Gambling is illegal at Bushwood

[boogielicious]

11 hours ago, saevel25 said:

 

At least not in an important area like structural engineering. 

 

[jsgolfer]

11 hours ago, mchepp said:

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. 

I do the same thing when there are net skins, everyone gets their strokes, no playing off the low player's handicap.  I don't make that many birdies in a round, maybe 1-2, but sometimes none.  But if  have to give a 15 handicap 9 strokes, he (or she) is far more likely to make a par on a stroke hole than I am making a birdie. Luckily the majority of time I'm playing in a group that have similar handicaps (6-12) and we all play with no strokes, which is the best way to play when you can.

I like what you do on the Par 3's, I'll have to consider that for the next time I do the skins with strokes. 

[Fourputt]

14 hours 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%. 

 

 

 

You still have to consider that the strokes are only being given on the holes where the bogie golfer is more likely to need the advantage just to halve the hole.  I don't know where you get your percentages from, but that can vary by a considerable amount from hole to hole, so you can't apply a set percentage to every hole on the course.  If the course is handicapped correctly, the holes where the bogey golfer has the greatest chance for par are also the holes where he is less likely to be getting any strokes.  Large disparities in handicap should be avoided, or they should use the match play recommendation of using only 80% of the course handicap.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

You still have to consider that the strokes are only being given on the holes where the bogie golfer is more likely to need the advantage just to halve the hole.  I don't know where you get your percentages from, but that can vary by a considerable amount from hole to hole, so you can't apply a set percentage to every hole on the course.  If the course is handicapped correctly, the holes where the bogey golfer has the greatest chance for par are also the holes where he is less likely to be getting any strokes.  Large disparities in handicap should be avoided, or they should use the match play recommendation of using only 80% of the course handicap.

Exactly, in terms of actual payouts, the low handicappers get their fair share.  If anyone should complain it's the mid handicappers who seem win the least number of skins.  

[Groucho Valentine]

Ugh...

i hate group handicap games for a lot of the reasons@tdiii outlines. I swear i have to shoot like 65 or some shit to win money every time i play in one.. 

I'll often play in a traditional skins pot, but i rarely play in group money games with handicaps anymore. Its too difficult for me to win my money back. Im a plus handi and i can shoot under par on a good day, but i shoot under par maybe 10 times a year. Its not like i do it all the time. 

I often do side games though, like nassau's. But if you're a 5 or lower handicap, i don't give you strokes. Maybe 1 side if you're a good hustla and talk me into it. Overall, I don't play individual money games with anyone who cant break 80 on a good day. Its no fun for me taking money from a guy who shoots 85 or something, even with strokes given. 

[StevenR84]

Handicaps are what they are for a reason. A guy who's a 24 isn't scoring as well as a 6, barring a career day. Even in this group example 1 pop a hole isn't that bad. I'm a 23 and there's a damn good reason for it. Sure I may be able to strike on a hole here and there, but overall I'm not good/consistent enough. In my Wednesday night league that has a skins game it's pretty evenly distributed when someone does win.

[Fairway_CY]

Luckily, the core group I play with is all very similar in handicap ranges (15 - 18).  

Between the 4 of us, we play a Stableford format based on our handicaps on the front and back for $5 each side.  We also play a team game where we rotate teammates in a match-play format for $10 a man.  Last thing we may do is throw $10 each in a skins pot (so only $40) and we play those straight up... birdie or better only.  Even that gets difficult to keep track of at the end of the round sometimes.  

I will also usually play a $5 front, back and total against 1 or 2 other guys, depending on who wants in, etc.

I don't think I could keep up with all the dots and stuff, and I definitely think that factoring in handicaps makes it more difficult and puts the lower handicap players at a disadvantage in skins type games.  

Too much math!

CY

[bkuehn1952]

15 hours ago, tdiii said:

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?

I like the idea of allocating extra dots in an effort to level the playing field.  As you correctly deduced, the current dot game is slanted a bit toward the lower handicapped players.  I'd make the suggestion and see what everyone else suggests.

