News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2015, 11:18:49 PM »
"the strict goal of the game

playing the course in as few strokes as possible."

Kinda goes against the definition of game. If playing for entertainment, using the fewest strokes is hardly entertaining, as it is primarily frustrating. Only an "irrational" player would entertain himself with such a frustrating enterprise.

If playing for competition the goal is to win, or come as near to winning as possible. I think you are going to have to come up with a psychological model instead of an economical model for that goal.

;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2015, 11:27:18 PM »
 8) for your consideration

Footnote 1: Amateur golf only..  versus rational behavior is questionable; a competitive behavior am as base case and a Saturday am player are different cases

Tee-to-green shots don’t seem to address hazards around the green, especially with the variance of shot making involved, both x & y directions at play; the same distance shot can give widely different results depending on angles and slopes from good or bad drive locations.  I would think lateral variability would be greater issue than distance with most am players

Need the variability of tee and approach shots’ dispersion addressed, e.g., a 3 degree directional error means a lot more at 250 yards than 85, which is simply lumped into “accuracy’ better with shorter clubs and on fairway or on rough next shot.

Homo econimicus plays every Saturday…  Few things in nature or human activity are linear, need to use natural log or exponential distributions to address variability that may lead to other cases experienced over time than a golfer with perfect control.

I didn’t directly follow by your nomenclature and equations that the probabilities of linked serial events, i.e., drive and approach shots are really getting multiplied together to give an overall probability of a given score.

State a null hypothesis and at least define some t-testing of probabilities of difference in mean scores at nominal confidence levels like p.84, p.95, or p.99
« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 01:25:31 PM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2015, 11:27:26 PM »
"In order to minimize

his score, the player chooses which club to hit given his distance to the target."

If he is playing strategically wouldn't his choice also include hit high, hit low, hit left to right, hit right to left, etc.
Can you even address strategic play, without more choices than "distance to the target"?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2015, 11:29:07 PM »
Andrew, I read your paper.

Maybe it is the engineer in me, but I am perplexed by many choices and assumptions you make.

You make a simplification on club distance by assuming that every club can be manipulated to hit +/-5 yards, but wedges are infinitely adjustable downward. This is obviously not a correct assumption. Every club is infinitely adjustable downward, not just wedges. People choose to hit a lower club instead because the success rate is higher with full shots.

I am not sure really that assumption is even required, you can just say that there are 10 yards difference between each club and your aim is to hit the target within 10 yards (since your paper does not care about putting anyway) and make an assumption that anything below minimum wedge distance is same as the minimum wedge distance.

I also don't understand the choice of discussing elevation and wind direction's effect on shot distance but never discussing that in your body. You should just make an assumption that the course is perfectly flat and there is no wind. You are making a lot of assumptions to simplify your work, you might as well go all the way and eliminate some variables.

You can simplify further by making the error as a function of the shot distance (dispersion increases with the length), not per club. This would simplify your equations and make it more realistic.

I am also confused by your declaration that the choice of hitting a long shot and laying up ultimately does not matter since the probability of hitting the green is the same. Just because the probability of hitting rough + probability of hitting green = 1 does not mean that layup + long iron (from fairway) = long drive + short iron (from rough). And this seems to be the whole point of your paper, and I am just having a hard time agreeing with this.

This is not something that is just theoretical. A real life data is available today from PGA's Shot Link. You can verify your claim easily by checking the data to see if your hypothesis is reasonable.

I personally think it would be better to figure out, based on PGA Shot Link data, whether or not most pro's make correct strategic decision from most situations.

Let me know if I am making some erroneous reading of your paper.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2015, 11:42:27 PM »
New title.

"Rationalizing Bomb and Gouge in Tour Golf"

;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2015, 04:35:25 AM »
An obviously astute, Harvard-educated young man comes on here and opens his work to critique from the treehouse. Treehouse--mostly--responds not by engaging intellectually with the academic content of the paper, but by tearing down the premise of the paper itself. Color me surprised.  ::)

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2015, 06:06:12 AM »
Andrew, you seem to have put a lot of work into this so well done.

