Is this a fair money game?

[rogolf]

16 minutes ago, Augster said:

This thread is very odd. Never played net fourball? It’s the most played game in the world. 
 

Personally, for everyday play, foursomes is awful. There is too much trying to ram putts in and trying hero shots. Play high/low instead. Instead of 1-up, 1-down etc. there are 2 points per hole (hi/low). Subtract out the low guy and go play. No need for 80%, or 90%. Because the high is playing also, 100% PH then subtract out the low guy. 
 

Fourball is great for bigger, club vs. club matches etc. But for day to day play, High/Low is much better. Nobody is in their pocket very often. 

I've never liked hi/low, it's far too slow.  Imo, fourball best ball (gross or net at your choice) is THE best game by far.  If you're out of a hole, pick up and do something useful - help your partner, tend the flag, fix ball marks, rake bunker.

[Krt22]

19 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I've never liked hi/low, it's far too slow.  Imo, fourball best ball (gross or net at your choice) is THE best game by far.  If you're out of a hole, pick up and do something useful - help your partner, tend the flag, fix ball marks, rake bunker.

Yep, there is a reason it's so popular at many club comps as well (esp member guests). The perfect ham and egg round is glorious

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Pretty sure I’m correct.  If I plug in names and let GHIN calculate and do a 80% calculation this is what happens. 
 

one 4 CH stays a 4 PH.  Another 4 goes to a 3.  One 7  CH goes to a 6 while two other 7’s go to a 5 PH.

 

 

Sure, maybe at 80% but are we looking at the same page ?

 

The chart *I* see (as below) says 90% for four-ball match play, not 80.

 

And the caps as stated in the OP (*I* presume they were Course Handicaps) were 3,4,5, and 6. And I don't know how 1 4 cap could stay at 4 and another "go to a 3".

 

So 3 (CH) would stay 3 PH (2.7 rounded up), 4 (3.6) would stay 4 and 5 (4.5) would stay at 5. 6 would be 5.4 and would round down to 5.

 

Not so ?

 

 

[nsxguy]

41 minutes ago, Augster said:

This thread is very odd. Never played net fourball? It’s the most played game in the world. 
 

Personally, for everyday play, foursomes is awful. There is too much trying to ram putts in and trying hero shots. Play high/low instead. Instead of 1-up, 1-down etc. there are 2 points per hole (hi/low). Subtract out the low guy and go play. No need for 80%, or 90%. Because the high is playing also, 100% PH then subtract out the low guy. 
 

Fourball is great for bigger, club vs. club matches etc. But for day to day play, High/Low is much better. Nobody is in their pocket very often. 

 

Not only have I never played "net 4-ball" (I think) I don't even know what that is. 🙃

 

Nobody mentioned 4-somes, otherwise (better ?) know as alternate shot, but I agree that's normally a poor game.

 

But I don't know about "hero shots" and ramming in putts. If anything foursomes is generally a MUCH more conservative style of play.

 

 

 

 

[rogolf]

47 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not only have I never played "net 4-ball" (I think) I don't even know what that is. 🙃

 

Nobody mentioned 4-somes, otherwise (better ?) know as alternate shot, but I agree that's normally a poor game.

 

But I don't know about "hero shots" and ramming in putts. If anything foursomes is generally a MUCH more conservative style of play.

 

 

 

 

Net fourball best ball just uses net score instead of gross score for the team's best ball (or better ball since there's only two players on each side/team).

Foursomes was mentioned above, but I suspect it was done incorrectly, ie, not meaning alternate shot.  Match play foursomes is a very good game, very quick and enjoyable to play.  As an example, Muirfield in Scotland only allows two balls to be played in each group in the afternoon.  If there's two of you, each can play their own ball.  If there's three in the group, two players will have to play alternate shot, one player can play his or her own ball.  If there's four of you, you will be playing foursomes (alternate shot).  It's all about pace of play.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, Augster said:

This thread is very odd. Never played net fourball? It’s the most played game in the world. 
 

