Quota Tournament Tie

[Pfish]

How is a tie suppose to broken in a quota tournament?  Wouldn’t be time for play off.  I don’t see how card matching would work.

[davep043]

To me, a Quota is similar to a Stableford, both are forms of Stroke Play.  Consequently, you should be guided by the Stroke play recommendation, Rule 20.5A(6).  Either a playoff or a match of cards could be used.  

[North Butte]

Or the tie-breaker could be arm wrestling. Much quicker than even a 1-hole playoff. 

[nsxguy]

Fwiw, the quota game I play in isn't concerned with a winner except a single best score (over quota). They pay all + points. Max of 3.

 

If there is a single best score, that player gets paid 1 extra point, so 4 in total. If 2 or more tie for most + points, no extra point is awarded.

[Pfish]

This was an individual quota tournament.  Players in the interest of time were encouraged to pick up if no points were to be won. Therefore nothing over a bogie which gets 1 point is a real score.  A tie for first place puts the lower handicap player at a disadvantage if a card off is used to determine the winner.  Something to think about for the future I guess.

[pingfool]

Add up 1st and 2nd prize money and split it

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, Pfish said:

This was an individual quota tournament.  Players in the interest of time were encouraged to pick up if no points were to be won. Therefore nothing over a bogie which gets 1 point is a real score.  A tie for first place puts the lower handicap player at a disadvantage if a card off is used to determine the winner.  Something to think about for the future I guess.

Well for what it's worth, that entire format puts the lower handicapper at a distinct disadvantage in the first place. He's only going to have one or two holes in a typical round where he picks up and takes a "blob" instead of having to finish the hole. The high handicapper might pick up six or eight times. 

But then at the end the high handicapper gets all those pickups covered by his extra strokes. The only way to be fair in a points game is to either make it net points ('cept nobody can be arsed to dot the cards) or make double bogey one point and pick up at gross triple. 

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, pingfool said:

Add up 1st and 2nd prize money and split it

That's what we do in my usual games at my club. 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Pfish said:

This was an individual quota tournament.  Players in the interest of time were encouraged to pick up if no points were to be won. Therefore nothing over a bogie which gets 1 point is a real score.  A tie for first place puts the lower handicap player at a disadvantage if a card off is used to determine the winner.  Something to think about for the future I guess.

 

Actually, it depends on how the game is run.

 

e.g. the game I play in, Stableford" scoring, the hole score are GROSS; no handicap strokes. So in that game, if there was a countback, or any matching of cards, the lower handicapper would have a huge advantage.

 

If a NET Stableford, it likely wouldn't shouldn't matter.

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

Well for what it's worth, that entire format puts the lower handicapper at a distinct disadvantage in the first place. He's only going to have one or two holes in a typical round where he picks up and takes a "blob" instead of having to finish the hole. The high handicapper might pick up six or eight times. 

But then at the end the high handicapper gets all those pickups covered by his extra strokes. The only way to be fair in a points game is to either make it net points ('cept nobody can be arsed to dot the cards) or make double bogey one point and pick up at gross triple. 

 

Not really. It actually depends on how one's "quota" is arrived at.

 

The sheer mention of quota, to ME, says we're not using USGA handicaps. If we ARE using 'caps, it's just a regular Stableford, and not a "quota". Not so ?

 

Quota, to ME, says one's quota is changed every round, based on the previous round, usually(?) in a range of +2 to -1 from the starting quota. Lose, and next game's quota is 1 less. Win, and it's one (or more) more.

 

Our particular game pays all + points on the day. It takes your quota down 1 if you are not + points. If you are any + points you will go up 1. If you have the most + points that day you'll go up 2 and get paid for an extra point.

 

The major problem I have with this game is that if one has a hot streak and say, goes from one's normal quota to a quota 5 or 6 strokes higher, one is "doomed" to lose $$$ 3-6 times over the next 7 or 8 rounds to get back to where you "should" be. i.e. the quota changes MUCH faster than a handicap would/should.

[North Butte]

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not really. It actually depends on how one's "quota" is arrived at.

 

The sheer mention of quota, to ME, says we're not using USGA handicaps. If we ARE using 'caps, it's just a regular Stableford, and not a "quota". Not so ?

 

Quota, to ME, says one's quota is changed every round, based on the previous round, usually(?) in a range of +2 to -1 from the starting quota. Lose, and next game's quota is 1 less. Win, and it's one (or more) more.

 

Our particular game pays all + points on the day. It takes your quota down 1 if you are not + points. If you are any + points you will go up 1. If you have the most + points that day you'll go up 2 and get paid for an extra point.

