Most Likely Score?

[Augster]

> @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?

>

 

No. It isn’t. It’s following the handicapping rules as laid out by the ruling bodies. By definition, following the rules isn’t cheating.

 

BTW, scratch players are 55% from 6 feet. So any cap higher than that could easily take 2-putts. But again, nobody is going to whine that a player decided he’d take 1-putt from there. Or from anywhere really.

[Roadking2003]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @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.

 

Yes, it does. Each picked up putt that has less than 50% odds is a two-putt (or three-putt if over 60 feet). So all six-footers are two-putts.

[Roadking2003]

> @Augster said:

> > @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?

> >

>

> No. It isn’t. It’s following the handicapping rules as laid out by the ruling bodies. By definition, following the rules isn’t cheating.

>

 

Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

[HatsForBats]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @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.

>

> Yes, it does. Each picked up putt that has less than 50% odds is a two-putt (or three-putt if over 60 feet). So all six-footers are two-putts.

 

So a person that makes 6' putts 49% of the time would make straight-in uphill putts the same 49% of the time and 6' severely downhill putts with 3+ feet of break the same 49% of the time?

[Roadking2003]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > Yes, it does. Each picked up putt that has less than 50% odds is a two-putt (or three-putt if over 60 feet). So all six-footers are two-putts.

>

> So a person that makes 6' putts 49% of the time would make straight-in uphill putts the same 49% of the time and 6' severely downhill putts with 3+ feet of break the same 49% of the time?

 

Some say a straight putt is harder.

 

But, I'll get back to you when we have all the necessary stats on six-foot puttts.

[davep043]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Augster said:

> > No. It isn’t. It’s following the handicapping rules as laid out by the ruling bodies. By definition, following the rules isn’t cheating.

>

> Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

 

Sandbagging is cheating, breaking the rules to intentionally manipulate the handicap. Following the rules isn't sandbagging. And things are likely to even out over the long run. All of those 48% putts that count as 2 putts will be about equalized by all of the 52% putts that count as 1 putt.

 

Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Yes, it does. Each picked up putt that has less than 50% odds is a two-putt (or three-putt if over 60 feet). So all six-footers are two-putts.

> >

> > So a person that makes 6' putts 49% of the time would make straight-in uphill putts the same 49% of the time and 6' severely downhill putts with 3+ feet of break the same 49% of the time?

>

> Some say a straight putt is harder.

>

> But, I'll get back to you when we have all the necessary stats on six-foot puttts.

 

Just look at the putt and estimate if you would make that putt, and that putt only, 50% of the time. Sometimes the answer for a 6' putt would be yes and sometimes no (if you make 49% from 6' overall). Pretty simple.

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > No. It isn’t. It’s following the handicapping rules as laid out by the ruling bodies. By definition, following the rules isn’t cheating.

> >

> > Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

>

 

>

> Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

>

>

Silly post. I never even hinted at that.

 

[davep043]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

> >

> > Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

> >

> Silly post. I never even hinted at that.

>

 

When you call following the rules "legal sandbagging", you imply there is a better or more appropriate way.

[SkiSchoolPro]

My take is this: For players who are typically only taking putts of 4 feet or less, the current rule of most likely score ON EACH INDIVIDUAL HOLE is going to result in VANITY CAPS. OTOH, for players who putt out everything missable within 5 feet, but take some "two putts" in the 7 to 15 foot range, their HCs will be higher than they should be. Yes, I might not make over 50% of my 9 footers, but I certainly average less than 2 putts from that distance.

 

Overall, I'd say gimmes result in most players being vanity caps with the exception of those who try to manipulate their HC. Indexes would be more accurate it we used the round as a whole method that some have suggested.

[bazinky]

Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

 

Personally, I've always hated that match play scores count for handicap purposes. Too much variance in how holes get played depending on what your opponent does, especially if your opponent gets themselves in trouble off the tee. For example, it's not uncommon for me to make what are essentially intentional bogeys (by putting for par) because I'm laying up and/or taking trouble out of play after my opponent has gotten themselves in a bad situation.

 

I'm not always trying to make my best score in match play, just a better one than my opponent.

[davep043]

> @bazinky said:

> Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

 

Its definitely permissible to finish out the hole, as long as you're not holding up the group behind. Generally, you should wait until all of the putts that count are completed. In the case of a fourball match (and maybe in other team match play situations that don't come immediately to mind), you may NOT putt out a conceded putt if it could help your partner with his putt.

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bazinky said:

> > Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

>

>you may NOT putt out a conceded putt if it could help your partner with his putt.