The only comment I can pass on is a comment from Jack Nicklaus, maybe the most rational/analytical golfer of all time, who said something like "If I reckon I can pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 I'll take it on. If my chances are less than 8/10, I'll find another option."

Although whilst 8/10 may be a valid anticipated success ratio at JN's personal skill level, for others a lower ratio will apply, even down to 1/10! But then again not all players are as rational/analytical as JN!

atb

abmack

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2015, 06:49:06 AM »
Andrew,

I think it's interesting to try to and create a model for something like this. What would be a great addition to this research would be of course the practical applications of your model with for example video analysis backing them up. Applying the model on a few different levels of players in order to effectively teach them to improve their course management skills - thus proving the validity of your model.

Now I didn't read everything in great detail do to lack of time so if you discussed exactly this point which I didn't see off hand, then my apologies. Those were the first thoughts that jumped into my mind.

I do think a complex model like this will be far to difficult for anyone but the most serious of players to utilize effectively.


David,

Thank you for your comment, this research is purely academic for the time being. I'm not really making any suggestions as to how golfers should behave. Frankly, I do not think that many golfers would want to play golf the way I suggest... How boring! My goal is to use this framework and future extensions to quantitatively identify/fail to identify whether great golf holes present strategy choices which have common relative risks... among other things. As I said in the paper developing these framework models is a necessary first step in order to examine these kinds of questions.

Andrew

abmack

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2015, 07:16:05 AM »
I read it. Will have to read again before making serious comment.

That said, snarky comments are easy enough....what will you be tackling next? An easier subject like "Understanding women?"

Seriously, my first take away is that the decision process is so far from linear (and as you posit, logical) that many more factors would have to plug into any equation.

I have picked the brains of many tour pros, and found the level of logical thinking (that they can explain verbally anyway) varies. I expect the level would vary more on lesser levels of play.

Also to be considered is how they feel on any given day.  Talking with Lanny Wadkins many years ago, asking how he would pay a hole, his response was "If I was feelling good, I would rope a draw down the speed slot and go for another fifty yards. If not so good, I would probably hit a conservative cut to the middle of the fairway."

How do you account for gut feel in any statistical analysis?  Game situation (down two with two to play, etc.)

Honest Question, because I do like the approach. I don't see 32 pages as being much more than a summary or a sub topic if you really got into it.  However, I will read it again, because I liked where it was going, even with those questions in mymind.

Jeff,

What makes you think that pros behave completely rationally, by this I mean that their behavior is not score-minimizing... As John has pointed out, they do not (see Phil Mickelson).

I think the process of advancing the ball from the tee to the green is linear. There are more subtleties but I do not see a problem with summing up expected shot outcomes.

abmack

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2015, 07:21:50 AM »
Andrew,

Perhaps you could explain how this paper is relevant to your economic degree?


Congratulations on finding an interesting thesis concept.  Have fun.  If that's possible for economists.


There are a lot of economists who study golf, though often as a side interest, eg. Mark Brodie. The scope of questions which fall under the umbrella of economics is rapidly expanding. Especially for behavioral economics.

See:
Pope, D.G. and M.E. Schweitzer. 2011. "Is Tiger Woods Risk Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes," American Economic Review, 101(1): 129-157.

Free Download:
http://whartonsportsbiz.org/documents/research/IsTigerWoodsLossAverse.pdf



I have already written a thesis which was an empirical investigation of an entirely different subject.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 07:33:56 AM by abmack »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2015, 07:23:11 AM »
I mentioned Phil not for his style of play but more for his legendary deep thought.

abmack

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2015, 07:43:11 AM »
Eric,

What about tournament play?

During casual rounds, don't you think about course management?

AB,

A problem you face is the inability to identify and differentiate a good decision from a bad outcome.

