Odds of Shooting an Exceptional Tournament Score

[TitleistHOG]

Can someone help explain this to me

Ok, so we have had a few tournaments last year where people where not so honest with their handicaps. Several of us want to put a stop to this. I knew about this statitics based on the odds of players playing well above said handicap. Can someone help explain this to me so I can upderstand it better.

Here is what I was able to pull off the USGA site.

Handicap Ranges

0-5 6-12 13-21 22-30 GREATER THAN 30
Net Differential odds odds odds odds odds
0 5:1 5:1 6:1 5:1 5:1
-1 10:1 10:1 10:1 8:1 7:1
-2 23:1 22:1 21:1 13:1 10:1
-3 57:1 51:1 43:1 23:1 15:1
-4 151:1 121:1 87:1 40:1 22:1
-5 379:1 276:1 174:1 72:1 35:1
-6 790:1 536:1 323:1 130:1 60:1
-7 2349:1 1200:1 552:1 229:1 101:1
-8 20111:1 4467:1 1138:1 382:1 185:1
-9 48219:1 27877:1 3577:1 695:1 359:1
-10 125000:1 84300:1 37000:1 1650:1 874:1





Probability of Two Best Scores Beating Handicap

The values in this table only include pairs of best negative differentials and determines how many strokes a golfer's handicap should be reduced to allow his best two differential likelihood to be an acceptable "rarity".

As an example, consider the golfer whose best two differentials of his last 20 scores were -6 and -8 and the player has a handicap of 15. This event would have a 1 in 7,249 chance. If a threshold of 1 in 258 was established as the limit of reasonability, this player should have his handicap lowered three strokes (three diagonal steps to the left in the following table).

0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10
0 27 46 92 199 408 869 1808 2480 3871 9180 85779
-1 46 13 26 58 118 253 526 722 1126 2672 24967
-2 96 26 20 43 89 191 398 546 853 2023 18907
-3 199 58 43 59 121 258 537 737 1150 2728 25492
-4 408 118 89 121 200 427 888 1219 1903 4512 42163
-5 869 253 191 258 427 821 1708 2343 3657 8672 81030
-6 1808 526 398 537 888 1708 3385 4644 7249 17189 ****
-7 2480 722 546 737 1219 2343 4644 6225 9716 23041 ****
-8 3871 853 1150 1903 3657 2343 7249 9716 14912 35361 ****
-9 9180 2672 2023 2728 4512 8672 17109 23041 35361 82951 ****
-10 85779 24967 18907 25492 42163 81030 **** **** **** **** ****

[AcesAZ]

Pretty simple chart. Just find your handicap in the range then figure out how far under net your score was and then figure out the odds. Not sure these odds are exactly right to me. I looked up my last 20 scores and I shot 7 rounds at or below my handicap.

Edit- Nevermind, the odds are right on so it seems. My odds of shooting a 59 at my home track from the middle tees is 1 in 125000, alot better odds than winning the lottery. LOL

[TitleistHOG]

So if an individaul states they have a handicap of 10 which puts them in the range of 6-12 and the individaul shot 6 under their handicap so the odds would be 536:1 which would be unlikely. So at what point could one use this to help eliminate sandbaggers? If the odds reach in the triple digits, thoughts?

[irvtrain]

Best way to put an end to sandbaggers is to have them play off tournament scores only. NO casual rounds allowed.

[Sawgrass]

Statistics will never prove someone has cheated. (I got a hole in one in November. I'm a 15. I play twice a week in season. The odds of my having scored the ace were way, way over the "reasonability limit" of 1 in 258. So are the odds of everyone else who has ever gotten one. Doesn't mean that people don't regularly beat the odds.)

I'm not saying that there aren't cheaters out there, but lets face it, you pretty much have to play well over your head to be at the top of a handicap competition anyway, so the winner always looks questionable. That's terribly unfair to honest guys who play well in a tournament.

What's that saying? I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail?