Personally, for everyday play, foursomes is awful. There is too much trying to ram putts in and trying hero shots. Play high/low instead. Instead of 1-up, 1-down etc. there are 2 points per hole (hi/low). Subtract out the low guy and go play. No need for 80%, or 90%. Because the high is playing also, 100% PH then subtract out the low guy. 
 

Fourball is great for bigger, club vs. club matches etc. But for day to day play, High/Low is much better. Nobody is in their pocket very often. 

We play it ALL. High/Low, second ball tie breaker, added scores of the two balls, multiplied scores of the two balls, the two digit number game (ie a 4 and 5 = 45 versus the other teams 5 and 6 = 56 (11 points won)  etc etc etc.

 

Really depends on the group - with higher handicaps in the mix fourball is nice to keep things moving, but agree with better players having the two balls in play is more fun. 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not only have I never played "net 4-ball" (I think) I don't even know what that is. 🙃

 

Nobody mentioned 4-somes, otherwise (better ?) know as alternate shot, but I agree that's normally a poor game.

 

But I don't know about "hero shots" and ramming in putts. If anything foursomes is generally a MUCH more conservative style of play.

 

 

 

 

That was me - spouting off about foursomes rather than what I meant - fourball.

 

I love foursomes too though, but it can be a challenging format to get your rhythm going.

[PixlPutterman]

I've played a ton of 4 ball, but always stroke, not match play.

 

We play net money games on most weekends but it's always stroke play

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sure, maybe at 80% but are we looking at the same page ?

 

The chart *I* see (as below) says 90% for four-ball match play, not 80.

 

And the caps as stated in the OP (*I* presume they were Course Handicaps) were 3,4,5, and 6. And I don't know how 1 4 cap could stay at 4 and another "go to a 3".

 

So 3 (CH) would stay 3 PH (2.7 rounded up), 4 (3.6) would stay 4 and 5 (4.5) would stay at 5. 6 would be 5.4 and would round down to 5.

 

Not so ?

 

 

Why does it make sense at 80% but not 90% if some guys are moving differently than others with the same course handicap?  Remember we only round once these days.  So you are taking their course handicap already rounded and then multiplying by the allowance percentage.  
Remember the old slider we had on the previous GHIN app?  That type of thing really still applies.

See this

https://www.usga.org/course-handicap-calculator.html

 

When you enter the numbers you will get the rounded CH….HOWEVER….you also get this note:

Note: The unrounded Course Handicap value will be used to calculate your Playing Handicap. For more information, refer to the USGA Handicap Committee Guide.

[larrybud]

You first calculate your Course Handicap:

 

• CH = (index * slope / 113 ) + Course Rating - Par
• If you are playing at 100% allocation (e.g. 1 v 1 match play), then round the CH to the nearest whole number.
• If you're not playing 100%, you apply the allocation to the unrounded value, THEN round it off.

 

Then the recommendation is to play "off the low man". Is there's a 3, 4, 9, 12, then the players would get 0, 1, 6, 9 strokes respectively. This insures the strokes are applied to the lowest handicapped hole (i.e. the "hardest" holes").

 

Or just use the USGA course handicap calculator in the GHIN app.

[davep043]

15 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sure, maybe at 80% but are we looking at the same page ?

 

The chart *I* see (as below) says 90% for four-ball match play, not 80.

 

And the caps as stated in the OP (*I* presume they were Course Handicaps) were 3,4,5, and 6. And I don't know how 1 4 cap could stay at 4 and another "go to a 3".

 

So 3 (CH) would stay 3 PH (2.7 rounded up), 4 (3.6) would stay 4 and 5 (4.5) would stay at 5. 6 would be 5.4 and would round down to 5.

 

I agree, the suggestion is to use 90% of Course Handicap for fourball match play.  Because the Course Handicap is NOT rounded before the 90% reduction is made, its definitely possible that one player's 4 would remain, and a different player's 4 would "go to 3".  For instance, two players whose (unrounded) CH are 4.4 and 3.6, would both play to 4 at 100%.  When reduced to 90%, they become 3.96 (rounds to 4) and 3.24 (rounds to 3).  

