tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post2038738832133869461..comments2024-02-20T05:23:19.974-08:00Comments on On Golf Handicaps: Why You Win (or Lose) at SkinsLaurence Doughartyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08574283457305691679noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-29065379870486308832020-12-10T06:39:34.241-08:002020-12-10T06:39:34.241-08:00New site is solid. A debt of gratitude is in order...New site is solid. A debt of gratitude is in order for the colossal exertion. <a href="https://skincashier.com/ru" rel="nofollow">продать скины кс го</a>hajikhatrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00318376833595149281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-60359084967172708972020-08-02T09:26:04.422-07:002020-08-02T09:26:04.422-07:00Writing with style and getting good compliments on...Writing with style and getting good compliments on the article is quite hard, to be honest.But you've done it so calmly and with so cool feeling and you've nailed the job. This article is possessed with style and I am giving good compliment. Best! <a href="https://www.grumpygopher.com/" rel="nofollow">Grumpy Gopher</a><br />internetworkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207392596936380698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-54685330820874021452020-01-06T11:51:51.985-08:002020-01-06T11:51:51.985-08:00Ok.Ok.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07946242448635236197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-75465886250805242532018-03-21T22:35:25.214-07:002018-03-21T22:35:25.214-07:00I have re-read my article and could not find where...I have re-read my article and could not find where I suggested only 50% of full handicaps should be allocated. For the record, hole probabilities were taken from a database of scores. Averages were used since they are the best predictor of the long-run effect for each type of skins game. Stroke allocations were not used since the USGA does not recommend allocations be assigned on the basis of difficulty. I could go on, but if you are pleased with your analysis of your Tuesday group that's great. Laurence Doughartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08574283457305691679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-67188205727645665882018-03-20T22:58:43.116-07:002018-03-20T22:58:43.116-07:00After further reviewing Laurence's model, I ha...After further reviewing Laurence's model, I have some serious concerns. I will only mention 2 of them:<br /><br />1 - Laurence's model assumes that all 5-handicap-golfers make par on a hole 45% of the time. Regardless if it's the toughest or easiest hole. Regardless if that player is having a good round or a bad one. <br />That's just not reality! <br /><br />2 - Laurence's model assumes the following:<br /> 5-handicapper gets a par 45.0% of the time<br /> 10-handicapper gets a par 35.0% of the time<br /> 15-handicapper gets a par 25.0% of the time<br /> 25-handicapper gets a par 15.0% of the time<br /><br />That's bogus!<br />Those numbers were made up or were gross approximations.<br />They are, at very best, very rough estimates. <br />Based on my experience in modelling, I know that even small changes in those percentages could result in totally changing the results and the conclusion. <br /><br />Laurence's model just doesn't pass the exam.<br />It is not valid.<br /><br />Any model that uses average hole scores (rather than a large database of actual scores made by real golfers) will not accurately predict the results of skins competitions. Skins almost by definition are the extreme, not the average.<br /><br />So Laurence's conclusion (that only 50% of full handicaps should be allocated) is bogus. It just isn't valid.Don Lundgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743346981517838364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-55982365559998225682018-03-19T17:40:58.779-07:002018-03-19T17:40:58.779-07:00In searching the net, I have found another website...In searching the net, I have found another website that has done detailed analysis on handicapping for skins. It reaches a very different conclusion. If less than 100% of handicaps are used, the low handicappers have a significant and unfair advantage over mid and high handicappers. The details are copied below:<br /><br />Dave on SportTaco.com wrote the following: [Skins_Game_with_Handicaps_Net_Skins]<br /><br />I did the following analysis just because I had the data left over from some handicap committee work done on hole handicaps. <br /><br />I had line scores (gross score by hole) for 991 different rounds played on one of our courses. I also had the course handicaps of these players <br />at the time of the competitions (all from our regular/weekly Men's Golf <br />Association events). So I divided these scores into four groups by handicap. Group 1 lowest handicaps, Groups 2 next lowest, Group 3 higher, Group 4 highest handicaps. (The lowest handicap was 2 and the highest was <br />33.) <br /><br />I then created 10,000 skins competitions by randomly selecting a player from each of the four groups (10,000 times), and I counted the number of skins won by a player from each handicap group. I didn't do "carry-overs". I just counted the number of times the Group 1 player (low handicapper) won a skin, the number of times a Group 2 player won a skin, the number of times a Group 3 player won a skin, and the number of times a Group 4 player (highest handicap) won a skin. <br /><br />I repeated the whole process 3 times, first allocating 100% of handicap, next allocating 90% of handicap, and thirdly allocating 80% of the handicap. (Validating a skin was not required in my analysis).