Handicap Systems and Gambling Questions

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sat next to another golfer on the plane last night.

He was complaining that his course was re-rated by the USGA, and the handicaps of the holes changed.  Generally speaking, instead of the toughest holes being ranked as the no. 1, 3, etc. handicap holes, some of the easier ones were.  Have we discussed this here before? 

His theory was, and for some reason, I vaguely recall that he is right in his contention that the USGA has changed their thinking on handicapping individual holes, using handicap data to make the higher ranked holes ones where the differential might be lower between scratch and high handicappers, thus being more likely that the high handicapper might be able to use the stroke.

If a 500 yard par 4 is ranked no. 1, the thought is that the good player probably makes 4, maybe 5, and rarely a 3, but the averge player might make 6-7, so getting a stroke really makes no difference to him unless the good player fumbles to a bogey, and even then, he only ties.

On a shorter 4, the higher handicapper is more likely to make 5 for 4, thus making the low handicap player make birdie to win.

Can anyone explain if this gents take on the subject is true?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The topic in the second hour of the flight was gambling and bets (well it was related to his first)

He mentioned a recent Scotland trip. I said I loved how match play sped up pace of play there - if you got in a deep bunker, but your splash didn't get out, you simply concede the hole.  He agreed that Scots did play that way and then told me what his traveling group did to "circumvent" that way of playing.

Bascially, they split the pot between match play and stroke play, so you have to finish the hole.  Initially, I thought that was silly, but then got to thinking how it would affect strategy.

If you are in a deep fw bunker the match play would suggest the daring shot.  But, stroke play would suggest hitting out sideways or a high iron to assure some recovery.  Would adding two different types of bets/matches make your strategic choices more interesting, i.e. have to assess the status of both your match and stroke play position before taking the shot?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
I don't think so. Handicap strokes are meant to be an equalizer, not a 'winner', and under that criteria the hole with the greatest diferential is going to be #1 in most cases. 

Playing it both ways could, at times, affect your choices but I don't think it would add any interest

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

The USGA's handicap stroke allocation theory and formulae is supposed to allocated strokes according to the statistical stroke differential on holes between the so-called "Bogey" golfer (17-22) and the "scratch" golfer.

The USGA does not rate golf courses that I know of (local and regional golf association rating teams do that with the USGA system) and they do not get into allocating strokes in the course rating system. Clubs are responsible for that and should follow the USGA Handicap System's recommendations.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Jeff--

As TE noted the USGA has no role in allocating which holes are assigned specific handicaps  -- That is solely for the club to do (usually the Handicap Committee of that club)--

The USGA Handicap System does have recommendations for the club to follow, however.  You can find these at the USGA website (usga.org) under Sec 17 of the Hanicap System.

Generally the System states that the No.1 assigned hole is to be selected based on two golfers who are only one stroke difference (scratch vs 1; 21 vs 22; etc) and determine which hole the stroke is most likely to equalize the players-- they state that will usually be the longest hole compared to par-- No. 2 handicap hole is next hole two players two handicap strokes appart would use strokes to equalize the hole.

I see nothing that suggests a change in recommendations you have suggested.

[Pete_Pittock]

I don't think the USGA recommendations have changed. That is what I remember from the mid 90s when Tualatin CC was changed and I was the hdcp chmn. It is just that more people are being educated away from the urban legend.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

On this side of the pond things are a little different. Usually the Stroke Index is a reasonable guide to the difficulty of holes, but take Alwoodley. The last few holes are the hardest, but you can't give the first few strokes there as the match is probably over before you reach these holes. At Conwy, where I am still a member, the 17th is by far the most terrifying hole on the courrse. It is Stroke 2, but by then the match is usually over. I could do with 15 strokes on this hole alone.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I looked at the USGA site and TEPaul appears to be right that the USGA recommends allocating strokes based on the biggest differential between low and high handicap players, (not those separated by 1 stroke) based on analysis of a fair number of scores by both representative groups by the local handicap committee.

The wording is equalization, and says nothing about allocating for a better chance to win. I don't know if the system has ever changed or not, but this sounds like what I recall.  The system calls for holes where the average bogey player score most greatly exceeds the average low handicap score - i.e. a differential of 3.3 strokes between the two groups would make that hole a candidate for the number 1 handicap, vs. a hole that was less than one stroke.  Applying a low number to the latter would in effect help the higher handicappers.