>

>

 

Isn't it if you do putt it out after the putt has been conceded and before the hole is finished then your score, including the stroke for the conceded putt, is the score for the hole? I believe that's the way it works at least in Better Ball of Partners.

[Augster]

Indexes would be even more predictable if we didn’t post match play scores. > @bazinky said:

> Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

>

> Personally, I've always hated that match play scores count for handicap purposes. Too much variance in how holes get played depending on what your opponent does, especially if your opponent gets themselves in trouble off the tee. For example, it's not uncommon for me to make what are essentially intentional bogeys (by putting for par) because I'm laying up and/or taking trouble out of play after my opponent has gotten themselves in a bad situation.

>

> I'm not always trying to make my best score in match play, just a better one than my opponent.

 

Yes. You can putt out and count that as your score. Though, it’s hard to focus as hard once the hole is decided.

 

I wouldn’t mind if single match play scores were posted for cap as they are now. I’d like to see fourball match play thrown out for cap purposes. It’s not even the same game.

 

 

[davep043]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @bazinky said:

> > > Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

> >

> >you may NOT putt out a conceded putt if it could help your partner with his putt.

> >

> >

>

> Isn't it if you do putt it out after the putt has been conceded and before the hole is finished then your score, including the stroke for the conceded putt, is the score for the hole? I believe that's the way it works at least in Better Ball of Partners.

 

That's right, you essentially invalidate your partner's score on that hole.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Augster said:

> Indexes would be even more predictable if we didn’t post match play scores. > @bazinky said:

> > Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

> >

> > Personally, I've always hated that match play scores count for handicap purposes. Too much variance in how holes get played depending on what your opponent does, especially if your opponent gets themselves in trouble off the tee. For example, it's not uncommon for me to make what are essentially intentional bogeys (by putting for par) because I'm laying up and/or taking trouble out of play after my opponent has gotten themselves in a bad situation.

> >

> > I'm not always trying to make my best score in match play, just a better one than my opponent.

>

> Yes. You can putt out and count that as your score. Though, it’s hard to focus as hard once the hole is decided.

>

> I wouldn’t mind if single match play scores were posted for cap as they are now. I’d like to see fourball match play thrown out for cap purposes. It’s not even the same game.

>

>

 

As a good example of this...first match of our river cup was best ball. Hit a layup on a short par 4 to the middle of the fairway. My partner hits into the trees right and is 95% dead for any sane golfer trying to not make double or worse. I hit my approach to 4-6feet for an easy birdie putt and our opponents have some really long putts. Partner says no point in him chunking out so he goes for it. Ball goes in the hole for eagle.

 

I'd say match play in general shouldn't be counted towards handicap as you're not playing to score the lowest possible score for the entire match as your often just playing to not do worse than what your opponent just did.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> > @Augster said:

> > Indexes would be even more predictable if we didn’t post match play scores. > @bazinky said:

> > > Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

> > >

> > > Personally, I've always hated that match play scores count for handicap purposes. Too much variance in how holes get played depending on what your opponent does, especially if your opponent gets themselves in trouble off the tee. For example, it's not uncommon for me to make what are essentially intentional bogeys (by putting for par) because I'm laying up and/or taking trouble out of play after my opponent has gotten themselves in a bad situation.

> > >

> > > I'm not always trying to make my best score in match play, just a better one than my opponent.

> >

> > Yes. You can putt out and count that as your score. Though, it’s hard to focus as hard once the hole is decided.

> >

> > I wouldn’t mind if single match play scores were posted for cap as they are now. I’d like to see fourball match play thrown out for cap purposes. It’s not even the same game.

> >

> >

>

> As a good example of this...first match of our river cup was best ball. Hit a layup on a short par 4 to the middle of the fairway. My partner hits into the trees right and is 95% dead for any sane golfer trying to not make double or worse. I hit my approach to 4-6feet for an easy birdie putt and our opponents have some really long putts. Partner says no point in him chunking out so he goes for it. Ball goes in the hole for eagle.

>

> I'd say match play in general shouldn't be counted towards handicap as you're not playing to score the lowest possible score for the entire match as your often just playing to not do worse than what your opponent just did.

 

I dislike match play for this very same reason. The goal is no longer to play "good" golf, but "good enough" golf. In some cases, as you illustrated, it might be spectacular golf, but mostly it will be lagging 10 foot birdie putts when your opponent is in with bogey. I don't ever want to lag 10 foot putts, but that is many times the optimal play in a match. It extends to other shot situations as well. Bad habit to pick up. Equally bad to try lots of "hero" shots for obvious reasons. Almost impossible for the change in course management approach to not impact handicap index calcs.

