PCC to be reviewed

[rulefan]

Do we know how the "expected score" is derived?

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?

Your 'expected scoring range' will probably be between 72 to 91 or even 65 to 95

But the PCC is only interested in the %age of players who play within their range.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

• On days when the conditions are perceived to be difficult but there is no adjustment for PCC, this will be because a significant number of players have scored within their expected range
• It is not just weather that can cause scores to be higher or lower than expected, as course conditions and course set up also play a key role and can contribute to a PCC adjustment (or lack of it)
• Players are not expected to play to their handicap every time they go out, and this is reflected in the player’s expected scoring range that is used for the PCC

Just reviewing this thread. My understanding is that the player's 'expected scoring range' was not a function of CSS. CSS only considered the %age of players in a handicap range (category).

1. The old "scoring range" was hitting buffer or better
2. Yup, same again
3. Yup, buffer scores helped reduce/increase CSS, now "expected range" helps keep PCC static.

So all points apply equally to CSS/PCC as I'd just said to you, the wording is different, and what those scores are are different, but it comes down to the same, Scores/Weather/Playing Conditions

 

[wjemather]

Do we know how the "expected score" is derived?

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?

Yes. We do not have the specifics, but we do know the methodology because it's in the rulebook.

And no. Without the necessary data and statistical analysis (which has not been published), and the expected range and adjustment boundary parameters (also not published) we cannot do the calculations for ourselves, although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to, so cannot know what any given expected range is or manually calculate PCC.

The methodology:
First a standard deviation of scores for each individual on the course being played is calculated; the expected range of scores for each is (presumably) the median x% of this. PCC is then assessed by calculating the proportion of returned scores within/better/worse than the expected ranges; and looking up what the adjustment should be.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Your 'expected scoring range' will probably be between 72 to 91 or even 65 to 95

Exactly, you've no idea because it's a big secret, so we don't know if it works as expected, but we do know it almost never changes, and therefore isn't working as it SHOULD

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Where do you get the assertion that everyone is making an argument against PCC. As far as I can tell there are very few people who ever give it a thought, never mind care enough to want to know how it works or argue about it. And the few that do seem to be to ones who didn’t want a change from the old system.

I’ve honestly not played with anyone who has mentioned PCC, and I play somewhere where the wind can be brutal and make scoring very difficult.

I guess in Scotland we take more interest then, it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens. Maybe change your 4-ball and speak to others?

 

[wjemather]

1. The old "scoring range" was hitting buffer or better
2. Yup, same again
3. Yup, buffer scores helped reduce CSS, now "expected range" helps keep PCC static.

So all points apply equally to CSS/PCC as I'd just said to you, the wording is different, and what those scores are are different, but it comes down to the same, Scores/Weather/Playing Conditions

However, buffer was not an "expected" scoring range.

 

[rulefan]

Yes. We do not have the specifics, but we do know the methodology because it's in the rulebook.

And no. Without the necessary data and statistical analysis (which has not been published), and the expected range and adjustment boundary parameters (also not published) we cannot do the calculations for ourselves, although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to, so cannot know what any given expected range is or manually calculate PCC.

The methodology:
First a standard deviation of scores for each individual on the course being played is calculated; the expected range of scores for each is (presumably) the median x% of this. PCC is then assessed by calculating the proportion of returned scores within/better/worse than the expected ranges; and looking up what the adjustment should be.

Further, we do not know the expected scoring range(s) for all the other players.

 

[Foxholer]

...
So all points apply equally to CSS/PCC as I'd just said to you, the wording is different, and what those scores are are different, but it comes down to the same, Scores/Weather/Playing Conditions

I disagree!
Under UHS, every score counts.
Under WHS, only the best 40% (of last 20) count.
Attempting to equate every comp was important under UHS. Under WHS, it's far less important.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I guess in Scotland we take more interest then, it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens. Maybe change your 4-ball and speak to others?

I don’t have a 4 ball. I only know one other member and my son to play with regularly. Every other time I play it’s with different people.

Maybe down here we just play golf to enjoy it, rather than looking for something else to be grumpy about, and try to shoot the best we can without needing to know what to score to manage our HI.

 

[Foxholer]

... it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens....

Quelle surprise!

 

[rulefan]

Quelle surprise!