 

4 hours ago, larrybud said:

You first calculate your Course Handicap:

 

• CH = (index * slope / 113 ) + Course Rating - Par
• If you are playing at 100% allocation (e.g. 1 v 1 match play), then round the CH to the nearest whole number.
• If you're not playing 100%, you apply the allocation to the unrounded value, THEN round it off.

 

Then the recommendation is to play "off the low man". Is there's a 3, 4, 9, 12, then the players would get 0, 1, 6, 9 strokes respectively. This insures the strokes are applied to the lowest handicapped hole (i.e. the "hardest" holes").

 

Or just use the USGA course handicap calculator in the GHIN app.

Exactly, if you're in the USGA area and use the GHIN app, the app will do the calculation the correct way

[nsxguy]

@Shilgy @larrybud @davep043

 

OK, I've fiddled around with a bunch of different numbers and see that in the case of the desktop page (linked by Shilgy) AND by the USGA phone app, youse all are correct. 👍

 

Both of them calculate the PH off of the UNROUNDED CH although the desktop requires a further step.

 

It's hard to believe that in the Appendix C "Handicap Allowances" makes NO mention of this.

 

Upon further examination, Holy carpoly Batman. There it is, not in Appendix C but it is the final mention all the way at the bottom of the COURSE Handicap explanation in 6.1.

 

Don't even see it mentioned in the PLAYING Handicap explanation in 6.2.

 

"Otherwise, the full calculated value is retained and rounding occurs only after the Playing Handicap calculation."

 

 

Thank you gents !!!

[nsxguy]

17 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Why does it make sense at 80% but not 90% if some guys are moving differently than others with the same course handicap?

 

We were talking past each other. My not making sense comment was referring to your 80% example not being the game being discussed (4-ball). 🙃

[Shilgy]

18 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

We were talking past each other. My not making sense comment was referring to your 80% example not being the game being discussed (4-ball). 🙃

Gotcha.  Other than, of course, as we read in this thread the new method is more difficult it is more accurate.  A 3 CH in reality is a rounded 2.5 to 3.4.  So should a 2.5still be a 3 when he is 90% adjusted to 2.25?  
 

It certainly as easier to calculate the way you were still doing it.  We all knew anything 5 and below didn’t change. 

[larrybud]

16 hours ago, nsxguy said:

@Shilgy @larrybud @davep043

 

OK, I've fiddled around with a bunch of different numbers and see that in the case of the desktop page (linked by Shilgy) AND by the USGA phone app, youse all are correct. 👍

 

Both of them calculate the PH off of the UNROUNDED CH although the desktop requires a further step.

 

It's hard to believe that in the Appendix C "Handicap Allowances" makes NO mention of this.

 

Upon further examination, Holy carpoly Batman. There it is, not in Appendix C but it is the final mention all the way at the bottom of the COURSE Handicap explanation in 6.1.

 

Don't even see it mentioned in the PLAYING Handicap explanation in 6.2.

 

"Otherwise, the full calculated value is retained and rounding occurs only after the Playing Handicap calculation."

 

 

Thank you gents !!!

One thing the WHS did right was the rounding of everything until the last step. In the old system, if you were playing different tees, rounding would occur up to THREE DIFFERENT TIMES depending on the format of the game!

For those interested, in the old USGA system you would round:

 

1) when calculating your initial course handicap
2) then applying the difference in course rating when playing different tees (very few people realized this step was necessary when playing different tees)

3) then when applying the handicap allowance 

 

[larrybud]

16 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Gotcha.  Other than, of course, as we read in this thread the new method is more difficult it is more accurate.  A 3 CH in reality is a rounded 2.5 to 3.4.  So should a 2.5still be a 3 when he is 90% adjusted to 2.25?  
 

It certainly as easier to calculate the way you were still doing it.  We all knew anything 5 and below didn’t change. 

 

I'm not sure how keeping a number to 1 decimal place is "more difficult", since we're talking about basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

If a 2.5 is a player's index, it's converted to a course handicap first, then 90% is applied, then rounded.
 

[larrybud]

On 10/20/2021 at 8:22 PM, nsxguy said:

 

Sure, maybe at 80% but are we looking at the same page ?

