Odds of a 9 handicap shooting par

[OGputtnfool]

Where is that chart that was posted showing the odds of a given handicap shooting different scores? I can't remember what thread it was in.

 

[copenhagerman]

This the chart you are looking for?

 

[pattyboy21]

This is an article I remember reading at the time and it made a lot of sense: “Steady Eddie vs. Wild Bill”, Lambrino PhD, James, Golf Magazine, April, 1999 Vol. 41, No. 4, pg.184

A "Wild Bill" has a larger dispersion in scores, and would have a much better chance of shooting par as a 9-handicap than a "Steady Eddie" would.

 

[kevin81002]

That chart goes to show that the handicap system favors the higher cap golfers. An 8 index golfer has a 2800:1 chance of shooting net -7, while a 20 indexer has like a 300:1 chance. Crazy

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[BuckNasty]

That chart goes to show that the handicap system favors the higher cap golfers. An 8 index golfer has a 2800:1 chance of shooting net -7, while a 20 indexer has like a 300:1 chance. Crazy

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I do agree that the chart shows how it favors high cappers, but an 8 index is 850:1 odds to go net -7, not 2800:1 (0-4.9 index).

 

[kevin81002]

I do agree that the chart shows how it favors high cappers, but an 8 index is 850:1 odds to go net -7, not 2800:1 (0-4.9 index).

Yup, I was looking down the wrong line. Still crazy that the odds are stacked against the lower index in a system set to make it fair for all skill levels.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[BuckNasty]

Yup, I was looking down the wrong line. Still crazy that the odds are stacked against the lower index in a system set to make it fair for all skill levels.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This is why most competitive formats take a % of cap (usually 75-80%, which may not even be enough of a haircut to even out the odds).

 

[kevin81002]

This is why most competitive formats take a % of cap (usually 75-80%, which may not even be enough of a haircut to even out the odds).

They take a percentage usually for different formats or team play. Every singles stroke play event I've played has always been 100% of your course handicap. The deck is stacked against us single digits. lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[BuckNasty]

They take a percentage usually for different formats or team play. Every singles stroke play event I've played has always been 100% of your course handicap. The deck is stacked against us single digits. lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Haha that is true, that problem is usually solved by flighting the field. Combined fields for stroke play at 100% cap definitely favors the high capper, especially the erratic high (shot anywhere from 85-105) compared to a guy shooting 90 consistently.

 

[OGputtnfool]

This the chart you are looking for?

Exactly. Thanks.

 

[NoGoal]

Yup, I was looking down the wrong line. Still crazy that the odds are stacked against the lower index in a system set to make it fair for all skill levels.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

And why I am stingy giving high handicappers strokes, especially if it’s a match play format. The odds of a high capper shooting below their handicap is better than mine.

If they insist on the full strokes, then we are playing the black tees!

 

[Stemmy66]

That chart goes to show that the handicap system favors the higher cap golfers. An 8 index golfer has a 2800:1 chance of shooting net -7, while a 20 indexer has like a 300:1 chance. Crazy

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Hater..... stop hitting so well and your odds get better ????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kenomikes]

I’m not even looking at any posts above this, I’m a 8.7 and I could shoot even par I think again lol.

Been close this year on easy courses but not on
legit layouts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kevin81002]

Hater..... stop hitting so well and your odds get better ????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The cap is creepin up after entering scores from Tahoe.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[kevin81002]

And why I am stingy giving high handicappers strokes, especially if it’s a match play format. The odds of a high capper shooting below their handicap is better than mine.

If they insist on the full strokes, then we are playing the black tees!

One of the guys in my weekly skins game is a 15hcp, and regularly mops the floor with us. He'll end up with most of the skins and junk dots on the front, and runs out of steam down the stretch. But he has dropped a couple rounds in the high 70s on us.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rollin]

Since you all talking the system favoring higher cappers here is some opinion and news.

The scoring pendulum may swing further up and down for higher capers but thats more about when shooting further below their average score not so much below their handicap. Plus even considering further below average score the odds are drastically lower they do it more than one round at a time anyway. Plus with their wider range of scoring you also have the other way where as they tend to score much further above their average too.

The higher cappers HC is often also filled with rounds scores consisting of esc holes (possible very many) and even so in many their better scored rounds too. The lower cappers HC is closer to their average true scoring without nearly as many esc holes tainting the formula to lower the cap for HC calculation. The system (sandbagging aside) imo actually favors the lower player in large part due to that and also the higher cappers wide scoring range. It is harder for an honest (non sandbagger) higher capper to win as he needs to be on their very best. Both high and low shoot an average round and the low has the advantage to win because the higher is likely sporting a cap further below their average score than the lower player. Plus the odds of him blowing up are much more dominant.