You can use those tables to punish someone after the fact for playing well, but you can't use them to prove anything.

I like irvtrain's idea above if you have grave suspicions. No accusations. No unfortunate mistakes. Using tournament scores only would have to severely limit a cheater's ability to prosper.

[mark m]

I spoke with a guy in the handicap department a few years ago about the charts.

First: The scores inside the chart are Net Differentials.
Net differential = Differential of that round - Handicap Index

(So - it's all math - you need his Index and the differential of that round to determine where his score would be in the chart.)

All these charts say is the probability of shooting the net scores [b]if it's an honest handicap.[/b] They deem "exceptable" any scores that have odds less than 300 to 1. That is why those scores above 300 to 1 are in 'bold' on the usga website.

Note how it is much more likely/achievable for a high handicapper to go low than for a low hdcper. (Most of us have seen that play out it tournaments.)

Years ago - our first year of posting 'T' scores (1995) in our golf club - we had a 36 handicapper shoot net 57 & net 61 in our CC. 118!! (26 under) Hello!

He earned an "R"(restricted handicap) and went down 5 or 6 strokes on his next handicap revision. We still laugh about that one.

Both scores were literally off the chart you have above.
Sandbagger? Yes sir.

[Sid Vicious]

What is the protocol for low scores that are fluky in nature? Say something like a guy is 8-10 under his handicap, but holes out twice for eagles during the round, or maybe a double eagle? I mean, that's not sandbagging. Those things can and do happen. Two or three eagles in one round may be kind of rare, but not really unusual, if that makes any sense.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Sid Vicious' date='01 February 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1265084114' post='2221281']
What is the protocol for low scores that are fluky in nature? Say something like a guy is 8-10 under his handicap, but holes out twice for eagles during the round, or maybe a double eagle? I mean, that's not sandbagging. Those things can and do happen. Two or three eagles in one round may be kind of rare, but not really unusual, if that makes any sense.
[/quote]

That's a very good point that I haven't heard discussed before. Nobody is good enough to "sandbag" with an eagle when he needs one. Why not add a few strokes back for the chart's purpose. Call it a "par" from a mathmatical standpoint.

[Sid Vicious]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='01 February 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1265084455' post='2221300']
[quote name='Sid Vicious' date='01 February 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1265084114' post='2221281']
What is the protocol for low scores that are fluky in nature? Say something like a guy is 8-10 under his handicap, but holes out twice for eagles during the round, or maybe a double eagle? I mean, that's not sandbagging. Those things can and do happen. Two or three eagles in one round may be kind of rare, but not really unusual, if that makes any sense.
[/quote]

That's a very good point that I haven't heard discussed before. Nobody is good enough to "sandbag" with an eagle when he needs one. Why not add a few strokes back for the chart's purpose. Call it a "par" from a mathmatical standpoint.
[/quote]

I have to figure there would be some guidelines from the USGA if something like this happened. Of course this is the USGA we're talking about, so...

[mark m]

My take is that kind of thing can and does happen.

And too often when a player does have a 'once in a lifetime' type round - especially if it happens in a tournament - then it is called into question. And he can be called a "sandbagger" or worse and his whole day/experience ruined. These are the tough calls. Guys should be careful about what they say - especially if they've had a few drinks. Here is the thing - someone is going to win - and in net events - most likely the winning score will be a low net score and shot by a mid or high handicapper. Everyone should be entitled to one of these rounds once in a great while.

At most clubs - the guys with the questionable handicaps are often well known because they are repeat offenders. The big problems come when the same guys are winning all the time. Posting 'T' scores can help to take care of the problem. Using a "Knuth Point System" ([url="http://www.popeofslope.com"]www.popeofslope.com[/url]) is another way to attack this problem.

[doof_dizzler]

We have the chart posted next to the computer in the pro shop. It indicates that if you go low more than once a year in a tournament, it is either incredibly unlikely or sandbagging. If you're a 6, the odds of shooting even par in a round are 536-1. That shouldn't happen very often, ie: once every 536 times. Even for someone who plays an enormous amount of rounds, it's not likely to happen more than every couple years!

