
Content Count
2,617 
Joined

Last visited

Days Won
8
DeadMan last won the day on June 5 2018
DeadMan had the most liked content!
Community Reputation
584 One of the AllTime GreatsAbout DeadMan

Rank
LongTime Member
 Birthday 11/23/1986
Personal Information

Your Location
Denver, CO
Your Golf Game

Handicap Index
6.1

Handedness
Righty

GAME Golf Username
DeadManUofM
Recent Profile Visitors
8,043 profile views

At what point do you want to mess around with your launch conditions with your driver? Also, if I'm hitting downwind with a roughly 10+ mph wind, I try to hit it higher with my driver. My thought is that the wind is going to knock the ball down, so I want to get it higher to keep it in the air longer and get as much benefit from the wind as possible. Should I be doing that, or is it not really going to make much difference?

There aren't any rules on which tee box you have to play. If you're going to enter the score for your handicap, you want to play a tee box that is rated. Sometimes, the most forward tees aren't rated for men. This thread is exactly why courses shouldn't use the blue/white/red system of tee markers. You should be playing whatever tees make the game the most fun for you  color or distance be damned. So many people just default to blue tees or white tees even when other tees would be more appropriate. For example, at my home course, most people should be playing the white tees. It's a fairly difficult course, and if you can't drive it well, the blue tees are tough. But every guy under the age of 50 plays from the blue tees, shoots 110+, and takes forever. I hate that the tee color pushes people do this. Personally, I look at the course rating and slope when I decide which tee box to play. My Goldilocks zone is having the course rating right around par, with the slope between 120 and 135ish. I'd prefer to be lower than those numbers than higher. Especially if it's my first time playing a course. I don't need to beat my brains out. I play golf for fun, after all.
 19 replies

 senior tee
 blue tee
 (and 4 more)

Yeah, I saw that this morning. That makes me slightly more optimistic about it. I still feel like Tiger's PR team is going to go over it with a finetooth comb and take out all the good parts. We'll see...
 3,231 replies

 tiger
 tiger woods

(and 2 more)
Tagged with:

"5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge 201819
DeadMan replied to iacas's topic in Instruction and Playing Tips
Time to start this back up, since the season is almost over. Day 1: Spent about 30 minutes hitting into my net. Working on my swing feels  a little weight shift off the ball and soft wrists in transition. Seems to be pretty good overall. 4,843 replies

 5 minutes daily
 2018

(and 7 more)
Tagged with:

If the course is open, I'll generally play. There's probably some combination of wind/rain/snow and temperatures where I wouldn't play, but I haven't found it yet.

Well, I can't find these rates. Let's just plug in some numbers and see what happens. Probability that a driver is drunk: .00029 Probability that a driver is sober: 99971 Let's assume a 0.1% false positive and false negative rate like I did earlier. P(DD  +) = (P(+  DD)*P(DD))/((P+  DD)*P(DD)+P(+  SD)*P(SD)) P(DD  +) = ((.999)*(.00029))/((.999)*(.00029)+(.001)*(.99971)) P(DD  +) = .22468 Given a 99.9% accurate test, the probability that a positive test would mean a drunk driver is ~22.5%. If the test is 99.99% accurate, that probability is ~74.4%. Even with that 74% probability for a 99.99% accurate test, you still have to consider the costs and the benefits. I.e., what are the costs of 1 drunk driving trip? What are costs of not being to drive sober when you get a false positive? It's very complicated, because not all drunk drives cause accidents, right? Bottom line, if you can get an extremely accurate test, then we can talk.

Actually, we can plug in real numbers now and figure this out! Thanks @Double Mocha Man. I'm going to use trips because I'm assuming this device will require a test for every car trip. According to this CDC study, there are 121 million trips ever year taken in the US under the influence of alcohol. Note that the study doesn't say that means these people are necessarily over the .08 limit, but let's assume that they are. According the National Household Travel Survey, Americans take 411 billion trips per year. So that means the probability of a single trip being done by a drunk driver is 121,000,000/411,000,000,000. That equals .00029. That means .029% of trips are by a drunk driver. That's actually higher than I thought. That means ~3 of every 10,000 trips is driven by a drunk driver. If can I find the false positive and false negative rates for interlock devices, we can figure this out. I'm trying to find that.

Uh, that doesn't say what you think it does.

