tournament question

[love the game]

Does a 1-2-3 on a 5-4-3-  (count 1 on par 5, 2 on par 4 etc) favor the higher handicaps in a 2 best net tournaments with 4 players?

[Club Rat]

12 hours ago, love the game said:

Does a 1-2-3 on a 5-4-3-

Can you be more specific with your question?
I'm assuming the 5-4-3- indicates the par for these holes.
Does 1-2-3- indicate the hole handicap? 

12 hours ago, love the game said:

(count 1 on par 5, 2 on par 4 etc)

Are you asking if "2 best net" on par 5's? counting only one best net on par 4's?
Then count three best net scores on par 3's

I have played in events which uses this type of a format for team play. 
The only time a handicapped event favors any player is when a player plays extremely well.
The potential for higher handicap players is greater than lower handicap players.

[love the game]

couples tournament coming up.  Two couples per team.  Scoring will be you'll  take 1 low net on par 5, two low net on par 4 and 3 low nets on par 3's from the 4 players.   Question is, does this format favor higher handicappers who are getting to use 4  par 3 holes and take 3 scores.     Most low handicappers are not getting strokes on these holes.  Your thoughts?

[Club Rat]

1 hour ago, love the game said:

Most low handicappers are not getting strokes on these holes.  Your thoughts?

Handicaps provide the equality to all golfers. Yes low handicappers get fewer strokes, but often make more pars and birdies or eagles.
High handicappers generally make mostly bogeys or higher.
You could reduce all players handicaps to 80% which is common in events.

Regardless, IF a high handicapper has a good day avoiding lost balls, penalties, hazards and such, they most likely will have a great low net score.

1 hour ago, love the game said:

higher handicappers who are getting to use 4  par 3 holes and take 3 scores.

It depends on the difficulty of the par 3's
If hazards are present and bunkers, high handicappers will often score higher.
Using 3 scores on these holes is really favoring Low handicap players.
High handicap players can make big numbers on par 3's

WE also play couple events with this format and it is just a game which everyone enjoys.
Ask them to play a Gross game and they will run you out of town......

[ghalfaire]

11 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

Handicaps provide the equality to all golfers.

 

I believe this is only true if the two handicaps are not separated by more than about 6-7 strokes.  It can be difficult to beat someone if you're giving away a stroke a hole for instance.  The lower handicap player is very likely a more consistent player whereas the higher handicap is probably not very consistent and is more likely to have a very low net than the lower handicap player.  This is the reason most tournaments are divided up into Flights by handicap.

[Club Rat]

2 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

if the two handicaps are not separated by more than about 6-7 strokes.

There really is no magic number and the handicap system does work, with the exception when high handicappers have a very good day by avoiding penalties and bunkers and 3-putts.
But that's Golf....  And flights by handicap are a popular means to level the playing field. 

Most golfers prefer to play against players of similar handicaps and even against lower handicap player.  

[ghalfaire]

6 hours ago, Club Rat said:

There really is no magic number and the handicap system does work, with the exception when high handicappers have a very good day by avoiding penalties and bunkers and 3-putts.
But that's Golf....  And flights by handicap are a popular means to level the playing field. 

Most golfers prefer to play against players of similar handicaps and even against lower handicap player.  

I don't know exactly what your point is here. But I'll stand by my statement the handicap system doesn't do a good job of "making golfers equal" if the handicaps are separated by too many strokes.  At least if being equal means if you played 1000 matches that 50% of the time the high handicap golfer wins and 50% of the time the low handicap golfer wins.  That just isn't the way the system and math work.

[David in FL]

Your biggest problem is playing in a couples tournament...

 

[iacas]

On 10/28/2017 at 8:17 PM, ghalfaire said:

I don't know exactly what your point is here. But I'll stand by my statement the handicap system doesn't do a good job of "making golfers equal" if the handicaps are separated by too many strokes.  At least if being equal means if you played 1000 matches that 50% of the time the high handicap golfer wins and 50% of the time the low handicap golfer wins.  That just isn't the way the system and math work.

