Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[Barry88]

[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381412844' post='7980773']
AGAIN, he did NOT shoot 10 strokes better than his handicap. He was on PACE to shoot that, but did NOT finish the round. They only played 13 holes.
[/quote]

He did not shoot 10 strokes better than his handicap because we finished on the 13th, he was on course to better his handicap by 11 shots if we're to be specific as he was 1+ and has a handicap of 12

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381412900' post='7980781']
The chance are much higher than .002%. He was a 9. It has been explained that how a CONGU 12 is more like a 9-10 in the States, and he once was a CONGU 9, which would make him similar in ability to a 6-7 in the states. He played 13 holes, of which they were the easier holes on the course. It was MATCH play, which you seem to not understand the difference in strategy as proved earlier.

So no, his "odds" were not .002%.

But let's keep the blinders on for arguments sake. I noticed you haven't gone to the other thread now that has 5 pages of people that disagree with you either. Way to go.
[/quote]

Would you like to give me those increased odds?

Secondly this argument has turned into an argument as a whole, not just this individual case.

[HighSpeedScene]

Kg, once again implying nobody understands if they don't agree with exactly what he is saying.

This is a guy that cannot agree to disagree. If you don't think what he thinks, you're wrong.

[vtnerf]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381413047' post='7980797']
Secondly this argument has turned into an argument as a whole, not just this individual case.
[/quote]

How did that happen???

[Hstead]

[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381413160' post='7980809']
Kg, once again implying nobody understands if they don't agree with exactly what he is saying.

This is a guy that cannot agree to disagree. If you don't think what he thinks, you're wrong.
[/quote]

HighSpeed, we are all dense that's why. We are appalling in our lack of understanding and knowledge. If we could only be as smart as he.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381413245' post='7980819']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381413047' post='7980797']
Secondly this argument has turned into an argument as a whole, not just this individual case.
[/quote]

How did that happen???
[/quote]

I'm not paying attention to particular posters, but whoever started that other thread and everyone else agreeing with his anecdotal evidence.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381413293' post='7980829']
[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381413160' post='7980809']
Kg, once again implying nobody understands if they don't agree with exactly what he is saying.

This is a guy that cannot agree to disagree. If you don't think what he thinks, you're wrong.
[/quote]

HighSpeed, we are all dense that's why. We are appalling in our lack of understanding and knowledge. If we could only be as smart as he.
[/quote]

Honestly, I would give anything for you to be smarter than me so we wouldn't have needed this argument.

[HighSpeedScene]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381413293' post='7980829']
[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381413160' post='7980809']
Kg, once again implying nobody understands if they don't agree with exactly what he is saying.

This is a guy that cannot agree to disagree. If you don't think what he thinks, you're wrong.
[/quote]

HighSpeed, we are all dense that's why. We are appalling in our lack of understanding and knowledge. If we could only be as smart as he.
[/quote]

Kg is the smartest guy in any room.

FISJAM

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

If the odds you are quoting are accurate...that is correct.

[b][i]But that doesn't mean that the individual you are looking at isn't part of that .002%.[/i][/b]

[b][i]...and unless you look at the situation more closely, there is NO WAY you can know for sure. [/i][/b]

Now, you can choose to go off half-c*cked, and assume he cheated...and more often than not, you'll be right.

But you WILL eventually run into a situation where you unfairly accuse someone of cheating by doing that.

Now...the real question is does that risk matter to you or not.

If it DOESN"T...then we're done here. Because everything that the rest of us have been trying to get you to see becomes moot.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381413559' post='7980851']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.
[/quote]

And I'm not saying for certain he is a cheat. I may have in one of my first few posts but the last 10 pages my argument has been the only reasonable assumption is that he was.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381413160' post='7980809']
Kg, once again implying nobody understands if they don't agree with exactly what he is saying.

This is a guy that cannot agree to disagree. If you don't think what he thinks, you're wrong.
[/quote]

One can "agree to disagree" about opinions and values.

There is no "agreeing to disagree" about facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

People are not entitled to their own set of facts.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381413494' post='7980845']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381413293' post='7980829']
[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381413160' post='7980809']
Kg, once again implying nobody understands if they don't agree with exactly what he is saying.

