Most Likely Score?

What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

>

> A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

>

Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "most likely" score? Or do we look at the round as a whole, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

It is up to the players to decide, based on their usual putting, how many of the concessions they would have made/ missed. Anything else is a guess.

> @davep043 said:

> > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> >

> > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> >

>

> Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

>

> This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

> @nsxguy said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > >

> > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > >

> >

> > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> >

> > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

>

> Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

>

> I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

>

> You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

>

> For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

> @davep043 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > >

> > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > >

> > >

> > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > >

> > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> >

> > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> >

> > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> >

> > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> >

> > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

>

> You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

I could make a case for almost anything. 6 putts x 55% is 3.3. Rounded is 3.

"Most likely score" is not an exact science.

And I suspect Player "B" has no idea what his make percentage actually is from 4-5 feet.

Either way it's not something I'd lose sleep over. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

In competition, auto 2-putts at that range would be generous

> @davep043 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > >

> > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > >

> > >

> > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > >

> > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> >

> > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> >

> > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> >

> > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> >

> > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

>

> You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

This is correct.

It’s “most likely score” for a reason. If a player had a 55% chance of making a 4-5 footer, it’s a 1-putt. It’s his MOST LIKELY SCORE.

Anything else is sandbagging.

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

>With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

>

> A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

>

Player A posts a 92. You cannot assume he would have made either of the 8-10' putts. Most likely score for those holes is the conceded score plus another putt.

Player B posts a 90. You can assume he would have made any or all of the 4-5' putts. (Each would be his most likely score for that hole.)

Really strange thread looking in from CONGU land - concepts being discussed are impossible for me to explain to fellow golfers over here.

> @davep043 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > >

> > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > >

> > >

> > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > >

> > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> >

> > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> >

> > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> >

> > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> >

> > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

>

> You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

Dave, the USGA handicap department endorses your concept of each being a one putt. Further, if you had five holes where you perceived your make percentage as 49%, you should count five two-putts, not average them out.

Why would you concede putts on the 8-10' range? I would make a tour player putt those.

> @dokex said:

> Why would you concede putts on the 8-10' range? I would make a tour player putt those.

Maybe the opponent had already won the hole?

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > > >

> > > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > > >

> > > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> > >

> > > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> > >

> > > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> > >

> > > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> > >

> > > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

> >

> > You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

> Dave, the USGA handicap department endorses your concept of each being a one putt. Further, if you had five holes where you perceived your make percentage as 49%, you should count five two-putts, not average them out.

>

Not quite sure that I understand. Slight modification - if the player makes 50% of the putts, from the 4 to 5 foot range, he either makes or misses - the same as tossing a coin, it's either heads or tails. The probability of six heads (putts made) in a row is 1 in 64. The probability of three made (heads) and three missed (tails) is just more than 1 in 4. Why not deal with the most probable outcome?

Once the hole is decided, there are no concessions.

> @dokex said:

> Once the hole is decided, there are no concessions.

Perhaps he just picked up two 8-10 footers once the result had been determined - same result, need to determine the most likely score.

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> Really strange thread looking in from CONGU land - concepts being discussed are impossible for me to explain to fellow golfers over here.

And here. No match play score is posted. Period. I'll be surprised if WHS changes that in the next few years at least.

If the hole wasnt finished, wouldnt you just use the most likely score (par+handicap strokes)?

> @Krt22 said:

> If the hole wasnt finished, wouldnt you just use the most likely score (par+handicap strokes)?

Section 4

Conceded Strokes/Unfinished Holes

Q. How does a player post a score if conceded a stroke or does not finish a hole?

A. If a player does not finish a hole or is conceded a stroke, record the most likely score for handicap purposes. A most likely score is the number of strokes already taken, plus in the player's best judgment, the number of strokes needed to complete the hole from that point more than half the time.

The most likely score should have an "X" preceding the number. For example, player A is just off the green in two strokes, and player A’s partner just holed out for a two; therefore, player A decides to pick up. Player A determines the most likely score would have been to chip on and two putt; therefore, player A will record an X-5 on the scorecard (two strokes already taken plus three more strokes to complete the hole). Player A does not automatically put down the Equitable Stroke Control (ESC)™ maximum. First, player A determines the most likely score and then after the round checks to see if the most likely score is above the ESC limit. In this case, player A has a Course Handicap™ of 24 and an ESC maximum of eight. Recording X-5 is not above ESC limit and therefore, X-5 is the score that must be posting for handicap purposes.

Going back to the 18 cap average putter with 8-10 foot putts. I have a 15 handicap and I consider myself an average putter (34 per round average) but there is no way I make more than 50% of my 8-10 foot putts. Therefore in a match play concession it would be 2 strokes more for me.

> @rogolf said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> > > >

> > > > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> > > >

> > > > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> > > >

> > > > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> > > >

> > > > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

> > >

> > > You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

> > Dave, the USGA handicap department endorses your concept of each being a one putt. Further, if you had five holes where you perceived your make percentage as 49%, you should count five two-putts, not average them out.

