Posted July 24, 2010
| Exceptional Tournament Scores Probability Table Handicap Index Ranges |
|||||
| Net Differential | 0-5 | 6-12 | 13-21 | 22-30 | 31-up |
| 0 | 5:1 | 5:1 | 6:1 | 5:1 | 5:1 |
| -1 | 10:1 | 10:1 | 10:1 | 8:1 | 7:1 |
| -2 | 23:1 | 22:1 | 21:1 | 13:1 | 10:1 |
| -3 | 57:1 | 51:1 | 43:1 | 23:1 | 15:1 |
| -4 | 151:1 | 121:1 | 87:1 | 40:1 | 22:1 |
| -5 | 379:1 | 276:1 | 174:1 | 72:1 | 35:1 |
| -6 | 790:1 | 536:1 | 323:1 | 130:1 | 60:1 |
| -7 | 2349:1 | 1200:1 | 552:1 | 229:1 | 101:1 |
| -8 | 20111:1 | 4467:1 | 1138:1 | 382:1 | 185:1 |
| -9 | 48219:1 | 27877:1 | 3577:1 | 695:1 | 359:1 |
| -10 | 125000:1 | 84300:1 | 37000:1 | 1650:1 | 874:1 |
The values in the table are the odds of shooting a net differential equal or better than the number in the left column. Net differential reflects how many strokes lower than his Index a player shot.
The above table, taken from the USGA Handicap System manual, shows that it’s highly unlikely that a player will shoot more than three strokes below his Handicap Index in a given round. If the same player does it on multiple occasions in a short span, he’s either defying the laws of probability or a sandbagger.
For example, a player with a Handicap Index of 10.5 shoots a 74 from a set of tees with a course rating of 71.2 and a Slope rating of 126. His handicap differential is 2.5, taking the Slope rating into account (74 – 71.2 = 2.8 x 113/126). That gives him a net differential of -8.0. From the chart, the odds of this occurring are 4,467 to 1.
Higher-handicap players have a greater chance of shooting an exceptional round because score variability rises with handicaps. That’s why mid- to highhandicappers often walk off with the title in a large-field net event. Low handicappers can be consoled by the fact that their consistency gives them the edge in head-to-head play and multiple-round tournaments.
Source: Fairway Fellons
735 Views • 19 Likes • 1 Dislike • What do you think? 
| Comments (32) | |
|---|---|
 |
SHREKK
August 19, 2010 I have never understood what advantage you would gain from posting a lower score than you actually shot anyhow unless your an ego monster. If you carry a 21 handicap, such as myself but you're really shooting 100 every round then your roughly loseing 7 to 8 strokes to me when you do get into a tourny. Thats why I post my high scores along with my low ones. |
 |
gsollars
August 17, 2010 So, I shot the lowest round I have shot in a long time, a 75 at Squaw Valley (72.2, 127) in Granbury, Texas. I do shoot 76, 77, 78 and 79's so a 75 is not that unusual, I thought (you can look at my scores here on Golfq.com). But I also post a lot of scores in the low to mid-80's and the odd 90 but that's just the way I play. Some days I just don't play well. So going thru the math: my index is 6.4, 75 - 72.2 = 2.8, now 2.8 x 113/127 = 2.49, say 2.5. If I understand correctly, now: 2.5 - 6.4 = -3.9. Call that -3.9 a 4 and the table says the odds of me shooting a 75 are about 121 to 1. That seems like sort of long odds but it is relatively higher up on the table so would someone conclude that I cheated? Actually, I know I didn't and that's why I would prefer to play in tournaments face to face so that my opponents can see my shots and there should be no issue of cheating. I think that the purpose of the table is to identify players that post rounds that are impossible to beli |
 |
BigBreakB
July 26, 2010 I get what everone is saying, and in fact, before "GreenReader" posted this blog, I already looked up the USGA probabilities. I found the same chart. But I was thinking, I'm a 11.4 HC, but on my scoring record is a 74 (non-tournament). For the last six months, Ive been taking lessons and practicing daily. I just shot an 81, thats (-0.7) differential. I was pumped to shot an 81. However I know that 70s are just around the corner. Maybe the USGA can "weight" tournament rounds heavy on the handicap system. It reflects the stress of a tournment and give a better read of the players potential in a tournament? Any thoughts? |
 |
Golfandsoccer
