Annual handicap adjustment

[Karl102]

Asking for a friend.....

He has played in 15 qualifiers in 2015 and has had 12 X 0.1's , 1 buffer , 1x 0.2 cut and 1x 0.8 cut.

In our review he has been given a shot back from 6.4 to 7.4.

Any ideas why?!?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well the formula is very complicated for the AR but a quick look at the results wouldn't suggest any shots back

Looks the normal balanced season

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Asking for a friend.....

He has played in 15 qualifiers in 2015 and has had 12 X 0.1's , 1 buffer , 1x 0.2 cut and 1x 0.8 cut.

In our review he has been given a shot back from 6.4 to 7.4.

Any ideas why?!?

Like Phil says, those results don't suggest an increase.

 

[Karl102]

Cheers.... He is going to question it with the hc committee. I was under the impression if you didn't hit buffer all season you get one back.

 

[louise_a]

Seems strange to me, I know the suggestions for increases/decreases are based on performance against a target based on handicap but as Phil says it looks pretty balanced performance.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Cheers.... He is going to question it with the hc committee. I was under the impression if you didn't hit buffer all season you get one back.

A fair chance that you would get a shot back with a season full of .1,s

 

[louise_a]

I have a copy of the annual review reports from our club and it is hard to understand how it is calculated

for example, player A played 22, buffered once, over buffer 21 times ...no increase
Player B played 10, buffered twice, over buffer 8 times recommended 2 shot increase

Both played are category 4

 

[Joff]

A fair chance that you would get a shot back with a season full of .1,s

Depends on how many rounds surely?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Depends on how many rounds surely?

I think without looking it might be 10 qualifiers and above for AR

 

[fundy]

I have a copy of the annual review reports from our club and it is hard to understand how it is calculated

for example, player A played 22, buffered once, over buffer 21 times ...no increase
Player B played 10, buffered twice, over buffer 8 times recommended 2 shot increase

Both played are category 4

if player A doesnt get shots back then surely the system is totally flawed

 

[Deleted member 15344]

if player A doesnt get shots back then surely the system is totally flawed

He would have got 2 shots back already throughout the year

 

[fundy]

He would have got 2 shots back already throughout the year

its clearly not enough is it though as hes still not shooting buffer

 

[Foxholer]

AR calculation is not about Buffer, Cut or +0.1, but about actual scores against ending handicap (and whether the average score is actually within 3 shots of the 'expected score'!

The calculation is not actually complicated either! 'Expected score' is pretty much (within 0.05 of) 1.237*Year End Handicap + 1.57. If the average score throughout the review period is more than 3 higher or lower than that value, then an adjustment up or down is likely to be flagged by the report. Here's a link that might help http://www.congu.com/faqs/old_site/Review of Handicaps.pdf

The flagging is merely a recommendation - that some/most clubs simply agree to. There MAY be some justification in appealing the review, depending on when the 0.8 cut (and possibly the 0.4) happened! If it/they happened at/towards the beginning of the review period, then subsequent performance would seem likely to justify an increase; if it/they happened at/towards the end of the review period, then the quite significant change might indicate that there has been a recent improvement - perhaps through practice, lessons etc. So there is still some 'wiggle room' for Handicap Committees to use common sense and their knowledge of events.

Hope that helps.

Edit. Forgot to do the calculation! Expected Average Score is SSS + 10.7238, so if his average score was >13.7238 above SSS, then he'll be flagged.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

its clearly not enough is it though as hes still not shooting buffer

Sorry just re read the post from Louise and Player A should be recommended a shot or possible 2 back and Player B no shots

 

[fundy]

Sorry just re read the post from Louise and Player A should be recommended a shot or possible 2 back and Player B no shots

makes far more sense

 

[Deleted member 15344]

makes far more sense

I have to do the print off tomorrow so will have a look at the front page which has a number of explanations on it

 

[duncan mackie]

The buffer stats are indicative, but other factors and actual scores are taken into account.

Also the order of things - in the original post if the player started with the reductions, then failed to buffer from then, there a strong case for +1

 

[Val]

On the bright side Karl, he has an immediate target once the season starts. If he wins an early board come by a shot I'm sure he won't complain

 

[patricks148]

first time Ive heard if someone actually being given an increase. I friend of mine had a terrible year a while back with 19 straight 0.1's with no buffers or reductions. No increase though.

 

[Crazyface]

Asking for a friend.....

He has played in 15 qualifiers in 2015 and has had 12 X 0.1's , 1 buffer , 1x 0.2 cut and 1x 0.8 cut.

In our review he has been given a shot back from 6.4 to 7.4.

Any ideas why?!?

Dunno, but my mate got one back last year, plumeting from 27 to 28, but that's because he's s h one t.