[hef63303]

The problem with sandbaggers is that they have a "once in a lifetime score" twice in the same weekend. You can not keep them from doing it. If it is a private club, your handicap chairman has to be given the power to ban them from tournaments. That is the only way to stop it. Or here is what we did at one club. There were about 3-4 sandbaggers. One year, the rest of us all decided we would not sign up for tournaments where the known sandbaggers had entered. Every event was cancelled due to lack of participation and we held our own tournaments instead.

[bloodredsun]

You have to be careful with statistics being used to detect sandbaggers. You have to remember that the probabilities add up.

Say you have 100 people playing in a weekly competition - every month you will likely have one person who has a 1 in 400 type of score which could be spectacularly under their handicap.

[cwglum]

Handicaps are such a grey area, especially in the case of players that used to play a ton of tournament golf, haven't played as much in the past year or so. A good player from seasons past can come alive in a tournament ... shooting well below his/her current index.

That's why, for me, gross score tourneys are the only way to go. I will never enter a net event, too many variables other than score that come into question. Just like all of the 4-man scrambles that I play ... watch groups of guys on the range almost whif the ball, and what-do-ya know, they come in at -16 for the day. Sure.

We had a guy at our club get banned from the club championship after posting scores 8-9 strokes better than his average during club championships 2 years in a row. Winner of each flight received a free membership for the following year ... after that happened, he was obviously exposed and the free memberships were no longer offered for the winners.

[WishICouldPlayMoreOften]

Sandbaggers are taking advantage of the handicapping system for sure, but not everyone who plays significantly better than her/his handicap is sandbagging, particularly for newer golfers who's handicap can be high as initial rounds are posted and may not drop as quickly as they improve through additional play.

My drop from 20 to 10 seemed like it took a long time while posting rounds through the handicap system, yet some of the rounds I played others thought I was padding.

That said what I've experienced for tournament or scoring play is that sandbagging is most easily dealt with by picking a number significantly better than the handicap (for a 10 like me, any score 6-7 strokes better than my handicap) should be reviewed. For me to do that much better, I'd have to either have a best day in GIR, Fairways, and 10+ foot putting. Lucky holeouts, up & downs, sand saves, etc. probably can't account for more than 2-3 strokes so it would be pretty easy to spot padding.

Another simple thing that can be done is to use the handicap only for pairing and then count raw scores. If you do that, then it's best to have pairings of high/lows as close to each other as possible without people being able to directly pick the other playing partner. That may be less fun for the participants, but if it's for any type of competitive play it's hard to argue that it's not a reasonably fair way to try to keep the competition tough and sandbagging down.

[TitleistHOG]

I appreciate eveyone comments. since the tournament I am referring to is a member guest so it will be a two man tournament and it will be pre-flighted, I am thinking we can consider using the chart and the ratios. I agree that a player can have a great round (life-time round) but the odds of following that round up with another is highly unlikely. I am proposing that every person who is not a member (the guest)have their handicap adjusted to my course slope and rating (differential). This will be the first year that there is any kind of rules and regulation for handicaps for the tournament, sad it had to come to this, but I think there has too be some guidelines set and possible examples made (if necessary) to show people that we are serious about not cheating. It is supposed to be a fun event and those who actually play well rewarded not taken advantage of.

[tdk8180]

Here's the problem with handicap. It doesn't factor in the difficulty of a course all that well. Yes, Slope Rating is prevalent, but not a major factor.

Here's what I mean.

I'm a 2 handicap, my Dad is a 16, with the potential to be a 5, if he could play more and hit straighter drives and better iron shots. Here in lies the problem, when we use his handicap at courses that are "easy" or "mistake proof".

I put up 75 at a wide open course with little hazards. He gets his 14 shots. He ends up shooting an 81. Legitimately too. He can get to the greens after blasting a drive in another fairway. He gets on by hitting a thin 5 iron to 40 feet. Makes the 40 footer for a birdie, net Eagle.