July 26, 2010 From what I understand you are not supposed to simply post your best score. Rather, you are supposed to decide that you are playing a tournament round before you start to play. (I explain that I'm posting the score in a tourney to my playing partners so they know what's going on.) Then you post the actual score for the tourney for that round. Could Stracka admins please clarify for the masses what is expected on this point. BTW for the record, peoples handicaps change both up and down for many reasons. Injuries - extra practice - lessons (help or hurt???) can make a big difference in ones game. In the last year I went from a 14 to an 18 when (after an injury) I somehow lost the ability to hit my irons. I'm sure I'll get it back and when I do I expect to shoot in the mid 80's very quickly. In the meanwhile, I had to report a 96 on a relatively easy course for my last v-tourney round. |
 |
Sylla
July 26, 2010 This table is about exceptional scores *in a tournament*. Now the Stracka tournament is a bit different, because you simply post your best score toward the tournament (if i'm not mistaken). So I guess that you'll see lower scores because people simply post their best score for that period. |
 |
daveinvatx
July 25, 2010 Yes, I seriously shot a 76. I had a great day, I was strong off the tee, lots of GIRs and putted solid. I played the white tees and that definitely helped me have a good day. I used to play a lot of golf and I have been away from the game for a couple of years. This summer I have found my love for the game again and I have been playing a ton. My hard work finally pays off with a great day at the course and I am rewarded by being called a cheater? A serious accusation against my character. I would not want to win a trip to Pebble if I cheated... why cheat myself and the game of golf? If I want to play Pebble I will just make a tee time and pay the green fees. I am an avid golfer, I follow the rules of golf to the best of my knowledge and I am really disappointed to be accused of cheating by others in this forum. My previous low round was a 78 and I am really excited about shooting a 76... thanks for sapping some of my enthusiasm after I shot a career low. |
 |
Mongo710
July 25, 2010 SeanShepard, your DIFFERENTIAL was not -7. Assuming you played the white tees at Germania, your differential was 140-70.1=69.9, 69.98*113/123=64.21 or 64.2. 64.2 minus your index of 38.7 would be 25.5, not -7. Even if you DID go 7 under your index, at your handicap index of 38.7 it is MUCH more believeable than for a lower handicapper to do so. That's why I raised the point of a 14 handicapper (actually 14.9) shooting so low. It's just not very believable. |
 |
SeanShepard
July 25, 2010 Welp I went -7 so I must have cheated. I love cheating to win 25,000 stupid stracka points. Having to declare your round before hand would make a huge difference. If I had to declare my round, I probably would have shot +5. Instead I got to choose one of my best rounds. |
|
|
Mongo710
July 25, 2010 I was a little hesitant to post my score which was 3.8 under my index. Then after I posted it, I see that there's a 14 handicap that shot a 76. Seriously??? I had a feeling this might be an issue. Hopefully the organizers will look at past scoring history as well. About a year ago I was down to an 8.8 index that ballooned to 13 this year. I finally seem to have found my groove and shoot my 2 best rounds in a year in the past week. Common sense will prevail, I'm sure, just like it does at the Myrtle Beach World Am with sandbagging. Thanks for the opportunity to compete for this prize guys! |
 |
ShaunCrawford
July 24, 2010 I'm glad I'm not the only one suspicious of some of the "scores" coming in.... |
|
|
BigBreakB
July 24, 2010 Thanks for the post. I have done your calculations and I get to the 2.5 number. But how do you get from 2.5 to the -8.0? Additionally, in my round to day... I shot an 81 (white tees 69.4 116) So, 81-69.4=11.6, now, 11.6*113/116= 11.3. So what next? My handicap for the course is 12 so is my "net differential" -0.7? (5:1 odds)? Is my math right? Thanks, b |
