Forums

Re: Figuring Score Average

• EasyEdward 13,507 Posts

  Tue, Apr 2 2013 11:38 AM

  alosso:

  I thought of you when I wrote that line.

  While I hope never to try a precise calculation, it struck me how easily I would find an approximate no. from two samples. It may vary by about 20 scores, between 255 and 275, but the possible variation of the average itself seems to modify this only by one stroke.

  With a few samples more, five or max. 10, of average, score, resulting average, it should be possible to come to a possible variation only a few scores.

  It's certainly easier to note the ranked rounds in the stats when becoming a Legend :)

  First 100% agree - it is WAY easier to note the number of rounds played upon entering Legend than to back calculate it.

  5 rounds MIGHT be enough if the person is in the 250 - 275 rounds played AND they do not score near their averge in a number of those rounds For example, say their average was 67.00 (+/-) 0.005 if all they hit in the next 5 rounds were alternating 33s and 34s it would be hard to get it close.

  10 rounds for certain can get within 2-5 rounds even if the scores are not all that wildly diverse  

  There is one last piece of info that has to be remembered - the average HAS to be the division of 2 whole numbers.  Average is total strokes played / total rounds played.    (in the level you are in AND if not saturated).

  As far as I know there is no way to score a 72.5 nor is there a way to play 0.667 of a round.

  :P

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Tue, Apr 2 2013 12:49 PM

  Agreed.

  I was thinking of voluntarily offset scores - one or two rounds played approx. 5 / 10 strokes above the average (or below, if possible). This offset apparently made the random example above easy.

  The numerical peculiarities - e.g. division of two whole numbers - may help to narrow the final result. Alas, I fear that it's wagging the dog with it's tail - the variability of the average itself is feeble, e.g. 66.36 => 66.355 to 66.3649 (.15 ppm), and the sample incertainty is in the second decimal of the visual variation, .02 => .015 to .0249 (50%).

  Nevertheless, it may help in some area.

• EasyEdward 13,507 Posts

  Tue, Apr 2 2013 2:12 PM

  alosso:

  Agreed.

  I was thinking of voluntarily offset scores - one or two rounds played approx. 5 / 10 strokes above the average (or below, if possible). This offset apparently made the random example above easy.

  The numerical peculiarities - e.g. division of two whole numbers - may help to narrow the final result. Alas, I fear that it's wagging the dog with it's tail - the variability of the average itself is feeble, e.g. 66.36 => 66.355 to 66.3649 (.15 ppm), and the sample incertainty is in the second decimal of the visual variation, .02 => .015 to .0249 (50%).

  Nevertheless, it may help in some area.

  Exactly, HOWEVER the peculiarities of the two whole numbers leads to four possibilities OF STROKES TAKEN for each number of rounds played which are trying to be back calculated based on conventional rounding and the decimal points WGT shows us. In other words, four different number of total strokes taken lead to the same average when talking about the Legend Tier and the player has played over the 200 rounds that show up in a score history.

  The defining moment in the calculation is when you have back calculated the range of rounds to say within 10 rounds AND then calculate those 40 possibilities for the actual starting average to the “Nth”decimal point.  Then run ach of those 40 possibilities and see if all the interim scores and average changes perfrm exactly as they did for the player. Only 1 or 2 will pass the test.

  It was fun trying to see if I could do it – but even with the program ready it would be a chore to do again.

   

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Wed, Apr 3 2013 3:32 AM

  OIC - a task for a numbercruncher...

  Should be fun to include these procedures into a database like Access. Thus they become better reproducable and can be applied to different datasets.

   

• EasyEdward 13,507 Posts

  Wed, Apr 3 2013 9:24 AM

  alosso:

  OIC - a task for a numbercruncher...

  Should be fun to include these procedures into a database like Access. Thus they become better reproducable and can be applied to different datasets.

   

   

  It would be easier to use Access but I decided against buying Access on my last Office upgrade.

  With cells somewhat programable in Excel what I have to do is manually enter the starting average, the the 10 scores and the 10 resultant averages.  The longer task then (if say I get to a range of 10 possiblitis is to manually cut and paste  each of the 40 posibilities into the place ofor the starting average then visibly inspect the recalculated predicted average against the WGT shown average to see which 1 or 2 still obtain the WGT average.