As caps increase so does the population of players. and so it only makes sense that less lower cappers win just due to the numbers. Id bet if you divide the number of players by cap in 5 cap increments...say (0 to 4, 5-10, 11-15, etc we would find the same percentage of winners from each group. Not same amount but same percentage and maybe even find a higher percentage the lower it gets. But unfortunately sandbagging will throw that math out the window. But thats not the fault of the system favoring higher cappers and is simply just people cheating the system. The system imo when honest actually slightly favors lower and it should because well...they are better.

Copied the below from an article fwiw
Handicaps 103
The most dangerous opponents; who has the edge; where you get strokes, The last of three parts

In parts one and two, we outlined the inner workings of handicaps. In this final part, we suggest ways to make them work for you.

Although handicaps are supposed to equalize matches, it's not always true, is it?

Unfortunately not. The scale is tipped in favor of the better player.

The way the formula works, for every six strokes difference in handicap, the better player has a one-stroke advantage, because the lower handicapper is more likely to play at or near his handicap than the high handicapper.

In a match between an eight handicapper and a 14 handicapper, the better player is giving away six strokes, yet the odds are still 60-40 that he will win the match.

Why?

As we explained in part one ("Handicaps 101," Apr., p. 97), the USGA set up its system to favor better players. Its philosophy is that handicaps should be based on potential rather than average ability.

Back to the math. In part one, when we told you how to figure your handicap, it was explained that after determining your differentials, using course rating and slope, the result is multiplied .096. To be truly equal, the result would have to be multiplied by .10'7. The lower number keeps the advantage with the better player.

 

[kevin81002]

Sorry, but through past experiences, and that chart showing the odds, I don't agree. A higher handicapper has more potential and room to shoot a low net score. The higher capper also has more room to improve. For example, a friend of mine started playing with us on Saturdays. He was a 22 index through the first year of playing with us. Through practice, equipment and a couple lessons, he's now down to a 15 index and still dropping. Nobody had to like it when the 22 index started shooting in the high 80s consistently. Another scenario... I had a 17 index shoot 83 against me in match play. I was -3 net at the turn and was still down 4. And I was closed out by the 13th. Again, this is a guy I play with every weekend and usually pick his pockets. His index is legit. But on a good day, the higher cap will always have more room to go net low.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[joebute]

Agree that in general, in one-on-one matchups, a better player probably has an advantage more often than not (against a higher handicapper). This thread is more about a one-off exceptional score, though, and that definitely happens more often for high handicappers. If it's a high handicapper that's also steadily improving, then all bets are off...

 

[OGputtnfool]

That chart is making my head hurt. Looking at the -1.0 differential line, how is it that a 0 has a 7.6:1, then a 5 has 7.2:1, then a 10 has a 7.2:1, and then a 15 has an 8.3:1 chance? Seems it should be more linear than that... 7, 7.4, 7.8, 8.2, etc...

 

[joebute]

Also, I think the chart is comparing the 'differential' of the round against a player's index. So the odds will also be skewed by course rating. Earlier this year I shot a -1 as a 6 index, which may look like a once in a lifetime round, but the course rating was 68. So in reality, that differential (~2), was only 4 shots less than my index - so odds of 1:56. More like a once a year type of round.

 

[MizunoStriker]

Great responses to this post. I will forever despise the handicapping system as someone who has worked very hard to have a low handicap (+1 USGA). In my opinion, the "Play It Forward" method of leveling the game is the fairest way to make the game even for most skill levels. Each year I have an opportunity to the test with a group of buddies who find themselves playing from the white tees while I play tipped out. I'm not a particularly long driver over the ball (280), especially when playing a track that is 7400+ yards long, second shots become very demanding. On average, our second shots have me pulling a long iron (3 -5 iron) whereas my playing partners (who are good players) are pulling nothing more than an 8 iron and usually a PW.

During the summer we meet up at Prairie Dunes in Hutchinson, KS and from the back tees, I shot a 77, while my buddies ranged in scores from 80 - 88. Their handicaps range from 9 - 30. Play it forward works well for us.

 

[Canadan]

I used to play in a 30 dollar Saturday morning game (genuinely too rich for my blood which is why I stopped). I could usually get back half my money with a skin here and there, but at the end of the day, of the 16 guys there was always one who shot in the mid 60s to win the net monies. As much as I enjoyed playing with that group, as a +3 that would mean I'd have to shoot a 62 (almost our course record) to compete. These are all honest guys and we do not play maximums for the game (so once you "X" a hole you're out).

I've also played with a lot of higher handicap players who have specific flaws (tee game, short game, etc). Every once in a while they strike lightning and have a great day and shoot well below their cap. It's definitely not unheard of, especially if it's an irregular course (to their handicap construction) or a set of tees that are more manageable than where they've built their handicap. It's definitely out there to be had.

