USGA Indexes and Maximum Sandbagging

[DaveLeeNC]

The issue of sandbagging in tournaments handicapped using USGA indexes came up recently. I think I recall it coming up at least once before ( :taunt: ) so it must be of some interest here.

 

I was curious as to just how much it is possible to sandbag a tournament while posting all tournament scores as T scores. So this is what I did.

 

I assumed that Joe Sandbagger always posts some score that is higher than his playing ability, and that in all tournaments he posts a lower score (obviously). And to make it simple there are only two numbers here (one for every normal play round and one for every T Score round).

 

The only control here (outside the committee and the local handicap committee, assuming that T scores are posted as such) is that described in Section 10 of the Handicap Manual (10-3) where, AFTER TWO T SCORES HAVE BEEN POSTED, a player's index is subject to a reduction if his 'natural index' is enough different than his second best T Score differential (see the table in 10-3-b).

 

The table in the attached file shows how the system treats this sandbagger as he accumulates bogus T Scores (and prizes, I assume). For example row #6 shows a player who always posts a score with a differential of 10 in normal play, but a score with a differential of 4 in tournament play (or it could be 16 vs. 10), etc. As you see in the first two tournaments (assumed one day for each one) his net score (against COURSE RATING - NOT against par) is -6 as there is no reduction until after you have posted two T Scores. Then the Exceptional Tournament Score reductions kick in and start to reduce his index. I am assuming here that between tournaments, Joe (being the clever sandbagger that he is) posts enough scores so that those good T Scores have rolled off his index calculation. I figured that about six times is the most that would be practical here in a season.Note that the T Scores are saved for a year for purposes of calculating a reduction in index.

 

So it looks like to me like you can game the system (even with T Score Reductions) to the tune of about 5 strokes if you play it right, and you get two freebies on the front end. I put the data in as a screen capture just because it was easier than figuring out how this forum interface deals with tables.

 

FWIW.

 

dave

 

ps. The "3 rounds" entry in the -4 row should be -3 instead of -4. Screwup on my part.

[Sawgrass]

Dave, every time I read 10-3 I get confused as to whether the T score adjustment is automatically provided by a handicap service (such as GHIN) or must be employed by a devoted handicap committee and added to the service's data. Do you know?

(The other question that continually comes up in my mind is, "How the hell can anyone be so devoted to cheating?" But I don't expect you'd have the answer to that one.)

[hdr_ric]

It is automatically applied by GHIN.

[jt78129]

That's excellent analysis and something I have suspected others of. Pretty simple to track with a spreadsheet and, if you put up 100 scores a year, very hard to prove.

I did some analysis of one individual's scoring record after he won 5 out of 9 handicapped stroke play tournaments this year. He also came second in two more. I stopped playing after he won the first two as it was a waste of my time and money.

His average differential for those 7 T scores was a full six strokes lower than his average differential for his non-T scores.

He had an R handicap 3 different times this year, never for long though as he plays 3-4 times a week.

I always suspected he managed his cap to flirt with the tournament reduction but not get stung by it. Too many low rounds to win tournaments backed up a series of blow up rounds the following week.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1450378855' post='12732266']
Dave, every time I read 10-3 I get confused as to whether the T score adjustment is automatically provided by a handicap service (such as GHIN) or must be employed by a devoted handicap committee and added to the service's data. Do you know?

(The other question that continually comes up in my mind is, "How the hell can anyone be so devoted to cheating?" But I don't expect you'd have the answer to that one.)
[/quote]

SG, as hdr said Ghin does this as part of the calculation. Golfnet does the same thing, BTW.

dave

ps. It is interesting that 5 or 6 strokes would appear to be "the sweet spot" for USGA sandbagging.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='jt78129' timestamp='1450384559' post='12732780']
That's excellent analysis and something I have suspected others of. Pretty simple to track with a spreadsheet and, if you put up 100 scores a year, very hard to prove.

I did some analysis of one individual's scoring record after he won 5 out of 9 handicapped stroke play tournaments this year. He also came second in two more. I stopped playing after he won the first two as it was a waste of my time and money.

His average differential for those 7 T scores was a full six strokes lower than his average differential for his non-T scores.

He had an R handicap 3 different times this year, never for long though as he plays 3-4 times a week.

I always suspected he managed his cap to flirt with the tournament reduction but not get stung by it. Too many low rounds to win tournaments backed up a series of blow up rounds the following week.
[/quote]

Regarding the R handicap, those T scores last a full year no matter how much you play. And so does the reduction (which is recalculated at every index update). Adding more T scores (assuming that your second best T score is the same) will reduce the reduction, however.

dave

[jt78129]

A large number of t scores just increases the margin for error for the sandbagger, basically. Up to an 7.4 stroke difference in the average of your two best t scores vs your index.

The key here though is 'exceptional'. The calculation looks for anomalies in t scoring vs your last 20 rounds, not your overall t score performance compared to your handicap. You could have 50 t scores with an average differential 8 strokes below your index and have your index reduced by only one stroke.

2 other things aid this bagger:

Designation of t scores is haphazard at best. It is not always clear which tournament should be designated as a t score and comparing across competitors' scoring records it is applied inconsistently. Some of the lowest differentials shot to win tournaments are not t scores but should be.