I hit my drive down the fairway, put it 15 feet, miss the putt, make par.

He scuzzed up the hole, beats me by 2.

Now, we play at a "real" golf course, with a Slope of 142. I shoot 78-79. He shoots 115. Why? Because everytime he blasts one into the next fairway, he is out of bounds, in a hazard, in the woods, in marsh, with having to either re-hit from the tee, or keep hacking his way down the hole, taking every tree limb and birds nest to the green.

So, at one course, he shoots an 81, net 67. And at another course, he shoots 115, net 99. I keep it within my 73-80 range everywhere I go.

There's your problem with handicap.

[crtssxc]

I agree, slope and rating only do so much to adjust a handicap. It is a start but IMO, doesnt get all the way there. I struggle with the same inconsitencies in handicaps when we go away on our annual golf trip. Granted it is only a golf trip and we are just happy to be playing a ton of golf, but it does get frustrating at times.

Also, IMO, most high handicappers still have the skill to put up lower scores (say an 18 putting up an 82-83), moreso than a low handicap (say a 3-4) shooting under par.

[Smack Daddy]

A few thoughts here:

1) This past summer I went 18 of 20 rounds shooting a net score below par. Included was a gross 1 over 73. Should be impossible according to the charts but we fixed something in my swing. My 'cap dropped from 15 to 9 in the process. Unusual but not impossible. While those odds make sense there will be exceptions.

2) The slope at my course is generally considered far too low by everyone. My 9 is really a 7, of that I have no doubt. So when people from my course play outside events our club gets nailed with the sandbagger title. Every time we have had the authorities in they lower the slope. Not our fault.

3) I am aware of a lady who is a 3-5 handicap. Her cap is legit and her scores are always entered properly and in full. She is, however, a tournament dynamo. At her club she plays at scratch in all events. No one goes out and shoots 77 to 79 everyday when they can shoot par or better. Some people focus better in events.

All that said, I hate sandbaggers and the last two courses I have been at have had them. Using tournament scores are the only answer. If they played in your event last year then go off of last year if it is lower.

[AcesAZ]

I agree that you have to use tournament scores. That way the sandbaggers can only get away with it once.

Over the summer I was working on some swing changes for about a month, ignored my shortgame and putting and my cap ballooned to a 2. I ended up playing in club net tournament and shot a net 65 and won it. A few guys thought I was bagging but it just happened to be that my swing was out of whack for a bit that caused my cap to rise (I was even sh@^$%#^ it). I also play and focus much better in tournaments. So Id say in some instances people can make improvements and shoot low scores. I dont think its right to call someone a sandbagger without proof and if they do shoot low enter those as tournament scores and the cap will get reduced automatically for a year.

[sabergo]

I'm an American living in Germany where they use the EGA Handicap System. You gain (and maintain) a handicap through tournaments (mostly). Exceptional Tournament scores are almost a rule -- for High Handicappers -- but eventually the improvement curve flattens out and players don't continually win. The mid and low handicap flight results are typically much tighter in dispersion in scores week to week. Overall winner is gross not net. Seems a more fair system for Tournaments and less opportunity for abuse.

I and my brother (USGA Handicap) play very similarly, but his handicap is about 6 shots lower. He no longer gives me any strokes based on handicap...

