PCC change

[nsxguy]

39 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I think the issue with publishing the algorithm is it would enable people to game the system. If a group of people want their handicaps higher or lower for whatever reason, knowing the algorithm would enable them to post only certain scores on the day of and post the rest the next day. I don't think that would be a good idea.

 

I do think it's an issue that posting scores is left to the individuals, especially in organized events - the association running the event should post all the scores. It should be a matter of clicking a button at the end of the day if you have online scoring of any kind (which most do). I played an event a couple of years ago where a bunch of +3-+5 players shot well into the 80s if not more and none of them posted their scores because they didn't want their indexes going up. Consequently on a joke hard day the PCC was only +1. 

 

I'm not sure I see why a group of golfers, all trying to game the system together, would need to know the algorithm. They already know it's score based so why wouldn't they just submit very high scores ?

 

Of course the higher the scores they enter the more likely those scores wouldn't be within their best 8; so no effect to their 'cap.

 

 

I wonder if there are any club handicap committee members around here ? I haven't been on my committee in at least 20 years, certainly not in such a robust computer-based era as we are now.

 

Looking at the MGA website (NY) it seems to indicate there are ways a member club can quickly submit their members' scores for the day's round, so clearly there are ways available and members would NOT be submitting their own scores.

 

But an "association" that is running an event ? If that was a local USGA association I imagine there would be ways to grant access to all the players in a specific comp, even though not in the same "club", along with some security to allow that association to enter bulk scores for the tourney.

 

But for the Diabetes Charity of Greater Osh Kosh holding an event, I wonder how the local USGA associations would grant (bulk ?) access to that tourney ?

 

I'm sure it can be done - I just wonder if it is.

[kiwigolf72]

I have a lot more to think about playing golf than how the PCC algorithm works, even if I did know it wouldn't change anything, still trying to get the ball in the hole for the least amount of headaches

[Ty_Webb]

8 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm not sure I see why a group of golfers, all trying to game the system together, would need to know the algorithm. They already know it's score based so why wouldn't they just submit very high scores ?

 

Of course the higher the scores they enter the more likely those scores wouldn't be within their best 8; so no effect to their 'cap.

 

 

I wonder if there are any club handicap committee members around here ? I haven't been on my committee in at least 20 years, certainly not in such a robust computer-based era as we are now.

 

Looking at the MGA website (NY) it seems to indicate there are ways a member club can quickly submit their members' scores for the day's round, so clearly there are ways available and members would NOT be submitting their own scores.

 

But an "association" that is running an event ? If that was a local USGA association I imagine there would be ways to grant access to all the players in a specific comp, even though not in the same "club", along with some security to allow that association to enter bulk scores for the tourney.

 

But for the Diabetes Charity of Greater Osh Kosh holding an event, I wonder how the local USGA associations would grant (bulk ?) access to that tourney ?

 

I'm sure it can be done - I just wonder if it is.

Being brutally honest, I don't really care about a charity event. I'm talking as it happens about MGA events in MNY. If the MGA is running an event and they have online scoring, they should be able to just upload all the scores to GHIN at the end of each day. There are a whole lot more vanity caps than sandbaggers in those events and PCC is broken if people only submit their good scores. Entry to MGA events includes giving them your GHIN number, I assume so they can verify your handicap meets the requirements, so the info should be there. They could even have the entry form include an acknowledgement that they will submit your scores on your behalf. 

 

As to the top thing, if you just submit the very high scores, then the PCC goes up and those scores aren't so high anymore. If you knew the exact algorithm, you could input just enough good scores to keep PCC down and then submit the higher scores to get handicaps up. 

[rogolf]

I'm not sure why and for what purpose anyone would need to know the PCC algorithm?  But I do know they're not going to get it here!

[bluedot]

For the life of me, I can’t think of a single reason I’d need, or even want, to see the PCC algorithm.  What exactly would be the point?

[Newby]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

There was one last year, so this must be the second.

 

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/whs/world-handicap-system-playing-conditions-calculation-change/

No. When the change was announced late last year the National Associations were give the option of choosing when they implemented. CONGU did it almost immediately. The US chose to wait until April 2024.

 

NB. The article above is dated Aug 2022

Edited November 10, 2023 by Newby

[iacas]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

Let's be honest here, the PCC algorithm is not something that has any intrinsic value to it

 

That's not entirely true. It's a proprietary algorithm that others might want to use, whether to try to usurp the position of a ruling body in some country or… something.