This is a guy that cannot agree to disagree. If you don't think what he thinks, you're wrong.
[/quote]

HighSpeed, we are all dense that's why. We are appalling in our lack of understanding and knowledge. If we could only be as smart as he.
[/quote]

Kg is the smartest guy in any room.

FISJAM
[/quote]

Levelling is the sincerest form of flattery.

Thank you.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381413559' post='7980851']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.
[/quote]


Or the odds would be so small that'd you have to live several liftimes (or more) for it to occur.

Like I said earlier, there is a calculable chance of you sitting down on a chair, and having your atoms line up in just such a fashion that you fall straight through it and onto the floor. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it happen.

Because the odds of it happening are so absurdly small that you can confidently believe that anyone who claims to have done it is either:

1. Lying.

2. Delusional

3. Sold their soul to the Devil.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381413765' post='7980863']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

If the odds you are quoting are accurate...that is correct.

[b][i]But that doesn't mean that the individual you are looking at isn't part of that .002%.[/i][/b]

[b][i]...and unless you look at the situation more closely, there is NO WAY you can know for sure. [/i][/b]

Now, you can choose to go off half-c*cked, and assume he cheated...and more often than not, you'll be right.

But you WILL eventually run into a situation where you unfairly accuse someone of cheating by doing that.

Now...the real question is does that risk matter to you or not.

If it DOESN"T...then we're done here. Because everything that the rest of us have been trying to get you to see becomes moot.
[/quote]

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of how odds are used in the real world.

If a child comes into the doctor with blood in his or her stool. The doctor doesn't immediately order a colonoscopy.

Yes there is a chance the child has colorectal cancer, but that chance is so slim it isn't with worrying about at first.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381413765' post='7980863']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

If the odds you are quoting are accurate...that is correct.

[b][i]But that doesn't mean that the individual you are looking at isn't part of that .002%.[/i][/b]

[b][i]...and unless you look at the situation more closely, there is NO WAY you can now for sure. [/i][/b]

Now, you can choose to go off half-c*cked, and assume he cheated...and more often than not, you'll be right.

But you WILL eventually run into a situation where you unfairly accuse someone of cheating by doing that.

Now...the real question is does that risk matter to you or not.

If it DOESN"T...then we're done here. Because everything that the rest of us have been trying to get you to see becomes moot.
[/quote]

Eye2+ has not said that he cheated (at least, I don't think he has). He has said that the odds are likely that his handicap had some massage to it. I think that's more true now that the OP came back and mentioned the gamesmanship. That strikes me as a win at all costs mentality and that coincides with sandbagging in my thinking.

What makes me laugh is that if you go post a thread on here asking if you should play in a net event as a scratch player you'll get laughed at and told there's no point because it will be filled with sandbaggers. Most posts on here that ask questions like this are littered with responses like the one directvtechguy gave at the beginning of the thread. If you look at the first page, you'll see most people saying it's bunkum. Then a couple of people started shouting "no no it could have happened, maybe he just caught lightning in a bottle" and then others jumped on the bandwagon. And apparently because some people have posted career lows 10 shots better than their current handicap, it's not only possible, it's apparently now probable.

Eye2+ and I have only said in the last few pages at any rate that it is unlikely that he shot a score that good. Apparently that means that we are risking the death of this guy of cancer (yes I know that's a stretch, but it's no further than certain others have stretched things in this thread).

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381414180' post='7980911']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381413559' post='7980851']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.
[/quote]


Or the odds would be so small that'd you have to live several liftimes (or more) for it to occur.

Like I said earlier, there is a calculable chance of you sitting down on a chair, and having your atoms line up in just such a fashion that you fall straight through it and onto the floor. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it happen.

Because the odds of it happening are so absurdly small that you can confidently believe that anyone who claims to have done it is either:

1. Lying.

2. Delusional

3. Sold their soul to the Devil.
[/quote]

Wow this last post goes against everything you have argued in this thread.

