How important is your handicap to you?

[phillyk]

Spoiler

I'll just make a quick response.  I suppose I shouldn't have called in my USGA handicap; I could've called it a handicap I keep through the USGA's ghin system.  The first makes it seem a true cap when it's not.  It's just easy to use their system for my own posting needs.  Like iacas said, I don't have to maintain a true handicap, as it does nothing for me.

 

[Pretzel]

The only time I really cared about my handicap was when it got very close to scratch, just because I had a goal of getting to scratch or better at some point. That said, it didn't really feel like it added pressure during a round so much as it gave me some excitement to see my progress approaching a big goal of mine. I didn't consciously think about it during a round any more than I usually think about my scores, just because my goal for each and every round is to try and end up with more birdies than bogeys so that I end up under par (with a secondary assumed goal of no doubles or worse). 

Now that I've broken past that barrier and gotten to the plus handicaps at least once in my life, I don't worry about the actual handicap itself anymore. I haven't posted to it in quite some time, just since my play as of late has been in ~5-6 hole chunks when I find time before dark. I've achieved the last golf goal I had pertaining to handicaps, so it doesn't interest me beyond the fact that I'll need it to enter in USGA qualifiers next year. Now my primary goals are related to competition, so we'll see how it all shakes out in the next year or so whether or not I'm able to achieve these goals.

When it comes to "fair" betting, my feelings on the matter are very accurately summed up by the previous quotation marks. The little .96 multiplier they have at the end of the calculation supposedly gives the advantage to the lower handicapped player, but I can tell you right now that I will lose money to a higher handicap golfer about 8 times out of 10 if I am forced to give the proper number of strokes. On holes that I lose they might beat me by a single stroke due to handicaps (where I sometimes need to make birdie just to tie their bogey), while on the holes I win they get blown out sometimes by three strokes or more. Each hole is worth the same amount, so when you consider the inconsistency of a higher handicapper I end up getting hosed pretty badly. It's why I only play betting games based on total score with higher handicap golfers, and even then I often get fleeced due to their score variance compared to mine.

Net games are a nightmare, especially in skins on par 3's when my birdie can often be covered up by some Joe who made double bogey since I could have to give up a stroke while they gain two. As you may be able to tell, I'm a bit salty that the #1 handicap hole on my home course where I play in the men's club is a par 3. I lose that hole every time I play a match or buy into skins, regardless of my score, because of how the handicap system works out. I have gained a new understanding of why sandbaggers do it since I started to get into the lower handicap ranges.

[NJpatbee]

15 hours ago, Pretzel said:

The only time I really cared about my handicap was when it got very close to scratch, just because I had a goal of getting to scratch or better at some point. That said, it didn't really feel like it added pressure during a round so much as it gave me some excitement to see my progress approaching a big goal of mine. I didn't consciously think about it during a round any more than I usually think about my scores, just because my goal for each and every round is to try and end up with more birdies than bogeys so that I end up under par (with a secondary assumed goal of no doubles or worse). 

Now that I've broken past that barrier and gotten to the plus handicaps at least once in my life, I don't worry about the actual handicap itself anymore. I haven't posted to it in quite some time, just since my play as of late has been in ~5-6 hole chunks when I find time before dark. I've achieved the last golf goal I had pertaining to handicaps, so it doesn't interest me beyond the fact that I'll need it to enter in USGA qualifiers next year. Now my primary goals are related to competition, so we'll see how it all shakes out in the next year or so whether or not I'm able to achieve these goals.

When it comes to "fair" betting, my feelings on the matter are very accurately summed up by the previous quotation marks. The little .96 multiplier they have at the end of the calculation supposedly gives the advantage to the lower handicapped player, but I can tell you right now that I will lose money to a higher handicap golfer about 8 times out of 10 if I am forced to give the proper number of strokes. On holes that I lose they might beat me by a single stroke due to handicaps (where I sometimes need to make birdie just to tie their bogey), while on the holes I win they get blown out sometimes by three strokes or more. Each hole is worth the same amount, so when you consider the inconsistency of a higher handicapper I end up getting hosed pretty badly. It's why I only play betting games based on total score with higher handicap golfers, and even then I often get fleeced due to their score variance compared to mine.

