Best Sheep Unit Besides The Breaks?

[Umpqua Hunter]

UH, your examples are still incorrect, statistically. Under your second premise, if all 50 states had a 2% draw odds hunt, and you put in for all of them, you would be statistically certain to draw one. That is not the case. In fact there is a 98% chance, collectively, that you wouldn't draw any of them.

My point about the Law of Independent Trials disputes your first premise. Over 50 years of a simple 2% draw unit, you would not be guaranteed to draw the tag. In fact on year 50 you would still have a 2% chance to draw. Of course, this would be for a straight draw like ID, and bonus points would come into effect if they were available as they are in MT.

How many times your name goes into the hat over your lifetime has no bearing on whether you will draw the tag. Only the number of times your hat goes in that particular pool that particular year has any statistical consequence.

BB, I respectfully disagree.

My understanding of the Law of Independent Trials simply says the odds of one event occurring has no effect on the odds that another event will occur. Practically, what that means is when I apply in Montana, the draw odds in Montana have no bearing on the draw odds in say Colorado, since they operate independently.

That however does not mean that increased numbers of applications and improved draw odds have no bearing on your overall probability to draw a sheep tag. You are correct that you cannot "guarantee" a tag, but you can most certainly improve your odds. That would be like saying my chance to roll a "6" with a dice in one roll is no different then my chance to roll a "6" in 1,000 rolls of the dice. Each roll does stands on its own (1 in 6 odds), but the increased frequency drastically improves the probability I will roll a "6". Of course it is not "guaranteed" I will roll a "6" since each event is independent.

I recall there is concept in statistics which has do with calculating the probability of ANY one event occurring in a series independent events. So in our example, that would be drawing ANY sheep tag (one event occurring), when applying in several states for many years (many independent events). I recall the probability of any one event occurring can be approximated by simply adding the probability of each independent event. For example:

Probability of A or B or C = Probability of A + Probability of B + Probability of C

I know I am getting rusty, but I do have a pretty heavy math background from engineering. If you have a formula that more closely calculates probability it would really be helpful to me. I use statistical formulas for my own planning for hunt drawings. I have a spread sheet that estimates my cumulative draw odds each year, by state, species, and overall odds. It’s a tool that helps me plan my applications so that I don’t draw too few tags, or too many in a given year.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Only respect this way as well, UH!

I am not an engineer, and I haven't taken Statistics since 1999, so give me some leeway...

However, my understanding of the Addition Rule in Probability P(A) or P(B) = P(A) + P (B) is that it refers to one draw with outcomes (events) independent of each other. As in:

Bitterroot and UH have applied in a sheep unit with 1 tag where their individual probability of drawing is 2%. The probalility that either Bitterroot or UH draws is P(Bitterroot) + P(UH) which is (.02) + (.02) = (.04). So there is a 4% chance that either will draw.

Maybe that also applies to separate draws, but that is not my understanding.

If that was the way it worked, you could take a odd/even 50/50 bet and after losing twice, bet the house.

 

[hvfd21walker]

BKC my Grandpa taught me that math error a long time ago. I havent heard it in years.

 

[alwayshunting]

I think you are both incorrect on calculating independent probabilities. The corect way would be to calculate the odds of not drawing each one and multiplying them.

So if you apply for two units with both 2% odds it would look like: 1- [(1.00-.02) * (1.00-.02)] then you would get 0.0396 or just under 4%

So for 50 years at 2% you get: 1- [(1.00-.02)^50] = .6358 or 63.5% chance over 50 years

If you only had 1%: it would be about 39.5%

I think this is the proper way to calculate this type of odds.

 

[CoHiCntry]

There goes 15 minutes I'll never get back... Why don't you guy's move this over to the math forum topic? Oh wait... there is none...

 

[BKC]

There goes 15 minutes I'll never get back... Why don't you guy's move this over to the math forum topic? Oh wait... there is none...

This is the best reply on the whole thread!!

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Alright, I finally got it!

UH, it turns out we are both right after I did some research. My apologies. We were just using two different probability laws!

I was using the Law of independent Trials. You were using the Law of Large Numbers!

Eureka!

That is, on any given year, your odds of drawing a 2% tag is 2%. The draw has no memory of past failures.

However, over a large sample, you would expect to draw 2% of the time, so in 100 years, you would expect to draw twice. The problem with the law of large numbers is that it is more and more reliable with larger and larger numbers. So if you applied for a 1000 years, you would expect to draw 20 times. But the odds of drawing those 20 times in the last 20 years of the 1000 is the same as drawing it the first 20, or 1 of the 20 in the first 5, or 5 of the 20 in each of the last 4 decades, etc.

It is like flipping a coin. Even if you get 15 heads in a row, it doesn't make the 16th flip a tails ... BUT over 1000 flips, about 500 are going to be each!

This thread has been very good for me, because it does illustrate the advantages of even slightly higher odds.


Thanks, UH.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

BB, I think you are right on, both principles are at work. If after 40 years of applying a person still hasn't drawn, his odds are still lousy in the next draw he's up for. That's why you can't bet the house on any given play.

My wife told me not to post originally, as working small draw odds is one of the secrets to draw low odds tags, but there are still at least 3 more ways to work the odd that are as good or better then that one. I turn 70 years old in 2034, so feel free to ask me then.

Maybe Eastman's will have to set-up a "math" or "drawing odds" forum...that was a good one

BB, you mentioned the new bonus points squared in Montana that was the first I had heard of that. Is that for residents only? I might just have to move to Montana when I have 30 points.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

BB, you mentioned the new bonus points squared in Montana that was the first I had heard of that. Is that for residents only? I might just have to move to Montana when I have 30 points.

It is for everybody. Of course, residents have a lot more licenses available to them, though.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/bonuspoints.html

 

[Elkoholic307]

Why don't you guy's move this over to the math forum topic?

Could not agree more.

 

[Elkoholic307]

In case anyone is curious, I'm still on the 680 train.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Good luck, EH307, whatever the odds.

 

[MSUcat61]

Personally, I think 213 is one of the most underrated sheep units (can a blue chip unit be underrated? ). Booner sheep come out of the unit every year and I just read an article that quoted a biologist to say that all eight rams taken in 2009 made the book. Also in the winter of 2010, a motorist killed 8 sheep at one time, 5 of which were rams, 3 that made the book. Pneumonia has been a really hard on this unit in the last two years though, but at full potential, this is another great unit to consider. And like BB said, the Rock Creek units 210 and 216 are some of the top as well when the herd is healthy. I believe more book rams have come out of Granite County (where 210 and 216 are located) than any other state.

On another note, it seems to me that the list of B&C rams on the fwp website is fairly incomplete. I know the lone ram that came out of 212 last year went 192" and it's not on the list, as are any of the supposed 8 rams taken in 2009 in 213 that I already mentioned, or another specific 2010 ram that I know of that's not listed either. Anyone know anything about this? Is your inclusion in the records voluntary or something? I wish Montana had a hunter check-out sheet available like Nevada does.

 

[Jon Boy]

On another note, it seems to me that the list of B&C rams on the fwp website is fairly incomplete. I know the lone ram that came out of 212 last year went 192" and it's not on the list, as are any of the supposed 8 rams taken in 2009 in 213 that I already mentioned, or another specific 2010 ram that I know of that's not listed either. Anyone know anything about this? Is your inclusion in the records voluntary or something? I wish Montana had a hunter check-out sheet available like Nevada does.

Just because something would make book doesnt mean its been entered. It has to be officially measured and then you have to pay a fee for it to be in the Boone and Crockett club. I know several people with record book animals that dont want there animal listed in the books.