PCC adjustment

[Swango1980]

More GP than comps but I'll often play on a day when I don't enter a comp for whatever reason
Plus we get somewhere in the region of 30 or 40 GP cards per day when there isn't a comp on.

Not sure what your club is like, but I know of a few people who still only put a GP score in if they score well, and manage to scrap the round if they play poorly. Both vanity handicap golfers, one with an Index of +0.2, the other 18.2. I only know a small % of golfers, and of all the golfers I do know, I don't track their daily scores and intentions all year. So, this sort of behavior might be more common that just a couple of golfers within a club membership.

So, on days when there are no club competitions, it would be interesting to see what the submitted scores are like. Does PCC change to +1 or +2 more regularly on competition days than it does non-competition days? And, on non-competition days, are there a reasonable proportion of golfers who are submitting good scores, but a good number of other golfers managing not to submit scores at all, but only making that decision after the round?

 

[Backache]

I would strongly suspect that PCC would change less often on non competition days not because of any manipulation but because there are fewer cards returned.

 

[Swango1980]

I would strongly suspect that PCC would change less often on non competition days not because of any manipulation but because there are fewer cards returned.

I'd have thought it would have looked at the proportional split of scores mainly, and thus as long as the minimum number of scores were entered to allow PCC adjustment, then the overall number submitted would make little difference?

Except, maybe on days where the weather is dodgy for a period. Because in that case, players in competitions have no choice to enter a score, whereas social golfers may choose not to (or maybe not even play at all)

 

[Backache]

I'd imagine that the number of scores entered on non competition days wold often not be enough to allow for any statistical analysis that is worthwhile.
Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Swango1980]

I'd imagine that the number of scores entered on non competition days wold often not be enough to allow for any statistical analysis that is worthwhile.
Maybe I'm wrong.

I thought that is why PCC only kicked in when a minimum number were submitted, so that there were enough to analyze.

 

[3offTheTee]

below was my original question:

Not sure whether there is an exact definition but should like clarification how it is calculated?

I have not received a definite answer but WJEM said about scores being between 3 and 4 over par. There were NO other General Play scores on the day. 34% of total entries were 4 over par.

It is no big deal and I have no issues with PCC. However everything in Golf is cut and dried but PCC seems shrouded in mystery!

 

[jim8flog]

I'd imagine that the number of scores entered on non competition days wold often not be enough to allow for any statistical analysis that is worthwhile.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Like others have said about their clubs we get 40 -50 general play cards a day , more cards than we get in some comps.

 

[jim8flog]

There were NO other General Play scores on the day. 34% of total entries were 4 over par.

I presume from this comment you have access to the WHS portal, to the best of my knowledge the only was to ascertain the number of GP scores on a day. Or have you asked someone with access to tell you the number?

 

[3offTheTee]

I presume from this comment you have access to the WHS portal, to the best of my knowledge the only was to ascertain the number of GP scores on a day. Or have you asked someone with access to tell you the number?

Does it matter how I know. Why not take my word for what I have said.

 

[rulefan]

below was my original question:

Not sure whether there is an exact definition but should like clarification how it is calculated?

I have not received a definite answer but WJEM said about scores being between 3 and 4 over par. There were NO other General Play scores on the day. 34% of total entries were 4 over par.

It is no big deal and I have no issues with PCC. However everything in Golf is cut and dried but PCC seems shrouded in mystery!

The PCC calculation has not been published. It seems unlikely that the R&A or USGA ever will.

 

[3offTheTee]

The PCC calculation has not been published. It seems unlikely that the R&A or USGA ever will.

Thank you for such a concise reply. Really appreciated

 

[Steven Rules]

below was my original question:

Not sure whether there is an exact definition but should like clarification how it is calculated?

I have not received a definite answer but WJEM said about scores being between 3 and 4 over par. There were NO other General Play scores on the day. 34% of total entries were 4 over par.

It is no big deal and I have no issues with PCC. However everything in Golf is cut and dried but PCC seems shrouded in mystery!

In fairness, you asked two questions in post #1, and post #2 pretty much answered your first question in the same way as, but in different words to, post #30.

 

[rosecott]

The issues with PCC, rather than the previous CONGU adjustment for conditions, include the following

1. Calculation includes all scores returned that day, not just single competition field.
2. Calculation compares all scores with expected, normal, scoring distribution. Previously only the scores to the right of the normal distribution curve were considered and it was a lot easier to get a feel for things with a snapshot of the % players playing to buffer (as was).

The commonality is, as has been indicated already, that the number of players scoring better than 'par'/ CR etc isn't in itself important.

Duncan

Welcome back. Where have you been? A welcome return of some common sense.

 

[3offTheTee]

In fairness, you asked two questions in post #1, and post #2 pretty much answered your first question in the same way as, but in different words to, post #30.

We may be talking semantics her SR but I do not think point 1 was answered in post 2. However I accept what RF said. I do not however understand why all the secrecy but move on. there are bigger problems in the world than how PCC is calculated!

 

[rulefan]

We may be talking semantics her SR but I do not think point 1 was answered in post 2. However I accept what RF said. I do not however understand why all the secrecy but move on. there are bigger problems in the world than how PCC is calculated!

The secrecy is primarily about Intellectual Property Rights and the possibility/probability of competitive handicapping systems claiming full parity. I guess the 9 hole score process falls into the same category

 

[Swango1980]

The secrecy is primarily about Intellectual Property Rights and the possibility/probability of competitive handicapping systems claiming full parity. I guess the 9 hole score process falls into the same category

I'm sure if anyone wanted to go to the effort of setting up a competitive handicap system, the fact they do not know how PCC is calculated is hardly going to set them back? Maybe they could just derive their own parameter to deal with daily conditions, and even explain how it works to give people a little bit of confidence?

 

[clubchamp98]

Does it matter how I know. Why not take my word for what I have said.

There was a tread on this last year I think!

It’s a secret algorithm nobody knows.

As you say golf is cut and dried but not this.

 

[IanM]

The answer is in post 35.

Stops someone else copying and claiming parity.

Although it also makes user engagement harder to achieve

 

[rulefan]

The answer is in post 35.

Stops someone else copying and claiming parity.

Although it also makes user engagement harder to achieve

Did you ever check how the CSS was calculated and if it was correct?

 

[IanM]

Did you ever check how the CSS was calculated and if it was correct?

Of course not! But folk thought they had a gut feel for when it changed! (Impossible to test the accuracy of their feeling!)

When pcc came in, many folk thought it was the css replacement and were expecting similar behaviour. Initially, it virtually "never" seemed to change. Hence the anxt!

Remember, dealing with feelings and perception here, not cold hard fact.