The Numbers And The Odds

[El JP]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home...tration-charts

After being absolutely wowed at the amount of thruhikers registered with the ATC, i began to wonder about the odds vs the traditional numbers. Being a Vegas type this kind of thing is sorta natural. Hell, if i would have been thinking a bit ahead i would have hustled up a few bets concerning my progress up the trail.

To be honest i'm having trouble trying to word this, but... For those that are really, really familiar with the AT, what do you figure on a successful thru hike this year? Especially with the mass that is heading out. We've all seen the usual 24 percent but with the sheer size of the bubble now the numbers have got to be skewed some. One thing that i'm thinking is that it will be rather stiff competition of sorts for limited shelter and tent sites in certain areas, especially the Smokies, until at the very least Damascus.

I know this might be silly as all hell to people here but i'm pretty much wired into thinking of these things in terms of odds and percentages. I've been curious about all this for some time but for one reason or another virtually every video or journal i checked out didn't really involve the bubble.

Apologies if i'm rambling as this would be a much easier question face to face.

[4shot]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home...tration-charts

... For those that are really, really familiar with the AT, what do you figure on a successful thru hike this year? Especially with the mass that is heading out. We've all seen the usual 24 percent but with the sheer size of the bubble now the numbers have got to be skewed some. One thing that i'm thinking is that it will be rather stiff competition of sorts for limited shelter and tent sites in certain areas, especially the Smokies, until at the very least Damascus.

I know this might be silly as all hell to people here but i'm pretty much wired into thinking of these things in terms of odds and percentages. I've been curious about all this for some time but for one reason or another virtually every video or journal i checked out didn't really involve the bubble.

Apologies if i'm rambling as this would be a much easier question face to face.

If I understand your question correctly, are you asking whether the number of people attempting to thru hike changes the odds of completing one? Others may have different ideas on this, but the ATC has data going back a number of years. I don't think there is much variance from year to year so I would suspect historical numbers to stay relatively the same (large sample size of data)going forward. I would think weather would have a stronger affect but even then there is really not much change year over year.

The gear gets better, as does the data and info, there's more people to be sure...but the underlying reasons people don't complete a thru still remain. Starting with more (or less) people doesn't have much bearing on these things. IMO.

[nsherry61]

It seems you're having trouble wording your question . . . the question you didn't really ask in the OP?

Are you asking if the odds of successful completion change with the size of the bubble if you are in the bubble?
Are you asking if the odds of successful completion change as the number of hikers overall change?

Speculation without any hard data is always fun.

I would imagine that overall, as gear and resources along the trail improve, the odds of completion improve, so a trend over time of improved success rate.
I believe that the AT has had an overall increase in thru-hiker attempts over time, probably due to improved accessibility, greater public awareness, better gear (including food), and who knows what else. So thus, a correlation between increased numbers and increased ease of success and thus overall success.

Now, on the shorter term:
I speculate that there is greater social pressure (trail families) and greater ease of completion (more help and resource) when there are more people on the trail completing it.
I also speculate that on years that see unusually high bumps in numbers due to some event like a new movie or book, that there is a sudden jump in proportion of hikers hiking with less knowledge and preparation (fad driven increase instead of overall community growth driven increase) and thus the proportion of successful completions would go down a bit relative to the fad driven bump size.

On the other had, as you point out, resources can get limited in big bubbles. My speculation on the response to that is pretty much nill. With my experience, the more people that are using the trail the more comfortable people with less experience are on the trail, regardless of the damage and limited resources. Hell, there's more party possibilities. But, the more people on the trail, the less likely I am to want to hike it. But, if I choose to hike it, I will be more likely to finish.

So, regarding resource limitation, you may drive away experienced people from even starting the trail and thus skew the population toward even more inexperienced hikers more likely to fail. But, the failure is countered by the increased likelihood of success from the "community effect" of their being more people, more social connections.

Now, where are the numbers to prove this unfounded speculation right or wrong?

Cheers. Have fun. Rock the trail trial whichever one(s) you choose.

[4shot]

I believe that the AT has had an overall increase in thru-hiker attempts over time, probably due to improved accessibility, greater public awareness, better gear (including food), and who knows what else. So thus, a correlation between increased numbers and increased ease of success and thus overall success

I think the internet and availability of info is helping to drive hiker numbers. Nowadays, any possible question can be answered via this forum (and others) along with the various guidebooks. There is less "mystery" around doing a hike of this nature than there was 30+ years ago. I don't think people head to Springer or Mt. K worried about crazed hillbillies or dying of starvation or being eaten by bears or whatever anymore.

[nsherry61]

. . .I don't think people head to Springer or Mt. K worried about crazed hillbillies or dying of starvation or being eaten by bears or whatever anymore.

I know. It's so, so sad. . . where has the sense of adventure gone?


Okay, I disagree on the bears. People are still crazy scared of being eaten by bears, killed by spiders or snakes or disabled by ticks. Heck, the tick thing is even sorta real.

[nsherry61]

Hey, we could do that odds calculation thing with more people on the trail and the associated increase or decrease in likelihood of being eaten by bears or being "befriended" by hillbillies.

[rocketsocks]

Odds of trail being loved to death...% hunah pacent!

