|
Sports » uk.sport.golf » Handicapping in Texas Scramble
| Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982835] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 09:56 |
|
The generally accepted handicap for a fourball Texas scramble is 10% of
the sum of the handicaps. But where one has a mixture of three and
fourballs, does anyone know of a fair method of handicapping the three
balls so that they're not at a huge disadvantage?
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982836 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 13:14 |
|
Georgie Charles in <6x%2g.42169$zf1.27356 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>:
>The generally accepted handicap for a fourball Texas scramble is 10% of
>the sum of the handicaps. But where one has a mixture of three and
>fourballs, does anyone know of a fair method of handicapping the three
>balls so that they're not at a huge disadvantage?
Let's have a look at some math:
25+25+25+25 = 100, * 10 % = 10
25+25+25=75, * 4/3 = 100, * 10 % = 10
So, 4/30 = 13,333 % would be equivalent.
Ciao,
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982837 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 14:50 |
|
I really don't see how that helps. Your formula gives no added help to
compensate for the fact that the three ball only have three attempts at
each shot, not four.
Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Georgie Charles in <6x%2g.42169$zf1.27356 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>:
>
>> The generally accepted handicap for a fourball Texas scramble is 10% of
>> the sum of the handicaps. But where one has a mixture of three and
>> fourballs, does anyone know of a fair method of handicapping the three
>> balls so that they're not at a huge disadvantage?
>
> Let's have a look at some math:
>
> 25+25+25+25 = 100, * 10 % = 10
>
> 25+25+25=75, * 4/3 = 100, * 10 % = 10
>
> So, 4/30 = 13,333 % would be equivalent.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982838 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 18:01 |
|
Georgie Charles in <eQ33g.57620$Nh7.22732 [at] newsfe4-win.ntli.net>:
>I really don't see how that helps.
The formula was meant to get a comparable team HCP from comparable
individual HCPs. And, referring to your question, it helps to avoid
"a huge disadvantage"...
>Your formula gives no added help to
>compensate for the fact that the three ball only have three attempts at
>each shot, not four.
Added help is an extra to a "huge disadvantage". ;->
Imagine to replace 13,3 % by 15-18 %:
15 % would result in 11 strokes (11,25), only one more than in the former
example.
16 % => 12 strokes
17 % => 13 strokes (12,75)
18 % equals 1/3 (35 %) "added help" compared to 13,3333 %. Thus it equals
the fourth chance, i.e. the missing fourth team member. This would rise the
team HCP of the threesome to 14 (13,5) compared to the former 10 for a
foursome (all HCP 25 players), allowing 4 more strokes to the three...
Taking the ubiquitous 3/4 rule, 17 % and 3 strokes might be a fair
compromise, IMHO.
HTH,
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982839 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 18:14 |
|
Yes, your first answer was a blindingly obvious piece of arithmetic that
didn't address the issue. At least this answer does! And it's an
interesting way of dealing with it. Any other thoughts out there?
Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Georgie Charles in <eQ33g.57620$Nh7.22732 [at] newsfe4-win.ntli.net>:
>
>> I really don't see how that helps.
>
> The formula was meant to get a comparable team HCP from comparable
> individual HCPs. And, referring to your question, it helps to avoid
> "a huge disadvantage"...
>
>> Your formula gives no added help to
>> compensate for the fact that the three ball only have three attempts at
>> each shot, not four.
>
> Added help is an extra to a "huge disadvantage". ;->
>
> Imagine to replace 13,3 % by 15-18 %:
>
> 15 % would result in 11 strokes (11,25), only one more than in the former
> example.
> 16 % => 12 strokes
> 17 % => 13 strokes (12,75)
>
> 18 % equals 1/3 (35 %) "added help" compared to 13,3333 %. Thus it equals
> the fourth chance, i.e. the missing fourth team member. This would rise the
> team HCP of the threesome to 14 (13,5) compared to the former 10 for a
> foursome (all HCP 25 players), allowing 4 more strokes to the three...
>
> Taking the ubiquitous 3/4 rule, 17 % and 3 strokes might be a fair
> compromise, IMHO.
