WHS doesn't work

[IanM]

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.

We've been given an app to use, we're using the blooming app. Folk have got confused enough about how to work out allowances.

We've gone to play golf, not resit A Level Maths

 

[wjemather]

Without knowing the format of play, what "the calculator" refers to, and what the dissenter thought was being done wrong, it's impossible to say what was right/wrong.

But if the answers came from an official handicap calculator (union, r&a, ig, etc.), then they (probably/hopefully) weren't wrong.

 

[D-S]

Without knowing the format of play, what "the calculator" refers to, and what the dissenter thought was being done wrong, it's impossible to say what was right/wrong.

But if the answers came from an official handicap calculator (union, r&a, ig, etc.), then they (probably/hopefully) weren't wrong.

But if it was casual golf shouldn't rounded CH be used not machine precision, assuming it was calculator from a licensed ISV?

If not, who chooses between the rounded and unrounded outcome?

 

[wjemather]

But if it was casual golf shouldn't rounded CH be used not machine precision, assuming it was calculator from a licensed ISV?

If not, who chooses between the rounded and unrounded outcome?

In casual golf, you can do whatever you agree amongst yourselves.

 

[IanM]

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.

Are you saying you work it out manually unless a comp? Where dues it say that? (Other than on here)

 

[D-S]

Are you saying you work it out manually unless a comp? Where dues it say that? (Other than on here)

My view is that the powers at be don't care at all about casual golf and you can do what you want (despite the fact that there are mandatory allowances for all sorts of 'non golf' like Scrambles) but as the post above yours says you can choose to do it either way and the devil take the hindmost - probably the ones who get a an extra shot dependent on which way you choose, so in effect you could say that both parties in conflict in your 4 ball were right.
Clever isn't it?

 

[Backsticks]

My view is that the powers at be don't care at all about casual golf

I thought they wanted qualifying scores if you stray even close to a 1st tee ?

 

[IanM]

No wonder folk are confused. Reading back through this is comedy gold.

I think we're using the (Intelligent Golf) App for consistency, speed of calculation and removal of the need to give it the sort of forensic debate ongoing in pages such as these.

This forum is increasingly becoming unhelpful.

 

[wjemather]

No wonder folk are confused. Reading back through this is comedy gold.

I think we're using the App for consistency, speed of calculation and removal of the need to give it the sort of forensic debate ongoing in pages such as these.

This forum is increasingly becoming unhelpful.

If you have a trusted app provided by an authority or club software provider to do the calculations for you, then it makes sense to use it.

If you have a random spreadsheet that someone created at home, then it probably shouldn't be used.

There are several people who are only seeking to confuse matters.

 

[Alan Clifford]

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.

8.5 * 127/113 = 9.5530973451 approx.; 8.5 * 127/113 * .95 = 9.0754424779 which rounds to 9; With CH rounding 9.6 * .95 = 9.12 which rounds to 9

10.2 * 127/113 =11.4637168142 approx.; 10.2* 127/113 * .95 = 10.8905309735 which rounds to 11; With CH rounding 11.5 * .95 = 10.925 which rounds to 11

So no change by using "machine precision". Please correct me id I am wrong.

But if they use machine precision for that final stage, surely they should not be using 8.5 and 10.2 for the handicap indexes. To be consistent, they should take a machine precision average of the last 8 differentials which have been stored or calculated on the fly to "machine precision". It's all this inconsistency that irritates me. Although, if the South African system is typical, EG are not actually using 8.5 and 10.2 for the handicap indexes but we just don't know about it.

 

[wjemather]

8.5 * 127/113 = 9.5530973451 approx.; 8.5 * 127/113 * .95 = 9.0754424779 which rounds to 9; With CH rounding 9.6 * .95 = 9.12 which rounds to 9

10.2 * 127/113 =11.4637168142 approx.; 10.2* 127/113 * .95 = 10.8905309735 which rounds to 11; With CH rounding 11.5 * .95 = 10.925 which rounds to 11

So no change by using "machine precision". Please correct me id I am wrong.