 

The major problem I have with this game is that if one has a hot streak and say, goes from one's normal quota to a quota 5 or 6 strokes higher, one is "doomed" to lose $$$ 3-6 times over the next 7 or 8 rounds to get back to where you "should" be. i.e. the quota changes MUCH faster than a handicap would/should.

The game I play 100+ times a year has a "quota" which is arrived at by the following formula:

 

QUOTA = 36 - COURSE HANDICAP

 

So if I'm playing off 10hcp my quota is 26 points. We give one point for bogey, two for par, three for birdie. Those are, in effect, gross Stableford points. The same points we'd get if we were all playing off Scratch in a real Stableford.

 

Except our handicap is subtracted from the 36 points that would equate to net par in Stableford. 

 

At the extremes, it becomes a joke. We used to have a guy played in our group who at the time was 28hcp. So he only needed to make 8 points. He'd be in his pocket with zero points on the majority of the holes but if he made a couple pars and a few bogeys he'd still be at +1 or +2 while only finishing 6 or 7 holes. If it had been real Stableford, he'd have had to putt out for all his doubles and about half of his triples. So in effect, the silly quota thing made him look 2, 3, 4 strokes better than he would in real Stableford, almost every round.

 

Contrast that with the guys playing off 3 or 4. They almost never got to pick up instead of putting out for a double. So their quota score and a real Stableford score were virtually the same. 

 

That's the only context in which I've played a "quota" game but my experience is entirely at just three private clubs. I'm sure it has other interpretations elsewhere. 

[Abh159]

5 minutes ago, North Butte said:

The game I play 100+ times a year has a "quota" which is arrived at by the following formula:

 

QUOTA = 36 - COURSE HANDICAP

 

This is the exact same thing we do on rare occasions when we play a quota stableford/points game.

 

Pretty obvious, but whoever ends up with the most points over their quota is the winner... In the extremely rare occasion of a tie we just split the money between the two players at the top.

[North Butte]

It's been a lifelong dream of mine to find a group of compatible individuals and play regular weekly "real" Stableford games. Dotting the cards and all that. It's been three decades and, aside from playing on vacation in UK, never have found any USA golfers who even consider the option. They think "Stableford" is some kind of weird format for a PGA Tour even in Colorado or something.

 

All they know is "points" or "quota" and that's all the 36-handicap thing. Pity. 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

The game I play 100+ times a year has a "quota" which is arrived at by the following formula:

 

QUOTA = 36 - COURSE HANDICAP

 

So if I'm playing off 10hcp my quota is 26 points. We give one point for bogey, two for par, three for birdie. Those are, in effect, gross Stableford points. The same points we'd get if we were all playing off Scratch in a real Stableford.

 

Except our handicap is subtracted from the 36 points that would equate to net par in Stableford. 

 

At the extremes, it becomes a joke. We used to have a guy played in our group who at the time was 28hcp. So he only needed to make 8 points. He'd be in his pocket with zero points on the majority of the holes but if he made a couple pars and a few bogeys he'd still be at +1 or +2 while only finishing 6 or 7 holes. If it had been real Stableford, he'd have had to putt out for all his doubles and about half of his triples. So in effect, the silly quota thing made him look 2, 3, 4 strokes better than he would in real Stableford, almost every round.

 

Contrast that with the guys playing off 3 or 4. They almost never got to pick up instead of putting out for a double. So their quota score and a real Stableford score were virtually the same. 

 

That's the only context in which I've played a "quota" game but my experience is entirely at just three private clubs. I'm sure it has other interpretations elsewhere. 

I can't quite wrap my head around your game.

 

Your quota is 26. That udder guy's is 8.

 

If you score 24 (gross) points and he scores 9, you are -2 against your quota and he is +1. So he wins, correct ? And that would apply to everyone else in the field as well, right ?

 

So best total against quota, right ?

 

Next, does everyone that is "plus" points get paid by the point ?

 

OR is there a fixed number of payouts ? i.e 1st place, 2nd, 3rd, etc, relative to their quota get paid a fixed amount ?

 

If I've got the description right, as above, you ARE playing Stableford, you're just calculating it a little easier/differently.

 

Quota = 26. Do Stableford scoring and most over quota wins.

 

Do a "real" Stableford and, sans strokes over NBD, you would simply ADD your course handicap to your final score.

