I got two:
Played Orange County National (Orlando) for 50 dollar. Including lunch and both Crooked cat and Panther lake. And got vouchers to play the course next time for half the normal price.
Played a three day tourney in Sauerland (Germany) including a pré tourney round for 220 dollar. During the three days ALL drinks for free, food for free, last day dinner for free. Not just a hamburger, but full fetched all you can eat top meal (and again all drinks for free). Will be back next year
Here's some more below about the lowest you might expect - even on an easy course.
I think this is largely true, but pros don't tend to play a lot on 'easy' courses so there doesn't seem to be even much anecdotal stuff.
The quote below describes what's considered the 'perfect round'.
I guess you could also consider a 'go-for-green' perfect round where you also hit all the par 5's in two and one-putted those for eagle for a 'go-for-green perfect' score of 50.
Obviously the likelihood of doing this in a single round defies the essence of golf, but it's a good a hard theoretical lower limit that probably depends more on the par than the course rating. Likely the odds grow exponentially as the percentage of birdied / eagled holes rises. I think we can discount albatrosses as a 'perfect round' option.
Most tournament pro scores don't get below 56 and 59 with about an 80/20 rule separating the more frequent 59s from the 58's.
That's 4-5 strokes (assuming par 72) over the 'perfect round' and 8-9 over the 'go-for-green perfect round', each of which represent grabbing about 75% and 61% respectively of the potential shots under par realistically available. I suppose a short par-4 would add another potential eagle opportunity, but we'll discount that as I'm not sure how universal they are.
The lowest tournament round was 55 (par of 71) by one single golfer out of how many total tournament rounds by pros and plus HCP amateurs over the years?
So while 55 is humanly achievable it's super rare and likely represents the lower limit of any possible likelihood. That would put the absolute lowest threshold around 17.8 below the course rating (72.8) and 16 below par. So there's a lot of room to go below even a low course rating or par of 70. I don't think the expected scores would get too squished and the distribution would still likely be normal in shape.
The thing that is probably unrealistic is how narrow the range of expected scores is. The field is extremely consistent, but I think a single individual player (whose average score is the same as the field) will have a score variance significantly larger than the field.
I think the mode likely stays the same while the distribution flattens / spreads out more into the tails with a little more probability to both go low and high and less certainty of shooting within a stroke or two of the mode / most likely score.