The Truth About The Effects of Breeder Whitetail Bucks

[mrex]

For many years, hunters have had the perception that if they leave the big older bucks with massive antlers and heavy body weights in the herd that these breeder bucks will breed about 50 percent of the herd, resulting in better genetics. Some hunters also believe that numbers of big bucks (breeder bucks) will keep subordinate bucks from breeding, just like a boss gobbler will keep subordinate gobblers from gobbling and breeding.

A study done by Randy B. Young at Texas A&M in Kingsville, Texas, who’s also done some research at Mississippi State University, tests this theory by using DNA as a research tool, Young captured deer and pulled DNA samples to recreate a family tree for the herd he was studying with some degree of precision. He was able to determine which bucks bred which does, what bucks and does were related to each other, and how many fawns an individual buck was actually producing each year. His research revealed some very interesting data.

Three different areas were studied in Oklahoma, south Texas and Mississippi. One place was a traditionally-managed herd – a public WMA in Mississippi; one was a quality-managed area in Oklahoma with good buck-age structure and good population saturation; and the third region was the King Ranch in Texas, which probably had and still has the best buck age structure in the nation.

The study revealed that:

* yearlings and 2-1/2-year-old bucks accounted for 1/3 or more of all fawns produced in all three areas, even regions under an intense trophy-management program. Even on the King Ranch where 50 percent of the bucks were 4-1/2-years old or older, the 1- to 2-1/2-year olds accounted for 1/3 or more of all fawns produced.

* an increased number of fawns were produced by bucks 3 and 3-1/2-years or older, but there wasn’t a significant huge difference.

* the average buck only accounted for about three fawns that survived each year, in all three areas, which shattered the idea that a big mature dominant buck might produce 20 or 30 fawns a year. Big bucks apparently had a low impact on the overall genetic input of the entire herd.

* the top breeder over a 6-year period in this study only produced 14 fawns that could be identified. The study coordinator believed that these fawns accounted for about 2/3 of all the fawns produced by that buck.

* 25 percent of the twin fawns had multiple sires, which meant that a doe that dropped twin fawns could have been bred by more than one buck.

The fact that white-tailed deer breed entirely different from elk has influenced the results of Young’s study. A white-tailed buck has to search, find, stay with and possibly breed a doe over about a 2-day period from start to finish. The buck has to spend plenty of time locating that one hot doe. After he breeds her, he stays with her and defends her until she’s no longer receptive. At the same time, other does will come into heat and become available.

[El Cazador Loco]

Thanks that's a great article.

[oxmos]

Interesting read.

[BuckEyeCam]

So I guess to make the big buck breeding theory really work you would need to shoot all the little bucks that are breeding the does behind the big buck's back :whistle:

Don't let buckbacks read this.......http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/laughin.gif

I am only kidding here ........

[Andy Gehle]

Thanks Mike. Very interesting.
It does certainly dispell some ideas that I've absorbed from others.
I think that it should also serve notice to anyone that pays attention, to take the "facts" about deer that are passed down from other hunters with a grain of salt. Meaning that science trumps the ramblings of old school myths.

[eschatts]

So for the most part it is a good policy to shoot the smaller bucks and let the mature ones walk?

Ed

[Freedomrules3]

I've read that one before, interesting topic though. It leaves out a lot of variables that needed to be mentioned imo like what was the buck to doe ratio on the test land . It does make sense though, mother natures way of keeping too much inbreeding in 1 area. here's a question I pose though. Does everyone think that a buck has to be mature in order to carry and pass along its good gene pool ? Should you shoot out all young bucks :confused: or just the bucks with inferior antler growth like say browless bucks ? how many does do you think a year a buck can breed? hundreds or maybe just a dozen or so ? age structure is needed to see the full potential of nearly any buck imo, some you can tell younger that they will never be a trophy . most never reach their full potential until they reach 5 years or older, especially if hes a big bodied deer. so its still a let em grow so you will know imo :biggrin:

[bowhunter1023]

So for the most part it is a good policy to shoot the smaller bucks and let the mature ones walk?

It seems to support that...:nono:

* yearlings and 2-1/2-year-old bucks accounted for 1/3 or more of all fawns produced in all three areas, even regions under an intense trophy-management program. Even on the King Ranch where 50 percent of the bucks were 4-1/2-years old or older, the 1- to 2-1/2-year olds accounted for 1/3 or more of all fawns produced.

Horny little bass...WATCH YOURSELF!