The better golfer has a slightly higher than 50% chance to win, but it's not like it's 60/40 or worse.

[ghalfaire]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

The better golfer has a slightly higher than 50% chance to win, but it's not like it's 60/40 or worse.

I believe this is true as long as the handicap indexes are not separated by too many strokes.  But because the handicap index is calculated using only your best 10 rounds out of the last 20 it leads to a condition that says you will score higher than your handicap over 50% of the time.  Just exactly what the probability of scoring lower than your handicap is depends a lot on the difference between the handicap index and the true Index (an index derived from all 20 rounds).   I would believe if we selected three groups of 50 golfers each with indexes of 0, 10, and 20 and developed a density function (sorry I don't how else to describe it) of handicap index difference from true index we would find that the 0 index group function would have the smallest variance and the 20 index group would have the largest variance.  The implication of that is that the higher index group has the least chance of achieving a net score of par less than the 10 handicap group and much less probability against the scratch group.  I don't have the data to prove this but believe this is why in handicapped tournaments with large numbers or player with a large span of handicaps, that the players are put in flights, usually with player whos' handicaps are not more than about 6-8 stroke apart. 

I guess stated succinctly, the race is not always won by the swift not the battle always by the strongest, but that's the way to bet.  The greater the difference in speed and/or firepower the less uncertainty in the outcome.

[love the game]

thanks

Edited October 31, 2017 by love the game

[Club Rat]

4 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

But because the handicap index is calculated using only your best 10 rounds out of the last 20 it leads to a condition that says you will score higher than your handicap over 50% of the time.  Just exactly what the probability of scoring lower than your handicap is depends a lot on the difference between the handicap index and the true Index (an index derived from all 20 rounds).

I'm sorry that you dislike or do not trust the USGA standards which they have set forth as guidelines for golfers.
There are no such standards as a "True Index"  and a players handicap is the "potential" for a player to achieve one in every five rounds.
Generally when a players is playing better, they may achieve this goal. When they play poorly, they probably do not.

Unfortunately, there are many players who abuse the system. Golf is about integrity and honesty and those who are cheaters, unfortunately.
The systems does have other flaws, but generally equals out over time. An example would be players who play less than 20 rounds per season.
They may improve, but are not playing enough rounds to move the index in a timely manner. This occurs mostly in younger players as they grow.
And newer people who are learning. Many golfers do not establish handicaps during the earlier years they play.

There probably will never be a better system than the USGA Handicapping, but there will always be players who work the system regardless.
These type of players are set on winning at whatever means they can get away with.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I believe this is true as long as the handicap indexes are not separated by too many strokes.  But because the handicap index is calculated using only your best 10 rounds out of the last 20 it leads to a condition that says you will score higher than your handicap over 50% of the time.  Just exactly what the probability of scoring lower than your handicap is depends a lot on the difference between the handicap index and the true Index (an index derived from all 20 rounds).

Yeah, no, you're doing some bad math here.

A better player holds a slight advantage (that grows very slowly as the gap increases, but stays below 55% IIRC) due to the 0.96 multiplier, but the rest of the math is pretty simple.

You're not even getting the math above right either. Because your index is your best 10 of your last 20 rounds, you actually score above your handicap 75% of the time (it's closer to 70%, because of the 0.96 multiplier). The 10 rounds you don't count, and then HALF of the rounds you DO count toward your index. SO that's 15 rounds out of 20 that are likely to be above your index.

But the same numbers hold for the lower handicapper: 15 of 20 are likely to be above his index (or 16/20).

