#31  
Old 04-30-2013, 09:28 AM
ScottyLove ScottyLove is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Years Playing: 2.9
Courses Played: 89
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 807
^^^ Very interesting! Our best league player in these parts in infamous for caving under pressure in tournaments. I definitely feel the difference myself. I own my league on Wednesday nights (amateur side) and usually have a nice round one in tournaments because I'm having fun. Then comes round 2 and I change from having a blast to trying to win... and thus I'm still seeking win #1.

I should've crushed the C-Tier recreation field this past weekend and was only 2 off the lead after round one... then did my usual tank job to finish 3rd. I'll figure it out soon I'm sure, but there is definitely more pressure in tournaments and in league night.. at least for me and others I play with.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-30-2013, 10:07 AM
ScottyLove ScottyLove is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Years Playing: 2.9
Courses Played: 89
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 807
I'm also anxiously awaiting to see what the official ratings for GBO will be. First two days were pristine conditions and my expectation would be that those rounds would be averaged... but on Sunday, the wind was steady at 35+ mph with gusts over 45 mph! There is no way the conditions on that day were anything close to the others... It would shock me to see that day averaged in with the other two days. We'll see!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-30-2013, 11:00 AM
Dave242's Avatar
Dave242 Dave242 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake Forest, IL
Years Playing: 20.2
Courses Played: 366
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyLove View Post
Perhaps this will be fixed later as it seems every tournament I play in has post tournament adjustments... or is there some other factor that I'm not aware of like who you're playing with during that round at work here? Maybe the TD failed to note the course difference in the results? I don't think this is it, because I can see that a 62 on the South course in the morning was a 951.

Just curious...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeverett View Post
That just comes down to overall sample size, though. One anomalous (good) round in a pool of 10 players may have a significant effect on the round ratings, but as sample size increases the effect gets smaller and smaller (as well as eventually cancelled out by anomalous (bad) rounds.

Also, players need to have at least 8 prior rated rounds in order to count as propagators for the SSA calculation, further diminishing the chances of them suddenly putting up a round 100 points above their rating. Statistically, ~90% of the time players shoot within +/- 30 of their rating.
jeverett's post is what popped into my mind when I read your OP.

How many players were at your event?

You probably don't/can't know this exactly, but how many PDGA "regulars" were there (those are the most likely propagators)?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-30-2013, 12:09 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.2
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Script View Post
I'm gonna chip in...

Sugaw is a great example as to why the ratings system is not as accurate as one would think. When the clash came, lower rated players played Sugaw. The lowest scores were 2 people with 50's (rating came out to around 980ish)

When the highest rated pros play there, they don't shoot in the mid to low 40s. It just doesn't happen. MJs handicap at this course is around a 47 and he plays at a 1030ish rating. It just doesn't make sense that 3 strokes is near a 50 point swing. Also, look at Worlds and previous tournaments there. A 49 is always a 1000 rated round, BUT NOT AT THE CLASH. You can blame whether all you want, but a few degrees difference doesn't change this course. You either play it well, or play it poorly. Hardly is there an in between.
In my opinion, one significant problem is the 'compression' formulas the PDGA uses to convert SSA into rating-point-per-throw: the formulas the PDGA uses are just incorrect. They use two linear formulas (based on the SSA), when instead they should be using the slope of the [probably] linear regression used to calculate the SSA itself. Just for reference, the way the 'compression' formulas work, the higher the SSA the smaller the rating-points-per-throw. So a course with a very low SSA (i.e. a very easy course) in the compression formula will come out with a value for rating-points-per-throw quite a bit more than 10.

From looking at data, the 'compression' formulas appear incorrect, for all events, inducing a small amount of error into all non-exactly-1000 rated rounds. For reference, I wrote up a lengthy post on the topic here previously:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums...ad.php?t=83596

Note: the post above includes a slight error with the SSA second-pass calculation.. the only rounds that should be dropped from the SSA calculation are those from players who's rounds (after the first-pass) are rated >60 points below their rating. This doesn't affect the conclusion, however: the 'compression' formulas are not accurately reflecting the relationship between player (initial) rating and scoring spread for an event/round.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-30-2013, 12:11 PM
scarpfish's Avatar
scarpfish scarpfish is offline
Resident Grouch
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brownbackistan
Years Playing: 11.1
Courses Played: 315
Posts: 6,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyLove View Post
I'm also anxiously awaiting to see what the official ratings for GBO will be. First two days were pristine conditions and my expectation would be that those rounds would be averaged... but on Sunday, the wind was steady at 35+ mph with gusts over 45 mph! There is no way the conditions on that day were anything close to the others... It would shock me to see that day averaged in with the other two days.
I would doubt that any of the GBO rounds are going to averaged considering that there was a completely different pool of players on each course each day.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-30-2013, 01:35 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.3
Courses Played: 572
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,589
On the contrary, rounds by default will be averaged on the same layout at an event including Worlds for the week unless the wind is sufficiently different in one round to produce an SSA outside the normal variance range.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-30-2013, 02:32 PM
1978 1978 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, Nc
Years Playing: 6
Courses Played: 155
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,809
Chuck, rounds that are below your average that are dropped?
Is it a # of standard deviations or a number of ratings points. Does the calculation take into account consistency?

For example:
Player A (975 rated) shoots 40 rounds of 975 golf. a 920 should be dropped.
Player B (975 rated)shoots 40 rounds 10@ 1030, 10@920, 20@975. A 920 shouldnt be dropped.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-30-2013, 02:38 PM
jeverett's Avatar
jeverett jeverett is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene, OR
Years Playing: 5.2
Courses Played: 20
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1978 View Post
Chuck, rounds that are below your average that are dropped?
Is it a # of standard deviations or a number of ratings points. Does the calculation take into account consistency?

For example:
Player A (975 rated) shoots 40 rounds of 975 golf. a 920 should be dropped.
Player B (975 rated)shoots 40 rounds 10@ 1030, 10@920, 20@975. A 920 shouldnt be dropped.
Statistically, player B doesn't really exist. Chuck posted some values in the past, but propagators (players with at least 8 prior rated rounds) in general are more consistent than the player B exemplar. ~90% of the time, a player will shoot within +/- 30 points of their own rating, making the odds of a player B existing really really really tiny. Oh, also, the cutoff for exclusion in the SSA calculation was a round initially rated >60 points below the player's rating, so the 920 would be counted for both players.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-30-2013, 02:40 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.3
Courses Played: 572
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,589
Yes. Your examples are accurate. It's 2.5 standard deviations below your rating average or 100 points whichever number is smaller.
Reply With Quote
 

  #40  
Old 04-30-2013, 02:42 PM
1978 1978 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, Nc
Years Playing: 6
Courses Played: 155
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,809
Darn, I was hoping my poor round + scoring error that is 51 pts below my rating would be dropped since it is farther than 2 stdev's away and no where near most of my scores.

Got to keep pumping out the 1000 rated rounds I guess.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.