Expected Score For Hole Not Played

[Will Arnold]

The course I played yesterday had four holes closed due to waterlogging, but I submitted a card through MyEG nonetheless with the holes marked as not played / not started. The score differential spat out seems to be rather low, and certainly an outlier which will impact my handicap for a good while.

Wondering if anyone else has had this happen?

I'm a 21 handicapper and my adjusted gross for the 14 holes played was 19 over par. If I had scored net par on the four holes not played my score differential would have been 23.2, assuming no PCC adjustment. However the score differential calculated and now counting against my handicap is 18.4. This seems to assume I played the missing holes in close to gross par.

The latest WHS updates state regarding this "the calculations used to calculate
an expected score, includes ratings of standard difficulty, and are not shared
by the USGA", but whatever calculation has gone on seems unduly harsh. Initially I assumed the 18.4 was a score differential just for the 14 holes played, but it's definitely counting as an 18 hole score and being used in the average calculation for my handicap.

Am I missing something? Thanks!

 

[Oldbutwise]

Can you give us the course rating, slope index and Par for the course played?

 

[Will Arnold]

Can you give us the course rating, slope index and Par for the course played?

Sure thing. It was the Eden at St Andrews, off the Blue Tees.

Par 70
Course Rating 69
Slope 122

PCC not yet showing but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slight adjustment given 30mph winds.

For comparison I played the same course in full earlier in the week, scored 26 over adjusted gross and my score differential was 25. My adjusted gross score yesterday would have been 24 over assuming net pars for the missing holes.

 

[Oldbutwise]

Sure thing. It was the Eden at St Andrews, off the Blue Tees.

Par 70
Course Rating 69
Slope 122

PCC not yet showing but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slight adjustment given 30mph winds.

For comparison I played the same course in full earlier in the week, scored 26 over adjusted gross and my score differential was 25. My adjusted gross score yesterday would have been 24 over assuming net pars for the missing holes.

Unless someone else can see the flaw, it would appear that if the figures you've posted are accurate then it is likely that the system has allocated gross Par for the holes not played. If you want to appeal this, I would ask your home club handicap secretary to email handicapping@englandgolf.org with all the details and ask them to explain. I assume you've checked the individual hole scores on your record are correct? Unfortunately EG have kept all the details of this process close to their chests so we have no way of checking how they've arrived at the final figure.

 

[Will Arnold]

Unless someone else can see the flaw, it would appear that if the figures you've posted are accurate then it is likely that the system has allocated gross Par for the holes not played. If you want to appeal this, I would ask your home club handicap secretary to email handicapping@englandgolf.org with all the details and ask them to explain. I assume you've checked the individual hole scores on your record are correct? Unfortunately EG have kept all the details of this process close to their chests so we have no way of checking how they've arrived at the final figure.

Thank you, and glad to see it's not just me being dense.

I have indeed double checked the scorecard on the app for user error. Interestingly in the "Scorecards" section of the app the unplayed holes are treated pretty much as expected, with an asterisk and then an adjusted score of net par. This gives an adjusted gross score of 94 against par of 70. However in the "Dashboard - Scores" section which seems to be driving handicap calculations the unplayed holes are simply missing, so it's not possible to see how they've been treated.

The only "sensible" explanation I can see is an optimistic view of scoring on the missing holes (possible as one was SI 18 and another SI 1 or 2 on which I had two shots), combined with a hefty PCC cut (which isn't showing for that round in the app currently).

 

[D-S]

EG notified a glitch in the expected score calculation. They are in consultation with the R&A about it, as they don't control the algorithm.
They hoped to have 'good news' late last week - obviously not yet.

 

[Will Arnold]

EG notified a glitch in the expected score calculation. They are in consultation with the R&A about it, as they don't control the algorithm.
They hoped to have 'good news' late last week - obviously not yet.

Thanks. Again, glad to hear I'm not an idiot.