And, the higher handicapper has the potential to go lower "net" than the low handicapper, and also the potential for a bulk of their handicap strokes to be "used up" on some blow-up holes (at or near ESC), which in match play can be quite helpful: an 18 handicapper playing a scratch golfer who takes three triples per round but plays the other 15 holes in 9 over will have a really good chance to win a match: they'll lose the three bad holes almost surely, but they'll likely win many of the six holes they par and will contend on every hole they bogey for net par.

Like John said, there's no such thing as the "true index." Even the low handicapper throws out 50% of his scores.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I would believe if we selected three groups of 50 golfers each with indexes of 0, 10, and 20 and developed a density function (sorry I don't how else to describe it) of handicap index difference from true index we would find that the 0 index group function would have the smallest variance and the 20 index group would have the largest variance. 

Of course. So? Winning or losing is binary - it doesn't matter by how much. If both players are equally likely to shoot their handicap or better (20-25%), then they'll win those times.

I understand that you're saying that the 20 handicapper is going to shoot net rounds of +10 and the scratch golfer can shoot an above-handicap round of +4 and still win the match, but that doesn't happen as often as you seem to think: it shifts the odds a few percentage points.

You can look up the Pope of Slope for more on this, or the USGA themselves. Suffice to say they've been doing this for a long time now and have plenty of data.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I don't have the data to prove this but believe this is why in handicapped tournaments with large numbers or player with a large span of handicaps, that the players are put in flights, usually with player whos' handicaps are not more than about 6-8 stroke apart.

That's actually done for the opposite reason: to protect the lower handicappers.

Put 100 scratch golfers together and 100 20-handicappers together and the low net score is almost surely going to come from the low 20-handicapper: the odds of them having a day where they shoot -6 net or something are MUCH easier than a scratch golfer doing so.

5 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I guess stated succinctly, the race is not always won by the swift not the battle always by the strongest, but that's the way to bet.  The greater the difference in speed and/or firepower the less uncertainty in the outcome.

Also… if you think there's an inherent advantage to being a better player with a low handicap… I say good! The USGA endorses that idea with the 0.96 multiplier, and at its core, it's a way of helping but not completely leveling the playing field. The better player, maybe, SHOULD win slightly more often.

But it's not nearly as often as you seem to think, regardless of the size of the gap (within reason).

[ghalfaire]

1 hour ago, Club Rat said:

I'm sorry that you dislike or do not trust the USGA standards which they have set forth as guidelines for golfers.
There are no such standards as a "True Index"  and a players handicap is the "potential" for a player to achieve one in every five rounds.

Wow where did you get the idea I don't like or trust the USGA standards.  All I am saying is the system isn't perfect and I wouldn't know how to make it perfect.  Yes USGA itself says the handicap is a measure of your potential and I would agree with that.  I do believe in any match the lower handicap golfer has a greater probability of winning than his higher handicap opponent.  I also believe the greater the difference in the two player's handicaps the more likely the low handicap golfer will win any single match. However I doubt the relationship is proportional, i.e. if you double the difference in handicaps I doubt the probability of the lower handicap winning doubles.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Yeah, no, you're doing some bad math here.

 

You can look up the Pope of Slope for more on this, or the USGA themselves. Suffice to say they've been doing this for a long time now and have plenty of data.

That's actually done for the opposite reason: to protect the lower handicappers.

Put 100 scratch golfers together and 100 20-handicappers together and the low net score is almost surely going to come from the low 20-handicapper: the odds of them having a day where they shoot -6 net or something are MUCH easier than a scratch golfer doing so.

Also… if you think there's an inherent advantage to being a better player with a low handicap… I say good! The USGA endorses that idea with the 0.96 multiplier, and at its core, it's a way of helping but not completely leveling the playing field. The better player, maybe, SHOULD win slightly more often.

But it's not nearly as often as you seem to think, regardless of the size of the gap (within reason).

