| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2009 01:04:31 AM · #501 |
Originally posted by gg3rd:
Maybe to proper account the mulligans should assign a value of 20 (or greater), since that's the theorical max number possible overpar for anyone. Otherwise, the mulligans are benefitting over those who took the risk of entering a challenge and going overpar. Just a thought... |
When all is said and done, the lowest two scores are dropped. The zeroth percentile is the lowest possible score, which is what is assigned to anyone missing a challenge. After the 9 holes, any missed holes will automatically be the lowest scores, so I have proactively turned everyones first two missed holes into mulligans (for those that apply). If anyone has gone over-par so far, if those rounds stand to be in their bottom two, they will be removed from the scoring at the end of 9 holes.
When all the 9 holes are done I will go through the scores of all participants who have not missed two challenges, and remove their worst round or two.
The mulligans were put in place so that people would not feel compelled to complete each and every challenge, and allow them to skip a week or two throughout the tournament if the challenges didnt inspire them.
Those who have missed more than two challenges are having 0% finished put in place of their non-entries, giving them the highest possible score for their handicap.
I am thinking that for future Golf Tournaments, I will put in a fixed score of +10, or +15 for missed holes. I do not want to change the rules for this tournament mid way however, so I dont want to make any changes to how it is being run. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 01:13:41 AM · #502 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let's make it simple: If my handicap is 50 and I'm forced to count a hole I did not play, I get 10 over par for that hole. If your handicap is 60 and your forced to count a hole you did not play, you get 12 over par for that hole. The way it's set up now, anyway. And that's not fair.
The simple solution is to drop from the tournament (DQ) anyone who does not complete 7 of the 9 holes.
R. |
In essence, this would mean dropping several photogs who have already missed 3 or 4 holes. I am very much on a fence about doing this. I would agree that because they arent really participating, they arent really in the tournament... but on the other hand, I wouldn't want to blindside anyone by making a change to the rules mid way through the tournament. If they are missing more than two holes, they are getting +Handicap/5 added to their total. Participants in this position are nowhere near the leaders in the challenge, so I dont think they are benefiting at all at this point. The participant closest to the lead despite missing more than two holes is 33 shots away from the top, so it would take some outstanding performances for them to get back in contention.... but who am I to say they dont deserve that chance.
I would also agree that because of the different handicaps, different people are getting different numbers of penalty strokes for missed holes (beyond mulligans). I didnt anticipate having so many people miss so many holes, and in hindsight, I would have made a fixed penalty for missed holes. If there are no objections, I can put this in place when I calculate the results next week.
ETA: Added the part in italics.
Message edited by author 2009-10-18 01:14:39. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 01:15:26 AM · #503 |
This is a suggestion for the *next* tournament, not a proposed change for *this* one. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I agree, no point in changing the rules mid-tournament.
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 01:23:41 AM · #504 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is a suggestion for the *next* tournament, not a proposed change for *this* one. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I agree, no point in changing the rules mid-tournament.
R. |
I am thinking that the next tournament should have a cut though. After the first 4 holes, the top half, or the top third move on. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 01:56:33 AM · #505 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I would also agree that because of the different handicaps, different people are getting different numbers of penalty strokes for missed holes (beyond mulligans). I didnt anticipate having so many people miss so many holes, and in hindsight, I would have made a fixed penalty for missed holes. If there are no objections, I can put this in place when I calculate the results next week. |
I think it's worth a try... it should reflect better the players positions, for the sake of those more actively participating.
For the next one, it could be combined a couple of mulligans, a penalty of non-entering and a cut out. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 01:59:00 AM · #506 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am thinking that the next tournament should have a cut though. After the first 4 holes, the top half, or the top third move on. |
Heck, if we want to get all fancy, let's do it like the U.S. Amateur; stroke play, followed by a cut and match play to determine a winner.
Go with 5 rds of stroke play, with 1 mulligan allowed, then cut to the top 16 and run 4 rds of match play to determine winners. No mulligans in match play. If there are any ties at end of stroke play, have the tie-breaker be whoever had the highest staring percentile (handicap). So if someone like me (48%) tied with someone with, say, a 65% starting handicap, then the nod would go to my oppo because he had to have much higher finishes to overcome my handicap advantage.
Seed the top 16 into match play based on their finishes (1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 3 plays 14, etc) and run the brackets odds in top bracket and evens in bottom bracket, based on the highest seed. So seeds 1, 3, 5, 7, are top bracket and 2, 4, 6, 8 are bottom bracket. If all matches go according to "form", 1 meets 2 in the finals.
That sounds like fun :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 09:16:45 AM · #507 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The simple solution is to drop from the tournament (DQ) anyone who does not complete 7 of the 9 holes.
