Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381243748' post='7970119']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381233053' post='7969425']
Understand.

Like I said, rare events are rare...and sometimes you're the unlucky guy standing next to the tree when lightning strikes.

But it doesn't strike twice in the same spot. If he does it once, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he just had one of those magical days. If it happens [i]again[/i], then you have a sandbagger.

Yes, I shot a 75 as 13 index. But it was many years----and I was a much better player---before I shot that score [b][i]again[/i][/b].
[/quote]

Actually, the reason that you think it doesn't happen twice is because the second time you are referring to a specific person - namely the person that did it the first time. But once he's done it the first time, he's no more or less likely to shoot that again than the next guy (if anything he's more likely to since he's done it before). Odds don't have memory. If you toss a fair coin and get 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next toss being a head are still 50/50. The odds of lightning striking the tree next to you are the same whether a tree next to you was struck a year ago or not. You say it doesn't happen twice because you know intuitively that the odds are hugely against it happening in the first place. Which is the case here.
[/quote]

Yes, you are right...as far as singular events.

But [i][b]PATTERNS of events [/b][/i]carry odds as well...and the more low-probability events you start to string in succession...the more the odds ratios involved start to move from the merely improbable....to the virtually impossible.

So if the odds of a person shooting one round of ten below their handicap index is .002%, the odds of that person shooting TWO rounds that far below their legitimate handicap is the SQUARE of the odds of shooting the single round (e.g. the odds of flipping two heads in two coin flips is 1 in 4).

IOW, you are talking about an event with an odds ratio of about 8 [i][b]billion[/b][/i] to 1, for shooting 2 such rounds.

Make it three such rounds.... and its now nearly 600 [b][i]trillion [/i][/b]to 1.

For all practical intents and purposes....impossible.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381244134' post='7970141']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381243484' post='7970081']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381242370' post='7969969']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381197609' post='7968171']
DTV, I have used a ton of sarcasm for sure. But I didn't call anyone any names and really didn't use the sarcasm until I was called dense and a few other things. My point is, the guy was a 9 at one time, so he could obviously play some. It is not out of the realm to go from a 9 to a 12, happens all the time. The guy only played 13 holes, not 18. There is no guarantee the guy is going to finish the day one over par.

You are correct, there is a ton of information missing. All the same though, in my opinion and many others a guy that was once a 9 handicap could very easily shoot +1 for 13 holes on an average course, I am not talking a Pete Dye bring you to your knees course.

Eye2+ acts as if I am insane and there is no way this guy could have accomplished such an impossible feat. On the other thread, there are literally dozen of guys stating their handicaps and their career low rounds, which were 18 holes and not 13, and a bunch of them have bettered their handicaps by 10 or more. Every single Sunday if you want to win at our club in the bucket ball, you better shoot at least 4 under your handicap and often it takes 7 to win it, and that is every Sunday. That is also 18 holes and not 13. How many times have you had it really going for 9 or 10 holes and maybe even be under par and then come back to earth before the round ends? That is golf. Golf happens all of the time.

Again, a guy that was a 9 shooting +1 for 13 is not a real big stretch to me, tournament or not. Could he be bagging a couple of strokes, sure maybe we don't know. If you look at all the big national Am tournaments that are so popular now, there are a lot of low net scores shot to win them, and I mean way low.
[/quote]

Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

[b]Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?[/b]
[/quote]

Odds dont matter in golf. At the end of the day, our scores will be a [b]bell curve[/b] in relation to our handicap. Which is why 13 holes is too small of a sample size to determine anything. What are the odds that you will sink a 5-foot, left-to-right birdie putt? As far as I'm concerned, its 1:1; you either make it or you dont. I think people can misunderstand odds and probabilities and statistics. Its different than a coin flip or poker because the coin and cards are an [b]independent variable[/b]. They have nothing to do with what has happened because they are based on specific mathematical equations to determine WHAT CAN HAPPEN. The odds of a hole-in-one are nothing but statistics of WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. It has nothing to do with what can happen. Which means the odds of an hole-in-one changes every year based on the number of aces that have been tracked. What is the probability of you pulling out an ace in a deck of cards? 4/52 (or 1/13). This number doesn't change regardless. What's are the odds of getting head when flipping a coin? It's 1:1. After 13 flips you got all tails. Does that mean you will get tail 18 times just because you got tail on the first 13?
I've played for 2 decades and I've never gotten a hole-in-one. My friend's uncle has played for 28 years and has 57 hole-in-ones. That's basically 2 a year. What are the odds?
[/quote]