 

[Alan Clifford]

EG notified a glitch in the expected score calculation. They are in consultation with the R&A about it, as they don't control the algorithm.
They hoped to have 'good news' late last week - obviously not yet.

Glitch

 

[Voyager EMH]

EG notified a glitch in the expected score calculation. They are in consultation with the R&A about it, as they don't control the algorithm.
They hoped to have 'good news' late last week - obviously not yet.

Are Fujitsu involved in any way?

 

[Alan Clifford]

EG notified a glitch in the expected score calculation. They are in consultation with the R&A about it, as they don't control the algorithm.
They hoped to have 'good news' late last week - obviously not yet.

"... don't control the algorithm." That doesn't even make sense.

 

[D-S]

"... don't control the algorithm." That doesn't even make sense.

‘Control the algorithm’ are my words the actual quote from EG is “seeking clarification from the R&A as to exactly how these scores should be processed so that urgent updates can be made by the ISVs.”

I assume that they need clarification as they the method (i.e. the algorithm) is not theirs.

 

[Alan Clifford]

‘Control the algorithm’ are my words the actual quote from EG is “seeking clarification from the R&A as to exactly how these scores should be processed so that urgent updates can be made by the ISVs.”

I assume that they need clarification as they the method (i.e. the algorithm) is not theirs.

It's still unbelievable that they don't know how to process scores at this point in time.

 

[Swango1980]

It's still unbelievable that they don't know how to process scores at this point in time.

In fairness, it is extremely complicated mathematics.

In a few years, Hollywood will make a film based on this, a sequel to the film Good Will Hunting. After Will Hunting sorted his life out, he finally unleashed his genius to the world, and 25 years later it all leads to him finally solving the mystery of the World Handicap System and it's implementation within the ISVs

 

[IanM]

Algorithm eh? That term gives is more mystery and makes it harder to challenge!

No algorithm could predict our Phil's score at any hole! It's somewhere between eagle and about 12!

 

[Will Arnold]

EG notified a glitch in the expected score calculation. They are in consultation with the R&A about it, as they don't control the algorithm.
They hoped to have 'good news' late last week - obviously not yet.

@D-S - out of interest do you have any idea as to whether it is an issue with the actual formula used, or with the data format and transfer with MyEG / other ISVs?

I would hope the latter, as I can't imagine my scenario was an edge case that has fallen between the gaps of an otherwise robust formula.

 

[wjemather]

"... don't control the algorithm." That doesn't even make sense.

Why would local authorities (or their software providers) have any control over universal calculation methodology? That would undermine the system.
WHS platform/database suppliers (dotgolf in GB&I) just need to implement the methodology (correctly) within their system.

 

[wjemather]

@D-S - out of interest do you have any idea as to whether it is an issue with the actual formula used, or with the data format and transfer with MyEG / other ISVs?

I would hope the latter, as I can't imagine my scenario was an edge case that has fallen between the gaps of an otherwise robust formula.

There is an issue with dotgolf's implementation. It isn't an ISV issue as they just send hole scores to dotgolf, and nothing has changed in that respect and hole scores on WHS appear fine.

 

[Will Arnold]

There is an issue with dotgolf's implementation. It isn't an ISV issue as they just send hole scores to dotgolf, and nothing has changed in that respect and hole scores on WHS appear fine.

Thanks. I hope if it's an implementation issue it can be recalculated and fixed retrospectively.

 

[Alan Clifford]

In fairness, it is extremely complicated mathematics.

To be honest, I would guess it is neither mathematics nor complicated. It'll just be convoluted arithmetic that hasn't been properly defined by one party nor the undefined bits questioned by the other.

 

[Swango1980]

To be honest, I would guess it is neither mathematics nor complicated. It'll just be convoluted arithmetic that hasn't been properly defined by one party nor the undefined bits questioned by the other.

I was jesting. I didn't seriously think they'd produce a sequel to Good Will Hunting, centred around WHS