WHS Change - 9 Holes. Dealing w/Exploit

[Imp]

25 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

ps. Now for the editorial. I think the system should combine 9 hole scores played on the same day on the same course. From what I can see that does not happen. 

I am on board with that, and think that's how it SHOULD work. But, there needs to be a specific mention of that in the Handicap Rules for it to happen - as a matter of process (i.e. rules are rules and they should be listed, not guessed at or done behind the scenes when not listed). 

I play 9 holes a lot. I play 18 holes a lot. Sometimes I play 18 on a 9 hole course on the same day. Sometimes I play the front 9 twice of an 18 hole course (because hills in the back 9 suck when walking 85 degree high humidity). 

 

I'll wait to see how this plays out, but I may not be a fan of having someone post one 18 hole calc (that played 18 holes of a 27 hole course same day), where I have two 9s that count as two 18 hole calcs, same day, same 9s as the above, just because I submitted the score before I was asked to join in on another 9.  (They talk about PCC for 9 holes on a 27 hole course in the 2024 HC Rules, but we're not talking about PCC). Almost like the inverse would happen, the 18 hole hdcp is the vanity and the 9 hole is "fake" (because didn't play back 9)

DaveP, I would like to hear back when you get an answer. Could be something they simply haven't gotten up on the site in the FAQ yet. 

 

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, Imp said:

DaveP, I would like to hear back when you get an answer. Could be something they simply haven't gotten up on the site in the FAQ yet. 

On the other hand, it might be an unintended consequence of the change, and something that might be revised in the future.  I sent my question in to the Virginia State Golf Association, I'll let you know what I hear from them.

[Imp]

Thanks Dave

 

To put it simply, it's a matter after a few 9 hole rounds, it's going to be easier to see which result inflates/reduces handicap more and then enter two 9s vs one 18 from this point out, depending on which way the player wants to play with their handicap (vanity vs sandbagger), for the individual that is so inclined to try and game the system. If someone was so inclined, there may be a difference between 88 submitted as 18 holes, and 40/48 submitted as 2 9 hole rounds.

I know the differential calc for 9 holes consist of course, slope, score. But then that gets added with the "expected score". I can't find that math/calculation anywhere for "expected score". Anyone have any details on that? 

Edited February 6 by Imp

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, Imp said:

I can't find that math/calculation anywhere for "expected score". Anyone have any details on that? 

I looked at the previous CONGU procedures.  The un-played 9 would be posted as Par + Handicap strokes + 1.  Since most people's average net score is 2 to 4 strokes over par, +1 net for 9 holes is something close to an "average" 9-hole score.  In the one example I could find of the new procedures, the "expected differential" was about 1.5 strokes over the player's Handicap Index, or about 3 over par net.  Unlike the previous CONGU procedure, which was a bit of a "one size fits all" procedure, I've read that the "expected differential" will be based on handicap level.  Higher handicappers tend to be more volatile, their "average" score is a bit further from their "net par" score, so I'd anticipate that their "expected differential" will be higher as well.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

I looked at the previous CONGU procedures.  

Just a small correction.

Since WHS was adopted, the CONGU group was no longer the 'Authorised Authority'. Each individual country (ie National Association) (England, Ireland (North & South combined), Scotland and Wales) became the 'Authorised Authority'.

As it happens, on implementation of WHS, the 9 hole procedure you describe was used by all.

Prior to WHS the principle was the same but the detail was different.

 

Re the rest of WHS, it was implemented commonly except in Scotland where the calculation of CH & PH were slightly different.

Edited February 6 by Newby

[Imp]

"The expected score is based on the average Score Differential of a player with a given Handicap Index and a normal distribution of scores – so it is not specific to each player. "

 

Ugh. Just saw this on the USGA site. They're going to have to explain that better.

 

- Of the players at that course on that day with the same(ish?) HDCP Index?

- Different courses?

- Different days?

- Region?

- All, everywhere? 

- Timeframe?