No the math is good.  I was just saying something different than you are saying.  You're correct if you play a tournament with 100 scratch golfers and 100 20 handicap golfer and only one winner for low net, it likely will come out of the 20 handicap group.  But what I was saying was if you take those same 200 golfer and play 100 matches (each match a scratch golfer and a 20 handicapper) that the scratch golfers will very likely win more than 60 of those matches. The original statement I objected to in an early post  was that the handicap system "equalizes golfers".  It doesn't and the USGA doesn't claim it does.  The low handicap golfer has a better than even chance of winning any best net match with a higher handicap player.  That chance of winning gets better with the greater the differences in handicap.   Of course the high handicap will win sometimes, but not as often as the lower handicap golfer.  So I don't believe we are saying anything different.  Sorry I wasn't clear on this earlier. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by ghalfaire
wrong word

[iacas]

47 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

Wow where did you get the idea I don't like or trust the USGA standards.  All I am saying is the system isn't perfect and I wouldn't know how to make it perfect.  Yes USGA itself says the handicap is a measure of your potential and I would agree with that.  I do believe in any match the lower handicap golfer has a greater probability of winning than his higher handicap opponent.

The point is that it's nowhere near the level that you seem to think.

47 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I also believe the greater the difference in the two player's handicaps the more likely the low handicap golfer will win any single match.

Only by a little.

47 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

However I doubt the relationship is proportional, i.e. if you double the difference in handicaps I doubt the probability of the lower handicap winning doubles.

It's nowhere close to that. The odds increase a scratch player has a slightly better chance against a 20 than a 10, but only a little bit better. A few percent.

There is data out there on this. You can look it up.

47 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

No the math is good. I was just saying something different than you are saying.  You're correct if you play a tournament with 100 scratch golfers and 100 20 handicap golfer and only one winner for low net, it likely will come out of the 20 handicap group.  But what I was saying was if you take those same 200 golfer and play 100 matches (each match a scratch golfer and a 20 handicapper) that the scratch golfers will very likely win more than 60 of those matches.

It's not that large (> 60%) an advantage, no. That's all I've said. You're off base in how big a difference that change in handicap index makes.

Hell, if 100 scratch players play 100 20 handicappers at match play, it's even more closely matched than stroke play.

47 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

The original statement I objected to in an early post  was that the handicap system "equalizes golfers".  It doesn't and the USGA doesn't claim it does.

They kinda do:

Quote

The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis.

http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html

It's basically the first thing written in the handicapping manual.

47 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

The low handicap golfer has a slightly better than even chance of winning any best net match with a higher handicap player. That chance of winning gets a tiny bit better with the greater the differences in handicap.

FTFY.

---

Here's the thing… you're arguing against actual data with your experiences or what you think is going to happen. The USGA has a bunch of information on this, and it doesn't support what you're saying. The differences in winning % are pretty small. They slightly favor the lower handicapper, and they increase slightly when the gap grows quite a bit.

I've understood what you're saying from the outset. I'm just saying you're wrong.

Maybe as a 20 handicapper yourself (you list a 19.8 index), you're just using your own experiences a bit too heavily. Maybe you're just not a good match player?

[ghalfaire]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Maybe as a 20 handicapper yourself (you list a 19.8 index), you're just using your own experiences a bit too heavily. Maybe you're just not a good match player?

OK I'll retire.  I have no reason to disbelieve you and in fact think you're correct as I am sure you have better access to those data that would be needed to calculate the win probability as a function of handicap differences than I do.  Although I admit I'd like to see those data and make my own calculations as I just like doing that stuff.  My opinion is basically based on my own experiences and observations, not scientific and I am a better match player than a stroke player.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

OK I'll retire.  I have no reason to disbelieve you and in fact think you're correct as I am sure you have better access to those data that would be needed to calculate the win probability as a function of handicap differences than I do.  Although I admit I'd like to see those data and make my own calculations as I just like doing that stuff.  My opinion is basically based on my own experiences and observations, not scientific and I am a better match player than a stroke player.

You can find some of it on the Pope of Slope site, and talk with the USGA about others.