Gambling is illegal at Bushwood

[tdiii]

I have started playing with a regular group of guys at my club Sunday mornings.  There are a range of handicaps from 6 to 24.  I'm in the middle (15). 

The format is as follows: 

(a) a skins game pot.  The group spins off the low handicap; each guy puts in $20 and the pot gets split up among skins winners; and,

(b) a dot game.  $1/dot, dots are awarded for a bunch of stuff.  I can remember the following:  (i) sandies (up and down for par from sand); (ii) polies (par or better putts from longer than the length of the flag pole); (iii) birdies; and, (iv) closest to the hole on par 3s (have to make par or better to convert, and everyone else gets a dot if you fail to, if you sweep all four there's some bonus I don't remember).  There are also "Murphys" -- you call Murphy from off the green and if you get up and down, you get one dot for each other guy in the group, but you can't use a putter.  If you get an eagle, everyone else pays you $20.  If you get a HOI, everyone else pays you $100.  In the dot game, one basically pays the differential between one's own dot total and everyone who received more dots, and one receives $1 for each dot that one's total exceeded those with fewer dots. 

So, on to my question. . . Lower handicap players have a significant advantage in the dot game.  That makes sense -- they are more likely to get up and down from bunkers, more likely to make longer putts, more likely to make birdies, etc.  The group agrees on this point.

However, the lower handicap players assert that they have less likelihood of winning skins because of the strokes they are conceding.  I don't think that's really true based only on my experience -- two rounds out there so far and the lower handicap players did not want for skins.

What if, to equalize the dot game, everyone starts with dots equal to their handicap (or, maybe, 1/2 of their handicap)?  Would this make the dot game fairer to higher handicaps?

Thoughts?

FYI, I don't need to be reminded that I don't have to play if I don't like the rules.  I know that.  I'm not out to change the rules of a pre-existing group that has been kind enough to include me.  I'm actually more intellectually curious about this topic than anything else.  The issue was actually raised to me by another guy in the group. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by tdiii

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, tdiii said:

However, the lower handicap players assert that they have less likelihood of winning skins because of the strokes they are conceding.  I don't think that's really true based only on my experience -- two rounds out there so far and the lower handicap players did not want for skins.

I agree that low handicappers are less likely to win. It's easier to bogey a hole than it is to par a hole and to par a hole versus birdie a hole. The separation value between handicaps decreases the closer you get to the hole. A high handicap golfer can be 40 yards behind the low handicap golfer off the tee and still get it near the green to have a good chance of making bogey. What's easier to do. Make bogey or better from 30 yards from the green versus bogey or better from 150 yards from the green?  

Lets compare a bogey versus a low handicap golfer in a hypothetical situation. 

Bogey Golfer: 25% Par, 50% Bogey, 25% Double Bogey
Low Handicap: 5% Birdie, 70% Par, 25% Bogey

Since the bogey golfer gets a stroke on the hole you get the following,

Bogey Golfer: 25% Birdie, 50% Par, 25% Bogey 
Versus
Low Handicap: 5% Birdie, 70% Par, 25% Bogey

If you run the permutations on this scenario you get the following, 

Low Handicap
Ties: 36%
Loses: 47%
Wins: 37%

The low handicap golfer will not get a skin 63% of the time. It's not a fair match because it's not even close to 50%. 

 

 

 

[No Mulligans]

34 minutes ago, tdiii said:

 

(a) a skins game pot.  The group spins off the low handicap; each guy puts in $20 and the pot gets split up among skins winners; and,

 

Does that mean that the higher handicap would get strokes on certain holes?  If that is the case the higher handicap player would be at an advantage as the more frequent blow up holes of a higher handicap wouldn't hurt them in a skins game as much as in a stroke game and handicaps are designed for stroke games.

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

If you run the permutations on this scenario you get the following, 

Low Handicap
Ties: 36%
Loses: 47%
Wins: 37%

The low handicap golfer will not get a skin 63% of the time. It's not a fair match because it's not even close to 50%. 

 

Where do you get the 63% figure from that?  Also, how often will the high handicapper not get a skin in this example? 

 

1 minute ago, No Mulligans said:

Does that mean that the higher handicap would get strokes on certain holes?  If that is the case the higher handicap player would be at an advantage as the more frequent blow up holes of a higher handicap wouldn't hurt them in a skins game as much as in a stroke game and handicaps are designed for stroke games.

As I said, we spin off the low handicap, so the higher handicap gets strokes on certain holes.  It's either than or everyone gets all their strokes.  Does it make a difference to your analysis? 

[No Mulligans]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I agree that low handicappers are less likely to win. It's easier to bogey a hole than it is to par a hole and to par a hole versus birdie a hole. The separation value between handicaps decreases the closer you get to the hole. A high handicap golfer can be 40 yards behind the low handicap golfer off the tee and still get it near the green to have a good chance of making bogey. What's easier to do. Make bogey or better from 30 yards from the green versus bogey or better from 150 yards from the green?  

Lets compare a bogey versus a low handicap golfer in a hypothetical situation. 

