DV-2014 Lottery High number or not? Please help.

[Britsimon]

Mr. Raevsky,

Thank you for the information on this thread. I, like many others here, am worried about having received a high number. My number is 2014EU00021***. Can you tell me where I stand and what my chances are? I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thank you!

That number is NOT a high number at all. It is well within even the most pessimistic estimations. You will probably have your interview in March/April (and you will be notified by email around 4 to 6 weeks before your interview.

 

[raevsky]

Hi Raevsky - welcome back

How do you get these percentages of people who won't be interviewed? Is it based on last years results? If your theory of open and hidden numbers is right, how can you determine the cutoff between the selectees who are notified and those who are not?

I get the upper and lower bound first. That is based of DV-13 situation. I use the max dv-13 (from CEAC data) as the lower bound for dv-14 if there is no underfilling for DV-13, and add 5% on top if there is an underfilling (EU and SA).
The upper bound is lowed bound plus 20% on top.
Those percentages are based of the upper bound of corridor and numbers for DV-14 from this forum (26000 for Asia; upper bound 12800; 12800 is 49% of 26000)
I calculated the number of those notified from Europe with numbers below 27000 from another forum, and I see based on them that within the first 27000 numbers from EU the number of winners did not decrease in dv-14 compared to dv-13. So that means that the total number of open winners just increased proportionally to max numbers (for EU 54000 in dv-14 instead of 30700 in dv-13). Increased because they reclassified hidden numbers in dv-13 into open numbers in dv-14. So the interval of winners from 30700 to 54000 in EU was hidden in dv-13, but is now open in dv-14.

My theory based on difference in frequencies allowed my to calculate max number (including hidden and open numbers both) for each of the years dv-07 to dv-13. I do not have input data for the process for dv-14 because it was never published, but I assume it is the same as in dv-13. And i get the max open numbers from CEAC for DV-13. So I assume the rest of the numbers was hidden before and will not be invited to interview now.

 

[raevsky]

But the key to the theory is teh differences in frequencies of wins for countries within a region (they should be almost the same, but are very different; those differences are disqualified entries; they are what we call holes; that gives us the way to caclulate their number; and then gives us the way to calculate max number for hidden winners within a region)
That is what I did in November 2011 whet input data was first published by DOS for they years 2007-2013. The only thing I did not know at that point where the boundary between open numbers and hidden numbers was. I knew that for Europe from another forum, but now I know that for all regions (except NA yet) from CEAC data.

Of course, an important thing was to interpret numbers published the right way. What is for primary entrant, what is for families of entrants, what is for primary winners, what is for family members of winners.
And another important thing is to restore the true values of terms like "additional selection", that have a distorted sense.
Another example of that kind of things are statements like "The Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky has registered and notified the winners of the DV-2013 diversity lottery" which firstly produce false impression that ALL of them are notified. Those things let you believe that 2 x 2 = 5, however, and only later you realize what exactly is wrong in the game, when you go through DOS statements and numerical results one-by-one, and make finally ends meet.

 

[2014EU0000****]

2014 DV AOS September Visa bulletin prediction

My Case number : EU00007****

With visa bulletin , a few days away ( Comes in first week of August ) , Wondering if it will be current in October itself or another month or so.

In past years , for EU used to be around 10000 for Oct but last year went only about 5000 and then started increasing by 2000 per month. Was it unusual or will this trend continue this year also.

Any predictions for EU and other regions ?

 

[raevsky]

Between 7,000 and 8,000 or between 70,000 and 71,000?

 

[Fiefia]

Thank you so much!

 

[Alair Tudor]

Hey all, I dont want to offend Mr. Raevesky, but what he states is a theory, purely and only that. Unless he physically works at KCC and has insight as to how many people are going to be qualified and sent and are going to send in papers for the fiscal year, I cant see how would be able to make conclusions soooo early. I understand the maths he came up with to justify his conclusions but, and its a huge but...its a theory, until we get to next year there is no way of definatively state, yes,these would be the cut offs for the year dv2014. In reading some of his comments it'll make one feel as though theres no hope but it just doesnt make sense for a department to say...lets pick 25,000 more people just to say no to 3/5 or more if them. Until next year I wish everybody the best and hope most of us get interviews!

