Handicapping Rule Change

[OKHC]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

http://www.popeofslope.com/guidelines/howwell.html
http://www.popeofslope.com/about/index.html
Hi --- you may have seen Dean Knuth’s website; he has a math degree*, and he invented the handicap system. He figures that your past 20 games are a reasonable indicator of your potential; and his system tracks your T-scores for a year, or even longer if you haven’t posted 20 scores in a year, and reduces your cap if you play significantly better in tournaments than in casual rounds.

So, to address your points Ed:

“Not unusual for someone that takes winter off. Spring and Fall are typical down trends and summer an up trend.” OK
“… Someone with 7 handicap ability carrying a 14 cap in club events is virtually unbeatable. ” Dean Knuth would, I think, say that if that guy truly played to his best ability in his last 20 outings, and followed the rules of golf and handicapping, and his cap is now 14, then 14 is his present potential.He may have been 7 last year, but that’s now history.

“Is that person's proven potential a 7 cap or a 14 cap when the increase is an anomaly?” Why do you consider it an ‘anomaly’. Caps go up and down.

“With all the variables, current caps are not a true indicator of potential.” Again, I think Mr. Knuth would tell you that the current cap is a good indicator of present potential.

“Best historical cap is a better one because it normalizes across all situations!” I’d argue the opposite --- you want a guy’s best scores to count in his cap calculation --- that isn’t ‘normalizing’ the scores.



* Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics and Master of Science degree in Computer Systems.
Also: http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.htmlInteresting paragraph about “Steady Eddie” and “Wild Willy”

[rulie]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I realize what Mr. Knuth said about the best 10 of the last 20 scores representing the players current potential. If it's desired to limit the change and/or reduce the fluctuations, then perhaps the best 10 of the last 40 games could be considered. Or develop an algorithm like the UK, where it's very slow to go up and very quick to go down.

In the UK, most clubs have a competitive medal round nearly every weekend - it's a competition of 18 holes and usually involves an entry fee of 2-5 pounds, with winners announced after scores have been tabulated. It's not a great expense in money or effort and does foster a club atmosphere.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Quoting the guy that created a seemingly wonky system that consistently rewards those that win by playing to previous consistent potential rather than current higher cap is like saying Trump is great cuz he was elected.

Anomaly is when somebody who maintains a 7 handicap consistently over many years has one timely off period of time and wins a lower flight with a current 12 handicap while suddenly reverting to his 7 handicap scores (which everybody fully expected). I have found this on a consistent basis in almost every event I have reviewed over a couple of decades.

His math is not perfect in his own words. His goal was a universal system not a fair system. He does a remarkable job and it was adopted by default. It just does not truly represent individual potential in real life. A periodic slump does not diminish next game potential. My suggestion takes his system and looks to normalize it over a longer period of time and for competition use only. It is a proactive approach rather than trying to penalize after the fact. It is adapted from bowling, another individual performance sport with handicaps based upon historical potential indicators.

Winners are winners because they have ability to get into the zone when it counts. He assumes they get into the zone every round. No sport works that way. Is playoff hockey the same level as season hockey?

If his system is so perfect why have so many men's leagues adopted league software that uses its own handicap formula? Why only in North America? There are flaws that are perceived as sandbagging when it is just a consistent bias in the system.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

I realize what Mr. Knuth said about the best 10 of the last 20 scores representing the players current potential. If it's desired to limit the change and/or reduce the fluctuations, then perhaps the best 10 of the last 40 games could be considered. Or develop an algorithm like the UK, where it's very slow to go up and very quick to go down.

In the UK, most clubs have a competitive medal round nearly every weekend - it's a competition of 18 holes and usually involves an entry fee of 2-5 pounds, with winners announced after scores have been tabulated. It's not a great expense in money or effort and does foster a club atmosphere.

Astute - trying to measure potential by looking at mostly non-competitive rounds is a stretch. At the very least it needs normalization over a much longer period to eliminate a current anomaly. I would bet there are very few sandbagger accusations in the UK??

[rulie]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Astute - trying to measure potential by looking at mostly non-competitive rounds is a stretch. At the very least it needs normalization over a much longer period to eliminate a current anomaly. I would bet there are very few sandbagger accusations in the UK??

