Kahneman and Leaderboard nerdery

[Hankshank]

Talking about leaderboards is probably on the bottom side of the executive kudos scale for internet golf forums where stuff like knowing all about shaft technology, knowing all the answers about golf controversials as LIV or broomstick rules and how awful US golf commentators are, are on the top side. And probably on the top of the nerd scale. 

But I know that probably all of you who takes time to write regularly in a sub forum like "tour talk" is in and out of leaderboard frequently, maybe not as much as I that follows my fellow countrymens progress on the latin american tour(Linus and Tim are currently doing great).

 

Now, I also suppose that you have your favourites(Being the citizen of a pretty small country, my fellow countrymen and countrywomen are obvious candidates) and do follow their progress. And doing that, I am on the nerd scale of trying to understand what kind of problems they have, just looking at the score cards and trying to find patterns. One of the fellow countrymen, a prodigy that never really took off, have been doing pretty good lately, but do always - I sort of discern - have five consecutive holes where he makes at least 2 bogeys and no birdies. And that might indicate that he do not really have swing problems or short game problems but rather brain ghosts. That kind of stuff is what my brain comes up with and I suppose I am not the only one....

 

Now David Kahneman wrote a book which seem to have the English title Thinking, fast and slow, that was a hit here in Scandinavia, maybe also in other countries. It deals with how we act upon stuff in direct and thoughtful manners as the main event. But it also deals with how we act upon stuff that can be analysed statistically, and that we most often do find patterns where there aren't any. Or do make predictions on stuff that is not really valid.

 

Its quite easy to see that in golf, and not only on a personal level. If the average Joe journeyman professional comes up with two good rounds in a tournament where there are pros way better ranked, the guy doing the interviews will go something like "so now you´re going for the victory". When really, a good round for a player, better than normal is typically a temporal fluke, and the next round will most probably be in the range of the normal capacity for the player. But if a fellow countryman find himself (for the home guys its a rather sparse occurence these days) at the immediate top of the leaderboard after saturday play on a reasonably big tournament the hopes run high. Not only for me but on all (rather few nowadays) golf news channels. 

 

Now, what kind of info can one really get from watching leaderboards? Do players actually analyse their rounds afterwards?

 

Thing is, nowadays as blogs and stuff like that is a thing of the past, you don't have a clue about what really happened for a player you follow unless he´s (or she´s) like top 5.  And if one writes in a subforum like this, one is probably interested in stuff like that?

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Hankshank

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 hours ago, Hankshank said:

Now David Kahneman wrote a book which seem to have the English title Thinking, fast and slow, that was a hit here in Scandinavia, maybe also in other countries. It deals with how we act upon stuff in direct and thoughtful manners as the main event. But it also deals with how we act upon stuff that can be analysed statistically, and that we most often do find patterns where there aren't any. Or do make predictions on stuff that is not really valid.

 

 

If you haven't read it, check out Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. It's not directly related here, but talks a lot about one of the key things that has enabled human society is the ability to make persistent myths. I.e. what is "money"? It's little green pieces of fabric/paper (in the USA) and increasingly just ledgers on a computer somewhere, but we all agree that it's valuable and it makes transactions in a complex society possible. If you really think about it, all money (even gold) is only "money" because we all simply agree it is. 

 

Per your point, that ability is something that's in our brains and can't easily be switched off, so we tend to apply narratives and patterns where none exist. And usually those narratives/patterns don't very well predict the future, but it sure helps us explain the past (even if invalid). We as people simply NEED to create a narrative to explain what happens in the world, even though a damn lot of the world is just random chance. And then we reinforce those narratives so everything in the future that supports it reinforces it, and the times it doesn't happen is a "fluke". When in reality there was no narrative/pattern at all. 

 

As far as trying to create narratives about players who aren't you and you're not inside their head, I wouldn't even try. The level of knowledge you would need in order to determine whether something is a viable pattern/narrative or is random chance is simply something you can't know. So unless you've got a Being John Malkovich portal available to you, you're chasing a ghost. 