I've made thousands upon thousands of good decisions that resulted in bad outcomes.

I've also made bad decisions that produced exceptionally good results.


While you may not like this type of approach, I think that as I build on this research, I will be able to identify/quantify what combinations of risks  distinguish great holes.

The body doesn't always obey the mind.
Put another way, "The best laid plans of......"

Often, the architect misleads or deceives the golfer, causing them to make bad decisions.

Then, there are those golfers who make nothing but bad decisions.

Why should that golfer determine the architectural value of a hole ?



and yes, this is how economists think about the world.

Patrick,

1.     If you read my paper more carefully, you'll see that I do distinguish between good strategy and bad outcomes. I assume that regardless
       of the strategy that a player chooses, there is a probability of a bad outcome. These outcomes are associated with lower probabilities of
       hitting a good second shot.

2.     I agree with you that architects often mislead or deceive the player, causing them to make bad decisions. How they do this is something I seek to identify and quantify, eventually.

Andrew

Joe Zucker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2015, 11:03:31 AM »
I have just read through the paper and it is an interesting approach to formalizing something we discuss a lot on this site.  Even if a rigorous mathematical approach does not yield a complete answer to this question, the fact that Andrew attempted this is worthwhile.  Very little innovation or progress comes without failure, so it is great to see a new approach even if it has some shortcomings.

Secondly, a few have noted that the assumptions may not be realistic, but that doesn't bother me since my training is in economics too.  As a Harvard educated economist, I'm assuming you have read Friedman's article on methodology (Methodology of Positive Economics, I think) and we know that assumptions are good if they help the model deliver accurate results even if the assumptions are not totally accurate.  I think the criticism is good and assumptions should be improved where possible, but it is a known short coming and probably not immediately solvable.

Finally, the part of the paper most lacking to me is the discussion at the end.  How can the findings of the paper practically inform a player?  You mentioned that most golf you see is "irrational" from a score perspective and I agree with that, but how can this be improved?  I know you paper is looking at amateur golf, but discussing the role of strategy for a bomb and gouge player vs. a short strategic tour player could be interesting.  Basically, I would try to add more context to how golf is actually played.  A lot of the comments here seem to hint that golf is more art than math, which is probably true, so including more of the artistic and feel aspect of the game into the discussion section while blending it with your interesting mathematical approach would yield a more complete picture.

Regardless of where this research goes, approaching the game from an unorthodox position is good food for thought.

abmack

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2015, 12:36:24 PM »
I have just read through the paper and it is an interesting approach to formalizing something we discuss a lot on this site.  Even if a rigorous mathematical approach does not yield a complete answer to this question, the fact that Andrew attempted this is worthwhile.  Very little innovation or progress comes without failure, so it is great to see a new approach even if it has some shortcomings.

Secondly, a few have noted that the assumptions may not be realistic, but that doesn't bother me since my training is in economics too.  As a Harvard educated economist, I'm assuming you have read Friedman's article on methodology (Methodology of Positive Economics, I think) and we know that assumptions are good if they help the model deliver accurate results even if the assumptions are not totally accurate.  I think the criticism is good and assumptions should be improved where possible, but it is a known short coming and probably not immediately solvable.

Finally, the part of the paper most lacking to me is the discussion at the end.  How can the findings of the paper practically inform a player?  You mentioned that most golf you see is "irrational" from a score perspective and I agree with that, but how can this be improved?  I know you paper is looking at amateur golf, but discussing the role of strategy for a bomb and gouge player vs. a short strategic tour player could be interesting.  Basically, I would try to add more context to how golf is actually played.  A lot of the comments here seem to hint that golf is more art than math, which is probably true, so including more of the artistic and feel aspect of the game into the discussion section while blending it with your interesting mathematical approach would yield a more complete picture.

Regardless of where this research goes, approaching the game from an unorthodox position is good food for thought.