>
> HTH,
>
> Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982841 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 21:05 |
|
"Georgie Charles" <georgie.charles [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6x%2g.42169$zf1.27356 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> The generally accepted handicap for a fourball Texas scramble is 10% of
> the sum of the handicaps. But where one has a mixture of three and
> fourballs, does anyone know of a fair method of handicapping the three
> balls so that they're not at a huge disadvantage?
Georgie,
Below is a tried and tested formula. It is not perfect but as good as one
can get.
I have copied this out of an Excel spread sheet which is a table allowing
you to read off the exact handicap allowances to save calculating them. If
you would like me to send it to you, e-mail me with your correct e-mail
address at mwadsworth AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk
Three balls and four balls
Lowest Middle Highest Lowest Next lowest Next lowest Highest
H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap
H'cap x 0.3 x 0.2 x 0.1 x 0.16 x 0.12 x 0.08 x 0.04
Malcolm
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982842 ] |
Mon, 24 April 2006 21:10 |
|
Sorry. Formula did not come out very well:
Three balls
Lowest H'cap x 0.3; Middle H'cap x 0.2; Highest H'cap x 0.1
Four balls
Lowest H'cap x 0.16; Next lowest H'cap x 0.12; Next lowest H'cap x 0.08;
Highest H'cap x 0.04
Malcolm
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982844 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 00:02 |
|
Thanks Malcolm. I've emailed you separately.
Malcolm Wadsworth wrote:
> Sorry. Formula did not come out very well:
>
> Three balls
> Lowest H'cap x 0.3; Middle H'cap x 0.2; Highest H'cap x 0.1
>
> Four balls
> Lowest H'cap x 0.16; Next lowest H'cap x 0.12; Next lowest H'cap x 0.08;
> Highest H'cap x 0.04
>
> Malcolm
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982845 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 06:51 |
|
In message <Dj93g.58813$wl.42400 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Malcolm
Wadsworth <mTHEwadsworth [at] blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk> writes
>Georgie,
>Below is a tried and tested formula. It is not perfect but as good as one
>can get. I have copied this out of an Excel spread sheet which is a table
>allowing you to read off the exact handicap allowances to save
>calculating them. If you would like me to send it to you, e-mail me with
>your correct e-mail address at mwadsworth AT blueyonder DOT co DOT
>uk
>
>Three balls and four balls
> Lowest Middle Highest Lowest Next lowest Next lowest Highest
> H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap
> H'cap x 0.3 x 0.2 x 0.1 x 0.16 x 0.12 x 0.08 x 0.04
Malcolm:
I've used that formula (which perhaps you originally provided for me)
for the last five years or so for mixed 3- and 4-ball Texas
competitions, and find it to be excellent. But I have a few
reservations.
My two main worries are that the formula is better at balancing teams to
be of roughly equal Texas ability, rather than accurately allowing for
one team's being much better than another, and - one I'm just beginning
to address - that in spite of its heavier discounting, the formula still
favours 4-ball teams slightly, particularly if the rules insist that
each member of each team must be responsible for so many tee shots in
the team's round.
To address the first problem, I wrote an Excel workbook (now Excel 2003)
which first creates the teams in a fairly arbitrary manner (but with the
basic aim of spreading low-handicap players across the teams), and then
allows me to select pairs of players to be swapped between the teams
they find themselves in. This allows me (i) to reduce effective handicap
differences across the teams; (ii) to keep apart members who refuse to
play together; and (iii) to bring together, if appropriate, members and
their guests.
The second concern must, I think, be addressed by increasing the 4-ball
discounting even more. To this end, I suggest reducing your weightings
to (0.12, 0.10, 0.08, 0.06) or even to (0.12, 0.09, 0.06, 0.03).
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Skype Me! (skype name: alanmdunsmuir)
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982846 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 08:23 |
|
Georgie Charles in <BP63g.6909$Vn.5839 [at] newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>Yes, your first answer was a blindingly obvious piece of arithmetic that
>didn't address the issue.
IBTD: It may not have addressed the issue you had in mind, but it addressed
the one you published.
>At least this answer does!
Thanks for the compliments. My magic glass bowl immediately cleared up
after your second input.
Ciao,
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982847 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 08:23 |
|
Malcolm Wadsworth in <Po93g.58818$wl.27252 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>Three balls
>Lowest H'cap x 0.3; Middle H'cap x 0.2; Highest H'cap x 0.1
>
>Four balls
>Lowest H'cap x 0.16; Next lowest H'cap x 0.12; Next lowest H'cap x 0.08;
>Highest H'cap x 0.04
A few calculations reveal:
A threesome with HCPs of 25 each would get a team HCP of 15
while an equivalent foursome would only get 6.