In Canada the handicap factor adjustment is immediate so your daily play has a tangible effect on your index. While you can't lower your index by playing blow up rounds, you can very quickly bump out 4 or 5 lower, older scores.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='jt78129' timestamp='1450388065' post='12733084']
A large number of t scores just increases the margin for error for the sandbagger, basically. Up to an 7.4 stroke difference in the average of your two best t scores vs your index.

SNIP
[/quote]

I don't see any way to read the sentence above other than to say it just isn't correct. The number of t scores is fundamental to the calculation and can have a pretty big effect on the outcome. You can go from a 1 stroke to a 4.8 stroke index reduction by having only 2 applicable t scores but seeing your "index vs. second best t score" change from 4.2 to 6.7. Or you can keep your "index vs. second best t score" the same at 6.7, but change the number of t scores from 20 to 2.

dave

[jt78129]

Fair enough. I'm at the very limit of my knowledge on this stuff and I think it's showing so I'm going to bow out now.
What I do know is that sandbaggers are the worst!

[mark m]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1450378855' post='12732266']
Dave, every time I read 10-3 I get confused as to whether the T score adjustment is automatically provided by a handicap service (such as GHIN) or must be employed by a devoted handicap committee and added to the service's data. Do you know?

(The other question that continually comes up in my mind is, "How the hell can anyone be so devoted to cheating?" But I don't expect you'd have the answer to that one.)
[/quote]

Hi Sawgrass,

The answer is in section 10-3 (see 10-3e.). It is automatic as hdr mentioned. But the committee [u]must review them[/u]. (I believe most HC's do not and just let it run it's course.) In the time I served, we did override once for the reason given - a player with injuries. In our case, the guy had numerous back surgeries and other problems and had played very few rounds in the previous 2 seasons but still had decent 'T' scores in his record that were 3+ years old. I think it is a good idea to look at the player(s) with an 'R' as some might fall into the category mention in the second (or fourth) bullet point below.


[color=#474B55][color=#4E6F18][b]e. Handicap Committee Review of Reduction[/b][/color][/color]

[color=#474B55]The [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapCommittee"]Handicap Committee[/url][/i] [u]must review all reductions[/u]. As a result of review, the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapCommittee"]Handicap Committee[/url][/i] may:[/color]

[color=#474B55]• Continue to allow the reduction to run its normal course, as described in Section [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-3"]10-3d[/url], or[/color]

[color=#474B55]• Further reduce the [i]Handicap Index.[/i] For example, the Committee may conclude that the player's performance continues to be better than the potential ability indicated by the 10-3 reduction. In that case, the Committee replaces the reduced [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapIndex"]Handicap Index[/url][/i] with an even lower reduced [i]Handicap Index,[/i] continuing to review the reduction after each revision period (See Section [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14385,8-4"]8-4e[/url]), or[/color]

[color=#474B55]• [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,override"]Override[/url][/i] the reduction. For example, the Committee may cancel the reduction to a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapIndex"]Handicap Index[/url][/i] for a player who has been injured and whose reduction was based on early [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,tournamentscore"]tournament scores[/url][/i] prior to the injury. In that case, the reduction is inconsistent with the player's [i]scoring record.[/i] The Committee replaces the reduced[i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapIndex"]Handicap Index[/url][/i] with the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapIndex"]Handicap Index[/url][/i] calculated under [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-2"]10-2[/url] and ceases designating it with an R. The Committee will have the option to continue to [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,override"]override[/url][/i] after each revision period for as long as at least two exceptional [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,tournamentscore"]tournament scores[/url][/i] continue to trigger a [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-3"]10-3[/url] reduction. Once the player's [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,scoringrecord"]scoring record[/url][/i]contains fewer than two exceptional [i]tournament scores,[/i] the Committee must cease overriding and rely on the normal calculation under [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-2"]10-2[/url].[/color]

[color=#474B55]• Adjust the amount of the reduction. The [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapCommittee"]Handicap Committee[/url][/i] may decide that the player's full [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-3"]10-3[/url] reduction does not reflect their potential ability, but a reduction is still necessary. In this case, the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapCommittee"]Handicap Committee[/url][/i]may modify the amount of the reduction and the player's [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapIndex"]Handicap Index[/url][/i] as calculated by Section [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-2"]10-2[/url]. For example, if the player's [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-3"]10-3[/url] calculation is a 10.0R, but the [url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389,10-2"]10-2[/url] calculation is 15.0, the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,HandicapCommittee"]Handicap Committee[/url][/i]could change the player's reduced value to a value of 12.5M. This does not completely [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14370,override"]override[/url][/i] the player's reduction.[/color]

[larrybud]

The long lasting professional sandbagger wouldn't dare to have a T score differential of 5 or 6 shots. The ones I'm thinking of are about 2-3 shots better. They don't win all the handicapped events, however they qualify in nearly every single qualifier (with qualifiers usually taking 20% of the field), and they're usually near the top of the leaderboard.

I also don't believe the professional sandbagger posts fake (e.g. higher) scores, they just don't post all of their lower scores.