[Sarcasm the elf]

Hey, we could do that odds calculation thing with more people on the trail and the associated increase or decrease in likelihood of being eaten by bears or being "befriended" by hillbillies.

Do you think there is a correlated increase or decrease in total number of hillbillies depending on the number of hikers in the bubble?

[4shot]

Do you think there is a correlated increase or decrease in total number of hillbillies depending on the number of hikers in the bubble?

According to data that I have collected and charted (# of hikers as independent variable and # of hillbillies as the y, or dependent variable) I consistently obtain an R squared value of roughly .865 (+/- .002). But as we all know - "correlation is not causation!". R value is, of course, the negative square root of that number because of the inverse relationship between these two things.PM and I'll provide values for the least squares regression line. Very useful for understanding or predicting how many hillbillies you might encounter given the number of hikers you start with.

[Slo-go'en]

It's really easy to guess, but really hard to know.

Overly crowded campsites and overflowing hostels early on could put off some people. I think a bigger factor is the weather. Being cold and wet most of the time for the first month, combined with the bleak landscape is pretty depressing.

[rickb]

We've all seen the usual 24 percent but with the sheer size of the bubble now the numbers have got to be skewed some. One thing that i'm thinking is that it will be rather stiff competition of sorts for limited shelter and tent sites in certain areas, especially the Smokies....

It’s not my stomping ground so I cannot say what is going on, but I have seen a bunch of posts from people having deep concern regarding crowds in the Smokies.

Not sure why that is. I can see how crowds would be a turn off, and how some will really want to avail themselves of a shelter — even though the bear resistant chain link has long been removed — but in the end it’s a relatively short stretch for a thru hiker, right?

Just don’t see why one would be overly concerned about crowds there in particular — unless I was a resource manager or worked for the ATC.

Anyone?

As for the crowded conditions causing a higher dropout rate, I would not bet on that.

Seems like the numbers have been remarkably steady over a long period of time — and over a period where there have been some remarkable changes (like the Internet, rise of shuttles, phones and social media on the Trail itself, frequent resupply, lighter weight loads and more offtrail accomodations and focus) that hardly made a dent in the completion percentages.

So...

Please come up with your reduced number for a crowded year— and I will probably the over!

[nsherry61]

. . . Being cold and wet most of the time for the first month, combined with the bleak landscape is pretty depressing.

Yes, but in what way does that correlate to the number of hikers or the size of the bubble?

As for hillbilly abundance and interactions, we can only assume that hikers don't effect the abundance of hillbillies as hillbilly production is likely tied to other forcing variables.

But, for any given number of hillbillies, an increase in the number of hikers should increase the number of interactions but decrease the likelihood of any one person having an encounter.

[JPritch]

I can only speak to one thing, and that is the common hearing "x% (I typically hear 30%) will quit by the time they get to Neels Gap)". I have not found this to be even remotely true. I think with the level of planning and prep that goes into a thru hike effort, yeah there may be a shock effect for some, but I think it takes alot more than 30 miles for somebody to quit.

[ldsailor]

I can only speak to one thing, and that is the common hearing "x% (I typically hear 30%) will quit by the time they get to Neels Gap)"

When I started the trail at Springer I had a partner. I lost him at Woody Gap. I linked up with two more hiking partners at Woody Gap and I lost both of them at Neels Gap. I gave up on the hiking partner thing and continued by myself. 30% by Neels Gap? Yeah, I believe it and maybe more.

I got the impression the OP was asking what we thought the % completion of intended thru hikers is. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say 40% - 50% either drop out or skip major parts of the trail (skip 100 miles or more).

[gracebowen]

Now I'm wondering how many start but don't tell anyone then quit.

[nsherry61]

Now I'm wondering how many start but don't tell anyone then quit.

Exactly 326.5 last year.

[Slo-go'en]

I think the completion rate has at least doubled from the 80's when 10-15% finished to now when 20-25% finish. Or so we guess.

The 30% by Neel gap figure could be the 30% of those who eventually drop out. That would be a reasonable number. Once the truly unprepared and/or naïve hikers bail, the rest slowly fall by the wayside for a host of reasons. Injury, running out of money, getting bored and so on. By the half way mark, about half of those who started are still going.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Exactly 326.5 last year.

Is the other 0.5 still lying on the trail somewhere?

[cwinkle]

I can only speak to one thing, and that is the common hearing "x% (I typically hear 30%) will quit by the time they get to Neels Gap)". I have not found this to be even remotely true. I think with the level of planning and prep that goes into a thru hike effort, yeah there may be a shock effect for some, but I think it takes alot more than 30 miles for somebody to quit.

In an attempt to avoid the idea of schadenfreude, I think it is strange watching the youtube hikers drop off so quickly this year. It is as if they feel the need to reach Mountain Crossings and say they are not part of the dropout rate only to drop out soon after. 2017 was the first time I was able to watch video of several hikers complete their hike from Springer to Katahdin each in a different way. It was inspiring to witness, but apparently this has spawned a new wave of unprepared hikers.

It is like the Bryson affect, but maybe worse. Any thoughts?

[MuddyWaters]

Don't know about Neel gap
But i met quite a few getting off trail in ga.
I think 25% drop by end of ga is real