[tdiii]

Just now, bkuehn1952 said:

I like the idea of allocating extra dots in an effort to level the playing field.  As you correctly deduced, the current dot game is slanted a bit toward the lower handicapped players.  I'd make the suggestion and see what everyone else suggests.

Yeah; another guy in the group suggested it and the low handicappers squawked that it was only fair because of their disadvantage in the skins game.  Which I have yet to see (albeit a tiny sample size of playing twice so far). 

Edited June 15, 2016 by tdiii

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, tdiii said:

Yeah; another guy in the group suggested it and the low handicappers squawked that it was only fair because of their disadvantage in the skins game.  Which I have yet to see (albeit a tiny sample size of playing twice so far). 

When these discussions come up, it's always the same argument, and one of the main reasons is that low handicappers seem to think that they should win more than the higher handicappers, regardless of the format.  It seems to escape them that the idea of handicaps is to mostly level the playing field.  They are understandably used to winning more than they lose simply because they are better players than most. 

Handicapped competitions change that paradigm, and it can be difficult for a 2 or 3 capper to accept that a 17 or higher handicapper now has a chance to beat him, and to win a wager.  It's less a failure of the system than it is a failure of the better player to accept the reality.  

Take a 5 handicapper and put him in a handicapped skins game against a top Tour pro, and he is in the same position that the 17 is when competing against him.  Most anybody I know would be expecting to get the 10 or more strokes he deserves or he wouldn't be betting.  Nobody I play with (and I play with some good players on occasion) would feel guilty about taking a few bucks off the Pro in such a scenario, nor do they feel cheated when I have a winning day and take a few bucks from them.

[bkuehn1952]

33 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

When these discussions come up, it's always the same argument, and one of the main reasons is that low handicappers seem to think that they should win more than the higher handicappers, regardless of the format.  It seems to escape them that the idea of handicaps is to mostly level the playing field.  They are understandably used to winning more than they lose simply because they are better players than most. 

Handicapped competitions change that paradigm, and it can be difficult for a 2 or 3 capper to accept that a 17 or higher handicapper now has a chance to beat him, and to win a wager.  It's less a failure of the system than it is a failure of the better player to accept the reality.  

Take a 5 handicapper and put him in a handicapped skins game against a top Tour pro, and he is in the same position that the 17 is when competing against him.  Most anybody I know would be expecting to get the 10 or more strokes he deserves or he wouldn't be betting.  Nobody I play with (and I play with some good players on occasion) would feel guilty about taking a few bucks off the Pro in such a scenario, nor do they feel cheated when I have a winning day and take a few bucks from them.

Well said.

[xcott]

Nobody complains more about being screwed more than low handicap golfers. They usually don't even realize that the formula for the HI actually gives them more strokes the lower their handicap is. 

 

If you play in a group of 30 and you rarely win, then that make sense, there are 30 people in it. Everybody rarely wins. And I'm sure these players are entering their scores when they win into their handicap and thus lower their handicap when it happens.

The biggest issue is the low handicappers are better at golf (by definittion) and they feel like they should win more because they are better. I actually don't think they truly understand the point of a handicap ironically.

[mchepp]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

When these discussions come up, it's always the same argument, and one of the main reasons is that low handicappers seem to think that they should win more than the higher handicappers, regardless of the format.  It seems to escape them that the idea of handicaps is to mostly level the playing field.  They are understandably used to winning more than they lose simply because they are better players than most. 

Handicapped competitions change that paradigm, and it can be difficult for a 2 or 3 capper to accept that a 17 or higher handicapper now has a chance to beat him, and to win a wager.  It's less a failure of the system than it is a failure of the better player to accept the reality.  

Take a 5 handicapper and put him in a handicapped skins game against a top Tour pro, and he is in the same position that the 17 is when competing against him.  Most anybody I know would be expecting to get the 10 or more strokes he deserves or he wouldn't be betting.  Nobody I play with (and I play with some good players on occasion) would feel guilty about taking a few bucks off the Pro in such a scenario, nor do they feel cheated when I have a winning day and take a few bucks from them.