I wonder who initiates the topic?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Further, we do not know the expected scoring range(s) for all the other players.

Yes again, we know, that's the point, it's all a mystery

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I wonder who initiates the topic?

It's a mystery

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I don’t have a 4 ball. I only know one other member and my son to play with regularly. Every other time I play it’s with different people.

Maybe down here we just play golf to enjoy it, rather than looking for something else to be grumpy about, and try to shoot the best we can without needing to know what to score to manage our HI.

I'm competitive, we have quite a small core of playing members, on the whole very competitive, to the extent we had to have a meeting to diiscuss the comings and goings of WHS this year just a couple months back.

Then playing Opens you're really playing with like minded pretty competitive folks, and obviously come across another tranche during inter-club matches, so yeah I imagine we have different triggers for enjoyment.

It begs the question why you're making so many comments on this topic when it doesn't bother you?

 

[IanM]

I guess in Scotland we take more interest then, it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens. Maybe change your 4-ball and speak to others?

I am not so sure, it is a standard remark at our club about "crikey what has to happen before PCC goes up??" Then there's usually remarks about Alien Invasion, Earthquakes etc...." All in good humour though.

I am now expecting detailed explanation of how failing to compete your round "due to being vaporised by death ray" impacted both CSS and PCC!

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I'm competitive, we have quite a small core of playing members, on the whole very competitive, to the extent we had to have a meeting to diiscuss the comings and goings of WHS this year just a couple months back.

Then playing Opens you're really playing with like minded pretty competitive folks, and obviously come across another tranche during inter-club matches, so yeah I imagine we have different triggers for enjoyment.

It begs the question why you're making so many comments on this topic when it doesn't bother you?

Brilliant. That sounds like the makings of a Little Britain sketch.

I played in a fair few club comps and some opens last year. Not once was PCC mentioned. I presume you are the instigator of these conversations?

The more complaints I read about WHS on here the more I’m convinced that some don’t like it because they can’t figure out how to manage their handicap like they used to.

I’m not really sure what being very competitive has to do with anything. Statements like that just reinforce my opinion above.
Maybe I’m not competitive enough to understand ??‍

 

[rulefan]

It's a mystery

You should take more note of the context. But I'm sure you really understood that I was referring to posts #205 and #210.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm competitive, we have quite a small core of playing members, on the whole very competitive, to the extent we had to have a meeting to diiscuss the comings and goings of WHS this year just a couple months back.
...

Being 'competitive' has very little to do with whether WHS works 'as required'!
Here's a document that might assist https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/00012871-source.pdf
Note also that GA states here that PCC formulae are 'quite conservative'. https://www.golf.org.au/whs/
I expect it'll be extremely difficult to convince any single administrative body to change the calculation! It wouldn't be a 'WHS' if they did!
My expectation is that, irrespective of whether an actual review is undertaken, the answer will be along the lines of 'working as required; go away'! It is, after all the latest calculation and is used specifically for WHS. The CSS calc was specific to the Congu and is therefore irrelevant to WHS.

 

[wjemather]

Further, we do not know the expected scoring range(s) for all the other players.

However we do know that, on average, approximately 20% of the most recent 20 scores will be better than handicap (HI is best 8 from 20, so on average 4 will be higher and 4 lower); in other words 80% will be worse than handicap. We can therefore deduce that in order for "playing to handicap" to be included in the expected scoring range, it would need to cover the median 60% (of the standard deviation) as a minimum. As a result it would cover scores that are substantially worse than handicap; even for a fairly consistent scratch golfer this would include scores of 3 or 4 over handicap, and for bogey golfers it would include scores of 6 or more over handicap.

All this is only theorising of course (and based on a little analysis of returned scores from players of various handicaps), but assuming the expected range is based on median %, it's clear that it would not have to be extended by very much to include much higher scores. Of course the expected range could be offset (e.g. 15% lower, 60% exp. range, 25% higher), but that would seem to defeat the purpose.

 

[rulefan]

Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much,

From Golf Australia.

• With the vast majority of Australia’s golfers playing in coastal cities that are prone to variable weather conditions, it is particularly important for Australia to have a handicap system that is sufficiently flexible to cater for daily movements in playing conditions. If we don’t, we end up processing scores against inaccurate ratings, and that makes handicaps inaccurate.