• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

For those that like to argue about statistics...

britsimon said:
OK I have added a new sheet to show the by country figures. I've only done it for AF at the moment and I considered doing it for 2012, but then I realised that would be VERY SILLY, so I used 2011 instead. ;-)
Click to expand...

LOL. :)

The result is more difference than I would have expected, so you were right to suggest that. The demand has gone up by ~1000 - so that is not great news. It also reveals some other interesting things - for example the likelihood of country 7% limit being hit. The numbers suggest that Egypt is the only country (in AF region) that could possibly hit the 7% limit - the other countries will not hit that limit before the global cutoff kicks in.
Click to expand...

I actually expect AS to increase the most.

As I have mentioned before, I think in the case of Iran the return rate will have a significant increase for DV-2014 (sanctions, trembling economy, etc.) in addition to the increase in the selectees. But we would be just making up numbers if wanted to account for that.
 
c1984 said:
LOL. :)



I actually expect AS to increase the most.

As I have mentioned before, I think in the case of Iran the return rate will have a significant increase for DV-2014 (sanctions, trembling economy, etc.) in addition to the increase in the selectees. But we would be just making up numbers if wanted to account for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is the biggest flaw with the approach. Is the interest in moving to the US greater now (in 2013 versus 2010) - as you say that would increase return rates - and yes some countries for political reasons may have higher return rates that feed through to success rates....
 
britsimon said:
OK - have a look at the shared spreadsheet - the OC by country numbers are there now. Demand is around 1525 to 1562 visas based on the 2011 success rate. If you look at an earlier post of mine in this thread you will see I took a crack at the possible regional quota based on 55,000 available visas (i.e. assuming NONE went to NACARA). I am back and forth about NACARA - I read something today that made me think all 5k visas will go to NACARA - leaving only 50k - in that case my splits would be around 10% overestimated. However, that estimate came out at 1600 so losing 5k to NACARA would still leave around 1440 - about 100 less than demand. It is important to note though that the 1600 is calculated assuming the selectee split is a deliberate split that indicates what the regional splits should be. That may not be a correct assumption.

However, that makes me feel a lot more positive about OC than I have been feeling because I could not understand the 100% increase in selectees. I now see why that was necessary and a higher quota for OC region only "costs" a couple of hundred visas so that could easily be justified. That leads me to think that if any region stands a chance of going current it would be OC.

Now OC folks just need the VBs to play along with the plan....
Click to expand...

I guess I will have to ask (BEG) you for the SA analysis, right? PLEASEEEEE
 
All right I looked ( quick) at your calculations for AF (need to print it)and to me it seems very plausible,
You said there might be a knok of 10% because of the Nacara visas will be all taken !
That bad news:(.
Anyway simon I need to now about the second draw story! Since when did they start showing that you have to keep
You checking until october is it after the anomaly of 2012dv or was it before ( which I doubt)?
Its important for us to know and clarify this point, because now I'm thinking if this occured affter only
After dv12 than its just an alternative to make a second draw incase the software stuffs-up
And they will have to redraw. And may be they never drew again in dv 13?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Veronice said:
I guess I will have to ask (BEG) you for the SA analysis, right? PLEASEEEEE
Click to expand...



LOL - sorry Veronice - just finished it!

OK my take on SA is that the demand looks like a range of 2258 to 2416. That is much higher than the regional quota I mentioned earlier (1800), and again - that is assuming there are no NACARA visas. The 1800 is a quota based on the selectee proportions between the regions and taken against the 55,000. I'd struggle to see a quota much higher than that and the demand suggests there will be too many winners. I don't think SA can fill the demand, and will not therefore go current.
 
Sory for going out of the topic simon but its needed to understand the 12dv software anomaly. its all about arguying :) like your thread says ...
 
vladek15425 said:
All right I looked ( quick) at your calculations for AF (need to print it)and to me it seems very plausible,
You said there might be a knok of 10% because of the Nacara visas will be all taken !
That bad news:(.
Anyway simon I need to now about the second draw story! Since when did they start showing that you have to keep
You checking until october is it after the anomaly of 2012dv or was it before ( which I doubt)?
Its important for us to know and clarify this point, because now I'm thinking if this occured affter only
After dv12 than its just an alternative to make a second draw incase the software stuffs-up
And they will have to redraw. And may be they never drew again in dv 13?
Click to expand...

Only DV-2012 had an actual "second draw". The other years had more of a "second batch reveal".
 
vladek15425 said:
All right I looked ( quick) at your calculations for AF (need to print it)and to me it seems very plausible,
You said there might be a knok of 10% because of the Nacara visas will be all taken !
That bad news:(.
Anyway simon I need to now about the second draw story! Since when did they start showing that you have to keep
You checking until october is it after the anomaly of 2012dv or was it before ( which I doubt)?
Its important for us to know and clarify this point, because now I'm thinking if this occured affter only
After dv12 than its just an alternative to make a second draw incase the software stuffs-up
And they will have to redraw. And may be they never drew again in dv 13?
Click to expand...