 

And not publishing it allows them to tweak it from time to time, without breaking other sites who are trying to apply it or offer unofficial handicaps, etc.

 

From their side, there are no positives and many smaller negatives.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

Why? Would you suggest you have the expertise to tweek, rewrite or even understand it?

It was sarcasm with the extra bonus of throwing shade at the USGA. I usually include the R&A as well, but they don't bloviate quite as much as the blue blazer boys so I cut them some slack this time.

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It was sarcasm with the extra bonus of throwing shade at the USGA. I usually include the R&A as well, but they don't bloviate quite as much as the blue blazer boys so I cut them some slack this time.

lol…I was just reading the last couple pages and was about to reply to @Newby and tell him your sarcasm button clearly misfired on the earlier post of yours. 😏

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

lol…I was just reading the last couple pages and was about to reply to @Newby and tell him your sarcasm button clearly misfired on the earlier post of yours. 😏

Yep. Cross-cultural sarcasm is the most challenging. 

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Being brutally honest, I don't really care about a charity event. I'm talking as it happens about MGA events in MNY. If the MGA is running an event and they have online scoring, they should be able to just upload all the scores to GHIN at the end of each day. There are a whole lot more vanity caps than sandbaggers in those events and PCC is broken if people only submit their good scores. Entry to MGA events includes giving them your GHIN number, I assume so they can verify your handicap meets the requirements, so the info should be there. They could even have the entry form include an acknowledgement that they will submit your scores on your behalf. 

 

As to the top thing, if you just submit the very high scores, then the PCC goes up and those scores aren't so high anymore. If you knew the exact algorithm, you could input just enough good scores to keep PCC down and then submit the higher scores to get handicaps up. 

 

Given your write-up, it seems as though you and the other players have to enter the scores themselves after the round. Does the MGA advise you to enter them as "C" scores ?

 

Anywho, as for why the MGA doesn't enter the players' scores, I have no idea. It's certainly doable. All I can say, being in IT for 30+ years, seemingly simple things (like this one) can be very difficult. Conversely, seemingly difficult things can be pretty easy.

 

I worked for a company that had to "interpret" airlines' communications and feed said data into their own system. Not nearly as easy(?) as it sounds.

 

As for the PCC thing, I guess I don't quite know what you're suggesting. You're talking about a group (4 ?) inputting "just enough good scores to keep the daily PCC down and then submit the higher scores to get handicaps up" ?

 

Each player can only submit 1 score per day - I'm missing something here, aren't I ?

[bcjim]

I don't need to see the algorithm.  I suspect it's not anything of note from a computational perspective anyway.

 

I would like, however,  transparency in terms of when and where it triggers a correction.  

 

Also agree on the posting by event officials.  I also have played tournament rounds in tough conditions with unimpressive scoring where no pcc was triggered. 

[rogolf]

9 minutes ago, bcjim said:

 

I would like, however,  transparency in terms of when and where it triggers a correction.  

 

From the USGA website:

What you should know - In 150 words or less:

At the end of each day, the USGA centralized computation system compares the actual scores made at each course to the expected scores of the players who made them. If the scores were significantly higher or lower than expected, an adjustment is automatically applied to everyone who played the course on the day.

The range of the PCC adjustment is -1 to +3, with a negative (-) adjustment meaning the course played easier than expected, and a positive (+) adjustment meaning the course played more difficult. On most days, the PCC will be zero (0). If a PCC is applied following one of your rounds, it will be clearly identified within your scoring record.

WHY EVERY SCORE MATTERS:

At least 8 scores must be posted before midnight (local time) in order for the calculation to take place - so it's important for all of us as players to post our scores on the day of play.

[bcjim]

You misunderstand. I want a daily (or even weekly) update on which dates and courses were adjusted.

 

Monday: List of courses with PCC (and + or -).

Tuesday: repeat

.

.

.

[rogolf]

18 minutes ago, bcjim said:

You misunderstand. I want a daily (or even weekly) update on which dates and courses were adjusted.

 

Monday: List of courses with PCC (and + or -).

Tuesday: repeat

.

.

.

Then I suggest you ask the USGA for that information, it won't be found here!  You can tell us about their response.

 

[Augster]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm not sure I see why a group of golfers, all trying to game the system together, would need to know the algorithm. They already know it's score based so why wouldn't they just submit very high scores ?

