"Chicago Points" system scoring (for fairness across all handicaps)

[me05501]

There's a travel group I play with once a year. The group started in the mid-90's and has evolved gradually over time. This trip there were 28 guys ranging in age from 70+ down to 20. We also have guys who shoot even par and guys who average double bogey. 

 

The organizer uses a points and handicap system that he calls "Chicago Points." Not sure where that name came from but it's a great system that I thought might be useful for anyone who plans tournaments for a diverse group of golfers. 

 

The format awards points for the following scores on any hole:

 

6 for Eagle

4 for Birdie

2 for Par

1 for Bogey

0 for Double Bogey

-1 for Triple Bogey or worse

 

Each player has a quota of points to earn in a round, and those quotas are based on an expected average score.

 

The number 108 is the "magic number" for determining point quotas. You subtract a player's expected average score from 108 to get his points quota. For a simple example, if a player is expected to average 72, his quota is 36 (108 minus 72). This assumes he can earn 2 points for a par on every hole. A guy who averages 90 needs 18 points to break even. The tournament spreadsheet has rounds going back YEARS for most of the core players, and the format uses the last 15 rounds of data when available. There's very little arguing over average scores and quotas. 

 

It's usually a three-day event and quotas are adjusted after each round. If you underscore you have a lower quota the next day and vice versa. The adjustments are only half the difference which accounts for variability. If my quota is 16 and I score 14 points, my quota the next day is 15. 

 

There's a betting pool of $100 per man for the whole trip. There are daily payouts and a cumulative total prize for the event trophy. 

 

This format does a great job of creating a real active competition between players of all abilities. There are people who are only required to pull 3-4 points some days and others who need to earn 36. But in a way we're all playing the same course and the same game and anyone could get hot and win. 

 

The game stands up to subtle rules adjustments too. For instance, players 65+ get a forward tee advantage and that has led to some guys winning the event after feeling totally out of it for the years leading up to the forward tee age. 

 

This group's tradition is to use improved lies but no gimmies. The improved lies is a nod to the fact that the courses have to be affordable to everyone and therefore aren't always conditioned to country-club standards. The "no gimmies" rule was put in at the same time as a compromise to the Golf Gods. It is definitely a factor under pressure, especially for the hackers. 

 

Having played in these events a few times now the beauty and fairness of this scoring system is obvious to me. Hopefully this will help someone else out there trying to balance the abilities of a broad range of players. 

[Mudguard]

If only there was a robust handicap system in place then they could all just use stablefords...

 

Hope those playing the long tees are compensated in the quota system too!

[StudentGolfer4]

Glad the system works for you and your group. In the end that’s all that matters. 
 

I agree with mudguard though. The USGA already has a system in place that accounts for more variables and is used my hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.  Your system worries me because it doesn’t seem like course rating and slope have anything to do with it. Ps. Course rating changes as you change tees. 

[me05501]

1 hour ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

Glad the system works for you and your group. In the end that’s all that matters. 
 

I agree with mudguard though. The USGA already has a system in place that accounts for more variables and is used my hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.  Your system worries me because it doesn’t seem like course rating and slope have anything to do with it. Ps. Course rating changes as you change tees. 

 

As I mentioned in the OP, there are guys in this group who regularly shoot 100. There are guys who play all their golf for the entire year at this event. I'd venture to say that less than 20% of the attendees maintain a USGA handicap. 

Even some of the younger, better players in our group use various golf apps for tracking their scores and stats, and they don't see why a USGA handicap would be more valuable to them than their Arccos/Garmin/ShotScope data. 

 

I agree that the work the organizer puts into to ensuring fairness wouldn't be necessary if the entire group was comprised of USGA GHIN subscribers who are honest about the data they enter. Having 15 years of data on these specific players at this specific event is a reasonable compromise. 

 

I also agree that he could improve the system by using the course handicaps, especially with multiple tee boxes in play. Honestly I think one reason he doesn't is to avoid having to explain it repeatedly to so many of the participants. He does enough cat-herding with tee times, pairings, accommodations, meals, etc. 

[Hickory4ever]

I have played a few years with a group that uses a similar system and it works well with players of varying abilities. Since it utilizes actual scores and is adjusted based on scores, it does not matter that everyone is on the same tee. They have been doing it for more than 25 years. 