 

[davep043]

I got a quick response from the VSGA.  I asked them:

 

Quote

A question about the new treatment of 9 hole scores. A player plays the same 9 twice on the same day. Can (or should) he manually enter that as a single 18-hole score, or must he enter this as two different 9-hole scores, resulting in two 18-hole scores for his handicap record.

and their answer:

Quote

Thanks for your inquiry.  In that scenario, the golfer should post the score manually as a single 18-hole score, doubling the 9-hole Course Rating and using the Slope Rating of the nine-holes played.

To me, that guidance would certainly give the Committee the authority to adjust similarly entered scores appropriately.

 

31 minutes ago, Imp said:

"The expected score is based on the average Score Differential of a player with a given Handicap Index and a normal distribution of scores – so it is not specific to each player. "

 

Ugh. Just saw this on the USGA site. They're going to have to explain that better.

 

- Of the players at that course on that day with the same(ish?) HDCP Index?

- Different courses?

- Different days?

- Region?

- All, everywhere? 

- Timeframe?

 

No they're not.  The "expected differential" will be fairly similar to the player's "average" score would be, once reduced to a differential.  If you read the example on the same page, you'd see that the "expected differential" for a 14.0 index was 8.5, or approximately +3 net for 18 holes.  Consider that the USGA and other handicapping authorities have MILLIONS of scores for players across all handicap ranges.  They will be using that data to determine the "expected differential" for each player.  The effect will be to move a good nine hole score a little higher, and a bad 9 hole score a little lower.  You won't ever see a good 9 combined with another good 9 a month later to form a single really good score.

[Shilgy]

19 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

So meaning we're now following what the R&A did?  Meaning they took a 9 hole and extrapolated?

 

Not that they care, lol, but if it is the USGA now doing what the R&A has been doing, it gives me more confidence in the method.

Seems to be the mentality of many on here.  “Anything the USGA does is trash”….”oh, it’s how the R&A does it? Sounds great!”

[davep043]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Seems to be the mentality of many on here.  “Anything the USGA does is trash”….”oh, it’s how the R&A does it? Sounds great!”

Who knows, maybe it was Golf Australia that proposed this, or one of the other big handicapping systems.  But yeah, I've seen the same, USGA is stupid, R&A is good.  

[Newby]

19 minutes ago, davep043 said:

  They will be using that data to determine the "expected differential" for each player. 

They will be using that data to determine the "expected differential" for all players with the same handicap and then apply it to the individual player.

[Newby]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Who knows, maybe it was Golf Australia that proposed this, or one of the other big handicapping systems.  But yeah, I've seen the same, USGA is stupid, R&A is good.  

My impression is that of the 'big four' US, Oz, Europe and GB&I, GB&I have made the most changes to their system. The biggest being Slope and averaging.

[davep043]

6 minutes ago, Newby said:

They will be using that data to determine the "expected differential" for all players with the same handicap and then apply it to the individual player.

Better, I corrected mine to agree.

[Hawkeye77]

26 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Seems to be the mentality of many on here.  “Anything the USGA does is trash”….”oh, it’s how the R&A does it? Sounds great!”

Never been my mentality - I’m a pretty staunch USGA supporter, always have been on here as well but for about 3 particular rules changes. 
 

So don’t paint me with that brush or USGA “stupid”, lol. 
 

The reason I indicated I’d have more confidence if the R&A had been doing it is simply that it would be something that had been tried with experience to evaluate, and presumably positive if the USGA was now doing it. 
 

Turns out the R&A wasn’t and hadn’t, so there we are. 

Edited February 6 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

I’m one who had to “wait and wait and wait” for another 9 hole round.  I NEVER play 9 holes except in our Wednesday night men’s league during the summer, or in a club tournament format where we play a series of 9 hole matches.  If it happens to be the last match of the season, it could be months before I play another 9 hole round; last year, it was a 9 hole match from the Member-Guest in October combined with a 9 hole score from a league match in July.  Different weather, and VERY different course conditions.

And if you almost always play 18 then it’s 9 holes once a week and no big deal if those are combined once a week.  The one example of some carryover isn’t that significant.