 

[monashed]

Hey all, I dont want to offend Mr. Raevesky, but what he states is a theory, purely and only that. Unless he physically works at KCC and has insight as to how many people are going to be qualified and sent and are going to send in papers for the fiscal year, I cant see how would be able to make conclusions soooo early. I understand the maths he came up with to justify his conclusions but, and its a huge but...its a theory, until we get to next year there is no way of definatively state, yes,these would be the cut offs for the year dv2014. In reading some of his comments it'll make one feel as though theres no hope but it just doesnt make sense for a department to say...lets pick 25,000 more people just to say no to 3/5 or more if them. Until next year I wish everybody the best and hope most of us get interviews!

you are absolutely right,
i made different calculations that shows that 22-23K from Asia will get interviewed,
this is only speculations but why they would bother to have so much trouble with all documents if more than half (according to Raevesky) will not be interviewed.
i think the most pessimistic approach is that the last 19% that taken extra will not be interviewed,
what Raevesky suggested is look unreal and even not fit pessimistic approach.

 

[Britsimon]

you are absolutely right,
i made different calculations that shows that 22-23K from Asia will get interviewed,
this is only speculations but why they would bother to have so much trouble with all documents if more than half (according to Raevesky) will not be interviewed.
i think the most pessimistic approach is that the last 19% that taken extra will not be interviewed,
what Raevesky suggested is look unreal and even not fit pessimistic approach.

Monashed, could you explain your calculations?

 

[SusieQQQ]

Ravsky is now saying two official DoS statements are false - the one saying dependents are included in the number, and the one saying all winners have been notified. I find it difficult to rely on theories that need various official sources of information to be wrong. Ymmv.

 

[Simo04]

I'm from morocco my cn is af114xxx
Is it a higher one?
And when can I expect my enterview thank you?

 

[House409]

Ravsky is now saying two official DoS statements are false - the one saying dependents are included in the number, and the one saying all winners have been notified. I find it difficult to rely on theories that need various official sources of information to be wrong. Ymmv.

When consulting the CEAC website, it looks clear each CN number includes the principal applicant and his/her dependent(s), if any. What is assumed by Raevsky is that the total number of winners announced by DOS does not include the dependents, just only the principal applicants. If this is the case, they would have selected around 200k people (125k principals +/- around 75k dependents). At the end, they only grant 50k visas... That would mean only 25% percent of people will get a visa. That seems low, but one must take into account the ones who forget to check ESC, who do not pursue their application, the ones rejected, and the ones who will never get interviewed. DOS statements are a little ambiguous on who g
All this does not really tell what would be the cutoff for the high CN at the end of FY.
Raevsky looks then at current year DV13 distribution in the CN, gets also stats on numbers and their distribution on various forums for DV14, and makes its best guess on what would be the cutoff. This is just a theory as he admits it. We'll know for sure in Sept 2014 who is going to be interviewed.

 

[House409]

sorry for the truncated message: "... ambiguous on who a winner is".

 

[monashed]

Monashed, could you explain your calculations?

my calculations are very simple ,just using the official numbers without any hidden or conspiracy theories like ravesky.
based on last year (DV2013) and according to official numbers there were 16K selected from Asia (this number is quite constant and you can see it in all previous years statistics ) , so with the increasing of the 19% (16K * 1.19 = 19K) , this year there will be around 19K selected from Asia.

what we are not sure of is the holes ( this is changing every year)
you can see in the visa bulletin some years :
there were 10K-80K from Asia
and some year small like max 10K,
but all the time numbers of selected remains around 16K.

according to reports of users here and there largest number that has seen in asia is 26K.
so now i'll calculate the average space between numbers( Holes)
my prediction is to 19K selected , so ratio will be 26K/19 = 1.37 .

according to DV2013 all got current in august so if all current this means that the 16K selected will get interviewed if they submitted forms.
so
i'll take this number and ,multiply it with the holes ratio that is assumed 1.37 with the 16K of last lottery(DV2013)

1.37 * 16K = 22K , so this number should be interviewed until august.

 

[monashed]

I'm from morocco my cn is af114xxx
Is it a higher one?
And when can I expect my enterview thank you?

it's higher
but you could expect interview in august september 2014

 

[raevsky]

this is only speculations but why they would bother to have so much trouble with all documents if more than half (according to Raevesky) will not be interviewed.

This happened in the past. In DV-1 lottery two regions had exactly this type of problem - Africa and Asia.
Africa - cutoff was never higher than 29679, and the number of winners was 64189, 54% of winners did not have a chance to be invited for interview
Asia - cutoff was never higher than 6692, and the number of winners was 25354, 74% did not have a chance to be invited for interview

So, I could answer your question in the following way - the reason could be the same to what it was for DV-1. Unfortunately, I do not have s single clue about that reason, but there was one.

