The stochastic process in hole strategy.

[Mike_Young]

We always hear the talk about strategy but most strategy is based on ideal position of the shot.  IMHO.  I got some theory coming shortly

[JESII]

I had to look up the word and couldn't even understand the 15 sentences I read...

[Ben Sims]

No matter how non-determinant a hole may be when comparing various strategies, the purpose of playing a golf hole is to get the ball in the hole.  That means that inherently, all golf holes are determinant in nature, and one strategy will always be favored over another given the current variables (weather, conditioning, pin position, tee position, etc.) to get the ball down in the fewest strokes.

For example, think of #10 at Riviera.  Is it always 50/50 on whether to lay up or go for the green no matter what the conditions are?  I don't think it is.  And I don't think any golf hole ever is completely stochastic in nature, though I think designing to that ideal can make a great hole.  But some great holes are completely determinant in strategy.  So there you go.  

[Mike_Young]

No matter how non-determinant a hole may be when comparing various strategies, the purpose of playing a golf hole is to get the ball in the hole.  That means that inherently, all golf holes are determinant in nature, and one strategy will always be favored over another given the current variables (weather, conditioning, pin position, tee position, etc.) to get the ball down in the fewest strokes.

For example, think of #10 at Riviera.  Is it always 50/50 on whether to lay up or go for the green no matter what the conditions are?  I don't think it is.  And I don't think any golf hole ever is completely stochastic in nature, though I think designing to that ideal can make a great hole.  But some great holes are completely determinant in strategy.  So there you go.  

I don't think it's 50-50 for hole #10..do you?  If one believes that strategy begins at the green and goes backwards then stochastic process has to be there.
Here's what I'm doing. Bragging a little here.... My nephew just graduated a Valedictorian at NC State in the Engineering School.  Friday he called to say he has been offered a full ride with monthly stipend to study for his Masters leading to his Doctorate at MIT.  But he can't decide because Stanford offered the same thing Thursday.  As I was congratulating him we started a nerd discussion on golf design strategies and he told me what he wanted to do....so he is working this thing out for me....

[Bill_McBride]

No matter how non-determinant a hole may be when comparing various strategies, the purpose of playing a golf hole is to get the ball in the hole.  That means that inherently, all golf holes are determinant in nature, and one strategy will always be favored over another given the current variables (weather, conditioning, pin position, tee position, etc.) to get the ball down in the fewest strokes.

For example, think of #10 at Riviera.  Is it always 50/50 on whether to lay up or go for the green no matter what the conditions are?  I don't think it is.  And I don't think any golf hole ever is completely stochastic in nature, though I think designing to that ideal can make a great hole.  But some great holes are completely determinant in strategy.  So there you go.  

I don't think it's 50-50 for hole #10..do you?  If one believes that strategy begins at the green and goes backwards then stochastic process has to be there.
Here's what I'm doing. Bragging a little here.... My nephew just graduated a Valedictorian at NC State in the Engineering School.  Friday he called to say he has been offered a full ride with monthly stipend to study for his Masters leading to his Doctorate at MIT.  But he can't decide because Stanford offered the same thing Thursday.  As I was congratulating him we started a nerd discussion on golf design strategies and he told me what he wanted to do....so he is working this thing out for me....

Tell him Stanford has a better course!

[Anthony Gray]

  Finaly a voice for golfers who are never in the ideal position.............I think

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
He run long distance..he don't play golf....Honey Badger don't give a sh*t bout golf...

Anthony,
I think so....

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

Congrats to your nephew, that's an impressive resume and set of choices to make.  

I don't think #10 is 50/50 at all.  But only based on changing variables.  If strategy begins at the green and goes back, then I think it's even more determinant what may be the best strategy on any given day.  I just don't believe there is ever a situation in golf where there isn't a best way and slightly worse way, and so on and so forth.  

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Congrats to your nephew, that's an impressive resume and set of choices to make.  

I don't think #10 is 50/50 at all.  But only based on changing variables.  If strategy begins at the green and goes back, then I think it's even more determinant what may be the best strategy on any given day.  I just don't believe there is ever a situation in golf where there isn't a best way and slightly worse way, and so on and so forth.  

Let's go nerd for a minute....( his words)

In general one calculates the number of possible combinations by using the binomial coefficient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient). Here n represents the number of "objects" to choose from, and k represents the number of "objects" chosen.

