Forums

A Simple Handicap Formula

• EdJaws 402 Posts

  Fri, Jan 17 2014 12:15 PM

  This is what I got out of Cobalt's explanation of his system. But let me explain by what I just set up in my CC.
  
  Here's the run down of the schedule leading up to the main handicap competition.
  
  Player of the Month #00  --  01-16-14 to 01-23-14
  
  PotM #0  --  01-23 to 01-30
  
  PotM #1  --  01-30 to 02-06
  
  PotM #2  --  02-06 to 02-13
  
  PotM #3  --  02-13 to 02 20
  
  PotM #4  --  02 20 to 02 27
  
  I'm using PotM #00 and #0 to get 6 - 18 hole round to calculate the handicap of each player. The handicaps will be posted in our forum at this time.
  
  Challonge Handicap Tournament Challenge #1
  
  We got our first sponsor for pro shop gifts and we'll run a single elimination challenge and will use the 6 rounds calculated for the handicaps for the prize.
  
  PotM #1  --  02-27 to 03-06
  
  PotM #2  --  03-06 to 03-13
  
  PotM #3  --  03-13 to 03-20
  
  Potm #4  --  03-20 to 03-27
  
  Challonge Handicap Tournament #2
  
  .... and so on.
  
  At the end of the second set of PotM rounds I'll have 10 round in the books to calculate the handicaps. From here forward, I'll drop the first round used and add the latest round to calculate the new handicaps. So I'll always have a handicap based on 10 rounds.
  
  I mentioned in Kat's topic that I'll use 61 as the "zero handicap" since we don't have any TL in our CC. But seeing as in Cobalt's system there can be + handicaps I don't think what you use for "zero" really matters. Could be wrong?
  
  At this point we have pros to legends participating. If anything goes egg-shaped I'll let y'all know. But I don't foresee any problems, notwithstanding a SNAFU.
  
  This all seems pretty much KISS to me and really appreciate those involved in this topic.

  @ Dubfore

  If you think I'm intruding on your topic I'll happily remove it.

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Fri, Jan 17 2014 12:55 PM

  EdJaws:

  But seeing as in Cobalt's system there can be + handicaps I don't think what you use for "zero" really matters. Could be wrong?

  I did some research on this and no, it doesn't matter if you use 60, 65 or 70.  The only thing that will change is the player's handicap.

  EdJaws:

  we have pros to legends participating.

  IRL, with the GHIN handicap system, the slope is used to determine the "course handicap" for each player.  I've noticed using Cobalt's Handicap formula that the shorter tees do have a slight advantage with the handicap.  Here's one thing I thought of to make it fair:

  • Pros/Tour Pros (white tees) ... use calculated handicap
  • Masters/Tour Masters ... take the calculated handicap and adjust as follows: (<adjusted handicap> * 110) / 100
  • Legends/Tour Legends ... take the calculated handicap and adjust as follows: (<adjusted handicap> * 120) / 100

  Note: If you have Hacks/Amateurs playing, multiply the adjusted handicap by 90%. (*90/100)

  One more thing.  GHIN releases player indexes on the 1st and 15th of each month.  During this 15 day window, the player's handicap is static.  If you have a large CC, calculating player handicaps frequently will prove to be a major pain.  I suggest you only do handicaps either monthly or bi-monthly ...  less work for you or your handicap manager!

   

• EdJaws 402 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 9:10 AM

  DaddysKat:

  One more thing.  GHIN releases player indexes on the 1st and 15th of each month.  During this 15 day window, the player's handicap is static.  If you have a large CC, calculating player handicaps frequently will prove to be a major pain.  I suggest you only do handicaps either monthly or bi-monthly ...  less work for you or your handicap manager!

  Yes, I got volunteered to be the handicap manager, also chief cook and bottle washer. So easier is better.
  
  Let's take some arbitrary number and tiers and work out the tee advantage. P is pro and TP, M = master and TM, L is legend and TL.
                     
            5 rd               base 60       tee                   base 60        tee
             avg     -1        hdcp        advtg       .96        hdcp         advtg
  
  P1       80      79        -19           -19          77          -17             -17
  P2       73      72        -12           -12          70          -10             -10
  
  M1      70      69          -9            -10         67            -7              -8
  M2      67      66          -6             -7          64            -4              -4
  
  L1       64      63          -3             -4          61            -1              -1
  L2       63      62          -2             -2          60             0               0
   
  Hopefully all my calculations are correct. Of course, this is a really small sample size so we have to take that into consideration.
  
