Forums

High ding rate = cheating?

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 1:10 AM

  Vaibhav5viv:

  Jimbog1964:

  Remember though, as keep saying and accepted by all (well most all it seems), it is absolutely pointless counting dings that round as the meter was so bad.  

  Not disputing it was a raw deal as such. If someone who watched the twitch, counted dings, it would have answered this. 

  mkg335:

  2) No idea what was counted or not counted.

  See above...........

   

  Vaibhav5viv:

  Not disputing it was a raw deal as such. If someone who watched the twitch, counted dings, it would have answered this. 

  Even though it was pointless ????? See above

  EDIT:

  No one disputes he did not ding much that round ......over and over...

  Put it another way:

  I say to you count the dings in this round.  A round where the meter is not playable OK.  Now what point is there to that ???

  EDIT 2:  No one, apart from WGT, that I am aware of bothered to count the dings in that round.  WHY because it was so obviously pointless even starting to make head or tail of it...pointless waste of time.  No point is answering the question as the question is as meaningless as any answer..........No point...That's it, no more to it.. 

  EDIT Again :)

  I think we now agree the question is pointless:

  So Pointless question = pointless answer = information not worth having = why we never bothered counting. Right !  

  I do not know if someone spent time is getting the above pointless answer from a pointless question.  I never did spend time with it.

  Fact WGT found validity in that absurdity (page 6 yet again - very easy) is that part of the raw deal that was / is ia large part of all this.

  If he still feels he wants those dings counted (any way shape or form) from that round the information is no longer available raw material wise.  Twitch took it down after two weeks, and no one bothered doing the counting precisely as far as I know as a useless exercise - POINTLESS.  If people do not understand that point I give up:)

   

   

• Vaibhav5viv 886 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 2:31 AM

  Jimbog1964:

  Even though it was pointless ?????

  It wasn't pointless as you would know which shots WGT counted in the 79% to which there was doubt about whether it was all shots or not.

  Well, anyway doesn't seem like you're getting the POINT. So see ya elsewhere :)

• mbcarp99 1,078 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 2:43 AM

  Jimbog1964:

  If he still feels he wants those dings counted (any way shape or form) from that round the information is no longer available raw material wise.  Twitch took it down after two weeks, and no one bothered doing the counting precisely as far as I know as a useless exercise - POINTLESS.  If people do not understand that point I give up:)

  Ok let me have a try if i may, i think what Al is trying to establish is this - 

  If someone counted the amount of dings in the trial round, for drives, approaches and putts, it could have been established whether WGT were counting just drives and approaches or they also included putts

  Once that was established we would then fairly presume that that was the same criteria they used to count dings in the 30 days of analysis of 79% dings

  because 79% dings from just approach shots and drives is remarkable if that is all they were counting, a little more plausible if putts were counted

  Now im guessing if the round was on Twitch for 2 weeks, someone would have gone and counted the dings, especially once they found out the reason for the ban was the amount of dings but it would seem no one wants to share

  Now i am perfectly sure Al understands that the amount of dings in the trial round is a mute point because off the poor meter and he did not know they were being counted but that is not what he is asking

• DodgyPutter 4,690 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 2:56 AM

  mkg335:

  1. They accumulated 30 days worth of ding percentage...no one knows what shots were counted and what shots were ignored, if any.

  That was what I was trying to find out.  Why don't we know?

  Jimbog p38 "EDIT 2:  No one, apart from WGT, that I am aware of bothered to count the dings in that round.  WHY because it was so obviously pointless even starting to make head or tail of it...pointless waste of time.  No point is answering the question as the question is as meaningless as any answer..........No point...That's it, no more to it.. "

  It seems to me that there is a misapprehension on his part  that this was in some way critical of the banned player, it was nothing to do with that individual. 

  It would have answered the above that was all, the circumstances didn't matter the person involved didn't matter.  What mattered was we know wgt said 40% of the shots in that round were dings and with a small amount of observation we would now know "what shots were counted and what shots were ignored, if any". 

  Same Jim post: "I think we now agree the question is pointless:"  

  I know that's not a question but no, we don't.  The answer may not be there anymore and I don't know if it was (112 pages ago) when I first asked it, but the attempt to find the answer was valid and didn't deserve the scorn it got especially in the latest post.

  I think you've done a great job to keep this thread from becoming some sort of, "say what we want to hear or get bullied" and I hope it stays that way.

