Texas Scramble Allowances

[bunkerblaster]

The Allowances Table gives the following: From lowest to highest handicap 4 ball: 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%. 2 ball: 35% 15%.

Question: What would a sensible allowance be for a 3 ball? What about 30% 25% 20%?

We likely will have majority of 3 ball teams, but may have the odd 4 ball team, if number of players signed up is not divisible by 3. 4 ball, minimum 4 drives each, two floats, 3 ball, 5 drives each max 7.

This topic may have been discussed before, I have trawled through a couple of threads but cannot locate this specific info.

 

[wjemather]

The Allowances Table gives the following: From lowest to highest handicap 4 ball: 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%. 2 ball: 35% 15%.

Question: What would a sensible allowance be for a 3 ball? What about 30% 25% 20%?

We likely will have majority of 3 ball teams, but may have the odd 4 ball team, if number of players signed up is not divisible by 3. 4 ball, minimum 4 drives each, two floats, 3 ball, 5 drives each max 7.

This topic may have been discussed before, I have trawled through a couple of threads but cannot locate this specific info.

The allowances are intended for situations when all teams have an equal number of players. Having teams of variable sizes gets messy and creative solutions are needed.

One way to level things up is to setup as all 4-person teams, with the 3-person teams having a "ghost" 18-20 handicapper to boost their handicap by a couple of strokes. Some clubs will revert to the allowances used pre-WHS, e.g. 1/10 and 1/8 combined handicaps.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The allowances are intended for situations when all teams have an equal number of players. Having teams of variable sizes gets messy and creative solutions are needed.

One way to level things up is to setup as all 4-person teams, with the 3-person teams having a "ghost" 18-20 handicapper to boost their handicap by a couple of strokes. Some clubs will revert to the allowances used pre-WHS, e.g. 1/10 and 1/8 combined handicaps.

I think next season this will undoubtedly happen. The scores in Opens are ridiculous. We have one club scramble and already decided we're reverting back to 1/10th for it next year.

 

[wjemather]

I think next season this will undoubtedly happen. The scores in Opens are ridiculous. We have one club scramble and already decided we're reverting back to 1/10th for it next year.

Scores in scrambles are supposed to be ridiculous!

As I posted in another thread, the only scramble we have run finished with the best 3 teams within 0.2 strokes (team handicaps were not rounded by the software at the time - they are now) - one team was made up of low (sub-5) handicappers, one of 18+ handicappers and one fairly balanced - so we were quite happy with how the recommended allowances worked.

 

[jim8flog]

From the manual

Texas Scramble
The formula for a 4-player team scramble allowance is 25%/20%/15%/10% from lowest to highest Course Handicap.
For a 2-player team it is 35%/15%.
For a 3-player team CONGU recommends 30%/20%/10%.

 

[Colin L]

From the manual

Texas Scramble
The formula for a 4-player team scramble allowance is 25%/20%/15%/10% from lowest to highest Course Handicap.
For a 2-player team it is 35%/15%.
For a 3-player team CONGU recommends 30%/20%/10%.

Handicap allowances are mandatory, not just recommendations, by the way.

 

[Colin L]

I think next season this will undoubtedly happen. The scores in Opens are ridiculous. We have one club scramble and already decided we're reverting back to 1/10th for it next year.

On the basis of one scramble, and because you think the scores in a ridiculous format of golf are even more ridiculous than the ridiculous scores you probably had last year, you're going to revert to a handicap calculation which your competition management software won't be able to handle? All that matters is that the handicapping sorts out winners in an equitable manner and that the players enjoy themselves. Did you did find these percentages led to unreasonable and unfair results (although how do you judge reasonableness and fairness in a game that is in effect one of continuous and multiple mulligans). Did you find that the "wrong" people won? At what level do reasonable scores become ridiculous?

And in a general sort of way, is there anything about anything that actually pleases you?

 

[chrisd]

On the basis of one scramble, and because you think the scores in a ridiculous format of golf are even more ridiculous than the ridiculous scores you probably had last year, you're going to revert to a handicap calculation which your competition management software won't be able to handle? All that matters is that the handicapping sorts out winners in an equitable manner and that the players enjoy themselves. Did you did find these percentages led to unreasonable and unfair results (although how do you judge reasonableness and fairness in a game that is in effect one of continuous and multiple mulligans). Did you find that the "wrong" people won? At what level do reasonable scores become ridiculous?

And in a general sort of way, is there anything about anything that actually pleases you?

What we found using the new system was that the comp wasn't won by the low handicappers as was the case in most Texas scrambles .