 

Of course the higher the scores they enter the more likely those scores wouldn't be within their best 8; so no effect to their 'cap.

 

 

I wonder if there are any club handicap committee members around here ? I haven't been on my committee in at least 20 years, certainly not in such a robust computer-based era as we are now.

 

Looking at the MGA website (NY) it seems to indicate there are ways a member club can quickly submit their members' scores for the day's round, so clearly there are ways available and members would NOT be submitting their own scores.

 

But an "association" that is running an event ? If that was a local USGA association I imagine there would be ways to grant access to all the players in a specific comp, even though not in the same "club", along with some security to allow that association to enter bulk scores for the tourney.

 

But for the Diabetes Charity of Greater Osh Kosh holding an event, I wonder how the local USGA associations would grant (bulk ?) access to that tourney ?

 

I'm sure it can be done - I just wonder if it is.

Golf Genius handles this for all events using Golf Genius. 
 

In a club event, it’s easy as all the GHIN numbers are already there. When there are interclub events, tourneys, etc., then you just need to look up the player or get their GHIN number. 
 

Once the event is over for the day, Golf Genius just does a single batch upload to GHIN. Can’t be easier. 

[Newby]

12 hours ago, rogolf said:

From the USGA website::

At the end of each day, the USGA centralized computation system compares the actual scores made at each course to the expected scores of the players who made them. If the scores were significantly higher or lower than expected, an adjustment is automatically applied to everyone who played the course on the day.

 

Just to make it clear that the words in red apply to each player individually. Rather than as some have suggested elsewhere, the performance of groups of players with the same handicap

Edited November 11, 2023 by Newby

[Schulzmc]

14 hours ago, rogolf said:

WHY EVERY SCORE MATTERS:

At least 8 scores must be posted before midnight (local time) in order for the calculation to take place - so it's important for all of us as players to post our scores on the day of play.

WOW - Eight scores seems like too small a sample size. I would have expected a lot more scores were needed to make the calculation.

[Ty_Webb]

2 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

WOW - Eight scores seems like too small a sample size. I would have expected a lot more scores were needed to make the calculation.

 

I suspect that they use some kind of Bayesian adjustment, so while 8 scores is not many, it would not get much weight in the calculation. If you have 150 scores, then that's far more likely to result in a change. 

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

WOW - Eight scores seems like too small a sample size. I would have expected a lot more scores were needed to make the calculation.

 

The eight scores can't be just a shot or two worse than predicted. They have to be dramatically different. More scores, more weight. Like he said:

 

11 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I suspect that they use some kind of Bayesian adjustment, so while 8 scores is not many, it would not get much weight in the calculation. If you have 150 scores, then that's far more likely to result in a change. 

[Ty_Webb]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

The eight scores can't be just a shot or two worse than predicted. They have to be dramatically different. More scores, more weight. Like he said:

 

Right - by way of example, it might be something like:

 

(Number of scores)/500 x (average net score - CR - 3) for an upward adjustment and N/500 x (average net score - CR) for a downward one. So if you have 150 scores and their average score is 5 above the rating, then you'd have 150 / 500 x 2 = 300/500 = 0.6 = +1 PCC. For 8 scores, if they average 10 over the rating, you'd have 8/500 x 7 = 56/500 = about 0.11 = no adjustment. 

 

I'd be pretty sure it's quite a bit more complicated than this in reality, but this is roughly how it might work.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Right - by way of example, it might be something like:

 

(Number of scores)/500 x (average net score - CR - 3) for an upward adjustment and N/500 x (average net score - CR) for a downward one. So if you have 150 scores and their average score is 5 above the rating, then you'd have 150 / 500 x 2 = 300/500 = 0.6 = +1 PCC. For 8 scores, if they average 10 over the rating, you'd have 8/500 x 7 = 56/500 = about 0.11 = no adjustment. 

 

I'd be pretty sure it's quite a bit more complicated than this in reality, but this is roughly how it might work.

I would suggest it is. If looking at individual players, the expected range for a 5 capper will be quite different to the range for a 25 capper. I would suggest they may use an average for a particular handicap (or range of handicaps). It may also use the number of players with that handicap (or in that group) as a proportion of the field.

