Texas Scramble Allowances

[NearHull]

You do know it is possible for things to be wrong - Maybe it’s another case of people making judgments from incorrect research or people doing the research not playing the game but either way the HC allowance for texas scramble wasn’t from going through clubs Texas scramble results - it was from looking at years of results from singles competitions .

Clubs will do whatever they want with Texas Scrambles at the end of the day - not really a recognised format

The notion that ‘Clubs will do whatever they want’ sits uneasily with me. If a club is affiliated to a National Organisation, it is bound by the rules of that organisation. The allowances are mandatory.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I can say from experience of running several Texas Scrambles where I play that the method of giving shots needed changing in some way.

My experience was definite 10% of combined favoured low handicappers particularly those teams with a big hitter in the team.

Simple maths and probability really
Team of four 5 handicappers 4x5=20 10% = 2 shots they are are probably looking at birdies or better on every hole 54 - 2 = 52
Team of four 20 handicappers 4x20=80 10%= 8 shots they are probably looking at parring or slightly better on every hole say 68 - 8 = 60

I'd agree with you Jim, but it's now massively swung the other way. When I saw the changes I did a few rough calcs, and said to my normal team (all 4-6 h'caps) that we weren't entering any until we saw how it played I expected scores we simply couldn't make, and that's how it's been. We won't enter scrambles unless clubs do their own handicap allowances.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Presumably England Golf. They were not directly involved. WHS did have tons of data.
Quote "Lots of number crunching from scores already within the handicap systems".

And how are texas scramble scores recorded in handicap systems? That suggests L-Phil is spot on, they looked at singles scoring and then guessed.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The notion that ‘Clubs will do whatever they want’ sits uneasily with me. If a club is affiliated to a National Organisation, it is bound by the rules of that organisation. The allowances are mandatory.

Until December 2020 the ruling bodies weren't interested in scrambles at all, "outwithh the rules of golf" was their sneering opinion. Now they#ve done a complete about face, and having previously ignored the format are now experts who are making mandatory decisions.

In a way I'm pleased. I hate scrambles, but so many clubs run them rather than Am-ams (which is a far superior team format), I'm hoping this is the beginning of the end and clubs switch to Am-Ams for their opens.

 

[rulefan]

I'm not

We won't enter scrambles unless clubs do their own handicap allowances.

And how accurately will such arbitrary allocation of allowance be?
Will you enter if it is 10%/15%/7.3% across the board? How do you or others decide what is the best formula with absolutely no information for a basis.

 

[moogie]

We had a texas scramble club comp today.
1st I've played in at our place.
They used the old 10% allowance
None of this, 25, 20, 15, 10......
No idea why....?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

We had a texas scramble club comp today.
1st I've played in at our place.
They used the old 10% allowance
None of this, 25, 20, 15, 10......
No idea why....?

Did you have a maximum shots allowance as well?

 

[moogie]

Did you have a maximum shots allowance as well?

No maximum

But it was open to all members, ladies & gents.....maybe it was done this way to avoid big numbers?

 

[bunkerblaster]

Thanks for all the replies. Clearly a contentious issue. The answer to my question appears to be the official allowances table does not cover mixed three and four ball teams. So we are going to stick with our modified old system which meant that 3 ball teams, who previously never won against the majority of 4 ball teams did have the odd win. Four attempts at a breaking putt appears to give a far better chance of success than three. So its Team of 4 divide total handicap by 10, min 4 drives each, Team of 3 divide total handicap by 6, minimum 5 drives each maximum 7. This seems to work well, and our scores will not be going via the ISV or EG platform. We always have low medium and high handicap teams.

Thanks

 

[rulefan]

Thanks for all the replies. Clearly a contentious issue. The answer to my question appears to be the official allowances table does not cover mixed three and four ball teams. So we are going to stick with our modified old system which meant that 3 ball teams, who previously never won against the majority of 4 ball teams did have the odd win. Four attempts at a breaking putt appears to give a far better chance of success than three. So its Team of 4 divide total handicap by 10, min 4 drives each, Team of 3 divide total handicap by 6, minimum 5 drives each maximum 7. This seems to work well, and our scores will not be going via the ISV or EG platform. We always have low medium and high handicap teams.

Thanks

What was wrong with the details in post #5 ?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'm not

And how accurately will such arbitrary allocation of allowance be?
Will you enter if it is 10%/15%/7.3% across the board? How do you or others decide what is the best formula with absolutely no information for a basis.