I thought about this a while, and then had an epiphany last night. Without a perfect test, the answer is almost definitely no. It's a fairly simple statistical calculation called Bayes' Theorem. The end result is that you'll end up preventing more people from driving when they aren't drunk than preventing drunk drivers. I'm going to plug in numbers, but since I'm (likely correctly!) assuming drunk driving is a rare event, the numbers don't really matter that much. I'm also going to assume the test is extremely accurate. Let's say that in 1/10,000 car trips, the driver is too drunk to legally drive. This is probably an underestimation by a factor of 100, if not more, if you think about how many car trips there are in a day. Let's assume that the when the test is positive, the driver is drunk 99.9% of the time. And then assume that when the test is negative, the driver is sober 99.9% of the time (in other words, if the test is negative, the driver is drunk 0.1% of the time). We can use this to plug in probabilities for each event. Probability that a driver is drunk: .0001 Probability that a driver is sober: .9999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a positive test: .999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a negative test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a positive test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a negative test: .999 Bayes' Theorem applies here. It says: The probability that someone is drunk driver given a positive test is equal to the probability of a drunk driver gets a positive test times the probability of a drunk driver; that divided by the following: the probability of a drunk getting a positive test times probability of a drunk driver plus the probability of sober driver getting a positive test times the probability of a sober driver. In mathematic terms (DD=drunk driver; SD = sober driver; + = positive test): P(DD  +) = (P(+  DD)*P(DD))/((P+  DD)*P(DD)+P(+  SD)*P(SD)) Plug in the numbers: P(DD  +) = ((.999)*(.0001))/((.999)*(.0001)+(.001)*(.9999)) P(DD  +) = .0908 In other words, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 9%. Meaning that out of a 100 people that test positive under this test, 91 of them would actually be sober. Because the test is imperfect and drunk driving is rare, it's going to impact more sober drivers than drunk drivers. Even if the test is 99.99% accurate and as a false positive rate of 0.01%, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 50%. Note that I'm assuming that 1/10,000 car trips is one by a drunk driver. If you assume 1/100,000 car trips are by a drunk driver, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is 0.9%. (You can also use this calculate to find out the odds that a drunk driver will have a negative test, but I have other stuff to do now...) So, without a nearly perfect test, it's a bad idea for the entire population. If drunk drivers were more frequent, then it would make more sense. Hence, it makes sense for someone who is more likely to drive drunk, and why the current policy probably makes sense.

Yeah, it's back to working for me this morning. Was finally able to edit rounds I uploaded on Tuesday.

I saw this as well:

Well, he's not going to get fired, so unless the NFL hires him away, he's going to stay here for a while longer. I don't pay a ton of attention to Harbaugh's press conferences, but I'd imagine he's probably experiencing the same malaise that the whole program is facing right now. He's made changes and it hasn't worked. That must be frustrating.

That's a very specific scenario covered by the rules. He would be DQed for a serious breach of Rule 147b for playing from the wrong place. I take your point, but there really isn't much of a difference between a DQ and 58 penalty strokes.
 236 replies

Anyone else getting a javascript error for maps when trying to edit rounds right now? I've had this happen before, but it normally starts working again after a bit. I've tried 2 different browsers and 2 different computers. Still getting that error.

Michigan's offense is really, really bad. They fumble, on average, 3 times per game (and lose half of those). The offense was supposed to evolve this year and be more friendly for Patterson, but either the offense sucks or Patterson has regressed a ton. Patterson looks completely lost throwing the ball, and he will not pull in the run game. I don't know how much of that is by design, but it's bad. Defense is good, borderline really good. They're really young, and I think you're half right about the DL. The DEs are really good (especially our pass rush specialist), but the DTs are mediocre at best. They still struggle with tempo. They're getting better at defending mesh, but I don't know if it will work against superior athletes. That's the play that OSU gashed them with over and over last year. The scheme is fine, overall, though. They just can't rely on mantoman coverage like they did against OSU last year. I could see them going anywhere from 24 to 42 over this last stretch. I don't think they have a prayer against OSU (unless Fields gets hurt, but even then, probably not). Best case is 11 against PSU and ND, I think. Indiana terrifies me, but we'll probably win on some bullshit like we do every year. MSU game will be unwatchable. It's not been a fun year, even though we're 51.