[wobgon]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381414826' post='7980981']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381414180' post='7980911']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381413559' post='7980851']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.
[/quote]


Or the odds would be so small that'd you have to live several liftimes (or more) for it to occur.

Like I said earlier, there is a calculable chance of you sitting down on a chair, and having your atoms line up in just such a fashion that you fall straight through it and onto the floor. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it happen.

Because the odds of it happening are so absurdly small that you can confidently believe that anyone who claims to have done it is either:

1. Lying.

2. Delusional

3. Sold their soul to the Devil.
[/quote]

Wow this last post goes against everything you have argued in this thread.
[/quote]

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381413857' post='7980877']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381413559' post='7980851']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.
[/quote]

And I'm not saying for certain he is a cheat. I may have in one of my first few posts but the last 10 pages my argument has been the only reasonable assumption is that he was.
[/quote]

I do agree that most would agree that the situation was at least a little "eyebrow raising", but after reading the other related thread it seems to happen more than one would think.

It seems our tournaments have a similar situation occur on a very regular basis, and the cheating flag is raised almost every time. The difference is, its' usually the same group(s) that play way better than normal. So they have earned their doubts.

But if its the first time for someone, I just think you have to give them the benefit of the doubt (even if it is pretty doubtful).

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381414632' post='7980957']

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of how odds are used in the real world.

If a child comes into the doctor with blood in his or her stool. The doctor doesn't immediately order a colonoscopy.

Yes there is a chance the child has colorectal cancer, but that chance is so slim it isn't with worrying about at first.
[/quote]

Actually you would order an endoscopy. You just wouldn't be looking for colon cancer in most kids.

A teenager with inflammatory bowel disease or Hirschprungs---and you don't consider that it might be colon cancer---again, you'd open yourself up for disaster, and potentially nasty malpractice suit.

Again...low probability does not me "NO" probability. If the population size is large enough, you will eventually encounter rare events. So the smart money doesn't jump to close the data window too soon.

Because one of the ways in which docs can quickly hurt people is when they stop thinking and observing...because they've convinced themselves that they "know" what they are dealing with.

..and that is usually the story behind every "delay of diagnosis" malpractice suits. Tunnel-vision.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381414703' post='7980961']
Eye2+ has not said that he cheated (at least, I don't think he has). He has said that the odds are likely that his handicap had some massage to it. I think that's more true now that the OP came back and mentioned the gamesmanship. That strikes me as a win at all costs mentality and that coincides with sandbagging in my thinking.

What makes me laugh is that if you go post a thread on here asking if you should play in a net event as a scratch player you'll get laughed at and told there's no point because it will be filled with sandbaggers. Most posts on here that ask questions like this are littered with responses like the one directvtechguy gave at the beginning of the thread. If you look at the first page, you'll see most people saying it's bunkum. Then a couple of people started shouting "no no it could have happened, maybe he just caught lightning in a bottle" and then others jumped on the bandwagon. And apparently because some people have posted career lows 10 shots better than their current handicap, it's not only possible, it's apparently now probable.

Eye2+ and I have only said in the last few pages at any rate that it is unlikely that he shot a score that good. Apparently that means that we are risking the death of this guy of cancer (yes I know that's a stretch, but it's no further than certain others have stretched things in this thread).
[/quote]

I think you need to go back and look at what I actually wrote. Because I said nothing of the sort.

I said MOST LIKELY, the guy is a sandbagger...and that it warrants taking a further look into his scoring history.

[i]But (especially when you are dealing with large numbers of people) rare events occur with enough frequency that there is a CHANCE that you are dealing with someone who legitimately shot that score...and that I'm unwilling to start assassinating someone's character based on a one-time occurrence. Simply because it is rare. I simply consider the chances of being wrong (in this case) relative to the damage to someone's reputation if I am wrong...to be unacceptably high (low incidence, high consequence). Like missing a leukemia diagnosis in someone's child. [/i]

Other people may feel differently on that last point. If so, then there's nothing left to discuss.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381414826' post='7980981']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381414180' post='7980911']
Or the odds would be so small that'd you have to live several liftimes (or more) for it to occur.

