Low Handicappers in NET Tournaments

[NM Golf]

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Oh no, id have a better chance against 20 scratch golfers in medal handicapped play than i would against 20 5 or 6 handicaps.

Absolutely! And if I lost it's easier to swallow at least I was beaten straight up Man vs. Man.

Getting beaten by strokes doesn't sit well, especially when there is the stench of a little sandbagging in the air. But it doesn't have to even be a sandbagger, the inherent chances of a 6 handicap shooting a better score tilts the playing field in his favor every time.  

[Groucho Valentine]

12 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Absolutely! And if I lost it's easier to swallow at least I was beaten straight up Man vs. Man.

Getting beaten by strokes doesn't sit well, especially when there is the stench of a little sandbagging in the air. But it doesn't have to even be a sandbagger, the inherent chances of a 6 handicap shooting a better score tilts the playing field in his favor every time.  

Yeah, exactly. Its why i stopped playing in handicap tournaments years ago. Ill do a handicap scramble, tho. Get yourself one 20 in there and you're set 

[WUTiger]

21 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

 

21 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

This weekend i play a 36 holes net tournament. After the first day on the category under 12 handicap y was on 7th place after a horrible +8. Leader was at -4. On the second round i shoot a regular +3 and i almost won the tournament. Finish 3rd 3 strokes back. Leader shoot +12. I won the scratch category by 15 strokes, on the first day i was tied for the lead.

I played in a 36-hole Senior tournament similar to what p1 talks about. The tournament featured the Open division (gross, all ages), and age bracket divisions. The bracket divisions had a low gross and a low net prize.

In the bracket divisions, the top couple of players in each division had one round a stroke or two above their HDCP, and one hot round when they played 3 to 7 strokes better than HDCP. In only one age division did the low net winner have two really good rounds.

Tournament planners like the 36-hole format for mid-HDCP golfers because most of them can set up their life to play two straight days.

In our area, the 54-hole and 72-hole events normally require a person to carry a single-digit HDCP. These usually go by gross medal score - no HDCP. Also, some of these events include both pro and amateur golfers.

[DaveP043]

33 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Actually no it doesn't. The USGA Appendix E Score Frequency and Probability Table shows this to be untrue. You are a 6 handicap, the probability of you shooting a score 5 strokes below your handicap is nearly 5 times greater than mine. Your chance of shooting 6 strokes better than your handicap is nearly 7 times greater than mine. 

Its a very small distinction, but the chart references differential as opposed to score.  It makes very little difference for you, but to a 6 handicap, 5 under the course rating might mean a differential of closer to 4, depending on the Slope Rating, so the odds are a little less against you.  The odds remain against you, even so.  And remember, your average round will beat a higher handicappers average round.  Its only when you get to a differential around -3 that the odds begin to swing heavily against you, and there you're only talking about a chance tor the 6 handicap of about 4%.  And don't get me wrong, if you get a population of 6  and higher handicappers, the odds against the scratch player get pretty steep.  For a 36 hole event, or more, I'd guess that the odds would swing back towards the better players a bit, but I don't have the statistics to back up that guess.

Edited September 26, 2017 by DaveP043

[NJpatbee]

I may be an exception to the rule or USGA stats but as a high handicapper (17) I will not play a handicapped match against someone with more than 3 or 4 strokes lower handicap than mine.  Two reasons: 1) The difference in skill level is too great.  A 9 HCP golfer has much more consistency than I could ever hope for.  My most recent 20 scores will include some upper 90's and occasionally a 100+.  I get my butt kicked 9 out of 10 times. 2 ) The worse scenario is that I win the match shooting an 88 and my opponent shot an 80.  The hard feelings regarding losing to a golfer of less ability can ruin a good day. 

I am not a tournament player but will enjoy a match for a few $$, but I only play against golfers with similar abilities.  In the last few years handicap is often not included in the match and it is much more enjoyable.  It is usually a Nassau or some variation with no strokes given.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

I may be an exception to the rule or USGA stats but as a high handicapper (17) I will not play a handicapped match against someone with more than 3 or 4 strokes lower handicap than mine.

Why are people continuing to fail to understand that:

• One on one, the lower handicapper is favored slightly.
• Many players of all handicaps, net, favors higher handicappers.

[NJpatbee]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why are people continuing to fail to understand that:

• One on one, the lower handicapper is favored slightly.
• Many players of all handicaps, net, favors higher handicappers.

I was talking about one on one matches.  And depending upon the difference in handicap, I do not agree that the difference is slight.  If I (17 HCP)  were to play a scratch golfer giving me strokes my chances of winning are remote which is one of the reasons I gave that I would never play this match.  I understand with many golfers of all handicaps some higher handicap may have the round of the season so the more players the greater the chance that lowest handicap golfer will not win.