Joe,

Thank you for excellent and insightful comments. I posted my paper on GCA hoping for exactly this kind of feedback. Very soon, I will post a response to these and other criticisms. Mainly defending my assumptions. I will also lay out how I intend to improve upon this paper. I hope you will let me know what you think when I finish and post.

Much appreciated,

Andrew

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2015, 01:09:31 PM »
Andrew --

It is no fault of yours that I couldn't make myself finish your paper. I got my fill of academic papers 40 years ago -- and am not enough of a mathematician to make any useful critiques of your thinking.

But you asked for feedback, and I (an editor) have this one minuscule (correctly spelled!) thing to tell you:

Periods and commas go INSIDE quotation marks.

Thanks.

Dan

« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 01:19:54 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2015, 01:25:25 PM »
Andrew --

It is no fault of yours that I couldn't make myself finish your paper. I got my fill of academic papers 40 years ago -- and am not enough of a mathematician to make any useful critiques of your thinking.

But you asked for feedback, and I (an editor) have this one minuscule (correctly spelled!) thing to tell you:

Periods and commas go INSIDE quotation marks.

Thanks.

Dan



The discretionary rule in The King's English is the way to go.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Eric Strulowitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2015, 03:59:30 PM »
Eric,

What about tournament play?

During casual rounds, don't you think about course management?

While you may not like this type of approach, I think that as I build on this research, I will be able to identify/quantify what combinations of risks  distinguish great holes.

and yes, this is how economists think about the world.

I certainly will not hold my breath as this "research" unfolds.

I have taken many courses in Economics, and what a joke they  were.  Trying to quantify everything with endless graphs and equations.  Trying to make what is often irrational and random,  rational and predictable.  Amazing to me that there are people in education and in government who have never managed a business, never had to hire or fire or manage the complexities of a work force, having to deal with endless regs, a ridiculous tax system, and staying one step above the competition.    And these are the people making the decisions for us and using our economy and real lives as a playground to test their silly and conflicting theories.  The biggest joke is trying to make this all scientific.  Just like you are trying to introduce science and equations to how golf decisions are made.  It does not work anywhere but the glass menagerie of higher education.  The truth of the matter is, that when it comes to economic forecasting, choosing alternatives , picking a portfolio , or whatever, studies have shown elementary school kids to outperform these  so-called experts with the charts, graphs, and formulas.

This research study is certainly benign, have at it, whatever gives you pleasure in this short precious life is great.  So , I wish you the best of luck with this and do applaud your apparent passion.  That comment you made about this being how economists view the world, that is very scary, more scary than the scariest of horror movies.      Like most studies  in the social "Sciences" it  tries to make the unquantifiable quantifiable.  As someone that has managed hundreds of people over the years, and run small businesses, and worked as an employee for large employerss, just when all is running seemingly smooth, you get a curve ball thrown.  The more you think you got it all figured out, the more you learn how little you do know.   You have got to rely on instinct, and be flexible, and know which resources to call in, you don't have the luxury in the real world of ust falling back on a graph, equation, or economic model .  We could certainly say the samething for golf, that is the attraction, the endless curve balls.   The real economy is one curve ball after the next, and you survive based on how you cope with these curve balls,  Graphs, equations, and economic models won't do a bit of good, except in some classroom or thesis paper.  There are too many variables, too many unknowns, the assumptions are subject to endless debate, and most of all, human behavior can be irrational and unpredictable,  humans beings and the economy do not work like economist's  graphs and equations do, that is just a lot of smokescreen that gives the intellectual community a sense of superiority, and keeps a lot of people in the glass towers employed.  And while the glass tower dwellers are drawing their next graph, or preparing their next economic model, the rest of us have to deal with the real world and in spite off all the stupidity and obstacles thrown at us, trying to make it work.  We make it work not because of all the self absorbed, pseudo intellectual economic thinkers out there, we do it in spite of them.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 04:41:44 PM by Eric Strulowitz »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2015, 04:38:56 PM »
Geeze, Eric. Lighten up! The guy is a student and tried to incorporate golf and golf course architecture into a class assignment...