Net games are a nightmare, especially in skins on par 3's when my birdie can often be covered up by some Joe who made double bogey since I could have to give up a stroke while they gain two. As you may be able to tell, I'm a bit salty that the #1 handicap hole on my home course where I play in the men's club is a par 3. I lose that hole every time I play a match or buy into skins, regardless of my score, because of how the handicap system works out. I have gained a new understanding of why sandbaggers do it since I started to get into the lower handicap ranges.

As a 17 HCP golfer I got my butt kicked almost every time I played a match with a low single digit handicapper - to the point that I now avoid the situation to begin with.  I find that the better golfers are much more  consistent than golfers like myself and since the index includes the best 10 of the last 20 scores, I typically have a higher variance in my scores.  Another reason I avoid such matches is in the event that I win the match,  the better golfer may get  ticked off handing a golfer with less skill money at the end of the match!

 

[DaveP043]

15 hours ago, Pretzel said:

When it comes to "fair" betting, my feelings on the matter are very accurately summed up by the previous quotation marks. The little .96 multiplier they have at the end of the calculation supposedly gives the advantage to the lower handicapped player, but I can tell you right now that I will lose money to a higher handicap golfer about 8 times out of 10 if I am forced to give the proper number of strokes. On holes that I lose they might beat me by a single stroke due to handicaps (where I sometimes need to make birdie just to tie their bogey), while on the holes I win they get blown out sometimes by three strokes or more. Each hole is worth the same amount, so when you consider the inconsistency of a higher handicapper I end up getting hosed pretty badly.

 

9 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

As a 17 HCP golfer I got my butt kicked almost every time I played a match with a low single digit handicapper - to the point that I now avoid the situation to begin with.  I find that the better golfers are much more  consistent than golfers like myself and since the index includes the best 10 of the last 20 scores, I typically have a higher variance in my scores.  Another reason I avoid such matches is in the event that I win the match,  the better golfer may get  ticked off handing a golfer with less skill money at the end of the match!

Isn't it funny, that each of us, no matter which end of the spectrum we fall on, feels like we're at a disadvantage when playing someone with a substantially different handicap?  I have no idea whether these two individuals' statistics really bear out their claims, or if its more a matter of perception, but there's no way that both experiences can be generally valid for the full population of golfers.

[Gunther]

24 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

Isn't it funny, that each of us, no matter which end of the spectrum we fall on, feels like we're at a disadvantage when playing someone with a substantially different handicap?  I have no idea whether these two individuals' statistics really bear out their claims, or if its more a matter of perception, but there's no way that both experiences can be generally valid for the full population of golfers.

Yes, I noted that too.  My experience in net tournaments I've entered is that the lower handicap golfers come out ahead more often than not, probably due to the reason @NJpatbee pointed out:  they're more consistent, the ranges across their last 20 are likely much smaller than a higher handicapper.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Gunther

[CarlSpackler]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Isn't it funny, that each of us, no matter which end of the spectrum we fall on, feels like we're at a disadvantage when playing someone with a substantially different handicap?  I have no idea whether these two individuals' statistics really bear out their claims, or if its more a matter of perception, but there's no way that both experiences can be generally valid for the full population of golfers.

It's never going to be a perfect system. It's better if tournaments are flighted so that everyone is competing against others with similar handicaps. I used to be in a league where I was playing matches that I had to give higher HCs 2 strokes on some holes. If they made a natural bogey on a hole, I had to eagle it to win. I'm not sure how things were calculated, but something seemed really off about the system.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

It's never going to be a perfect system. It's better if tournaments are flighted so that everyone is competing against others with similar handicaps. I used to be in a league where I was playing matches that I had to give higher HCs 2 strokes on some holes. If they made a natural bogey on a hole, I had to eagle it to win. I'm not sure how things were calculated, but something seemed really off about the system.

Those same guys will make triple or worse on those same holes often enough, and then you win with a simple par. It all evens out in the end, assuming everyone posts scores honestly.  

[CarlSpackler]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Those same guys will make triple or worse on those same holes often enough, and then you win with a simple par. It all evens out in the end, assuming everyone posts scores honestly.  

That should be true, but it always seemed that they had the round of their life against me.  