Like I said earlier, there is a calculable chance of you sitting down on a chair, and having your atoms line up in just such a fashion that you fall straight through it and onto the floor. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it happen.

Because the odds of it happening are so absurdly small that you can confidently believe that anyone who claims to have done it is either:

1. Lying.

2. Delusional

3. Sold their soul to the Devil.
[/quote]

Wow this last post goes against everything you have argued in this thread.
[/quote]

No, it doesn't.

1. You're dealing with a purely physical process, so there is a level of determinism here that is absent from human events.

2. While there is a calculable probablilty....it would require (IIRC) hundreds of billions-to-trillions of years for it have a reasonable chance to take place.

...and the Universe is only 14 billion years old.

So we are not talking about an event that is simply rare. We are talking about an event that----within the current age of the Universe---is essentially a [b][i]statistical impossibility.[/i][/b]

The odds are exactly zero....but has so many fractional decimal places that it is essentially zero for the sake of any and all reasonable debate. So anyone who claims to have witnessed it is either lying, crazy...or is able to suspend the laws of physics.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381415481' post='7981061']
I do agree that most would agree that the situation was at least a little "eyebrow raising", but after reading the other related thread it seems to happen more than one would think.

It seems our tournaments have a similar situation occur on a very regular basis, and the cheating flag is raised almost every time. The difference is, its' usually the same group(s) that play way better than normal. So they have earned their doubts.

[i][b]But if its the first time for someone, I just think you have to give them the benefit of the doubt (even if it is pretty doubtful).[/b][/i]
[/quote]

Agreed.

Especially if nothing else in his history raises suspicion.

[nbg352]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381410320' post='7980527']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409903' post='7980495']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381409440' post='7980445']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']
You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.
[/quote]

When did i say odds are irrelevant? I said whether they are or not would depend on what you are trying to do.
For example, the charlotte bobcats are playing the LA clippers (no offense to charlotte fans). The odds for bobcats winning is 500:1. The cats win the game 107-98. Its an upset,and you are shocked and in disbelief. What do you do to check whether its true the cats won or not....the odds? You would go check out the box score and analyze what happened. Ok so turns out CP3 had a bad game going 2-15 fgs and 6 assists, and blake griffin left the game early because of injury. Now if you asked me to place money that the cats will beat the clippers, i wouldnt because of the odds.

So back to this 9-12 guy. What would you do to check to see if he is legit? The odds? I would want to know more details on all his previous matches that led him to the finals, and what made him go from a 9 to a 12 in a year. When is the odds relevant? If you asked me if i would bet that this guy would go +1 in 13 holes tomorrow. Hell no i wouldnt. I wouldnt even bet on the cats winning, so why would i bet on something thats 84,000:1.

So the difference between you and I is that you will go check whether it hailed yesterday by looking at the odds....i'm looking for the weather report.
[/quote]

Once again, you and several posters are unable to make a valid comparison.

In your example we know that the Bobcats beat the Clippers. In the OP we know the OP lost. That isn't up for debate. A valid analogy on your part would be the following:

The odds are 84,300:1 that the Clipper threw the game and intentionally lost. Do we assume that the Clipper threw the game, or do we go with the 99.998% probability that the clippers just didn't play well that night?
[/quote]
Have you taken your medication.....If not, please do so as soon as possible...
[/quote]
I'm astounded that he believes he's the only one in this thread who is right about.....everything. How can everyone else be so wrong? Yet here I am, agreeing with most of them......

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381418832' post='7981323']
No, it doesn't.

1. You're dealing with a purely physical process, so there is a level of determinism here that is absent from human events.

2. While there is a calculable probablilty....it would require (IIRC) hundreds of billions-to-trillions of years for it have a reasonable chance to take place.

...and the Universe is only 14 billion years old.