 

The chart *I* see (as below) says 90% for four-ball match play, not 80.

 

And the caps as stated in the OP (*I* presume they were Course Handicaps) were 3,4,5, and 6. And I don't know how 1 4 cap could stay at 4 and another "go to a 3".

 

So 3 (CH) would stay 3 PH (2.7 rounded up), 4 (3.6) would stay 4 and 5 (4.5) would stay at 5. 6 would be 5.4 and would round down to 5.

 

Not so ?

 

 

 

By the way, what the heck are the two "par/bogey" formats in stroke play?
 

[nsxguy]

18 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

By the way, what the heck are the two "par/bogey" formats in stroke play?
 

 

Never heard of it myself but if the USGA has an allowance for it it must have been popular at some point.

 

Google came up with this.

 

http://porterswoodgolf.co.uk/bogey-competition/

 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

 

By the way, what the heck are the two "par/bogey" formats in stroke play?
 

Check out Rule 21.3.  Its a bit of a hybrid, where each player plays a "match" against par or bogey, either net or gross.  The winner is the one with the most holes won less holes lost.

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

 

By the way, what the heck are the two "par/bogey" formats in stroke play?
 

 

It's right there in the book: https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/rules/the-rules-of-golf/rule-21#21-3

 

Like said, it's essentially match play against the course with stroke-play rules. You set a target score (par, net par, 6, double par, what ever) and see how many times you beat the score and how many times you lose to it. Subtract losses from the wins and you got yourself a score.

[llewol007]

The pops are there to equalize the supposed advantage of the better player. So if everyone is playing to the lowest handicap, I would assume you are giving them at most 2-3 strokes and if that equates to the 3 hardest holes, then I dont see any issue. Being match play, anything can happen and you advantage comes on the other holes where you all are playing square. 

[davep043]

On 10/19/2021 at 7:04 PM, PixlPutterman said:

3 handicap and a 4 handicap against a 5 and a 6

 

Match play best ball with pops

 

.......

 

I shot 1 under on the front and they shot 39 each...and we're 1 up on the front from getting two pops and to my no pops.

 

On 10/19/2021 at 8:01 PM, PixlPutterman said:

Okay then it's official I just don't like match play outside of straight up lol

I was interested, so I went back to the first page, including the OP.  There's a mention of the OPs score, and the two opponents, but he didn't mention his partner.  I'm guessing the partner wasn't having a great day.  Fourball is a team game, whether its straight up or net with handicaps.  Two players who are fortunate with the ham-and-egg action will stand a very strong chance against a team where one player is playing well but his partner is having a bad day.  It may not be the handicap system as much as the choice for a partner that caused the issue.

[PixlPutterman]

15 minutes ago, davep043 said:

 

I was interested, so I went back to the first page, including the OP.  There's a mention of the OPs score, and the two opponents, but he didn't mention his partner.  I'm guessing the partner wasn't having a great day.  Fourball is a team game, whether its straight up or net with handicaps.  Two players who are fortunate with the ham-and-egg action will stand a very strong chance against a team where one player is playing well but his partner is having a bad day.  It may not be the handicap system as much as the choice for a partner that caused the issue.

He played ok, shot 78.

 

I just didn't like that I only "gained 1" on my birdie to their triple, then a few holes later we both par 2 holes and they gained on me both holes.

[2bGood]

1 minute ago, PixlPutterman said:

He played ok, shot 78.

 

I just didn't like that I only "gained 1" on my birdie to their triple, then a few holes later we both par 2 holes and they gained on me both holes.

You have already pointed it out - but you don't like match play and it is not about fair or not. In the context match play everything was fair and as it should be. In the context of stroke play (a different game) it may not feel fair. What someone shot for 9 or 18 means nothing as that is not what the competition was.

 

It would be like a 100Metre sprinter entering a 200Metre race and not thinking it was fair they lost as they ran 100M the fastest. 