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2015, 05:21:01 PM »
 8)
"Given that the goal of the game is to achieve the minimum possible score
on a hole or over a round, I argue that the most rational approach to playing golf involves an agent minimizing his expected score on a hole given a choice of strategies."

isn't this statement  from the department of redundancy department?  doesn't it need to be clarified or reworked to separate purpose and objectives... after all, there are rational and irrational strategies which are equally effective.
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

abmack

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2015, 05:39:44 PM »
Eric,

What about tournament play?

During casual rounds, don't you think about course management?

While you may not like this type of approach, I think that as I build on this research, I will be able to identify/quantify what combinations of risks  distinguish great holes.

and yes, this is how economists think about the world.

I certainly will not hold my breath as this "research" unfolds.

I have taken many courses in Economics, and what a joke they  were.  Trying to quantify everything with endless graphs and equations.  Trying to make what is often irrational and random,  rational and predictable.  Amazing to me that there are people in education and in government who have never managed a business, never had to hire or fire or manage the complexities of a work force, having to deal with endless regs, a ridiculous tax system, and staying one step above the competition.    And these are the people making the decisions for us and using our economy and real lives as a playground to test their silly and conflicting theories.  The biggest joke is trying to make this all scientific.  Just like you are trying to introduce science and equations to how golf decisions are made.  It does not work anywhere but the glass menagerie of higher education.  The truth of the matter is, that when it comes to economic forecasting, choosing alternatives , picking a portfolio , or whatever, studies have shown elementary school kids to outperform these  so-called experts with the charts, graphs, and formulas.

This research study is certainly benign, have at it, whatever gives you pleasure in this short precious life is great.  So , I wish you the best of luck with this and do applaud your apparent passion.  That comment you made about this being how economists view the world, that is very scary, more scary than the scariest of horror movies.      Like most studies  in the social "Sciences" it  tries to make the unquantifiable quantifiable.  As someone that has managed hundreds of people over the years, and run small businesses, and worked as an employee for large employerss, just when all is running seemingly smooth, you get a curve ball thrown.  The more you think you got it all figured out, the more you learn how little you do know.   You have got to rely on instinct, and be flexible, and know which resources to call in, you don't have the luxury in the real world of ust falling back on a graph, equation, or economic model .  We could certainly say the samething for golf, that is the attraction, the endless curve balls.   The real economy is one curve ball after the next, and you survive based on how you cope with these curve balls,  Graphs, equations, and economic models won't do a bit of good, except in some classroom or thesis paper.  There are too many variables, too many unknowns, the assumptions are subject to endless debate, and most of all, human behavior can be irrational and unpredictable,  humans beings and the economy do not work like economist's  graphs and equations do, that is just a lot of smokescreen that gives the intellectual community a sense of superiority, and keeps a lot of people in the glass towers employed.  And while the glass tower dwellers are drawing their next graph, or preparing their next economic model, the rest of us have to deal with the real world and in spite off all the stupidity and obstacles thrown at us, trying to make it work.  We make it work not because of all the self absorbed, pseudo intellectual economic thinkers out there, we do it in spite of them.

Eric,

This is not a forum for me to defend economics so I won't. You may find it surprisingly but I agree with a lot of what you say. The burdens of the endless regulations and disfunctional tax system certainly have been instituted by people who are disconnected from reality. I would consider who is responsible for this system... I think it's the politicians.

Nevertheless, your objection to the field is duly noted.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #45 on: May 12, 2015, 05:57:20 PM »
8)
"Given that the goal of the game is to achieve the minimum possible score
on a hole or over a round, I argue that the most rational approach to playing golf involves an agent minimizing his expected score on a hole given a choice of strategies."

isn't this statement  from the department of redundancy department?  doesn't it need to be clarified or reworked to separate purpose and objectives... after all, there are rational and irrational strategies which are equally effective.