[596]

I've been playing in a small money game every Friday for years that uses about the same system.  It's fair to everyone and everyone wins sometimes.  We have anywhere from 12 to 30 players depending on the time of year. 

Eagle 4

Birdie 3

Par 2

Bogey 1

Double bogey 0, so just pick it up  

 

Closest to the pin, one for each set of tees bring used.  Your points are determined by the average of the

 last 5 rounds, dropping the high and low.  No gimmies, preferred lies. It's all for fun! And a great game every Friday. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by 596

[puttnforthe8]

On 5/16/2022 at 11:39 AM, Mudguard said:

If only there was a robust handicap system in place then they could all just use stablefords...

 

Hope those playing the long tees are compensated in the quota system too!

 

This format is not about "robust handicaps". The intention of this format is to have a trip or series of rounds that makes it so no one is out of the overall event and the players can "win" in daily events.   Basically, so 24 guys don't go on a 4-5 round trip and it goes sour because of one or 2 rounds of abnormal poor play.

 

This is a super system for those trips away!  Every player in our league has a thoroughly "robust hc system" (zero issue w/ hcs) and Our organization uses it for all trips away and some other events.   

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by puttnforthe8

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, puttnforthe8 said:

 

This format is not about "robust handicaps". The intention of this format is to have a trip or series of rounds that makes it so no one is out of the overall event and the players can "win" in daily events.   Basically, so 24 guys don't go on a 4-5 round trip and it goes sour because of one or 2 rounds of abnormal poor play.

 

This is a super system for those trips away!  Every player in our league has a thoroughly "robust hc system" (zero issue w/ hcs) and Our organization uses it for all trips away and some other events.   

 

 

 

Mudguard was being sarcastic (referencing the World Handicap System).

 

Sure it's a super system - because nobody can prove it isn't. Since no one can prove such systems aren't worthwhile, the default is they are.

 

They "work" because most players in them (80-90% ?) are casual players and don't keep real handicaps. So nobody knows any better.

 

I play in 2 similar groups myself. One of them starts a new guy with his handicap MINUS 2 (because they assume everybody's a cheat ) and ratchets your quota up 1 or down 1 based on whether you finish plus points or minus points. Each point pays $$$.

 

The other game I'm in uses "handicaps" and plays a net game. They ALSO start a new guy with his handicap MINUS 2 (because they also assume everybody's a cheat ).

 

They ratchet the "handicap" up or down in a ridiculous manner.

 

'cap goes up 1 (max) if you shoot a net 75 or higher. 'cap goes down from 1-5 strokes depending on how low your net is that day. $$$ is paid to the low net scores.

 

Only reason I play in these games is they have skins and closet to the pins so while I have no chance at that 2nd game for a really low net prize I have a small advantage at the CPs and skins. So, in my mind, I have about as much chance at winning a little $ as anyone.

[puttnforthe8]

12 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Mudguard was being sarcastic (referencing the World Handicap System).

 

Sure it's a super system - because nobody can prove it isn't. Since no one can prove such systems aren't worthwhile, the default is they are.

 

They "work" because most players in them (80-90% ?) are casual players and don't keep real handicaps. So nobody knows any better.

 

I play in 2 similar groups myself. One of them starts a new guy with his handicap MINUS 2 (because they assume everybody's a cheat ) and ratchets your quota up 1 or down 1 based on whether you finish plus points or minus points. Each point pays $$$.

 

The other game I'm in uses "handicaps" and plays a net game. They ALSO start a new guy with his handicap MINUS 2 (because they also assume everybody's a cheat ).

 

They ratchet the "handicap" up or down in a ridiculous manner.

 

'cap goes up 1 (max) if you shoot a net 75 or higher. 'cap goes down from 1-5 strokes depending on how low your net is that day. $$$ is paid to the low net scores.

 

Only reason I play in these games is they have skins and closet to the pins so while I have no chance at that 2nd game for a really low net prize I have a small advantage at the CPs and skins. So, in my mind, I have about as much chance at winning a little $ as anyone.