[Andy Gehle]

here's a question I pose though. Does everyone think that a buck has to be mature in order to carry and pass along its good gene pool ? Should you shoot out all young bucks :confused: or just the bucks with inferior antler growth like say browless bucks ? how many does do you think a year a buck can breed? hundreds or maybe just a dozen or so ?

Did we just read the same thing?

To your question about how many does a year can a buck breed: the average buck only accounted for about three fawns that survived each year, in all three areas, which shattered the idea that a big mature dominant buck might produce 20 or 30 fawns a year.

Hundreds? Dozens? The study obviously suggests that the average buck can just breed a handful or less.

And genes are genes. If a 2 1/2 year old, that will ultimately be a brute but hasn't reached potential yet, breeds a doe his good genes are passed on. Whether he's 2 years old or 6 years old. Same genes.

[BuckEyeCam]

It's like a box of chocolates ...........

[bowhunter1023]

The Hole-in-the-Horn, The Lovstuen Buck, The Hanson Buck...What do they have in common? Other than being the best whitetails of all time, they were once yearlings and 2 ½’s. So obviously you don't shoot the little ones...I think we are all acutely aware of that. I think the suggestion by Ed to shoot small ones, was merely tongue-in-cheek.

The proof is in the pudding; see the aforementioned names for your pudding. Sure they might have been exceptional 2 ½’s, but they would have never been what they became had they not been given the chance to grow. They same goes for that 100” 8-point 2 ½ you passed this year. He may be a 150” 8 when the 2008 bow-opener rolls around. Should you have shot him this year?

[stumphole]

If you read the spike buck thread I don't think you can really effect the genetics of the herd one way or the other. 1/3 are being bred by the 1-1/2 to 2 year olds and we really can't judge genetics on the hoof especially at that age.
If you see an "Old Stud" take him. He's not breeeding an inordinate amount of the does anyway his best days, breeding wise, are behind him......Reminds me of someone else I know.

[BuckEyeCam]

I think what most forget about genes are that there are no absolutes. Genetics tend to hedge one way or another but there no absolutes.
For example: the "big buck" breeds with the doe - the offspring may turn out to be an average buck, average doe, big buck, big doe and/or get eaten, hit, killed by hunter. Too many variables to be able to accurately calculate the end results.
Genetics go at least 2 deep on both sides (buck and doe) possibly even further back than that. Which gives you a combined genetic representation BASED on the buck's and doe's genetics.
What genes get passed on depends on the predisposition determining factor of the COMBINATION of the two sets of genes - not dominantly based on the "big buck" or even the "doe" for that matter.
It is a combination of the genetic history of each that gets passed on.
There is the distinct possibility that the big buck will breed and end up with all doe fawns too which genetically carry portions of his genes but won't grow antlers so you will never know :)
The only absolute is there is no absolute and no way to accurately "cull" the gene pool in the wild.
Healthy herd = maximum genetic potential which is really all you can ask for. Anything outside of that, is, well really only speculation. If you want to maximize the genetics you should concentrate on the health rather than the gene pool.

[Andy Gehle]

With you the whole way Buckeye.
Taking into account what you just wrote, then aslo factor in this tidbit:
25 percent of the twin fawns had multiple sires, which meant that a doe that dropped twin fawns could have been bred by more than one buck.

...and what you end up with is a statistical probability that would make Einstein's head hurt.

[WILEY1]

Buckeye,
Well said!


Do deer also have fraternal twins? Anybody know?

[Andy Gehle]

By my definition, of course. Although knowing you, I'm sure there's an agenda with your question and I'm being baited.

Fraternal, or dizygotic, twins occur when the mother produces two eggs in one monthly cycle and both eggs are fertilized. The conceptions may take place on two separate occasions and could involve different fathers.

[mrex]

I think what most forget about genes are that there are no absolutes. Genetics tend to hedge one way or another but there no absolutes.Why are the offspring of champion race horses so valuable?

[BuckEyeCam]

Why are the offspring of champion race horses so valuable?
Well that is because their bloodlines can be traced back many years under controlled breeding - similar to any controlled breeding environment where you can put all the pieces together as you see fit reducing the random chance factor.
What is even more ironic is the number of offspring of those "champions" that never win a race.............

That is why I put in "the wild" - We are talking about wild deer correct?

[mrex]

Well that is because their bloodlines can be traced back many years under controlled breeding - similar to any controlled breeding environment where you can put all the pieces together as you see fit reducing the random chance factor.
What is even more ironic is the number of offspring of those "champions" that never win a race.............