 

BUT, in doing a real Stableford, as you yourself alluded to, you do need to know the NDB score of each hole; so where the strokes fall & even how many strokes fall there to possibly adjust the final hole score - and thereby the total as well.

 

i.e. if NO ONE made more than a gross double bogey, there is no need to adjust Stableford Points on ANY hole and the Stableford points outcome is simply GROSS + course handicap, i.e. a NET game. <---and THIS is why it's even worse than a net game between low and high cappers as the high cappers are FAR more likely to not be required to count all the strokes they would have made were they required to finish out ALL the holes.

[North Butte]

OK, the handicap system is pretty much based on net Stableford scores. If I were a 26hcp then my handicap posting limit on each hole is either a gross quad (on 10 holes) or a gross triple (on 8 holes). So my handicap predicts how likely I am to shoot any given score while keeping score in that way (limit of net double bogey).

 

If there's an 8hcp his handicap is based on keeping score in a way that for posting to GHIN he has a limit of gross triple on 8 holes and gross double on the other 10 holes. And his handicap estimates his likelihood of various scores under that way of score-limiting (net double-bogey). 

 

Now put them playing in a game where GROSS double is the highest score that will count. You can see that for the 8hcp that's not very often going to be different than what he posts to GHIN. But for the 26hcp he's going to routinely get to stop one or two strokes below his GHIN posting limit. Making a quad instead of double does not reduce his score at all in the quota game.

 

But that's not how the 26hcp's handicap is calculated. If the highest scores he posted were always gross double, he'd frequently be posting one or two strokes lower for his blowup holes. So he wouldn't be a 26hcp, he'd be a 23 or 24. 

 

That's why any format that limits scores to gross double bogey is unfair when the range of handicaps is, say, near scratch to over 20. 

[nsxguy]

13 minutes ago, North Butte said:

OK, the handicap system is pretty much based on net Stableford scores. If I were a 26hcp then my handicap posting limit on each hole is either a gross quad (on 10 holes) or a gross triple (on 8 holes). So my handicap predicts how likely I am to shoot any given score while keeping score in that way (limit of net double bogey).

 

If there's an 8hcp his handicap is based on keeping score in a way that for posting to GHIN he has a limit of gross triple on 8 holes and gross double on the other 10 holes. And his handicap estimates his likelihood of various scores under that way of score-limiting (net double-bogey). 

 

Now put them playing in a game where GROSS double is the highest score that will count. You can see that for the 8hcp that's not very often going to be different than what he posts to GHIN. But for the 26hcp he's going to routinely get to stop one or two strokes below his GHIN posting limit. Making a quad instead of double does not reduce his score at all in the quota game.

 

But that's not how the 26hcp's handicap is calculated. If the highest scores he posted were always gross double, he'd frequently be posting one or two strokes lower for his blowup holes. So he wouldn't be a 26hcp, he'd be a 23 or 24. 

 

That's why any format that limits scores to gross double bogey is unfair when the range of handicaps is, say, near scratch to over 20. 

 

OK, so now you want to discuss handicaps and why NDB isn't fair (or accurate I assume) instead of discussing/explaining your quota games.

 

No worries.

 

Later.

[North Butte]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

OK, so now you want to discuss handicaps and why NDB isn't fair (or accurate I assume) instead of discussing/explaining your quota games.

 

No worries.

 

Later.

Well it's kind of hard to discuss a handicapped game without mentioning handicaps. Right? 

 

I'm explaining why if you're going to calculate handicaps using NET double bogey max (which I think is a perfectly cromulent choice of max score) and then use them in a game which is scored with GROSS double bogey max (presumably because the players are too lazy to dot the scorecards) then mixing high and low handicappers will measurably disadvantage the low handicappers. Ask anyone who has played much in that format and they will tell you the low handicappers get the short end of the stick. 

 

Unfortunately, USGA does not give guidance on what percentage handicap allowances to use in that sort of quota format. 

 

But I think I totally 100% explained the way ours (and many other) quota games work. Here it is again if you missed it.

 

1) Look up your course handicap

2) Subtract it from 36, that's your quota.

3) Count 0 point for (gross) double or worse, 1 point for bogey, 2 for par, 3 for birdie and add up points for all 18 holes.

4) Compare your total points to your quota, express the result as + or - minutes relative to the quota.

 

It's quite simple, which is the attraction. And it also means everyone in the field picks up once they have failed to make (gross) bogey, which I think is another attraction. But it does screw over the low handicappers if there are any bogey golfers or worse in the field. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by North Butte

[Pfish]

Exactly.  Plus it’s great for players who have a few birdies and are  double bogie all over the place.  Even if this is legitimately how they regularly play they have a  high  handicap but few quota points needed to be in the plus column.

