#191  
Old 09-15-2020, 06:54 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,244
Niced 1,531 Times in 873 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Nope. Never has been involved in the calcs. All of those factors are inherently incorporated in the scores the propagators shoot. That's the key to making the system work without needing to try and figure out how much each of the thousands of tiny factors impact the course rating during that time period.
mind blown...so often I've been told that course conditions, weather, play a role in the ratings calc over the years. Better wording would be it plays a role in how well the players play the course. But the course being harder or easier based on conditions (slippery tees, water, etc) doesn't play a factor at all. Interesting, thx for the clarification.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 09-15-2020, 07:07 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: 12,827
Niced 2,519 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default

Something else to consider is the locations you land for every throw is different in each round on the same course other than the 18 throws that hole out. So no one actually plays the same throw sequence on the same course twice in a tournament day. That's separate from any weather-related differences and changes you may make to your disc and shot selection in the second round. Interestingly, we've found more second rounds with higher SSA than the first round even though you would think players learned something that would have helped them play better in the second round.

Think about the area where each player is likely to land based on their average distance and backhand/forehand spin. If there are any differences in ground surface, OB or vertical obstacles in each person's likely landing area, they will regularly have different challenges within the area when they have a good throw let alone a poor throw. Two feet left and you're up against or behind a tree and have to flick instead of backhand. Players who can't make it or decide not to throw across water lay up. That tree at 350 feet only affects those who can throw past it from the tee. If you only throw 300 max, you deal with it from a much closer distance and angle, hopefully, on your next throw.

Everyone is playing a different course on the same layout with the exception of the basket positions. Even then, are they coming at it into the wind or uphill some rounds? Point being that the system relies on gathering as many numbers as possible to average out these random happenings which can only be measured in toto via accumulating their round scores which rolls all of those random effects into a single number per player.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 09-15-2020, 07:10 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: 12,827
Niced 2,519 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
mind blown...so often I've been told that course conditions, weather, play a role in the ratings calc over the years. Better wording would be it plays a role in how well the players play the course. But the course being harder or easier based on conditions (slippery tees, water, etc) doesn't play a factor at all. Interesting, thx for the clarification.
All of those items play a factor. We just don't know how much each one plays a factor in each propagator's score. Imagine trying to figure out how much each one made a difference?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 09-15-2020, 10:53 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.2
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,617
Niced 611 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
Unless you have an identical twin. If you do, the probability is cut in half. Which again illustrates the difference between "impossible" and "highly unlikely".
Again, Mr. Mono, I understand the difference between impossible and highly unlikely. I am not an idiot, sir, so please stop the patronizing. By the way, DNA science can definitively determine paternity, even in the case of identical twins. One twin is excluded from paternity (0 chance out of 100, aka 0%) and one twin is the daddy (mathematically calculated to 99.999% because there is no reciprocal for 0/100).

https://www.eurofins.com/scientific-...cal-twin-myth/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
Are you familiar with Long Term Capital Management? They were run by finance PhDs and two Nobel prize winners. And yet they managed to lose $4.4 billion out of $4.7 billion in assets in a year by being a little too sure they were right.

Look, I respect your knowledge of disc golf and statistics, and life is too short to spend it arguing on the internet. As I stated previously, I agree with your underlying point about the rating system.

So I respectfully suggest using a different word than "impossible" for that which is supremely unlikely to ever happen. But you are a grownup and may certainly do as you wish.
Mono, I am going to respectfully ask you to understand that as currently is situated and until I have some REALITY that shows otherwise, I mean impossible. That's what I mean. As in this Webster's Dictionary meaning of the word, identified here as 1a: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible.