That's a lot of typing to argue your opinion is more valid than math and science.
[/quote]

Since when did I argue that my opinion is more valid than math and science? All I'm saying is in golf odds dont matter regardless of the math and science. Some of us might play golf for the rest of our lives and never get an ace. There might be some people who get an ace on their first outing. Are 13 holes really enough to label someone a victim or a cheater? Isn't that why all of us play golf, it's the thrill of the streaks, whether you're a single handicapper who is on a roll shooting -3 on the first 9, or the guy who is struggling to break 100 who all of sudden has a 7-hole bogey streak.
[/quote]

You're essentially arguing if you just ignore the odds they no longer are accurate. Telling yourself you have a 50/50 chance at scoring 10 below you handicap doesn't mean you actually have those odds.

[mshills]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?
[/quote]

I do not know how one would begin to determine this, since a round of golf is not complete after 13 holes.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381244819' post='7970231']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381244266' post='7970153']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']
Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?
[/quote]

Again, what you fail to understand is that IT DOESN"T MATTER.

It doesn't matter unless you are trying to PREDICT whether or not someone will shoot a round that beats their handicap by 10 strokes over 13 holes. The odds of NO assistance (other than circumstantial evidence) in determining whether a round that has been shot was shot by someone with a legitimate handicap.

Let me try putting it this way.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) is a relatively rare form of cancer of the blood cells that fight off infection, that strikes about 3-4 out of every 100,000 children each year.

You're a pediatrician, and a mom shows up with her 6 year old. She's been running a fever for a week, nauseous, achy, lethargic. The blood cells that fight off infection are markedly elevated in her blood stream. Mom asks you if this means that her daughter has leukemia. [b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not. [/i][/b]Rare things occur rarely. Common things are common. When you hear hoofbeats you look for horses, not zebras. Chances are that she has some sort of viral infection...and not leukemia.

That is an appropriate use of odds (incidence) data.

What you are trying to do is more like this.

You are pediatrician. Mom shows up with her 6 year old looking for a second opinion. She's been to see her own pediatrician, and (unfortunately) the little girl has been diagnosed with ALL. You then turn to the mother and insist that the diagnosis has to be wrong, because "[i]leukemia is rare in children" [/i]

That is an INAPPROPRIATE use off odds data. You cannot (responsibly) tell this woman that the diagnosis of leukemia was incorrect, simply because it is a rare disease. You have to take a look at the individual circumstances, and what went into making the diagnosis before drawing any conclusions. Unless you want to do that family a HUGE disservice, and expose yourself to a nasty malpractice suit.

Likewise, it is irresponsible to accuse someone of cheating because in an ISOLATED (partial) round of golf, they shot well below their handicap. Just like fact that leukemia is rare didn't prevent (sadly) this woman's child from developing the disease....the fact that such low rounds are rare by amateur golfers doesn't mean that you aren't in the presence of someone how just happened to have done it.

Because sometimes you hoofbeats are, in fact, coming from zebras.....
[/quote]
You're such a troll........
I love it!
[/quote]

[i]Dealing with the matter in the abstract, clearly wasn't working.......[/i]

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381245473' post='7970295']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381244134' post='7970141']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381243484' post='7970081']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381242370' post='7969969']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381197609' post='7968171']
DTV, I have used a ton of sarcasm for sure. But I didn't call anyone any names and really didn't use the sarcasm until I was called dense and a few other things. My point is, the guy was a 9 at one time, so he could obviously play some. It is not out of the realm to go from a 9 to a 12, happens all the time. The guy only played 13 holes, not 18. There is no guarantee the guy is going to finish the day one over par.

You are correct, there is a ton of information missing. All the same though, in my opinion and many others a guy that was once a 9 handicap could very easily shoot +1 for 13 holes on an average course, I am not talking a Pete Dye bring you to your knees course.

Eye2+ acts as if I am insane and there is no way this guy could have accomplished such an impossible feat. On the other thread, there are literally dozen of guys stating their handicaps and their career low rounds, which were 18 holes and not 13, and a bunch of them have bettered their handicaps by 10 or more. Every single Sunday if you want to win at our club in the bucket ball, you better shoot at least 4 under your handicap and often it takes 7 to win it, and that is every Sunday. That is also 18 holes and not 13. How many times have you had it really going for 9 or 10 holes and maybe even be under par and then come back to earth before the round ends? That is golf. Golf happens all of the time.

