Forums

A Simple Handicap Formula

• SamanthaWho 3,403 Posts

  Mon, Apr 21 2014 6:36 AM

  DaddysKat:

  Update ... I wrote this on 1/15 when I was developing the tourney manager:

  DaddysKat:

  I'm guessing it more-than-likely was a huge waste of my time!  

  I completed the tourney manager later in January ... gave away 2 copies.  Just had that feeling.

  The tourney manager is no longer available.  Everyone has their own way of doing handicaps ... sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes attempting to put together something that was easy to use.

  I saw when you first posted it and i sent the forum link to our CC's *numbers guy*. He found it to be better than the system we had been using. It was NOT a waste of time as far as we are concerned :-)  It's very easy to use too once you get it all set up. At least he tells me it is lol. We use it in all our handicap tourneys. I imagine there are a lot more than just 2 clubs using it. So thank you for all the work.

  ~~Sammi-New Haven CC~~

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Mon, Apr 21 2014 11:22 AM

  SamanthaWho:

  I imagine there are a lot more than just 2 clubs using it. So thank you for all the work.

  Thanks Sammi,

  I write my spreadsheets and programs because I won't beg for gifts.  Instead, I will use my talents and hope to receive a sleeve of golf balls for my hard work.  My count is based on those that have either gifted me a sleeve of balls or personally thanked me. 

  As for the tourney manager ... there are two who gifted me or thanked me for the use of the program ... that's it.  I'm sure there were several who downloaded the tourney manager.  Since I didn't receive a gift or a thank you message from them, either they decided it wasn't for them or they are using it but don't feel the need to thank me for my hard work.

  I'd be interested to know how many actually use the tourney manager.  My current count is 2 ... including New Haven CC.

• EdJaws 402 Posts

  Mon, Apr 21 2014 2:10 PM

  I thanked you and gifted you your requested type balls and I couldn't even use your tourney manager because I run Linux, which doesn't run Excel macros in their spreadsheets and I don't own Excel.
  
   01.18.14     Purchase of 3 Pack of Nike 20XI-X RZN Balls (L81+) (White) as a gift for DaddysKat.     Sent Gift     -550 Cr
  
  I sent you that gift because no matter what, I appreciated the work you put into trying to help others.
  
  Believe me I would have used your TM with handicap module if I could. Stepping back, IMO somehow I feel the disagreement between the ease of use you tried to build into the TM and the KISS principle expounded by Cobalt put you off on the project because it didn't take off right away. Could be wrong though.
  
  I feel if you left it out there you would have been rewarded eventually. You did all the right things by trying to accommodate many different request on how the include the different ways to calculate the handicaps.
  
  In the end, everyone seems to be the loser.
  
  Ed

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Mon, Apr 21 2014 4:02 PM

  Hi Ed,

  Once again, thanks for the sleeve of golf balls.  I'm really sorry that I couldn't get OOBasic to work with my idea to how the handicapping system should work.  The biggest issue (which I had mentioned earlier) was OOBasic's inability to pull the player's hyperlink from the clipboard.  Without it, the handicap routine was pretty much worthless.

  I assumed with the responses I received on this and the other thread regarding handicaps there would be more interest in the tourney manager.  Sadly, that wasn't the case.  

  Anyway, to the two CC's that are using my tourney manager (that I know of anyway), I hope it works well for you and continues to do so. To those of you who downloaded the tourney manager, thanks for taking the time to check it out.

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Tue, Apr 22 2014 2:45 PM

  Raelenerose:

  Can i just say WOW  and bummer...just been reading this thinking what a wonderful thing this would be ..then to read the last post...........bummer what a lot of gr8 work to go no where.must be a big disappointment Kat.....but thanks for a gr8 effort on everyones behalf wether they appreciated it or not.

  as we say over here........shame shame shame.

  Raelenerose.

  After sharing PMs with Ed, I've changed the drive from e-mail specific access to anyone with the link.  I won't just put the link on the thread as I have no way of knowing who I've given access.  Like I said, to my knowledge only 2 other CC's use it.

  If you would like a copy of the tournament manager, please send me a PM and request a copy and I'll gladly send you the link.  

  Just know it was written using Excel 2007 and stored as a macro-enabled spreadsheet.  You will need to have Excel 2007 or greater in order to use the tourney manager.

  Again, I apologize for yanking the link ... For the longest time it wasn't a issue ... of course, these things have a way of pulling a Lazarus. 

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Fri, Jul 18 2014 2:37 PM

   

• Dubfore 4,350 Posts

  Fri, Jul 25 2014 6:56 AM

  The handicap system I introduced to my club some months ago is working very well, showing a marked difference in results, with a bigger variation of winning and placed players in the credit competitions.

  But looking back over our players recent activity,  I saw that some play a lot of 9 hole games and some of the 18 hole rounds needed in the 10/20 calculations go too far back to be realistic of players form.  I've changed the handicap system to reflect more recent form.   Instead of the best 10 of last 20 relevant 18 hole games, I halved it to best 5 of last 10.