 

It's hard to let go of that narrative-building. It's also hard to get rid of it in our own games. For example, I've read many people here talk about smoking a drive and leaving a wedge to the green, so OF COURSE they chunk it or thin it or otherwise flub it up. But of course those players don't always do that. They probably actually put that wedge on/near the green and make par more often than they let on. But in their brains, the number of times they've screwed up after a perfect drive stick out like a sore thumb, and becomes the narrative. So many of us can't figure out how to simply turn golf into a game of "see ball, hit ball, find ball, repeat". We let expectations or doubt creep in. We see that we've put up a great score on the front 9 and then sabotage ourselves on the back because of pressure. 

 

I think the advice is to be Dustin Johnson. He hasn't had a single thought in his head on a golf course since 2009, and look at how that worked out for him...

[jonsnow]

46 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

If you haven't read it, check out Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. It's not directly related here, but talks a lot about one of the key things that has enabled human society is the ability to make persistent myths. I.e. what is "money"? It's little green pieces of fabric/paper (in the USA) and increasingly just ledgers on a computer somewhere, but we all agree that it's valuable and it makes transactions in a complex society possible. If you really think about it, all money (even gold) is only "money" because we all simply agree it is. 

 

Per your point, that ability is something that's in our brains and can't easily be switched off, so we tend to apply narratives and patterns where none exist. And usually those narratives/patterns don't very well predict the future, but it sure helps us explain the past (even if invalid). We as people simply NEED to create a narrative to explain what happens in the world, even though a damn lot of the world is just random chance. And then we reinforce those narratives so everything in the future that supports it reinforces it, and the times it doesn't happen is a "fluke". When in reality there was no narrative/pattern at all. 

 

As far as trying to create narratives about players who aren't you and you're not inside their head, I wouldn't even try. The level of knowledge you would need in order to determine whether something is a viable pattern/narrative or is random chance is simply something you can't know. So unless you've got a Being John Malkovich portal available to you, you're chasing a ghost. 

 

It's hard to let go of that narrative-building. It's also hard to get rid of it in our own games. For example, I've read many people here talk about smoking a drive and leaving a wedge to the green, so OF COURSE they chunk it or thin it or otherwise flub it up. But of course those players don't always do that. They probably actually put that wedge on/near the green and make par more often than they let on. But in their brains, the number of times they've screwed up after a perfect drive stick out like a sore thumb, and becomes the narrative. So many of us can't figure out how to simply turn golf into a game of "see ball, hit ball, find ball, repeat". We let expectations or doubt creep in. We see that we've put up a great score on the front 9 and then sabotage ourselves on the back because of pressure. 

 

I think the advice is to be Dustin Johnson. He hasn't had a single thought in his head on a golf course since 2009, and look at how that worked out for him...

FIFY

[Chunkitgood]

If you want to know what money is and why the “probabilities” you encounter in the golf world mostly mean nothing, check out the von Mises brothers.

[Dutch1008]

14 hours ago, Hankshank said:

Now David Kahneman wrote a book which seem to have the English title Thinking, fast and slow, that was a hit here in Scandinavia, maybe also in other countries. It deals with how we act upon stuff in direct and thoughtful manners as the main event. But it also deals with how we act upon stuff that can be analysed statistically, and that we most often do find patterns where there aren't any. Or do make predictions on stuff that is not really valid.

I don't know if the ideas presented in the book give us any tools to meaningfully analyze a leaderboard. However, I do think his system 1 vs system 2 thinking can help us on a golf course. 

 

System 2 should be our pre-shot routine. What's the distance, wind, elevation? Does the shot call for a draw, fade, high, low? How can we apply past experience or learn from our playing partners shot? Etc. 

 

However, once that work is complete and we're over the ball, we'd all be better off defaulting to our system 1 lizard brain and letting instinct take over. Make a plan, set up for the plan, then let athleticism take over. 

 

This is definitely something I need to work on. Too often I have far too many swing thoughts in my head. I always play better when I'm not over analyzing over the ball.  