 

The weather and course conditions isn’t that big of a deal either - over time it’s not that different and it’s a real 9 hole round.  
 

Otherwise, it’s 9 holes and let “Hal” tell us what our 18 should have been - I’ll take the real data.

 

There is no real problem of significance that was “solved”. 

Edited February 6 by Hawkeye77

[Imp]

  

Quote

Thanks for your inquiry.  In that scenario, the golfer should post the score manually as a single 18-hole score, doubling the 9-hole Course Rating and using the Slope Rating of the nine-holes played.

 

With 99.99% of GHIN app users, they're going to open the GHIN app, select course/holes/tees, hole by hole/hbh with stats, or adjusted gross, and enter their scores. Getting down to 'Manual Course/Slope', there's even a warning that pops up saying "hey, on this course the course/slope are pre-set" here the user is warned that this may not be the best of ideas and to Cancel out of it.

 

The majority purpose of the app is automation of the calculation to include golf course data, and not manual entry. This isn't going to be an extreme fringe use case. I'd argue it's more common than they think...  I know I've done it myself. Knowing that 9s would be combined, it was soup. Score was the score. Now, my score for "the other 9" is not based on my playing at all, but an average of players of similar handicap?

 

Not going to be long before they disallow the input of 9 holes because they'll be considered not a true reflection of the players capability.

 

I guess what it comes down to is this: Not a fan of depending on other peoples scores for my handicap. That's not golf. Me against the course.

Scoring season here doesn't start 'till April. I play 9 holes (sometimes 18) on Thursdays. 9 on Fridays. And another 18 on the weekends, with some other 18s during the weekdays. We'll see what happens with those 9s. 

 

Edited February 6 by Imp

[Hawkeye77]

12 minutes ago, Imp said:

  

 

With 99.99% of GHIN app users, they're going to open the GHIN app, select course/holes/tees, hole by hole/hbh with stats, or adjusted gross, and enter their scores. Getting down to 'Manual Course/Slope', there's even a warning that pops up saying "hey, on this course the course/slope are pre-set" here the user is warned that this may not be the best of ideas and to Cancel out of it.

 

The majority purpose of the app is automation of the calculation to include golf course data, and not manual entry. This isn't going to be an extreme fringe use case. I'd argue it's more common than they think...  I know I've done it myself. Knowing that 9s would be combined, it was soup. Score was the score. Now, my score for "the other 9" is not based on my playing at all, but an average of players of similar handicap?

 

Not going to be long before they disallow the input of 9 holes because they'll be considered not a true reflection of the players capability.

 

I guess what it comes down to is this: Not a fan of depending on other peoples scores for my handicap. That's not golf. Me against the course.

Scoring season here doesn't start 'till April. I play 9 holes (sometimes 18) on Thursdays. 9 on Fridays. And another 18 on the weekends, with some other 18s during the weekdays. We'll see what happens with those 9s. 

 

Not that you need anyone’s affirmation, but you are hitting a couple of significant nails squarely on the head. 

[Shilgy]

47 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Never been my mentality - I’m a pretty staunch USGA supporter, always have been on here as well but for about 3 particular rules changes. 
 

So don’t paint me with that brush or USGA “stupid”, lol. 
 

The reason I indicated I’d have more confidence if the R&A had been doing it is simply that it would be something that had been tried with experience to evaluate, and presumably positive if the USGA was now doing it. 
 

Turns out the R&A wasn’t and hadn’t, so there we are. 

Yeah, sorry Hawk, that wasn’t intended to be at you personally.

[davep043]

29 minutes ago, Imp said:

This isn't going to be an extreme fringe use case. I'd argue it's more common than they think...  I know I've done it myself.

Just to be clear, do you think its pretty common that players will play 9 holes twice in the same day, the same 9 when there are a18 holes available?  I know there are 9-holes courses, or unusual occasions when you'll play the same 9 twice, but those are likely to be the exceptions rather than the rule.  