No the concept of keep your number for a possible 2nd draw predates the 2012 fiasco. It wasn't for a redraw, it was for an additional draw (or the reveal of more winners already drawn). One assumption was that in the previous lotteries, 100/105k winners were notified, and perhaps around 10k could be added in October (once they have the 122/230 forms from most people which tells them the likely demand). This year, the assumption was that by drawing and informing 140k immediately they would not need the 2nd draw BUT they left the wording in...
 
vladek15425 said:
Btw is your estimations including or ecluding nacara on the sheet ? May be I miss read your post ?
Click to expand...

The post number 9 in this thread has a quota split based on the full 55k visas (i.e. assuming NACARA takes NONE). That is a bold, and perhaps too bold a claim.

The spreadsheet analysis calculates demand based on 2014 selectees and 2011 success rates - i.e. assuming people return their forms and pass the interview in the same proportions as 2011. If the demand is higher than the supply (quota prediction) then there will be winners that will miss out (i.e. over subscription). Right now, I would say these numbers make the over subscription very obvious - but OC is the least oversubscribed.
 
c1984 said:
Only DV-2012 had an actual "second draw". The other years had more of a "second batch reveal".
Click to expand...
Ok, that's for sure I'm trying to figure out if they notified people to keep cheking before dv12 to see if before or only after . Because untill now bisde dv12 was never matter of second draw! And with lot of spleculation about second draw in dv 13 ....my self I don't think there was any beside dv12 but they still asked to do in dv 13 my guess is just they feared again a second anomaly on the software for dv 13?
Hope u guys understand
 
vladek15425 said:
Ok, that's for sure I'm trying to figure out if they notified people to keep cheking before dv12 to see if before or only after . Because untill now bisde dv12 was never matter of second draw! And with lot of spleculation about second draw in dv 13 ....my self I don't think there was any beside dv12 but they still asked to do in dv 13 my guess is just they feared again a second anomaly on the software for dv 13?
Hope u guys understand
Click to expand...

Vladek I think you are confusing two things.

In 2012, the results of the first draw were declared invalid and the whole thing was repeated. There were people that were told they had won who later had their win revoked. That scenario has only happened once - DV2012. You know that year - the "statistically normal year" as it is known in Slonerland.

The other second draw (the reason they tell you to keep your number and check again in October) is where they draw 100k winners, they realise they won't have enough and they draw (or reveal) an additional number of lets say 10k winners. That scenario has happened several times (including DV2013).
 
britsimon said:
No the concept of keep your number for a possible 2nd draw predates the 2012 fiasco. It wasn't for a redraw, it was for an additional draw (or the reveal of more winners already drawn). One assumption was that in the previous lotteries, 100/105k winners were notified, and perhaps around 10k could be added in October (once they have the 122/230 forms from most people which tells them the likely demand). This year, the assumption was that by drawing and informing 140k immediately they would not need the 2nd draw BUT they left the wording in...
Click to expand...

But simon if the concept of keep on checking only occured after dv12 than its has to
Do with the software fiasco? Because like you said no one thought of checking again (my self include)
And in the following dv they brought up this concept! And for dv 14 because it might
Clash with us law they decided rather taking more selectees than throwing a second draw.
 
vladek15425 said:
But simon if the concept of keep on checking only occured after dv12 than its has to
Do with the software fiasco? Because like you said no one thought of checking again (my self include)
And in the following dv they brought up this concept! And for dv 14 because it might
Clash with us law they decided rather taking more selectees than throwing a second draw.
Click to expand...

But what I am saying is that they advised you to check again in years previous to 2012.
 
britsimon said:
Vladek I think you are confusing two things.

In 2012, the results of the first draw were declared invalid and the whole thing was repeated. There were people that were told they had won who later had their win revoked. That scenario has only happened once - DV2012. You know that year - the "statistically normal year" as it is known in Slonerland.

The other second draw (the reason they tell you to keep your number and check again in October) is where they draw 100k winners, they realise they won't have enough and they draw (or reveal) an additional number of lets say 10k winners. That scenario has happened several times (including DV2013).
Click to expand...

Yes that was my first understanding in te beggening a second draw to fill up
A shortage. I agree , but now there was never been a second draw before dv 12
That's why I'm trying to figure out if this concept ''keep checking'' was caused by
The dv 12 fiasco to prevent a software stuff up and have a back up plan.
Or it was its just to draw more in case of a shortage?
 
vladek15425 said:
Yes that was my first understanding in te beggening a second draw to fill up
A shortage. I agree , but now there was never been a second draw before dv 12
That's why I'm trying to figure out if this concept ''keep checking'' was caused by
The dv 12 fiasco to prevent a software stuff up and have a back up plan.
Or it was its just to draw more in case of a shortage?
Click to expand...

That.
 
britsimon said:
But what I am saying is that they advised you to check again in years previous to 2012.
Click to expand...

That's now clear simon
But I never noticed it although may be because when u hit the ''not have been selected''
U don't feel like reading anymore haha
At least its one argument that's now setteled :)
 
britsimon said:
The selectees numbers announced (i.e. the 140k) included derivatives - so the two sets of numbers are comparable.
Click to expand...

I see. I was under the impression that the number of selectees 140k only referred to the principal selectees and did not include derivatives, especially since there are quite high case numbers and only the selected receives one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top