The difference of 7 strokes seems quite large, IMHO, and the foursome
result is also clearly different from the HCP 10 which was the result of
Georgie's original formula of 10 %.
Any comments on that?
Ciao,
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982848 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 11:15 |
|
"Paul Schmitz-Josten" <alossola [at] web.de> wrote in message
news:e2kf9j$k4r$03$2 [at] news.t-online.com...
> Malcolm Wadsworth in <Po93g.58818$wl.27252 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>>Three balls
>>Lowest H'cap x 0.3; Middle H'cap x 0.2; Highest H'cap x 0.1
>>
>>Four balls
>>Lowest H'cap x 0.16; Next lowest H'cap x 0.12; Next lowest H'cap x
>>0.08;
>>Highest H'cap x 0.04
>
> A few calculations reveal:
> A threesome with HCPs of 25 each would get a team HCP of 15
> while an equivalent foursome would only get 6.
>
> The difference of 7 strokes seems quite large, IMHO, and the foursome
> result is also clearly different from the HCP 10 which was the result of
> Georgie's original formula of 10 %.
>
> Any comments on that?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul
In fact the 3-ball team gets 15 strokes and the 4-ball team gets 10. A
difference of 5 not 7.
Bear in mind that for every one of the 80 odd strokes the teams will record,
the 4-ball team will get an extra chance of a better stroke.
No system is perfect but experience has shown that this weighting method is
fairer than the straight 10% and it is important that the competitors feel
the handicapping system is fair.
If Team A had h'caps of 5, 10, 15 and 22 and Team B had h'caps of 13, 13, 13
and 13, one might expect Team A to have a better chance.
Under the10% method both teams receive 5.20 strokes.
Under the weighting system, Team B receives nearly a whole extra stroke
(4.28 and 5.20 strokes respectively)
The weighting system also caters better if there has to be a mix of 3- and
4-ball teams.
If all handicaps in a team are the same, a 3-ball team receives 15% strokes
and a 4-ball 10%.
Malcolm
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982849 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 12:04 |
|
"Alan M Dunsmuir" <alan [at] moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zRibezAVraTEFw0I [at] moonrake.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Dj93g.58813$wl.42400 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Malcolm
> Wadsworth <mTHEwadsworth [at] blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk> writes
>>Georgie,
>>Below is a tried and tested formula. It is not perfect but as good as one
>>can get. I have copied this out of an Excel spread sheet which is a table
>>allowing you to read off the exact handicap allowances to save
>>calculating them. If you would like me to send it to you, e-mail me with
>>your correct e-mail address at mwadsworth AT blueyonder DOT co DOT
>>uk
>>
>>Three balls and four balls
>> Lowest Middle Highest Lowest Next lowest Next lowest Highest
>> H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap H'cap
>> H'cap x 0.3 x 0.2 x 0.1 x 0.16 x 0.12 x 0.08 x 0.04
>
> Malcolm:
>
> I've used that formula (which perhaps you originally provided for me)
> for the last five years or so for mixed 3- and 4-ball Texas
> competitions, and find it to be excellent. But I have a few
> reservations.
>
> My two main worries are that the formula is better at balancing teams to
> be of roughly equal Texas ability, rather than accurately allowing for
> one team's being much better than another, and - one I'm just beginning
> to address - that in spite of its heavier discounting, the formula still
> favours 4-ball teams slightly, particularly if the rules insist that
> each member of each team must be responsible for so many tee shots in
> the team's round.
>
> To address the first problem, I wrote an Excel workbook (now Excel 2003)
> which first creates the teams in a fairly arbitrary manner (but with the
> basic aim of spreading low-handicap players across the teams), and then
> allows me to select pairs of players to be swapped between the teams
> they find themselves in. This allows me (i) to reduce effective handicap
> differences across the teams; (ii) to keep apart members who refuse to
> play together; and (iii) to bring together, if appropriate, members and
> their guests.
>
> The second concern must, I think, be addressed by increasing the 4-ball
> discounting even more. To this end, I suggest reducing your weightings
> to (0.12, 0.10, 0.08, 0.06) or even to (0.12, 0.09, 0.06, 0.03).
