Are You A Potential Bandit?

[3offTheTee]

OK, Really sorry to ask a stupid question but would somebody please explain what it means?
My figures are 2.8 and 4.2 giving a differential of 1.4. Realise the higher the more of a bandit but why please?

However my H I can change. is that relevant?

 

[Voyager EMH]

OK, Really sorry to ask a stupid question but would somebody please explain what it means?
My figures are 2.8 and 4.2 giving a differential of 1.4. Realise the higher the more of a bandit but why please?

However my H I can change. is that relevant?

I believe you are taking this far too seriously. Relax, have a beer or something.

 

[badgergm]

Quite a low bandit rating, but a vey impressive IR. I think we might have a winner. I hope @cliveb will add you to the graphs.
Mr Inconsistency without a doubt. Well done at being so inconsistent without being a potential bandit.

Have you got 20 scores? If so then IR is insane.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Have you got 20 scores? If so then IR is insane.

Yes, I have 20 scores in. But, as DeNiro might say, "Are you talking to me?"

 

[RichA]

PBR = 15.6 - 8.3 = 7.3
IR = 17.6 - 8.3 = 9.3

The day I shot my SD 8.3, my HI was 19.
Is there a prize?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

PBR= (6.7 - 1.9) = 4.8

IR+ (8.9 - 1.9) = 7

Not sure that shows anything tbh

 

[Voyager EMH]

PBR = 15.6 - 8.3 = 7.3
IR = 17.6 - 8.3 = 9.3

The day I shot my SD 8.3, my HI was 19.
Is there a prize?

There is a fictional sombrero and it is upon your head right now.

 

[Voyager EMH]

PBR= (6.7 - 1.9) = 4.8

IR+ (8.9 - 1.9) = 7

Not sure that shows anything tbh

Neither am I.

 

[rudebhoy]

PBR (19.0 - 14.8) = 4.2
IR (21.8 - 14.8) = 7.0

does that make me inconsistent with a smidgeon of banditery?

 

[Voyager EMH]

PBR (19.0 - 14.8) = 4.2
IR (21.8 - 14.8) = 7.0

does that make me inconsistent with a smidgeon of banditery?

If @cliveb were to put you on his graphs, then you might have a better answer to your question than my mere opinion that you have hit the nail on the head there.

 

[cliveb]

If @cliveb were to put you on his graphs, then you might have a better answer to your question than my mere opinion that you have hit the nail on the head there.

OK, I've added all the new data points, and here are the normalised bandit and inconsistency ratings:


Note that I've excluded Lump's data, because his ratings are so off the scale. His IR (61) is more than 23 times Kaz's (2.6), and his PBR (84) is 20 times hers (4.2). I suspect that -6 round was a once in a blue moon performance that has skewed his figures. But it's interesting that our two seriously low handicappers are the ones with the significantly highest ratings.

The additional data points support the earlier conclusion that higher handicappers are more consistent relative to their absolute capability and less likely to be bandits than the lower handicappers. This is so out of line with what I used to believe (and which I think the majority of golfers believe) that I reckon the correct conclusion is that we're measuring the wrong things.

 

[cliveb]

The day I shot my SD 8.3, my HI was 19.
Is there a prize?

I can beat that. About 3 years ago when playing off 16, I did the back nine in 1 under gross. (Shame the front nine didn't match).
It was, of course, a day when my fairy godmother had nothing better to do with her time and will never be repeated.

 

[Crow]

OK, I've added all the new data points, and here are the normalised bandit and inconsistency ratings:


Note that I've excluded Lump's data, because his ratings are so off the scale. His IR (61) is more than 23 times Kaz's (2.6), and his PBR (84) is 20 times hers (4.2). I suspect that -6 round was a once in a blue moon performance that has skewed his figures. But it's interesting that our two seriously low handicappers are the ones with the significantly highest ratings.

The additional data points support the earlier conclusion that higher handicappers are more consistent relative to their absolute capability and less likely to be bandits than the lower handicappers. This is so out of line with what I used to believe (and which I think the majority of golfers believe) that I reckon the correct conclusion is that we're measuring the wrong things.

Dividing by handicap is bound to reduce the ratings of the higher handicaps, that just hides the fact that higher handicap players are more likely to have big swings in scoring.