[bluedot]

55 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

And if you almost always play 18 then it’s 9 holes once a week and no big deal if those are combined once a week.  The one example of some carryover isn’t that significant.

 

The weather and course conditions isn’t that big of a deal either - over time it’s not that different and it’s a real 9 hole round.  
 

Otherwise, it’s 9 holes and let “Hal” tell us what our 18 should have been - I’ll take the real data.

 

There is no real problem of significance that was “solved”. 

You misunderstood; I don’t play 9 holes each week during the league season.  We have a six man team, but only two guys play each week, so with holidays, vacations, etc, it might be a month between nights when the same guy is back in the lineup.  
 

it always bothered me to have a 9 hole score “hanging around” waiting for another 9 hole score before counted, and the longer the 9 hole score waited to be combined, the less realistic it became; FAR less realistic than a predictive algorithm, IMO, especially when the second 9 hole score came on a different golf course and/or different weather conditions.  To me, that made ZERO sense.

[Hawkeye77]

33 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Yeah, sorry Hawk, that wasn’t intended to be at you personally.

You know I love you man, haha! 
 

And @davep043 for that matter - but I do agree with your assessment for sure of oft prevailing complaints. 

[Hawkeye77]

12 minutes ago, bluedot said:

You misunderstood; I don’t play 9 holes each week during the league season.  We have a six man team, but only two guys play each week, so with holidays, vacations, etc, it might be a month between nights when the same guy is back in the lineup.  
 

it always bothered me to have a 9 hole score “hanging around” waiting for another 9 hole score before counted, and the longer the 9 hole score waited to be combined, the less realistic it became; FAR less realistic than a predictive algorithm, IMO, especially when the second 9 hole score came on a different golf course and/or different weather conditions.  To me, that made ZERO sense.

Yep, I did. 
 

My weekly 9 holes in league over 5 months are combined regularly and I play quite a few 9 hole rounds on weeknights in the summer or going back later on weekends with the wife so I have a large sample to draw on. 

[davep043]

14 minutes ago, bluedot said:

it always bothered me to have a 9 hole score “hanging around” waiting for another 9 hole score before counted, and the longer the 9 hole score waited to be combined, the less realistic it became; FAR less realistic than a predictive algorithm, IMO, especially when the second 9 hole score came on a different golf course and/or different weather conditions.  To me, that made ZERO sense.

To me, treatment of 9 hole scores in the old method was imperfect, for just this reason.  The new method is imperfect, for different reasons.  Certainly the idea of completely ignoring 9-hole scores is far from ideal.  I don't think there exists a perfect way of doing this.  

[Imp]

17 minutes ago, davep043 said:

To me, treatment of 9 hole scores in the old method was imperfect, for just this reason.  The new method is imperfect, for different reasons.  Certainly the idea of completely ignoring 9-hole scores is far from ideal.  I don't think there exists a perfect way of doing this.  

I think a hybrid of sorts (and thanks for the conversation here, not trying to be rude and hopefully didn't come across that way).

 

1) The 1st two 9 hole scores on the same day be combined by the system, like the old way, but have to be played same day. The math is there already, unless they deleted the code (but should be easy to put back in). Should be automatic for this to happen.

 

One should not be able to shoot a 48 in the morning, a 40 in the afternoon after lunch with a bud, and have that stand as two 18 hole scores. That's an 88, not 83 & 86 (or whatever the numbers turn into with adjustment). 

 

2) Overnight system reconciling for single 9 hole stragglers, do the adjustment. I'm am fine with that. (And new thought, wonder if they did this for immediacy's sake...)

Dave, would be interesting to ask your buds (or you can look them up on GHIN) that had played the 9 hole rounds, what their differentials ended up being compared to their handicap. 

[davep043]

12 minutes ago, Imp said:

I think a hybrid of sorts (and thanks for the conversation here, not trying to be rude and hopefully didn't come across that way).

 

1) The 1st two 9 hole scores on the same day be combined by the system, like the old way, but have to be played same day. The math is there already, unless they deleted the code (but should be easy to put back in). Should be automatic for this to happen.