That is why I put in "the wild" - We are talking about wild deer correct?You are correct.

The buyer is betting on the increased odds that the offspring have a better chance of being champions than some plow horse. Naturally those odds will be higher in a controlled environment.

However, even in a wild population, wouldn’t it make sense that a genetically superior buck has a statistically better chance of siring superior offspring, although at a reduced frequency?

I agree with your earlier post. I’m just throwing out another variable.;)

[BuckEyeCam]

You are correct.

The buyer is betting on the increased odds that the offspring have a better chance of being champions than some plow horse. Naturally those odds will be higher in a controlled environment.

However, even in a wild population, wouldn’t it make sense that a genetically superior buck has a statistically better chance of siring superior offspring, although at a reduced frequency?

I agree with your earlier post. I’m just throwing out another variable.;)
I would say you don't have enough statistical information to make that assumption. I am sure you have taken statistics at some point and the obvious is rarely the case, statistically speaking. The difference would be so slight that it would hardly compare in the grand scheme of things.

I call it my "Good-looking daughter ugly father" syndrome - the obvious should say that it shouldn't happen, but it happens all the time http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/laughin.gif

[Andy Gehle]

I call it my "Good-looking daughter ugly father" syndrome - the obvious should say that it shouldn't happen, but it happens all the time http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/laughin.gif

I married that statistical anomaly!! :bouncy:

I always guessed it may have been that multiple sire thing, but I like your theory too.

[Kent Dorfman]

We spent a week in anthropology discussing studies that have proven the superior physical appearance characteristics of children born into upper and upper middle class families.

The assumption was that on average, higher up the socioeconomic ladder parents tend to be more attractive and physically fit. Concluding that good looking parents tend to have good looking kids. Statistically speaking.

Bottom line: the chicks in Upper Arlington are hotter than the chicks in Obetz.

[WILEY1]

By my definition, of course. Although knowing you,I'm sure there's an agenda with your question and I'm being baited. Good stuff!

Fraternal, or dizygotic, twins occur when the mother produces two eggs in one monthly cycle and both eggs are fertilized. The conceptions may take place on two separate occasions and could involve different fathers.

No agenda. Never really thought about fraternals. Usually focused on the perty identical bucks.
However, if their fertilized at different times. What's the window for success? Can it be from two different cycles? Or does it have to be the same one? A 28 day jump start should be noticeable. Does it happen?

[bowhunter1023]

I call it my "Good-looking daughter ugly father" syndrome - the obvious should say that it shouldn't happen, but it happens all the time http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/laughin.gif

Andy...You ain't the only one buddy!

[mrex]

I would say you don't have enough statistical information to make that assumption. I am sure you have taken statistics at some point and the obvious is rarely the case, statistically speaking. The difference would be so slight that it would hardly compare in the grand scheme of things.

I call it my "Good-looking daughter ugly father" syndrome - the obvious should say that it shouldn't happen, but it happens all the time http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/laughin.gif
Let me get this straight. You’re saying I don’t have enough information to make the assumption that a genetically superior buck has a statistically better chance of siring superior offspring, even at a reduced frequency???

Then why is my youngest son a spittin’ image of myself at the same age? Why do my wife and her mother look like identical twins in their senior pictures? Two “one in a zillions” in the same family???

What makes wild whitetail deer exempt from heredity? – (the transmission from generation to generation through the process of reproduction in plants and animals of factors which cause the offspring to resemble their parents)

Allele -- a single allele for each locus is inherited from each parent (e.g., at a locus for eye color the allele might result in blue or brown eyes).

Probability is the likely outcome a given event will occur from random chance.

With each coin flip there is a 50% chance of heads and 50% chance of tails.

The chance of inheriting one of two alleles from a parent is also 50%. (blue eyes…large antlers etc…)

Multiplicative law of probability states that the chance of two or more independent events occurring together is the product of the probability of the events occurring separately.

The chance of inheriting a specific allele from one parent and a specific allele from another is 1/2 x 1/2 or 1/4. (25%)

50/50 and 25% are so slight they would hardly compare in the grand scheme of things?

[bowhunter1023]

Let me get this straight. You’re saying I don’t have enough information to make the assumption that a genetically superior buck has a statistically better chance of siring superior offspring, even at a reduced frequency???

Then why is my youngest son a spittin’ image of myself at the same age? Why do my wife and her mother look like identical twins in their senior pictures? Two “one in a zillions” in the same family???