[rogolf]

23 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Well it's kind of hard to discuss a handicapped game without mentioning handicaps. Right? 

 

I'm explaining why if you're going to calculate handicaps using NET double bogey max (which I think is a perfectly cromulent choice of max score) and then use them in a game which is scored with GROSS double bogey max (presumably because the players are too lazy to dot the scorecards) then mixing high and low handicappers will measurably disadvantage the low handicappers. Ask anyone who has played much in that format and they will tell you the low handicappers get the short end of the stick. 

 

Unfortunately, USGA does not give guidance on what percentage handicap allowances to use in that sort of quota format. 

 

But I think I totally 100% explained the way ours (and many other) quota games work. Here it is again if you missed it.

 

1) Look up your course handicap

2) Subtract it from 36, that's your quota.

3) Count 0 point for (gross) double or worse, 1 point for bogey, 2 for par, 3 for birdie and add up points for all 18 holes.

4) Compare your total points to your quota, express the result as + or - minutes relative to the quota.

 

It's quite simple, which is the attraction. And it also means everyone in the field picks up once they have failed to make (gross) bogey, which I think is another attraction. But it does screw over the low handicappers if there are any bogey golfers or worse in the field. 

So what should the point allotment be to fix this problem?  And how is a 54 handicap dealt with?

Edited November 8, 2022 by rogolf

[North Butte]

4 minutes ago, Pfish said:

Exactly.  Plus it’s great for players who have a few birdies and are  double bogie all over the place.  Even if this is legitimately how they regularly play they have a  high  handicap but few quota points needed to be in the plus column.

Yes there have at times been some fairly extreme cases of the "birdies and doubles" guys in the groups I've played with over the years. We usually play team quota games so at least through the random draw the high handicappers and the "birdies and doubles" guys get spread around to different partners over time!

 

Think about the most extreme case, if the group were silly enough to let a 34hcp play in the game. His quota would be 2 points so, by definition, his worst possible score is -2. Low handicappers probably average a point or two worse than their quota so the hypothetical 34hcp is guaranteed to be better than average even if he never finishes a hole and posts 110 or something. 

[North Butte]

1 minute ago, rogolf said:

So what should the point allotment be to fix this problem?  And how is a 54 handicap dealt with?

The points on each hole should be calculated based on net scores after the handicap strokes have been allocated. As far as I'm concerned that's the obvious and best solution. 

 

You could probably kludge it with a percentage if you absolutely must score point on gross hole scores. Maybe something like 80% or 90% handicap allocations would be enough to handle the range of, say, 3 to 25 or something like that. 

 

No group I've played with has ever allowed anyone with a handicap over 30 to participate. And even the occasional high-20's handicap has occasioned some grumbling from the low-single-digit guys.

 

Obviously the format is completely unworkable for anyone with a handicap of 36 or higher. And as a practical matter it's unworkable (or at least inequitable) even in the low 30's. 

 

[nsxguy]

33 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Well it's kind of hard to discuss a handicapped game without mentioning handicaps. Right? 

 

I'm explaining why if you're going to calculate handicaps using NET double bogey max (which I think is a perfectly cromulent choice of max score) and then use them in a game which is scored with GROSS double bogey max (presumably because the players are too lazy to dot the scorecards) then mixing high and low handicappers will measurably disadvantage the low handicappers. Ask anyone who has played much in that format and they will tell you the low handicappers get the short end of the stick. 

 

Unfortunately, USGA does not give guidance on what percentage handicap allowances to use in that sort of quota format. 

 

But I think I totally 100% explained the way ours (and many other) quota games work. Here it is again if you missed it.

 

1) Look up your course handicap

2) Subtract it from 36, that's your quota.

3) Count 0 point for (gross) double or worse, 1 point for bogey, 2 for par, 3 for birdie and add up points for all 18 holes.

4) Compare your total points to your quota, express the result as + or - minutes relative to the quota.

 

It's quite simple, which is the attraction. And it also means everyone in the field picks up once they have failed to make (gross) bogey, which I think is another attraction. But it does screw over the low handicappers if there are any bogey golfers or worse in the field. 

 

I don't expect you to remember everybody who has a pov on the subject but I am very aware of the Pope of Slope's (formerly the USGA's) odds of an exceptional score and how relatively "easier" it is for high handicappers to have a lower net than a low handicapper.

 

And how the larger the field the more higher cappers than low are generally in it.