Best Wishes.

steve

[kiwidave]

[quote name='doof_dizzler' date='02 February 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1265089073' post='2221443']
We have the chart posted next to the computer in the pro shop. It indicates that if you go low more than once a year in a tournament, it is either incredibly unlikely or sandbagging. [b]If you're a 6, the odds of shooting even par in a round are 536-1[/b]. That shouldn't happen very often, ie: once every 536 times. Even for someone who plays an enormous amount of rounds, it's not likely to happen more than every couple years!
[/quote]

There's now way that can be right. I've played with plenty of 6's who have shot par, sure they might have shot 85 next time out. Thats like saying a scratch golf can't shoot 6 under. Of course they can, in a hell of a lot less that 1-500 odd rounds.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='kiwidave' date='05 February 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1265356969' post='2228786']
[quote name='doof_dizzler' date='02 February 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1265089073' post='2221443']
We have the chart posted next to the computer in the pro shop. It indicates that if you go low more than once a year in a tournament, it is either incredibly unlikely or sandbagging. [b]If you're a 6, the odds of shooting even par in a round are 536-1[/b]. That shouldn't happen very often, ie: once every 536 times. Even for someone who plays an enormous amount of rounds, it's not likely to happen more than every couple years!
[/quote]

There's now way that can be right. I've played with plenty of 6's who have shot par, sure they might have shot 85 next time out. Thats like saying a scratch golf can't shoot 6 under. Of course they can, in a hell of a lot less that 1-500 odd rounds.
[/quote]

If that is the way that it is posted then it really is wrong - a differential of 0 is not the same as par.

dave

[cheeser]

I was contemplating playing in my city tourney this year but the dude that won the flight I'd play in is a 7.5 hcp and he shot net 63-67 to win last year, -14. Being the anti-sandbagger that I am, I looked up his GHIN and sure enough, those tourney rounds aren't posted and the rest of his rounds are normal scores, with only 2 rounds all year in the gross high 70's. This tells me that the TD couldn't give two licks what's happening. I want to play to compete and possibly win but good grief, that's a little blatant.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='cheeser' date='05 February 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1265372791' post='2228866']
I was contemplating playing in my city tourney this year but the dude that won the flight I'd play in is a 7.5 hcp and he shot net 63-67 to win last year, -14. Being the anti-sandbagger that I am, I looked up his GHIN and sure enough, those tourney rounds aren't posted and the rest of his rounds are normal scores, with only 2 rounds all year in the gross high 70's. This tells me that the TD couldn't give two licks what's happening. I want to play to compete and possibly win but good grief, that's a little blatant.
[/quote]

Are you sure that the tournament rounds "aren't there". The T Score table (where T scores are kept for a year) are separate and not visible (at least they are not visible in the Golfnet software).

He still sounds like a sandbagger (and you would expect this guy to have an "R" index unless he only has one tourney round or his other tourney rounds are higher). But this could be kosher based on what you have stated (although unlikely I admit).

dave

[cheeser]

Oh yeah. I checked. He's a 6.5 hcp, not a 7.5 and has a course handicap of 7 (tourney course slope of 129) so his scores would have been 70 and a 74. Those aren't there anywhere. And to boot, his latest scores are 92, 88, 87 at courses with slopes of 116 and 117. I have to say that he has some tourney scores posted and they are all in the 70's so he's not a complete liar but you get the picture. Post casual rounds in the 80's and 90's then shoot 70's in tourneys. It's classic blatant sandbagging that I guarantee the TD hasn't even looked at.

This is just one person but I'm sure that if I went through the list of winners and second place finishers in all flights for the last few years, I would find the same thing. Oh well. No need for me to lose sleep over it but I enjoy tournies where I'm putting myself against supposedly equally talented players and seeing where the chips fall. I wouldn't stand a chance against this dude. I would need to shoot my career round twice just to tie him.

[marrigo]

These charts and other odds as they relate to golf (ex. odds of a hole in one) are very much misused. This has been alluded to in other posts in this thread. You have to understand what these statistics mean and what the assumptions are.