I am not, as you continue to disrespectfully suggest, utilizing the word "impossible" as a substitute for "improbable," "supremely unlikely," "highly unlikely", "completely unrealistic," "prohibitively unlikely," or any other iteration that you may *think* I mean -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- not in this context. If I am proven wrong someday, then I'll admit I am wrong. I won't cower down to "no I didn't mean 'truly impossible' " just trying to then save face, because that is what I DO mean -- not possible in the real world. So if I were to substitute any of those words you propose I use, then I'd be lying about what my opinion, evidence, and training has brought me to the conclusion of. And I prefer not to lie about issues like this.

As far as the Long Germ Capital Management or whatever it was, there is NO comparison herein. As I said earlier, to my knowledge no such sure thing investment exists. None. If people believed what those PhDs told them, then someone got sold a bag of goods. And if those PhDs really honestly believed the investments to be 100% certain, then what purpose would there even be in telling others to invest therein? They'd have only used their own money. Duh! Why would they need investors for a 100% certain investment???

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 09-15-2020, 11:22 PM
Biggie_Robs Biggie_Robs is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Years Playing: 26.4
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4
Niced 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorB View Post
Not a personal attack at all.

I feel very strongly that a very small green fee (I pay $110 annually, total, for 5 courses) should be considered by many more parks departments. Some of the appeal of disc golf is the 'free' to play aspect - but I think the sport also needs additional, local investment beyond what taxes pay for. This will also help the volunteer pools that always seem to be only a few of the same people that will do extra course maintenance - the parks department would have a significantly larger budget to allocate funds for work and improvement using the model we have here. All of the money that is raised for daily/annual fees is put back into the courses. The improvements I've seen locally in the 4 years I've been here have been dramatic and very much appreciated.
You're basically describing the fishing license model, right?
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 09-16-2020, 12:05 AM
Monocacy's Avatar
Monocacy Monocacy is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maryland
Years Playing: 20.4
Courses Played: 180
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,137
Niced 1,448 Times in 572 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Again, Mr. Mono, I understand the difference between impossible and highly unlikely. I am not an idiot, sir, so please stop the patronizing.
There was no intent whatsoever on my part to be patronizing. If anything I wrote came across that way, I apologize sincerely.

And please keep in mind that I have stated - TWICE - that I have no disagreement with the substance of what you have written about the ratings system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
By the way, DNA science can definitively determine paternity, even in the case of identical twins. One twin is excluded from paternity (0 chance out of 100, aka 0%) and one twin is the daddy (mathematically calculated to 99.999% because there is no reciprocal for 0/100).

https://www.eurofins.com/scientific-...cal-twin-myth/
That is an interesting article, thank you for posting. I learned something, and I always appreciate that.

If I read the article correctly, it sounds like they are sequencing the whole genome, or close to it, to detect subtle genetic differences between identical twins. Standard paternity tests examine a much more limited number of markers and would be unlikely to distinguish between identical twins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Mono, I am going to respectfully ask you to understand that as currently is situated and until I have some REALITY that shows otherwise, I mean impossible. That's what I mean. As in this Webster's Dictionary meaning of the word, identified here as 1a: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible.
The first definition of "impossible", per your link, is "incapable of being or of occurring". I will go back to the probability that the air in a room suddenly rushes to the corners, leaving most of the room in a vacuum. This has probably never happened. It will probably never happen while humans exist, and might never happen while our universe exists. But it could happen tomorrow, and the probability can be calculated.

Would you consider such an event "incapabable of being or occurring"? That could be the essence of our communication disconnect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
I am not, as you continue to disrespectfully suggest, utilizing the word "impossible" as a substitute for "improbable," "supremely unlikely," "highly unlikely", "completely unrealistic," "prohibitively unlikely," or any other iteration that you may *think* I mean -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- not in this context.
I am genuinely baffled why you interpret what I have written as disrespectful. That was not my purpose or intent. I respect your knowledge of disc golf and statistics, as I specifically stated previously. But we clearly differ on what "impossible" means. Which is pretty far from the substance of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
As far as the Long Germ Capital Management or whatever it was, there is NO comparison herein. . . .
I completely agree that no "sure thing investment" exists. Given your interest in finance and statistics, you might find the Long-Term Capital Management saga rather interesting. Or perhaps not. In any case, I have not read this book but it is supposed to be quite good.
At Long-Term, Meriwether & Co. truly believed that their finely tuned computer models had tamed the genie of risk, and would allow them to bet on the future with near mathematical certainty. And thanks to their cast--which included a pair of future Nobel Prize winners--investors believed them.
When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management

