[Steve Lang]

   Does anyone use handicaps for flighting, play real golf in competition...  payout to top half of flights?

[A.G._Crockett]

The sandbagger endangers everyone in the field but themself and a possible partner(depends on format). The Vanity handicap only imperils themself and a possible partner while the field gains an advantage by their presence.

Not exactly.  If a large field net event is flighted, and if you assume that at least some of the vanity guys are playing in lower flights than they should be, then it also means that other players are in higher flights than they should be.  Some players see their chances for winning improve, others see their chances diminish.  In any event, the results are impacted by players with inaccurate indexes; it isn't a "victimless crime".

[jeffwarne]

The sandbagger endangers everyone in the field but themself and a possible partner(depends on format). The Vanity handicap only imperils themself and a possible partner while the field gains an advantage by their presence.

Not exactly.  If a large field net event is flighted, and if you assume that at least some of the vanity guys are playing in lower flights than they should be, then it also means that other players are in higher flights than they should be.  Some players see their chances for winning improve, others see their chances diminish.  In any event, the results are impacted by players with inaccurate indexes; it isn't a "victimless crime".

and the vanities often fill spots in State Ams, etc with a minimum handicap required to enter.


The biggest offenders have handicaps that "float" from a number low enough to enter such events, to substantially higher later in the summer for Member-Guests, handicapped events.
Not uncommon to see a "1" in April, turn into a "7" by August, with zero change in ability of player

[Steve Lang]

   Are these probabilities realistic or themselves understated?


https://oga.org/sites/default/files/Probability%20Table.pdf

[Jason Thurman]

Steve, I have no clue... but I suspect they're calculated based on posted scores in the database. Which, as we've spent four pages discussing, might be the best source of data available and also a deeply flawed source of data.


Someone earlier said that the point of playing events at 80% handicap or whatever is to combat sandbagging. I don't think that's correct, but I do think playing at 80% handicap or whatever helps to mitigate the part where it's easier for somebody with a high handicap to "go low" vs somebody with a low one.

[jeffwarne]

  Are these probabilities realistic or themselves understated?


https://oga.org/sites/default/files/Probability%20Table.pdf

They are created by far greater math minds than mine, and work in many instances...but


It really depends on the type of player and where they establish their handicap vs. where they are playing that day.
CR and Slope are supposed to account for this, but a sprayer with a decent iron and short game who loses 7-8 balls on a disaster frought lost ball course and shoots 85-95 regularly COULD easily shot 74 at a course with parallel fairways and light rough-something that the slope and CR won't adjust enough for.


I see it quite often.

[A.G._Crockett]

  Does anyone use handicaps for flighting, play real golf in competition...  payout to top half of flights?

or
If I understand this question correctly, the answer is yes.  As a "for instance", the Carolinas Golf Association runs a ton of four ball and individual tournaments that have both a gross and net payout component.  Some, though not most, are flighted, and the flights are based on indexes.  In the tournaments themselves, you are playing "real golf"; playing the ball down, putting out, full penalties, etc.  Interestingly, at least to me, the CGA typically pays two places in gross, three in net; I've always assumed that the goal is to give higher indexes a feeling that they have at least some chance to win; the guys that win gross tend to win more often anyway.

A couple of other notes about the CGA and indexes: 


1. The CGA has and applies several rules for dealing with some of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread.  In tournament play, they apply a rule that says that if a player betters his index by a differential of 15 or more shots, then he cannot win the net event, and his index is adjusted in the next CGA event that he plays.

2. In interclub four ball match play, which is a HUGE component of what the CGA does, players play off their low index for the last 12 months, rather than their current index, and the captains submit their lineup to the CGA, which then makes the pairings both of teammates AND opponents, based solely on indexes.  The net effect, pun intended, is to really reduce the number of strokes given; it is not uncommon to play a CGA interclub match with only one or two strokes given, and sometimes NO strokes.

3. Again referring to interclub play, the CGA will reduce the index of a player for the next match if he plays a round and betters his index by a certain amount; forgive me for not remembering what the specific numbers are.  We had ONE round on our team last year that was even close to the margin for this, so it isn't very common.

If you can't tell, I'm a HUGE fan of the CGA for a lot of reasons, including how they handle all of this stuff.  But as has been mentioned, OVERSIGHT is a huge part of the handicap system if the system is run correctly.  If a club doesn't do this, the system just will not work properly.  This includes things like periodically reviewing the tee sheet to see if particular players are regularly posting ALL scores.

FWIW, I don't like losing to a guy with a suspect index any more than anybody else does.  In our last interclub match, we lost 2 up to a team where a 8 index shot a 71.  This guy plays 3 or 4 times a week, but when I looked him up, he had posted less than 10 rounds so far in 2021, and to get his 20th round, you had to go back to LAST JULY!  And he had shot 72 in a competitive round just a week or so before he dropped the 71 on us.  I don't like that this guy is doing this, but the easiest way to stop it is for the his club to do the due diligence to make the system work right.