Interesting to note that the committee does have some latitude.  They give an example of a water hazard really affecting higher handicappers giving the hole the no. 1 ranking, but where conditions also mean that it doesn't affect a match of similar handicaps much, can possibly be dropped in the ranking on the theory that it won't affect the high/low match, will affect a similar handicap match and is best overall for the play at that club.

I can see how golfers would react to changes in the system at their course.  In a way, the gent I spoke to on the plane seems to have basically had half an understanding of the system, and his course must have recently re-rated/allocated holes based on data, rather than a "dart system" they might have used before.  Either way, as a low handicapper, he seemed obsessed by the fact that the changed ratings seemed to provide his opponents a better chance to win some holes. 

Wow an opinion based on a golfers self interest.  Who would have thought that?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oh, I forgot to mention that the third component of the discussion was "bunker consistency" and its affect on his score......

[John Moore II]

Yes, the handicap system is based on differential between the two players. Most people would agree that par 3's are rarely the 'easiest' holes on the course, though typically you will see par 3's rated as the 18 handicap hole. And many times the 'hardest' hole will be a long par 5. But in true stroke average, it may not be that way. And you also take into account (generally) where the holes fall. Like you don't want the 1 and 3 handicap holes on the course to be 17 and 18, even though they may be the two most difficult. Its certainly not as simple as which hole is the hardest and easiest relative to par.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Sir:

TEPaul 'APPEARS' to be right.....?

What are you talking Man?

Don't you know by now that when I say something on here you can take it to the bank---you can basically bet the entire farm on it??   

[Pete_Pittock]

Some courses have differing handicap tables depending on the competition scoring. You will occasionally see par/bogey/stableford competition hdcp tables.

[Dan Herrmann]

Pete - great point.  Some courses have different allocations for stroke vs match play.

And Tom Paul is 100% correct. 

I worked this issue a lot when our club first opened.  We collected hole scores on our GHIN computer to help tell us where the stroke allocations should be made.  The results were pretty surprising - a 185 yard par 3 with a 160 yard carry was ranked as the 2nd most difficult hole for the bogey golfer an was the 15th most difficult for the scratch golfer. 

So - what should we have given this hole?  2 or 15?  We ended up giving it a 11.  From what I understand, the handicap committee has some wiggle room in the allocations.

And, the allocation rules do not take gambling into account 

[Ken Moum]

I worked this issue a lot when our club first opened.  We collected hole scores on our GHIN computer to help tell us where the stroke allocations should be made.  The results were pretty surprising - a 185 yard par 3 with a 160 yard carry was ranked as the 2nd most difficult hole for the bogey golfer an was the 15th most difficult for the scratch golfer. 

So - what should we have given this hole?  2 or 15?  We ended up giving it a 11.  From what I understand, the handicap committee has some wiggle room in the allocations.

You're not supposed to use the "difficulty" of the hole at all.

The only scoring factor that should be considered is the differential between the bogey golfer and the lower handicapper (not necessarily the scratchgolfer )

However, the actual allocation of strokes needs to be modified by the front/back requirements and by the desire to never give initial strokes at the beginning or end of a round. They logic of this is all available here: http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_17.html#17-2

It's a rare situation that causes a par three to be one of the first stroke holes. But it sounds like that one might qualify. If it actually is that easy for low handicappers and that hard for bogey golfers, it probably should be one of the first stroke holes.

Oddly, where I play, 10 years ago the pro did the stroke allocations by simply averaging scores and assigning the strokes from hardest to easiest, and as a result a 210-yard par three is #1.  Which, of course, is dead wrong.

K

[Jim Sweeney]

Jeff:

Vis-a-vis the gambling question. Obviously division of the pot between stroke play and match play results negates the improved pace of play gained from playing match play only.

However, the rules of golf for match play and stroke play are significantly different, enough so that the USGA and R&A state that the two forms of play cannot be played concurrently. Your seatmate and his buddies may enjoy their competitions, and I surely hope they do, but they cannot play their games within the rules.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

good point I hadn't thought of. Of course, they did this in Scotland, so maybe, like Bill Clinton they can say they did not break the laws of this country (or rules of USGA)

To the esteemed Mr. Paul,

Please accept my heartfelt apologies for my earlier comments that "appeared" to put you at something less than diety status.  I promise I that such words shant come from me again, if you promise to shant yourself.  I trust my snytax is correct in the previous sentence, good sir.

Good night to all.