What makes wild whitetail deer exempt from heredity? – (the transmission from generation to generation through the process of reproduction in plants and animals of factors which cause the offspring to resemble their parents)

Allele -- a single allele for each locus is inherited from each parent (e.g., at a locus for eye color the allele might result in blue or brown eyes).

Probability is the likely outcome a given event will occur from random chance.

With each coin flip there is a 50% chance of heads and 50% chance of tails.

The chance of inheriting one of two alleles from a parent is also 50%. (blue eyes…large antlers etc…)

Multiplicative law of probability states that the chance of two or more independent events occurring together is the product of the probability of the events occurring separately.

The chance of inheriting a specific allele from one parent and a specific allele from another is 1/2 x 1/2 or 1/4. (25%)

50/50 and 25% are so slight they would hardly compare in the grand scheme of things?

Spoken like man that has the knowledge...And one too many stats classess ;)

[BuckEyeCam]

Let me get this straight. You’re saying I don’t have enough information to make the assumption that a genetically superior buck has a statistically better chance of siring superior offspring, even at a reduced frequency???

Then why is my youngest son a spittin’ image of myself at the same age? Why do my wife and her mother look like identical twins in their senior pictures? Two “one in a zillions” in the same family???

What makes wild whitetail deer exempt from heredity? – (the transmission from generation to generation through the process of reproduction in plants and animals of factors which cause the offspring to resemble their parents)

Allele -- a single allele for each locus is inherited from each parent (e.g., at a locus for eye color the allele might result in blue or brown eyes).

Probability is the likely outcome a given event will occur from random chance.

With each coin flip there is a 50% chance of heads and 50% chance of tails.

The chance of inheriting one of two alleles from a parent is also 50%. (blue eyes…large antlers etc…)

Multiplicative law of probability states that the chance of two or more independent events occurring together is the product of the probability of the events occurring separately.

The chance of inheriting a specific allele from one parent and a specific allele from another is 1/2 x 1/2 or 1/4. (25%)

50/50 and 25% are so slight they would hardly compare in the grand scheme of things?
Your genetic makeup is largely based on the combination of generations of genes. Not solely on the parents genes but based on the "family's" (both sides) genetic tendencies. Father's father's father sort of thing. Or Mother's mother's mother as the case may be.

Your son looks like you and he probably looks like your father and/or mother etc. So is it your gene or the family gene? Hard to tell for sure. Don't you have 2 boys? I thought you did and the fact that you said "youngest son" and not "both sons" is a good example of what I am trying to say here.

Statistically speaking you don't enough data to support your theory. You don't have the history of the doe nor the history of the buck to support the statistics. There are environmental influences and fluctuations that also need to be considered. It is just not as cut and dry as one would think.

Lets say there is a 50% chance that the offspring will be a buck and there is a 50% chance it will inherit the genes from the buck (which is incorrect in it's own right but just for argument sake). What if the buck was a genetic anomaly and/or his history was from a long line of inferior bucks? Would it still support your theory? Not really, because as you add the genetic history to the equation you can see that your big buck percentages are changing drastically. (Don't forget they may actually go up but they may also go down to, you just do not know at this point)
Plus: The doe might have come from a long line of inferior bucks so your long explanation has left out the doe's genes from your statistical platform. OR she may come from a long line of big bucks and big does so once again your statistics are on the move. Those reasons alone are why you don't have enough statistical information to make that assumption. That is why in your "horse breeding" example they always have long lines of recorded history to insure they have only the best of the best genetically speaking. And even then they still have the random chance factor......

Coin toss:
There are, however, some rather "counterintuitive properties of coin tossing. The study of coins tossing of two or more identical tosses is 50%, but a detailed treatment is surprisingly complicated given the simple nature of the underlying process". So in most cases it is very difficult to toss a coin and get 50%. Such is the case and was my reference to statistics, when all things are considered, rarely as one would think the outcome to be is the way it actually is.

On the flip side (get it?) Statistically the percentage could be much higher that the big buck sires nothing but genetic replications of himself (or even better) - I am just saying that without all the data you cannot assume the outcome statistically.

[mrex]

Your genetic makeup is largely based on the combination of generations of genes. Not solely on the parents genes but based on the "family's" (both sides) genetic tendencies. Father's father's father sort of thing. Or Mother's mother's mother as the case may be.

Your son looks like you and he probably looks like your father and/or mother etc. So is it your gene or the family gene? Hard to tell for sure. Don't you have 2 boys? I thought you did and the fact that you said "youngest son" and not "both sons" is a good example of what I am trying to say here.

