Question:
Player A is a PGA golf professional with a Handicap of 0 for the course played. Player B is an amateur with a Handicap of 15, for the course played. Player A is going to beat the crap out of player B 9 times out of 10. Why? Well USGA handicaps ( and presumably others) really represent your best efforts.
The key word in Darrell’s question is "Professional". There is, or could be, a big difference between a pro with a 0 handicap and an amateur with a 0 handicap. In fact, I’d say that is probably THE difference between a pro (at least a pro who plays in a lot of tournaments) and a very good amateur. Professional tournaments are set up for 3 or 4 rounds. You must play well in all rounds to do well. For example, a pro might shoot 72, 69, 73, 71 to get a handicap of 0 (depending on rating, etc). An amateur might shoot 70, 76, 70, 80 for the exact same handicap. There’s a HUGE difference between those 2 players. One almost always makes the cut, the other almost never does. The amateur could easily win the club championship however, based on only 2 good rounds at the right time. But that’s one of the major differences between professionals and club champions. Lee Trevino once said something to the effect of "if you can shoot par or better on your home course every time you play for an entire year, then you might consider turning professional." (This is your home course, that you should know like the back of your hand.) Now if Darrell had asked simply if a 0 handicapper is likely to beat a 15 handicapper, then it gets back to the style of those 2 players. Variance comes into play depending on whether a player is a "Steady Eddy" type or a "Wild Bill" type. There are very few "Wild Bill" (touring) professionals. Certain club pros might very well be the wild type, but they can’t make it in tournaments consistently that way.
Response:
Say two golfers play a round of golf three times a week, on the same course. They make a wager on the outcome (final score) of each round, medal play. Each player is allowed strokes according to their respective Handicap for the course played. (Further, let’s assume the Handicap Index for each player is up-to-date, accurate and more or less stable.) Player A is a PGA golf professional with a Handicap of 0 for the course played. Player B is an amateur with a Handicap of 15, for the course played.
Player A is going to beat the crap out of player B 9 times out of 10. Why? Well USGA handicaps ( and presumably others) really represent your best efforts. It’s computed as 95% of the difference between your score and par (well rating scaled with slope) for the best 10 out of 20 rounds. Now for a 15, the 95% factor means the real difference for the "best" rounds is 16, but because that players worst rounds are tossed out, the real average difference will probably be more like 18 or 19. Add to this the fact that "equitable stroke control" caps your score on every hole. Someone in this ability range usually has a hole or two a round where they go OB or otherwise blow the ESC limit, so maybe the real difference is more like 20. So, on average player B will shoot 5 over. for Player A, the 95% factor is irrelevant (95% of 0 is still 0), and they are much more consistent so the real difference is probably only 1 or 2. So, the pro has a 3-4 stroke advantage off the bat. If this variance parameter is true, between a Zero and a 15, .is this game and wager situation EVER going to be a good bet for Player B?
Match play will certainly be better than stroke play. Player B will be able to go a lot lower, since a 15 handicap will shoot a round in the 70’s (net low 60’s) more often than a zero will get into the low 60’s (real Pros that actually shoot these scores have handicaps of +3 or more). I wonder if some kind of handicapped stableford, where you get more points for low scores than you lose for big ones, would favor the duffer? — http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery )
Response:
But, what about the question of Variance? Would a pro, with a handicap of 0, exhibit the same "variance" in scores (over time) that an amateur (15 handicap) could (and usually does) experience?
Almost certainly not. The bad rounds for the scratch golfer would be 4 or 5 strokes above his handicap, whereas the bad rounds for the 15-handicapper would be be 10 or 15 over. There’s also the problem that the handicap has a 96% reduction built into it — so the average of the best 10 of the last 20 for the 15-handicapper is a 15.6 differential. So he’s giving away an additional 0.6 strokes because of that. If this variance parameter is true, between a Zero and a 15, .is this game and wager situation EVER going to be a good bet for Player B?
I don’t think so. If you give a percentile rank to a player’s performance, such that a 1 is the worst round they’d have in 100 rounds and a 100 is the best round they’d have in 100 rounds, then I think you’d find this: If both players shoot a "1" round, the scratch golfer wins by about 10 strokes. If both players shoot a "50" round, the scratch golfer wins by one stroke. If both players shoot a "90", they probably tie with rounds that are one or two strokes under their differential. If both players shoot a "100", the high handicapper wins with a -5 or -4, to the scratch golfers -4 or -3. In all, the high handicapper has about a 5-15% chance of winning, I would guess. Doug — ___, Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer o IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont | | Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 | / | . My homepage: http://doug.obscurestuff.com (|)
Response:
But, what about the question of Variance? Would a pro, with a handicap of 0, exhibit the same "variance" in scores (over time) that an amateur (15 handicap) could (and usually does) experience? If this variance parameter is true, between a Zero and a 15, .is this game and wager situation EVER going to be a good bet for Player B?
The question of variance is a good one, but doesn’t really depend on the level of player. A 15 handicapper might be a "Steady Eddy", while a 0 handicapper might be a "Wild Bill". This is one thing that the handicap system doesn’t take into account very well.
Response:
Say two golfers play a round of golf three times a week, on the same course. They make a wager on the outcome (final score) of each round, medal play. Each player is allowed strokes according to their respective Handicap for the course played. (Further, let’s assume the Handicap Index for each player is up-to-date, accurate and more or less stable.) Player A is a PGA golf professional with a Handicap of 0 for the course played. Player B is an amateur with a Handicap of 15, for the course played. If it is true that each player could be expected to play to their respective handicap 20% of the time, then on the average, each player might play to their handicap in only one of every five rounds. Everything would seem to be "fair" and the wagers should, on the average (over time) come out fairly equal. But, what about the question of Variance? Would a pro, with a handicap of 0, exhibit the same "variance" in scores (over time) that an amateur (15 handicap) could (and usually does) experience? If this variance parameter is true, between a Zero and a 15, .is this game and wager situation EVER going to be a good bet for Player B?