 

 

 

 

 

[PixlPutterman]

8 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

You have already pointed it out - but you don't like match play and it is not about fair or not. In the context match play everything was fair and as it should be. In the context of stroke play (a different game) it may not feel fair. What someone shot for 9 or 18 means nothing as that is not what the competition was.

 

It would be like a 100Metre sprinter entering a 200Metre race and not thinking it was fair they lost as they ran 100M the fastest. 

 

 

 

 

 

Correct, at first it didnt seem fair, but turns out it is and I just dont like the format.

 

I had never played a match play style with pops before, we always play games like buck a hole and such but not one gets strokes in those games.

 

Stroke play with pops seems much more fair to me. Match play with pops didnt seem fair to me. A pop is a stroke, but in match play they can take a 10 on a hole and it doesnt eat into our handicap differential like it would if we were playing stroke play

Edited October 22, 2021 by PixlPutterman

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, PixlPutterman said:

Correct, at first it didnt seem fair, but turns out it is and I just dont like the format.

 

I had never played a match play style with pops before, we always play games like buck a hole and such but not one gets strokes in those games.

 

Stroke play with pops seems much more fair to me. Match play with pops didnt seem fair to me. A pop is a stroke, but in match play they can take a 10 on a hole and it doesnt eat into our handicap differential like it would if we were playing stroke play

Yes just a matter of preference really. 

[Augster]

People that prefer stroke play over match play just like to watch their friends struggle to putt out for a 13 while the entire course waits. 
 

Play match play, or any form of golf really, that allows you to pick up at NDB. The rest of the course thanks you. 

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

I'm not sure how keeping a number to 1 decimal place is "more difficult", since we're talking about basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

If a 2.5 is a player's index, it's converted to a course handicap first, then 90% is applied, then rounded.
 

It is more accurate because if I read your post correctly you are using the old system.  Your course handicap is not “converted” as you said.  In the case of using percentages as posted above it is not what you are thinking of as a course handicap.  The odds are likely your raw course handicap has something after the decimal point.  You multiply that number by the percentage and then round.  
 

Let’s say with your index your CH is a 4 for normal play.  So you are getting 4 strokes from that zero handicap guy.  Using the 90% format you might be just getting 3 strokes from the same guy.  You do not multiply the 4 CH times 90%  you use the raw CH. Which might be a 3.6.   Which for normal play is rounded to 4.  But with the 90% you multiply that 3.6 time 90% and get 3.2 which rounds to a 3.

 

Is that clear?

[nsxguy]

9 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

I'm not sure how keeping a number to 1 decimal place is "more difficult", since we're talking about basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

If a 2.5 is a player's index, it's converted to a course handicap first, then 90% is applied, then rounded.
 

 

16 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

It is more accurate because if I read your post correctly you are using the old system.  Your course handicap is not “converted” as you said.  In the case of using percentages as posted above it is not what you are thinking of as a course handicap.  The odds are likely your raw course handicap has something after the decimal point.  You multiply that number by the percentage and then round.  
 

Let’s say with your index your CH is a 4 for normal play.  So you are getting 4 strokes from that zero handicap guy.  Using the 90% format you might be just getting 3 strokes from the same guy.  You do not multiply the 4 CH times 90%  you use the raw CH. Which might be a 3.6.   Which for normal play is rounded to 4.  But with the 90% you multiply that 3.6 time 90% and get 3.2 which rounds to a 3.

 

Is that clear?

 

I think youse guys are saying the same thing.

 

Ol' Larry just left out (but understands) where it's NOT rounded.

 

As in "If a 2.5 is a player's index, it's converted to a course handicap first, NOT rounded, then 90% is applied, then rounded."

 

Or I'm just confused,,,,,,,,,,,, yet again,,,,,,,,,, 🙃

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

I think youse guys are saying the same thing.

 

Ol' Larry just left out (but understands) where it's NOT rounded.

 

As in "If a 2.5 is a player's index, it's converted to a course handicap first, NOT rounded, then 90% is applied, then rounded."

 

Or I'm just confused,,,,,,,,,,,, yet again,,,,,,,,,, 🙃

You’ve got it correct now.   Because Larry left it out I clarified.  Not sure if he needed it.