Statistically speaking you don't enough data to support your theory. You don't have the history of the doe nor the history of the buck to support the statistics. There are environmental influences and fluctuations that also need to be considered. It is just not as cut and dry as one would think.

Lets say there is a 50% chance that the offspring will be a buck and there is a 50% chance it will inherit the genes from the buck (which is incorrect in it's own right but just for argument sake). What if the buck was a genetic anomaly and/or his history was from a long line of inferior bucks? Would it still support your theory? Not really, because as you add the genetic history to the equation you can see that your big buck percentages are changing drastically. (Don't forget they may actually go up but they may also go down to, you just do not know at this point)
Plus: The doe might have come from a long line of inferior bucks so your long explanation has left out the doe's genes from your statistical platform. OR she may come from a long line of big bucks and big does so once again your statistics are on the move. Those reasons alone are why you don't have enough statistical information to make that assumption. That is why in your "horse breeding" example they always have long lines of recorded history to insure they have only the best of the best genetically speaking. And even then they still have the random chance factor......

Coin toss:
There are, however, some rather "counterintuitive properties of coin tossing. The study of coins tossing of two or more identical tosses is 50%, but a detailed treatment is surprisingly complicated given the simple nature of the underlying process". So in most cases it is very difficult to toss a coin and get 50%. Such is the case and was my reference to statistics, when all things are considered, rarely as one would think the outcome to be is the way it actually is.

On the flip side (get it?) Statistically the percentage could be much higher that the big buck sires nothing but genetic replications of himself (or even better) - I am just saying that without all the data you cannot assume the outcome statistically.Spin this; does my youngest son have a better chance of looking like me or you (assuming you’ve never met my wife)?;)

Nowhere have I said that every off spring of a brute will be a brute, but STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, he has an increased chance of looking like his father than lets say his third cousin twice removed, regardless of the lineage.

[BuckEyeCam]

Not touching that one - :) But interestingly enough you did add the "history" part in your equation (assuming you never met my wife).
As we know things (your family and mine) ofcourse he would look more like you. But had you not known that you and I were directly related (it is possible based on where we reside :) ) than statistically all bets are off. And that is all I am saying.

My point is based on fact - not opinion. Your oipinion would be similar to the coin flip 50% theory. Which statistically is incorrect. Most opinions would agree but the statistics would not.
The same holds true with genetics

[mrex]

Not touching that one - :) But interestingly enough you did add the "history" part in your equation (assuming you never met my wife).
As we know things (your family and mine) ofcourse he would look more like you. But had you not known that you and I were directly related (it is possible based on where we reside :) ) than statistically all bets are off. And that is all I am saying.

My point is based on fact - not opinion. Your oipinion would be similar to the coin flip 50% theory. Which statistically is incorrect. Most opinions would agree but the statistics would not.
The same holds true with geneticsWere you by chance a one time speech writer for the Clinton administration?:D

[Bawana]

Which Clinton?:yikes:

[mrex]

Which Clinton?:yikes:Take your pick.

[BuckEyeCam]

Take your pick.
You must be talking about George right?:whistle:

[BuckEyeCam]

This George of course....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/George_Clinton_%28resized%29.jpg/220px-George_Clinton_%28resized%29.jpg

[Kent Dorfman]

That guy probably believes the outcome of a coin toss is anything other than 50-50.

[BuckEyeCam]

Yep he might :)

"Saying that the chance of heads on a coin flip is "50/50" (or 50%) means that on ANY flip, the chances of heads or tails are equal- "the coin has no memory". What happened in the past has absolutely no affect on what will happen.
What is true (the "law of large numbers"- a more precise statement would be the "Central Limit Theorem") is that percentage will tend toward "50/50" as the number of trials gets larger. Suppose you flipped a coin 100 times and it came up heads every time: 100/0. Flip it another 100 times and suppose it still favors heads slightly: 60 heads, 40 tails. You flipped a total of 200 times and get 60+ 100= 160 heads (160/200= 80%) and 0+ 40 tails (40/200= 20%).
Now you have 80/20. See? Moving toward 50/50 even though the coin still "favors" heads."

