WHS doesn't work

[Swango1980]

The 4bbb mechanism actually uses verifiable scores.

I assume you weren't breaching the rules of individual stroke play, so your medal wasn't a "team game" where your playing partner(s) was directly affecting how you played or scored. As such, it isn't really relevant.

So, if I carve 2 balls out of bounds off the tee, but my team mate gets a par for 3 points, then I'd suddenly deserve my 1.5 points or whatever it is. Because my mates par is completely relevant to my score

 

[wjemather]

So, if I carve 2 balls out of bounds off the tee, but my team mate gets a par for 3 points, then I'd suddenly deserve my 1.5 points or whatever it is. Because my mates par is completely relevant to my score

What you "deserve" has nothing to do with it (especially in relation to one extreme example scenario, intended to provoke derision).
The mechanism is simply about generating an appropriate Score Differential.

 

[Swango1980]

What you "deserve" has nothing to do with it (especially in relation to one extreme example scenario, intended to provoke derision).
The mechanism is simply about generating an appropriate Score Differential.

There is nothing appropriate about it.

 

[Alan Clifford]

So, if I carve 2 balls out of bounds off the tee, but my team mate gets a par for 3 points, then I'd suddenly deserve my 1.5 points or whatever it is. Because my mates par is completely relevant to my score

It's a team game played on a base of individual handicaps. You need a mechanism to feed the team results back into the individual handicaps. From reading stuff here, it appears that there are cheats that took advantage of the fact that that reverse flow of data did not take place.

Whether you can defeat the cheats with arithmetic remains to be seen.

 

[Backsticks]

So, if I carve 2 balls out of bounds off the tee, but my team mate gets a par for 3 points, then I'd suddenly deserve my 1.5 points or whatever it is. Because my mates par is completely relevant to my score

Yes, exactly. While on such micro scale there would appear to be an anomaly, on a macro scale of your total round, there isnt.

 

[D-S]

I think it’s going to be interesting how the mega bandits will behave.
Crow’s example is a good one from earlier in the thread. I stress that there is no negative assertion about Crow in this example as he in fact would have liked to have his score made acceptable.

A score of 44 points with one player on the card 10 times for 21 points (this score would be scaled up to a maximum non acceptable 33 points) and Crow the other 8 times for 23. Obviously on this basis Crow did the real damage and would be the one who you would like to have cut, but with only 8 scores he couldn’t be. If he had entered just one more score on his card that equalled his partner’s he would have definitely been cut but they didn’t put any of his scores down. This is a perfect example, should you want one, of how to game this system.

 

[Swango1980]

You could have 2 big bandits playing together, who could both play very well and both score well into the 40's

However, one is unlikely to have their score count for handicap at all. The other may not have his score count on holes his partner gets a few 3 or 4 pointers, get 2 or 3 points themselves and have those reduced for handicap

 

[rulie]

Shifting the HI by a few tenths, or even by a little over 1, is not significant (because handicapping can never be that accurate), and only an exceptional score can do more than that.

Shifting the HI by a few tenths, or even by a little over 1, is not significant (because handicapping can never be that accurate), and only an exceptional score can do more than that.

But "machine precision" is required in the calculation? That certainly seems strange and a stretch!!

 

[wjemather]

But "machine precision" is required in the calculation? That certainly seems strange and a stretch!!

Accuracy refers to how close a handicap can be to it's true value (which is not very close due to the inherent inconsistencies of scoring in golf).
Machine precision is about maintaining differences between handicaps through the calculations.

 

[D-S]

Accuracy refers to how close a handicap can be to it's true value (which is not very close due to the inherent inconsistencies of scoring in golf).
Machine precision is about maintaining differences between handicaps through the calculations.

This would make some sense to me if a medal was won with say a gross 75 nett 68.32846, edging a nett 68.45281 into 2nd place but wins are measured by whole numbers or whole points or by countback not HI differentials (indeed we have moved away from decimal points in the only format it was used - Texas Scrambles). I am not sure the world would stop spinning if we got rid of unrounded values altogether but I stand happy to be corrected by those who have any sort of decent grasp of maths.

 

[wjemather]

This would make some sense to me if a medal was won with say a gross 75 nett 68.32846, edging a nett 68.45281 into 2nd place but wins are measured by whole numbers or whole points or by countback not HI differentials (indeed we have moved away from decimal points in the only format it was used - Texas Scrambles). I am not sure the world would stop spinning if we got rid of unrounded values altogether but I stand happy to be corrected by those who have any sort of decent grasp of maths.

Well, golf isn't played in fractions of a stroke.
Committees are free to break ties however they wish; that can be by fractions if they want (to give themselves a headache).

 

[rulie]

Accuracy refers to how close a handicap can be to it's true value (which is not very close due to the inherent inconsistencies of scoring in golf).
Machine precision is about maintaining differences between handicaps through the calculations.

We're not going to the moon here. Scores are integers.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Accuracy refers to how close a handicap can be to it's true value (which is not very close due to the inherent inconsistencies of scoring in golf).
Machine precision is about maintaining differences between handicaps through the calculations.

That reminds me of a geography field trip 50 years ago. We were on a coach in the Netherlands and a lecturer asked us to guess how big a polder was. I said 4000 acres. No, no it had to be in hectares. I said 2000 hectares. No, that wasn't correct and he proceeded to calculate 4000 acres into hectares. But it was a wild guess in the first place.

 

[wjemather]

We're not going to the moon here. Scores are integers.

Indeed, but two players with HIs differing by almost 2 having the same Playing Handicap doesn't make sense to anyone, but that is what happens without machine precision calculations.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Indeed, but two players with HIs differing by almost 2 having the same Playing Handicap doesn't make sense to anyone, but that is what happens without machine precision calculations.

Example?

 

[wjemather]

Example?

Slope=127, CR=Par, 95% allowance

Players with HIs between 8.5 and 10.2 all have Playing Handicaps of 10 when using the unrounded CH.
The same players have Playing Handicaps of 9 (up to 8.8), 10 (8.9 to 9.8) and 11 (9.9 and up) when using the unrounded CH.

 

[IanM]

Played a 4bbb today. One of the chaos pulled out his phone. Keyed in HIs into the calculator. Out popped the allowances.

One guy moaned all the way round that the figures were wrong.

 

[D-S]

Played a 4bbb today. One of the chaos pulled out his phone. Keyed in HIs into the calculator. Out popped the allowances.

One guy moaned all the way round that the figures were wrong.

Ooooh, if it was a casual golf 'machine precision' should not be used that is for competition golf (apparently the only golf that ever matters however trivial the comp).

You should be using the simpler rounded CH otherwise there will be an argument between two differing values and those that lose a stroke will be the ones moaning about the route to the answer taken.

 

[wjemather]

Played a 4bbb today. One of the chaos pulled out his phone. Keyed in HIs into the calculator. Out popped the allowances.

One guy moaned all the way round that the figures were wrong.

There's a lot of ambiguity in this.

 

[IanM]

There's a lot of ambiguity in this.

Is there? Why? Is the thing not working? Are we doing it wrong?

If the absence of the word "handicap" is the issue, as in "handicap calculator " is the cause, I didn't mean the phone calculator.

Your answer was a bit ambiguous