Handicapping a match & "playing off the low man"

[Shilgy]

20 hours ago, Augster said:

I play off 3 now. My son plays off 10. My friend Bill plays off 15 and my friend Jack plays the golds and plays off 20.

 

I’ll have a match with them any time and give full strokes after subtracting me out. I’d bet it’s close to 55/45 toward me just because I’ll play better golf more consistently. 
 

If you have guys that have real caps, the WHS works fantastically regardless of the “big difference in handicaps”. 
 

The EASY way to check after the round is to see what your net score was. If you’re at net par, something you should do 1/4 to 1/5 rounds, you’ll likely win the money. If you aren’t, and someone else is at net par, they’ll likely win the money. 

I would agree. If I play with a group like you mention, and I am a 4 at the moment, I will win more often than not. Memory is a funny thing though. Many will remember the times the higher cap played great and blew you away.And it is much “easier/more likely” for a 15 handicap to shoot 5 strokes better than their cap than it is for a lower handicap. So those rounds tend to be remembered as the norm rather than the rounds where the higher cap blew up and you coasted to a win without even playing great.

[rjp1969]

Our yearly group weekend always has this controversy.  The difference typically shows up most in skins.  The low handicapper would prefer strokes because his par on the 'harder' holes is more likely to win him a skin, versus the likelihood that the high handicapper getting those strokes on the 'easier' holes will get him one.  As skins essentially is match play during a mostly stroke play competition, I am sympathetic to his position, but we have always played off of him and endured his whining.

Edited October 15, 2020 by rjp1969
spllelling errors.

[Mr. Bean]

On 10/11/2020 at 4:35 PM, davep043 said:

Do you think the outcomes would be substantially different if you gave strokes on the 8 to 14 "easiest" holes on the course?  I don't have sources in front of me, but I've read that while individual match results might vary, the percentages won by higher and lower handicap players stay about the same.

 

I remember having read a study on this and it must have been on this forum where I picked it up. IIRC there was a clear statistical difference between those two ways of allocating handicap strokes and it was very solidly founded. The idea to support the total handicaps was that the strokes the higher cap gets are more located on such holes where he has a reasonable chance of making a par while the lower cap also would make a par. The probability of making a par on the most difficult holes between the players favors the low cap despite the handicap stroke the higher cap gets.

 

I wonder if anybody can remember the study or even better, dig it up from somewhere.

[davep043]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

I wonder if anybody can remember the study or even better, dig it up from somewhere.

I did a quick search and came up with this:

https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa184

They say that lower-handicap players win about 53% of matches, based on scoring data from a single golf club.   They then evaluate a number of adjustments that could make the outcomes more even.  Their suggestion was to play with full handicaps, AND give the high-handicapper an extra half stroke.  

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I did a quick search and came up with this:

https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa184

They say that lower-handicap players win about 53% of matches, based on scoring data from a single golf club.   They then evaluate a number of adjustments that could make the outcomes more even.  Their suggestion was to play with full handicaps, AND give the high-handicapper an extra half stroke.  

 

Yes, with handicap difference lower cap wins more than 50% and with total handicaps it is the other way round.

[davep043]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yes, with handicap difference lower cap wins more than 50% and with total handicaps it is the other way round.

That's not the way I read it, but I could be wrong.  This is their Table 2, and I've bolded what I think are the base results for Differential (off the low ball) and Cumulative (total strokes), given a couple of different ways of ordering the holes for stroke allocation

Quote

Table 2

Win percentage (handicapped match play with tie-breaker) of the lower handicap golfer under the different hole rankings, stroke allocation methods, and extra strokes added. The differential- and cumulative-optimized hole rankings are used for the respective results in the “optimized” column. (95% confidence intervals have margins of error in the range of +/–0.035%.)

Stroke allocation method	Extra strokes added	Hole Ranking Method
		Course-defined (%)	Empirical (%)	Gap (%)	Optimized (%)
Differential	0	53.1	54.2	52.5	49.6
	0.5	50.5	51.6	49.9	47.1
	1	48.1	49.3	47.4	44.6
	2	43.1	44.4	42.3	39.7
Cumulative	0	52.9	52.5	52.6	51.9
	0.5	50.3	49.8	49.9	49.4
	1	48.0	47.3	47.6	47.1
	2	43.1	42.1	42.7	42.1

Using the stroke allocation, the win percentage was pretty close.  I didn't read close enough to understand the methodology behind the other stroke allocation methods.

Edited October 15, 2020 by davep043

[Mr. Bean]

You are right, the odds are different only with some other adjustments. 

 

Nevertheless, the recommendation in the article is to use full handicaps for both players.

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

You are right, the odds are different only with some other adjustments. 

 

Nevertheless, the recommendation in the article is to use full handicaps for both players.

I confess that I did not read it. Was their suggestion to play full handicaps or their conclusion was it made the results 50-50? I am not sure about Finland and the R&A but the USGA has always been a tiny bit tilted towards the low handicap.it gives folks a reason to improve.

[Mr. Bean]

21 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I confess that I did not read it. Was their suggestion to play full handicaps or their conclusion was it made the results 50-50? I am not sure about Finland and the R&A but the USGA has always been a tiny bit tilted towards the low handicap.it gives folks a reason to improve.

 

Well, in Finland it has been quite common that in handicap stroke play competitions lower cap wins in case of a tie for the same reason. Afa match play is concerned I would personally like to see it less favorable for the low cap.

