A handicapped random doubles format

[Improbably]

I have formulated a method for handicapping dubs I will be using this season at my home course. It's a bit different than any other system I have seen so I'm putting it up here for others to see, comment upon, and of course criticize.

I call it:

Fair Dubs

This is a handicapping format for random dubs. The handicap is based on how monetarily up or down the team is as a result of previous sessions. A team that is up will receive a penalty and a team that is down will receive a bonus. A diminishing return is applied to these bonuses and penalties.

Weekly buy in is $5 with $4 paid out; $1 going to course fund.

Each participating players buy ins and payouts will be recorded. This creates a "personal balance".

All players begin with a personal balance of 0.

Examples:

A player buys in for $5 and wins nothing they now have a personal balance of negative $5.

A player buys in for $5 and wins $5 they now have a personal balance of $0.

A player buys in for $5 and wins $10 they now have a personal balance of positive $5.

Once teams are determined the two players personal balances will be added together to determine a "team balance". In the case of Cali the team balance will be twice the personal balance.

If the team balance is $0 no bonus or penalty is applied.

If the team balance is positive they will receive a penalty equal to the square root of their balance.

Examples:

A team with a positive balance of $9 would take a 3 stroke penalty.

A team with a positive balance of $64 would take an 8 stroke penalty.

If the team balance is negative they will receive a bonus equal to the square root of the absolute value of their balance.

Examples:

A team with a negative balance of $25 would receive a 5 stroke bonus.

A team with a negative balance of $100 would receive a 10 stroke bonus.

Ties and decimals:

Taking a square root will often produce a decimal value. The decimal will be truncated to tenths.

For first place ties a decimal difference of .5 or greater will be considered a definitive victory and a decimal difference of .4 or less will result in sudden death playoff.

For second place and lower ties any decimal difference will be considered a definitive victory and only exact ties will result in sudden death playoff.

Cali:

If Cali is the discrete highest balance they will receive one mulligan per hole.

If Cali is the discrete lowest balance they will receive one mulligan per throw.

All other Cali will receive one mulligan on first OR second throw and mulligans an each successive throw till completing the hole.

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

Pretty nifty little system IMO. Cali rules are an annoying side case, but you seem to handle it in a reasonable way. Would be hard to stay on top with that kind of handicapping. I guess if you are a really good player, it makes it so you don't mind getting a less skilled player to lower your penalty, which is probably a big gripe of DG whiners if it is non-handicapped.

 

[Improbably]

Pretty nifty little system IMO. Cali rules are an annoying side case, but you seem to handle it in a reasonable way. Would be hard to stay on top with that kind of handicapping. I guess if you are a really good player, it makes it so you don't mind getting a less skilled player to lower your penalty, which is probably a big gripe of DG whiners if it is non-handicapped.

Thanks,

I'm dealing with a fairly small pool of players about 14 with highly varying skill levels. On any given Monday evening 7 or 9 but rarely 8 of them show. I expect everyone to reach an equilibrium point they hover near within 3-5 sessions.

 

[kerplunk]

I would go ahead and call this communist doubles. I say that because the handicap is determined by how much money a player has won rather than how much they win by. So if you win by one stroke with 8 players out you are handicapped more than winning by 3 with 6 players. I am not saying this format is necessarily bad, if you care to share the data after a season of this I would love to see it. As would some of the other nerds around here, I suspect.

 

[Improbably]

I would go ahead and call this communist doubles. I say that because the handicap is determined by how much money a player has won rather than how much they win by. So if you win by one stroke with 8 players out you are handicapped more than winning by 3 with 6 players. I am not saying this format is necessarily bad, if you care to share the data after a season of this I would love to see it. As would some of the other nerds around here, I suspect.

I see where you're coming from on that sobriquet.

My home course literally varies EVERY session, and not just different tees and pins; completely different holes. A single layout is often never used more than once a season so layout independence when handicapping is of primary importance.

I'll be very happy to share data once I have it.

 

[Timeetyo]

Interesting concept, I'm curious how it'll be received.