Not from me - but maybe George :)

[mrex]

Yep he might :)

"Saying that the chance of heads on a coin flip is "50/50" (or 50%) means that on ANY flip, the chances of heads or tails are equal- "the coin has no memory". What happened in the past has absolutely no affect on what will happen.
What is true (the "law of large numbers"- a more precise statement would be the "Central Limit Theorem") is that percentage will tend toward "50/50" as the number of trials gets larger. Suppose you flipped a coin 100 times and it came up heads every time: 100/0. Flip it another 100 times and suppose it still favors heads slightly: 60 heads, 40 tails. You flipped a total of 200 times and get 60+ 100= 160 heads (160/200= 80%) and 0+ 40 tails (40/200= 20%).
Now you have 80/20. See? Moving toward 50/50 even though the coin still "favors" heads."

Not from me - but maybe George :)
Somebody needs to contact the NFL immediately as one team started the superbowl with a distinct unfair advantage. I’m not sure which team, but statistically speaking…..

[mrex]

That guy probably believes the outcome of a coin toss is anything other than 50-50.probability

Probability is a branch of mathematics that deals with calculating the likelihood of a given event's occurrence, which is expressed as a number between 1 and 0. An event with a probability of 1 can be considered a certainty: for example, the probability of a coin toss resulting in either "heads" or "tails" is 1, because there are no other options, assuming the coin lands flat. An event with a probability of .5 can be considered to have equal odds of occurring or not occurring: for example, the probability of a coin toss resulting in "heads" is .5, because the toss is equally as likely to result in "tails." An event with a probability of 0 can be considered an impossibility: for example, the probability that the coin will land (flat) without either side facing up is 0, because either "heads" or "tails" must be facing up. A little paradoxical, probability theory applies precise calculations to quantify uncertain measures of random events.
In its simplest form, probability can be expressed mathematically as: the number of occurrences of a targeted event divided by the number of occurrences plus the number of failures of occurrences (this adds up to the total of possible outcomes):

p(a) = p(a)/[p(a) + p(b)]

Calculating probabilities in a situation like a coin toss is straightforward, because the outcomes are mutually exclusive: either one event or the other must occur. Each coin toss is an independent event; the outcome of one trial has no effect on subsequent ones. No matter how many consecutive times one side lands facing up, the probability that it will do so at the next toss is always .5 or (50-50).


Kent – I pulled this from the glossary of an old QBA book I had stashed in my basement. .I knew one of those old text books would come in handy.

[BuckEyeCam]

Funny stuff right there :) Isn't that what the quote above yours just said?

[mrex]

Not exactly.

Kent said, “That guy probably believes the outcome of a coin toss is anything other than 50-50.”

You said. “What is true (the "law of large numbers"- a more precise statement would be the "Central Limit Theorem") is that percentage will tend toward "50/50" as the number of trials gets larger”.

And I said, “No matter how many consecutive times one side lands facing up, the probability that it will do so at the next toss is always .5 or (50-50).” Which is what Kent pointed at. Not “tend toward” or “I did not have sexual relations with that girl”.

[WILEY1]

Wow!
Thank You, Buckeye.
It's an uphill battle in which you shall never win.
Good luck though!:)
If M__x said cheese was made from goat dung K__t D______n, T__ph____r, H_ll_r, B__H and OH___76 would agree 100%.
Class dismissed!

[BuckEyeCam]

I know Wiley - Just having a little fun - I realize the deck is stacked against me :) It usually is..... And that is Ok....

And for the record MRex -
My was a quote from some "know it all" Ivy league Prof - If you read the entire thread you will noticed it is in quotes and I end the post with "Not from Me" - Course he doesn't know everything :) just more than most.

You left out the first part of my post conveniently of course to make it spin in your favor. It's a politician's way of doing things - you know....

[BuckEyeCam]

Here is an article from some statistians that maybe some should speak to directly.
Again - I am not the writer of this, just the messenger - But all these smart people are saying that coin tossing is bias - ever so slightly - but just enough to make it not 50-50