 

You're usually very thorough though. I DID say, in pointing out that strokes are "thrown away", "<---and THIS is why it's even worse than a net game between low and high cappers as the high cappers are FAR more likely to not be required to count all the strokes they would have made were they required to finish out ALL the holes." That should've told you I knew what you were referring to as well as the situation.

 

And I thought it pretty clear I understood your points 1-4 and how Stableford scoring works. Although I confess I had to look up "cromulent". 

 

Anyway, I still haven't heard you answer a question I've asked more than once..

 

Do you pay out PER POINT over quota ? Or a certain number of the best scores regardless of quota ? TIA

[nsxguy]

14 minutes ago, North Butte said:

The points on each hole should be calculated based on net scores after the handicap strokes have been allocated. As far as I'm concerned that's the obvious and best solution. 

 

You could probably kludge it with a percentage if you absolutely must score point on gross hole scores. Maybe something like 80% or 90% handicap allocations would be enough to handle the range of, say, 3 to 25 or something like that. 

 

No group I've played with has ever allowed anyone with a handicap over 30 to participate. And even the occasional high-20's handicap has occasioned some grumbling from the low-single-digit guys.

 

Obviously the format is completely unworkable for anyone with a handicap of 36 or higher. And as a practical matter it's unworkable (or at least inequitable) even in the low 30's. 

 

 

Would it work if you started with 72 before subtracting handicap and then doubled all the Stableford points ?

 

Wouldn't that result in the same order of finish without worrying about points made going negative ?

[Rosco1216]

Our technical rules for tie break is best back 9 score vs quota but the players tied usually just agree to split the pot.

[Colin L]

31 minutes ago, Rosco1216 said:

Our technical rules for tie break is best back 9 score vs quota but the players tied usually just agree to split the pot.

Whiich is the only fair way to deal with tied scores if a play-off isn't possible and the only way that is in keeping  with Rule 3.3a. 

[North Butte]

6 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Do you pay out PER POINT over quota ? Or a certain number of the best scores regardless of quota ? TIA

No, most points wins the pot. Or most points wins the first place share and second-most points wins the second-place share. 

 

But at my club it is most often a team game with the most total points for the team winning the pot. 

 

At a different club where I used to play they modified the scoring to be 0 points for (gross) double and -1 point for worse than double. That was specifically so that high handicappers didn't have so much of an advantage. They dropped it after after a few months because some of the low handicappers did not like having to putt out for double bogey. For years they had been picking up and counting bogey even when they weren't even on the green yet due to lost ball or whatever. Writing down the occasional triple bogey really bummed them out. 

 

Subtracting from 54 or 72 or 186,282 would not affect the relative advantage that low handicapper get when you limit hole scores to (gross) double bogey. It's the fact that a high handicapper gets the benefit of the score limit kicking in far more often than the low handicapper.

 

And it's a different issue than Dean Knuth's explanation of how high handicappers have great variance above and below net even par. He's pointing out that in a large field the winner is an extreme outlier, the one guy whose score on that day happens to be the farthest (in number of strokes) below his net even par number. In any mixture, if you have one type of object with large variance and one type of object with small variance the outlier with the most extreme value in unstandardized units is virtually always a large variance one. That's why in identifying outliers (in the sense of values being unlikely, not in the sense of being numerically distance from their expected value) one always standardizes by dividing by the standard deviation.

 

That issue does apply to the sort of large field quota/points game we're talking about but it's quite separate from and in addition to the inequity in how a low max-score limit censors the points earned in a quota game. The censoring or truncation due to a max score limit is asymmetric. There's no limit on how many points a player can accrue, only a guaranteed floor of 0 points per hole.

 

The key concept is he doesn't just get 0 points, he gets 0 points for that hole but already has his handicap strokes ahead of time. So unlike a properly handicapped game (like true Stableford) the quota game removes the possibility that a high handicapper wastes a stroke hole. If I'm a 25hcp and I lose two balls and pick up without finishing a hole on which I'm allocated  two strokes it means I have the same score (0 points) as if I were getting one stroke or no strokes. I have the opportunity to spend or waste two of my 25 strokes on that hole. By going ahead and putting those strokes in my pocket before the game even starts, I'm given an unfair advantage. Surely that's clear. 

[StudentGolfer4]

Here is how golf genius says to do it. 
 

I’m willing to bet if people don’t want to put in the time to dot cards and play a real stableford game they won’t care to take the time to do the math to break the tie either. 

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by StudentGolfer4
My first answer was way off and I realized it