> >

>

> Not quite sure that I understand. Slight modification - if the player makes 50% of the putts, from the 4 to 5 foot range, he either makes or misses - the same as tossing a coin, it's either heads or tails. The probability of six heads (putts made) in a row is 1 in 64. The probability of three made (heads) and three missed (tails) is just more than 1 in 4. Why not deal with the most probable outcome?

Let me put it this way: I have been informed that if you know for a fact that you make 40% of flat 5-foot putts, and you are conceded 10 of them (and don’t putt out later) you must post 20 putts for that most-likely effort, not four makes and six misses for a total of 16.

If it no longer helps your partner (if you have one) you may later putt the conceded putt for posting purposes and see what actually happens.

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> > > > >

> > > > > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> > > > >

> > > > > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> > > > >

> > > > > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

> > > >

> > > > You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

> > > Dave, the USGA handicap department endorses your concept of each being a one putt. Further, if you had five holes where you perceived your make percentage as 49%, you should count five two-putts, not average them out.

> > >

> >

> > Not quite sure that I understand. Slight modification - if the player makes 50% of the putts, from the 4 to 5 foot range, he either makes or misses - the same as tossing a coin, it's either heads or tails. The probability of six heads (putts made) in a row is 1 in 64. The probability of three made (heads) and three missed (tails) is just more than 1 in 4. Why not deal with the most probable outcome?

>

> Let me put it this way: I have been informed that if you know for a fact that you make 40% of flat 5-foot putts, and you are conceded 10 of them (and don’t putt out later) you must post 20 putts for that most-likely effort, not four makes and six misses for a total of 16.

>

> If it no longer helps your partner (if you have one) you may later putt the conceded putt for posting purposes and see what actually happens.

Help me understand the math (16?) and the logic behind your response, it would seem to say that even though the player would make 4 out of 10 flat 5-foot putts, there is no "credit" given to him for that success rate - he is deemed to have missed them all. That just isn't consistent with his record, or mathematically logical, and also seems at odds with the purpose of the handicap system to represent the player's potential scoring ability. Let's not worry about any partners - not part of the original question.

For anyone, tour pros included, the MLS outside of 8’ is 2 putts. For anyone, the MLS inside feet is 1-putt.

In the 5’-8’ range, that’s where the toughness of the putt and the putter’s skill comes in. A scratch golfer is still 1-putting from 6 feet, but 2-putting from 7 feet.

Lastly, nobody cares if you claim a 1-putt from any distance. It’ll only lower your cap over time, which is just fine with everyone. But as per the handicapping rules, if you want to claim 2-putts as your MLS, you should take a hard look inside yourself and make sure that 2-putt is correct.

> @rogolf said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > > > > > What score should be posted for handicap in a match between A & B? Both golfers are 18 caps and average putters playing on average greens. With concessions and ESC, both players "shoot" 90.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A is given 2 putts in the 8-10' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > > > > B is given 6 putts in the 4-5' range, with all other gimes under 18"

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Average putters make less than 50% from 8 feet, each of those given to A should count as 2-putts. For B, he might average 50% from 5 feet, so he should count a portion of his as 1-putts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to judge that he'd miss a couple, especially if they had significant break in them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is an interesting question, even for those of us who are accustomed to the USGA method of scoring for handicap purposes. Do we treat each individual hole as an entity all on its own, and just use the likelihood of making that putt to determine the "**most likely**" score? **Or do we look at the round as a whole**, and apportion some percentage of putts as 1-putts and some as 2-putts based on our make percentage from specific distance ranges. I believe that the first option is what the Handicap Manual describes, but the second procedures might be a more representative way of doing things. I'd guess that over the span of 20 rounds things would average out the same, but it could skew individual rounds up or down a bit.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Doesn't the Handicap Manual have a procedure for when a hole is not completed ? You post the most likely score.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would think the "round as a whole" has no bearing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You've got the "formula" correct IMO. For "A" I'd leave the score as is as I don't see an 18 'capper making 50% from 8 feet +.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For "B" though, I'd give 3 1 putts and 3 2 putts for the 6 holes not completed. Even for an 18 I think 50% from 4-5' is fair.

> > > > >

> > > > > You could make a case, if player B makes 55% from that 4 to 5 foot range, that EACH of the 4 to 5 footers would have a better than 50% chance of being made., which would mean that each should count as a 1-putt. In my view, the score posted for that round would be unreasonably low, but would be done in accordance with the rule.

> > > > Dave, the USGA handicap department endorses your concept of each being a one putt. Further, if you had five holes where you perceived your make percentage as 49%, you should count five two-putts, not average them out.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Not quite sure that I understand. Slight modification - if the player makes 50% of the putts, from the 4 to 5 foot range, he either makes or misses - the same as tossing a coin, it's either heads or tails. The probability of six heads (putts made) in a row is 1 in 64. The probability of three made (heads) and three missed (tails) is just more than 1 in 4. Why not deal with the most probable outcome?