 

Then again, IMHO handicap match play is just for fun, just like scramble...

[rogolf]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I remember having read a study on this and it must have been on this forum where I picked it up. IIRC there was a clear statistical difference between those two ways of allocating handicap strokes and it was very solidly founded. The idea to support the total handicaps was that the strokes the higher cap gets are more located on such holes where he has a reasonable chance of making a par while the lower cap also would make a par. The probability of making a par on the most difficult holes between the players favors the low cap despite the handicap stroke the higher cap gets.

 

I wonder if anybody can remember the study or even better, dig it up from somewhere.

Search for Golf Australia data and reports.

[Augster]

That was an awesome read. Thanks for the link. 
 

TLDR: To achieve the most level (50/50) chance to win a match play match:

1: give the higher cap a 1/2 shot extra if the differential between the two players is more than 3 strokes. 
 

2:Use full handicaps. Do not subtract out. 
 

Can anyone find a paper of some sort where they analyze the “fairness” in fourball? USGA, with the new WHS, says the % is 90%. 
 

Interesting read. 

[rogolf]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I remember having read a study on this and it must have been on this forum where I picked it up. IIRC there was a clear statistical difference between those two ways of allocating handicap strokes and it was very solidly founded. The idea to support the total handicaps was that the strokes the higher cap gets are more located on such holes where he has a reasonable chance of making a par while the lower cap also would make a par. The probability of making a par on the most difficult holes between the players favors the low cap despite the handicap stroke the higher cap gets.

 

I wonder if anybody can remember the study or even better, dig it up from somewhere.

Look at the link below for analysis of data from Australia (and don't ask me for a summary).

https://www.statisticalsolutions.com.au/publications.html

Edited October 16, 2020 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

14 hours ago, rogolf said:

Look at the link below for analysis of data from Australia (and don't ask me for a summary).

https://www.statisticalsolutions.com.au/publications.html

 

From the first glance that data seems to represent the basis of building a handicap system in general, not an application of playing handicap indexes for Match Play specifically.

 

Thanks anyway.

[davep043]

15 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I confess that I did not read it. Was their suggestion to play full handicaps or their conclusion was it made the results 50-50? I am not sure about Finland and the R&A but the USGA has always been a tiny bit tilted towards the low handicap.it gives folks a reason to improve.

 

15 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 Afa match play is concerned I would personally like to see it less favorable for the low cap.

I think that because both the previous USGA system and the current WHS use only the players "better" scores to calculate the Handicap, the system must favor the lower handicapper in the long run.  Just as a generality, the higher the handicap, the wider the variability, so the higher handicapper's average score is further from his handicap.  If each player has an average day, the better player's net will be slightly lower than his opponent's.  I have to believe that that trend, true for total strokes, would also also result in an edge in match play between those two players.  

I won't argue with @Mr. Bean's preference, but I've been accustomed to the USGA method for so long that it seems appropriate to me for the lower handicap to have a small advantage.

[Shilgy]

7 hours ago, davep043 said:

 

I think that because both the previous USGA system and the current WHS use only the players "better" scores to calculate the Handicap, the system must favor the lower handicapper in the long run.  Just as a generality, the higher the handicap, the wider the variability, so the higher handicapper's average score is further from his handicap.  If each player has an average day, the better player's net will be slightly lower than his opponent's.  I have to believe that that trend, true for total strokes, would also also result in an edge in match play between those two players.  

I won't argue with @Mr. Bean's preference, but I've been accustomed to the USGA method for so long that it seems appropriate to me for the lower handicap to have a small advantage.

Agree, and 53% to 47% if I read the above correctly seems more than reasonable to me.

[Augster]

I’m playing tomorrow giving an extra 1/2 shot and we’re using full caps. No subtracting out. Our matches are always close, but I guarantee I win close to 60% of the time. I’m a 3, my friend is a 15. But the matches are always close and each side of the nassau seems to be determined on the final hole most days. 
 

Should be fun!

[HatsForBats]

On 10/15/2020 at 12:32 PM, rjp1969 said:

Our yearly group weekend always has this controversy.  The difference typically shows up most in skins.  The low handicapper would prefer strokes because his par on the 'harder' holes is more likely to win him a skin, versus the likelihood that the high handicapper getting those strokes on the 'easier' holes will get him one.  As skins essentially is match play during a mostly stroke play competition, I am sympathetic to his position, but we have always played off of him and endured his whining.

Give the player what they think they want and then watch them whine as they have to make a hole in one to tie, not to win, on a par 3. Playing off the low ball is much more equitable IMO.

[Mr. Bean]

19 hours ago, HatsForBats said:

Give the player what they think they want and then watch them whine as they have to make a hole in one to tie, not to win, on a par 3. Playing off the low ball is much more equitable IMO.

 

I sure did not understand that.

[EmperorPenguin]

I am a little late in this thread, but I hope this can contribute.

 

When I went to Scotland last year with my three guests, we played eight matches.  We understood the significant differences between stroking off the low man versus strokes where they fall, so we alternated the days.  Ultimately we finished the series all tied after the last match: 3-3-2.

[jdl]

On 10/18/2020 at 11:52 AM, Mr. Bean said:

 

I sure did not understand that.

I did, because I saw it happen a few weeks back. I was the low man in our 12 person skins game, but instead of playing off me as scratch, I got all my strokes. So that meant the guys with the highest caps got strokes on all the par 3s and a couple of those holes were won with pars that became net birdies.