Again, a guy that was a 9 shooting +1 for 13 is not a real big stretch to me, tournament or not. Could he be bagging a couple of strokes, sure maybe we don't know. If you look at all the big national Am tournaments that are so popular now, there are a lot of low net scores shot to win them, and I mean way low.
[/quote]

Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

[b]Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?[/b]
[/quote]

Odds dont matter in golf. At the end of the day, our scores will be a [b]bell curve[/b] in relation to our handicap. Which is why 13 holes is too small of a sample size to determine anything. What are the odds that you will sink a 5-foot, left-to-right birdie putt? As far as I'm concerned, its 1:1; you either make it or you dont. I think people can misunderstand odds and probabilities and statistics. Its different than a coin flip or poker because the coin and cards are an [b]independent variable[/b]. They have nothing to do with what has happened because they are based on specific mathematical equations to determine WHAT CAN HAPPEN. The odds of a hole-in-one are nothing but statistics of WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. It has nothing to do with what can happen. Which means the odds of an hole-in-one changes every year based on the number of aces that have been tracked. What is the probability of you pulling out an ace in a deck of cards? 4/52 (or 1/13). This number doesn't change regardless. What's are the odds of getting head when flipping a coin? It's 1:1. After 13 flips you got all tails. Does that mean you will get tail 18 times just because you got tail on the first 13?
I've played for 2 decades and I've never gotten a hole-in-one. My friend's uncle has played for 28 years and has 57 hole-in-ones. That's basically 2 a year. What are the odds?
[/quote]

That's a lot of typing to argue your opinion is more valid than math and science.
[/quote]

Since when did I argue that my opinion is more valid than math and science? All I'm saying is in golf odds dont matter regardless of the math and science. Some of us might play golf for the rest of our lives and never get an ace. There might be some people who get an ace on their first outing. Are 13 holes really enough to label someone a victim or a cheater? Isn't that why all of us play golf, it's the thrill of the streaks, whether you're a single handicapper who is on a roll shooting -3 on the first 9, or the guy who is struggling to break 100 who all of sudden has a 7-hole bogey streak.
[/quote]

You're essentially arguing if you just ignore the odds they no longer are accurate. Telling yourself you have a 50/50 chance at scoring 10 below you handicap doesn't mean you actually have those odds.
[/quote]

heh? when did i ever say they are not accurate? I just said they dont matter. I dont care if the odds of shooting 10 under your handicap is 84,000 to 1. I dont care if the odds of getting a hole-in-one is xxxxxx to 1. Because as far as Im concerned, that 1 can be any of us tomorrow, or that 1 will not be any of us as long as we play golf.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1381184405' post='7966941']
[size=5][b]Any chance we can STOP with QUOTING the ENTIRE internet EVERY post?[/b][/size]
[/quote]

the above needs to be restated. in bold. and random CAPS. just a suggestion!

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381245473' post='7970295']
You're essentially arguing if you just ignore the odds they no longer are accurate. Telling yourself you have a 50/50 chance at scoring 10 below you handicap doesn't mean you actually have those odds.
[/quote]

No.

He's telling you that odds---in this setting---describe patterns of behavior over a POPULATION.

Once you get down to dealing with an individual, the only numbers that matter (unless you are in a predictive situation) are "0" and "1".

Either it happened, or it didn't.

...and the odds we are dealing with here are not large enough to be able to state with any accuracy which binary option we are dealing with.

Because (without a LOT more information) you have NO idea what end of the population curve you are looking at.

[nbg352]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381245787' post='7970319']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381244819' post='7970231']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381244266' post='7970153']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']
Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?
[/quote]

Again, what you fail to understand is that IT DOESN"T MATTER.

It doesn't matter unless you are trying to PREDICT whether or not someone will shoot a round that beats their handicap by 10 strokes over 13 holes. The odds of NO assistance (other than circumstantial evidence) in determining whether a round that has been shot was shot by someone with a legitimate handicap.

Let me try putting it this way.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) is a relatively rare form of cancer of the blood cells that fight off infection, that strikes about 3-4 out of every 100,000 children each year.

You're a pediatrician, and a mom shows up with her 6 year old. She's been running a fever for a week, nauseous, achy, lethargic. The blood cells that fight off infection are markedly elevated in her blood stream. Mom asks you if this means that her daughter has leukemia. [b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not. [/i][/b]Rare things occur rarely. Common things are common. When you hear hoofbeats you look for horses, not zebras. Chances are that she has some sort of viral infection...and not leukemia.

That is an appropriate use of odds (incidence) data.

What you are trying to do is more like this.

