Matchplay and most likely score for handicap

[wjemather]

51% of something isnt "most likely." Or maybe it's "more likely" or "slightly more likely" or a tiny majority more likely.

But only just

There are more than two possible outcomes here (1 putt, 2 putt, 3 putt, 4 putt, ...), so "most likely" is grammatically correct.
"More likely" would be correct if comparing one outcome (1 putt) against all other possible outcomes (2 putt, 3 putt, 4 putt, ...) combined, but that isn't what is being done.

Since there are so many possible outcomes in our scenario, 1 putt could actually have a less than 50% probability and still be the "most likely" outcome; being over 50% simply guarantees that it is.

 

[IanM]

Sometimes it's like trying to do religious comedy in front of the Taliban!

 

[Backsticks]

Yes. Its a search for precision where there is none.

 

[Orikoru]

"Most likely" does not mean 100% or anything close to it.
Anything that happens over 50% of the time is the most likely result.

I think you're missing the point. He means that if 'most likely' is in operation, then that means you are now making 100% inside 5 feet.

 

[wjemather]

I think you're missing the point. He means that if 'most likely' is in operation, then that means you are now making 100% inside 5 feet.

No it doesn't. It simply means that whenever you are legitimately not required to hole out from within 5ft (which is not every time), you just add one stroke to those already played and move on. You aren't "making" these putts at all.

It's a methodology to produce acceptable scores that are reasonably accurate when holes are legitimately not completed, nothing more. It's basically the same as scaling up scores from fewer than 18 holes (you are not "making" any nett pars for these holes) or scaling-up 9-hole scores (you are not "making" 17 points on the other 9), yet these functions seem to be far more readily accepted.

 

[Orikoru]

No it doesn't. It simply means that whenever you are legitimately not required to hole out from within 5ft (which is not every time), you just add one stroke to those already played and move on. You aren't "making" these putts at all.

It's a methodology to produce acceptable scores that are reasonably accurate when holes are legitimately not completed, nothing more. It's basically the same as scaling up scores from fewer than 18 holes (you are not "making" any nett pars for these holes) or scaling-up 9-hole scores (you are not "making" 17 points on the other 9), yet these functions seem to be far more readily accepted.

Are they counting for handicap though??

You aren't "making" these putts at all.

No of course you didn't actually make it, but you're putting it down on the card as if you made it. Pedantry at it's finest there.

 

[wjemather]

Are they counting for handicap though??

Yes.

 

[Orikoru]

Yes.

That's nonsense then. No round with gimmes should ever count for handicap in my opinion.

 

[doublebogey7]

Well...my experience of matchplay would probably see me with a HI a good bit lower than my current 8.5. After my match today that finished on the 16th I was three over gross. I'm guessing I'd have finished bogey, par. So four over? As I afterwards mentioned to one of the pros in the shop - I play and score so much better in matchplay than I do in any individual strokeplay format. I'd be knackered for medals.

This is the very reason all formats should count for handicapping, players such as yourself have huge advantage in match play that is unfair to the rest if the field. Their are also players who score better in stroke play or singles and they suffer an unfair disadvantage in all formats.

 

[doublebogey7]

Now, that's an additional really interesting question

Regardless. Matchplay and Strokeplay have a different mind set and are played with a different "goal."

Even the Rules are different!

Then why apply a handicap garnered from Strokeplay only to Matchplay competition.

 

[D-S]

Then why apply a handicap garnered from Strokeplay only to Matchplay competition.

Due to the inaccuracy and greater ease of manipulation of a matchplay/team handicap (I.e. when the ball is not holed out and assumptions/estimations have to be made).

 

[doublebogey7]

For those against the idea of MLS, are you content with players who choose to play match play and/or 4ball competition only to clean up the prizes in those events and if not how should that be dealt with.

 

[Orikoru]

For those against the idea of MLS, are you content with players who choose to play match play and/or 4ball competition only to clean up the prizes in those events and if not how should that be dealt with.

Surely most clubs have rules in place by now saying players must have at least 8 active cards in the last year etc etc.

 

[doublebogey7]

Due to the inaccuracy and greater ease of manipulation of a matchplay/team handicap (I.e. when the ball is not holed out and assumptions/estimations have to be made).

The poster rightly said that matchplay requires a different mentality than stroke play. If so then we can conclude match play suits some players better than others. In which case the system we have at the moment penalises in both formats those that have a better mentality for Strokeplay.

 

[D-S]

For those against the idea of MLS, are you content with players who choose to play match play and/or 4ball competition only to clean up the prizes in those events and if not how should that be dealt with.

All sensible clubs will have a set number of cards in a given time frame to allow entry to matchplay and team comps. I much prefer this to the Wild West of ’non holed out’ handicaps that I have witnessed.

 

[Backsticks]

That's nonsense then. No round with gimmes should ever count for handicap in my opinion.

Even if the statistics say that more rounds submitted for HI calculation outweighs some assumptions and potential imprecisions in an individual card ?

 

[doublebogey7]

Surely most clubs have rules in place by now saying players must have at least 8 active cards in the last year etc etc.

Perhaps I should rephrase are you content that players clean up in a high number (30+) of those formats when a relatively small number of rounds are used for handicapping.

 

[Backsticks]

All sensible clubs will have a set number of cards in a given time frame to allow entry to matchplay and team comps. I much prefer this to the Wild West of ’non holed out’ handicaps that I have witnessed.

Its really only a wild west from a perspective of the tight tight UHS philosophy. Where accuracy of each card was prized over quantity. In the case of WHS, quantity of data points outweighs accuracy of an individual data point.

People are still thinking with UHS hats on.

 

[Orikoru]

Perhaps I should rephrase are you content that players clean up in a high number (30+) of those formats when a relatively small number of rounds are used for handicapping.

I've got no idea. But why do you think this would make any difference? A dedicated handicap manipulator would simply put more crap cards in to counter it.

 

[Orikoru]

Even if the statistics say that more rounds submitted for HI calculation outweighs some assumptions and potential imprecisions in an individual card ?

If people want to put 4 foot gimmes in on their handicap then that's up to them to be honest. Only cheating themselves really. I wouldn't do it because I want my handicap to be accurate.