Bogey Golfer: 25% Par, 50% Bogey, 25% Double Bogey
Low Handicap: 5% Birdie, 70% Par, 25% Bogey

Since the bogey golfer gets a stroke on the hole you get the following,

Bogey Golfer: 25% Birdie, 50% Par, 25% Bogey 
Versus
Low Handicap: 5% Birdie, 70% Par, 25% Bogey

If you run the permutations on this scenario you get the following, 

Low Handicap
Ties: 36%
Loses: 47%
Wins: 37%

The low handicap golfer will not get a skin 63% of the time. It's not a fair match because it's not even close to 50%. 

 

 

 

That's a more thorough analysis of what I was thinking.  I believe that analysis assumes a stroke on every hole, right?

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

That's a more thorough analysis of what I was thinking.  I believe that analysis assumes a stroke on every hole, right?

Generally the percentages shift a good bit for the golfer getting a stroke on the hole.  A better player has a bigger advantage on par 5's. On Par 3's its smaller because its easier to advance the ball closer to the hole in less strokes. 

 

 

[No Mulligans]

8 minutes ago, tdiii said:

As I said, we spin off the low handicap, so the higher handicap gets strokes on certain holes.  It's either than or everyone gets all their strokes.  Does it make a difference to your analysis? 

No, the principal still stands.  Handicaps could be adjusted by a certain percentage to allow for this.  

The USGA recommends experimenting with an allowance for your group:

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=20

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Where do you get the 63% figure from that?  Also, how often will the high handicapper not get a skin in this example? 

This, 

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Low Handicap
Ties: 36%
Loses: 47%
Wins: 37%

The low handicap golfer will not get a skin 63% of the time. It's not a fair match because it's not even close to 50%. 

If a player ties the skin is pushed. If a player loses he doesn't get a skin. So the combination matches what I said. Though this is comparing a low handicap to a bogey golfer. The percentages shift more toward 50% Win versus 50% Lose or Tie the closer the playing ability gets. 

Of course it also depends on the golfer as well. This was just a generalization to prove the point that it's tougher for lower handicap golfers to make enough birdies to offset the stroke they would be giving a golfer on a handicap hole. 

6 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

No, the principal still stands.  Handicaps could be adjusted by a certain percentage to allow for this.  

The USGA recommends experimenting with an allowance for your group:

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=20

Great find. 

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Ties: 36%
Loses: 47%
Wins: 37%

The low handicap golfer will not get a skin 63% of the time. It's not a fair match because it's not even close to 50%.

36 + 47 + 37 = 120, @saevel25.

Thank goodness you're not an engineer!

[tdiii]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Low Handicap
Ties: 36%
Loses: 47%
Wins: 37%

The low handicap golfer will not get a skin 63% of the time.

Umm. I still don't understand. . . 36 plus 47 is 83. And 36 plus 37 is 73. Using those stats the low handicap doesn't get a skin 83% of the time.  But the high handicap also doesn't get a skin 73% of the time either.  And, of course, there's an extra 20% in there somewhere.  So, the high handicap gets a skin 10% more often than a low handicap?  Of course that's head to head. We play a group of 3-5. 

FYI, no carry overs. 

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

36 + 47 + 37 = 120, @saevel25.

Thank goodness you're not an engineer!

I can't wrap my head around his numbers.  Glad I'm not the only one! 

Edited June 14, 2016 by tdiii

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

Umm. I still don't understand. . . 36 plus 47 is 83. And 36 plus 37 is 73.

Oops, my bad.  Too much excel spreadsheet work today at work. sorry about that. 

It should have been

Lose: 36%
Tie: 21%
Win: 43% 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

36 + 47 + 37 = 120, @saevel25.

Thank goodness you're not an engineer!

At least not in an important area like structural engineering. 

 

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Oops, my bad.  Too much excel spreadsheet work today at work. sorry about that. 

It should have been

Lose: 36%
Tie: 21%
Win: 43% 

At least not in an important area like structural engineering. 

 

So, the low handicapper loses or ties 57% of the time?  Then, the high handicapper would lose or tie 64% of the time.  So, doesn't that mean high is at a 7% disadvantage?  

Edited June 14, 2016 by tdiii

[mchepp]

I will not be doing any math in this thread, but I have played in a group that had a pretty similar game. We didn't do things like Murphy's or pollies, but had similar alternatives.

For the skins game the easiest way to make it fair is to give all strokes to everyone. No spinning. When we spun off the lowest guy the low handicappers rarely won. What it does though is a birdie on the number 1 handicap hole which is rare but not ultra rare for the low handicapper allows him to win a skin there. This balanced out our skins game dramatically. The other thing we did was eliminate strokes on par 3's that were greater a handicap of 12. So the par 3 that is the 18 handicap does not get a stroke. We found that 19 handicappers were making a par on that hole and winning a skin for a ho hum par. 

The high handicappers will complain some, but then they'll win a skin for a par on a par 4 that's the 14th handicap and they'll shut up. This works, we used to have a spreadsheet to track it, but I have no idea where it is now.

For the dots game we tried to balanced by giving double digit handicaps 2 dots. So 2 for sandies, 2 for closet to the pins, so they basically got 2 where the low handicappers got 1. I don't remember we did any data studies on if this was completely fair but most thought this worked out okay. 

