Do you form a game plan?

[CarlSpackler]

Here is another interesting angle to think about. Does your game plan change in match play vs. stroke play? For example, your opponent puts his 2nd shot in the lake or perhaps hits the green in 2 over a lake. Do you put your 3w away or pull it out when you previously had another plan in mind?

[Piz]

I have the same idea, going in, no matter what the format is.  There are occasions when assuming more or less risk is prudent; but they are not so frequent as to alter the essential character of the game.

[Blackjack Don]

Did I mention I used to play poker for a living? For ten years I studied the game, was as into poker as I am now into golf. The one thing that surprised me about poker was how statistically-driven good players are. It's the math, stupid. There is nothing worse than superstition in gambling. Superstitious is the nice way of saying loser. Golf has this same dynamic, being something that can be studied using statistics. I'm not a math guy, but I learned how not to try to hit my pair on the turn and river when the pot is laying me 3:1. I'm hoping as I ease into retirement that I can tame my swing down to hitting close enough often enough to use stats to make the game even more interesting.

And I'm still able to hit a five iron off the tee long enough to hit another one close enough and able to get up and down in two. Bogey is par.

(Hmm, maybe if par was 90 we would be even more impressed with scratch golfers. A pro shoots 80 and is ripped to shreds. I shoot 90 and it's nirvana.)

[JustJack2016]

14 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

... trying to play like Phil, Jordan or Dustin, not like they have the ability to play.

Thanks Don.  Honestly, I think it's correct to THINK "I can hit this green in regulation" or "I can get this shot close to the pin"...and, as a person's game improves, their zone will have to be narrower and narrower.  I'm glad you used Phil, Jordan, and Dustin examples...all are FANTASTIC players.  I will bet if you asked golf analysts why Phil (especially Phil) hasn't won more tournaments, the answer would be..."He shouldn't have tried some of THOSE shots."

So let's put that in perspective.  How many great shots have we seen Phil hit?  Tons.  We all know he can pull off just about anything his creative mind sets out to accomplish.  The problem comes when the shot (low percentage) doesn't come out of the rough as cleanly as he thought...maybe he caught a flyer...or maybe the wind knocked it down juuuuuuust a bit and he winds up knocking it in the hazard.  He was soooooo close to pulling it off; however, four commentators have already said "the best shot would be for Phil to bump it down the fairway and leave himself that 75-yard shot (high percentage for Phil)...possibly get a par...and keep himself in the tournament."

In my opinion, it's not a high-handicap vs pro mentality.  A tighter tolerance should be the only the difference between a pro's thinking ("I need to be 10 feet left of the pin for an easier birdie/par at worse...putting from the right is treacherous") and a higher-handicapper's thinking ("I need to play this 20 yards left of the bunker for a chance to make par/bogey at worse...playing from that bunker is treacherous").

Listen to a TV golf analyst and pay attention to how many times they say, "nicely done" on a shot that's 15' or so from the hole.  We all know the pros can stick it next to the hole...so why is 15 feet away "nicely done"?  Because they weren't aiming at the hole...they were aiming at a spot 15' away.  Or listen to somebody chuckle when a ball gets really close and even the player's expression is, "I got away with a mishit there...".  So, again, depending on your scoring goal...what do I need to do to make _________ **fill in the blank** and how do I avoid making ________ **fill in the blank**

[p1n9183]

15 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Did I mention I used to play poker for a living? For ten years I studied the game, was as into poker as I am now into golf. The one thing that surprised me about poker was how statistically-driven good players are. It's the math, stupid. There is nothing worse than superstition in gambling. Superstitious is the nice way of saying loser. Golf has this same dynamic, being something that can be studied using statistics. I'm not a math guy, but I learned how not to try to hit my pair on the turn and river when the pot is laying me 3:1. I'm hoping as I ease into retirement that I can tame my swing down to hitting close enough often enough to use stats to make the game even more interesting.

And I'm still able to hit a five iron off the tee long enough to hit another one close enough and able to get up and down in two. Bogey is par.

(Hmm, maybe if par was 90 we would be even more impressed with scratch golfers. A pro shoots 80 and is ripped to shreds. I shoot 90 and it's nirvana.)