So we are not talking about an event that is simply rare. We are talking about an event that----within the current age of the Universe---is essentially a [b][i]statistical impossibility.[/i][/b]

The odds are exactly zero....but has so many fractional decimal places that it is essentially zero for the sake of any and all reasonable debate. So anyone who claims to have witnessed it is either lying, crazy...or is able to suspend the laws of physics.
[/quote]

They're a whole heck of a lot longer than that. I would imagine that even over a trillion trillion years, with 5 billion people permanently sitting on chairs on every planet in the universe, the chances of it happening would be smaller than the chances that you could be wrong about something and admit it.

[stuey01]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381413047' post='7980797']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381412900' post='7980781']
The chance are much higher than .002%. He was a 9. It has been explained that how a CONGU 12 is more like a 9-10 in the States, and he once was a CONGU 9, which would make him similar in ability to a 6-7 in the states. He played 13 holes, of which they were the easier holes on the course. It was MATCH play, which you seem to not understand the difference in strategy as proved earlier.

So no, his "odds" were not .002%.

But let's keep the blinders on for arguments sake. I noticed you haven't gone to the other thread now that has 5 pages of people that disagree with you either. Way to go.
[/quote]

Would you like to give me those increased odds?

Secondly this argument has turned into an argument as a whole, not just this individual case.
[/quote]

You're the one obsessed with this stat, why don't you work it out?
If you can't be bothered to work it out, in the absence of the correct number you can't just keep quoting 0.002% instead.

[nbg352]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381414180' post='7980911']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381413559' post='7980851']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381412707' post='7980761']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381411453' post='7980627']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409335' post='7980437']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381408807' post='7980387']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381408298' post='7980351']
Once again your logic is extremely flawed.

For your example to follow this debate a random stranger would walk up to you asking for a donation. If he said he had Ewing's sarcoma, would you be able to correctly predict if this person had the disease or not?
[/quote]

No, what I understand is that odds ratios are not deterministic when you are dealing with events that involve living systems and living beings.

A point that you stubbornly refuse to see.

As for your hypothetical. I would neither be able to predict that he does...nor predict that he does not.

If I GUESSED that he didn't....chances are that I would be right...If i were standing on a street corner.

If I were sitting in the office of an Orthopedic Oncologist (tumor surgeon) there would be a very good chance that I would be wrong.
[/quote]

No one is arguing that odds are deterministic, but you.
[/quote]

Actually YOU are.

Perhaps you dont' realize that you are...but you most certainly are.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and it would not have gone on this long.

Because you would realize that---whenever you are looking at an individual event----you never know from WHICH PART of the distribution curve that individual is coming from.

...and if you ASSUME you do, you will eventually make a mistake.

Potentially a tragic one if you are dealing with a "low incidence, high consequence" event.
[/quote]

My argument has been simple and factual. There is a .002% chance he shot that score legitimately.

Do you disagree?
[/quote]

Isn't this the crux of the argument. To be able to say for certain that the guy is a cheat or bagger, there would have to be ZERO % chance of shooting that score legitimately. But you yourself say there is a chance, yes a small, minute chance, but a chance none the less. And as long as the possibilty exists, then you have to accept the fact that he possibly did just have one of those special days.

If there was an absolutely zero chance of it happening, there wouldn't be any odds for it.
[/quote]


Or the odds would be so small that'd you have to live several liftimes (or more) for it to occur.

Like I said earlier, there is a calculable chance of you sitting down on a chair, and having your atoms line up in just such a fashion that you fall straight through it and onto the floor. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it happen.

Because the odds of it happening are so absurdly small that you can confidently believe that anyone who claims to have done it is either:

1. Lying.

2. Delusional

3. Sold their soul to the Devil.
[/quote]
Not to mention
4. Dead.

[atlanta golfer]

OP, what you need to do is just ask around about the guy's reputation. In our club we have a small number of people who are well known sandbaggers and they are not respected but they keep doing it anyway. otoh we also know who has integrity and if they shoot a great round we congratulate them. You just need to find out which one this guy is.

[TMBob]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381143773' post='7963879']
[quote name='vbb' timestamp='1381119565' post='7963549']
I'd be skeptical too. I am usually within 5 strokes of my index either direction, giving me about a 10 stroke spread. I think most people are probably this way. To come up 10 strokes better than your handicap under the pressure of a club championship is so amazing it's a bit unrealistic. I can't out shoot my index by 10 strokes under the most ideal conditions (playing in a low pressure match with some buddies) much less a tournament.
[/quote]

Exactly.