 

 

I got the sarcasm.  I guess my point is that, it is my belief that the system works well (I do have proof 🙂).  I think it also work, even if you had extreme sandbagging or not actual HC, it works there too (at least our orgs methodology) because depending on what you shoot the given day, you could lose or gain up to 5 strokes on said HC. 

 

Again, the best use is on the multiple round events/trips - that's the disclaimer I will say.  And the intent is to make it so that everyone/almost everyone gets into the $ (we did have one year where 1 guy played every round horridly and never cashed, but that has been the exception).

 

 

[puttnforthe8]

7 hours ago, puttnforthe8 said:

 

 

I got the sarcasm.  I guess my point is that, it is my belief that the system works well (I do have proof 🙂).  I think, even if you had extreme sandbagging or not actual HC, it works there too (at least our orgs methodology) because depending on what you shoot the given day, you could lose or gain up to 5 strokes on said HC. 

 

Again, the best use is on the multiple round events/trips - that's the disclaimer I will say.  And the intent is to make it so that everyone/almost everyone gets into the $ (we did have one year where 1 guy played every round horridly and never cashed, but that has been the exception).

 

 

 

[Imp]

On 5/29/2022 at 6:50 PM, 596 said:

I've been playing in a small money game every Friday for years that uses about the same system.  It's fair to everyone and everyone wins sometimes.  We have anywhere from 12 to 30 players depending on the time of year. 

Eagle 4

Birdie 3

Par 2

Bogey 1

Double bogey 0, so just pick it up  

 

Closest to the pin, one for each set of tees bring used.  Your points are determined by the average of the

 last 5 rounds, dropping the high and low.  No gimmies, preferred lies. It's all for fun! And a great game every Friday. 

What you have in your post, is Stableford, pure and simple. (I assume you're playing net stableford).

OPs is called a Quota System (They call it chicago, whatever... it's Quota), and while similar, it's a different format due to having to match a quota and also negative points. 

 

 

[Imp]

On 5/16/2022 at 2:14 PM, me05501 said:

There's a travel group I play with once a year. The group started in the mid-90's and has evolved gradually over time. This trip there were 28 guys ranging in age from 70+ down to 20. We also have guys who shoot even par and guys who average double bogey. 

 

The organizer uses a points and handicap system that he calls "Chicago Points." Not sure where that name came from but it's a great system that I thought might be useful for anyone who plans tournaments for a diverse group of golfers. 

 

The format awards points for the following scores on any hole:

 

6 for Eagle

4 for Birdie

2 for Par

1 for Bogey

0 for Double Bogey

-1 for Triple Bogey or worse

 

One league I run is a quota system very similar to your point system. We also do -2 for 4 over (i.e. a 9 on a par 5), -3 for double par, +5 for bird, +8 for eagle +12 for albatross, +18 for hole in 1. (30 plus years with the format) 😉

[596]

1 hour ago, Imp said:

What you have in your post, is Stableford, pure and simple. (I assume you're playing net stableford).

OPs is called a Quota System (They call it chicago, whatever... it's Quota), and while similar, it's a different format due to having to match a quota and also negative points. 

 

 

We do the same thing as the OP.  Your final score is a plus or minus from your weekly quota based on the last 5 scores. This way you are competing  against yourself.  Quotas will vary wildly, anywhere from 3 to 36 each week, since we have all levels of golfers.  

[StudentGolfer4]

13 hours ago, Imp said:

One league I run is a quota system very similar to your point system. We also do -2 for 4 over (i.e. a 9 on a par 5), -3 for double par, +5 for bird, +8 for eagle +12 for albatross, +18 for hole in 1. (30 plus years with the format) 😉

Interesting. A group I’m familiar with commonly plays stableford and debates between using -1 for a net double or just making it 0 like traditional stableford scoring. 
 

I am a bit confused though. Let’s say I make 8 on a par 4. Is that -2 for 4 over or -3 for double par?

 

If I make 6 on a par 3 that is -3 for double par. If I make a 9 on a par 5 that’s -2 for 4 over on a hole. Shouldn’t I lose more points for being +4 on a hole than +3?

