Forums

HANDICAP - Does this method even things up ???

• StormTigers 264 Posts

  Wed, Jul 18 2012 6:07 PM

  Folks

  Here's an idea we came up with for our Monthly Medal.

  We don't have any sand bagging fortunately BUT we were trying to come up with a fair way of handicapping rather than using current average which I find a bit not-applicable in it's results at times.

  So here's the concept. We changed our Monthly Medal to a 4 round tournament.

  The first 3 round results are used to calculate the tournament playing average !

  The playing average is then applied to the final round only.

  Then the total shots for the first 3 rounds are added to the adjusted result of the fourth round !

  Heres an example

  Player Fred has average 65.5   

  Par 72 Course

  Fred tries sandbagging it and plays a 75 73 75 for first 3 rounds

  Total 223 against Par of 216  = -7

  Divide this by 3 giving us a handicap adjustment for Rnd 4 of -2.3333

  He then puts in a more to his average round of 64 becoming a nett 61.6667

  Total score for the Tournament is 223 + 57 = 284.6667

  Player John has average of 79.2

  Trying his hardest he puts in 78 80 77 for first 3 rounds

  Total 235 against Par of 216 = -19

  Divide this by 3 giving us a handicap adjustment for Rnd 4 of -6.3333

  He then posts a round of 78 for the final round which becomes a nett 71.6667

  Total Score for Tournament is 235 + 59 = 306.6667

  As you can see Fred has achieved his goal of sandbagging BUT there are other players at the same sort of average as Fred who are not trying to influence the result.

  Player George has average of 67.5 

  Playing as best he can he posts 69 64 68 for first 3 rounds

  Total 201 against Par of 216 = 15

  Divide this by 3 giving us a handicap adjustment for Rnd 4 of 5

  He then posts a 67 for the final round which becomes a nett 72

  Total Score for Tournament is 201 + 72 = 273  !

  Mr Sandbags (Fred)  isn't even in the running ! Even if Fred puts in another poor round in Rnd 4 all that does is increase his score substantially.

  So what has this achieved ?

  Well it sets a handicap based on a players current performances in a Tournament rather than using some average determined over way too many poor rounds. It helps the guys who can't shoot in the sub-par area by giving them an advantage in the last round which evens the game out a bit.

  
  

  Over to you people - what do you think of this idea ???

  Ignore this as I made some adjustment to the forumla. Basic story is the same but the calculations have altered

   

• Slowwedge 143 Posts

  Thu, Jul 19 2012 9:31 AM

  Recalculating for Player George gives 67+15=82 and not 72 as you wrote.

  201+82=283 and the sandbagger wins.

   

  So I would like to have more information before I can have an opinion.

• StormTigers 264 Posts

  Thu, Jul 19 2012 11:43 AM

  LOL Hence why I don't work on the Bern Particle Accelerator - we would have been doomed from the start.

  Yes you caught me out on some simple sums my friend AND I missed the step of dividing the adjustment by 3.

  Have another look above and I think (cross fingers cause I used a spreadsheet) I have it right now. 

  	Avg	WGT Hcp	PAR	RD1	RD2	RD3	3Rd Ttl	Diff	Adjust	RD4	Event Ttl
  Fred	65.50	6.50	72	73	75	75	223	-7	-2.33	64	284.67
  John	79.20	-7.20	72	78	80	77	235	-19	-6.33	78	306.67
  George	67.50	4.50	72	69	64	68	201	15	5.00	67	273.00

  Another idea is that we take the WGT Average into account as well and add that to the adjustment we found after his first 3 rounds. That benefits our trying high average player and adds a slight penalty to the score of the good player.

  	Avg	WGT Hcp	PAR	RD1	RD2	RD3	3Rd Ttl	Diff	Adjust	Rd4 Hcp	RD4	Event Ttl
  Fred	65.50	6.50	72	73	75	75	223	-7	-2.33	4.17	64	291.17
  John	79.20	-7.20	72	78	80	77	235	-19	-6.33	-13.53	78	299.47
  George	67.50	4.50	72	69	64	68	201	15	5.00	9.50	67	277.50

  George still wins easily and the rest of the guys are much closer in their results. The higher average player John has got a result more indicative of his handicap, the sandbagger Fred is another also ran.

  Another way would be to add WGT Handicap to the first 3 Rrd results then using the Adjustment and WGT Handicap which are added to the Rd4 result.

  This sees our high average player come out on top, the sandbagger is not in the hunt but not sure this would be fair to the good player who has performed reasonably well !

