IGNORED

# Increased Randomness on Putting

## Skill vs. Luck in Putting   41 members have voted

1. ### 1. Read the question in the first post and answer here. Vote BEFORE you read any replies.

• The gap between the good and bad putters would be narrowed.
23
• The gap between the good and bad putters would be increased.
7
• The gap between the good and bad putters would remain the same.
11

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, batchvt said:

Now we add a ½ bump random bump in either direction to the distribution and the make rates become this.

1 hour ago, batchvt said:

Let’s assume that half of these remaining putts are hit from 2 ft, and half from 3 ft.

1 hour ago, batchvt said:

Now you don't have to agree with my assumptions here.

1 hour ago, batchvt said:

When you do consider every putt, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that the good putter ends up better off than the poor putter.

Look, you really, really don't understand how flawed what you're doing here is. So, no, nobody agrees with your assumptions, and while it may be "perfectly reasonable" it's still not true.

52 minutes ago, batchvt said:

Really simplified version of the spirit of this post.

Simplified to the point of being irrelevant.

52 minutes ago, batchvt said:

Lets say make rates fall 10% on average for the good putter and fall 9% on average for the bad putter.

Let's just make stuff up!

18 minutes ago, batchvt said:

Golf is about how many strokes it takes to make the ball 18 times.

Ground breaking stuff here. Truly.

18 minutes ago, batchvt said:

The good player increased by 7.5 putts to hole the ball 18 times.  The bad putter increased by 12.6 putts to hole the ball 18 times.

That's not how that works.

18 minutes ago, batchvt said:

The problem is too complicated …

… for you.

In the words of a friend, you seem to know just enough to think the data supports your backward conclusion, but not enough to actually properly interpret it.

• Replies 128
• Created

#### Posted Images

• Moderator
13 minutes ago, batchvt said:

Golf is about how many strokes it takes to make the ball 18 times.

To keep this really simple, lets say that the stats you just provided are the stats for ever putt the good player and the bad player face.

So to make the ball 18 times, the good putter will have to putt:

18/80% = 22.5 putts on average.

the bad putter will have to putt:

18/50% = 36 putts on average.

Now after the bumps, here's what happens:

Good putter

18/60% = 30 putts on average

18/37% = 48.6 putts on average.

The good player increased by 7.5 putts to hole the ball 18 times.  The bad putter increased by 12.6 putts to hole the ball 18 times.

The bad putter was impacted more by the bumpy greens than the good player.

The problem is too complicated to just compare make rates.  You have to apply those rates.

You’re making it too complicated. You are also doing the math incorrectly. You continue to do that. Stop. Skill cannot control randomness, period.

##### Share on other sites

• Moderator
1 hour ago, batchvt said:

Really simplified version of the spirit of this post.

Lets say make rates fall 10% on average for the good putter and fall 9% on average for the bad putter.

This is in agreement that the bumps narrow the range of make rates.

Now apply this to the # of putts each player typically hits per round:

10% * 29.5 = 2.95 more putts for the good putter each round.

9% * 33.5 =  3.015 more putts for the bad putter each round.

You can't just evaluate this problem through make rates.  The make rates can narrow, and still hurt the bad putter more than the good putter in total score.

Let’s do 10% and 5% instead to your scenario, because why not?  I’ll make it up too.

10% * 29.5 = 2.95 more putts

5% * 33.5 = 1.68 more putts

See! The gap narrowed!

We can’t make up a number for what a bump means. We also can’t make up numbers to fit our viewpoint.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
• ### Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap

• Want to join this community?

We'd love to have you!

• ## Support TST Affiliates

Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo after clicking this link. For Mevo+, click this link or the image above.
• ### Posts

• We can explain it to him, but we can’t understand it for him.
• Day 118: Rehearsed backswing indoors up to start of transition to work on new cupped wrist feel. Made some chippy 9-3 swings with 8-iron working on eyeline during transition and going from cupped to flexed lead wrist.
• Didn't watch the match, but like some others, believe the animosity between the two leading up to Friday was made up for promotional value only!  "Never liked him"----- "his comments about me disgusting" ???  Really, especially when the two seemed to be becoming quite friendly with each other pretty recently!  Surprised they didn't both show up for the opening ceremony with boxing gloves on!
• Gosh Adam. I think you’re really missing the point of the OP. No one is debating the ease of access or availability of this testing except you.
• If you think this theory is true then it should be extremely easy to test. Either get on GEARS and check the lies of your longest and shortest irons, or go find a GC4 or Trackman and do the same. And if you don't have easy access to those, might I suggest the sharpie line check 😀.
• ### Today's Birthdays

1. A Gap Wedge
(18 years old)
2. Asmanning95
(26 years old)
3. Brettbern
(41 years old)
4. ethan-333
(28 years old)

×
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...