Toss Out the Toss-Up: Bias in heads-or-tails

Erica Klarreich
If you want to decide which football team takes the ball first or who gets the larger piece of cake, the fairest thing is to toss a coin, right? Not necessarily.
A new mathematical analysis suggests that coin tossing is inherently biased: A coin is more likely to land on the same face it started out on.
"I don't care how vigorously you throw it, you can't toss a coin fairly," says Persi Diaconis, a statistician at Stanford University who performed the study with Susan Holmes of Stanford and Richard Montgomery of the University of California, Santa Cruz.
In 1986, mathematician Joseph Keller, now an emeritus professor at Stanford, proved that one fair way to toss a coin is to throw it so that it spins perfectly around a horizontal axis through the coin's center.
Such a perfect toss would require superhuman precision. Every other possible toss is biased, according to an analysis described on Feb. 14 in Seattle at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The researchers' logic goes like this. At the opposite extreme from Keller's perfect toss is a completely biased toss, in which the coin stays flat while in the air. Since the coin never actually flips, it is guaranteed to land on the same face that it started out on.
Between the perfectly spinning toss and the flat toss lies a continuum of other possibilities, in which the coin spins around a tilted axis, precessing like an old-fashioned children's top. Each of these possibilities is biased, the team found. The bias is most pronounced when the flip is close to being a flat toss. For a wide range of possible spins, the coin never flips at all, the team proved.
In experiments, the researchers were surprised to find that it's difficult to tell from watching a coin whether it has flipped. A coin toss typically takes just half a second, with the circumference of the coin whizzing around at 3 meters per second. What's more, the coin's spin makes it wobble, often creating the illusion that the coin has flipped.
"Sometimes we had the complete impression that the coin had turned over when it really hadn't," Holmes says.
Magicians and charlatans may take advantage of this illusion. Keller observes, "Some people can throw the coin up so that it just wobbles but looks to the observer as if it is turning over." To see whether the predicted bias shows up in actual coin tosses, the team made movies of tossed coins and then calculated the axes of spin.
Their preliminary data suggest that a coin will land the same way it started about 51 percent of the time. It would take about 10,000 tosses before a casual observer would become aware of such a small bias, Diaconis says. "Maybe that's why society hasn't noticed this before," he says.
This slight bias pales when compared with that of spinning a coin on its edge. A spinning penny will land as tails about
80 percent of the time, Diaconis says, because the extra material on the head side shifts the center of mass slightly.
During World War II, South African mathematician John Kerrich carried out 10,000 coin tosses while interned in a German prison camp. However, he didn't record which side the coin started on, so he couldn't have discovered the kind of bias the new analysis brings out.
Says David Aldous, a statistician at the University of California, Berkeley, "This is a good lesson that even in simple things that people take for granted, there may be unexpected subtleties."

[BuckEyeCam]

And another one -

The Not So Random Coin Toss

Mathematicians Say Slight but Real Bias Toward Heads

Flipping a coin may not be the fairest way to settle disputes. About a decade ago, statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance. He had Harvard University engineers build him a mechanical coin flipper. Diaconis, now at Stanford University, found that if a coin is launched exactly the same way, it lands exactly the same way. The randomness in a coin toss, it appears, is introduced by sloppy humans. Each human-generated flip has a different height and speed, and is caught at a different angle, giving different outcomes.
But using high speed cameras and equations, Diaconis and colleagues have now found that even though humans are largely unpredictable coin flippers, there's still a bias built in: If a coin starts out heads, it ends up heads when caught more often than it does tails.

*Note: In football's inaugural kickoff coin toss, the coin is not caught but allowed to bounce on the ground. That introduces an extra complication, one mathematicians have yet to sort out.

[BuckEyeCam]

So Berkeley, Standford and Harvard are not thinking that the coin toss is 50-50......hmmmm interesting -
Statistically speaking, these statisticians would not agree with the 50-50 theory that some learned years ago.

Does this mean George was right?

[mrex]

About a decade ago, statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance….."This new science astounds me. Tell us again how sheep’s bladders can be used to predict earthquakes" – Graham Chapman

So Berkeley, Standford and Harvard are not thinking that the coin toss is 50-50. I always said Ohio University was a second rate education. And now I understand why those trail cams are so darned expensive.;)

[stumphole]

Man you can tell the season is over and it's cold and snowy!

[BuckEyeCam]

About a decade ago, statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance….."This new science astounds me. Tell us again how sheep’s bladders can be used to predict earthquakes" – Graham Chapman

So Berkeley, Standford and Harvard are not thinking that the coin toss is 50-50. I always said Ohio University was a second rate education. And now I understand why those trail cams are so darned expensive.;)
hehehe -
You are right the science is not new - Just apparently new to some .......
http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/beatdeadhorse.gif

Good one about the cameras by the way (have no idea what you mean but good one. I am sure it is funny)

http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/door.gif

[BuckEyeCam]

Man you can tell the season is over and it's cold and snowy!

No kidding!
http://www.buckeyecam.com/images/chair.gif

[Kent Dorfman]

Wow!
Thank You, Buckeye.
It's an uphill battle in which you shall never win.
Good luck though!:)
If M__x said cheese was made from goat dung K__t D______n, T__ph____r, H_ll_r, B__H and OH___76 would agree 100%.
Class dismissed!