[rogolf]

> @davep043 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @bazinky said:

> > > > Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

> > >

> > >you may NOT putt out a conceded putt if it could help your partner with his putt.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Isn't it if you do putt it out after the putt has been conceded and before the hole is finished then your score, including the stroke for the conceded putt, is the score for the hole? I believe that's the way it works at least in Better Ball of Partners.

>

> That's right, you essentially invalidate your partner's score on that hole.

 

That is only applicable if putting out after a concession assists your partner in play of the hole (as noted in post #42).

[davep043]

> @rogolf said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @bazinky said:

> > > > > Would it be permissible to just finish out the hole if it's conceded in match play and use that for actual posting?

> > > >

> > > >you may NOT putt out a conceded putt if it could help your partner with his putt.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Isn't it if you do putt it out after the putt has been conceded and before the hole is finished then your score, including the stroke for the conceded putt, is the score for the hole? I believe that's the way it works at least in Better Ball of Partners.

> >

> > That's right, you essentially invalidate your partner's score on that hole.

>

> That is only applicable if putting out after a concession assists your partner in play of the hole.

 

Yeah, that was mentioned in one of the nested quotes prior to my agreement with @HatsForBats. Perhaps he didn't realize that it was only an issue if it could assist your partner, but now its double clear.

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

> > >

> > > Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

> > >

> > Silly post. I never even hinted at that.

> >

>

> When you call following the rules "legal sandbagging", you imply there is a better or more appropriate way.

 

Yes. If I pick up six times from six feet I should look at all six as a group and probably assume I would have made two of the six. But the rules require that I assume a two-putt for all six. That inflates my handicap.

[Roadking2003]

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> Overall, I'd say gimmes result in most players being vanity caps with the exception of those who try to manipulate their HC. Indexes would be more accurate it we used the round as a whole method that some have suggested.

 

Yes!!!

[Roadking2003]

> @bazinky said:

 

> Personally, I've always hated that match play scores count for handicap purposes. Too much variance in how holes get played depending on what your opponent does, especially if your opponent gets themselves in trouble off the tee. For example, it's not uncommon for me to make what are essentially intentional bogeys (by putting for par) because I'm laying up and/or taking trouble out of play after my opponent has gotten themselves in a bad situation.

 

Maybe you could look at it from the opposite side. If you primarily play match, your stroke play scores make your handicap inaccurate for match play.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

> > > >

> > > > Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

> > > >

> > > Silly post. I never even hinted at that.

> > >

> >

> > When you call following the rules "legal sandbagging", you imply there is a better or more appropriate way.

>

> Yes. If I pick up six times from six feet I should look at all six as a group and probably assume I would have made two of the six. But the rules require that I assume a two-putt for all six. That inflates my handicap.

 

Nope, the rules do not require you to assume a 2 putt for all six holes. The rules want you to evaluate each hole independently. If you were playing with me and said you make 49% from 6-feet and then proceeded to add 2 strokes for a straight uphill putt from 6' that was conceded I would call you on trying to inflate your score. You are clearly trying to sandbag there.

[davep043]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > Yes. If I pick up six times from six feet I should look at all six as a group and probably assume I would have made two of the six. But the rules require that I assume a two-putt for all six. That inflates my handicap.

>

> Nope, the rules do not require you to assume a 2 putt for all six holes. The rules want you to evaluate each hole independently. If you were playing with me and said you make 49% from 6-feet and then proceeded to add 2 strokes for a straight uphill putt from 6' that was conceded I would call you on trying to inflate your score. You are clearly trying to sandbag there.

 

Agree completely. If you average 49% for all 6-footers, you might be 65% on the straight ones, and 35% for the putts with a foot of break. Evaluate each independently, and honestly.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > Yes. If I pick up six times from six feet I should look at all six as a group and probably assume I would have made two of the six. But the rules require that I assume a two-putt for all six. That inflates my handicap.

> >

> > Nope, the rules do not require you to assume a 2 putt for all six holes. The rules want you to evaluate each hole independently. If you were playing with me and said you make 49% from 6-feet and then proceeded to add 2 strokes for a straight uphill putt from 6' that was conceded I would call you on trying to inflate your score. You are clearly trying to sandbag there.

>

> Agree completely. If you average 49% for all 6-footers, you might be 65% on the straight ones, and 35% for the putts with a foot of break. Evaluate each independently, and honestly.

>

 

You are applying exact numbers to a very inexact situation. When somebody concedes a putt, you don't know how long it is and you don't know how it breaks. So you are guessing that it's six feet, or five, or seven. And I've never seen anybody go back and read a gimme putt to determine how difficult it would be. Not only that, nobody I've met knows exactly what percentage of six-footers they make much less how many straight six-footers they make.