 

[raevsky]

Ravsky is now saying two official DoS statements are false - the one saying dependents are included in the number, and the one saying all winners have been notified. I find it difficult to rely on theories that need various official sources of information to be wrong. Ymmv.

We all understand that all 3 pieces could not be true all together:
1. Factual data about the number of winners
2. Factual data about the number of visas
3. Declaration that number of winners in p.1 includes both primary winners and dependents

Otherwise that would be an effective proof that 2 x 2 = 5

So, SusieQQQ suggests that DOS cannot be trusted because DOS contracts itself.
On the contrary, I believe that DOS can be trusted, only after we exclude typos in their declarations.

I think it would be more difficult to make several typos in p.1 and several typos in p.2 than to make just one typo in p.3.

So, I believe their declaration that winners include dependents, is false. Also, p.1 and p.2 are factual data, and p.3 is a declaration, not a factual data. I would rather believe how exactly mistakes in declarations like that happen.

If you reread press conference http://fpc.state.gov/198409.htm you will see how clueless is Ms. King on the questions Ms. Turmond was easily able to answer.

The next contradiction in DOS's statements is that the following statements could not be true at the same time alltogether:
1. 16045 winners from Asia
2. Max number is CEAC system 10700
3. Winners were notified with a possible assumption that those were All winners

And the same for other regions.

So, 1, 2 or all 3 have to be false.
It is much harder to believe that p.1 or p.2 are false for all regions, than p.3 just once. Those are factual data. p.3 is a declaration, not an actual data.

Look how many times Ms. King was wrong, compared to Ms. Turmond?! That is because Ms. Turmond operated factual data, but Ms. King (Liaison division) operates declarations instead.

So, the logic is clear. You try to trust all DOS statement, and if you cannot, you consider declarations made by Liaison division as false. In case all factual data does not have contradictions. SusieQQQ was wrong - both false daclarations were made by the same division - Liaison division. But i agree with SusieQQQ that Liaison division has a higher probability of issuing false statements than Divisions issuing factual data.

This approach is much more productive than SusieQQQ's approach, saying DOS is totally untrustful.

 

[Kayend]

This happened in the past. In DV-1 lottery two regions had exactly this type of problem - Africa and Asia.
Africa - cutoff was never higher than 29679, and the number of winners was 64189, 54% of winners did not have a chance to be invited for interview
Asia - cutoff was never higher than 6692, and the number of winners was 25354, 74% did not have a chance to be invited for interview

So, I could answer your question in the following way - the reason could be the same to what it was for DV-1. Unfortunately, I do not have s single clue about that reason, but there was one.

In DV-1, Asia visa available is 6873 and the winners is 25354 but you missed out one point, Bangladesh alone takes up 14,541 winners and only 3500 max visa per country per year. 11,041 will disqualified due to country quota. So, 14313 should be the winner that going to have an interview. On top of that, it will be 50% success rate. 14313/2 = 7156. Worst case only 1.11% didn't get their interview, 283/25354 = 1.11%. Of course, country that have winners that more than 3500 will have slimmer chance of getting interview, but it doesn't apply for all others countries.

In DV-14, for Asia, there will be Iran and Nepal that will take more than 10k. So that also play a key role into the calculation. As of now, the DV-14 statistic is not out yet. When it is available, we will know the actual # for the actual calculation.

 

[raevsky]

my calculations are very simple ,just using the official numbers without any hidden or conspiracy theories like ravesky.

Totally incorrect. You ignore other statements made by DOS. I wonder how you do that? Bases on conspiracy theories?
Do you disagree that DOS makes contradictory statements? AS a mathematitian, you should understand they are contradictory. If they are, how do you resolve those contradictions? Or do you just cherrypick those statements that you like and ignore those you do not like? Based on a consipracy theory?

As far as I understand, announcing a statement made by DOS false is in you mind a conspiracy theory (in my mind that is a typo)

 

[monashed]

Totally incorrect. You ignore other statements made by DOS. I wonder how you do that? Bases on conspiracy theories?
Do you disagree that DOS makes contradictory statements? AS a mathematitian, you should understand they are contradictory. If they are, how do you resolve those contradictions? Or do you just cherrypick those statements that you like and ignore those you do not like? Based on a consipracy theory?

As far as I understand, announcing a statement made by DOS false is in you mind a conspiracy theory (in my mind that is a typo)

i don't know which statements you are referring, i only looked in official statistics information from the web site,
didn't listen to any other distractions. your hidden numbered theory seemed like a conspiracy plan to make people unhappy and miserable after they got selected.

please refer to my calculations and explain to me , why do you think your calculations are better than mine ?