I think he is simply using classic economic terms, and "rational behavior" has a precise meaning:

DEFINITION OF 'RATIONAL BEHAVIOR'
A decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the individual. Most conventional economic theories are created and used under the assumption that all individuals taking part in an action/activity are behaving rationally.


JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior New
« Reply #46 on: May 12, 2015, 05:59:40 PM »
Eric,

What about tournament play?

During casual rounds, don't you think about course management?

While you may not like this type of approach, I think that as I build on this research, I will be able to identify/quantify what combinations of risks  distinguish great holes.

and yes, this is how economists think about the world.

I certainly will not hold my breath as this "research" unfolds.

I have taken many courses in Economics, and what a joke they  were.  Trying to quantify everything with endless graphs and equations.  Trying to make what is often irrational and random,  rational and predictable.  Amazing to me that there are people in education and in government who have never managed a business, never had to hire or fire or manage the complexities of a work force, having to deal with endless regs, a ridiculous tax system, and staying one step above the competition.    And these are the people making the decisions for us and using our economy and real lives as a playground to test their silly and conflicting theories.  The biggest joke is trying to make this all scientific.  Just like you are trying to introduce science and equations to how golf decisions are made.  It does not work anywhere but the glass menagerie of higher education.  The truth of the matter is, that when it comes to economic forecasting, choosing alternatives , picking a portfolio , or whatever, studies have shown elementary school kids to outperform these  so-called experts with the charts, graphs, and formulas.

This research study is certainly benign, have at it, whatever gives you pleasure in this short precious life is great.  So , I wish you the best of luck with this and do applaud your apparent passion.  That comment you made about this being how economists view the world, that is very scary, more scary than the scariest of horror movies.      Like most studies  in the social "Sciences" it  tries to make the unquantifiable quantifiable.  As someone that has managed hundreds of people over the years, and run small businesses, and worked as an employee for large employerss, just when all is running seemingly smooth, you get a curve ball thrown.  The more you think you got it all figured out, the more you learn how little you do know.   You have got to rely on instinct, and be flexible, and know which resources to call in, you don't have the luxury in the real world of ust falling back on a graph, equation, or economic model .  We could certainly say the samething for golf, that is the attraction, the endless curve balls.   The real economy is one curve ball after the next, and you survive based on how you cope with these curve balls,  Graphs, equations, and economic models won't do a bit of good, except in some classroom or thesis paper.  There are too many variables, too many unknowns, the assumptions are subject to endless debate, and most of all, human behavior can be irrational and unpredictable,  humans beings and the economy do not work like economist's  graphs and equations do, that is just a lot of smokescreen that gives the intellectual community a sense of superiority, and keeps a lot of people in the glass towers employed.  And while the glass tower dwellers are drawing their next graph, or preparing their next economic model, the rest of us have to deal with the real world and in spite off all the stupidity and obstacles thrown at us, trying to make it work.  We make it work not because of all the self absorbed, pseudo intellectual economic thinkers out there, we do it in spite of them.

You're a weird dude to come at a kid like this and use his intellectual endeavor as your opportunity to sound off against whatever the hell it is you're sounding off against.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 05:30:47 AM by JC Jones (Puerto Rico) »
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #47 on: May 12, 2015, 06:45:21 PM »
Andrew,

have not read it yet but there may be situations where not maximizing score is rational.  I.e. gamesmanship in a Match.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #48 on: May 12, 2015, 06:52:22 PM »
The Freakonomics guys are writing a book that sounds very similar to your paper.  They've run a couple of data mining days at different courses, but I suspect their results may be seriously flawed as Jud was a participant in one.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Model of Rational Golf Course Behavior
« Reply #49 on: May 12, 2015, 07:25:50 PM »
 ;D Garbage in, garbage out....
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak