Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[Barry88]

[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381331314' post='7975525']
[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381330958' post='7975479']
OK guys this thread is getting out of hand. I had over 200 notifications earlier I'm not accusing the guy of being a cheat and I graciously shook his hand afterwards and congratulated him so I'm not a sore loser, I will admit that I was frustrated that after all my effort in beating other guys to get to the final and to lose like that left a bitter taste in my mouth. He told a few of my friends that he was playing well recently before we played our match so I was expecting him to play well but not go on a hot streak like he did under pressure. There was also noticeable gamesmanship too such as taking ridiculously long to play shots (2 hours to play the front 9 in match play with the course to ourselves), didn't say "good shot" until he was a few up in the match etc. He didn't chip in or hole monster putts but hhis lag putting and chipping was immaculate that day. For example: On the Index 1 Par 4, I was putting for birdie from 15 feet and looking good, he chips it stone dead and now my birdie putt is for a half. It was like that all day on the holes he had shots on. Being 4 down after 8 forced me to go for every shot which forces errors naturally.
[/quote]

PAR 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 4
INDEX 17 15 7 5 11 1 13 9 3

[b] HIM 4 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 5[/b]

[b] ME 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 3[/b]


PAR 4 4 4 3
INDEX 4 18 16 14
[b] HIM [/b] [b] 4 4 4 3[/b]

[b] ME 4 3 5 4[/b]
[/quote]

Apologies about the poor formatting it didn't turn out like I had hoped

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381331312' post='7975523']
Did you read the link? I thought that was fascinating.
[/quote]

I did. Sounds like they just did a bad job of handicapping him. I can believe that a guy as busy as Bill Gates might not play often enough to maintain an official handicap...and honestly not know what he would likely be if he kept one.

Now, if someone came to me and said, "I'm a 30 handicap"...and then cruises to an 87...[i]that's different. [/i]

It's not "statistically impossible"...but I'm going to be HIGHLY suspicious that I'm getting sandbagged.

[eagle1997]

interesting, thanks for coming back with more info op.

so, out of the holes that were remaining, if i read the above correctly, he would have gotten strokes on each one of them?
hole handicaps for holes 14 - 18:
2, 12, 10, 6, 8

as some of the hardest holes were yet to be played, my conclusion would be that the man had a very good day.

congrats to you for making the final and for your subsequent graciousness.

[Barry88]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381331862' post='7975627']
interesting, thanks for coming back with more info op.

so, out of the holes that were remaining, if i read the above correctly, he would have gotten strokes on each one of them?
hole handicaps for holes 14 - 18:
2, 12, 10, 6, 8

as some of the hardest holes were yet to be played, my conclusion would be that the man had a very good day.

congrats to you for making the final and for your subsequent graciousness.
[/quote]

Yes the indexes for holes 14-18 are correct. He would have received a shot on 14 and 17 if the match continued. Thank you, I was pleased to reach the final but with a net format and full strokes given it does make it extremely difficult for low handicap golfers to win

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381331758' post='7975607']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381331312' post='7975523']
Did you read the link? I thought that was fascinating.
[/quote]

I did. Sounds like they just did a bad job of handicapping him. I can believe that a guy as busy as Bill Gates might not play often enough to maintain an official handicap...and honestly not know what he would likely be if he kept one.

Now, if someone came to me and said, "I'm a 30 handicap"...and then cruises to an 87...[i]that's different. [/i]

It's not "statistically impossible"...but I'm going to be HIGHLY suspicious that I'm getting sandbagged.
[/quote]

that wasn't really the part that I was talking about. I was referencing this exchange:

[quote][size=3][color=#000000]In the October Digest ("The Gatesgate Scandal"), Dean Knuth is quoted as saying the odds are 1 in 200 that you beat your handicap by three strokes, 1 in 570 that you beat it by five strokes and 1 in 82,000 that you beat it by 10 strokes. I suggest Dean check the batteries on his calculator. If the odds are 1 in 200 that you beat your handicap by three strokes then Greg Norman would shoot a 66 once in every 200 rounds. It would also mean that your garden-variety, 18-handicapper would be a model of consistency, shooting within two strokes of his handicap more than 90 percent of the time.[/color]
[color=#000000]As far as 10 under goes, I'll bet nearly everyone with a handicap of more than 15 has done it at least once and in a lot fewer than 82,000 rounds. I don't have any idea what Bill Gates' handicap is, but it's pretty clear ol' Dean is the wrong guy to calculate it. He is statistically challenged.[/color]
[color=#000000]STEVE HOLSTON
LAKEWOOD, CALIF.[/quote][/color]

[color=#000000]Who does that sound like?[/color]

[color=#000000]His response:[/color]

[color=#000000][quote]First off, if Greg Norman had a USGA handicap index in 1995, his level of play equated to a plus 7.5. That is to say, 7.5 strokes better than a scratch golfer. The average USGA course rating is approximately 71, so Greg's better-half scoring average would be 63.5."[/color]
[color=#000000]"On tour, the courses are set up to a course rating of about 76 on the more difficult stops. There his best average would be 68.5. To beat his handicap index by three strokes, he would have to shoot 60.5 on the average course (that we play), or 65.5 on the strong tour course. (Note: The average tour player is a plus 3.5)."[/color]
[color=#000000]"With respect to the garden-variety 18-handicapper, he or she averages three strokes over his or her course handicap and plays to it only 25 percent of the time. Beating your handicap by three strokes or more twice in tournaments – becomes such a rare event that Section 10-3 of the USGA handicap system automatically reduces the player's USGA handicap index. Less than 1 percent of the golfers are reduced under that procedure, so it is an uncommon event, except by the sandbaggers of the links. However, it is true that the size of the handicap index does affect the probability of making a low net score."[/color]
[color=#000000]"I have been called a number of things, but never before 'statistically challenged.' I scored a perfect 800 on the math section of my SAT test in high school, graduated from the Naval Academy and got a masters in systems technology. USGA statistics are based on a database of millions of scores and were worked out by our handicap research team of statisticians, mathematicians and professors.[/quote][/color]

[color=#000000]Like I said before - I think I'm going to side with old Dean on this one. He knows of what he speaks.[/color][/size]

[Hstead]

[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381332183' post='7975669']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381331862' post='7975627']
interesting, thanks for coming back with more info op.

so, out of the holes that were remaining, if i read the above correctly, he would have gotten strokes on each one of them?
hole handicaps for holes 14 - 18:
2, 12, 10, 6, 8

as some of the hardest holes were yet to be played, my conclusion would be that the man had a very good day.

congrats to you for making the final and for your subsequent graciousness.
[/quote]

Yes the indexes for holes 14-18 are correct. He would have received a shot on 14 and 17 if the match continued. Thank you, I was pleased to reach the final but with a net format and full strokes given it does make it extremely difficult for low handicap golfers to win
[/quote]

Very interesting statement, and one that I 100% agree with. It is difficult to win giving higher handicaps strokes, especially in match play for a reason. But if you listen to Ty, there should not be any difference at all according to the stats, you should shoot you handicap or under 25% as should the 12 handicap. We all know that is not the case though don't we? There is a reason it is harder for low handicaps to compete in net events for a reason, and it is not that all of the winners are cheaters. It is just the nature of golf and the stats cannot capture that at all, just as the stats cannot capture that there are completely different 12 handicaps, one that shoots consistent scores and one that varies wildly for infinite reasons mentioned previously by guys that are exactly those types of players. All golfers do not fit neatly into a little tiny box assigned to a stat. I have a buddy that is a 13 handicap, and if you watched him on the range you would think he was a 20 with his swing. He has shot better than his handicap twice in the same tournament more than once, and he is not a sandbagger. Like I said, if you played with him regularly, you would think he was closer to 20 than 15. Yet, he has won many tournaments in his flight and has shot quite a bit lower than his handicap in those events. His career low is 74 on a pretty tough track. I guess he is a cheater?

[nochct1]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381332573' post='7975713']
[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381332183' post='7975669']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381331862' post='7975627']
interesting, thanks for coming back with more info op.

so, out of the holes that were remaining, if i read the above correctly, he would have gotten strokes on each one of them?
hole handicaps for holes 14 - 18:
2, 12, 10, 6, 8

as some of the hardest holes were yet to be played, my conclusion would be that the man had a very good day.

congrats to you for making the final and for your subsequent graciousness.
[/quote]

Yes the indexes for holes 14-18 are correct. He would have received a shot on 14 and 17 if the match continued. Thank you, I was pleased to reach the final but with a net format and full strokes given it does make it extremely difficult for low handicap golfers to win
[/quote]

Very interesting statement, and one that I 100% agree with. It is difficult to win giving higher handicaps strokes, especially in match play for a reason. But if you listen to Ty, there should not be any difference at all according to the stats, you should shoot you handicap or under 25% as should the 12 handicap. We all know that is not the case though don't we? There is a reason it is harder for low handicaps to compete in net events for a reason, and it is not that all of the winners are cheaters. It is just the nature of golf and the stats cannot capture that at all, just as the stats cannot capture that there are completely different 12 handicaps, one that shoots consistent scores and one that varies wildly for infinite reasons mentioned previously by guys that are exactly those types of players. All golfers do not fit neatly into a little tiny box assigned to a stat. I have a buddy that is a 13 handicap, and if you watched him on the range you would think he was a 20 with his swing. He has shot better than his handicap twice in the same tournament more than once, and he is not a sandbagger. Like I said, if you played with him regularly, you would think he was closer to 20 than 15. Yet, he has won many tournaments in his flight and has shot quite a bit lower than his handicap in those events. His career low is 74 on a pretty tough track. I guess he is a cheater?
[/quote]

I think too many low handicaps gets used to playing with less skilled golfers and think that they can beat them every time with no problem. They get used to it because they don't have to play a match against them each week and don't have to give shots each week. But the handicap system is in place for a reason.

The system is designed so that golfers of different skill can compete with each other on a level playing field. If the 12 handicap plays a great round, then he should win. If he plays a poor round, then he will lose.

If this was two 3 handicaps playing against each other straight up for 10 matches, then they should probably each win the match 50% of the time. Same results if it is a 15 or a 20 handicap. When it is a two different handicaps playing against each other, they should still each win a match 50% of the time, because the system is design for that. I don't understand why the low handicaps always complain when they lose to someone of a highers handicap? It is always going to happen. Unless you play exactly to your handicap each time, then you are going to lose are times. Same goes to the higher handicap.

My personal opinion is that often times the lower handicaps are the ones who are playing with a vanity cap and are exposed when they have to give shots to someone.

[stuey01]

Regarding full difference NOT giving high handicappers an advantage:
http://www.congu.com/Myth%207.pdf

I think low handicappers expect to win against high handicappers so get upset when they don't. I understand that it sucks to lose to strokes, but that is what the handicapping system is for...

Barry, difficult to see because the formatting messed up, but if I am reading that right he was beating you 2 up even without strokes? Is that right?

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381332573' post='7975713']
[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381332183' post='7975669']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381331862' post='7975627']
interesting, thanks for coming back with more info op.

so, out of the holes that were remaining, if i read the above correctly, he would have gotten strokes on each one of them?
hole handicaps for holes 14 - 18:
2, 12, 10, 6, 8

as some of the hardest holes were yet to be played, my conclusion would be that the man had a very good day.

congrats to you for making the final and for your subsequent graciousness.
[/quote]

Yes the indexes for holes 14-18 are correct. He would have received a shot on 14 and 17 if the match continued. Thank you, I was pleased to reach the final but with a net format and full strokes given it does make it extremely difficult for low handicap golfers to win
[/quote]

Very interesting statement, and one that I 100% agree with. It is difficult to win giving higher handicaps strokes, especially in match play for a reason. But if you listen to Ty, there should not be any difference at all according to the stats, you should shoot you handicap or under 25% as should the 12 handicap. We all know that is not the case though don't we? There is a reason it is harder for low handicaps to compete in net events for a reason, and it is not that all of the winners are cheaters. It is just the nature of golf and the stats cannot capture that at all, just as the stats cannot capture that there are completely different 12 handicaps, one that shoots consistent scores and one that varies wildly for infinite reasons mentioned previously by guys that are exactly those types of players. All golfers do not fit neatly into a little tiny box assigned to a stat. I have a buddy that is a 13 handicap, and if you watched him on the range you would think he was a 20 with his swing. He has shot better than his handicap twice in the same tournament more than once, and he is not a sandbagger. Like I said, if you played with him regularly, you would think he was closer to 20 than 15. Yet, he has won many tournaments in his flight and has shot quite a bit lower than his handicap in those events. His career low is 74 on a pretty tough track. I guess he is a cheater?
[/quote]

Generally speaking, it's actually easier for a low handicap to win a match than a high handicap. The higher the handicap, generally speaking the larger the variance of scores. So on that 25% when you beat your handicap, the high handicap is going to shoot lower than the low handicap (relative to his handicap anyway), but on the 75% when you don't beat your handicap, the high handicap is going to shoot higher than the low handicap (again relative to handicap). That means that the low handicap typically has an advantage. You're right of course that not all 12 handicaps are equal. Some will have much greater variance than others, but it remains more likely that a 20 handicap will beat his handicap by 5 strokes than a scratch. It's also much more likely that a 20 handicap will shoot 10 shots worse than his handicap than a scratch.

If you go play in a net strokeplay event though and you're a low handicap, you're basically out of luck. That's because now you're not playing against 1 high handicap, you're playing against a whole bunch of them, so for the 25% of them that play below their handicap, they are more likely to beat it by more than you are. That is born out by the odds table at the popeofslope.com website.

Dean Knuth by the way designed the US handicap system. I think he knows how it works.

[Hstead]

It is not that simple, low handicappers are not going to beat higher handicaps 50% of the time, especially in match play. Often, low handicap guys are consistent and make a lot of pars, a handful or less bogeys, and a couple of birdies, whereas a higher handicap often has a couple of blow up holes where he wastes 6 of his 12 shots, but still manages to play the other 16 holes fairly well. Again, there are different types of 3 handicaps and there are different types of 12 handicaps.

Go to any club and watch the calcutta. Tell me if two scratch players have a snowballs shot in hell at winning? It never happens. Two scratch players on a good day are going to shoot 8 under par on their best ball. Take two good 12 handicappers with the occasional blow up hole like I mentioned, and they can shoot 15 under par, something the two scratch players are not going to do.

[stuey01]

Actually according to CONGU analysis low handicap guys beat high handicap guys 55% of the time, even with full handicap difference.

[Hstead]

[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381334011' post='7975833']
Actually according to CONGU analysis low handicap guys beat high handicap guys 55% of the time, even with full handicap difference.
[/quote]

I am not sure about CONGU, but at our club the club champions, which the last 15 years there have only been 4 different guys, have never won the net match play championship. If you look at our match play champ, he is always someone with a handicap above 10 for a reason.

Ty did explain pretty well why low handicappers have very limited chances in net events.

[stuey01]

The link in my post above takes you to the CONGU analysis, or at least the output of it.

At my club the net match play champion has been several players, all off < 5 handicap for years and years.
Also this year the club champion, strokeplay for both net and gross prizes, was off scratch with a 65 in the final round. Beating all the higher handicappers over 2 days net.
All in the UK under CONGU.

[dirthead]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381333804' post='7975813']
It is not that simple, low handicappers are not going to beat higher handicaps 50% of the time, especially in match play. Often, low handicap guys are consistent and make a lot of pars, a handful or less bogeys, and a couple of birdies, whereas a higher handicap often has a couple of blow up holes where he wastes 6 of his 12 shots, but still manages to play the other 16 holes fairly well. Again, there are different types of 3 handicaps and there are different types of 12 handicaps.

Go to any club and watch the calcutta. Tell me if two scratch players have a snowballs shot in hell at winning? It never happens. Two scratch players on a good day are going to shoot 8 under par on their best ball. Take two good 12 handicappers with the occasional blow up hole like I mentioned, and they can shoot 15 under par, something the two scratch players are not going to do.
[/quote]

I agree with you 100% Hstead. I have personally been involved in match play events with players in the 6-12 handicap range. They are almost impossible to beat head to head. Make it a two man team, with a couple of low cappers and a couple of mid cappers, and the low cappers have to play their butts off to have any chance.

Stroke play is different, since all the strokes on a blow up hole will count. Match play is tough for the lower handicap.

[stage1350]

Anyone who wants to quote the odds and have faith in them 100% of the time, bring $10,000 to my casino. I'll comp your hotel and dinner.

We'll see how well you do...

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381334182' post='7975843']
[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381334011' post='7975833']
Actually according to CONGU analysis low handicap guys beat high handicap guys 55% of the time, even with full handicap difference.
[/quote]

I am not sure about CONGU, but at our club the club champions, which the last 15 years there have only been 4 different guys, have never won the net match play championship. If you look at our match play champ, he is always someone with a handicap above 10 for a reason.

Ty did explain pretty well why low handicappers have very limited chances in net events.
[/quote]

Assuming everyone is being honest about their handicap, then the current club champion is only one in a group of let's say 150 people playing in that knockout tournament - certainly that's how it works at my club back home. Even if they do have a slightly loaded chance of winning, say 55%, the chances of one specific person winning that is still about 3%, not particularly likely. If it's 50/50 in each match, then the odds are 150:1. Take 4 guys and the odds are 150:4 or about 38:1. Not surprising over a 20 year stretch that the number would be zero.

If you mean in the history of the club no person who has won the club championship at some point has ever won the net matchplay, then that's more surprising. Unless there are some people who massage their handicaps to give them more chance of winning the net thing.

For what it's worth, at my club back home, there's a range of handicaps represented on the club singles board (net). Plenty of low handicaps have won there. Much more unusual for them to win the handicap strokeplay events (although it has happened). Of those strokeplay events, it's more common in the two round events than in the one round events. Read into that what you will.

[isaacbm]

I have only seen one scratch golfer ever "win" the net event of any club I was a member at. I put that word in quotations and it was because it was me and I accidentally made a big mistake with my handicap.
I was brand new to this course and when asked about my handicap I said "scratch" because st the time I didn't understand that they would include me in the net side. I assumed I was just in the gross division. I was probably closer to + 4 but had never played in the net side is an event before.

Anyway, I played great and was close to my actual handicap. Won the gross event and was happy. At the awards ceremony, they tried to give me the net too and there was a huge commotion about it all. 10 guys had shot lower then their cap and were pissed that I was in as a zero. It was cleared up and I immediately told the committed that I didn't realize I was even in the net event. I surrendered that to the next guy in line quite happily. A few weeks later I played that guy in the club match play event. I was entered as a + 4 this time. Was 7 under through 14 and lost 5&4. I've never played a handicapped event since.

The us/can system is garbage to me. The trouble is its left up to the individual to keep his own handicap. That's like me leaving a bowl of Halloween candy on the counter and telling the kids "I trust you'll do the right thing"

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381319583' post='7974685']
I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
If this guy were a 9.4, playing 9 and went to an 11.5, playing 12 he would need to post 21 scores in qualifying competion rounds that are outside the buffer zone (2 shots above CSS is the buffer), 0.1 back for each one.
That's a lot of consecutive bad golf to go from a 9 to a 12.
[/quote]

Which makes it even less likely the guy could post this score.

[Barry88]

[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381333714' post='7975807']
Regarding full difference NOT giving high handicappers an advantage:
[url="http://www.congu.com/Myth%207.pdf"]http://www.congu.com/Myth%207.pdf[/url]

I think low handicappers expect to win against high handicappers so get upset when they don't. I understand that it sucks to lose to strokes, but that is what the handicapping system is for...

Barry, difficult to see because the formatting messed up, but if I am reading that right he was beating you 2 up even without strokes? Is that right?
[/quote]

he would still be 2up if we played off scratch yeah

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='stage1350' timestamp='1381335060' post='7975909']
Anyone who wants to quote the odds and have faith in them 100% of the time, bring $10,000 to my casino. I'll comp your hotel and dinner.

We'll see how well you do...
[/quote]

If your casino wants to give me a 99.998% chance of winning. I'll bet every dime I own.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381332527' post='7975705']
[size=3][color=#000000]Like I said before - I think I'm going to side with old Dean on this one. He knows of what he speaks.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

I'm sure he knows the numbers, I disagree with his attitudes towards them. In the quotes that have been presented on this thread, he consistently overplays the rarity of the events with which events happen with the odds he is quoting. It is a fixed bias on his part.

An event that happens with a likelihood of 1 in a million is NOT "statistically impossible". It is simply VERY RARE. Because the person who dies from a bee sting (odds 1 in 6 million) would (if they could) disagree about it being "impossible".

Likewise if an event occurs with a likelihood of 1 in 200, the odd of it occuring twice (at a minimum) are 1 in 40 000. So it is simply "uncommon"...and if you are reducing 1% of golfers handicaps automatically for shooting two tournament rounds that are three strokes below their handicap...you are going catch some honest people in that dragnet.

But it comes down to whether you want a detection system that is "sensitive" (no cheaters escaps) or one that is specific (no honest people identified). He (and the ruling bodies) have opted for a detection system that is senstive as opposed to one that is specific. My bias---if I'm going to accuse someone of cheating---I want a system that is SPECIFIC (like our criminal justice system) as opposed to one that is going to snatch up both the bad...and the very lucky...and punish them both.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381338021' post='7976173']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381332527' post='7975705']
[size=3][color=#000000]Like I said before - I think I'm going to side with old Dean on this one. He knows of what he speaks.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

I'm sure he knows the numbers, I disagree with his attitudes towards them. In the quotes that have been presented on this thread, he consistently overplays the rarity of the events with which events happen with the odds he is quoting. It is a fixed bias on his part.

An event that happens with a likelihood of 1 in a million is NOT "statistically impossible". It is simply VERY RARE. Because the person who dies from a bee sting (odds 1 in 6 million) would (if they could) disagree about it being "impossible".

Likewise if an event occurs with a likelihood of 1 in 200, the odd of it occuring twice (at a minimum) are 1 in 40 000. So it is simply "uncommon"...and if you are reducing 1% of golfers handicaps automatically for shooting two tournament rounds that are three strokes below their handicap...you are going catch some honest people in that dragnet.

But it comes down to whether you want a detection system that is "sensitive" (no cheaters escaps) or one that is specific (no honest people identified). He (and the ruling bodies) have opted for a detection system that is senstive as opposed to one that is specific. My bias---if I'm going to accuse someone of cheating---I want a system that is SPECIFIC (like our criminal justice system) as opposed to one that is going to snatch up both the bad...and the very lucky...and punish them both.
[/quote]

You think a million to one is not beyond a reasonable doubt?

[eagle1997]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381337128' post='7976099']
[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381319583' post='7974685']
I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
If this guy were a 9.4, playing 9 and went to an 11.5, playing 12 he would need to post 21 scores in qualifying competion rounds that are outside the buffer zone (2 shots above CSS is the buffer), 0.1 back for each one.
That's a lot of consecutive bad golf to go from a 9 to a 12.
[/quote]

Which makes it even less likely the guy could post this score.
[/quote]

how so? if we consider that the handicaps in the congu system are more accurate than in the us/canada, then each one of those scores would be attested. what's harder to imagine is that he would play a year's worth of bad golf to win the net division of the club championship.
secondly, let's look at the scorecard. as a 12 handicap, he'd be getting strokes on each of the final 5 holes. those were also some of the toughest holes on the course. he was +1 through 13, and received strokes on 7 of those. that's a net score of (-6) through 13. unlikely? yes. infinitesimal odds? no.
thirdly, let's look at what his opponent said: 'i'm not accusing the guy of being a cheat.'

once the OP chimed back in, that cleared it up [u]for me[/u]. we can agree to disagree however.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381338155' post='7976187']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381338021' post='7976173']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381332527' post='7975705']
[size=3][color=#000000]Like I said before - I think I'm going to side with old Dean on this one. He knows of what he speaks.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

I'm sure he knows the numbers, I disagree with his attitudes towards them. In the quotes that have been presented on this thread, he consistently overplays the rarity of the events with which events happen with the odds he is quoting. It is a fixed bias on his part.

An event that happens with a likelihood of 1 in a million is NOT "statistically impossible". It is simply VERY RARE. Because the person who dies from a bee sting (odds 1 in 6 million) would (if they could) disagree about it being "impossible".

Likewise if an event occurs with a likelihood of 1 in 200, the odd of it occuring twice (at a minimum) are 1 in 40 000. So it is simply "uncommon"...and if you are reducing 1% of golfers handicaps automatically for shooting two tournament rounds that are three strokes below their handicap...you are going catch some honest people in that dragnet.

But it comes down to whether you want a detection system that is "sensitive" (no cheaters escaps) or one that is specific (no honest people identified). He (and the ruling bodies) have opted for a detection system that is senstive as opposed to one that is specific. My bias---if I'm going to accuse someone of cheating---I want a system that is SPECIFIC (like our criminal justice system) as opposed to one that is going to snatch up both the bad...and the very lucky...and punish them both.
[/quote]

You think a million to one is not beyond a reasonable doubt?
[/quote]

Yes...but that is different than "statistically impossible."

It is not "statistically impossible" for your next door neighbor to die as a result of getting hit by a falling meteor.

When he turns up with a bashed-in skull, after you've been feuding about property lines for years, it is not reasonable to expect people to believe that he got taken out by a meteor.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381339113' post='7976257']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381338155' post='7976187']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381338021' post='7976173']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381332527' post='7975705']
[size=3][color=#000000]Like I said before - I think I'm going to side with old Dean on this one. He knows of what he speaks.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

I'm sure he knows the numbers, I disagree with his attitudes towards them. In the quotes that have been presented on this thread, he consistently overplays the rarity of the events with which events happen with the odds he is quoting. It is a fixed bias on his part.

An event that happens with a likelihood of 1 in a million is NOT "statistically impossible". It is simply VERY RARE. Because the person who dies from a bee sting (odds 1 in 6 million) would (if they could) disagree about it being "impossible".

Likewise if an event occurs with a likelihood of 1 in 200, the odd of it occuring twice (at a minimum) are 1 in 40 000. So it is simply "uncommon"...and if you are reducing 1% of golfers handicaps automatically for shooting two tournament rounds that are three strokes below their handicap...you are going catch some honest people in that dragnet.

But it comes down to whether you want a detection system that is "sensitive" (no cheaters escaps) or one that is specific (no honest people identified). He (and the ruling bodies) have opted for a detection system that is senstive as opposed to one that is specific. My bias---if I'm going to accuse someone of cheating---I want a system that is SPECIFIC (like our criminal justice system) as opposed to one that is going to snatch up both the bad...and the very lucky...and punish them both.
[/quote]

You think a million to one is not beyond a reasonable doubt?
[/quote]

Yes...but that is different than "statistically impossible."

It is not "statistically impossible" for your next door neighbor to die as a result of getting hit by a falling meteor.

When he turns up with a bashed-in skull, after you've been feuding about property lines for years, it is not reasonable to expect people to believe that he got taken out by a meteor.
[/quote]

I was referring to your use of sensitive and specific. You said you wanted something specific like our criminal justice system (under which the requirement is proved beyond a reasonable doubt), not something sensitive like Dean Knuth is talking about. Given that something with 1,000,000:1 odds is apparently "sensitive", I thought it strange that you would consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" as "specific".

