#221  
Old 09-17-2020, 11:24 AM
txmxer txmxer is online now
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.7
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 403
Niced 322 Times in 156 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakebake91 View Post
I love that old adage. Just want to pile on to the discussion here, adding absolutely nothing to it in the process. I love when we sink to petty arguments on semantics. Are we really splitting hairs here over .000000001% odds? I mean, I know life is boring right now for many of us, but jeez.
There's common use of language versus the language of science. Since the discussion drifted in to statistics and probability, the choice of words is expected to be precise. Calling a non-zero probability "impossible" may be functionally accurate because it is never going to happen, but, in the world of numbers and science, people typically choose to caveat the term.

There are reasons why. To use your example of .000000001%--is that the line where we say something is impossible? Why not .00000001%...or .001%? Where is one allowed to accurately use the term?

The odds of winning powerball are about 1 in 300 million or .00000033%.

But it happens.

Nobody would object to "it's never going to happen" or "for all practical purposes, it is impossible"...

ahhh...but the original scenario didn't include a bunch of caveats. It was simply 800 rated players having a better round than 1000 rated players. So...there is a tournament on day 2 where the lower rated players play in the morning and the higher rated players play in the evening. At noon, a front rolls in. Wind gusts 40 MPH and temperature drops from 60 degrees to 40 degrees. Those scores in the afternoon are going to suck. If one only looks at the numbers, then there is no explanation other than the 1000 rated players had a really bad day.

So, when stating, "it's impossible"...the next thing you will read is a bunch of caveats basically stating that all other variables are equal. Once that caveat is inserted in to the discussion over word choice, then the issue is settled. If caveats are necessary to make the statement accurate then it's just a matter of choice as to how one caveats the statement.
Sponsored Links

Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-17-2020, 11:29 AM
txmxer txmxer is online now
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.7
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 403
Niced 322 Times in 156 Posts
Default

I just realized we have to update the infinite monkey theorem...

if a billion monkeys buy a billion lottery tickets...
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-17-2020, 11:38 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,850
Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by txmxer View Post
ahhh...but the original scenario didn't include a bunch of caveats. It was simply 800 rated players having a better round than 1000 rated players. So...there is a tournament on day 2 where the lower rated players play in the morning and the higher rated players play in the evening. At noon, a front rolls in. Wind gusts 40 MPH and temperature drops from 60 degrees to 40 degrees. Those scores in the afternoon are going to suck. If one only looks at the numbers, then there is no explanation other than the 1000 rated players had a really bad day.
The rating system would not combine the scores for those two rounds to calculate the round ratings, they would be done separately. So yes, the scores would look odd in comparison, but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.

This touches on my concern with variable weather conditions at different times during a tee time round, both for competitive fairness and ratings calculations. But that's another discussion topic.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-17-2020, 11:59 AM
txmxer txmxer is online now
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.7
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 403
Niced 322 Times in 156 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
The rating system would not combine the scores for those two rounds to calculate the round ratings, they would be done separately. So yes, the scores would look odd in comparison, but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.

This touches on my concern with variable weather conditions at different times during a tee time round, both for competitive fairness and ratings calculations. But that's another discussion topic.
thanks--I wasn't aware of that (obviously), but it is good to know.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-17-2020, 02:42 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,273
Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
If the "better players" somehow played worse than the "worse players," well they wouldn't really have been the better players in the first place -- by definition.
Perhaps you're not looking at it in a small enough bite. Certainly for one day a worse player can beat a better player. It happens every tournament. Now the odds of every worse player beating the better players in 1 round are incredibly small, however...we're talking about avg rated round, so what increases those odds (perhaps alot).. is... some of the worse players shoot lights out and some of the better players shoot incredibly bad. If you think this scenario is flat out impossible... I would 100% disagree with that. Being human + weather conditions add random variables to the equation that will never provide a static result regardless the stability of the other variables.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 09-17-2020, 02:51 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,273
Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
The rating system would not combine the scores for those two rounds to calculate the round ratings, they would be done separately. So yes, the scores would look odd in comparison, but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
What about course conditions and weather conditions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Nope. Never has been involved in the calcs.
hmm....
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 09-17-2020, 02:57 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,850
Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts
Default

Odds of a relatively stable propagator at 850 rating beating a stable 1000-rated propagator on a normal course both are familiar with is about 1 in 1000. Add another pair of players with these two ratings where both 850s beat the two 1000s in a single round, it's 1/1000 times 1/1000 or 1 in a million. Each new pair extends the odds another 1000 times. In Jim Carrey's voice, "So you say there's a chance?"

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 09-17-2020, 03:09 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,850
Niced 2,556 Times in 1,082 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
hmm....
There are no weather adjustment factors entered into the formulas. Worse playing conditions cause scores to automatically move higher. So, the scores incorporate the weather without needing to come up with a special adjustment factor for them in the equation.

For example, a pool of 30 propagators averaging 925 rating average a score of 55 in R1 then average 59 in R2 in much tougher conditions on the same course. The formula determines that the conditions were different and calculates the ratings for each round separately. If the scoring average in R2 was close enough to R1, the formula assumes the conditions were similar enough so scores from both rounds are combined to where the same score gets the same rating in each round. In most 2-round events, the scores are combined from both rounds for the calculations.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 09-17-2020, 03:16 PM
ballgolfconvert ballgolfconvert is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Years Playing: 36.9
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 340
Niced 169 Times in 104 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Ratings are simply a way to normalize performance on courses of different difficulty. We wouldn't need ratings if all courses were the same like a bowling alley (without special competition oiling). Your rating would simply be your scoring average and you could compare your averages to know where you rank.

The idea that ratings aren't important for elite pros is a U.S. centric position. The PDGA ratings system is credited by several sports administrators as the number one reason for international growth not only in the PDGA but global participation because they want to compare their performance and advancement to our top male and female players. Any ranking system that is unable to compare performances, especially wins, from various tier events around the world becomes U.S. centric tour hype and not an appropriate World Ranking process. Curiously, the PDGA has not updated their World Rankings during 2020, perhaps due to lack of Majors, although they could have since there have been ratings updates this year that included "major" DGPT events.

There are some tweaks that could be made to improve the ratings for everyone, not just elite pros, but the PDGA has not yet acted on those suggestions that are now several years old.
Biggest problem with ratings is that they reflect an average. Handicaps for example show how well a player is capable of playing throwing out the worst 10 if last 20 scores. . ratings could work the same way if they discarded the worst 50% of the ratings for each player. 20 rated rounds. The top 10 count in your rating. This would move a bunch of players who shouldn't be in Rec, out of Rec, and same for other divisions. It would go a long way to prevent sandbagging, which is why ball golf has the system they have.
Reply With Quote
 

  #230  
Old 09-17-2020, 04:06 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,273
Niced 1,581 Times in 883 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
There are no weather adjustment factors entered into the formulas.
I was fine and all things groovy until....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
but the ratings calculations would automatically account for the different conditions.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey all! Joxiam Newbie Intros and Q&A 1 06-04-2017 03:46 PM
HEY HEY >>> JK Aviar: pre #'s, orange/yellow/color pablo.diablo The Marketplace 13 04-30-2013 10:06 AM
Hey! Help me help you QuinnAA199 The Marketplace 1 03-09-2013 08:39 AM
HEY, HEY,HEY!!!! JustSayin' The Marketplace 0 11-10-2010 12:01 AM
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY - cool your jets. JTacoma03 The Marketplace 20 08-26-2010 10:35 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.