To make par on a par 4 hole, you have to use 4 strokes. Therefore there should be only 1 choice (using 4 strokes).

If one means: How many possibilities of making par or under when starting at the tee, then there are 4 possible outcomes (at least theoretically). You can make the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th shot. Once you have hit the ball once and do not make it in the hole, you now have 3 possible outcomes: Sinking the ball on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th shots. This should be pretty intuitive though.

In general it would be interesting to model golf play as a stochastic process. This could be done by sectioning the course into finite elements, each of which has a probability of being reached on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. shots. Of course the model can become quite complex because the location of the ball after the nth shot is dependent on the previous location of the ball, and so on. Additional complexity can be added if hazards, such as lakes and trees are added. Of course all of this would require observed data to calculate the mean and variance of the shot distance and direction.

[Anthony Gray]

Mike,

Congrats to your nephew, that's an impressive resume and set of choices to make.  

I don't think #10 is 50/50 at all.  But only based on changing variables.  If strategy begins at the green and goes back, then I think it's even more determinant what may be the best strategy on any given day.  I just don't believe there is ever a situation in golf where there isn't a best way and slightly worse way, and so on and so forth.  

Let's go nerd for a minute....( his words)

In general one calculates the number of possible combinations by using the binomial coefficient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient). Here n represents the number of "objects" to choose from, and k represents the number of "objects" chosen.

To make par on a par 4 hole, you have to use 4 strokes. Therefore there should be only 1 choice (using 4 strokes).

If one means: How many possibilities of making par or under when starting at the tee, then there are 4 possible outcomes (at least theoretically). You can make the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th shot. Once you have hit the ball once and do not make it in the hole, you now have 3 possible outcomes: Sinking the ball on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th shots. This should be pretty intuitive though.

In general it would be interesting to model golf play as a stochastic process. This could be done by sectioning the course into finite elements, each of which has a probability of being reached on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. shots. Of course the model can become quite complex because the location of the ball after the nth shot is dependent on the previous location of the ball, and so on. Additional complexity can be added if hazards, such as lakes and trees are added. Of course all of this would require observed data to calculate the mean and variance of the shot distance and direction.

  That's the simple approach.

[JESII]

Wouldn't each variable be different for each and every golfer? No matter how close their skill level...

How is strategy ever not begin at the green and go backwards?

[Ben Sims]

In general it would be interesting to model golf play as a stochastic process.

Good luck with that.   

Seriously, isn't the beauty of the game in how ridiculously random yet finite the scoring system is?  In football, there's only a few ways to score a touchdown (6 points).  But in golf, there's an infinite number of ways to get the same score on a hole.   

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
That's my point...you can't predetermine strategy...so why does it matter?  And don't you think the young tour pros keep proving this to us more and more...they don't even think about it...

[Anthony Gray]

 It's all about recovery.........I think

[Colin Macqueen]

Anthony,
"Finally a voice for golfers who are never in the ideal position....." Well said.
I didn't realise that I was playing "stochastic" golf all these years.

Good God what a thread! You are the only one that is making any sense to me at the moment!

No doubt things will become clearer as time goes on!

Cheers Colin

[Ben Sims]

Ben,
That's my point...you can't predetermine strategy...so why does it matter?  And don't you think the young tour pros keep proving this to us more and more...they don't even think about it...

Hmm, architecture can't predetermine strategy, so strategy is non-determinant?  I don't think it's one just because it's not the other.  It's not mutually exclusive.  It matters a hell of a lot!  The shape of the ground and the prudent placement of hazards are what determines how we play the game more than any other element.  This may sound a bit presumptuous, but I could care less what the young pros do to disregard strategy and architecture.  Their game is not what should determine a hole's strategy except in the most extreme circumstances.

Good gosh, that racks my brain.  Until the golf business and in particular the design and maintenance pieces separate themselves from how the TOUR plays the game and what the TOUR expects, golf as a recreational pastime will continue to suffer.  Beginners want to play that game.  They can't.  0.001% of golfers will ever be familiar with that kind of play.  That's okay. 

[Mike_Young]

Architecture can try to predetermine strategy  but the individual golfer must unfold it...
I don't care about the tour but we still can't deny they don't worry about strategy thus bringing distance into play more and more...
This about nerds me out for one nite..

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I vote Stanford too!! I did follow and understand the flat screen over the urinal line much better.