Forums

Re: average

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Fri, Mar 7 2014 10:19 AM

  keidan:

  I take some of the statements in WGT FAQ with a grain of salt e.g. they state "completing a bad round will not negatively impact your Average Score or Tier" but I know from forum posts and experience that your average can certainly go up until you reach a "saturation" or min number of rounds for a given tier.

  You are correct for the moment, but not from a general viewpoint.

  Looking at the rounds in one tier, only the very best 50 rounds as a Tour Master will count - regardless all the other rounds. Thus, it's irrelevant if a 70 round is finished or cancelled, it's OUT anyway. They don't affect the promotional average.

  keidan:

  I just can't see WGT arbitrarily dropping a player's average by some fraction as a result of winning a match to higher tiered player... although I suppose stranger things have happened.

  Yes they do (or, did). Two match wins against Legends dropped my TM average by 0.7 each (16 months ago). Conditions may have changed now, but I take the reports up here for granted.

• keidan 311 Posts

  Fri, Mar 7 2014 11:29 AM

  alosso:

  You are correct for the moment, but not from a general viewpoint.

  Looking at the rounds in one tier, only the very best 50 rounds as a Tour Master will count - regardless all the other rounds. Thus, it's irrelevant if a 70 round is finished or cancelled, it's OUT anyway. They don't affect the promotional average.

  Totally agree.  I was just indicating that there are situations where your average can indeed go up despite assurance to the contrary in the FAQ statement.

  alosso:

  Yes they do (or, did). Two match wins against Legends dropped my TM average by 0.7 each (16 months ago). Conditions may have changed now, but I take the reports up here for granted.

  Interesting!  To me anyway... I have not played any matches and was not aware of this.  What you are saying is that, via higher tier wins in match play, a player's average can potentially drop quite a bit from calculations of a weighted average or the "selective" average used after saturation. So chuddlymccannon's observation of higher scores (68+) with low avg (61) might be explained by this if they were all match play wins against a higher tier player.  

  Who knows, and like you imply, things can change in 16 months.  I am also curious in your case if the matches were completed i.e. went to 9 or 18 holes to post a score (higher/lower that your avg at the time?), or if they ended early by mutual agreement (which I understand is possible)?

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Fri, Mar 7 2014 12:05 PM

  Let me answer bottom to top.

  keidan:

  I am also curious in your case if the matches were completed i.e. went to 9 or 18 holes to post a score (higher/lower that your avg at the time?)

  Since my opponents and I fought in an inter-CC competition, these matches went to the end. Of course, faked wins are possible (nobody knows...) I can't tell the "score".

  keidan:

  What you are saying is that, via higher tier wins in match play, a player's average can potentially drop quite a bit from calculations of a weighted average or the "selective" average used after saturation.

  Yes. I had an offset of 1.4. And I'd go further: I have seen one or two players who became Legend without any Tour Master (and Master?) stroke play round. One of them played matches at KIA b9 continuously, where the disadvantage of Legends is most severe (one of my wins was there - my CC's course choice).

  keidan:

   I was just indicating that there are situations where your average can indeed go up despite assurance to the contrary in the FAQ statement.

  Here, a grain of salt is justified, as you said before ;)

• keidan 311 Posts

  Fri, Mar 7 2014 1:25 PM

  Thanks alosso, good stuff to know!  -Keith

• Chinajohn 1,190 Posts

  Fri, Mar 7 2014 5:15 PM

  Just to add:

  When I was a member of The Peoples Club a member decided to try and reverse engineer the formula for the effect on an average of beating a higher ranked player. This member is still in that club, is very much into Math and is quite good at it, he worked out that the reduction in your average was quite marked (he did come out with a number but I cannot remember what it was, Alosso's 0.7 doesn't sound unreasonable), but he also noted that the reduction in your average was reduced (i.e. the effect got less) over the next 25 rounds.

  He was careful only to beat an opponent once during this time to enable him to track the effect because as he said, if you were to beat someone else in that time you would have two (or more) different effects often countering each other, if you then add in the 'normal' effect of a stroke play game (especially after saturation), then it become near impossible to track.

  Finally, this was quite a while ago and things do change, for example I have since heard people give the opinion that this effect is only applied now if there is money at stake in the game and that this was brought in to counter those players who were getting a higher tiered 'friend' to deliberately throw a match so they could tier up earlier, (although for the life of me I cannot work out why they would want to do that, the legend tier is challenging enough with top level kit, I wouldn't want to think about it with beginner kit).

• alosso 21,094 Posts

  Sat, Mar 8 2014 2:11 AM

  Thank you, John, for sharing your memories.

  My case was within two months of the first installation of these effects, so it may have been quite raw, taking 2x 0.7 from my average.

  The discoveries of that TPC member sound reasonable, too: Take into account multiple matches, repeat opponents etc.

  From parallel discussions it seems evident though that this is not limited to challenge matches. Any rated match against a higher tier may count!