You are pediatrician. Mom shows up with her 6 year old looking for a second opinion. She's been to see her own pediatrician, and (unfortunately) the little girl has been diagnosed with ALL. You then turn to the mother and insist that the diagnosis has to be wrong, because "[i]leukemia is rare in children" [/i]

That is an INAPPROPRIATE use off odds data. You cannot (responsibly) tell this woman that the diagnosis of leukemia was incorrect, simply because it is a rare disease. You have to take a look at the individual circumstances, and what went into making the diagnosis before drawing any conclusions. Unless you want to do that family a HUGE disservice, and expose yourself to a nasty malpractice suit.

Likewise, it is irresponsible to accuse someone of cheating because in an ISOLATED (partial) round of golf, they shot well below their handicap. Just like fact that leukemia is rare didn't prevent (sadly) this woman's child from developing the disease....the fact that such low rounds are rare by amateur golfers doesn't mean that you aren't in the presence of someone how just happened to have done it.

Because sometimes you hoofbeats are, in fact, coming from zebras.....
[/quote]
You're such a troll........
I love it!
[/quote]

[i]Dealing with the matter in the abstract, clearly wasn't working.......[/i]
[/quote]
LMFAO!
I removed myself from this one for fear my frustration would get me banned or something......Did you know I'm a troll, too?

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381245940' post='7970333']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381245473' post='7970295']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381244134' post='7970141']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381243484' post='7970081']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381242370' post='7969969']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381197609' post='7968171']
DTV, I have used a ton of sarcasm for sure. But I didn't call anyone any names and really didn't use the sarcasm until I was called dense and a few other things. My point is, the guy was a 9 at one time, so he could obviously play some. It is not out of the realm to go from a 9 to a 12, happens all the time. The guy only played 13 holes, not 18. There is no guarantee the guy is going to finish the day one over par.

You are correct, there is a ton of information missing. All the same though, in my opinion and many others a guy that was once a 9 handicap could very easily shoot +1 for 13 holes on an average course, I am not talking a Pete Dye bring you to your knees course.

Eye2+ acts as if I am insane and there is no way this guy could have accomplished such an impossible feat. On the other thread, there are literally dozen of guys stating their handicaps and their career low rounds, which were 18 holes and not 13, and a bunch of them have bettered their handicaps by 10 or more. Every single Sunday if you want to win at our club in the bucket ball, you better shoot at least 4 under your handicap and often it takes 7 to win it, and that is every Sunday. That is also 18 holes and not 13. How many times have you had it really going for 9 or 10 holes and maybe even be under par and then come back to earth before the round ends? That is golf. Golf happens all of the time.

Again, a guy that was a 9 shooting +1 for 13 is not a real big stretch to me, tournament or not. Could he be bagging a couple of strokes, sure maybe we don't know. If you look at all the big national Am tournaments that are so popular now, there are a lot of low net scores shot to win them, and I mean way low.
[/quote]

Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

[b]Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?[/b]
[/quote]

Odds dont matter in golf. At the end of the day, our scores will be a [b]bell curve[/b] in relation to our handicap. Which is why 13 holes is too small of a sample size to determine anything. What are the odds that you will sink a 5-foot, left-to-right birdie putt? As far as I'm concerned, its 1:1; you either make it or you dont. I think people can misunderstand odds and probabilities and statistics. Its different than a coin flip or poker because the coin and cards are an [b]independent variable[/b]. They have nothing to do with what has happened because they are based on specific mathematical equations to determine WHAT CAN HAPPEN. The odds of a hole-in-one are nothing but statistics of WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. It has nothing to do with what can happen. Which means the odds of an hole-in-one changes every year based on the number of aces that have been tracked. What is the probability of you pulling out an ace in a deck of cards? 4/52 (or 1/13). This number doesn't change regardless. What's are the odds of getting head when flipping a coin? It's 1:1. After 13 flips you got all tails. Does that mean you will get tail 18 times just because you got tail on the first 13?
I've played for 2 decades and I've never gotten a hole-in-one. My friend's uncle has played for 28 years and has 57 hole-in-ones. That's basically 2 a year. What are the odds?
[/quote]

That's a lot of typing to argue your opinion is more valid than math and science.
[/quote]

Since when did I argue that my opinion is more valid than math and science? All I'm saying is in golf odds dont matter regardless of the math and science. Some of us might play golf for the rest of our lives and never get an ace. There might be some people who get an ace on their first outing. Are 13 holes really enough to label someone a victim or a cheater? Isn't that why all of us play golf, it's the thrill of the streaks, whether you're a single handicapper who is on a roll shooting -3 on the first 9, or the guy who is struggling to break 100 who all of sudden has a 7-hole bogey streak.
[/quote]

You're essentially arguing if you just ignore the odds they no longer are accurate. Telling yourself you have a 50/50 chance at scoring 10 below you handicap doesn't mean you actually have those odds.
[/quote]

heh? when did i ever say they are not accurate? I just said they dont matter. I dont care if the odds of shooting 10 under your handicap is 84,000 to 1. I dont care if the odds of getting a hole-in-one is xxxxxx to 1. Because as far as Im concerned, that 1 can be any of us tomorrow, or that 1 will not be any of us as long as we play golf.
[/quote]

That's fine, it just means you're gullible.