[rogolf]

Think of how much effort (and money?) could have been saved if the WHS organization had just put the PCC calculation out to the internet for solutions!  Or, if they had done so, would there have ever been a compromised solution?  BTW, I'm glad they left it to the experts and statisticians!

[bluedot]

I had another PCC adjustment (+2) on Monday, my 11th of the year out of 138 posted scores.  Yet again, it was a tournament round played in PERFECT weather, but on a course with greens running 12, no opportunity for a practice round, and a number of quirky/local knowledge holes. 

9 of my 11 PCC adjustments have been in tournament play; only two all year on my home course, one +1 and one -1.  I posted 22 rounds in January and February combined, so lots of golf in pretty crappy course conditions; cold, muddy, windy, etc.; the only two PCC adjustments of those 22 were…wait for it…tournament rounds.

 

I don’t have any way of going back and counting how many of those tournament rounds with PCC adjustments were among my 8 low rounds at the time, but I think it’s likely only one.  
 

So all in all, I’ll say again, it’s a VERY conservative algorithm, and weather is MUCH less important to scoring than most golfers believe it to be, or at least much less important than other factors.

 

Take all of that for what it’s worth.

[Augster]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

I had another PCC adjustment (+2) on Monday, my 11th of the year out of 138 posted scores.  Yet again, it was a tournament round played in PERFECT weather, but on a course with greens running 12, no opportunity for a practice round, and a number of quirky/local knowledge holes. 

9 of my 11 PCC adjustments have been in tournament play; only two all year on my home course, one +1 and one -1.  I posted 22 rounds in January and February combined, so lots of golf in pretty crappy course conditions; cold, muddy, windy, etc.; the only two PCC adjustments of those 22 were…wait for it…tournament rounds.

 

I don’t have any way of going back and counting how many of those tournament rounds with PCC adjustments were among my 8 low rounds at the time, but I think it’s likely only one.  
 

So all in all, I’ll say again, it’s a VERY conservative algorithm, and weather is MUCH less important to scoring than most golfers believe it to be, or at least much less important than other factors.

 

Take all of that for what it’s worth.

100% my experience. 
 

I did play in perfect weather once and shot a career best on that course, and others must have played well, as we got the + PCC that day. No tourney. 
 

But all my other PCCs are tourney rounds, regardless of weather. 

[nsxguy]

37 minutes ago, Augster said:

100% my experience. 
 

I did play in perfect weather once and shot a career best on that course, and others must have played well, as we got the + PCC that day. No tourney. 
 

But all my other PCCs are tourney rounds, regardless of weather. 

 

Wouldn't that have been a "-1" PCC that day ?

 

But with all the vanity caps around, I have no trouble believing comps/tournaments would more likely end up with + PCCs, exactly as you and bluedot suggest.

[DaveLeeNC]

On 11/10/2023 at 3:35 PM, bluedot said:

For the life of me, I can’t think of a single reason I’d need, or even want, to see the PCC algorithm.  What exactly would be the point?

 

We need it so someone can post it here and then a whole bunch of us can argue for many pages and weeks about how wrong it is.

 

dave 

[jvincent]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

We need it so someone can post it here and then a whole bunch of us can argue for many pages and weeks about how wrong it is.

 

dave 

 

By extension, there is no reason to know the general handicap formula (i.e. best 8 of 20 differentials, etc).

 

Handicapping could be reduced to "submit all your scores, we'll tell you what your index is".

[iacas]

7 hours ago, bluedot said:

So all in all, I’ll say again, it’s a VERY conservative algorithm, and weather is MUCH less important to scoring than most golfers believe it to be, or at least much less important than other factors.

 

Correct… except to say that outside of how it affects scoring, weather is not at all important in determining the PCC. The algorithm doesn't care what the weather was that day — only the scores.

 

(And I think you know this, so this reply isn't directed at you @bluedot per se, but the others who want to talk about the weather all the time…)
 

Edited November 15, 2023 by iacas

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

Correct… except to say that outside of how it affects scoring, weather is not at all important in determining the PCC. The algorithm doesn't care what the weather was that day — only the scores.

 

(And I think you know this, so this reply isn't directed at you @bluedot per se, but the others who want to talk about the weather all the time…)
 

And what I am somehow unable to say in a way that makes sense to you is this:  I am fully aware that the algorithm doesn’t care what the weather is. But the USGA claims weather is a key factor in the PCC. And I and others are arguing it really isn’t when you look at how it actually has adjusted our scores.