[Steve Lang]

 
I see the USGA's exceptional tourney score probability table is referenced to 2012-2015 analyses, and wonder if, but don't expect the basic story to change if it was updated, i.e., its more improbable for the lower index player to shoot significantly better scores than the high index player.




I wasn't looking for this but saw it and found it interesting example, on the new world system...


https://youtu.be/BfbVjq3csP8?t=323

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I wasn't looking for this but saw it and found it interesting example, on the new world system...

https://youtu.be/BfbVjq3csP8?t=323

I think it was already talked about, and he only has ten scores so only three count:
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html - Rule 5.2

[Garland Bayley]

I see the USGA's exceptional tourney score probability table is referenced to 2012-2015 analyses, and wonder if, but don't expect the basic story to change if it was updated, i.e., its more improbable for the lower index player to shoot significantly better scores than the high index player.

...

I doubt there would be any significant change to the analyses leading to the score probability table. The only change to the calculation of the index is average of eight best, vs. average of ten best times .96. They claim the difference this makes is insignificant. From that I conclude there would be no significant change to the probability table.

[archie_struthers]

 


My last shot for this year ....do you really think that you should be rated  based on your potential or what you shoot day after day....no mas

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My last shot for this year ....do you really think that you should play this game based on your potential or what you shoot day after day....no mas

I don't think you were asking me, but… i'm good with the former: potential.

Particularly since in match play a 14 often doesn't make 14 bogeys and four pars.

[Pete Lavallee]

My last shot for this year ....do you really think that you should be rated  based on your potential or what you shoot day after day....no mas

Archie,


The US system has always been set up so you only shoot lower than your handicap 1 in 4 try’s; although technically it’s now 4 out of 10. If handicaps were set up to be an average of your last 20 scores you and most importantly your opponent would best their handicap 50% of the time. Is that the world you want to live in?

[archie_struthers]

 


Ok Pete, you dragged me back in. Way too easy


I don't care much about whether I shoot over or under my handicap as long as it accurately reflects my game. There are always ebbs and flows even with the best players in world. So if my average score is 80 my handicap (or yours) shouldn't be 3.5

[A.G._Crockett]

My last shot for this year ....do you really think that you should be rated  based on your potential or what you shoot day after day....no mas

It has to be "potential".  If indexes were averages, then the ability to massage the system would be more, not less.  And if YOUR index was based on YOUR average, everybody else's would be, too. 

So the sandbagger that is carrying a 10 index and shoots a gross 72 and maybe a net 64 NOW sees his index go down by a lot after a score like because it's one score out of 8 and might be "replacing" a much higher score as one of the 8.  Conversely, if that score is one of 20, his average changes by much less.

[Garland Bayley]

Archie,

Why don't you just agree with your buddies to handicap your games with the average of the last 8 scores, and ditch USGA handicap for your games. If you want to enter a future event, you will still post your scores and maintain a USGA handicap for that. You can just get the last 8 scores from the USGA system, so no book keeping, just a little math.

[Ken Moum]

This is a curious one. Surprising or not? - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfbVjq3csP8
Atb

Not at all.  The courses he played included some very long difficult courses of 7,000 yards.  Shooting even par at such courses will yield a handicap in the plus range under this system. 


The idea is to make shooting even par net equally difficult from course to course.  If 5.

I watched that the other day and I can tell you two things.


Rick and his podcast guy don't understand the handicap system


He only played 11 rounds, and only had THREE rounds that counted for his "new" handicap.


The first isn't relevant to this discussion, but I can pretty much assure you that if he played 20 rounds he wouldn't be sporting a + index.  I am a fan of his channel and watched all the "Break 75" videos he pretty good, but not that good.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't care much about whether I shoot over or under my handicap as long as it accurately reflects my game. There are always ebbs and flows even with the best players in world. So if my average score is 80 my handicap (or yours) shouldn't be 3.5

You're using the word "shouldn't" as if it's a universal truth or fact.

It's not. Handicap, slope, etc. are all man-made constructs. The handicapping folks at the USGA/R&A have decided that your handicap index should be about your potential moreso than your "average," so it "should" be 3.5 (or whatever it is).

Also, it's still 1 out of every 5. 8/20 = 4/20 should be below your index, with 4/20 still below your average differential but above your index. It was 1 out of 5 before, too, again because of the 0.96 multiplier.

[Carl Nichols]

I don't care much about whether I shoot over or under my handicap as long as it accurately reflects my game. There are always ebbs and flows even with the best players in world. So if my average score is 80 my handicap (or yours) shouldn't be 3.5

You're using the word "shouldn't" as if it's a universal truth or fact.

It's not. Handicap, slope, etc. are all man-made constructs. The handicapping folks at the USGA/R&A have decided that your handicap index should be about your potential moreso than your "average," so it "should" be 3.5 (or whatever it is).

Also, it's still 1 out of every 5. 8/20 = 4/20 should be below your index, with 4/20 still below your average differential but above your index. It was 1 out of 5 before, too, again because of the 0.96 multiplier.