[mcanadiens]

12 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

That should be true, but it always seemed that they had the round of their life against me.  

You've already forgotten the number of times you handed me my high-handicapping head. 

[GolfLug]

17 hours ago, Pretzel said:

When it comes to "fair" betting, my feelings on the matter are very accurately summed up by the previous quotation marks. The little .96 multiplier they have at the end of the calculation supposedly gives the advantage to the lower handicapped player, but I can tell you right now that I will lose money to a higher handicap golfer about 8 times out of 10 if I am forced to give the proper number of strokes. On holes that I lose they might beat me by a single stroke due to handicaps (where I sometimes need to make birdie just to tie their bogey), while on the holes I win they get blown out sometimes by three strokes or more. Each hole is worth the same amount, so when you consider the inconsistency of a higher handicapper I end up getting hosed pretty badly. It's why I only play betting games based on total score with higher handicap golfers, and even then I often get fleeced due to their score variance compared to mine.

Net games are a nightmare, especially in skins on par 3's when my birdie can often be covered up by some Joe who made double bogey since I could have to give up a stroke while they gain two. As you may be able to tell, I'm a bit salty that the #1 handicap hole on my home course where I play in the men's club is a par 3. I lose that hole every time I play a match or buy into skins, regardless of my score, because of how the handicap system works out. I have gained a new understanding of why sandbaggers do it since I started to get into the lower handicap ranges.

I don't know if this veering off OT but HCP is average of BEST scores so not sure how you would get fleeced because of variance, i.e., they would have to play better than their average best 80% of the time for you to get fleeced, i.e., they have 'smelly' handicap IMO. I don't see how a fair high HCper would hose you out 80%, unless you are playing your bad variance a lot lately yourself....but then your HCP  would be trending up too right?

37 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Those same guys will make triple or worse on those same holes often enough, and then you win with a simple par. It all evens out in the end, assuming everyone posts scores honestly.  

+1

[Lagavulin62]

It sounds like the main point of handicapping is so golfers of different skill levels can gamble with each other.  

[JxQx]

It isn't as important to me as much as it once was. I still do have goals of reaching a 2 and eventually scratch handicap but recently I've been focusing more on enjoying the game.

[woodzie264]

5 minutes ago, Lagavulin62 said:

It sounds like the main point of handicapping is so golfers of different skill levels can gamble with each other.

that's about right

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

I don't know if this veering off OT but HCP is average of BEST scores so not sure how you would get fleeced because of variance, i.e., they would have to play better than their average best 80% of the time for you to get fleeced, i.e., they have 'smelly' handicap IMO. I don't see how a fair high HCper would hose you out 80%, unless you are playing your bad variance a lot lately yourself....but then your HCP  would be trending up too right?

Their best 10 rounds has a much wider range than my best ten. My best ten rounds are all within 2 strokes of each other, looking at my differentials. Their best ten rounds probably have a range of around 5-10 strokes, depending on their handicap. This means that if they match their best round of the last twenty, they're playing between 3 and 5 strokes better than their handicap. If I match my best round of the last twenty, I'm playing 1 stroke better than my handicap.

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Those same guys will make triple or worse on those same holes often enough, and then you win with a simple par. It all evens out in the end, assuming everyone posts scores honestly.  

Playing individually against a high handicapper I have no large complaints (other than my course putting a par 3 as the #1 handicap hole...), the system works out over time to level the playing field if I play the same person repeatedly. Playing against a full field of people in a net tournament is when it irritates me to no end, and I'll explain why using the table of probabilities for exceptional tournament scores here: http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html

A 22-30 handicap golfer has a 1 in 40 chance of scoring a net -4. As a plus handicap I have a less than 1 in 151 chance (that's listed for the 0-5 range) of matching his net score. In a field of 50 people of varying handicap ranges, you might say that the individual golfer in the field (of higher handicap) has a 1 in 50 chance or so (accounting for varying handicaps) chance at shooting a net score of -4.That means there's a ~50% chance at least one of the higher handicap golfers in the field will net a -4, while there is a .6% chance that I will be able to beat that score. If you change the score required to a net -3, assuming about 1:25 odds using that table, then it is a near certainty that at least one of the 25 higher handicap golfers in the field will shoot a net -3 or better. I have less than a 1.3% chance of beating that score (adjusting for the fact that I am beyond the 0-5 range). If the tournament has any number of players with a handicap of over 30, the odds become even worse for me since each one of those players has a 1:22 chance of shooting -4 or better.