 

One of my complaints about negative points for net double (or anything worse) is that it tends to slow down play. A single digit cap can only take a net double but do we really want a guy looking at a triple bogey from both sides of the hole because he gets a stroke and it’s the difference between 0 and -1? Much less a putt for double par or worse…

[Imp]

28 minutes ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

Interesting. A group I’m familiar with commonly plays stableford and debates between using -1 for a net double or just making it 0 like traditional stableford scoring. 
 

I am a bit confused though. Let’s say I make 8 on a par 4. Is that -2 for 4 over or -3 for double par?

 

If I make 6 on a par 3 that is -3 for double par. If I make a 9 on a par 5 that’s -2 for 4 over on a hole. Shouldn’t I lose more points for being +4 on a hole than +3?

 

One of my complaints about negative points for net double (or anything worse) is that it tends to slow down play. A single digit cap can only take a net double but do we really want a guy looking at a triple bogey from both sides of the hole because he gets a stroke and it’s the difference between 0 and -1? Much less a putt for double par or worse…

Double par is always -3. 6 on a 3, 8 on a 4, 10 on a 5. This is what keeps things in check for high handicappers. 😉 So, while you got a +4 9 on that 5, you only lose 2 points and not 3. By using your words, "shouldn't I lose more points for being +4 on a hole than +3", you can also look at it this way... we tell people to pick up at double par and not net double. So, you play the hole out a little bit more. But, also, you're not going 4-5 over on a par 3 (like you would have to on a par 4 or 5), so it all evens out in the end. Players love it more than net double because as I said, you play it out a little more (and don't have to track dots).

Edited June 1, 2022 by Imp

[RSinSG]

Both mens leagues I play in do Chicago at least once a month. Format is 39-your handicap for your target. 
 

Eagle-8

Birdie-4

Par-2

Bogie-1

Double or higher-0

 

You’re at the mercy of how accurate handicaps are, but it works.

[nsxguy]

You gentlemen are ALL playing Stableford, by a different name - until you get to minus points or higher points for eagles, birdies, whatever. Then you're playing Modified Stableford.

 

All Stableford is, is a different way of scoring a NET game except everyone can throw out strokes over net double bogey.

 

If you're a low capper, already at a disadvantage in a net game with a large proportion of higher handicappers, you're at even more of a disadvantage by allowing everybody to throw away strokes above net double bogey; i.e. Stableford "0".

 

All quota is, is a number (36 ? 39 ?), then subtracting one's handicap and using that as a target. Over quota or under quota, the points gotten are the same as Stableford scoring.

 

So call it Chicago, Quota, Points, Stableford or whatever, they're all the same game. The only difference is how you arrive at what the player is required to shoot; i.e his "handicap".

 

One game averages the last 5 points made - certainly not a real handicap. The other games described would seem to use a real handicap but is it really ? IDK.

 

 

[Imp]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

You gentlemen are ALL playing Stableford, by a different name - until you get to minus points or higher points for eagles, birdies, whatever. Then you're playing Modified Stableford.

 

All Stableford is, is a different way of scoring a NET game except everyone can throw out strokes over net double bogey.

 

If you're a low capper, already at a disadvantage in a net game with a large proportion of higher handicappers, you're at even more of a disadvantage by allowing everybody to throw away strokes above net double bogey; i.e. Stableford "0".

 

All quota is, is a number (36 ? 39 ?), then subtracting one's handicap and using that as a target. Over quota or under quota, the points gotten are the same as Stableford scoring.

 

So call it Chicago, Quota, Points, Stableford or whatever, they're all the same game. The only difference is how you arrive at what the player is required to shoot; i.e his "handicap".

 

One game averages the last 5 points made - certainly not a real handicap. The other games described would seem to use a real handicap but is it really ? IDK.

 

 

Yet another post where you think you know what you're talking about. (Hint, you're incorrect, again). 

 

Quota is similar but not quite stableford. Stableford is simply 1 2 3 4 points based of your gross (or net) scores relative to par for that hole (1 point for bogey, 2 for par, etc... a very standard game).  No other factors come into play,. you're simply accruing points. Modified stableford is the act of still accruing points, but those points may be different, i.e. 1 2 4, 6. 

 

Quota is a wholly separate deal. While yes, it has points, it also has a +/- set number that one has to get relative to handicap to get or lose points to factor standings. You're not simply accruing points, you have a target, and also may (or may not) lose points, or come in below your set target. While it may still *use points* it's NOT stableford nor modified stableford, there are other qualifications and factors in play here. It may have originated out of stableford, but it is its own thing now.

 

How to Play a Quota Golf Tournament (liveabout.com)

Edited June 1, 2022 by Imp

[me05501]

OP here. Thanks for the discussion. 

 

The points awarded in our event has changed over the years to end up with a formula that tends to provide an equal chance of winning for players of all abilities.

 

Here are a few examples: 

• While real Stableford may award 8 points for an eagle our format awards 6.
• We score a triple or worse is -1 point to encourage players to pick up and move on. 
• We score a double bogey as zero. There was a time when a double would earn a half point but there were several events in a row where all the winners came from the same handicap range (generally guys who shoot in the mid to high 90's). It didn't make a lot of sense to have a 1.5 point difference between a double and a triple. Since the rules change the event has been more competitive across handicap ranges. 

With respect to what to call it, I think the main reason the organizers use a different name is to prevent players from googling some set of rules that may conflict with those circulated in the group. Our event is called Cheraw so our rules are generally referred to as Cheraw Rules. 

[StudentGolfer4]

11 hours ago, nsxguy said:

If you're a low capper, already at a disadvantage in a net game with a large proportion of higher handicappers, you're at even more of a disadvantage by allowing everybody to throw away strokes above net double bogey; i.e. Stableford "0".

Is there any data that actually backs this up? I get that low handicap guys always think they are at a disadvantage but has this proven to be true in regards to stableford? 
 

I wish I could remember his name but there’s a member here that keeps data for his golf trip over the years. I don’t think they usually play stableford but maybe he would have something to add. If only I could remember lol. 
 

At a member guest I play in yearly the practice round is best ball net stableford. They pay out top 5 for front, back, and total (can only win 1). Every year it’s a mix of team handicaps that win money. I don’t keep notes each year but it certainly seems like the lower flights win more than their fair share. 
 

A recent golf trip I was on played 4 days of modified stableford with -1 for net double bogeys. We had 12 guys with caps from +2 to 15. (3 guys were 1 or lower. 3 were 15s and the rest were a range between 5-12) The top 3 ended up being a 1 handicap by a landslide. A 15 and a 5 handicap rounded out the top 3. The 3 guys that’s played the best won the money. 
 

I understand that my two examples are far from quantitative data. I’m just curious if you have any to back up your claim that low handicaps are at a disadvantage in traditional stableford. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by StudentGolfer4

[nsxguy]

On 6/1/2022 at 7:55 AM, Imp said:

Yet another post where you think you know what you're talking about. (Hint, you're incorrect, again). 

 

Quota is similar but not quite stableford. Stableford is simply 1 2 3 4 points based of your gross (or net) scores relative to par for that hole (1 point for bogey, 2 for par, etc... a very standard game).  No other factors come into play,. you're simply accruing points. Modified stableford is the act of still accruing points, but those points may be different, i.e. 1 2 4, 6. 

 

Quota is a wholly separate deal. While yes, it has points, it also has a +/- set number that one has to get relative to handicap to get or lose points to factor standings. You're not simply accruing points, you have a target, and also may (or may not) lose points, or come in below your set target. While it may still *use points* it's NOT stableford nor modified stableford, there are other qualifications and factors in play here. It may have originated out of stableford, but it is its own thing now.

 

How to Play a Quota Golf Tournament (liveabout.com)

 

 

Call it what you like you're playing a NET game except when you cap the high score at NDB you're giving the higher handicappers ore of an edge than they already have.

 

The ONLY difference (when you're doing it 1, 2, 3, 4 and more importantly 0) is how you figure the handicaps, quotas, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

 

Once again, all these games, excepting MODIFIED Stableford (or quota, or,,,,,,) is a different way of scoring a NET game - except everyone can throw out strokes over net double bogey.

 

Put pencil to paper and you'll see (I think).

 

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

 

I already explained MODIFIED Stableford (NOT the same), as per your own link, so no need to whip that horse again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by nsxguy

[nsxguy]

On 6/1/2022 at 11:02 AM, StudentGolfer4 said:

Is there any data that actually backs this up? I get that low handicap guys always think they are at a disadvantage but has this proven to be true in regards to stableford? 
 

I wish I could remember his name but there’s a member here that keeps data for his golf trip over the years. I don’t think they usually play stableford but maybe he would have something to add. If only I could remember lol. 
 

At a member guest I play in yearly the practice round is best ball net stableford. They pay out top 5 for front, back, and total (can only win 1). Every year it’s a mix of team handicaps that win money. I don’t keep notes each year but it certainly seems like the lower flights win more than their fair share. 
 

A recent golf trip I was on played 4 days of modified stableford with -1 for net double bogeys. We had 12 guys with caps from +2 to 15. (3 guys were 1 or lower. 3 were 15s and the rest were a range between 5-12) The top 3 ended up being a 1 handicap by a landslide. A 15 and a 5 handicap rounded out the top 3. The 3 guys that’s played the best won the money. 
 

I understand that my two examples are far from quantitative data. I’m just curious if you have any to back up your claim that low handicaps are at a disadvantage in traditional stableford. 

 

When you modify Stableford scoring you're changing the score on a hole by more than a single stroke so quantifying who's more likely to win is anybody's guess - unless you can find a statistics guru.

 

This link should interest you. 👍

 

Pope of Slope/Odds of an exceptional score

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by nsxguy

[nsxguy]

On 6/1/2022 at 8:10 AM, me05501 said:

OP here. Thanks for the discussion. 

 

The points awarded in our event has changed over the years to end up with a formula that tends to provide an equal chance of winning for players of all abilities.

 

Here are a few examples: 

• While real Stableford may award 8 points for an eagle our format awards 6.
• We score a triple or worse is -1 point to encourage players to pick up and move on. 
• We score a double bogey as zero. There was a time when a double would earn a half point but there were several events in a row where all the winners came from the same handicap range (generally guys who shoot in the mid to high 90's). It didn't make a lot of sense to have a 1.5 point difference between a double and a triple. Since the rules change the event has been more competitive across handicap ranges. 

With respect to what to call it, I think the main reason the organizers use a different name is to prevent players from googling some set of rules that may conflict with those circulated in the group. Our event is called Cheraw so our rules are generally referred to as Cheraw Rules. 

 

"Real Stableford" (NOT "Modified"), uses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 points for NET double bogey, bogey, par, birdie, eagle, double eagle, respectively.

 

You guys are playing a modified Stableford. I know of no "stats", real or imagined, that could provide any "proof" that this format is fair or not across all handicaps.

 

Excepting the throwing away of scores above net double bogey, the results are the same as a NET score. They just don't phrase it the same.

 

Consider Player A, a scratch player. He shoots -2; 2 birdies (2*3pts = 6 pts), 16 pars 16*2pts=32). 32+6=38 points; the player's score.

 

Now take Player B, an 8 'cap. He gets 1 stroke (point if you will) on the 8 toughest holes. This player makes 4 NET birdies, 10 NET pars, 2 NET bogies and 2 NET doubles. 4*3=12, 10*2=20, 2*1=2, 2*0=total of 34 points.

 

Par is 72 (for reference only)

Player A shot 70, -2, net -2

Player B shot 80, +8, minus his course handicap of 8 = even par

 

Player A wins by 2 points,,,,,,,,,,, AND 2 strokes.

 

As for players googling "Rules", since you're playing by the Rules of Golf (I'm assuming here), the Rules of any particular game you want to play are entirely up to you, no ?

 

So I guess your "Cheraw Rules" take care of that. 👍

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by nsxguy

[me05501]

@nsxguy you apparently care way more about this than I do and I’ve played in the event three years running. Go junk up someone else’s thread. 
 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by me05501

[nsxguy]

1 minute ago, me05501 said:

@nsxguy you apparently care way more about this than I do and I’ve played in the event three years running. Go junk up someone else’s thread. 
 

 

 

Sorry for explaining what you, and others, didn't seem to understand.

 

It's true I guess. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

 

Later.

[larrybud]

One might also consider the Callaway handicap system which gives the unhandicapped a handicap for the day.

 

https://www.liveabout.com/how-to-use-the-callaway-system-1564469

 

In essence, the winner will be the player who is the most consistent.

 

The problem with any quota system is that the difficulty of the course/tee box can't be taken into consideration. Is it Stableford? Well, not in the strictest sense since Stableford has a defined set of points, but it is the player getting points awarded relative to the PAR of the course, so it certainly is Stableford in spirit. 

[larrybud]

On 6/1/2022 at 11:02 AM, StudentGolfer4 said:

I understand that my two examples are far from quantitative data. I’m just curious if you have any to back up your claim that low handicaps are at a disadvantage in traditional stableford. 

VS pure stroke play, absolutely.  Higher handicappers generally have a wider range in the hole by hole scores than the lower caps. With Stableford, or any other system which effectively limits the "punishment" of bad holes, that benefits the higher handicapper.

 

If a 10 is just as bad (but not worse) than a 7, then that benefits the higher handicapper. 

[MUNIGRIT]

My guys golf trip scoring has evolved over the years and still evolving. We switched from stroke play to stableford so guys can just pick up on blowup holes to keep pace of play acceptable. We used to do a modified stableford which really favored the higher handicaps. The modified created some volatility which was nice but it seemed to favor the 15-20 handicaps. Now we do a regular stableford which seems to keep everyone involved but makes it hard to really make up ground if you get down by 10 points.  We could probably do one more tweak. We do the scoring net score with handicaps which seems obvious. 

[Imp]

On 6/18/2022 at 8:46 AM, larrybud said:

VS pure stroke play, absolutely.  Higher handicappers generally have a wider range in the hole by hole scores than the lower caps. With Stableford, or any other system which effectively limits the "punishment" of bad holes, that benefits the higher handicapper.

 

If a 10 is just as bad (but not worse) than a 7, then that benefits the higher handicapper. 

I have decades worth of data from 1 league I run, and 2 other groups (one a local am tour I've played in, and another the state association events). The league is a modified stableford. The other two are straight up stableford (both with gross and net, the former has 1 , 2 flights, the latter has 5-6 flights).

In net stableford, any higher handicapper has a better chance at placing/winning than the lower handicapper is correct. Lower cap has to shoot at or better than their handicap, AND have few or no zeroes. Any higher handicapper just has to protect their zeros and let the points fall where they may. Especially in flighted tourneys, those in the flight at the back of the flight have a better chance at winning the flight than those at the front of the flight. In Gross stableford, the scale falls the other way, since no strokes are being assigned. 

 

In the modified stableford in our league, if you shoot around your handicap, you'll end up with around 18-20 points. Shoot worse, you'll have lower (due to negative points on some holes), but get exceptional points like a bird or eagle where it's not 3, 4 points, but 5, 8 respectively, and you can even the point scale against those that have a higher handicap. But remember, blow up holes will subtract points too, a lower handicapper needs to avoid negative points at almost all costs. I shot a 40, with a 7 on a par 4 last week went fairway bunker to wide right of green, then wedge into bunker between me and green)... as a 3 hdcp on the course, I still ended up with 19 points, but if I had gotten par or better, would have been 22 points (because of a bird on 6).

 

 

[Imp]

11 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

My guys golf trip scoring has evolved over the years and still evolving. We switched from stroke play to stableford so guys can just pick up on blowup holes to keep pace of play acceptable. We used to do a modified stableford which really favored the higher handicaps. The modified created some volatility which was nice but it seemed to favor the 15-20 handicaps. Now we do a regular stableford which seems to keep everyone involved but makes it hard to really make up ground if you get down by 10 points.  We could probably do one more tweak. We do the scoring net score with handicaps which seems obvious. 

Is the trip multiple rounds? Look into assigning points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd based on their gross and/or net placement for each round. Use stableford for finishing position, but event points are solely on their position, not cumulative stableford points. This way, you don't have to catch up to 10 points due to the sum of the rounds, but instead only have to worry about finishing ahead of the others on the next day/round, to get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc... points. We do that for our trips and it works out great. Of 8 guys, after two rounds on day one, one was in 5th. 6th or so... and after the two rounds the next day, and the leaders falling back, it was close. On the single 3rd day round, won it. Didn't have to find 10 points, but much fewer.