 

So we are dealing with estimates of estimates with virtually NO facts to base those estimates on. So here are the facts;

 

* You don't read the putt

* you don't measure the putt

* You don't know your make stats from every distance or for most of us from ANY distance

* You don't know your make stats from ANY distance if the putt breaks 12 inches

* You might not even be near the gimme as your opponent might slap it away before you get close.

 

If you stand around trying to measure all of those aspects the rest of your group will probably already be on the next tee before you calculate your most likely score.

[Roadking2003]

> @HatsForBats said:

> Nope, the rules do not require you to assume a 2 putt for all six holes. The rules want you to evaluate each hole independently. If you were playing with me and said you make 49% from 6-feet

 

But NOBODY outside of the tours knows what their make percentages are, much less their make percentages for breaking putts of 12 inches vs breaking putts of 2 inches.

 

And even the Tours don't compute make percentages for breaking putts vs straight putts.

[Schulzmc]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

 

>

> I dislike match play for this very same reason. The goal is no longer to play "good" golf, but "good enough" golf. In some cases, as you illustrated, it might be spectacular golf, but mostly it will be lagging 10 foot birdie putts when your opponent is in with bogey. I don't ever want to lag 10 foot putts, but that is many times the optimal play in a match. It extends to other shot situations as well. Bad habit to pick up. Equally bad to try lots of "hero" shots for obvious reasons. Almost impossible for the change in course management approach to not impact handicap index calcs.

 

Isn't match play closer to the original intent of the game of golf? I don't believe they even kept complete round scores "back in the day." It wasn't about a low score, it was about less strokes than your opponent on a hole. I love match play. For me it is the heart of the game.

[davep043]

> @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?

>

...

 

> @Roadking2003 said:

>

> You are applying exact numbers to a very inexact situation. When somebody concedes a putt, you don't know how long it is and you don't know how it breaks. So you are guessing that it's six feet, or five, or seven. And I've never seen anybody go back and read a gimme putt to determine how difficult it would be. Not only that, nobody I've met knows exactly what percentage of six-footers they make much less how many straight six-footers they make.

>

> So we are dealing with estimates of estimates with virtually NO facts to base those estimates on. So here are the facts;

>

> * You don't read the putt

> * you don't measure the putt

> * You don't know your make stats from every distance or for most of us from ANY distance

> * You don't know your make stats from ANY distance if the putt breaks 12 inches

> * You might not even be near the gimme as your opponent might slap it away before you get close.

>

> If you stand around trying to measure all of those aspects the rest of your group will probably already be on the next tee before you calculate your most likely score.

 

You brought some very exact numbers into your own argument, it seems rather poor form to back away from exact numbers now. All the rules require is that you evaluate each situation honestly, using whatever information you have available.

[nsxguy]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

> > > >

> > > > Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

> > > >

> > > Silly post. I never even hinted at that.

> > >

> >

> > When you call following the rules "legal sandbagging", you imply there is a better or more appropriate way.

>

> Yes. If I pick up six times from six feet I should look at all six as a group and probably assume I would have made two of the six. But the rules require that I assume a two-putt for all six. That inflates my handicap.

 

Lucky you. But that's still NOT sandbagging. Sandbagging is purposely manipulating your handicap. That's not what is happening here as you are (for a change ?) following the rules.

 

This whole thing reminds me of the time a guy flipped a coin 5 times in a row and it came up heads every time.

 

His buddy asks him what are the odds it'll be heads again on the 6th flip. He has trouble calculating the odds,,,,,,,,,,,,,, when the odds are the same as every other flip - 50/50.

[Augster]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > Sounds like legal sandbagging (not cheating, but sandbagging).

> > > >

> > > > Really, do you think that a player should NOT follow the rules? Or perhaps just follow some of the rules, pick and choose which ones should apply to him.

> > > >

> > > Silly post. I never even hinted at that.

> > >

> >

> > When you call following the rules "legal sandbagging", you imply there is a better or more appropriate way.

>

> Yes. If I pick up six times from six feet I should look at all six as a group and probably assume I would have made two of the six. But the rules require that I assume a two-putt for all six. That inflates my handicap.

 

That’s wrong. You look at each putt YOU ACTUALLY HAVE and assess whether you’d 1-putt THAT PUTT 51% of the time or more.

 

It’s case by case. With standardized percentages to help guide you. And if it’s that close to 50% in your mind, take a whack at it and see what happens.