Even in one of the best case scenarios, where one of the players only scores a net -3, I have well under a 2% chance of posting a score that can beat that. I would have to, quite literally, play the best round of golf in my life to win the average tournament because the best gross score I have ever posted in a tournament round is 3 under par, which nets out to either -2 or -1, depending on the slope of the course played. I would have to shoot five under par to beat or tie the 25 handicapper who had a decent day and shot 94 instead of 97. Anyone who has ever played at that level before (myself included) knows just how easy it can be for those three strokes to be shaved off on any particular round. Maybe they hit one less tee shot OB that day because of a lucky bounce off a tree, or perhaps they didn't lose a golf ball because they looked for longer than normal due to the tournament.

The bottom line is if it was a fair system I would have a 2% chance of winning a 50 player tournament of all different handicaps, but in reality I have closer to a 1% chance of shooting a net -3 or -4 (a normal winning score in net tournaments this size, having played in many myself). A 25 handicap golfer has a 6.8% chance of shooting a net -3 or -4, so you can assume at least one -3 or -4 will be posted if the field has just fifteen (out of 50 total) 22-30 handicap golfers. This means high handicap golfers are about 7x more likely than me to be in a position where they can win a net tournament.

 

I don't think it's unfair to me in net tournaments because I never win, it seems like the other guy always does, blah blah blah. I think it's unfair because, if you look at the numbers, it truly is. It's almost a certainly that at least one -3 or -4 will be posted in any net tournament of 50 players or more, and for me to beat that or match it I would have to play the best round of my life in that tournament, which has a 1% or less chance of actually happening for me. Handicaps can work okay up to a point, but I'm at a level where I don't even know if I am physically capable of shooting the net -4 (playing to the level of a +5, or the handicap of Phil Mickelson) that it would take for me to win or tie. When one person quite literally has to play like a hall of fame golfer to have a chance at winning or tying, it's generally not a fair system (considering the fact that I am nowhere near a hall of fame golfer myself).

[GolfLug]

18 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

Their best 10 rounds has a much wider range than my best ten. My best ten rounds are all within 2 strokes of each other, looking at my differentials. Their best ten rounds probably have a range of around 5-10 strokes, depending on their handicap. This means that if they match their best round of the last twenty, they're playing between 3 and 5 strokes better than their handicap. If I match my best round of the last twenty, I'm playing 1 stroke better than my handicap.

Playing individually against a high handicapper I have no large complaints (other than my course putting a par 3 as the #1 handicap hole...), the system works out over time to level the playing field if I play the same person repeatedly. Playing against a full field of people in a net tournament is when it irritates me to no end, and I'll explain why using the table of probabilities for exceptional tournament scores here: http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html

A 22-30 handicap golfer has a 1 in 40 chance of scoring a net -4. As a plus handicap I have a less than 1 in 151 chance (that's listed for the 0-5 range) of matching his net score. In a field of 50 people of varying handicap ranges, you might say that the individual golfer in the field (of higher handicap) has a 1 in 50 chance or so (accounting for varying handicaps) chance at shooting a net score of -4.That means there's a ~50% chance at least one of the higher handicap golfers in the field will net a -4, while there is a .6% chance that I will be able to beat that score. If you change the score required to a net -3, assuming about 1:25 odds using that table, then it is a near certainty that at least one of the 25 higher handicap golfers in the field will shoot a net -3 or better. I have less than a 1.3% chance of beating that score (adjusting for the fact that I am beyond the 0-5 range). If the tournament has any number of players with a handicap of over 30, the odds become even worse for me since each one of those players has a 1:22 chance of shooting -4 or better.

Even in one of the best case scenarios, where one of the players only scores a net -3, I have well under a 2% chance of posting a score that can beat that. I would have to, quite literally, play the best round of golf in my life to win the average tournament because the best gross score I have ever posted in a tournament round is 3 under par, which nets out to either -2 or -1, depending on the slope of the course played. I would have to shoot five under par to beat or tie the 25 handicapper who had a decent day and shot 94 instead of 97. Anyone who has ever played at that level before (myself included) knows just how easy it can be for those three strokes to be shaved off on any particular round. Maybe they hit one less tee shot OB that day because of a lucky bounce off a tree, or perhaps they didn't lose a golf ball because they looked for longer than normal due to the tournament.