One problem with your math in examples is eventually everyone will be negative due to $1 not being paid out. You'd need to count only what you actually put into the pot ($4) per entry or it will be skewed after many events.

 

[CreemCheese]

I like this method a lot. Seems like it will help keep some of the newer/less skilled throwers active.

 

[Improbably]

Interesting concept, I'm curious how it'll be received.

One problem with your math in examples is eventually everyone will be negative due to $1 not being paid out. You'd need to count only what you actually put into the pot ($4) per entry or it will be skewed after many events.

I'm aware of what you are talking about. Short term the imbalance is negligible. Long term you are correct.

Medium term I see the imbalance as a positive not a problem. The imbalance will benefit players with high attendance rates. The imbalance will also reduce the net penalty for positive balance players over time compared to a negative balance player with the same attendance rate. Allowing the positive balance player to win a little more over time.

I have not done enough modeling to see when the practical results of the medium term phenomenon will begin to show but I guess about half a season.

I would love to see someone's data from doing this with a preserved equilibrium of dollars in and dollars out. Maybe I'll do that next year if the disequilibrium cramps functionality.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm curious your rationale for using the square root as an appropriate way to calculate handicaps other than being different?

 

[Improbably]

I'm curious your rationale for using the square root as an appropriate way to calculate handicaps other than being different?

I wanted a diminishing return on both penalties and bonuses. As well as it being essential that I can calculate 3-5 team handicaps in under a minute. There are other curves I would have preferred but sqrt is a readily available button on the calculator.

 

[Timeetyo]

I'm aware of what you are talking about. Short term the imbalance is negligible. Long term you are correct.

Medium term I see the imbalance as a positive not a problem. The imbalance will benefit players with high attendance rates. The imbalance will also reduce the net penalty for positive balance players over time compared to a negative balance player with the same attendance rate. Allowing the positive balance player to win a little more over time.

I have not done enough modeling to see when the practical results of the medium term phenomenon will begin to show but I guess about half a season.

I would love to see someone's data from doing this with a preserved equilibrium of dollars in and dollars out. Maybe I'll do that next year if the disequilibrium cramps functionality.

I hadn't considered the hidden bonus this gives to high attendance folks. Glad to see you've thought it out.

One thing I'm very curious about is the psychological side of this. The only way for this to work is for it to be truly transparent (giving each team/player their handicap). This of course TELLS them how much they are down for the season. Let's break down normal leagues into 3 groups. 1 - Those that likely will come out ahead. 2 - Those that are even-ish. 3 - Those that are likely donating. Now as this plays out I could see those in group 1 drop off as they realize they aren't winning like they normally do and are now closer to breaking even. Those in group 2 SHOULD be unaffected as this should keep them in that same area...although the lost $1 will add up and they'll show as down for the season. Those in group 3 should like this as it now gives them a better chance at breaking even.

 

[Improbably]

One thing I'm very curious about is the psychological side of this. The only way for this to work is for it to be truly transparent (giving each team/player their handicap). This of course TELLS them how much they are down for the season. Let's break down normal leagues into 3 groups. 1 - Those that likely will come out ahead. 2 - Those that are even-ish. 3 - Those that are likely donating. Now as this plays out I could see those in group 1 drop off as they realize they aren't winning like they normally do and are now closer to breaking even. Those in group 2 SHOULD be unaffected as this should keep them in that same area...although the lost $1 will add up and they'll show as down for the season. Those in group 3 should like this as it now gives them a better chance at breaking even.

From a psychological perspective most parties will be initially resistant. Change is annoyance at best. Once that's past I agree about your assessments for what your calling groups 1 and 3.

Group 2 however will be the most psychologically affected. No longer will it be as easy to casually regard themselves as breaking even. Most group 2 members will see that they are in fact either group 1 or group 3 members. Then dissonance will kick in as data conflicts with preconceived notion of self.

 

[kenjiac]

I like this very well thought out and fair way to handicap doubles
Now if you could just create a excel spreadsheet to use that automatically figures all this out on the fly that would be awesome.