This is probably overwhelmingly true.

The difference and it is a very rare occurrence is "how much" better a high handicappers potential to go really low is. I am a 5 handicap and in the other group was a 14. He shot a 76 a really good round for him, net 62. It was not his best round ever, close, but he had shot 75 a few years (might be around 5 now) earlier. For me to shoot net 62 I am going to need to shoot 67 which would beat my best ever by 2 strokes. It could happen but extremely rare, and the potential to do it 2x as he as done in the past 5 years is impossible. 

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, mchepp said:

This is probably overwhelmingly true.

The difference and it is a very rare occurrence is "how much" better a high handicappers potential to go really low is. I am a 5 handicap and in the other group was a 14. He shot a 76 a really good round for him, net 62. It was not his best round ever, close, but he had shot 75 a few years (might be around 5 now) earlier. For me to shoot net 62 I am going to need to shoot 67 which would beat my best ever by 2 strokes. It could happen but extremely rare, and the potential to do it 2x as he as done in the past 5 years is impossible. 

That would have me seriously questioning that handicap.  I'm a 14.8.  My best round is an 80.  I've shot under 85 a few times.  76 is inconceivable to me as my best 9 is a 39.  The other point is that has to be such a massive outlier that, if there's no handicap manipulation, one must tip his cap to that player. . . and relish in the triple figure rounds that are sure to follow. 

[Club Rat]

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If anyone should complain it's the mid handicappers who seem win the least number of skins.

I find that to be the case in the stats which I maintain in our Mens Game.

Generally Low & High handicapper's have an advantage in a Skins game with a small group. Low handicappers make more birdies, while high handicappers often have net birdies on the higher handicap holes.

Skin games are better when there is a large field of players, fifty or more players, then the handicap range is balanced normally.

Although playing Skins in a foursome is often popular, most guys usually kick in 5 or 10 bucks into the game which is friendly.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, mchepp said:

 I am a 5 handicap and in the other group was a 14. He shot a 76 a really good round for him, net 62. It was not his best round ever, close, but he had shot 75 a few years (might be around 5 now) earlier. For me to shoot net 62 I am going to need to shoot 67 which would beat my best ever by 2 strokes. It could happen but extremely rare, and the potential to do it 2x as he as done in the past 5 years is impossible. 

A 14 handicap shooting about a 6 net differential below his handicap is a 1 in 210 odds. 

A 5 handicap to shoot a 6 net differential below his handicap is about 1 in 515 odds. 

A 14 handicap has over 2x a better shot at shooting that much lower than  5 handicap ;) 

Lower handicaps have a slight better odds of shooting around their handicap than higher handicap players. Higher handicap players have a better shot of going extremely low compared to their handicap. 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14410

 

 

[tdiii]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

A 14 handicap shooting about a 6 net differential below his handicap is a 1 in 210 odds. 

A 5 handicap to shoot a 6 net differential below his handicap is about 1 in 515 odds. 

A 14 handicap has over 2x a better shot at shooting that much lower than  5 handicap ;) 

Lower handicaps have a slight better odds of shooting around their handicap than higher handicap players. Higher handicap players have a better shot of going extremely low compared to their handicap. 

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14410

 

 

I must be misreading the chart.  I see a 14 having a -6.0 as one in 225, while for a 5 it is one in 320.  More rare, for sure, but not as stark as you say above. 

I probably haven't played 210 (nor 225) rounds in my life, so I guess I have the 6 net differential to look forward to!!

 

 

[saevel25]

Just now, tdiii said:

I must be misreading the chart.  I see a 14 having a -6.0 as one in 225, while for a 5 it is one in 320.  More rare, for sure, but not as stark as you say above. 

I interpolated between the bins to get closer to the 14 handicap and 5 handicap since they are on the high end of the bins.