>I'll give it one more try.
>
>
>Let's forget Toprut, goHunt, etc., and
>use only the Complete Odds
>report from NMGF website that
>Sportsman01 refers to.
>
>From Sportsman01, in regard to the
>super-secret hunt in XXB
>
>>Since it's completely plausible for someone
>>to draw this tag as
>>a 3rd choice before someone
>>draws it as a first
>>choice (taken straight from G&F
>>home page on draw process),
>>you must include all resident
>>apps in the draw odds
>>calculation process.
>>
>>First choice resident apps: 158
>>Second Choice Resident apps: 194
>>Third Choice Resident apps: 258
>>
>>Total Resident apps - 606
>
>Yes, it is "plausible for someone
>to draw this tag as
>
>a 3rd choice".
>
>But a significant fraction of these
>applicants drew their 1st or
>2nd choice, and are no
>longer in the game.
>Same thing for 2nd choice
>applicants who drew their first
>choice. But using the
>raw numbers gives too much
>"weight" to 2nd and 3rd
>choice applicant numbers because it
>includes all who drew earlier
>choices. Because of this
>factor the method Sportsman01 describes
>usually underestimates drawing odds, often
>by a significant amount.
>
>Look at the "Post-Draw Successful Applicant
>Information" from the Complete Report.
>
>
>1st choice resident drawn: 101
>2nd choice resident drawn: 35
>3rd choice resident drawn: 53
>
>Total resident tags: 189
>
>1st choice residents only account for
>26% (158/610) of the total
>applicants, yet they drew a
>much larger fraction of the
>tags, ~53% (101/189). If
>all choices were treated equally
>then they would draw at
>a rate roughly proportional to
>their composition. But this
>does not happen, and it
>is only a manifestation of
>the draw process; we get
>one application with 3 ordered
>choices. Our choices are
>not treated as separate applications.
>
>
>This effect is much more obvious
>when you look at harder
>to draw hunts (early Gila
>rifle hunts, Valle Vidal, Caldera,
>etc.). I can't give
>you a specific example because
>apparently that would upset someone.
> But for high demand
>hunts the vast majority of
>tags are issued to the
>first choice applicants, it doesn't
>seem to matter how many
>applied as 2nd and 3rd
>choice.
>
>Given the complexity of the draw
>process it is difficult to
>compute accurate odds simply looking
>at the "Pre-Draw Application Information".
>
>But it is possible to use
>the actual drawing results; "Post-Draw
>Successful Applicant Information" to estimate
>your odds.
>
>Divide the post-draw 1st choice successful
>numbers by the number of
>1st choice applicants. In
>this example it is;
>
>101/158 = 64%,
>
>which is about 2X larger than
>the other method (total tag#/total
>applicant#). If you look
>at most other hunts you
>will see the same trend,
>until odds start to get
>closer to 100%. [This
>method doesn't work as well
>for non-resident hunts because of
>the smaller numbers involved]
>
>As Paul noted most people don't
>even consider the odds when
>they apply. Others will
>use the simple total tag#/total
>applicant# method, and it does
>give a "worst-case" estimate, and
>let's you order your choices
>correctly.
>
>An even smaller number of hunters
>are "anal" about draw odds
>(I admit it includes me)
>and are interested in how
>to get better numbers for
>states with complex draw systems
>(NM, AZ, NV, for instance).
> I personally think a
>2X difference is significant, but
>maybe that's just me.
>
>Good luck to all those XXB
>hunters this year!!
So to paraphrase all this, we should all apply for 16B?