> --
> Alan M Dunsmuir
> Skype Me! (skype name: alanmdunsmuir)
Alan,
Thank you for our comments.
When I drew up these weightings some 10+ years ago, they were designed to
meet the circumstances which prevailed at the club at the time namely that
members made up their own 4-ball teams, so 3-ball team would arise only
occasionally.
Had members thought a 3-ball would have an advantage, they might have tried
to arrange to be composed of only three members!
Also we had no restrictions on the use of tee shots.
I would agree with you that the weightings possibly need to give the 3-ball
a slightly better deal.
I am not in a position to influence such matters in my present club, so
would be interested to learn whether you find that adjusting the weightings
as you suggest proves fairer in practice.
Clubs sometimes introduce one of the following two restrictions, both of
which are designed to combat the unfairness of the straight 10% method:
#1 With 4-ball teams, 3 of each competitor's tee shots must be selected;
with 3-ball teams, 4 of each competitor's tee shots must be selected and
where there is a mix of 3- and 4-ball teams, 3 or each in the 4-balls and
only 2 of each in the 3-balls.
#2 During the play of a hole, the same competitor's ball may not be
selected twice in succession (this also helps the pace of play).
The first is more common and I have not come across both restrictions being
applied together.
Do you think the fairness of a competition is compromised if either of these
restrictions is added where the weighting system is in use?
Regards,
Malcolm
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982850 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 15:58 |
|
Malcolm Wadsworth in <MMl3g.59118$wl.31153 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>In fact the 3-ball team gets 15 strokes and the 4-ball team gets 10. A
>difference of 5 not 7.
ACK - my fault.
>Bear in mind that for every one of the 80 odd strokes the teams will record,
>the 4-ball team will get an extra chance of a better stroke.
>
>No system is perfect but experience has shown that this weighting method is
>fairer than the straight 10% and it is important that the competitors feel
>the handicapping system is fair.
<snip>
o.k. then - I'll follow the competitors with comfort.
Thank you for the comprehensive explanations!
Ciao,
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982853 ] |
Tue, 25 April 2006 21:30 |
|
In message <uum3g.59138$wl.40812 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Malcolm
Wadsworth <mTHEwadsworth [at] blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk> writes
>Do you think the fairness of a competition is compromised if either of
>these restrictions is added where the weighting system is in use?
The Society for which I have been organising our Open Days (I've handed
on the duty this season) plays a format of 9-hole Texas in the morning
(for which I use a straightforward 50% of your formulae), and 18-hole
Stableford in the afternoon. In the Texas, it insists on spreading the
tee shots around the team members. The majority of its members are in
the high teens or low twenties handicaps, with a few on 28 (going on 40)
and a few in single digits.
I organised the Society with the help of our Chairman, a very keen and
useful golfer with a single-digit handicap who initially utterly derided
the formulae as without basis in fact, but gave me my head to do as I
thought best.
He has, with the years, swung round through 180 degrees, and now tells
anybody who will listen that the formulae, although they look senseless
at first sight are "spot on".
The major problem with the (usually) required mix of 3-ball and 4-ball
teams is that for a 3-ball team, sharing the tee shots means simply
insisting on three each (which we allow the teams to allocate, as the
round is played, on a hole by hole basis) whereas for the 4-ball teams
the best we can do is ask for two each, with one "floater". This means
that the team rabbit has only to achieve two decent tee shots out of the
nine, which is ridiculously easier for a poor 28-handicap player than
achieving three.
I have no experience of, and have not even considered the possibility
of, incorporating the "no two successive shots" rule.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Skype Me! (skype name: alanmdunsmuir)
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982857 ] |
Wed, 26 April 2006 09:32 |
|
Alan
In your example, wouldn't simply asking the 3 ball for a minimum of two
tee shots each, with 3 floaters go some way to overcoming their
disadvantage?
Alan M Dunsmuir wrote:
> In message <uum3g.59138$wl.40812 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Malcolm
> Wadsworth <mTHEwadsworth [at] blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk> writes
>> Do you think the fairness of a competition is compromised if either of
>> these restrictions is added where the weighting system is in use?