The odds of a 12 handicap beating his index by 10 strokes is 83,400 to 1.
[/quote]

Vegas would be nothing but dirt again if people were allowed to bet on those odds that are given out by GHIN. Whom ever came up with those odds is soooo far off and it's proven weekly at any Net event across the USA.

It's pretty easy to tell if you been hustled or not by just watching the players game
Does his swing look repeatable? If so, we must have a weakness else where
Was he in play all day? If so, must have a good swing and command of it.
Did he ever look nervous? If not, he knows his game that day
How was his short game and mainly 3-6 foot putts? If he was making these all day and has a good swing...not a 12
What was his weakness? If he did not show any what so ever, not a 12
How was he from 100-50 yards? If so, again, not a 12
What type of clubs did he play? Any customizing? If so, he knows what is best for him
Did the course set up well for him...meaning he hooks the ball and no dog leg right holes
Was he generous with giving you putts for a tie that maybe a touch to long? If so, he knew he had you and is not a 12
Did you look him up on GHIN and look at recent scores at the course played vs scores played elsewhere? Sometimes I see high scores posted elsewhere and more of them to offset low scores at home course.....Sandbagger
What had he win before at this club? If he has won his fair share of events before this, not a 12
How many greens did he hit in regulation out of those 13?
What club did he use from 150 yards? 8 iron? Potential player
How was his balance? In balance and smooth...not a 12
Did he ever really hit and poor shots, like really poor...way right, way left, fat, thin, chucks, tops? If not, sorry but that is not a 12 that was just on for that day.
Did you know that he was a 9 at one time before the match started, or did you look him up afterwards?

I always look at 64 net as a number that starts to raise the eyebrows and anything lower is a double brow raise. I can live with the 68-65 range, but cannot with scores lower the this.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381419378' post='7981379']
[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381410320' post='7980527']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381409903' post='7980495']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381409440' post='7980445']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381404857' post='7980155']
You are correct in that we have a serious disagreement on the application of the odds.

I know they should apply, and you believe the odds are irrelevant. Anyone can be right about anything if they ignore the facts.
[/quote]

When did i say odds are irrelevant? I said whether they are or not would depend on what you are trying to do.
For example, the charlotte bobcats are playing the LA clippers (no offense to charlotte fans). The odds for bobcats winning is 500:1. The cats win the game 107-98. Its an upset,and you are shocked and in disbelief. What do you do to check whether its true the cats won or not....the odds? You would go check out the box score and analyze what happened. Ok so turns out CP3 had a bad game going 2-15 fgs and 6 assists, and blake griffin left the game early because of injury. Now if you asked me to place money that the cats will beat the clippers, i wouldnt because of the odds.

So back to this 9-12 guy. What would you do to check to see if he is legit? The odds? I would want to know more details on all his previous matches that led him to the finals, and what made him go from a 9 to a 12 in a year. When is the odds relevant? If you asked me if i would bet that this guy would go +1 in 13 holes tomorrow. Hell no i wouldnt. I wouldnt even bet on the cats winning, so why would i bet on something thats 84,000:1.

So the difference between you and I is that you will go check whether it hailed yesterday by looking at the odds....i'm looking for the weather report.
[/quote]

Once again, you and several posters are unable to make a valid comparison.

In your example we know that the Bobcats beat the Clippers. In the OP we know the OP lost. That isn't up for debate. A valid analogy on your part would be the following:

The odds are 84,300:1 that the Clipper threw the game and intentionally lost. Do we assume that the Clipper threw the game, or do we go with the 99.998% probability that the clippers just didn't play well that night?
[/quote]
Have you taken your medication.....If not, please do so as soon as possible...
[/quote]
I'm astounded that he believes he's the only one in this thread who is right about.....everything. How can everyone else be so wrong? Yet here I am, agreeing with most of them......
[/quote]

I'm not the only one that is correct. Ty_webb has been spot on the entire discussion.