Gambling is illegal at Bushwood

[No Mulligans]

19 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. 

 

I think for the low handicapper vs. high handicapper with your assumptions the results should be:

Low handicapper

Lose: 36%
Tie: 43%
Win: 21%

[Fourputt]

2 hours 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. 

However, your consistency will tell over multiple rounds.  His exceptions will win, but your relative consistency will win more often.

[mchepp]

2 hours ago, tdiii said:

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. 

Well, I can understand you saying that. In his defense I have played with a number of sandbaggers. My old club in California was full of them. It was a disease there once a few guys did it then it forced almost everyone to do it if they wanted to win. This guy is not. He does play a lot of golf so I think he does get hot, but sometimes he'll lay down a stinker. Shoot 106 or something.

Thing is even he shoots 106 he'll still make a par on the 13th handicap hole and win a damn skin. Overall of the day he'll lose money but with the skin not much. Not nearly as much as I'll lose if I shoot 90. 

[iacas]

14 hours ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

Hardly.

The higher the handicap, the more likely they'll win skins.

Their distribution of scores relative to net pars is greater - they get more variability. It's not unusual for someone to get two strokes and make a par on a par five for a net eagle. Put enough 24 handicappers on a par four and a few will make par. Good luck getting even single digit golfers (or even PGA Tour players) to get eagles all that often.

10 hours 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.

In a skins game, the higher handicappers are favored, as a group, much more than the lower handicap players.

Bogey golfers don't make bogey on every hole. They'll par some, and make triples on some. The triples… who cares. The birdies and pars for net eagle, those matter.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Hardly.

The higher the handicap, the more likely they'll win skins.

Their distribution of scores relative to net pars is greater - they get more variability. It's not unusual for someone to get two strokes and make a par on a par five for a net eagle. Put enough 24 handicappers on a par four and a few will make par. Good luck getting even single digit golfers (or even PGA Tour players) to get eagles all that often.

In a skins game, the higher handicappers are favored, as a group, much more than the lower handicap players.

Bogey golfers don't make bogey on every hole. They'll par some, and make triples on some. The triples… who cares. The birdies and pars for net eagle, those matter.

As I've said before in these handicap discussions, it mostly depends on the size of the field and the distribution of handicaps.  A near scratch golfer is going to be at a disadvantage if he goes up against a significant number of bogey golfers for the very reason that you state.  If he does so, then he is exercising poor judgement.  

If it's a typical Sunday group of maybe 8 players max with a 10-12 stroke spread of handicaps, as is the impression I got from the OP, then his chances shouldn't be hurt that badly unless he is the only good player in a bunch of bogey or worse players.  If that's the case then he needs to find some friends to play with who are nearer to his own ability and leave the duffers to themselves.  The system is not designed to function under that sort of a competition, nor can I imagine any possible handicap system which would.  

I could put my 17 against a 5, take my 12 strokes, and it would most likely be a competitive game.  I might just have one or two career type days and win a bunch, but if we played skins weekly all summer long, his consistency relative to me will take me to the cleaners over the long haul.

[natureboy]

On 6/14/2016 at 6:54 PM, saevel25 said:

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

I don't think the numbers were that realistic to run a scenario with both players on the same roughly average course.

I have a Bogey golfer in the vicinity of:

1% Birdie, 12% Par, 37% Bogey, 31% Double, 21% Triple+

(with 1 stroke: 1% net Eagle, 12% net Birdie, 37% net Par, 31% net Bogey, 21% net Double+)

And a ~ 5 HCP in the vicinity of:

9% Birdie, 48% Par, 36% Bogey, 8% Double, 1% Triple+

 

The bogey golfer has a very large potential to go high. Even with a stroke they will have a lower percent of net pars, a lower percent of net bogeys, and a higher percent of net double+ which will affect the win-tie-lose outcomes.

Edited June 16, 2016 by natureboy

[saevel25]

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

 have a Bogey golfer in the vicinity of:

1% Birdie, 12% Par, 37% Bogey, 31% Double, 21% Triple+

(with 1 stroke: 1% net Eagle, 12% net Birdie, 37% net Par, 31% net Bogey, 21% net Double+)

And a ~ 5 HCP in the vicinity of:

9% Birdie, 48% Par, 36% Bogey, 8% Double, 1% Triple+

I don't believe a bogey golfer triples 1 out of 5 holes. I found a 19 handicap on game golf and they had the following. 

2% birdie, 21% par, 44% bogey, 21%  double, 9% Triple+

 

[xcott]

8 hours ago, Fourputt said:

A near scratch golfer is going to be at a disadvantage if he goes up against a significant number of bogey golfers for the very reason that you state.  If he does so, then he is exercising poor judgement

ANYONE is going to be at a significant advantage against a significant number of golfers period. The more people you play against the less likely you will win a skin, regardless of handicap. 