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 4:04 AM

  mbcarp99:

  Ok let me have a try if i may, i think what Al is trying to establish is this - 

  For sure:)

  mbcarp99:

  If someone counted the amount of dings in the trial round, for drives, approaches and putts, it could have been established whether WGT were counting just drives and approaches or they also included putts

  Meter VERY AWFUL (almost unplayable)............How would that then establish anything?  The raw data was not good enough to begin to try as meter so v bad.

  mbcarp99:

  because 79% dings from just approach shots and drives is remarkable if that is all they were counting, a little more plausible if putts were counted

  Yes

  mbcarp99:

  Now im guessing if the round was on Twitch for 2 weeks, someone would have gone and counted the dings, especially once they found out the reason for the ban was the amount of dings but it would seem no one wants to share

  Yes it was.  No one AFAIK bothered (not just club members) because the raw data (such a bad meter) was so useless that it rendered all information useless (talking dings or not any shot you like).

  mbcarp99:

  Now i am perfectly sure Al understands that the amount of dings in the trial round is a mute point because off the poor meter and he did not know they were being counted but that is not what he is asking

  Fine.......Thus makes the above not worth having, so we agree I think on that part.

  As discussed at some great length throughout places in the thread we do not know what they counted, not over the 30 days or that round.  They gave their verdict (page 6 still same as last time) based on a round that did not allow anyone to sensibly guess bat crap.  Put it another way you could not work backwards with that information, from that round, to tell if they were looking at dings on tee shots only, putts only, chips only, flops only, short approaches only, long approaches, lumping it all in or any combination you think of or anything else.  This is because the meter was so very bad...................

  EDIT:

  mbcarp99:

  because 79% dings from just approach shots and drives is remarkable if that is all they were counting, a little more plausible if putts were counted

  Yes it would be.  However, with the trial round conducted as an epic farce (see verdict page 6 and bad meter in mind) I am left wondering what else they got wrong.  .............See rest of thread all the discussions all of that.

  The road was fully explored v early on.  It really was a dead end, and some smart people looking, not me:)...All in the thread already.

• mbcarp99 1,078 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 4:29 AM

  Jimbog1964:

  mbcarp99:

  If someone counted the amount of dings in the trial round, for drives, approaches and putts, it could have been established whether WGT were counting just drives and approaches or they also included putts

  Meter VERY AWFUL (almost unplayable)............How would that then establish anything?  The raw data was not good enough to begin to try as meter so v bad.

  It would establish what their criteria for counting was!!, the fact that the meter was unplayable makes no difference here, what is being asked is what shots WGT were counting to make up their 40% figure, is this not being put across clearly enough?

  Jimbog1964:

  mbcarp99:

  Now im guessing if the round was on Twitch for 2 weeks, someone would have gone and counted the dings, especially once they found out the reason for the ban was the amount of dings but it would seem no one wants to share

  Yes it was.  No one AFAIK bothered (not just club members) because the raw data (such a bad meter) was so useless that it rendered all information useless (talking dings or not any shot you like).

  Bingo, here we are, no one bothered to count, so we will never know, that is all that Al wanted to know

  Just for the record Jim, i was surprised at the ban, i always figured he was a legit player and i would agree with you that all the quoted percentages may well be suspect but it looks like we will never know

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 5:01 AM

  mbcarp99:

  Bingo, here we are, no one bothered to count, so we will never know, that is all that Al wanted to know

  NO NO NO NO OF COURSE NO, No AGAIN.  

  EDIT: It's not about simply not thinking to or simply not bothering.  Had we counted exactly we had a low ding rate.Never in dispute any of that.  The POINT is been useless bothering as meter so bad you could not possibly beging to assume what he could do with a half decent meter.  All the round actually proved is he could shoot -8 thru 9 with a gawdawful meter, and that is all it proved.  It does not change.

  Dodge was not the first with that light bulb moment, but then disappointingly meter so bad as to be useless.  Incidentally some (respected) players said 79% not that high...We never explored that as inf (raw data) worthless.

   

  We would have but the exercise was POINTLESS because the meter was so bad..........garbage in garbage out guaranteed.

  mbcarp99:

  Just for the record Jim, i was surprised at the ban, i always figured he was a legit player and i would agree with you that all the quoted percentages may well be suspect but it looks like we will never know

  We won't........Verdict page 6 remains as all we have.

  If anyone else comes back please do so by way of this:

  I ask you to play 1 x 9 holes full RR.  Because of whatever reason your meter is very dreadful as to be almost unplayable.  Would you spend time analysing approach shot dings OR any other type of shot dings to see if that was indicative of your play with your usually silky smooth meter?  It does not change and it's v simple, unless someone thinks it would be indicative, in which case good luck with shoe laces.......Not being funny that is all it is.

   

• mbcarp99 1,078 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 7:03 AM

  Jimbog1964:

  If anyone else comes back please do so by way of this:

  I ask you to play 1 x 9 holes full RR.  Because of whatever reason your meter is very dreadful as to be almost unplayable.  Would you spend time analysing approach shot dings OR any other type of shot dings to see if that was indicative of your play with your usually silky smooth meter?  It does not change and it's v simple, unless someone thinks it would be indicative, in which case good luck with shoe laces.......Not being funny that is all it is.

