Forums

How do they get the score average ?

• Detroit500 17 Posts

  Sun, Nov 27 2016 1:39 PM

  I have enjoyed WGT ever since the Doc said no more golf. I am paranoid about getting my cc information on the net so I have gotten all my equipment balls etc, by "watching" videos. After a couple years I have enough good equipment and balls to shoot 2 or so under par on my favorite courses but I can count on my digits the number of times I have shot 66 or less but my "average" says 66.13. Reminds me of the time I shot 37 in my first week in a golf league. My team was screwed for rest of the season !  I was at my best a 12 handicap !!

• phred952 2,714 Posts

  Sun, Nov 27 2016 7:47 PM

  Your average is saturated and will only move down.  You are a lvl 91 Master and have played a total of 1586 Ranked Rounds.  To advance to Tour Master requires an average equal to or less than 63.  it also requires 40 Ranked Rounds played as a Master.  

  Once you play those 40 ranked rounds, your average will only move lower as a lower score replaces a higher one.  So any score higher than the 66.16 of your average (like a 67 for example)  won't count towards changing the average.  Any score of 66 for 18 holes  (or 33 for 9 holes) or less will count towards your average.

  Hope this helps.

  phred952

• alosso 21,066 Posts

  Mon, Nov 28 2016 3:10 AM

  phred952:

  Your average is saturated and will only move down.  You are a lvl 91 Master and have played a total of 1586 Ranked Rounds.  To advance to Tour Master requires an average equal to or less than 63.  it also requires 40 Ranked Rounds played as a Master.  

  Once you play those 40 ranked rounds, your average will only move lower as a lower score replaces a higher one.

  +1

  phred952:

  So any score higher than the 66.16 of your average (like a 67 for example)  won't count towards changing the average.

  This is not quite true.

  Any average comes from a pool of scores, some lower, some higher than the average itself. A new score will replace an older, higher one, so, if there is a 70 in the mix, it will be replaced by a 69 which will reduce the average even though it's higher than that.

  @Detroit500, all your Master scores count in here, and you have played so many that we can't tell how you got there. Obviously, you are saturated.

  I found one each 64 and 65, a bunch of 66s and 67s and so forth. Have a look at your average - which scores will make it move (down!)?

• phred952 2,714 Posts

  Mon, Nov 28 2016 10:24 AM

  alosso,

  re my comment:

  phred952:

  So any score higher than the 66.16 of your average (like a 67 for example)  won't count towards changing the average.

  quote alosso "This is not quite true."

   

  You are correct.  I oversimplified it somewhat after looking at his scoring history.  Going back to July I counted 43 that were 69 or under.  How I reached that conclusion was based on the following: 

  Of these 43 rounds, 11 were 68's, 6 were 67's, 5 were 66's, 1 was a 65.  And 1 was a 64.  If you took the lowest 40 of those scores, including 16 of the 69's, his average would be 67.825.

  By reducing all of the 69's to 66's, 10 of the 68's to 66's and 1 67 to a 66, you would get an average of 66.15.  That would leave 1 each 68 and 5 each 67's that could be reduced to 66's.  That would reduce his average to 65.975.

  So while shooting a 67 will reduce his average it will only go down to 66.125.  Once, In theory. 

  Like you I could not determine when he was promoted to Master, so finding out the 40 scores that make his average is impossible.  In theory it's possible that none of those 68's or 69's count at all in his average.

  I was trying to make the point without showing all the above math that he needs to shoot 66 or less consistently in order to see his average decline very much.

  Respectfully yours,

  phred952

   

• alosso 21,066 Posts

  Mon, Nov 28 2016 2:22 PM

  Good work *chuckles*

  Me, too, tried to make my point without too much of maths though I took the scores into Excel ;)

  I agree that the visible portion doesn't leave much room for higher scores, while about 20 of his best scores come close to his average. But there's still too much unknown in the past - another 20 or more scores, maybe some brilliant ones which would allow for higher scores to be in the mix?

  Even if you assume only scores close to the average, every 65 must be compensated by a 67, perhaps ten of each.

  Apart from that, I do not fancy the wording "scores higher than your average won't lower it", because it causes wrong expectations, and there must be those ten(?) 67s or probably even more and higher ones in the hidden part.

• phred952 2,714 Posts

  Mon, Nov 28 2016 4:08 PM

  Thanks alosso for the good work comment.  

  It was never my intent to cause the wrong expectations, and perhaps I should have worded my response at least slightly different.  I probably should have said that a score higher than your average won't lower the average by very much.

  After re-reading his original post, I think we both missed his point.  He feels his average should be higher than it is.  Saturation explains to him why it will only go down and never back up.

   

• alosso 21,066 Posts

  Mon, Nov 28 2016 9:42 PM

  I read that, too, and I thought that the saturation remark in your first post covered it well. "Many scores in dark history" just meant to round it up.

  Cheers!

• Detroit500 17 Posts

  Thu, Dec 1 2016 11:48 AM

  So Bottom Line. "stroke Average" does not mean  average or in mathematical terms "Mean". When my SCGA handicap was 12 they took the lowest 10 out of the last 20 rounds I had played adjusted by the course rating and score adjusted by changing any triple bogeys to doubles and allowing a maximum of 12 double bogies in any one round. This Wgt Average appears to only look at the lowest scores in your life and average some number of them. I remember when Pebble beach front nine came out I shot an accidental 30, chip ins...eagle putts dropping etc. All of a sudden I was a "master" and forced to get new clubs to even break 80 from the new tees. This site belongs to WGT and they can make any rules they want but by looking into dark history for my lowest scores is equivalent to the SCGA keeping me at a 12 which was my handicap 30 years ago. If I played now I would likely be a +30 or worse even from the  front tees.

  Thank you for the considered replies ! 

• phred952 2,714 Posts

  Thu, Dec 1 2016 7:43 PM

  @ Detroit500,

  Sadly yes, the bottomw line is that your scoring average is based on your current tier Ranked Rounds only.  And with saturation you do it a point where it won't move back up again, no matter what.

  Good Luck

  phred952

• alosso 21,066 Posts

  Thu, Dec 1 2016 10:25 PM

  +1 to phred again!

  Detroit500:

  When my SCGA handicap was 12 they took the lowest 10 out of the last 20 rounds I had played

  WGT's average is similar. They take the lowest 40 out of the last 1,000,000 rounds (1) as a Master (but they omit the net score adjustments that I snipped off the quote). Me thinks they'd want something similar to the USGA handicap AND avoid to break their copyright of it.

  (1) should rather put "infinite number" here, equivalent to "dark history", but remember that it's only scores from your current tier.

  General similarity is: It's a non-linear algorithm which confuses many, and the big numbers ("infinite" for all tiers, high saturation numbers for Legends+) contribute to that.

  And they don't publish the rules officially, leaving space for doubt and rumour.

  Detroit500:

  All of a sudden I was a "master" and forced to get new clubs to even break 80 from the new tees.

  That's the desired outcome. Pling-pling.