The bottom line is if it was a fair system I would have a 2% chance of winning a 50 player tournament of all different handicaps, but in reality I have closer to a 1% chance of shooting a net -3 or -4 (a normal winning score in net tournaments this size, having played in many myself). A 25 handicap golfer has a 6.8% chance of shooting a net -3 or -4, so you can assume at least one -3 or -4 will be posted if the field has just fifteen (out of 50 total) 22-30 handicap golfers. This means high handicap golfers are about 7x more likely than me to be in a position where they can win a net tournament.

 

I don't think it's unfair to me in net tournaments because I never win, it seems like the other guy always does, blah blah blah. I think it's unfair because, if you look at the numbers, it truly is. It's almost a certainly that at least one -3 or -4 will be posted in any net tournament of 50 players or more, and for me to beat that or match it I would have to play the best round of my life in that tournament, which has a 1% or less chance of actually happening for me (not factoring in that it's something I've never been capable of before).

So how would the odds change if it were a 2 round or even a 4 round cumulative net tourney? I think the odds seriously skew in the favor of the lower capper as rounds cumulate.

We had a scratch in our group of 12 players (he moved away few years ago), out of which the next best was an 11 and the worst a 26. He almost always hosed us over 4 days of buddy trip tourney with a net of cumulative +5 or +6 max every year. None of us even came close. My best was +12 once and I won 2nd.   

Most large group tourneys I play in are flighted as it should be.

[DaveP043]

22 hours ago, Lagavulin62 said:

It sounds like the main point of handicapping is so golfers of different skill levels can gamble with each other.  

Handicapping is intended to allow us to compete against one another.  The competition could be monetary bet, or it could be for a trophy, or just for pride.  They're all competition.

 

[jsgolfer]

On 10/25/2016 at 5:30 PM, GolfLug said:

So how would the odds change if it were a 2 round or even a 4 round cumulative net tourney? I think the odds seriously skew in the favor of the lower capper as rounds cumulate.

We had a scratch in our group of 12 players (he moved away few years ago), out of which the next best was an 11 and the worst a 26. He almost always hosed us over 4 days of buddy trip tourney with a net of cumulative +5 or +6 max every year. None of us even came close. My best was +12 once and I won 2nd.   

Most large group tourneys I play in are flighted as it should be.

I would say over multiple days the lower handicapper would have an advantage. But in a one day tournament, the higher handicappers, will typically win the low net in a tournament.  Especially if there are lots of them. I'm in the worst of boats in most touaments, I shoot from 74-82 most days, typically around 77. With my 5-6 handicap I'm usually not low enough to win a gross event nor will my net score be low enough to overcome someone who will be more than 3 or 4 under net.  but luckily most of our club tournaments are flighted so I have a better chance.

But the group I play in on the weekends, all have similar handicaps and we play our money matches with no strokes. Which is preferable to me.

       

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, jsgolfer said:

I would say over multiple days the lower handicapper would have an advantage. But in a one day tournament, the higher handicappers, will typically win the low net in a tournament.  Especially if there are lots of them. I'm in the worst of boats in most touaments, I shoot from 74-82 most days, typically around 77. With my 5-6 handicap I'm usually not low enough to win a gross event nor will my net score be low enough to overcome someone who will be more than 3 or 4 under net.  but luckily most of our club tournaments are flighted so I have a better chance.

But the group I play in on the weekends, all have similar handicaps and we play our money matches with no strokes. Which is preferable to me.

       

At 5 or 6 if you shoot 74 as your best usually (I am sure there are a couple of 72-73 in there..:-) too), then that's a -3 or a -4. Just like a 22 would have to break 90 (in a tourney!).  

I still think a large part of the reason high cappers win is because in most single day things there simply are MORE of them.

I also think in large groups with bunch of high cappers you run into more sandbaggers. I don't know, I just don't expect to come home with anything in these type of tourneys. Just too many fliers.