[vtnerf]

Eye2+

No, the odds can't be given, because the card hasn't been provided.
You see, there are other factors than just the straight 18 holes and the 12's supposed handicap.

And, in case you missed it, they did not complete the round. To put it in simple terms, he pulled a Constanza. He walked off after he finished the match, not hanging around for an opportunity to bomb.

[wobgon]

[quote name='mukster' timestamp='1381244698' post='7970207']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381199551' post='7968357']
[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381197609' post='7968171']
Eye2+ acts as if I am insane and there is no way this guy could have accomplished such an impossible feat. On the other thread, there are literally dozen of guys stating their handicaps and their career low rounds, which were 18 holes and not 13, and a bunch of them have bettered their handicaps by 10 or more. Every single Sunday if you want to win at our club in the bucket ball, you better shoot at least 4 under your handicap and often it takes 7 to win it, and that is every Sunday. That is also 18 holes and not 13. How many times have you had it really going for 9 or 10 holes and maybe even be under par and then come back to earth before the round ends? That is golf. Golf happens all of the time.
[/quote]

[b]This is why you earned your dense label.[/b] I've clearly stated that there was a 0.002% chance it could have happened. Yet, you're still trying to argue as if i'm saying that in the history of the world this has never happened.

I've given you legitimate data from the USGA who has access to scores of millions of rounds. If you disagree with their data, please feel free to provide actual evidence that they are wrong.
[/quote]

I think there is a 150 post minimum before one can start name calling and being a smart a**
[/quote]
Or did you mean dumb a**??????

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381246342' post='7970371']
Eye2+

No, the odds can't be given, because the card hasn't been provided.
You see, there are other factors than just the straight 18 holes and the 12's supposed handicap.

And, in case you missed it, they did not complete the round. To put it in simple terms, he pulled a Constanza. He walked off after he finished the match, not hanging around for an opportunity to bomb.
[/quote]

There is no mathematical reasoning that would prevent the odds from existing.

[nbg352]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381245964' post='7970335']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1381184405' post='7966941']
[size=5][b]Any chance we can STOP with QUOTING the ENTIRE internet EVERY post?[/b][/size]
[/quote]

the above needs to be restated. in bold. and random CAPS. just a suggestion!
[/quote]
I would, happily, if only I knew how to quote just what I wanted out of a series of posts, rather than quote the entire dialogue.

[vtnerf]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381246550' post='7970393']
[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381246342' post='7970371']
Eye2+

No, the odds can't be given, because the card hasn't been provided.
You see, there are other factors than just the straight 18 holes and the 12's supposed handicap.

And, in case you missed it, they did not complete the round. To put it in simple terms, he pulled a Constanza. He walked off after he finished the match, not hanging around for an opportunity to bomb.
[/quote]

There is no mathematical reasoning that would prevent the odds from existing.
[/quote]

It's called handicapped holes. Statistically, a higher handicap will score worse on holes they are receiving a stroke. At has been stated, at least 2 of his 12 were in the last 5. And possibly even 4 were. And maybe the back is rated 2-3 strokes higher than the front. Since it wasn't a complete round, and the card hasn't been provided, and not all course are created equal, it cannot be worked out.

18 holes is a total, final amount that can be compared to the course rating/slope. Like flipping a coin, there is an outcome. Asking the odds for him shooting that thru 13 is like asking will the quarter be laying flat on heads when in the air for 1.2 seconds. Not enough info (wind, strength of the flip, revolutions) to determine.

[Craglyboy]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381243484' post='7970081']

That's a lot of typing to argue your opinion is more valid than math and science.
[/quote]

Speaking of maths and science where is yours all I've seen so far is you spout some arbritary number with out any formulation.

Your science is about as useful as me saying 60% of the time it works every time. I used a number so it must be maths right?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381246247' post='7970363']
That's fine, it just means you're gullible.
[/quote]

No, it means he's responsible.

That he's unwilling to assassinate someone's character until he KNOWS he's dealing with a situation that is impossible...rather than simply improbable.