  	Avg	WGT Hcp	PAR	RD1	RD2	RD3	3Rd Ttl	Diff	Adjust	Rd4 Hcp	RD4	WGT3/Diff1
  Fred	65.50	6.50	72	73	75	75	223	-7	-2.33	4.17	64	310.67
  John	79.20	-7.20	72	78	80	77	235	-19	-6.33	-13.53	78	277.87
  George	67.50	4.50	72	69	64	68	201	15	5.00	9.50	67	291.00

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Thu, Jul 19 2012 12:03 PM

  TC9495, as the owner of Cosa Nostra CC, set up a handicap system based on a Player of the Month series he runs. Players compete for that honor and in the process provide him with actual scores to work off of. It works.  :-)

• StormTigers 264 Posts

  Thu, Jul 19 2012 12:32 PM

  Thanks Jim.

  I opened a can of worms really. The more I look at it the more I ask why not just use the WGT Average to create a handicap.

  The only reason I can think of NOT TO is the fact that the WGT Average is not really indicative of how a player is playing at the time of the event.

  Sandbagging is not my main issue it's trying to even the field up as Monthly Medal does for real. As a 15 handicapper in real world If I play to handicap or better I am in the running for the MM unless someone has a blitzer on the day. Normally though a lot of people are playing not to handicap by a few shots (or worse) and become the also rans.

  I figure by doing it over 4 rounds and making adjustments to scores based on combined performances over 4 rounds this should eliminate sandbagging and even the field up a bit for the higher average players to actually have a chance at winning the medal by playing well.

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Thu, Jul 19 2012 1:15 PM

  StormTigers:

  I figure by doing it over 4 rounds and making adjustments to scores based on combined performances over 4 rounds this should eliminate sandbagging and even the field up a bit for the higher average players to actually have a chance at winning the medal by playing well.

  This is what makes it work. The POTM comp in our CC is over a month-2 rounds a week at different courses-so it gives you a pretty accurate look at a player's ability (and it would be rather obvious if you were trying to sandbag.)  By using all of the courses during the month you also have the necessary course variety for a pretty accurate handicap.

• StormTigers 264 Posts

  Thu, Jul 19 2012 1:55 PM

  Yeah Jim sounds good way of doing it.

  I am trying to use the multi-round feature now available to save the setup problems which can happen if you have finger dyslexia (i.e create a game make a mistake can't delete it).

  Trouble is the WGT Average is such a poor guide to the player's current playing ability.

  It doesn;t really adjust for player blowouts or (as I did) persons having weeks of not fiding the ding on putts and hitting ridiculous scores.

   

• alosso 21,083 Posts

  Sun, Jul 22 2012 4:21 AM

  I don't understand why you mistrust the average - what are you trying to even up?

  In the deleted part you say "it includes too many bad rounds" which may only be true during the first floating time of the ave. shortly after a tier-up. En contraire, a well settled average (sandbagging excluded) preserves all the good rounds and those are behind who cannot keep their skills due to other obligations and whatnots.

  I haven't thought a lot about this, but why so complicated?

  If you set up CC tourneys, the tier system cares for some levelling due to tee selection. Nevertheless, the more experienced players will have an advantage. What about applying a tier-related correction, giving "handicap" strokes acc. to tier? Say, give 1 stroke to Masters and TMs, 2 strokes to Pro/TP, 5 strokes to Am/Hack (adjust if neccessary).

  The private WGT league pars,birds and eagles has a points counting system similar to that.

• LeonDelBosque 1,551 Posts

  Sun, Jul 22 2012 6:36 AM

  alosso:

  I don't understand why you mistrust the average - what are you trying to even up?

  Gee, I don't know, maybe because it's not an "average"? Your true scoring average over your last 10 rounds is 70.5 -- six strokes higher than your so-called "average." WGT needs a handicap system, and should stop calling the "average score" the average score

• StormTigers 264 Posts

  Thu, Aug 16 2012 11:29 PM

  LeonDelBosque:

  alosso:

  I don't understand why you mistrust the average - what are you trying to even up?

  Gee, I don't know, maybe because it's not an "average"? Your true scoring average over your last 10 rounds is 70.5 -- six strokes higher than your so-called "average." WGT needs a handicap system, and should stop calling the "average score" the average score

  Sorry I wasn;t monitoring responses - HEAR HEAR !!!!!!!!

  Exactamundo - precisely - and right on Mister DB !

  We need a proper handicapping systems not some weird ass average that is not a true reflection of your current playing ability. As with real golf people have high and lows, ebbs and flows, BUT because it's all about boosting ego, bank accounts and tiers the average never reflects what is happening.

  So come on WGT - Handicapping system please. Use the USGA method if you must anything is better than trying to play to some bogus average !