Also, being a 3.5 index doesn't even mean you averaged 3.5 strokes over par in your best 8 of 20.  It means something more like you averaged 3.5 strokes over the various course ratings with slope adjustment thrown in as well.  A 3.5 index is a 7 handicap from the 6600 yard tees at my (par 70) home course, and an 8 from the back tees.

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't care much about whether I shoot over or under my handicap as long as it accurately reflects my game. There are always ebbs and flows even with the best players in world. So if my average score is 80 my handicap (or yours) shouldn't be 3.5

You're using the word "shouldn't" as if it's a universal truth or fact.

It's not. Handicap, slope, etc. are all man-made constructs. The handicapping folks at the USGA/R&A have decided that your handicap index should be about your potential moreso than your "average," so it "should" be 3.5 (or whatever it is).

Also, it's still 1 out of every 5. 8/20 = 4/20 should be below your index, with 4/20 still below your average differential but above your index. It was 1 out of 5 before, too, again because of the 0.96 multiplier.

Also, being a 3.5 index doesn't even mean you averaged 3.5 strokes over par in your best 8 of 20.  It means something more like you averaged 3.5 strokes over the various course ratings with slope adjustment thrown in as well.  A 3.5 index is a 7 handicap from the 6600 yard tees at my (par 70) home course, and an 8 from the back tees.

Actually, a 3.5 means that your 8 low differentials out of the last 20 rounds averaged 3.5 above the various course ratings for those rounds.  In theory, all 8 could have been on different courses or from different tees, with no two course ratings the same.

Often, though, the course rating is at least slightly below par, so a player with a 3.5 index is a really, really good; if for instance the course rating is 70.0, that guy may very well have broken par once or twice among his last 20 rounds.  And that's good golf, always.

[Thomas Dai]

Curious to know if many folks in countries where the new hcp system is a radical change to what they’ve long been used to are submitting scores for every round or just rounds in formal club etc competitions?
Atb

[Carl Nichols]

I don't care much about whether I shoot over or under my handicap as long as it accurately reflects my game. There are always ebbs and flows even with the best players in world. So if my average score is 80 my handicap (or yours) shouldn't be 3.5

You're using the word "shouldn't" as if it's a universal truth or fact.

It's not. Handicap, slope, etc. are all man-made constructs. The handicapping folks at the USGA/R&A have decided that your handicap index should be about your potential moreso than your "average," so it "should" be 3.5 (or whatever it is).

Also, it's still 1 out of every 5. 8/20 = 4/20 should be below your index, with 4/20 still below your average differential but above your index. It was 1 out of 5 before, too, again because of the 0.96 multiplier.

Also, being a 3.5 index doesn't even mean you averaged 3.5 strokes over par in your best 8 of 20.  It means something more like you averaged 3.5 strokes over the various course ratings with slope adjustment thrown in as well.  A 3.5 index is a 7 handicap from the 6600 yard tees at my (par 70) home course, and an 8 from the back tees.

Actually, a 3.5 means that your 8 low differentials out of the last 20 rounds averaged 3.5 above the various course ratings for those rounds.  In theory, all 8 could have been on different courses or from different tees, with no two course ratings the same.

Often, though, the course rating is at least slightly below par, so a player with a 3.5 index is a really, really good; if for instance the course rating is 70.0, that guy may very well have broken par once or twice among his last 20 rounds.  And that's good golf, always.

AG:
I'm not sure where you think we disagree; I guess I didn't include the qualifier "8 of the last 20" in my second sentence, but I just didn't restate that part.  I think we agree completely here.

[Wayne_Kozun]

My last shot for this year ....do you really think that you should be rated  based on your potential or what you shoot day after day....no mas

Archie,


The US system has always been set up so you only shoot lower than your handicap 1 in 4 try’s; although technically it’s now 4 out of 10. If handicaps were set up to be an average of your last 20 scores you and most importantly your opponent would best their handicap 50% of the time. Is that the world you want to live in?

Rather than 4 out of 10, isn't the new system set up that you only better your handicap in 4 out of 20 rounds?  The handicap is the average of the best 8 rounds of your last 20,  and you will beat the average half of the time, so 4 out of those 8 rounds.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Steve, I have no clue... but I suspect they're calculated based on posted scores in the database. Which, as we've spent four pages discussing, might be the best source of data available and also a deeply flawed source of data.

I wonder if the table is based on actual data or on a normal distribution curve with higher handicappers having a higher standard deviation? 

For those with experience in financial risk management this is like doing a Value at Risk (VaR) calculation.  As in, there is a 95% probability that you will lose less than 12% in a given year => a 13 handicap will have a diff of no lower than -3 95.3% of the time.

[Sean_A]

Curious to know if many folks in countries where the new hcp system is a radical change to what they’ve long been used to are submitting scores for every round or just rounds in formal club etc competitions?
Atb

I have submitted one score, the only comp I played. Not gonna bother posting casual round golf. I do note that a lot if younger guys I know are posting casual rounds.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()