[Hankshank]

But related to leaderboards I guess guys do watch them and might even put some money on a player on a betting site, based on to a at least a certain extent the numbers in those leaderboards, one wonder if those analysis turns out well…

 

Nikas Lemke, son of the club pro at the course where I played in my student years, well in contention in the DP Mauritus event, then three straight bogeys at the three last holes of the round… well, I would love to hear his words on that.

 

I do have, over the last decade had some communication with pros since the blog days, eg Robert Karlsson that won the European tour, now doing well on the Chanpions tour. A man of many thoughts, that did indeed shared comments on his play longer than most.

 

he stopped just a few ys ago and I sent him an email about it, and his take  is that the players get so much s*** feedback as maybe the biggest reason for not posting about their own recent play

 

The players do have opinion about their rounds, some can’t just stop in the interviews. And there are more eyes than mine ready to read what they say with interest, but then, all little scenarios comes up is some guys brains that guys just cant avoid posting as comments. Remember the endless comments Westwood did get on his putting on twitter. A pity, the banter btw him, Poulter,  Rory et al was great. And you got some insights on the play of the players.

 

i had some thought on there being like a chat thing on pgatour.com but something modern where the players could give feedback after the rounds, say a mircophone in a booth outside the recording area where they just could go in and share some thoughts posted later with no possibilities for commenting or liking. 
 

and on interviews, the question that most often seem to get some length is say some words on the play. On the DP those on course interviews gets guys talking.

 

and its like the mirror neurons later time psychologists and neuroscience guys talk about i guess gets going in ones brain seeing others play.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Hankshank

[aenemated]

22 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I think the advice is to be Dustin Johnson. He hasn't had a single thought in his head on a golf course since 2009, and look at how that worked out for him...

 

😂😂😂

[aenemated]

On 12/16/2022 at 1:50 AM, Hankshank said:

Now David Kahneman wrote a book which seem to have the English title Thinking, fast and slow, that was a hit here in Scandinavia, maybe also in other countries. It deals with how we act upon stuff in direct and thoughtful manners as the main event. But it also deals with how we act upon stuff that can be analysed statistically, and that we most often do find patterns where there aren't any. Or do make predictions on stuff that is not really valid.

 

Really great book. Read it ... 5, 6 years ago? Something like that. 

 

Need to re-read. 

[Ferguson]

Okay, stop the presses.  I have a newfound respect for WRX with the mention of Daniel Kahneman's work. 

 

 

[Hankshank]

Golf is an activity a pretty obvious candidate for that kind of statistics bias as Kahneman describes, isn’t it? Embracing that bias, it’s big part of what makes golf fun? The high expectations one goes to the golf club with after seeing that youtube tip that made the range session a hallelujah experience…

 

Now, looking at leaderboards is more than that. One has as an armchair expert probably better awareness of the form of the favorite than of own golf. After all, those guys are good from the start and takes golf lessons like daily, so their goods and bads should be more predictable. But apart from the actual score of a guy or gal one likes one would like to know a bit more. What part of the play was good or bad in their eyes. And one do not get that nowadays from others than the top players in the tournamens that get TV times and gives interviews. Nowadays.

 

pondered on that a little last years. Whas it just that guys are too aloof nowadays, not to share round experiences in journals, twitter and other social media? 
 

I don’t think so. The pretty girls and the guy that have that on-course micophone on DP events have none whatsoever problems to get really sincere opinions on the players progress as they interview them. I do belive Robban when he says its Trolls that push them out of giving feedback. Then, of course, there might be branding gurus that tell them not to for some business reason, one does not know that kind of stuff
 

My fellow countrymen, Per-Ulrik Johansson and Robban an already mentioned, later Noren and even later Kinhult wrote great journals early in their careers and many read those with pleasure. One would like to find ways for guys to give not-trolled feedback again.

