Did anyone get a chance to talk with @Mwilhelm10 about the upcoming 4 ball tourney? He kept complaining to me that no one brought it up for the entire weekend.
7 Likes
Iād definitely score better if I played 22 holes. 
3 Likes
The mayhem made it fun. I loved that it was ramped up (in hindsightā¦ in the moment, Friday sucked).
6 Likes
Fun later, misery during.
There were so many pin placements that I was absolutely furious at. I know those greens and some spots were truly dastardly!
4 Likes
The USGA version of stableford scoring is barely an adjustment from stroke play.
Considering the entire message of this community as NO LAYING UP, justifies their change to making the values better than the USGA recommendations for scores better than gross par.
Also going off 100% course handicaps helps with the quota for higher handicaps.
3 Likes
I canāt speak for anyone else, but I was happy not playing in the final, and I heard a number of people say the same thing.
Also @bmasters pitching a perfect game deep into the back nine was something else. 
12 Likes
Guisā¦ this distribution was awesome. End Sentence.
10 Likes
17 Likes
Just catching up on this thread. Looks like you all had a killer time! Wish I could have made it down, but will definitely try and make it next year. Big shout to my guy @JCO for the W!
On another note, sounds like @GRWhitehead and the handicap committee need to have a heavy hand in next years eventā¦
5 Likes
Mr. Presidentā¦pleaseā¦stopā¦weāre winning too much. And @Double_Bogey_Dave is like āNoā¦weāre going to keep winningā
2 Likes
Nope. Didnāt say anything about it at all.
Nice try though!
1 Like
But thatās standard Stableford scoring, and the relevant comparison is between Stableford scoring with handicaps and the quota game.
ITT: lots of butthurt vanity caps.
12 Likes
TL;DR version - games played at 100% handicap tend to favor higher handicaps because they have higher variances. Their bell curve is wider. This advantage grows when the points distribution is non-linear.
(It would shrink considerably, I think, if you didnāt award any points for gross bogeys or worse, but almost nothing is played that way. Negative points for double bogeys or worse is sometimes played and can shift the balance to favoring lower handicappers.)
Thatās still relevant here. If you triple or quad it doesnāt hurt you relative to a double.
You donāt get negative points in Stableford scoring.
b. Scoring in Stableford
You are awarded points for each hole by comparing the number of strokes you have taken (including strokes made and penalty strokes) to the fixed target score for the hole. See the following chart for how you are awarded points in relation to the fixed target score:
| Hole Played In | Points |
|---|---|
| More than one over fixed target score or no score returned | 0 |
| One over fixed target score | 1 |
| Fixed target score | 2 |
| One under fixed target score | 3 |
| Two under fixed target score | 4 |
| Three under fixed target score | 5 |
| Four under fixed target score | 6 |
Check out that PCC:
11 Likes
Just out of curiosity I did some excel nerd stuff. I havenāt played much quota anything so the thought process is interesting to me. I can see how people see the bonus points for birdie/eagle as advantageous to low caps. However I maintain that in tricked out conditions that advantage is negated due to extreme difficulty of making these 
.
Okay little preliminary findings from this morning:
46 players had 30+ quotas (there were 2 in the finals. 4% representation)
34 had 20-29 quotas (2 in finals. 6% representation)
7 players <20 quotas (4 in finals. 57% representation)
In excel Iām getting 32 rounds at quota. Of those:
14 were from 30+ (10% of rounds)
10 were from 20-29 (10% of rounds)
8 were from <20 (38% of rounds)
19 Likes