They are probabilities based on population statistics and it's not really appropriate to try and apply them to individuals. A major assumption of these types of statistics is that they are based on random samples. So basically what these stats are saying is if you choose a golfer at random the odds of them shooting a particular score as it relates to their handicap is "1 in X". Same applies for the odds of a golfer getting a hole in one during a round. For arguments sake, say you continually chose golfers at random and followed them for a round, and the odds of a hole in one was 1 in 1000. You'd likely have to follow about 1000 golfers before you saw someone get a hole in one. Some of those individuals in your sample likely had a much worse chance of getting hole in one (ex. lousy golfer on a long, hard course), and some much better (ex. low handicap on a easy, short course) than the population odds of 1 in 1000. But in general if you repeated this experiment many times the overall outcome should be the same; you'd have to follow an average of about 1000 golfers for a round before you saw a hole in one. Trying to then take those odds and apply them to an individual who just got a hole in one is not appropriate as their particular circumstance likely altered their odds, maybe considerably. Same goes for the handicap issue. These types of stats are good general guidelines for understanding how likely or unlikely something is on a grand scale, but that's about it.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='cheeser' date='05 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1265376297' post='2228915']
Oh yeah. I checked. He's a 6.5 hcp, not a 7.5 and has a course handicap of 7 (tourney course slope of 129) so his scores would have been 70 and a 74. Those aren't there anywhere. And to boot, his latest scores are 92, 88, 87 at courses with slopes of 116 and 117. I have to say that he has some tourney scores posted and they are all in the 70's so he's not a complete liar but you get the picture. Post casual rounds in the 80's and 90's then shoot 70's in tourneys. It's classic blatant sandbagging that I guarantee the TD hasn't even looked at.

This is just one person but I'm sure that if I went through the list of winners and second place finishers in all flights for the last few years, I would find the same thing. Oh well. No need for me to lose sleep over it but I enjoy tournies where I'm putting myself against supposedly equally talented players and seeing where the chips fall. I wouldn't stand a chance against this dude. I would need to shoot my career round twice just to tie him.
[/quote]

I'm curious. Can you see the "T Score table" from the Ghin system interface? You can't see it when using the system used by the Carolina's Golf Association (Golfnet). Or at least I have never found it.

dave

ps. The intergrity of the system is based in large part on open and peer reviewable records. You really should report this guy.

[highergr0und]

The table should be used for nothing but an indicator for further review.... The nature of the stats converge to their true mean given a large enough sample set, but it doesn't mean that you couldn't rip off a few unlikely "wins" in a row. Kind of like Vegas, play long enough and you will most likely lose, but it's not to say that you can't have some massively lucky runs. That's why pit bosses comp free rooms to big winners, so they'll stay long enough for their "luck" to turn.

For the golfer, however unlikely it should be, there will be a lot of times where the unexpected result occurs.... Just look at some of the responses with "I've been accused of sandbagging but my game's been off" and so on. Couple the skill / swing change factor, different courses, playing conditions, etc, etc, and you've got a nightmare on your hands.

My advice is to post a rule for the tournament that exceptional scoring will be reviewed according to the USGA table with your defined cutoff limit. Make it clear that any prizes will be withheld until the review is complete. I'm not sure how exhaustive you can get in the review, but looking at scores will be a good start along with maybe a few character or playing partner witnesses. In the end, you'll probably be stuck paying out regardless of the findings, but maybe it will deter the sandbaggers a bit.

[cheeser]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' date='05 February 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1265381703' post='2229046']
[quote name='cheeser' date='05 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1265376297' post='2228915']

[/quote]

I'm curious. Can you see the "T Score table" from the Ghin system interface? You can't see it when using the system used by the Carolina's Golf Association (Golfnet). Or at least I have never found it.

dave

ps. The intergrity of the system is based in large part on open and peer reviewable records. You really should report this guy.
[/quote]

I can see quite a bit of his tourney scores under his revision scores and it even shows his two lowest tourney scores.

On your second comment, I could report him and probably 6-7 other guys but what's the point? If I knew that the committee would do something about it, I would say something but I highly doubt they would do anything meaningful, like move them up a flight. Shoot, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishers from other handicap flights shot net 64's and 65's. It looks like a dang PGA Tour scoreboard. I'm not saying that these scores aren't possible, but the winners and those in the money post two personal record rounds in one tourney weekend, the bs flag is flying for me.