I think golf it´s all about 3 thing´s. Statistics, execution/luck and ability. 

Let´s take a 400 yard hole. With a crossbunker at 270 from the tee. You hit 240 carry and 270 total with your driver and 240 yards total with your 3wood.
Fairway length: 40 yards. Fairway length at crossbunker: 20 yards. Bunker width:20 yards. 15 yards of rough both sides, then trees both sides.

You can hit driver and challenge the bunkers or hit 3W 240 yards to hit the fat part of the fairway. Here´s where the math comes into play.

According to my stats. I average this values:
Fairway 130 yards: 3,15 strokes
Sand 130 yards: 3,55 strokes
Rough 130 y: 3,25 strokes
Trees 130y : 3,80 strokes
Fairway 160 yards: 3,30 strokes
Rough 160 y: 3,40 strokes
Trees 160y : 3,95 strokes

In this scenarios acording to my dispersion stats if i hit 100 balls in each situation i will hit:
With driver aiming at the middle of the fat fairway: 30 balls to the fairway, 30 to the bunker, 30 to the rough and 10 to the trees.
With 3 wood: 64 balls to the fairway, 30 to the rough and 6 to the trees.

Let´s do the math!
Driver: (30*3,15 + 30*3,55+30*3,25+10*3,80)/100 = 3,37 + Driver = 4,37  
3 Wood: (64*3,30+30*3,40+6*3,95)/100 = 3,37 + 3 Wood = 4,37

Both choices in this scenario are as good as the other. If the fairways pinches more than 20 yards because of the bunker it will be best to hit 3 wood, and driver if it pinches less than 20 yards.

What if the bunker where 250 yards from the tee ? Easy, hit 3 wood. The math are the same but the drives that misses into the bunker will be 20 farther to the green with an spected score of 3,7 witch is higher than 3,55 spected strokes from the previous scenario.

That´s the statistic part of the game, then execution/luck will determinate if the next ball hit the fairway, sand, rough or trees and the ability determinate the % of how much of 100 balls you will hit to each of those areas.

I think everyone can do the same math with their tee shots for every hole of every course they play to optimise their spected score for every hole they play.          

         

[Hatchman]

Yep.  I certainly have an on paper theoretic scoring game plan; and then the actual game day play the shot, as it lies, based on my swing (or lack of), course conditions, etc. stroke by stroke score.  Which has me scratching my head thinking about the theoretic plan I formulated.

[No Mulligans]

Not exactly a game plan.  I do have plans for individual holes which are made on the fly; for example target areas, and whether or not to play it safe.  That's not exactly a game plan.

And, I often play a round with a swing thought.  Not a game plan either.

 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

Did I mention I used to play poker for a living? For ten years I studied the game, was as into poker as I am now into golf. The one thing that surprised me about poker was how statistically-driven good players are. It's the math, stupid.

The math is a big part of the very simple gameplan laid out in LSW. Give it a read and I think you'll see what I mean.

[DrvFrShow]

A battle plan only survives first contact with the enemy. But one course that I play has a dogleg left on the first hole and I'll hit a 7 iron just to put it in the middle. Another course has a dogleg right and I'll hit a driver with a cut. In both cases have a good shot at getting a GIR. The first is a par 4 and the second is a short par 5. If I screw up the shots the hole is done.

[caniac6]

Show up on time. Hit it. Find it. Hit it again. Play quickly.

[saevel25]

The best part of LSW is the simplicity to the method for game planning. It fits the golfer's current game to an easy way to work around the course. That alone makes the book worth the price. It will save the golfer strokes. This does mean that people need to be honest with their own game. If the shot zone is 20 yards wide for a mid-iron, then the best option on a hole might be to aim completely away from the pin if it is tucked behind bunkers or water. 

[David in FL]

2 hours ago, caniac6 said:

Show up on time. Hit it. Find it. Hit it again. Play quickly.

This, exactly.

 I'd like to claim that I'm more sophisticated than that, but I'm not.