  Perhaps if the base 60 were something different or the player averages varied widely within each group the calculations would be different but the closer you get to zero handicap the number just don't move that much for the tee advantage, as would be expected. I'm not sure how you would calculate a positive handicap with the tee advantage.
  
  It's interesting to note that using .96 and calculating a tee advantage with those numbers does nothing to the handicap except in one instance, for M1.
  
  What's even more interesting is even though using the .96 calculation lowers everyones handicap, the spread is the same for a -1 calculation and the .96 calculation, except when you factor in the tee advantage.
  
  The tee advantage has the desired affect of grouping everyone closer together which I'm not sure is a good thing for the simple reason a pro will be more inconsistent than a legend.

• MBaggese 15,367 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 10:06 AM

  DaddysKat:

  As you can see by the above example, a preset handicap set prior to the beginning of the tourney is the best way to go.  Doing a dynamic handicap based on the tourney scores, it simply doesn't pay to win!

   

  Just a note Kat (as I missed this reply) Cobalt just uses certain tourneys for HC ratings.

   

    And only certain tourneys apply...but I know going in to any tourney, if I start -1 my net will stay at -1 when tourney is over.

   

    If that tourney changed me to -2...it would not be applied to that tourney just completed.

   

   

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 10:13 AM

  EdJaws:

  What's even more interesting is even though using the .96 calculation lowers everyones handicap, the spread is the same for a -1 calculation and the .96 calculation, except when you factor in the tee advantage.

  I think the biggest factor here is you're showing whole numbers ... a handicap of 18.51 and 19.4 will both round to 19.  But if you take the 18.5 and 19.4 through the length of the calcs, you would get:

  18.5 * .96 = 17.8  (18 handicap)

  19.4 * .96 = 18.6  (19 handicap)

  Don't round to whole numbers until you get to the end.  In all honesty, you should maintain at least 1 decimal place on the player's index, then adjust to a whole number for the tourney.

  I really don't think the base matters when calculating one's handicap.  As long as the base is the same for all, the deviations will be uniform across the board.

   

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 10:22 AM

  MBaggese:

  Just a note Kat (as I missed this reply) Cobalt just uses certain tourneys for HC ratings.

   

    And only certain tourneys apply...but I know going in to any tourney, if I start -1 my net will stay at -1 when tourney is over.

   

    If that tourney changed me to -2...it would not be applied to that tourney just completed.

   

  I'm going to have a couple of options to the "best 10 of 20".  First, exclude scores in the calculation.  If a player continually plays an "unlimited tourney", say 20 times,  their handicap will only be based on that "unlimited tourney", and the scores used would be the best 10 ... not really accurate, IMO.

  Second, I'm going to have a "selected scores" option.  This will throw the "best 10 of 20" out the window, and only the scores selected will be used.  

  It will be up to the owner/handicap chairperson to be fair and impartial when using these options. They will be there to obtain a more realistic handicap.

• pipala 887 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 11:04 AM

  YankeeJim:

  Not necessarily in a CC atmosphere. If you have that kind of player in your clubhouse, something's wrong with the owner. 

  Couldn't agree more

• Dubfore 4,350 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 11:20 AM

  DaddysKat:

  IRL, with the GHIN handicap system, the slope is used to determine the "course handicap" for each player.  I've noticed using Cobalt's Handicap formula that the shorter tees do have a slight advantage with the handicap.  Here's one thing I thought of to make it fair:

  Don't forget, the higher tier players usually have better equipment (driver). I think the small advantage that the lower tier handicappers have is lost very quickly after the tee off. 

  Taking every detail into account seems like a lot of time given for very little change.

  I'm going to keep my methods as simple as possible.  Handicap tournaments will only be over 9 or 18 hole courses using the complete GHIN system eventually, but as I said for a trial period, using just half and tweek if necessary.

   

• oneeyedjohn 9,581 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 11:31 AM

  DaddysKat:

   

  FWIW, I've been working with 1i to get my tourney manager spreadsheet to work with your CC.  While it was a challenge, I'm guessing it more-than-likely was a huge waste of my time!  

   

  Kat ♥

  Hmmmm, ......not sure what this means

  1i ®

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Sat, Jan 18 2014 12:24 PM

  oneeyedjohn:

  DaddysKat:

   

  FWIW, I've been working with 1i to get my tourney manager spreadsheet to work with your CC.  While it was a challenge, I'm guessing it more-than-likely was a huge waste of my time!  

   

  Kat ♥

  Hmmmm, ......not sure what this means

  1i ®

  Vouching for John's efforts. He's trying to get it so WE can see it and having a problem. I suggested a workaround in the meantime by taking a screenshot and uploading it like a picture but I know he wants to do this right.