Because improbable events occur.

If you are a pediatrician...and you work enough years...that unfortunate child with leukemia is going to walk into your office. Perhaps more than once.

If you are a pediactric Hem/Onc (cancer) specialist....with people sending cases from a referral area that might contain millions of people...you are going to see a LOT of cases of leukemia.

...and a few instances of things that are even more rare.

[wobgon]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381246912' post='7970427']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381245964' post='7970335']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1381184405' post='7966941']
[size=5][b]Any chance we can STOP with QUOTING the ENTIRE internet EVERY post?[/b][/size]
[/quote]

the above needs to be restated. in bold. and random CAPS. just a suggestion!
[/quote]
I would, happily, if only I knew how to quote just what I wanted out of a series of posts, rather than quote the entire dialogue.
[/quote]
Be careful ,Eye2 + will call you dense........Wouldn't it be great if everyone on this forum was as intelligent as him.........

[TripleSingle]

[b]"That's fine, it just means you're gullible."[/b]

Since you love odds so much, let me give you one. The odds of acing a 200-yard hole is 150,000 to 1. So if someone in this forum said they just had their first ace, which happens to be a 200-yard hole, are you going to doubt them because you don't want to put faith on 0.0000000667%? Or are you going to congratulate them.

All we know here is that there is a 12 guy (who was once a 9), went on a hot streak of 1 birdie, 10 pars, 2 bogeys. We don't know why he went from a 9 to 12, we don't know how he got those pars, we dont know how he played in the previous rounds. All we have is a 13-hole sample. If OP told us that he played that way the 5 previous rounds against other 5-7 handicappers to make it to the final round, then yes I would be skeptical. But I am not wiling to label anyone a cheater just because the odds make it look unlikely. I never tried to argue the accuracy of odds. They are what they are. But no one here is trying to predict anything. And just because odds have no significance to me, does that make me gullible?

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381246912' post='7970427']

I would, happily, if only I knew how to quote just what I wanted out of a series of posts, rather than quote the entire dialogue.
[/quote]

Hit Reply in the post and then delete the extraneous stuff.

[nbg352]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381247193' post='7970463']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381246912' post='7970427']
[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1381245964' post='7970335']
[quote name='Soloman1' timestamp='1381184405' post='7966941']
[size=5][b]Any chance we can STOP with QUOTING the ENTIRE internet EVERY post?[/b][/size]
[/quote]

the above needs to be restated. in bold. and random CAPS. just a suggestion!
[/quote]
I would, happily, if only I knew how to quote just what I wanted out of a series of posts, rather than quote the entire dialogue.
[/quote]
Be careful ,Eye2 plus will call you dense........Wouldn't it be great if everyone on this forum was as intelligent as him.........
[/quote]
Clearly, I AM dense! I don't know how to reply correctly and I really want to know......
I dunno about eye2. He ducks those who confront him with wisdom...........

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381244266' post='7970153']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']

Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?
[/quote]

Again, what you fail to understand is that IT DOESN"T MATTER.

It doesn't matter unless you are trying to PREDICT whether or not someone will shoot a round that beats their handicap by 10 strokes over 13 holes. The odds of NO assistance (other than circumstantial evidence) in determining whether a round that has been shot was shot by someone with a legitimate handicap.

Let me try putting it this way.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) is a relatively rare form of cancer of the blood cells that fight off infection, that strikes about 3-4 out of every 100,000 children each year.

You're a pediatrician, and a mom shows up with her 6 year old. She's been running a fever for a week, nauseous, achy, lethargic. The blood cells that fight off infection are markedly elevated in her blood stream. Mom asks you if this means that her daughter has leukemia. [b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not. [/i][/b]Rare things occur rarely. Common things are common. When you hear hoofbeats you look for horses, not zebras. Chances are that she has some sort of viral infection...and not leukemia.

That is an appropriate use of odds (incidence) data.

What you are trying to do is more like this.

You are pediatrician. Mom shows up with her 6 year old looking for a second opinion. She's been to see her own pediatrician, and (unfortunately) the little girl has been diagnosed with ALL. You then turn to the mother and insist that the diagnosis has to be wrong, because "[i]leukemia is rare in children" [/i]

That is an INAPPROPRIATE use off odds data. You cannot (responsibly) tell this woman that the diagnosis of leukemia was incorrect, simply because it is a rare disease. You have to take a look at the individual circumstances, and what went into making the diagnosis before drawing any conclusions. Unless you want to do that family a HUGE disservice, and expose yourself to a nasty malpractice suit.