 

[Deleted member 30522]

On the basis of one scramble

Sorry, thought I was clear that it's on the basis of many scrambles held so far, may have been a different topic. One at our club showed the same pattern

and because you think the scores in a ridiculous format of golf are even more ridiculous than the ridiculous scores you probably had last year

Yup, hate scrambles too, wish we could just bin ours entirely

you're going to revert to a handicap calculation which your competition management software won't be able to handle?

VMS will handle it fine, just enter different calculations to the recommended ones (which btw it couldn't handle and we had to calculate manually)

All that matters is that the handicapping sorts out winners in an equitable manner and that the players enjoy themselves.

correct, which is why we're not going with the clearly biased handicapping percentages

Did you did find these percentages led to unreasonable and unfair results (although how do you judge reasonableness and fairness in a game that is in effect one of continuous and multiple mulligans)

Yes

did you find that the "wrong" people won? At what level do reasonable scores become ridiculous?

Ah I see, you're incapable of being impartial, so nobody else can be?

And in a general sort of way, is there anything about anything that actually pleases you?

no need to be a dick

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Handicap allowances are mandatory, not just recommendations, by the way.

CONGU used to say that they would not rule on Texas Scrambles as they fell outside of the rules of golf.

Those "mandatory" percentages will not be being used at our club next year, and I suspect many others will do the same

 

[Colin L]

Could you explain the nature of the bias, please? In whose favour is it? How do these percentages bring it about? What analyses has your club done on which to base the decision to revert to the previous system? Can you share?

I'm not asking this as a challenge, but because I need to know more about the matter having only this week started doing my homework on scrambles and will shortly be having to advise on them. If you have some facts and figures you can share that would be really helpful. The very limited bit of number crunching I've done so far hasn't thrown up anything untoward.

 

[wjemather]

correct, which is why we're not going with the clearly biased handicapping percentages

Please direct us to any research and analysis there is (that is more thorough than that of the R&A, USGA and other bodies) to support this claim; and your claim that the results are unfair.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Could you explain the nature of the bias, please? In whose favour is it? How do these percentages bring it about? What analyses has your club done on which to base the decision to revert to the previous system? Can you share?

I'm not asking this as a challenge, but because I need to know more about the matter having only this week started doing my homework on scrambles and will shortly be having to advise on them. If you have some facts and figures you can share that would be really helpful. The very limited bit of number crunching I've done so far hasn't thrown up anything untoward.

Do it yourself, I've got nothing positive to say after all

 

[rulefan]

It is extremely unlikely that the R&A and USGA arbitrarily chose the various %age allowances for all formats of play. They would have done a significant amount of number crunching (either from simulated examples, real results or both). However, they may well have done some minor tuning within certain tolerances, to produce the 'rounded' figures more easily usable.
Given the resources available to them (people, computing facilities and most importantly, data) compared to those available to an individual golfer or a club, why would anyone want to second guess them?

 

[Colin L]

Do it yourself, I've got nothing positive to say after all

Will do. And will share.

 

[wjemather]

What we found using the new system was that the comp wasn't won by the low handicappers as was the case in most Texas scrambles .

Sounds like the new allowances are working well.

It's a shame that some people seem to think that higher handicappers winning anything (or even being in contention) is definitive proof that the system is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Please direct us to any research and analysis there is (that is more thorough than that of the R&A, USGA and other bodies) to support this claim; and your claim that the results are unfair.

Can you confirm how they have come to those HC allowances in a texas scramble when clubs have never sent any Texas scramble results into the governing bodies ?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

It is extremely unlikely that the R&A and USGA arbitrarily chose the various %age allowances for all formats of play. They would have done a significant amount of number crunching (either from simulated examples, real results or both). However, they may well have done some minor tuning within certain tolerances, to produce the 'rounded' figures more easily usable.
Given the resources available to them (people, computing facilities and most importantly, data) compared to those available to an individual golfer or a club, why would anyone want to second guess them?

I doubt they gave it much thought, it's a scramble, before this year they made on the format didn't even exist. They have included all sorts of tables, and yet have made no suggestion for one of the most common team variants, an Am-Am with varying number of scores to count on each hole. When I asked a SG official to clarify, they simply circled the table that is already available and doesn't answer the question.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Sounds like the new allowances are working well.

It's a shame that some people seem to think that higher handicappers winning anything (or even being in contention) is definitive proof that the system is wrong.

Ah, so you want research from me, but one anecdote to the contrary is conclusive? Bravo.

 

[wjemather]

Can you confirm how they have come to those HC allowances in a texas scramble when clubs have never sent any Texas scramble results into the governing bodies ?

Do you know this, or can you only confirm this for your club/local area?