Mr. Jeffrey D. Brauer, esq.

[Tony Petersen]

You're not supposed to use the "difficulty" of the hole at all.

The only scoring factor that should be considered is the differential between the bogey golfer and the lower handicapper (not necessarily the scratchgolfer )

However, the actual allocation of strokes needs to be modified by the front/back requirements and by the desire to never give initial strokes at the beginning or end of a round. They logic of this is all available here: http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_17.html#17-2

It's a rare situation that causes a par three to be one of the first stroke holes. But it sounds like that one might qualify. If it actually is that easy for low handicappers and that hard for bogey golfers, it probably should be one of the first stroke holes.

Oddly, where I play, 10 years ago the pro did the stroke allocations by simply averaging scores and assigning the strokes from hardest to easiest, and as a result a 210-yard par three is #1.  Which, of course, is dead wrong.

K

It depends on if your club uses the "match" or "medalist" formula for allocating the handicapped holes... Either difficulty relative to par, or difficulty relative to bogey v. par shooter. Both are outlined in the USGA manual... I know, I ran the Handicap Committee at the Desert Mountain Club for too long...

[RJ_Daley]

I like the Sand Hills GC way.  Your host and most familiar with the course sticks his wet finger in the air, assesses the velocity of wind and direction an then hands you the handicaps for the holes that day. 

I know nothing about this stuff.  But a few years ago our course had our State WSGA come in and assign new handicaps to the holes.  They went mostly by recent tournament scores and considered scores by flights, etc.  But, they determined that our long par 4 on the front was technically the second hardest hole with #9 being the hardest.  But, they said it isn't acceptable to have the 9th or 18th rated as hardest hole on their respective sides.  Thus 4 is our 1 and 9 is our 3 handi.  The old 1 was a par 5 that dropped to 5.  Also, is it manditory that holes be ranked odd on one 9 and even on the other 9? 

[TEPaul]

"Please accept my heartfelt apologies for my earlier comments that "appeared" to put you at something less than diety status.  I promise I that such words shant come from me again, if you promise to shant yourself.  I trust my snytax is correct in the previous sentence, good sir."

My Dear Mr Jeffrey:

What is becoming of you? You say "....something less than diety status?"

Mr Jeffrey, I really don't need to lose weight but I do need to maintain my DEITY status.

You ask me to "shant" myself?? I am a world-class wordsmith my dear sir and that one has gotten past me but it most certainly doesn't sound very complimentary.

Good night to you too, Sir, and don't let any of the CaCa from the MuMus at the bottom of your beddy-bed get on you.

[Michael Powers]

We gathered the data to do the handicap allocation based on the difference between the average score of the two pools of golfers and the results were very surprising.  We just used it as a guide or as a tie breaker between 2 holes.  I believe the reason the USGA stays out of it altogether is that handicap hole allocation is a very inexact science.  There are so many factors that there is no way you can perfectly allocate handicap holes for every match play situation.
 


Tony,
The Handicap Manual discusses the option of producing a totally seperate handicap hole allocation for handicapped stroke play.  The handicap allocation you see on the scorecard is for match play.  I am not familiar with any clubs that have this seperate allocation, although I am sure they are out there.  It would create alot of work for golf pros who would have 2 allocations and would be changing allocations for tournaments based on format.

[Mike McGuire]

The modern method of crunching a bunch a data and coming up with a formula for equalizing a match between a low and high handicappers is  over thought - like having the algebra professor come up with the handicap system.

1- a match between these two is a crapshoot anyway
2- it is more likely you will be playing someone closer to your handicap than way away from it

The old system of the longest hole is #1 and the shortest #18 is superior IMHO
 

[Rich Goodale]

The modern method of crunching a bunch a data and coming up with a formula for equalizing a match between a low and high handicappers is  over thought - like having the algebra professor come up with the handicap system.

1- a match between these two is a crapshoot anyway
2- it is more likely you will be playing someone closer to your handicap than way away from it

The old system of the longest hole is #1 and the shortest #18 is superior IMHO
 

I fully agree, Mike--you really can't do any "better" than balancing the odds and evens per 9-holes and spreading them out over each 9 too.  Anything more "sophisticated" is just an excuse for some jerk with too much times on his or her hands to show off.

Also, getting to the 2nd part of the question, anybody who gambles significant amounts of money on golf using handicaps (of even significantly cares about winning or losing using handicaps) is either a sucker or a suckee.