted points are even brought into the equation because their number is too high. So how can you give someone a higher percentage to draw when all 100 of the applicants are going in equal into getting their random number. So no matter the amount of weighted points each of the 100 applicants has a 1% chance of drawing if there is one tag.
 
I'm not sure what to tell you at this point but I will try to respond to two specific pieces in your post.

- I believe I said I was just picking a number specific to the 2% because I hadn't run the math. But to prove their is a difference in odds...I'll give you an example below.

- While getting the lowest possible number has probably the most impact on whether you will draw or not, it doesn't have the only impact. If your number were 10,000 and you had 1 weighted points, I believe you would divide the 10,000 by 2 and get a final number of 5000. If my number was 80,000 (8 x's higher) and I had 17 weighted points, you'd divide the 80,000 by 18 and I'd get a number of 4,444....thus giving me the tag.

That's as simple/complicated as it gets and serves to prove that there is indeed a mathematical advantage to having more weighted preference points. If you started with 1,000 vs my 80,000 you'd win every time but if your number were 8,889 or higher....I win every time in that example. Said differently, I have better odds of getting a number that is 80,000 or smaller (before dividing by weighted PP's) than you do of getting 8,889 or lower.

Not looking to get in a drawn out conversation about this. Just trying to stick with science (which correct math is).
 
Just out of curiosity I tallied the 3+4 and less successful moose applicants and removed the antlerless tags from the total...

3+4 - 4
3+3 - 5
3+2 - 4
3+1 - 4
3+0 - 2

I'm sure there is also a certain percentage of lowering in the 3+5 -3+8 category that are also inflated with antlerless count...

Does it still look like the opt out option is the way to go?



http://fenderimages.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-19 AT 07:57PM (MST)[p]I think it's helpful to understand the odds by looking at toprut.com as they've calculated actual statistically odds which has nothing to do with who's drawing the tags. On the site, put in Resident, then go to the right side and pick a point level, then pick a specific GMU. From the ones I looked at, odds of drawing are statistically higher if you have more points, however if you look over the 4 years range of data, you'll see your odds don't improve a lot from year to year if you are in the upper point levels. If you are in the lower point levels, adding points does improve your odds much more significantly which is just how the math works. My own opinion is that it's not worth paying $50 to gain a point if you are in the "upper" point levels as you only gain a few additional tenths of a % but if you are in the lower levels, it might be worth it. That said, I'm personally still planning on kicking in $50 even though I have a lot of points in the hopes that they change the draw system in the next 5-year structure to something more equitable to higher points people. If that doesn't change, I'll no longer give them $50 for a point. Just my opinion.
I think Orion has a valid/good point that since way more people put in with very few points as opposed to people way at the top thus many low point people will draw might be true although statically your odds are still higher if you have very high points that might get swallowed up by masses of people at the low end if that makes sense?
 
Toprut posted their analysis of various point systems on this topic yesterday so an interesting read.

https://www.toprut.com/news/2019/02/26/colorado-weighted-point-system/

Also, I went to the CPW Broadway office this morning to see if I could talk to someone on this and submit my comments (which is where I was told to go over the phone). Well, they didn't know who might know something about submitting comments and the person they thought might know something was not at her desk. So I thought I'd submit my comments online and now I see they say the comment period has ended. I was also told over the phone that we had until the end of February to submit comments. So a bit frustrating to find that they don't seem to provide accurate info. I submitted my comments anyway and hopefully they'll consider them.
 
The problem with that is toprut did their simulated draw wrong. Yes you are assigned a random number that number is also reversed and reassigned by random tiles that reassign your original number. They seemed to have left that part out or they don't know how the draw works.
 
Orion - They know what they are doing and didn't forget anything as they also provided the link to how the draw works.
 
I hope they keep it the way it is. This does give some preference to high point holders and doesn't give our kids almost no chance of ever drawing. Only way I'd be happier is if it was straight random. And yes, I'm sitting on a pile of weighted points, but my kids are just starting out. I'm going to get them through 18 years old with points then make a decision from there based on their interest in hunting. I am fortunate that the extra $300/year between the two of them won't strain my financial situation.
 
>I hope they keep it the
>way it is. This
>does give some preference to
>high point holders and doesn't
>give our kids almost no
>chance of ever drawing.
>Only way I'd be happier
>is if it was straight
>random. And yes, I'm
>sitting on a pile of
>weighted points, but my kids
>are just starting out.
>I'm going to get them
>through 18 years old with
>points then make a decision
>from there based on their
>interest in hunting. I
>am fortunate that the extra
>$300/year between the two of
>them won't strain my financial
>situation.

There is no pp fee for 18 and under.


#livelikezac
 

Similar threads

C
draw question
Replies
3
Views
887
sticksender
sticksender
Gorilla
Wy Point Creep Analysis
Replies
33
Views
3k
Joe2Kool
Joe2Kool
a3dhunter
Unit 68 4th season deer info needed
Replies
10
Views
979
liecabucks
liecabucks

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_20170525_212214.jpg
Huge Mt. Dutton Trophy Bull Elk
D28113FF-9183-4D5A-8528-F6A2CC57B978.jpeg
20180927_170942.jpg
20230828_175459.jpg
C257688D-404A-444C-B880-A93D351447FE.png
PXL_20201117_193352418.jpg
D1AC396D-C326-4479-8DCD-9BB627710CFC.jpeg
Bachelor Herd 21ii.jpg
B01B1B22-096E-4ACA-967A-10AD41F44784.png
CA004F42-0764-4805-A6E7-101B0E4C02F4.png
F25EFEA0-F25F-4F12-8F7B-1BF9FFBCF0F6.png
Back
Top Bottom