[Fourputt]

26 minutes ago, xcott said:

ANYONE is going to be at a significant advantage against a significant number of golfers period. The more people you play against the less likely you will win a skin, regardless of handicap. 

Of course, but my point is that the lower handicap will win a smaller percentage of the skins than straight numbers would show if he is playing against 10 high handicappers as opposed to 10 other players closer to his handicap.  The high cappers will have too great a chance that at least one of them will play each hole to a net score that the low cap can't hope to beat.  It may be a different bogey player that beats or ties him each time, but the 3 or 4 handicapper can't compete against those odds.  

[xcott]

25 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The high cappers will have too great a chance that at least one of them will play each hole to a net score that the low cap can't hope to beat.

But a low handicapper will also likely get strokes on like 5 holes if he's a 5 handicap and can strike on those harder holes.  Not to mention the benefit low handicappers get on the HI equation which gives benefit to the lower handicaps, so they actually get strokes on more holes than they should if there wasn't that benefit. I'm not buying that a low handicapper will get screwed in a skins game. 

 

The high handicapper playing with 20 low handicappers wouldn't be any less likely than a low handicapper playing with 20 high handicappers. 

[saevel25]

18 minutes ago, xcott said:

Not to mention the benefit low handicappers get on the HI equation which gives benefit to the lower handicaps, so they actually get strokes on more holes than they should if there wasn't that benefit. I'm not buying that a low handicapper will get screwed in a skins game. 

What benefit from the HI equation? 

If you are a 5 handicap versus a 20 handicap. Lets say you play a relatively easy course at 69 rating and a 125 slope. 

The 5 handicap has a course handicap of 6
The 20 handicap has a course handicap of 22

The 20 handicap actually gained one extra stroke. 

 

 

[xcott]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

What benefit from the HI equation? 

 

The part where you multiply the average differential by .96 to get to the HI. This is a benefit to lower handicap golfers built into the system.

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, xcott said:

The part where you multiply the average differential by .96 to get to the HI. This is a benefit to lower handicap golfers built into the system.

So you are saying the USGA is purposely hindering higher handicap players by using the scaling factor of 0.96? 

[bkuehn1952]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So you are saying the USGA is purposely hindering higher handicap players by using the scaling factor of 0.96? 

I have seen the term "Bonus for Excellence" used by people associated with developing the USGA Handicap System in regards to the .96 factor.  http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/bonus_for_excellence.html

 

Question: What do you call a 10 handicapper who insists on playing a 5 handicapper straight up?

Answer: a donor 

[xcott]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So you are saying the USGA is purposely hindering higher handicap players by using the scaling factor of 0.96? 

Well that's what they're doing. 

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, xcott said:

But a low handicapper will also likely get strokes on like 5 holes if he's a 5 handicap and can strike on those harder holes.  Not to mention the benefit low handicappers get on the HI equation which gives benefit to the lower handicaps, so they actually get strokes on more holes than they should if there wasn't that benefit. I'm not buying that a low handicapper will get screwed in a skins game. 

 

The high handicapper playing with 20 low handicappers wouldn't be any less likely than a low handicapper playing with 20 high handicappers. 

My points in this discussion are all based on the group following recommended USGA handicap procedures, and that means that they wheel off the low handicap.  He plays scratch and the others get the stroke difference from that.  It doesn't work if everyone gets all of their strokes.  

I don't have the math but my club tried that for one year in our match play events, and it was miserable.  The higher handicap lost out big time.  By the time the brackets were half done, there wasn't a single player left with a handicap higher than 9 in all 4 match play comps.  If you don't follow the USGA's suggested procedures, you might  as well just leave out anyone with a cap above 10, because they won't have  chance.  It just doesn't work.

 

19 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So you are saying the USGA is purposely hindering higher handicap players by using the scaling factor of 0.96? 

Yes.  They do recognize that the better golfer should receive some benefit from having put forth the effort to improve his game.  It's still only 4%, so a 5 cap would only gain about a half stroke on a 20, but that can be a full stroke when rounded off for course handicap.

[xcott]

27 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Yes.  They do recognize that the better golfer should receive some benefit from having put forth the effort to improve his game.  It's still only 4%, so a 5 cap would only gain about a half stroke on a 20, but that can be a full stroke when rounded off for course handicap.

It's actually a stroke benefit for every 6 difference in HI. So it could be 3 strokes in your example. 

This all may or may not be fair, but the point being that low handicaps shouldn't complain about being at a disadvantage to higher handicaps because it's not true. 

[mchepp]

1 hour ago, xcott said:

But a low handicapper will also likely get strokes on like 5 holes if he's a 5 handicap and can strike on those harder holes.  

No, the OP stated they spin off the low guy. So he gets no strokes.