  No i wouldn't spend time analysing approach shot dings OR any other type of shot dings to see if it was indicative of play with a silky smooth meter, totally agree, what's the point but then again that's got nothing to do with what we're asking, we are not suggesting comparing his ding rate in that round with the previous month for all the stated reasons

  Look, all we wanted to know was does anyone know what shots WGT counted in the trial round so we would know what they counted in the 79%, fairly straightforward request i would have thought, you have explained that no one does, fair enough, i'll leave it at that

  Jimbog1964:

   Incidentally some (respected) players said 79% not that high...

  I'm guessing that was before they did any testing, any results in this thread are not close to 79%

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 7:48 AM

  mbcarp99:

  No i wouldn't spend time analysing approach shot dings OR any other type of shot dings to see if it was indicative of play with a silky smooth meter, totally agree, what's the point

  Agree

  mbcarp99:

  Look, all we wanted to know was does anyone know what shots WGT counted in the trial round so we would know what they counted in the 79%,

  79% was from the previous 30 days agreed..........Rest of it we only have what WGT stated, page 6 verdict, no more.  When I say no more I mean NO more, does not change.  EDIT: WGT per that verdict were only using their special accounting doing the counting (again see page 6 and the verdict as it does not change and it's all we have, and all they say on the matte.....page 6 again is  all we have).

  mbcarp99:

  we're asking, we are not suggesting comparing his ding rate in that round with the previous month for all the stated reasons

  That's it completely pointless

  mbcarp99:

  I'm guessing that was before they did any testing, any results in this thread are not close to 79%

  Never explored it as the round at St As was pointless if anything to do with dings was considered. (that old page 6 again and the verdict which as keep saying really is all we have from WGT).

  EDIT: Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 (Verdict).  Nothing else from them as in nothing, nada, zip, zilch, nuffink.............There is nothing else.

  EDIT 50001:)

  Look doing it here as don't want to bump things unnecessarily. I guess Dodge must be on moderation........To reply:

  DodgyPutter:

  It seems to me that there is a misapprehension on his part  that this was in some way critical of the banned player, it was nothing to do with that individual. 

  No misapprehension of that at all. Never thought it.

  DodgyPutter:

  It would have answered the above that was all, the circumstances didn't matter the person involved didn't matter.  What mattered was we knowwgt said 40% of the shots in that round were dings and with a small amount of observation we would now know "what shots were counted and what shots were ignored, if any". 

  Look you can read the "verdict" again if like.  Think they said they gave him the benefit when things actually froze.  Anyway point is, to me whether you agree or not, the meter was so choppy as discussed.......Thus crap raw data = work out yes what they counted maybe, but looked all so pointless as crap meter.....

  DodgyPutter:

  Same Jim post: "I think we now agree the question is pointless:"  

  I know that's not a question but no, we don't.  The answer may not be there anymore and I don't know if it was (112 pages ago) when I first asked it, but the attempt to find the answer was valid and didn't deserve the scorn it got especially in the latest post.

  I think you must have edited your original post.  No matter go with above:

  Not trying to put any scorn anywhere.  Apologies for any frustration that came out.  Several times in this thread WGT were asked to comment but no.  Several times in this thread it was explained WGT would not respond.........Again page 6 is all we have, and so you know as much as we do as to what they were counting or not in the prev 30 days.  The round at St As was so poor and they gave him the benefit (they say) on anything where the shot froze, and the rest of the time meter was bordering unplayable.  I sort of watched it wondering what on earth was the point, and even if some one tried to deduce what type of shot they would be / were looking it would be a few pages of discussion (only 9 holes data and ad lib freezes / choppy ++)......It's gone into the ether and I know a few looked, after the fact of course same as me, and never commented much other than to say pretty pointless.......of course then we have how did WGT exactly compile 40 and 79% as reliable averages, and we simply don't know.  Fair to say Q would say he was surprised that high, but his word v their word......Their auto dinger SW accusation was wrong we do know that as said.  EDIT: take the freezes out of it worth looking again (but again see page 6 verdict where acknowledged freezes so say a drive freezes and the approach freezes but putt drops and they say 50%...for drive or for approach? And we only had 9 holes of the crap anyway -  page 6 where said in verdict again)

  If their SSs were so great many feel more would be gone.........I doubt (well hope) WGT try and do things fair, and I doubt they intended all this.........It's done:)

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Sun, Aug 7 2016 8:13 AM

  I think the default assumption would be that every shot was counted...or put another way, every time the ball was struck by any club...and further, that he dinged almost exactly half as much during the trial round as he had over the previous 30 days.  (40% v 79%)