<br />Here are the results for the handicap allocations shown <br /><br /> Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4<br /><br />100% 21237 20901 22461 22042 <br /><br />90% 23509 21733 21781 20426 <br /><br />80% 25610 21138 21990 19336 <br /><br /><br />This data would indicate that playing at 100% is probably right.<br />Dave<br /><br />Don Lundgren’s notes on this data:<br /><br />When 80% of handicaps are used, the low handicap group wins much more often than the other groups. The low handicappers in this case win 32.4% more skins than the highest handicappers. But they also win 21.2% more skins than the next lowest handicap group (Group 2). So using 80% handicaps is good for the lowest handicappers, but unfair to the other three groups.<br /><br />When 90% of handicaps are used, the low handicap Group 1 wins 15.1% more skins than the highest handicap Group 4. <br /><br />When 100% of handicaps is used, Group 3 wins the most skins, but only by a small margin. Group 3 wins 5.7% more skins than the lowest handicappers. But this is a smaller difference than when using 90% or 80% of full handicaps. And since our Tuesday League also requires validation of each skin, and validation certainly favours low handicaps, this 5.7% difference would be reduced and maybe even reversed. <br /><br />Dave's analysis suggests that allocating less than 100% of handicap is unfair to everyone except the low handicappers. Don Lundgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743346981517838364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-5152410194319653572018-03-19T08:26:45.317-07:002018-03-19T08:26:45.317-07:00The conclusion is based on the major assumption th...The conclusion is based on the major assumption that the table of probabilities in the appendix are accurate. How were those probabilities estimated? Small changes to those probabilities could have dramatic impact on the conclusion. So I would need to understand how the probabilities were derived before I will accept the conclusion. Don Don Lundgrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743346981517838364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1961792768612881019.post-35718153798934540972014-05-22T13:42:01.810-07:002014-05-22T13:42:01.810-07:00Very interesting and informative! These are exact...Very interesting and informative! These are exactly the sorts of questions we have been wondering about at www.AustinSkins.com, but I lack the skills required to run such simulations. However, we have been experimenting and tracking the results for about 3 years. We are currently on the 4th iteration of our game. We originally started out with a model that was a hybrid between types 2 (net skins) and 3 (half handicap). We gave 70% handicaps and paid net skins only. We actually found that this was slightly skewed toward the higher handicappers. This was balanced out by offering a "low net" prize, which was skewed toward the low handicappers because it was only 70% handicapped. Because of the skew toward the high handicappers in skins, we lowered the percentage used for skins and found that it drastically changed the outcomes and favored low handicappers way too much.<br /><br />After that, we tried doing skins at 70% and low net at 90% handicaps, but that proved to be an administrative nightmare. Despite that fact, the very small sample size that we have suggests that this could be a very equitable system. We've thought about building an app that could help us calculate the scores and payouts in real time, but until we end up doing something like that, this method is too difficult to administer as a practical matter.<br /><br />Now, we are doing 85% for both skins and low net. As I mentioned earlier, the equity drops off for anyone above about 15 or 16 handicap. As you mention above, some players with higher handicaps who have a high standard deviation in their average hole score relative to par, can win skins in our game, but they are the exception. And we do have such players that continue to play with us because they do actually win.<br /><br />I had been wondering about the equity of no-double-win and had considered implementing that method to see if it would aid in the goal of equity, but looks like it would not, based on your findings. Thanks for saving me the effort!<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18414143623393608259noreply@blogger.com