You have rounded the Course Handicaps to 1 decimal place instead of integers.

 

[IanM]

Aka "whole numbers!"

While arguing about multiple places of decimal on the first tee, I assume you stand aside for folk who have come to play golf?

 

[Alan Clifford]

You have rounded the Course Handicaps to 1 decimal place instead of integers.

OK, one goes from 9 to 10 and one from 11 to 10. Although I don't think that is too bad, I am actually on machine precision side. I just wish it were specified properly where and how, starting from gross scores, how everything is calculated and where rounding takes place.

 

[wjemather]

OK, one goes from 9 to 10 and one from 11 to 10. Although I don't think that is too bad, I am actually on machine precision side. I just wish it were specified properly where and how, starting from gross scores, how everything is calculated and where rounding takes place.

My example isn't the most egregious, it's simply the most common we encountered at our club before April 1st, but it still shows HIs differing by 1.7 giving the same PH.

All places where rounding and truncating takes place is detailed in the manual.

 

[Swango1980]

Confusion in our competition today from many.

The club print out labels, with Course and Playing Handicaps. Many players had a different playing handicap on the label, compared to what howdidido gave them when entering score.

For example, my Course Handicap was 11, Playing Handicap 10 on label. But, computer gave me a Playing Handicap of 11.

I assume this is the Machine Precision issue. But it is perplexing to many. Even MyEG will give Course Handicap as a whole number. So most golfers will see a CH of a whole number, and wonder why the computer is getting the 95% bit wrong.

I sense we'll be spending the next 5 years explaining Machine Precision to club golfers, and begging MyEG to display CH as a decimal, so anyone who cares to check the 95% actually gets the right answer.

 

[wjemather]

Confusion in our competition today from many.

The club print out labels, with Course and Playing Handicaps. Many players had a different playing handicap on the label, compared to what howdidido gave them when entering score.

For example, my Course Handicap was 11, Playing Handicap 10 on label. But, computer gave me a Playing Handicap of 11.

I assume this is the Machine Precision issue. But it is perplexing to many. Even MyEG will give Course Handicap as a whole number. So most golfers will see a CH of a whole number, and wonder why the computer is getting the 95% bit wrong.

I sense we'll be spending the next 5 years explaining Machine Precision to club golfers, and begging MyEG to display CH as a decimal, so anyone who cares to check the 95% actually gets the right answer.

There seem to be some lingering problems with ClubV1 and comps created (or comps cloned from comps created) before April 1st.

 

[Alan Clifford]

All places where rounding and truncating takes place is detailed in the manual.

I found that not to be the case with the South African system.

 

[AussieKB]

Played yesterday and shot 7 over par, too many beers I think, only 2 over after 11 holes, went out point 9, just in time for my England trip,
looks like WHS has worked for me.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If you have a trusted app provided by an authority or club software provider to do the calculations for you, then it makes sense to use it.

If you have a random spreadsheet that someone created at home, then it probably shouldn't be used.

There are several people who are only seeking to confuse matters.

I created a spreadsheet for calculating 18 hole score differentials from 9 hole scores that was correct when DotGolf got it wrong.
All apps and spreadsheets are created by people. Some people get it right and some get it wrong. That is the random element.

 

[Backsticks]

On US attitudes to gimmees, from a north American forum, the following as a by-the-way indicates where they are coming from with holing putts being a curio rather than people frowning at gimmees for qualifying cards (discussing flag in/out for putting) like some still do here :

brian7770​

Joined Nov 15, 2020 Messages1,672 Reaction score1,368 Location Central Ohio Handicap19.​

I played in a "mediocre" tournament, and we are required to hole the putts. I had one that hit the stick dead center but didn't go in. After that, I've been more likely to remove the stick on shorter putts.