[DevilDog]

I think you got hustled. Biggest sandbaggers are in the 9-13 handicap range. I played two years in a golf league and quit it because of all the bagging going on. It was just ridiculous. Don't know how many times i heard in that league "I've never played this good before!" Yeah right. Thing is, at a 10 handicap in that league, you get 5 for your 9 so you get 3 strokes from a 4 in 9 holes. Pretty easy for a bagger to make a par and win those holes especially when it means the other guy has to birdie just to tie. Was no surprise how many guys made pars on the holes they got strokes.

[QEight]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381338829' post='7976231']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381337128' post='7976099']
[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381319583' post='7974685']
I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
If this guy were a 9.4, playing 9 and went to an 11.5, playing 12 he would need to post 21 scores in qualifying competion rounds that are outside the buffer zone (2 shots above CSS is the buffer), 0.1 back for each one.
That's a lot of consecutive bad golf to go from a 9 to a 12.
[/quote]

Which makes it even less likely the guy could post this score.
[/quote]

how so? if we consider that the handicaps in the congu system are more accurate than in the us/canada, then each one of those scores would be attested.
[/quote]

Simply because you can not post match play scores in CONGU.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1381340174' post='7976347']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381338829' post='7976231']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381337128' post='7976099']
[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381319583' post='7974685']
I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
If this guy were a 9.4, playing 9 and went to an 11.5, playing 12 he would need to post 21 scores in qualifying competion rounds that are outside the buffer zone (2 shots above CSS is the buffer), 0.1 back for each one.
That's a lot of consecutive bad golf to go from a 9 to a 12.
[/quote]

Which makes it even less likely the guy could post this score.
[/quote]

how so? if we consider that the handicaps in the congu system are more accurate than in the us/canada, then each one of those scores would be attested.
[/quote]

Simply because you can not post match play scores in CONGU.
[/quote]

i think you are mis-reading eye2+'s comment. he's saying (correct me if i am wrong eye2!) that it is less likely that a guy who is trending towards a 12 could shoot the score that he did. replace the word "post" with "shoot" from his response and you'll see what i mean.

it's not a question of if he could post this score for handicap purposes, it's a question of whether it is within the realm of believability.


note: i didn't know that you couldn't post a match play score in the congu system for handicap purposes, so thanks for the knowledge.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381339596' post='7976285']
I was referring to your use of sensitive and specific. You said you wanted something specific like our criminal justice system (under which the requirement is proved beyond a reasonable doubt), not something sensitive like Dean Knuth is talking about. Given that something with 1,000,000:1 odds is apparently "sensitive", I thought it strange that you would consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" as "specific".
[/quote]

I was talking about golfers having their handicaps forcibly reduced after having shot two rounds in tournament play that are three shots below their handicap. Something that happens with a frequency of about 1 in 40 000. I do not consider those odds enough to be determinative. The odds of a woman who is a life-long NON smoker developing lung cancer is about 10 000 to one.

I happen to know---or knew---just such a person.

If their threshold for acting is only odds of 40 000 to one, then they are going to catch a LOT of cheaters...but they are also going to snatch up some people who were just very lucky. (As my friend--and her family--were just very unlucky). They have opted for a "sensitive" system...but not a specific one. Because you will get a number of false-positives.

A specific system is one that sets the odds high enough that the odds of falsely accusing someone who is innocent (false-positive) is very low. So one can be very confident that anyone who is caught, IS IN FACT a cheater. But at the price of letting some cheaters slip through the net. Odds of a 1 000 000 to 1 meets my threshold for "specific".

"Statistically impossible" is really reserved for events that either cannot occur....or occur with SUCH a low probability that they effectively cannot occur.

Like your atoms lining up in JUST such a manner with those in the chair that you are sitting in...so that you fall right through the chair and onto the floor. Are there calculable odds that it could happen? Yes. Is it large enough that you are likely to have it happen at any point in a million or a billion lifetimes?

No.

[J_Tizzle]

I find it very odd they don't do a Net and a Gross championship. No matter what type of tournament it is, being a scratch(ish) golfer playing in a net will have stuff like this happen. I honestly won't touch any gross tournaments, especially gross match-play stuff. The only people that I play with that might get a stroke or two is my dad and my older brother.