Those are what worked for our group. 

[CCC]

3 hours ago, tdiii said:

I have started playing with a regular group of guys at my club Sunday mornings.  There are a range of handicaps from 6 to 24.  I'm in the middle (15). 

The format is as follows: 

(a) a skins game pot.  The group spins off the low handicap; each guy puts in $20 and the pot gets split up among skins winners; and,

(b) a dot game.  $1/dot, dots are awarded for a bunch of stuff.  I can remember the following:  (i) sandies (up and down for par from sand); (ii) polies (par or better putts from longer than the length of the flag pole); (iii) birdies; and, (iv) closest to the hole on par 3s (have to make par or better to convert, and everyone else gets a dot if you fail to, if you sweep all four there's some bonus I don't remember).  There are also "Murphys" -- you call Murphy from off the green and if you get up and down, you get one dot for each other guy in the group, but you can't use a putter.  If you get an eagle, everyone else pays you $20.  If you get a HOI, everyone else pays you $100.  In the dot game, one basically pays the differential between one's own dot total and everyone who received more dots, and one receives $1 for each dot that one's total exceeded those with fewer dots. 

So, on to my question. . . Lower handicap players have a significant advantage in the dot game.  That makes sense -- they are more likely to get up and down from bunkers, more likely to make longer putts, more likely to make birdies, etc.  The group agrees on this point.

However, the lower handicap players assert that they have less likelihood of winning skins because of the strokes they are conceding.  I don't think that's really true based only on my experience -- two rounds out there so far and the lower handicap players did not want for skins.

What if, to equalize the dot game, everyone starts with dots equal to their handicap (or, maybe, 1/2 of their handicap)?  Would this make the dot game fairer to higher handicaps?

Thoughts?

FYI, I don't need to be reminded that I don't have to play if I don't like the rules.  I know that.  I'm not out to change the rules of a pre-existing group that has been kind enough to include me.  I'm actually more intellectually curious about this topic than anything else.  The issue was actually raised to me by another guy in the group. 

Wow!!!!

This is the perfect example of why I prefer playing alone.

 

[Buckeyebowman]

2 hours ago, tdiii said:

So, the low handicapper loses or ties 57% of the time?  Then, the high handicapper would lose or tie 64% of the time.  So, doesn't that mean high is at a 7% disadvantage?  

It looks to me like it works out that way whether or not you look at ties. Why bother? It's a jake and no money changes hands. I don't know if you play carryovers or not. We don't, but it can really ratchet up the pressure with a bunch of tied holes in a row. I just looked at the win/loss numbers. Low handicappers lose 36% of the time and win 43%. This tells me that high handicappers lose 43% of the time and win 36%. It's 7% no matter which way you look at it.

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Oops, my bad.  Too much excel spreadsheet work today at work. sorry about that. 

It should have been

Lose: 36%
Tie: 21%
Win: 43% 

At least not in an important area like structural engineering. 

 

Those numbers only reflect the low handicap chances, but the percentages assume a low handicap versus high handicap.  The actual odds change based on the number of people competing for skins and their handicaps.  

I play with a group of guys, usually 12 - 16 golfers with handicaps that range from 9 - 26.  We typically only have 4 - 5 skins max per round because the odds of a tie are greater with more people.  I'll start to keep track but there is usually a close to even distribution of skins between low handicap and high handicap players.  It seems based on the results in my group that the mid handicap players tend to be the least likely to win skins.  

[tdiii]

52 minutes ago, CCC said:

Wow!!!!

This is the perfect example of why I prefer playing alone.

 

You could look at it that way.  Or you could enjoy the banter and smack-talking that accompanies the action.  We're not betting enough that anyone gets hurt and all the guys have a good attitude about it.  There's some big money games a group of low handicap guys play (all 1-6 index) where you could lose $400 or so -- but that would be way too serious for me and, again, it's not enough to hurt any of them.  That's too rich for my blood. 

Just now, newtogolf said:

 

I play with a group of guys, usually 12 - 16 golfers with handicaps that range from 9 - 26.  We typically only have 4 - 5 skins max per round because the odds of a tie are greater with more people.  I'll start to keep track but there is usually a close to even distribution of skins between low handicap and high handicap players.  It seems based on the results in my group that the mid handicap players tend to be the least likely to win skins.  

Same here -- usually only a few skins per round and we don't do carry overs.  So, if you have 5 guys play, there's skin pool of $100 that gets divided by the number of skins.  Last time we played skins were $16.66/ each

[CCC]

I know this is a way to make playing a round of golf with your friends more fun.

But, reading thru all of the extra doodles and the responses, it looks like you would need an accountant (sober) on board to keep track of all of these doodles. And a sober accountant at the end of the round to tally up all of these extra doodles. Sounds like waaaaaay too much bookkeeping to me.

It's too complicated. I'm just out to play a round of golf. I'm not into gambling at golf. Unless, the most I stand to lose is $6.00.

Playing a round of golf is so exciting to me that I do not feel the need to make it any more interesting - by playing for 'stakes'.

 

And, yes. Gambling is illegal at Bushwood. :)