 

[rollin]

Sorry, but through past experiences, and that chart showing the odds, I don't agree. A higher handicapper has more potential and room to shoot a low net score. The higher capper also has more room to improve. For example, a friend of mine started playing with us on Saturdays. He was a 22 index through the first year of playing with us. Through practice, equipment and a couple lessons, he's now down to a 15 index and still dropping. Nobody had to like it when the 22 index started shooting in the high 80s consistently. Another scenario... I had a 17 index shoot 83 against me in match play. I was -3 net at the turn and was still down 4. And I was closed out by the 13th. Again, this is a guy I play with every weekend and usually pick his pockets. His index is legit. But on a good day, the higher cap will always have more room to go net low.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

But if the higher capper does shoot more low scores (relatively speaking) his cap will then come down. And so he then is no longer getting the same strokes.

I dug into this a while back simply because I found it interesting and i dont recall exactly what i read up on it or where. But i did just recent find that quote in my last post.
No matter what people feel , (and i dont recall the exact math science behind it at the moment) but its a fact that the system is built in such a way which gives slight advantage to the better player. The .96 factor mentioned in the quote and also mentions on the usga website refers to it as a 'bonus for excellence" actually does give slight favor to the better player. The better player shoots closer to his cap because of his narrower spread. His scoring average is closer to his cap than the higher players is. The higher player is in more need (under more pressure) to score his best. If both players shoot thier average the better player will win. thats a fact so the advantage is slightly tilted in favor the better player.

Its very hard to fathom this because when giving strokes it seems unfair to begin with. But the truth is the higher capper isnt getting quite the amount of strokes he should be if based on average score. But its based on best scores (which for the higher capper also includes esc's). The higher cappers average sits much further away from thier HC than the lower capper does. that gives the lower capper the advantage.

as the article implies...for every 6 strokes difference in cap the better player gets a stroke advantage. that would be a half stroke for every 3 or 2 stroke advantage for 12 difference. The better player has that slight advantage.

Of course this is all with an honest system and properly scored rounds posted by all.

 

[kevin81002]

But if the higher capper does shoot more low scores (relatively speaking) his cap will then come down. And so he then is no longer getting the same strokes.

I dug into this a while back simply because I found it interesting and i dont recall exactly what i read up on it or where. But i did just recent find that quote in my last post.
No matter what people feel , (and i dont recall the exact math science behind it at the moment) but its a fact that the system is built in such a way which gives slight advantage to the better player. The .96 factor mentioned in the quote and also mentions on the usga website refers to it as a 'bonus for excellence" actually does give slight favor to the better player. The better player shoots closer to his cap because of his narrower spread. His scoring average is closer to his cap than the higher players is. The higher player is in more need (under more pressure) to score his best. If both players shoot thier average the better player will win. thats a fact so the advantage is slightly tilted in favor the better player.

Its very hard to fathom this because when giving strokes it seems unfair to begin with. But the truth is the higher capper isnt getting quite the amount of strokes he should be if based on average score. But its based on best scores (which for the higher capper also includes esc's). The higher cappers average sits much further away from thier HC than the lower capper does. that gives the lower capper the advantage.

as the article implies...for every 6 strokes difference in cap the better player gets a stroke advantage. that would be a half stroke for every 3 or 2 stroke advantage for 12 difference. The better player has that slight advantage.

Of course this is all with an honest system and properly scored rounds posted by all.

Oh I understand the math part of it. But the reality is there's more room to go low for a higher cap. Sure it'll change his handicap temporarily. But after 20 rounds, that low score is gone. A 17 cap that shoots a few rounds in the low 80s and a bunch in the low to mid 90s still averages out to be a 16-17hcp. It's not uncommon for someone with a high cap to have a round here and there where they keep the ball in play, hit some decent iron shots and sink some key putts to shoot high 70's/low 80's. Someone like me at an 8 index would have to shoot sub par to beat that, which isn't going to happen that often, if at all. The lowest index I've ever had was 4.6, and I can still count on one hand how many rounds I've shot under par in 20+ years of playing the game. But my buddy Dan who's a true 16 index, I can count the same amount of rounds or more that he's shot 80 or better in a 2 year time span.

We'll just chalk this up to an agree to disagree situation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[NoGoal]

One of the guys in my weekly skins game is a 15hcp, and regularly mops the floor with us. He'll end up with most of the skins and junk dots on the front, and runs out of steam down the stretch. But he has dropped a couple rounds in the high 70s on us.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Especially the teen cappers who play steady, but have 2-3 blow up holes a round. Those are the players I dread giving strokes to, because if they don’t have those blow up holes. They shoot in the 70’s like your buddy does.