General play question

[brendy]

Checked my weekly scores on the GUI website we have over here and so far out of 16 qualifying competitions I have been cut 5 times, buffered 4 times and got 8 0.1's back. The cuts in total add up to 1.6 so have went from 8.5 to 7.7.
My question to the knowledgeable crowd is, would this be enough to qualify for a reduction in the Annual Review?

 

[chris661]

No chance! Last year I went from nineteen to eleven and nothing happened, you are playing in your club comps and coming down and goin up so your handicap will be deemed to be genuine(ish).

 

[brendy]

You see this is what I thought also, but checking 2009's records I got a .4 cut at the end of the year for a pretty much 50/50 buffer & better/ 0.1's back. 2010 was miserable so certainly didnt warrant looking at.
This year has been far better so far (maybe 6 comps to go).

 

[chris661]

Maybe, nearly every time I play at my own place is a comp so that might have been taken into consideration as within the eight shot cut there was also 26 0.1's back as well

 

[brendy]

Jings man, how many competitions did you enter?
I was playing off 6 dead back in 2006, my current handicap is the lowest it has been since 2007, Im hoping to get at least one more good round out of this year and hopefully make it stick at 7. I cant see it getting down to 6 with so few qualifiers left this year.

 

[chris661]

He he well every Wednesday Saturday and Sunday plus went to three or four open weeks can you tell I wasn't working lol

 

[rosecott]

Checked my weekly scores on the GUI website we have over here and so far out of 16 qualifying competitions I have been cut 5 times, buffered 4 times and got 8 0.1's back. The cuts in total add up to 1.6 so have went from 8.5 to 7.7.
My question to the knowledgeable crowd is, would this be enough to qualify for a reduction in the Annual Review?

CONGU has provided Independant Software Vendors with formulae to come up with recommendations for handicap changes on Annual Review - changes both up and down. According to your handicap level, you have a "target performance" which, if you surpass you will be recommended for a reduction - and the converse for increases.
CONGU and the Home Unions only want themselves and the ISVs to know the detail of the formulae but they are based on the EGA system which uses EMSS (Expected Mean Stableford Score) for their Annual Review recommendations.
If you want your eyes to glaze over, you can have a look at the Annual Review section of the EGA Handicap System on the EGA website.
Happy now?

 

[brendy]

Checked my weekly scores on the GUI website we have over here and so far out of 16 qualifying competitions I have been cut 5 times, buffered 4 times and got 8 0.1's back. The cuts in total add up to 1.6 so have went from 8.5 to 7.7.
My question to the knowledgeable crowd is, would this be enough to qualify for a reduction in the Annual Review?

CONGU has provided Independant Software Vendors with formulae to come up with recommendations for handicap changes on Annual Review - changes both up and down. According to your handicap level, you have a "target performance" which, if you surpass you will be recommended for a reduction - and the converse for increases.
CONGU and the Home Unions only want themselves and the ISVs to know the detail of the formulae but they are based on the EGA system which uses EMSS (Expected Mean Stableford Score) for their Annual Review recommendations.
If you want your eyes to glaze over, you can have a look at the Annual Review section of the EGA Handicap System on the EGA website.
Happy now?

Ecstatic, simply ecstatic..... Is that a yes or a no?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

If it is I must be due one too, out of 15 qualifiers I've had 3 cuts 4 0.1s (one of which I had to retire injured) and 8 buffers many of which were the worst score I could have had on the day. Unless I have a real mare I feel like buffer is as bad as I can play. However, I would seriously doubt my record deserves or stands out enough for a GP cut

 

[brendy]

Ya see, I thought I read somewhere that you are only expected to hit handicap one in three or something along those lines.

 

[rosecott]

Ya see, I thought I read somewhere that you are only expected to hit handicap one in three or something along those lines.

In normal conditions 37-68% of Cat 1s expected to score SSS +2 or better. 16-30% of Cat 3s to do the same.
Sod's Law - no figures given for Cat 2s.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Ya see, I thought I read somewhere that you are only expected to hit handicap one in three or something along those lines.

Yeah I read that too, I seem, as you do, to be making a bit of a mockery of that this year.

 

[sev112]

i thought the 1 in 3 idea comes from 0.1 up 0.4 down relationship. ie over an extended period if you play to a consistent handicap (Cat 3) then you play to your handicap in circa 25% of the time.

I got cut frmo 11.2 to 9.6 this month as a general play reduction. The only cause of this was a Team Texas Scramble win on Captain's day, a 3over gross and a level par gross in General Play in 3 consecutive rounds.
Now i am hardly complaining as i've spent the last 3 years trying to get to 9.9 or below, so i am as pleased as punch, but i can't for the life of me work it out

 

[rosecott]

i thought the 1 in 3 idea comes from 0.1 up 0.4 down relationship. ie over an extended period if you play to a consistent handicap (Cat 3) then you play to your handicap in circa 25% of the time.

I got cut frmo 11.2 to 9.6 this month as a general play reduction. The only cause of this was a Team Texas Scramble win on Captain's day, a 3over gross and a level par gross in General Play in 3 consecutive rounds.
Now i am hardly complaining as i've spent the last 3 years trying to get to 9.9 or below, so i am as pleased as punch, but i can't for the life of me work it out

If you're happy with your cut - and most of us would be - say nothing and accept it with open arms. Your handicap committee should, however, put on record their reasons for the cut. The Texas Scramble should not be taken into account. Were the other 2 scores in qualifiers? If they weren't, they alone should not attract a cut but can be used as additional evidence together with qualifier performance. But, you're happy, they're happy, so don't rock the boat.