>
> The Society for which I have been organising our Open Days (I've handed
> on the duty this season) plays a format of 9-hole Texas in the morning
> (for which I use a straightforward 50% of your formulae), and 18-hole
> Stableford in the afternoon. In the Texas, it insists on spreading the
> tee shots around the team members. The majority of its members are in
> the high teens or low twenties handicaps, with a few on 28 (going on 40)
> and a few in single digits.
>
> I organised the Society with the help of our Chairman, a very keen and
> useful golfer with a single-digit handicap who initially utterly derided
> the formulae as without basis in fact, but gave me my head to do as I
> thought best.
>
> He has, with the years, swung round through 180 degrees, and now tells
> anybody who will listen that the formulae, although they look senseless
> at first sight are "spot on".
>
> The major problem with the (usually) required mix of 3-ball and 4-ball
> teams is that for a 3-ball team, sharing the tee shots means simply
> insisting on three each (which we allow the teams to allocate, as the
> round is played, on a hole by hole basis) whereas for the 4-ball teams
> the best we can do is ask for two each, with one "floater". This means
> that the team rabbit has only to achieve two decent tee shots out of the
> nine, which is ridiculously easier for a poor 28-handicap player than
> achieving three.
>
> I have no experience of, and have not even considered the possibility
> of, incorporating the "no two successive shots" rule.
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982869 ] |
Wed, 26 April 2006 18:57 |
|
In message <imF3g.61600$Nh7.34874 [at] newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Georgie Charles
<georgie.charles [at] ntlworld.com> writes
>In your example, wouldn't simply asking the 3 ball for a minimum of two
>tee shots each, with 3 floaters go some way to overcoming their
>disadvantage?
Yes, that would be an alternative option to consider, which I hadn't
thought of up to now.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Skype Me! (skype name: alanmdunsmuir)
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982873 ] |
Thu, 27 April 2006 00:35 |
|
Malcolm Wadsworth wrote:
> Sorry. Formula did not come out very well:
>
> Three balls
> Lowest H'cap x 0.3; Middle H'cap x 0.2; Highest H'cap x 0.1
>
> Four balls
> Lowest H'cap x 0.16; Next lowest H'cap x 0.12; Next lowest H'cap x 0.08;
> Highest H'cap x 0.04
>
> Malcolm
>
>
Malcolm,
This looks like a very handy and reasonable formula. Although we do not
play a 'Texas Scramble' here, if I'm not mistaken the format looks very
similar, if not identical, to a game we call 'Ambrose'. Often a fairly
casual, roll-up, midweek club event, and usually assumed by the
organisers that it will be played in 'teams' of four players. However,
there are the inevitable exceptions......and of course, no one knows
what to do if there are less than four in a group. (It is so casual that
sometimes there may only be two players in a group!). Your formula may
help resolve the situation.
Does the scheme have a 'name', or are you the originator?
We could/might introduce it here as a 'Wadsworth Ambrose'...!!
cheers
david
|
|
|
| Re: Handicapping in Texas Scramble [message #982884 ] |
Thu, 27 April 2006 19:50 |
|
"david s-a" <dsantwyk [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:4baat5F10ciodU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> Malcolm,
>
> This looks like a very handy and reasonable formula. Although we do not
> play a 'Texas Scramble' here, if I'm not mistaken the format looks very
> similar, if not identical, to a game we call 'Ambrose'. Often a fairly
> casual, roll-up, midweek club event, and usually assumed by the organisers
> that it will be played in 'teams' of four players. However, there are the
> inevitable exceptions......and of course, no one knows what to do if there
> are less than four in a group. (It is so casual that sometimes there may
> only be two players in a group!). Your formula may help resolve the
> situation.
>
> Does the scheme have a 'name', or are you the originator?
>
> We could/might introduce it here as a 'Wadsworth Ambrose'...!!
>
> cheers
> david
David,
I originated the system some 10+ years ago but that is not to say no one
before me had not thought up the same.
My formula was put on the old and long-gone uk.sport.golf website (drops
heavy hint to John Laird)
As I understand it, to be precise, an Ambrose is a Texas Scramble with the
restriction that 4 of the tee shots of each of the four competitors in the
team must be used -
without any restrictions an Ambrose is a Texas Scramble
Regards,
Malcolm
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 12:12:49 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.18985 Sekunden |