  I also changed our gradings that groups players of similar abilities in graded credit competitions. 

  I did a test on a few numbers with the revised method and some results changed only slightly (downwards), others not at all.

  Sample:    Old Method:   636 Div 10 = 63.6 x 96% = 61.05 (60)  H/cap  -1

                                         A = plus to minus 3     B = -4 to -6     C =  -7 +

  Halve the above best ten round total (638)

  Using the best five from last ten rounds is a more realistic figure of recent form of regular players.

                  New Method:   318  Div 5 =  63.6 x 96% =  61.05 (60)  H/cap  -1 

                                                                                                             Post 318  -1

   Handicaps will be graded: 

                                       A = plus to minus 2     B = -3 to -6          C =  -7 +

  I don't know if altering the grades is the right thing to do, but from the new handicaps posted so far, the players in the altered gradings (A and B) are the same.

  I welcome your opinions, and if anyone sees a flaw in the revised method, I'd appreciate being told.

  Cheers.

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Fri, Jul 25 2014 9:17 AM

  Dubfore:

  I saw that some play a lot of 9 hole games and some of the 18 hole rounds needed in the 10/20 calculations go too far back to be realistic of players form.  I've changed the handicap system to reflect more recent form.   Instead of the best 10 of last 20 relevant 18 hole games, I halved it to best 5 of last 10.

  First off, I tend to simply double a 9 hole round and keep one handicap for 18 hole games.  If there's a 9 hole game being played, I take half of the handicap.

  Second ... I've also revised the best 10 of 20 and now use a table to determine how many scores to use.  It makes it easier for new members to get a handicap.  I copied the table from the USGA handicap manual ... here it is (for your viewing pleasure):

  

  Taking your example ... 318 being the best 5 of ten ... say the scores were:

  60, 60, 62, 65. 71 ... using your example the handicap would be 60 (or 60.1 rounded up for those carrying a decimal place).

  But using the table above, I can only use the best 3 scores ... so  ....

            60 + 60 + 62 = 182 / 3 = 60.67 X 96% = 58.2 ... a huge difference from that 60 handicap.

   

  One more thought you might consider ... say the above player got his low 3 scores from St. Andrews (60), Best of Famous Holes (60) and Bethpage Black (62).  The 65 came from Congressional and the 71 came from Pinehurst #2.

  While you may consider this player to be cheating, in actuality, Congressional and Pinehurst do play a lot more difficult than the other 3 courses mentioned.  

  I've completely gotten away from the "Par on every course is 60" rule.  I went through an entire year of WGT tourneys and rated each course (except for Pinehurst) and came up with a course and slope rating.  

  This system is not for the faint of heart ... plus, if you don't have a program, don't use it.  I have found that this system is superior to the "60 handicap" method.

  The CC I belong to now uses this course/slope rating system.  We also have a "day rating" adjustment for tourneys that are setup with easy conditions and difficult conditions.  It really does make the handicap system better (although a lot more confusing to the "math-challenged" players).

   

  I like the idea of flights (graded Handicaps) ... but our CC is a bit small to incorporate them.  In real golf, most tournaments are flighted ... and the flights are usually based on handicaps.

• Dubfore 4,350 Posts

  Fri, Jul 25 2014 12:04 PM

  Thanks for that Daddykat, but I think I will stick with the 5/10 for now.

  I don't know how the US GHIN people came up with the differential, but I doubt if they have to go back months to get the required amount of games for the maths. That would still happen to us with the 13/14 > lowest 5 ratio.

  I don't think doubling the 9 hole score is a good idea.  If a player scores say -4 front 9, you're saying he'll do the same on the back, (or vice versa) without playing them?  

  Our players do their own maths, but I give the posted figures a necessary quick check, as well as a run through on the winners 10 games before sponsored prizes are awarded.    Just today, two were posted with minor errors,  above and below.

  I also set a date from when to count back, without  forewarning.  So if any smart arses get the idea of 'playing badly' for a few rounds, it's too late, they've already played up to the date.

  I'm pleased how it's going so far.  For me, it's solved the problem of a small group winning all the time.  That makes for a healthier club and keeps the members interested, that's always the objective.  Compared to my last club, we've had more first time stroke play winners in a lot less time, including myself  (just the one).  :-)

  I think many more clubs that play for credits should try a graded handicap system. 

  DaddysKat:

  plus, if you don't have a program,

  A program?

• DaddysKat 3,554 Posts

  Fri, Jul 25 2014 12:42 PM

  Dubfore:

  DaddysKat:

  plus, if you don't have a program,

  A program?

  Yes ... I understand that you are somewhat challenged, but believe it or not, you used a program to reply to my post.  Amazing, huh!

  As for doubling the front 9 ... a handicap is not what one will shoot ... it defines one's playing potential.  If you have a 1 handicap (in your example), the player should consistently shoot a 61.  But this isn't the case.  If your system is any good at all, a player should shoot their handicap "potential" less than 40% of the time.

  As for players doing their own math ... why?  I have a program for that!  lol.