It's a fact that a higher handicap player has greater potential for a very low net score, this doesn't make them a bandit but it does seem to upset a small number of low handicap players.

What should be remembered (and what this survey isn't considering) is that high handicap players are just as likely, if not more likely, to have VERY HIGH net scores.

The better a golfer becomes the more consistent they become and so deviation from handicap becomes less, it's not rocket science.

 

[Springveldt]

PBR (5.4 - 4.8) = 0.6
IR (5.6 - 4.8) = 0.8

I have 3 differentials of 4.8 and 5 of 5.6 as my current counting scores.

So I’m either captain of the boring club or the founder of the “Complete Bottle Merchants” club as I’m an expert at turning rounds that should be in the 2.x or 3.x into 4’s and 5’s.

 

[Voyager EMH]

PBR (5.4 - 4.8) = 0.6
IR (5.6 - 4.8) = 0.8

I have 3 differentials of 4.8 and 5 of 5.6 as my current counting scores.

So I’m either captain of the boring club or the founder of the “Complete Bottle Merchants” club as I’m an expert at turning rounds that should be in the 2.x or 3.x into 4’s and 5’s.

Change "captain" to "world leader".

 

[Voyager EMH]

Dividing by handicap is bound to reduce the ratings of the higher handicaps, that just hides the fact that higher handicap players are more likely to have big swings in scoring.

It's a fact that a higher handicap player has greater potential for a very low net score, this doesn't make them a bandit but it does seem to upset a small number of low handicap players.

What should be remembered (and what this survey isn't considering) is that high handicap players are just as likely, if not more likely, to have VERY HIGH net scores.

The better a golfer becomes the more consistent they become and so deviation from handicap becomes less, it's not rocket science.

And we ought to consider the vast number of say 12 to whatever-it-is-now handicaps compared with the relatively smaller number off say 6 and below. It is the perception of the lowers that highers are "winning more" but there are simply more of them. And maybe they weren't getting their fair share before.

 

[Backsticks]

And we ought to consider the vast number of say 12 to whatever-it-is-now handicaps compared with the relatively smaller number off say 6 and below. It is the perception of the lowers that highers are "winning more" but there are simply more of them. And maybe they weren't getting their fair share before.

This is true. Furthermore, the sense of injustice is accentuated by the very big winning score occasionally by the high handicapper, which the low man knows is well outside his reach. But like not acknowledging the high number of high handicappers being the real cause of the impression that high hadnicapper always win, the low man also doesnt realise that he is competitive more often than the high man. While he will not shoot the lights out, he will be in the mix for a win more often, especially under difficult weather conditions, a difficult course setup, or the pressure of a big competition, due to his greater consistency, and greater ability to handle difficulties.

 

[cliveb]

Dividing by handicap is bound to reduce the ratings of the higher handicaps, that just hides the fact that higher handicap players are more likely to have big swings in scoring.

Yes of course. But it was just my way of trying to get some kind of noticable trend, and wth the limited data available, it was the only option.
If you don't divide by the handicap and just consider the "raw" inconsistency rating, the data points are all over the place:

I think if we really wanted to get a good idea of index v. consistency, we should probably compute the standard deviations of the score differentials for all of the players' last 20 scores (not just their best 8). But I'm not volunteering to do that!

 

[harpo_72]

I think we all know that we get to a level and that’s it .. you either need more practice or you have hit the limit of your abilities.
This is much more the case of the low handicap players .. sorry guys. The high handicappers are either players in decline or players with lots of room to improve.
The decliners can be dismissed from the equation but the improvers are the key .. they will eventually hit their limit.
What can we say, is as a low or at you limit player you are consistent and you will be in the mix .. just the improver might show up and you don’t win. ( but you all had these wins on your way down to your handicap)
The scratch comps give you opportunities but ultimately they are a brutal reminder of your limitations.. so getting low is nice but not necessarily going to yield the pleasures of winning.
Sorry .. just consumed a beer from Sweden called “a moment of clarity “ was very nice

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Heres three more data points for your graphs (for the family).

Player 1
PBR = (26.1 – 23.7) = 2.2
IR = (28 – 23.7) = 4.3

Player 2
PBR = (33.0 – 29.9) = 3.1
IR = (36.1 – 29.9) = 6.2

Player 3
PBR = (1.4 – (-2.1) = 3.5
IR = (2.7 – (-2.1) = 4.8