[DaveP043]

59 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Absolutely! And if I lost it's easier to swallow at least I was beaten straight up Man vs. Man.

I'm certain you didn't mean it this way, but this taken as an insult by the vast majority of players who would have no chance against you straight up.  The handicap system isn't perfect, the odds will favor one group of players over another depending on the format, but we're all men competing against each other.  Except, of course, for the women and children who compete.  OK, so we're all golfers competing against one another, and each of us deserves respect from the others.

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

I was talking about one on one matches.

I know. But this topic isn't about one-on-one matches. Nobody's saying the higher handicapper has a better chance in a one-on-one match. They don't.

18 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

And depending upon the difference in handicap, I do not agree that the difference is slight.

This isn't really an "opinion" territory. Lower handicappers are slightly favored in the current handicap system.

http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/bonus_for_excellence.html

http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389

Quote

* Bonus for Excellence is the incentive for players to improve their golf games that is built into the USGA Handicap System. It is the term used to describe the small percentage below perfect equity that is used to calculate a Handicap Index (96 percent). As a Handicap Index improves (gets lower), the player has a slightly better chance of placing high or winning a handicap event.

I'm just using the USGA's word here, man.

18 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

If I (17 HCP)  were to play a scratch golfer giving me strokes my chances of winning are remote which is one of the reasons I gave that I would never play this match.

It'd depend heavily on the format, really, and how you tend to play. If you're a 17 because you blow up on three holes, that improves your odds in match play, because you spend a lot of your strokes on just three holes, and thus play 15 other holes as a much lower handicap despite still getting 14 or 15 strokes on those 15 holes.

18 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

I understand with many golfers of all handicaps some higher handicap may have the round of the season so the more players the greater the chance that lowest handicap golfer will not win.

It doesn't have to be the "round of the season." The odds of a scratch golfer beating his handicap by even 3 versus a 20 doing so greatly favor the 20. That happens for them far more often. For the scratch golfer, that may be the round of the season, while for the 20 it may happen every other week.

[NM Golf]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

I know. But this topic isn't about one-on-one matches. Nobody's saying the higher handicapper has a better chance in a one-on-one match. They don't.

This isn't really an "opinion" territory. Lower handicappers are slightly favored in the current handicap system.

http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/bonus_for_excellence.html

http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389

I'm just using the USGA's word here, man.

 

So correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand this if the scratch player plays a 10 handicap, if neither one plays to their handicap the scratch player should win. Because his chance of having a really poor round is lower than that of a 10. But if they both play well the 10 handicap should win. And since technically we should play to our handicap about 25% of the time that should be advantage scratch player.

Basically the 10 handicap has a better chance of shooting a round well outside of their "normal" range (either better or worse) than does a scratch player. 

I guess I can buy that, but therein lies the issue with playing in a tournament with ten 10 handicaps. At least a couple of those dudes are going to go lights out and shoot a low score.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

So correct me if I am wrong, but if I understand this if the scratch player plays a 10 handicap, if neither one plays to their handicap the scratch player should win.

No. I'm not saying that. The 10 could shoot 78 and the scratch guy could shoot 75. Neither played to their handicap and the 10 wins.

Or if you mean worse… the scratch guy could shoot 75, and the 10 could shoot 84 and win despite booth shooting over their handicap.

5 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Because his chance of having a really poor round is lower than that of a 10. But if they both play well the 10 handicap should win. And since technically we should play to our handicap about 25% of the time that should be advantage scratch player.

It's 20% of the time, I think, generally speaking.

The rest is just math. Higher handicappers have a wider dispersion. Their bell curve is wider. They can shoot higher and lower scores more often.

5 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Basically the 10 handicap has a better chance of shooting a round well outside of their "normal" range (either better or worse) than does a scratch player. 

I guess I can buy that, but therein lies the issue with playing in a tournament with ten 10 handicaps. At least a couple of those dudes are going to go lights out and shoot a low score.

That's why my first post in this topic says, so I'm not sure why you're "guessing" what you can buy now. I mean, you've even used it to support your opinion here. Higher handicappers have wider bell curves. They're more likely to have unusually good or bad rounds.

[NJpatbee]

One more question and sorry if I am a bit off topic:

The continuation of the "Pope of Slope" document states the following:

Historically, the USGA wanted to reward the accomplishments of better players and recognize that high-handicappers' scores are harder to predict (wider range of scores and more room for improvement). The formula gives less-skilled golfers fewer strokes than they might need on average.

So if the handicap difference between two players is one stroke, the better player should win the match 53 percent of the time. For a six-stroke difference in handicap, the better player gains a one-shot advantage and should win 60 percent of the matches.

