Forums

dropping avg

• Slojoeguam 163 Posts

  Thu, Jul 17 2014 9:54 AM

  He shot a 63 (-9) at STA on 7/6.

• jiggsie 478 Posts

  Thu, Jul 17 2014 9:55 AM

  First alosso and all others that responded to my inquiry I really do appreciate it and I learned quite a bit. What I haven't learned in my 77 years is how to put the word NO  or I DON"T know in my vocabulary.

  Someone will need info and my big mouth opens wide and blurts out "I'll help you, I'll get the answers". I do this without having the slightest idea of what info I really need to accomplish this, than I end up looking like or at least feeling like a jerk.

  The minus 9 on CCC was July 6 Week 27 18 hole single play WGT tournament.

  Par = 71 he had a 65 - he said his avg went from 70.48 to 70.47. He thought it should have been more. He also said he was minus 9 but according to his stats it was minus 6.

  Apparently I have to learn to get more  into when I want to help someone so I don't end up wasting other peoples time and mine.

  Again I thank everyone for their efforts and I also apologize for starting this half cocked.

  Jiggs

   

• jiggsie 478 Posts

  Thu, Jul 17 2014 9:55 AM

  First alosso and all others that responded to my inquiry I really do appreciate it and I learned quite a bit. What I haven't learned in my 77 years is how to put the word NO  or I DON"T know in my vocabulary.

  Someone will need info and my big mouth opens wide and blurts out "I'll help you, I'll get the answers". I do this without having the slightest idea of what info I really need to accomplish this, than I end up looking like or at least feeling like a jerk.

  The minus 9 on CCC was July 6 Week 27 18 hole single play WGT tournament.

  Par = 71 he had a 65 - he said his avg went from 70.48 to 70.47. He thought it should have been more. He also said he was minus 9 but according to his stats it was minus 6.

  Apparently I have to learn to get more  into when I want to help someone so I don't end up wasting other peoples time and mine.

  Again I thank everyone for their efforts and I also apologize for starting this half cocked.

  Jiggs

   

• alosso 21,092 Posts

  Thu, Jul 17 2014 12:35 PM

  Peace, bro - let's have a look!

  65 is 6.5 below the previous average, -6.5. Divide it by a probable round number, -6.5 / 200 makes -0.0325. The average would shrink by that number - NOT.

  Other numbers, -6.5 / 300 = -0.022, -6.5 / 400 = -0.016. The latter might fit to the alleged average movement, but nobody knows for sure.

  According the other number, no Oakmont game visible. There's a BoF front nine of 37 which is +1, perhaps...?

  It's doubled to count as a 74, +3.5 over the average. +3.5 / 200 = 0.0175, far away from the reputed values. +3.5 / 40 might do it - NOT!

  I'm afraid, the observations are incomplete or misleading. No help or solution available. This is not isolated, many people fail to remember the numbers correctly.

  If your friend manages to make a list of three numbers per round,
  - average before the round, refreshing the main WGT screen before writing it down,
  - gross score of the round,
  - average after the round, refreshing the main WGT screen before writing it down,

  and this for a few rounds, preferrably consecutive, some analysis might be possible.

  You'll say, there's something double, yes, on purpose, to eliminate glitches.

  Have fun!

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Thu, Jul 17 2014 2:45 PM

  Fun with numbers continued..... :-)

  How about taking the average-70.48- times the number of rounds-200- for a total number of strokes. Take that 14096, add the 63 and divide by 201. This gets you 70.44 so that looks like it fails. This is assuming 200 was a valid count. 300 RRs gets you 70.46 (rounded up from 70.455.) That's pretty close to what happened. Maybe he's closer to saturation than he thinks.

• EasyEdward 13,507 Posts

  Fri, Jul 18 2014 7:21 AM

  Jim and alosso:

  There is 1 more consideration.

  Average of 70.48 in 200 rounds is not only 14096 strokes it is also possible to have hit 14095 or 14097 strokes. Those two numbers also work due to rounding.

  So in calculating averages and rounds played that has to be taken into account. 

  As an aside once over 400 rounds 5 different number of strokes are possible.

  That leads to 1,100 possibilities (once at least 200 rounds have been played) for every average WGT displays. 

  The spreadsheet I use to determine the umber of rounds played by a Legend looks at all 1,100 to determine which one reacts correctly to changes in a players average. Usually somewhere around 10 rounds it can be  determined.

   

• alosso 21,092 Posts

  Fri, Jul 18 2014 9:52 AM

  Thanks for the insight! Very interesting to see how deep you are into this matter Edward.

  I prefer the easier way, looking for plausible estimates. It should not bother a player if the number is three or five off.

  In this case though, the numbers memorized and transferred to us look arguable. Me getting to 400 AND 40 rounds from the initial estimate of 200 is pretty good evidence.

   

  BTW, have you ever encountered anything confirming the statement which I heard recently that tourney rounds would count different to "normal" ranked rounds?

• EasyEdward 13,507 Posts

  Fri, Jul 18 2014 11:51 AM

  alosso:

  Thanks for the insight! Very interesting to see how deep you are into this matter Edward.

  I prefer the easier way, looking for plausible estimates. It should not bother a player if the number is three or five off.

  In this case though, the numbers memorized and transferred to us look arguable. Me getting to 400 AND 40 rounds from the initial estimate of 200 is pretty good evidence.

   

  Just for giggles I plugged the numbers into my spreadsheet.

  268 rounds is the lowest possible with the rounding effect described earlier. The other end of the spectrum believe it or not is that could have been the 500th round. lol

   

  alosso:

  BTW, have you ever encountered anything confirming the statement which I heard recently that tourney rounds would count different to "normal" ranked rounds?

  No but I can deny it exists. 

  Well sort of as I do not play in a lot of WGT Tourneys playing mostly my CC tourneys. But I have every score from day 1 and have monitored my average as I would calculate it:  total strokes / number of rounds = average. I have never seen any deviation from my calculation and what WGT shows.

  Of course all that changes when you win a MP against a higher tier player. <-- still trying to figure that one out but I just have my two data points and two others from folks who monitored their changes in average to the 100th of a decimal point and feed me that info.

   

   

   

   

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Fri, Jul 18 2014 2:06 PM

  EasyEdward:

  Average of 70.48 in 200 rounds is not only 14096 strokes it is also possible to have hit 14095 or 14097 strokes. Those two numbers also work due to rounding.

  There's no rounding involved, 70.48 X 200 is a finite number unless you're thinking 70.48 is actually 70.475 or 70.485.

  This round up/down business might be the key.  :-)

• alosso 21,092 Posts

  Fri, Jul 18 2014 2:53 PM

  YankeeJim:

  70.48 X 200 is a finite number unless you're thinking 70.48 is actually 70.475 or 70.485.

  Make it 70.48499999, and I'll agree to Edward: Rounding business!