[Hacker James]

11 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

Did I mention I used to play poker for a living? For ten years I studied the game, was as into poker as I am now into golf. The one thing that surprised me about poker was how statistically-driven good players are. It's the math, stupid. There is nothing worse than superstition in gambling. Superstitious is the nice way of saying loser. Golf has this same dynamic, being something that can be studied using statistics. I'm not a math guy, but I learned how not to try to hit my pair on the turn and river when the pot is laying me 3:1. I'm hoping as I ease into retirement that I can tame my swing down to hitting close enough often enough to use stats to make the game even more interesting.

And I'm still able to hit a five iron off the tee long enough to hit another one close enough and able to get up and down in two. Bogey is par.

(Hmm, maybe if par was 90 we would be even more impressed with scratch golfers. A pro shoots 80 and is ripped to shreds. I shoot 90 and it's nirvana.)

Interesting, I really never considered the importance of math and odds calculations in golf. Not that I do not consider different strategies and minimizing errors, just not that intensely.  Your parallel to gambling makes sense. I used to be able to count down a double deck in Black Jack, and know how many "outs" in holdem, but now with the years creeping up, I can barely remember the last card dealt. Video Poker is a little easier for me, at least I can stick with optimum strategy long enough not to go home broke.  In golf, it is improving, I can break 90 and hopefully, once again 80, but the clock is ticking.....

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

A battle plan only survives first contact with the enemy. But one course that I play has a dogleg left on the first hole and I'll hit a 7 iron just to put it in the middle. Another course has a dogleg right and I'll hit a driver with a cut. In both cases have a good shot at getting a GIR. The first is a par 4 and the second is a short par 5. If I screw up the shots the hole is done.

 I see Julia wearing a camo jacket and helmet circa 1943 peering down the first fairway with field glasses waiting for a report from the forward scouts about positions of enemy fairway bunkers.

[Pretzel]

14 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

 I see Julia wearing a camo jacket and helmet circa 1943 peering down the first fairway with field glasses waiting for a report from the forward scouts about positions of enemy fairway bunkers.

 

"What do you mean we've lost control of Major Driver?"

"Sir, I'm sorry to say it, but I think he's gone rogue."

"I always knew that one was a loose cannon! Brief Lieutenant 3-Wood on the status of the enemy's fortified water hazards, and see to it he gets the job done."

"But sir, I thought you already charged Lieutenant 3-Wood with high treason after he implemented operation Worm Burner without approval..."

[boogielicious]

9 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

"What do you mean we've lost control of Major Driver?"

"Sir, I'm sorry to say it, but I think he's gone rogue."

"I always knew that one was a loose cannon! Brief Lieutenant 3-Wood on the status of the enemy's fortified water hazards, and see to it he gets the job done."

"But sir, I thought you already charged Lieutenant 3-Wood with high treason after he implemented operation Worm Burner without approval..."

[NCGolfer]

Part of my goals for 2017 are to re-inforce some of the things in LSW.  I've gotten away from fully implementing a GamePlan simply from lack of effort.

Maybe it is ADD.  I forgot, what are we talking about?  

[dave s]

Opposite the original poster, I play all over the place and welcome the oppty to play new courses. Map out my round?  Yep.  I do this mostly by looking at the score card.  I know my game's strengths and weaknesses.  Looking at the card, I know where the pars will likely come from and where accepting bogey is certainly ok.

Where I hit and miss:  Par 3 holes that are 160 and shorter usually nets par for me.  Shorter par 5s are usually par and possible birdie holes.  I expect to keep 6 of the par 3 and 5 holes at level par or maybe better if a putt or two goes in.  Next, I look at all the par 4s.  I'll have a good chance at making par on the holes that are in the 300-350 range.  The longer par 4s, bogey is most certainly acceptable.

What USUALLY happens:  I'll have a complete meltdown on two holes due to an unfortunate swing that finds trouble.  Double or a triple bound to happen on each nine.  I'll usually 'make good' on the preliminary assessment and make pars on 75% of the holes I counted on making par.

At the end of the round, if I hit the ball well and made a few puts I'll be either side of 85.  If I don't hit the ball well, 75% of my par opportunities turn into bogies and overall score is low-90s.

Before stepping on the first tee, I think it's MORE important to have a plan rather than a finishing SCORE in mind.  If I  execute the plan, a favorable finishing score will follow.

dave