> >

> > Let me put it this way: I have been informed that if you know for a fact that you make 40% of flat 5-foot putts, and you are conceded 10 of them (and don’t putt out later) you must post 20 putts for that most-likely effort, not four makes and six misses for a total of 16.

> >

> > If it no longer helps your partner (if you have one) you may later putt the conceded putt for posting purposes and see what actually happens.

>

> Help me understand the math (16?) and the logic behind your response, it would seem to say that even though the player would make 4 out of 10 flat 5-foot putts, there is no "credit" given to him for that success rate - he is deemed to have missed them all. That just isn't consistent with his record, or mathematically logical, and also seems at odds with the purpose of the handicap system to represent the player's potential scoring ability. Let's not worry about any partners - not part of the original question.

I mentioned partners to avoid having a person who wishes to putt out creating a problem for his team. I'm not only worried about the OP, but other readers as well.

If you are a USGA handicap holder and you're not comfortable with the "logic" then by all means putt out and post a score using what the result is. I'm not presenting a case for their logic, I'm simply telling you that the USGA has explicitly told me that each determination of "most likely" putting score is independent from every other incident. I can see that doing some "combination thing" might have merit, but I also see that it would be complicated for people to do accurately, and IMO this is already plenty complicated.

> @Augster said:

> It’s “most likely score” for a reason. If a player had a 55% chance of making a 4-5 footer, it’s a 1-putt. It’s his MOST LIKELY SCORE.

>

> Anything else is sandbagging.

>

>

So if the make percent is 49% from six feet and I pick up five times from six feet then all five six-footers are a two-putt. And that's not sandbagging?

> @Sawgrass said:

> If you are a USGA handicap holder and you're not comfortable with the "logic" then by all means putt out and post a score using what the result is. I'm not presenting a case for their logic, I'm simply telling you that the USGA has explicitly told me that each determination of "most likely" putting score is independent from every other incident. I can see that doing some "combination thing" might have merit, but I also see that it would be complicated for people to do accurately, and IMO this is already plenty complicated.

I agree with @Sawgrass that this is what the USGA handicap rules say, that's why I attempted to identify my opinion that some type of "averaging" might be more appropriate. I wonder how many of us, trying to be fair, would do some type of informal averaging while we're on the course. The thought process might be something like "The last one was about 50/50 and I counted one putt, this one I'll count 2 putts." I don't imagine that many of us have the detailed statistics that would say we're 49% from 7 feet but 55% from 6 feet, we're all trying to use our best judgement. Personally, I'd also look at the difficulty of the putt. A straight 7-footer I might count as 1 putt, and a severely breaking 6 footer as 2 putts.

Going back to the original post, which suggested that Player B is conceded 6 putts in the 4-5' range, while this COULD happen, its pretty rare that someone is conceded that many miss-able putts. I understand that it demonstrates a potential issue with the rule, but its rare that the implementation of the rule could have such a large impact.

Don't you have a limit on the number of holes you can post a "most likely score" and still have it count for handicap? I thought you had to complete 13 holes outright to be able to use MLS on the remaining holes.

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Augster said:

> > It’s “most likely score” for a reason. If a player had a 55% chance of making a 4-5 footer, it’s a 1-putt. It’s his MOST LIKELY SCORE.

> >

> > Anything else is sandbagging.

> >

> >

> So if the make percent is 49% from six feet and I pick up five times from six feet then all five six-footers are a two-putt. And that's not sandbagging?

>

Even if you kept stats accurate enough to know that you make 6' putts 49% of the time that does not mean all five of those 6-footers you mention above are two-putts. Obviously you are not going to make a 6' putt with 3 feet of bend anywhere near 50% of the time and 6' putts straight uphill you would make much more often than 50% of the time. Each individual time should be evaluated separately.

> @Ty_Webb said:

> Don't you have a limit on the number of holes you can post a "most likely score" and still have it count for handicap? I thought you had to complete 13 holes outright to be able to use MLS on the remaining holes.

Most likely score is different than posting holes not played. When you have played only 13 holes the remaining 5 can be posted as Par + any handicap stroke(s) for that particular hole. It is not your most likely score but rather a score that should have (mostly) no affect on the players handicap for those holes.

> @Ty_Webb said:

> Don't you have a limit on the number of holes you can post a "most likely score" and still have it count for handicap? I thought you had to complete 13 holes outright to be able to use MLS on the remaining holes.

This is a good reason to learn where the rules can be found, and look at them if you have a question:

>4-1. Unfinished Holes and Conceded Strokes

>A player who starts, but does not complete a hole or is conceded a stroke must record for handicap purposes the most likely score. The most likely score may not exceed the player's Equitable Stroke Control limit, defined in Section 4-3. This most likely score should be preceded by an "X." (See Decision 4-1/1.)

>**There is no limit to the number of unfinished holes a player may have in a round, provided that failure to finish is not for the purpose of handicap manipulation.**