Likewise, it is irresponsible to accuse someone of cheating because in an ISOLATED (partial) round of golf, they shot well below their handicap. Just like fact that leukemia is rare didn't prevent (sadly) this woman's child from developing the disease....the fact that such low rounds are rare by amateur golfers doesn't mean that you aren't in the presence of someone how just happened to have done it.

Because sometimes you hoofbeats are, in fact, coming from zebras.....
[/quote]

And yet, in this situation that we are discussing, the horses are that he's a sandbagger and the zebras are that he's a guy who had a fluke good round. And yet you lot are all saying we have to assume it's zebras because we have no proof that it's horses.

Take your analogy above. We have no prior test here, just a woman who came in with a kid with a fever, asking if it's leukemia or something else. Not a case of someone coming in for a second opinion who already had the evidence. In this case, as you quite succinctly stated (hahahahahaha - I kill me sometimes), it's much more likely that it's a viral infection, so viral infection = common, leukemia = rare. Sandbagger = common, freak day = rare. And so, apparently your opinion is that we have to assume it's leukemia unless we have evidence that it's a viral infection. Start the chemo!!!

I think Eye2+'s point and I know mine is that it's more likely that someone who shot so far under their handicap had a questionable handicap than that they had that freak day that almost no one will have.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381247024' post='7970441']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381246550' post='7970393']
[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381246342' post='7970371']
Eye2+

No, the odds can't be given, because the card hasn't been provided.
You see, there are other factors than just the straight 18 holes and the 12's supposed handicap.

And, in case you missed it, they did not complete the round. To put it in simple terms, he pulled a Constanza. He walked off after he finished the match, not hanging around for an opportunity to bomb.
[/quote]

There is no mathematical reasoning that would prevent the odds from existing.
[/quote]

It's called handicapped holes. Statistically, a higher handicap will score worse on holes they are receiving a stroke. At has been stated, at least 2 of his 12 were in the last 5. And possibly even 4 were. And maybe the back is rated 2-3 strokes higher than the front. Since it wasn't a complete round, and the card hasn't been provided, and not all course are created equal, it cannot be worked out.

18 holes is a total, final amount that can be compared to the course rating/slope. Like flipping a coin, there is an outcome. Asking the odds for him shooting that thru 13 is like asking will the quarter be laying flat on heads when in the air for 1.2 seconds. Not enough info (wind, strength of the flip, revolutions) to determine.
[/quote]

I'm sure this sounds nice in your head, but you only need to play 13 holes to post an official score.

The aggregate data will weed out the concerns you raise.

[nbg352]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381248704' post='7970589']
[And yet, in this situation that we are discussing, the horses are that he's a sandbagger and the zebras are that he's a guy who had a fluke good round. And yet you lot are all saying we have to assume it's zebras because we have no proof that it's horses.

Take your analogy above. We have no prior test here, just a woman who came in with a kid with a fever, asking if it's leukemia or something else. Not a case of someone coming in for a second opinion who already had the evidence. In this case, as you quite succinctly stated (hahahahahaha - I kill me sometimes), it's much more likely that it's a viral infection, so viral infection = common, leukemia = rare. Sandbagger = common, freak day = rare. And so, apparently your opinion is that we have to assume it's leukemia unless we have evidence that it's a viral infection. Start the chemo!!!

I think Eye2+'s point and I know mine is that it's more likely that someone who shot so far under their handicap had a questionable handicap than that they had that freak day that almost no one will have.
[/quote]
The problem I have is that I think it somewhat presumptuous to immediately think of the guy as a horse rather than a zebra, unless he has raised suspicion in the past that he may not be a zebra after all.

[TripleSingle]

so now we're going to judge a player's handicap based on 1 official score consisting of 13 holes?

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381247233' post='7970469']
[b]"That's fine, it just means you're gullible."[/b]

Since you love odds so much, let me give you one. The odds of acing a 200-yard hole is 150,000 to 1. So if someone in this forum said they just had their first ace, which happens to be a 200-yard hole, are you going to doubt them because you don't want to put faith on 0.0000000667%? Or are you going to congratulate them.

All we know here is that there is a 12 guy (who was once a 9), went on a hot streak of 1 birdie, 10 pars, 2 bogeys. We don't know why he went from a 9 to 12, we don't know how he got those pars, we dont know how he played in the previous rounds. All we have is a 13-hole sample. If OP told us that he played that way the 5 previous rounds against other 5-7 handicappers to make it to the final round, then yes I would be skeptical. But I am not wiling to label anyone a cheater just because the odds make it look unlikely. I never tried to argue the accuracy of odds. They are what they are. But no one here is trying to predict anything. And just because odds have no significance to me, does that make me gullible?
[/quote]

Maybe it is a personal bias but I'm less inclined to question someone when I know they can't sandbag a hole in one. Generally there isn't any gain by someone scoring an ace.