And if W___Y1 said anything, ____ or ____ or maybe _____. Scratch that, nobody would agree at all.

[bowhunter1023]

About a decade ago, statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance….."This new science astounds me. Tell us again how sheep’s bladders can be used to predict earthquakes" – Graham Chapman

So Berkeley, Standford and Harvard are not thinking that the coin toss is 50-50. I always said Ohio University was a second rate education. And now I understand why those trail cams are so darned expensive.;)


So what...Now my degree is worthless!?! :irked:

[Milo]

So what...Now my degree is worthless!?! :irked:
I think REX just pizzed a bunch of people off with that comment. I would take that second rate education over no education at all.

[roundhouse]

I have been accused of being an mrex disciple. Mostly by Mike himself. Has it ever occurred to you Mr. Wiley1 that maybe some of us just don’t take everything you say as gospel.

Since I know Mike personally, it’s easy for me to accept what he says on this board as fact. I am sure there are many things in this world that he and I disagree about but I’ve seen the bucks on his wall, watched the videos, read articles he has written and read some written about him. Spend a few hours with him and you will see that hunting and wildlife management are more than just his hobby.

It is easy for you to come on here as an anonymous poster and try to sound all authoritative but we don’t know you, your background or accomplishments. And don’t give me that take my statements for what they are worth crap because unless you’ve got some credentials to back them up, then crap is all they are.

And Buckeye, trying to argue that a first generation mammal does not have a good chance of looking like a parent is just plain stupid. I would expect a little more out of an Athens County boy.

[BuckEyeCam]

And Buckeye, trying to argue that a first generation mammal does not have a good chance of looking like a parent is just plain stupid. I would expect a little more out of an Athens County boy.
The stupid comment isn't really needed and is pretty harsh....

I am just having fun here - some are taking this way too seriously.
I mean I use smoke as cover scent how much can I possibly know?

I am not saying there isn't a good chance, not at all. I am just saying that not everything is as cut and dry as you might initially expect.

The FACT is the offspring can look exactly like the parent ...What you are not seeing in my little post is the DOE is part of the equation...so the offspring may look exactly like her....and if her genetics are passed on then every buck will look like her "side" of the family. Or they could look exactly like the grand-parents, great grand-parents, you just never know.

That is all I am saying. Geesh.....


And unless you really know me or know where I am from you shouldn't assume anything...... And you don't know either of those by the way....

[WILEY1]

I have been accused of being an mrex disciple. Mostly by Mike himself. Has it ever occurred to you Mr. Wiley1 that maybe some of us just don’t take everything you say as gospel. When did I say I speak the gospel?

Since I know Mike personally, it’s easy for me to accept what he says on this board as fact. Well put. That was exactly what I meant. I am sure there are many things in this world that he and I disagree about but I’ve seen the bucks on his wall, watched the videos, read articles he has written and read some written about him. Spend a few hours with him and you will see that hunting and wildlife management are more than just his hobby. So why doesn't he join the ranks of our DNR and save us all?

It is easy for you to come on here as an anonymous poster and try to sound all authoritative but we don’t know you, your background or accomplishments. And don’t give me that take my statements for what they are worth crap because unless you’ve got some credentials to back them up, then crap is all they are. I'm hoping to one day work for the USPS.

And Buckeye, trying to argue that a first generation mammal does not have a good chance of looking like a parent is just plain stupid. I would expect a little more out of an Athens County boy.
Wow! This post was exactly what I was talking about. Why do some of you feel the need to bash anybody that doesn't agree with your leader? You obviously have nothing to add to the debate. Just "Yeah, what he said". Why do you feel the need to contribute, or lack there of?:bowdown:

[Kent Dorfman]

Why do some of you feel the need to bash anybody that doesn't agree with you?:bowdown:
If I thought somebody agreed with you I would have used the entire quote.

Pot, this is the kettle. Kettle, meet the pot. Hey, you’re black. No, you are black. No, you are….you are…..you are….and on and on and on……

[eschatts]

If I thought somebody agreed with you I would have used the entire quote.

Pot, this is the kettle. Kettle, meet the pot. Hey, you’re black. No, you are black. No, you are….you are…..you are….and on and on and on……

This seems like the never ending thread. It just keeps going on and on about nothing other than a disagreement. I think that it is time to put it to rest.

Ed