 

thats what I like about Tiger and Rory, arguably the best players in my Post Jack dominance golfing life. They do share a lot about their golf. Tiger in his prime was maybe the best. When he fiddled with his swing, told everyone that ne was “close” and talked about single little crispy shots on the range that made everything come together. One can relate to that. To hear guys reciting “stay patient” is as funny as seeing grass grow. Even if it’s probably true.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Hankshank

[me05501]

On 12/16/2022 at 7:36 PM, Dutch1008 said:

I don't know if the ideas presented in the book give us any tools to meaningfully analyze a leaderboard. However, I do think his system 1 vs system 2 thinking can help us on a golf course. 

 

System 2 should be our pre-shot routine. What's the distance, wind, elevation? Does the shot call for a draw, fade, high, low? How can we apply past experience or learn from our playing partners shot? Etc. 

 

However, once that work is complete and we're over the ball, we'd all be better off defaulting to our system 1 lizard brain and letting instinct take over. Make a plan, set up for the plan, then let athleticism take over. 

 

This is definitely something I need to work on. Too often I have far too many swing thoughts in my head. I always play better when I'm not over analyzing over the ball.  

 

 

The book "Be a Player" by Pia Nilsson & Lynn Marriott is all about this concept. Rotella's stuff leans on this pretty heavily as well.

 

The big idea is that our lizard brain relies on all the evolution that has taken place since we started walking our hind legs. Our ability to send a projectile toward a specific target resides in our subconscious and trying to engage conscious thought is detrimental to that exercise. We survivors evolved from those who were able to hunt, not the ones who starved. 🙂

 

After spending 2022 getting the right gear in my bag and working on physical stuff, I plan for 2023 to be a season of growth in my mental game.

 

One idea that appeals to me is trying to treat each shot like I was in a scramble. One of the last rounds I got in before the weather changed was a scramble on a course I know well. The team was assembled more for the sake of personalities than playing ability and as it turned out I was our "A" player (as an 11HC...needless to say we didn't win anything). 

 

However, on that day I stepped up and played like an anchor player should. I approached and executed my shots with confidence. I didn't feel pressure, I just felt like it was my time to shine. I hit more good drives that day than I ever have when playing my own ball and I made or nearly made a mile of putts. In fact they had a putting contest on the practice green where you got three attempts to sink a 30' putt and I made two of them. It was just that kind of day. 

 

I'm trying to figure out ways to use the same mental state when I'm playing my own ball. To see the target and not the trees. To see the putt go in the hole and then make the putt go in the hole. I feel like this is the way better players approach the game and I need to convince myself that I deserve that too. 

 

 

[Hankshank]

17 hours ago, me05501 said:

 

 

The book "Be a Player" by Pia Nilsson & Lynn Marriott is all about this concept. Rotella's stuff leans on this pretty heavily as well.

 

The big idea is that our lizard brain relies on all the evolution that has taken place since we started walking our hind legs. Our ability to send a projectile toward a specific target resides in our subconscious and trying to engage conscious thought is detrimental to that exercise. We survivors evolved from those who were able to hunt, not the ones who starved. 🙂

 

After spending 2022 getting the right gear in my bag and working on physical stuff, I plan for 2023 to be a season of growth in my mental game.

 

One idea that appeals to me is trying to treat each shot like I was in a scramble. One of the last rounds I got in before the weather changed was a scramble on a course I know well. The team was assembled more for the sake of personalities than playing ability and as it turned out I was our "A" player (as an 11HC...needless to say we didn't win anything). 

 

However, on that day I stepped up and played like an anchor player should. I approached and executed my shots with confidence. I didn't feel pressure, I just felt like it was my time to shine. I hit more good drives that day than I ever have when playing my own ball and I made or nearly made a mile of putts. In fact they had a putting contest on the practice green where you got three attempts to sink a 30' putt and I made two of them. It was just that kind of day. 

 

I'm trying to figure out ways to use the same mental state when I'm playing my own ball. To see the target and not the trees. To see the putt go in the hole and then make the putt go in the hole. I feel like this is the way better players approach the game and I need to convince myself that I deserve that too. 

 

 

Stay patient and stay in the process 🙂