However with a tournament there is an incentive to sandbag. Also, with a handicap you can intentionally impact what your odds are for the accomplishment.

A much different scenario.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381247233' post='7970469']
[b]"That's fine, it just means you're gullible."[/b]

Since you love odds so much, let me give you one. The odds of acing a 200-yard hole is 150,000 to 1. So if someone in this forum said they just had their first ace, which happens to be a 200-yard hole, are you going to doubt them because you don't want to put faith on 0.0000000667%? Or are you going to congratulate them.

All we know here is that there is a 12 guy (who was once a 9), went on a hot streak of 1 birdie, 10 pars, 2 bogeys. We don't know why he went from a 9 to 12, we don't know how he got those pars, we dont know how he played in the previous rounds. All we have is a 13-hole sample. If OP told us that he played that way the 5 previous rounds against other 5-7 handicappers to make it to the final round, then yes I would be skeptical. But I am not wiling to label anyone a cheater just because the odds make it look unlikely. I never tried to argue the accuracy of odds. They are what they are. But no one here is trying to predict anything. And just because odds have no significance to me, does that make me gullible?
[/quote]

Maybe it is a personal bias but I'm less inclined to question someone when I know they can't sandbag a hole in one. Generally there isn't any gain by someone scoring an ace.

However with a tournament there is an incentive to sandbag. Also, with a handicap you can intentionally impact what your odds are for the accomplishment.

A much different scenario.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381193113' post='7967769']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381192279' post='7967689']
I kindly asked you to stop replying if you were just going to troll and not stay in topic.
[/quote]
Let me put it another way. Three years ago, I was a twelve handicap. Par on our course is 35 - 36 - 71. I shot 33 - 39 - 72. It was one of those days. Perhaps you can explain that, because I can't. The first time I broke 90, I shot 81. The first time I broke 80, I shot 72. I can't explain that, either. Perhaps you can? But I can assure you, that is all true. I didn't make it up. But it sure does mess with the odds you suggest are unassailable, doesn't it?
These things happen to people everywhere, very often. I've seen it, I've done it and others have either seen it or done it, Odds be dam*ed.
BTW, is anyone who criticizes you or disagrees with you a troll? If so, believe me when I tell you this. There are a lot of us, then.
[/quote]

I agree, they happen to people. Where I disagree is, they are not likely to happen under pressure during USGA club tournaments, including match play, which I played for 8yrs+.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1381251789' post='7970823']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381193113' post='7967769']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381192279' post='7967689']
I kindly asked you to stop replying if you were just going to troll and not stay in topic.
[/quote]
Let me put it another way. Three years ago, I was a twelve handicap. Par on our course is 35 - 36 - 71. I shot 33 - 39 - 72. It was one of those days. Perhaps you can explain that, because I can't. The first time I broke 90, I shot 81. The first time I broke 80, I shot 72. I can't explain that, either. Perhaps you can? But I can assure you, that is all true. I didn't make it up. But it sure does mess with the odds you suggest are unassailable, doesn't it?
These things happen to people everywhere, very often. I've seen it, I've done it and others have either seen it or done it, Odds be dam*ed.
BTW, is anyone who criticizes you or disagrees with you a troll? If so, believe me when I tell you this. There are a lot of us, then.
[/quote]

I agree, they happen to people. Where I disagree is, they are not likely to happen under pressure during USGA club tournaments, including match play, which I played for 8yrs+.
[/quote]

I think there are actually a lot of people who play better in tournament situations. Not everyone wilts when the pressure or nervousness is upped because it it is a competetion round.

[vtnerf]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381249965' post='7970677']
so now we're going to judge a player's handicap based on 1 official score consisting of 13 holes?
[/quote]
Yes. Every 2 handicap on GolfWRX just went to a +3!!!!!!
Hurray!!!!!!!!!!

[nbg352]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1381251789' post='7970823']
I agree, they happen to people. Where I disagree is,[b] they are not likely to happen under pressure [/b]during USGA club tournaments, including match play, which I played for 8yrs+.
[/quote]
While I believe that the process of breaking 90 or 80 etc. comes with it's own pressure, particularly in the late holes of the round, I agree that tournament pressure would probably make those things less likely to happen. You have to admit though, some people flourish in those types of situations. I have always been one of them, regardless of the sport.