We've played a ton of Scrambles, we know which courses to play as they don't attract the really low handicaps, or suit our team make-up, we know the courses to avoid because scoring is always ridiculous, basically a ton more research than the governing bodies did when coming up with the new formula, it was clearly going to favour high handicapped teams, and so far every result I've seen has bourne that out.

We'll play if conditions suit, as I said it's a horrible form of golf, so hopefully this kills it off for better formats like am-ams and 4BBBs. (Used to be a ton of 4BBB opens here, now they are hen's teeth)

 

[Ross61]

We've played a ton of Scrambles, we know which courses to play as they don't attract the really low handicaps, or suit our team make-up, we know the courses to avoid because scoring is always ridiculous, basically a ton more research than the governing bodies did when coming up with the new formula, it was clearly going to favour high handicapped teams, and so far every result I've seen has bourne that out.

We'll play if conditions suit, as I said it's a horrible form of golf, so hopefully this kills it off for better formats like am-ams and 4BBBs. (Used to be a ton of 4BBB opens here, now they are hen's teeth)

I’ve always taken a scramble as a fun game. Obviously you take it extremely seriously.
we have several during the year, I turn up with my mid/high handicap friends and have a laugh and don’t even think about winning as the 10% allowances were ridiculous and gave us zero chance against the low handicappers. The only time I’ve played a scramble that was fair was in a field of 16/20 players that had been sorted that so each team handicap was within a stroke of each other

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I’ve always taken a scramble as a fun game. Obviously you take it extremely seriously.
we have several during the year, I turn up with my mid/high handicap friends and have a laugh and don’t even think about winning as the 10% allowances were ridiculous and gave us zero chance against the low handicappers. The only time I’ve played a scramble that was fair was in a field of 16/20 players that had been sorted that so each team handicap was within a stroke of each other

No we treat them as fun days out at the beginning and end of the season as we're members at different clubs, but we're also competitive, we're not going to play if the set up is wrong, this is wrong.

However I agree it used to favour low teams, it's now swung way too far the other way, which was obvious the minute the allowances were announced.

BTW, those who said above these were compulsory, that's not correct, they are recommended only. I note Fortrose & Rosemarkie are sticking with the traditional 10% for their upcoming Open

 

[wjemather]

BTW, those who said above these were compulsory, that's not correct, they are recommended only.

In case you missed it, see post #38.

To reiterate, while they are stated as recommended allowances in the Rules of Handicapping, CONGU's guidance on the RoH states the following...

GC (Appendix C): "The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory."​

The table in Appendix C includes allowances for 2-person and 4-person scrambles. CONGU's guidance also contains a recommendation for 3-person scrambles.

 

[Colin L]

However I agree it used to favour low teams, it's now swung way too far the other way, which was obvious the minute the allowances were announced.

On the basis of what calculation was it obvious?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

On the basis of what calculation was it obvious?

25/20/15/10

 

[Colin L]

25/20/15/10

Yes, we all know that is how the handicap is worked out.

But, on what basis have you calculated that the outcome of that calculation results in higher handicap sides being unduly favoured? It can't be on the results of actual competitions and so I assume it has to be on the basis of some calculation. If it weren't, then what else other than assumption?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Yes, we all know that is how the handicap is worked out.

But, on what basis have you calculated that the outcome of that calculation results in higher handicap sides being unduly favoured? It can't be on the results of actual competitions and so I assume it has to be on the basis of some calculation. If it weren't, then what else other than assumption?

It can't be on actual results? How else would you do it?

I calculated our old/new allowances, looked at how it would affect higher handicapped teams, looked at old results and how they'd change, guess fit? What was the expected outcome this year is the actual outcome, as everyone keeps saying. How weird eh? It's pretty simple arithmetic

 

[Colin L]

It couldn't be on actual results because there hadn't been any competitions under the new allowances at the minute the allowances were announced, the moment when it was supposedly obvious that it has over-compensated for a previous favouring of low handicappers. So from your work on results from competitions under the previous allowances, what was your measure of a swing that was " way too far the other way"?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

It couldn't be on actual results because there hadn't been any competitions under the new allowances at the minute the allowances were announced, the moment when it was supposedly obvious that it has over-compensated for a previous favouring of low handicappers. So from your work on results from competitions under the previous allowances, what was your measure of a swing that was " way too far the other way"?

Colin, there were texas scrambles last year