The sandbagging issue seems to be more prevalent in NA (in the UK they are called bandits and seem to be dealt with accordingly).
One way to minimize the benefits of sandbagging in many events in NA is to change the prize structure - give a sleeve of balls to the low scores and award the major prizes as door prizes. The sandbaggers won't show up for those events and the participants are pleased to have a chance at the major prizes.

[OKHC]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Hi again Ed --- in some of the cases where a player won a lower flight with a current 12 handicap while suddenly reverting to his 7 handicap scores,
did this procedure: 10-3. Reduction of Handicap Factor Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores not automatically reduce their handicaps?

I think that everybody would fully expect that to happen on a consistent basis in almost every event that you reviewed over a couple of decades.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Hi again Ed --- in some of the cases where a player won a lower flight with a current 12 handicap while suddenly reverting to his 7 handicap scores,
did this procedure: 10-3. Reduction of Handicap Factor Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores not automatically reduce their handicaps?

I think that everybody would fully expect that to happen on a consistent basis in almost every event that you reviewed over a couple of decades.

The tournament adjustment is virtually useless, not applying to later tournaments. Yes, it is to be expected and you find that okay that people shooting no better than their previously proven capability win a higher handicap flight grouping because of a timely period of playing worse than their own personal standard? Because Pope of Slope says so!

When you can almost pick every flight winner before a tournament based upon seeing a higher handicap than proven potential, I have to say the PoS got potential wrong in his method. Proven potential must have a higher weighting.

[OKHC]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Hi Ed:

"The tournament adjustment is virtually useless, not applying to later tournaments." That is incorrect. Have you read 10-3.

You didn't answer my question, i.e.: "in some of the cases where a player won a lower flight with a current 12 handicap while suddenly reverting to his 7 handicap scores, did this procedure: 10-3. Reduction of Handicap Factor Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores not automatically reduce their handicaps?" I observed that I think that everybody would fully expect that to happen on a consistent basis in almost every event that you reviewed over a couple of decades, so you apparently have many years of examples.

Could you lay out the math of your suggested handicap system, in algebra, so we can debate it.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Hi Ed:

"The tournament adjustment is virtually useless, not applying to later tournaments." That is incorrect. Have you read 10-3.

You didn't answer my question, i.e.: "in some of the cases where a player won a lower flight with a current 12 handicap while suddenly reverting to his 7 handicap scores, did this procedure: 10-3. Reduction of Handicap Factor Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores not automatically reduce their handicaps?" I observed that I think that everybody would fully expect that to happen on a consistent basis in almost every event that you reviewed over a couple of decades, so you apparently have many years of examples. Thus, no unfair advantage created for temporarily playing below proven potential.

Could you lay out the math of your suggested handicap system, in algebra, so we can debate it.

Sorry, typo. Adjustment applying only to later events is what I intended to say. In fact, that formula rarely even applies later with the improving cap getting in under allowance before next event within a year.

No algebra. Keep calculating as normal. If current factor is greater than 110% of best factor in previous two years, then use 110% of that best factor in current event. So, if current slump (or sandbagged) factor is 12.0 and your best factor in last two years was 7.0, then use 7.7 as factor for current event.

Before you say that is unfair, remember that it would apply to everybody so few would not be re-rated to 110% of best in last two years. Only the ones who had unusually high factors would lose their unfair advantage and be forced to play on a level playing field. If you are playing that far below your proven potential, you don't deserve to win until your proven potential is ratified at a higher level over the next year or two.

[OKHC]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Hi again Ed,

a tournament committee can do whatever it wants with handicaps, so your procedure would be ok to impose.

It'd be interesting if someone were to study the results of several tournaments and check if the desired results were achieved.

http://www.popeofslope.com/pointsystem/index.html Our friend Mr. Knuth has created his own system to prevent one guy from winning too many tournaments.

[bcampb00]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Frankly, I see way more examples of "vanity" caps than sandbagging. Both are wrong. I know that many will argue that vanity caps are only cheating themselves, but if they have a partner, the partner won't be too happy. And playing competitors who rearrange schedules to have a match that isn't near competitive because a 7 index shoots 98.

If you want good competition, you need good handicaps. It is worth the effort and TGN (as golf "nuts") should encourage rather strict adherence to the rules.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

One last (?) question on this.

As a public player, how do I now get a valid handicap?

...Never Mind, logged into my old RCGA account and was able to reactivate it for a modest fee...