 

One should not be able to shoot a 48 in the morning, a 40 in the afternoon after lunch with a bud, and have that stand as two 18 hole scores. That's an 88, not 83 & 86 (or whatever the numbers turn into with adjustment). 

 

2) Overnight system reconciling for single 9 hole stragglers, do the adjustment. I'm am fine with that. (And new thought, wonder if they did this for immediacy's sake...)

Dave, would be interesting to ask your buds (or you can look them up on GHIN) that had played the 9 hole rounds, what their differentials ended up being compared to their handicap. 

I did ask the VSGA rep whether some type of automatic flagging might be instituted for multiple 9-hole scores posted on a single day.  That's a GHIN software issue, but the VSGA is as high up the ladder as I can reach easily.  

I do have admin access, so I'll check a few scores tomorrow morning and see if I can backcalculate the "expected diff" added to a few different 9-hole postings.  Feel free to remind me if you don't see anything.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Just to be clear, do you think its pretty common that players will play 9 holes twice in the same day, the same 9 when there are a18 holes available?  I know there are 9-holes courses, or unusual occasions when you'll play the same 9 twice, but those are likely to be the exceptions rather than the rule.  

 

Purely situational and personal but it's been pretty common for me where I've played.  Sometimes one 9 is more "open" when I/we come back, sometimes it's "just because" - I like both nines at our course and not married to playing one 9 just because I may have played the other earlier in the day - same at other courses I've played at even as a kid.  Last summer I played more 9 hole rounds on the back 9 because that's where every single one of my "nemesis" holes are, haha, and my wife doesn't care which 9 she plays.  On the other hand I have a friend who if it's another go later in the day and he's joining in will refuse to play the back (he "hates" it).  

 

Granted some folks play courses that aren't set up for making those choices that easily or the course kind of makes them for you, but I've been lucky to have a lot of flexibility in deciding which 9 to play for a 9 hole round.   

[Newby]

8 minutes ago, davep043 said:

 

 

I do have admin access, so I'll check a few scores tomorrow morning and see if I can backcalculate the "expected diff" added to a few different 9-hole postings.  

'Backcalculate' ?  Is the algorithm already in operation over there or do you know what it is?

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

'Backcalculate' ?  Is the algorithm already in operation over there or do you know what it is?

We post scores year round, so I have a couple dozen 9-hole scores posted at my club already.  I think the new method went into effect on 15 Jan here.

[Newby]

17 minutes ago, davep043 said:

We post scores year round, so I have a couple dozen 9-hole scores posted at my club already.  I think the new method went into effect on 15 Jan here.

Aah. We go live 1 April

[davep043]

OK, here's what I've found.  The simplest way for me to do this is to compare the " Net Anticipated Differential" (call it AD, calculated as the actual "artificial" score added less half the HI) that was applied to make an 18-hole score to the Handicap Index for 9 holes.  The AD ranged from 1.2 over par for a couple of guys with scratch to +2 HIs, to 1.7 or 1.8 over for HIs in the high 20s.  It appears to be pretty linear with HI.  No surprise to me, this equates for a scratch player's "expected score" averaging about (net) 2.5 over for 18 holes, a 25-handicapper being expected to be about a stroke higher, about +3.5 net.  

[Newby]

9 hours ago, davep043 said:

OK, here's what I've found.  The simplest way for me to do this is to compare the " Net Anticipated Differential" (call it AD, calculated as the actual "artificial" score added less half the HI) that was applied to make an 18-hole score to the Handicap Index for 9 holes.  The AD ranged from 1.2 over par for a couple of guys with scratch to +2 HIs, to 1.7 or 1.8 over for HIs in the high 20s.  It appears to be pretty linear with HI.  No surprise to me, this equates for a scratch player's "expected score" averaging about (net) 2.5 over for 18 holes, a 25-handicapper being expected to be about a stroke higher, about +3.5 net.  

Hardly worth shouting about when compared with the 'net par + 1' used outside the US now but probably more realistic.