The Nobel Prize winners were Merton and Scholes, who received Nobel Prize in Economics for developing the Black-Scholes-Merton model for valuing derivatives.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 09-16-2020, 12:12 AM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.6
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 317
Niced 254 Times in 121 Posts
Default

Is it possible for a group of 4 players (850,900,950,1000) to play an 18 hole round and the 850 player has the best score and 1000 rated player has the worst score?

Of course it is. It's sports. If the trend continues in rated rounds, then the ratings will change over time. To suggest otherwise would imply that it's not a competitive event, but a series of fixed outcomes.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 09-16-2020, 12:37 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: 12,827
Niced 2,519 Times in 1,067 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by txmxer View Post
Is it possible for a group of 4 players (850,900,950,1000) to play an 18 hole round and the 850 player has the best score and 1000 rated player has the worst score?

Of course it is. It's sports. If the trend continues in rated rounds, then the ratings will change over time. To suggest otherwise would imply that it's not a competitive event, but a series of fixed outcomes.
On a competent course with an SSA around 50, the odds are about 1 in 6 that the 1000 rated player will shoot worse than 970. Same odds for the 850 shooting better than 880 That's a 1 in 36 chance those two players will shoot within 90 points of each other. It's around 1 in 400 rounds that the 1000 rated player will shoot below 940 and the 850 shoots above 910. It's about 1 in 1000 rounds that the 1000 rated player shoots below 920 and the 850 player shoots above 930 to win that round. So it's possible and probably happened a few times over 20 years. However, that anomaly would usually be buried in the stats where the rest of the props hovered around their normal scoring range and few ever saw the anomaly.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 09-16-2020, 12:50 AM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.6
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 317
Niced 254 Times in 121 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
On a competent course with an SSA around 50, the odds are about 1 in 6 that the 1000 rated player will shoot worse than 970. Same odds for the 850 shooting better than 880 That's a 1 in 36 chance those two players will shoot within 90 points of each other. It's around 1 in 400 rounds that the 1000 rated player will shoot below 940 and the 850 shoots above 910. It's about 1 in 1000 rounds that the 1000 rated player shoots below 920 and the 850 player shoots above 930 to win that round. So it's possible and probably happened a few times over 20 years. However, that anomaly would usually be buried in the stats where the rest of the props hovered around their normal scoring range and few ever saw the anomaly.
Thanks for the input. I buy into the Idea that the proof is in the historical results that the ratings system works.

It is the KISS principle in action and the corollary of keep it as simple as possible but no simpler.
Reply With Quote
 

  #200  
Old 09-16-2020, 03:25 AM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,683
Niced 650 Times in 316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
On a competent course with an SSA around 50, the odds are about 1 in 6 that the 1000 rated player will shoot worse than 970. Same odds for the 850 shooting better than 880 That's a 1 in 36 chance those two players will shoot within 90 points of each other. It's around 1 in 400 rounds that the 1000 rated player will shoot below 940 and the 850 shoots above 910. It's about 1 in 1000 rounds that the 1000 rated player shoots below 920 and the 850 player shoots above 930 to win that round. So it's possible and probably happened a few times over 20 years. However, that anomaly would usually be buried in the stats where the rest of the props hovered around their normal scoring range and few ever saw the anomaly.
As I understand it abnormally bad rounds are dropped from ratings calculations, whereas abnormally good rounds are included. Do you think some ratings inflation is due to this practice?
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 04:32 PM.


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