I do not quite get the math, so what would be the percentages if there was a 17 stroke difference?

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

I do not quite get the math, so what would be the percentages if there was a 17 stroke difference?

I don’t know how he uses 96% and six strokes to get 1 full stroke either.

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don’t know how he uses 96% and six strokes to get 1 full stroke either.

I'm with you, the 0.96 can't account for those "winning percentages".   It may be more that the higher handicap player's average net is likely to be further over par than a lower handicap's average net, since only the best half of the scores are used in handicap calculation, and the higher handicapper (typically) has a wider dispersion in scoring.  

[mdl]

On 9/25/2017 at 1:24 PM, GolfLug said:

Surprisingly good would be a 65/66 for one out of the 10 scratch. That would be a little harder to catch than a 70. 

Edit: Whoops, sat on this one for too long.  Already discussed...

 

The specific numbers I chose aren't really relevant.  Yes, there are some details that could matter in terms of what exactly the distributions of scores look like for a scratch versus a 7HCP, but excepting what seem like unlikely cases there, it's just math with the distributions.  If you assume (i) enough players in each group, (ii) the distributions aren't of pathologically different shapes, and (iii) the variance of the 7HCP distribution is larger than that of the scratch score distribution, then the expected adjusted (for handicap) minimum of the sample of scores from the 7HCP distribution is less than the expected minimum for a sample of the same size from the scratch distribution.

Just to give a simple example, just for simplicity pretend a scratch player's average score on a 72/113 course is actually 72, and a seven HCP's is 79.  Now, pretend each player's score distribution is normal.  Say the scratch player's standard deviation is 1.5, so that he basically always scores between 67 and 77.  If the 7 HCPs average standard deviation is only 33% higher, at 2, then in a tournament with 10 scratch players and 10 7 HCPs, one of the 7 HCPs is winning 70% of the time.

Yes, this is not a super realistic description of the distributions.  But the point remains.  If the distributions are of relatively similar shape but with different means and the 7 HCPs have larger variance, one of the 7 HCPs is winning a large percentage of the time in net score.

Edited September 26, 2017 by mdl

[Pretzel]

I don't play in net tournaments, and here's a post I wrote a while back that thoroughly explains why I am approximately 7x less likely to win a net competition that someone with a high handicap.

The TL;DR for the post I made is as follows:

High handicap golfers are far more likely to shoot an exceptional score compared to their handicap. A 22-30 handicap golfer will shoot a net 4 under par approximately one time out of 40. I will shoot a net 4 under par approximately 1 time out of 150-200. 

To put it more simply, a 25 handicap golfer has a 6.8% chance at shooting a net 3 or 4 under par. I have between a 1% and a 2% chance at posting the same type of score (net 3 or 4 under par). If I play in a tournament with 25 other golfers with high handicaps, then there is an 85% chance that at least one of them will shoot a net 3 or 4 under par, something that will happen with disproportionate infrequency for me. 

Now, in the case of playing a net match against an individual, I have no problems with that. The handicap system was set up such that it handles this scenario much better than large un-flighted net tournament. While the exceptional net score can be a result of 1 fewer blow up holes, the same cannot happen in match play.

 

[johnclayton1982]

Does anyone think there is value in getting your clock cleaned in championship flights?

I don't play net tournaments, but not because I'm a low cap (I guess kinda, at a low single digit, but not like these +1s!) but I refuse to play handicapped flights.  My background is in tennis and chess tournaments when I was younger and they were 1v1 sports with no handicap.  If you were worse, you lost.  If your better, then beat me. I don't totally understand this handicap idea, but I've never really used mine I don't think.

Ever since the new USGA you can't turn in solo rounds rule my only handicap rounds are tourney rounds for the most part.

I think over time you get better at playing in tournaments being up in the championship flight knowing that small mistakes doom you whereas if I'm a 15 I can hit a ball in the water and still place.  I dunno.  Over time, i think gross makes you a better tournament player regardless of skill.  Or I'm just getting my clock cleaned 7-8 times a year to no purpose!

[NJpatbee]

As a high handicapper I will not play net score with a low handicapper - as I've said I usually will lose and if I win there is a good chance there will be hard feelings on the part of the better golfer.  We also have low handicappers saying they prefer not to play net with a high handicapper, especially when a large group of golfers are involved.  It reaffirms to me that golfers with a wide variance in their handicap should not play each other in a net match.  Also, the best 10 scores used to calculate the index is the best 10 of 20.  I would propose that I am more than 8 strokes over my handicap more than a scratch golfer would be.  And in the last two seasons I have never been 4 strokes better than my handicap.

Bottom line, I suggest playing matches only with golfers with a variance of no more than 2 or 3 strokes when playing net.

Edited October 9, 2017 by NJpatbee