R. |
...and burn their village. Don't forget that part.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2009 10:47:02 AM · #508 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am thinking that the next tournament should have a cut though. After the first 4 holes, the top half, or the top third move on. |
Heck, if we want to get all fancy, let's do it like the U.S. Amateur; stroke play, followed by a cut and match play to determine a winner.
Go with 5 rds of stroke play, with 1 mulligan allowed, then cut to the top 16 and run 4 rds of match play to determine winners. No mulligans in match play. If there are any ties at end of stroke play, have the tie-breaker be whoever had the highest staring percentile (handicap). So if someone like me (48%) tied with someone with, say, a 65% starting handicap, then the nod would go to my oppo because he had to have much higher finishes to overcome my handicap advantage.
Seed the top 16 into match play based on their finishes (1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, 3 plays 14, etc) and run the brackets odds in top bracket and evens in bottom bracket, based on the highest seed. So seeds 1, 3, 5, 7, are top bracket and 2, 4, 6, 8 are bottom bracket. If all matches go according to "form", 1 meets 2 in the finals.
That sounds like fun :-)
R. |
That is an awesome idea.... I will definitely put this together for round two. :D |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 06:27:50 PM · #509 |
| damn, I shouldn't have entered this, started at 5.8820 and 5 rounds (with 2 mulligans) later am down to 5.8698, thats a big drop for a 100+ challenge veteran :( |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:33:09 PM · #510 |
DPC Open Leaderboard
The Leaderboard has been updated.
Some changes to the appearance:
Mulligans are shown in yellow.
Photographers who have already exhausted both mulligans will have their handicaps highlited in orange.
Remember that mulligans cannot be used on the 9th hole to prevent anyone from coasting to the finish. Anyone who misses the 9th hole will receive a 0 score for that hole.
ETA: November 4th
Mulligans can be used in the 9th hole, as the rule in italics above was not written into the original rules. Sorry for any confusion.
Message edited by author 2009-11-04 13:51:35. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:55:11 PM · #511 |
Thanks BUNCHES!!
Fun stuff for us... Lots of work for you. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:57:20 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Thanks BUNCHES!!
Fun stuff for us... Lots of work for you. |
Probably shouldnt say this... but it really isnt a lot of work.... but if making people think that it is earns me brownie points, then I will continue pretending to sweat :D
Im glad your enjoying it... I am too. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:57:34 PM · #513 |
Great Work, thanks for all your effort.
 EricWoo seems unstoppable.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 08:00:17 PM · #514 |
| Is there a prize for staying at zero basically??? *sigh* |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 08:15:55 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Great Work, thanks for all your effort.
EricWoo seems unstoppable. |
He is doing amazing... consistently in the 90th percentile or better.... but remember,  jomerner is closer that it appears... she will have a mulligan or two that will boost her in the end, so its actually a tight race :) |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 09:52:02 PM · #516 |
In the fantasy league side comp, a shocking week for most teams...
Week 5 scores:
jeger 0
VitaminB +12
vawendy +17
vlado +20
Overall:
VitaminB -49
vlado -42
jeger -36
vawendy -6 |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 09:58:28 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Great Work, thanks for all your effort.
EricWoo seems unstoppable. |
He is doing amazing... consistently in the 90th percentile or better.... but remember, jomerner is closer that it appears... she will have a mulligan or two that will boost her in the end, so its actually a tight race :) |
Yeah, I think those dropped scores should seal the deal for her. It is awesome seeing how much more 'DPC appealing' she has been shooting. I'd like the league to take a close look at her for the possibility of performance enhaning substance use. ;)
Kidding, of course. Awesome work, Joanne. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 06:20:11 AM · #518 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Great Work, thanks for all your effort.
EricWoo seems unstoppable. |
He is doing amazing... consistently in the 90th percentile or better.... but remember, jomerner is closer that it appears... she will have a mulligan or two that will boost her in the end, so its actually a tight race :) |
Yeah, I think those dropped scores should seal the deal for her. It is awesome seeing how much more 'DPC appealing' she has been shooting. I'd like the league to take a close look at her for the possibility of performance enhaning substance use. ;)
Kidding, of course. Awesome work, Joanne. |
I should mention that there will be regular drug testing for the top 5 participants after the competition :P |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 08:02:07 AM · #519 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Great Work, thanks for all your effort.
EricWoo seems unstoppable. |
He is doing amazing... consistently in the 90th percentile or better.... but remember, jomerner is closer that it appears... she will have a mulligan or two that will boost her in the end, so its actually a tight race :) |
Yeah, I think those dropped scores should seal the deal for her. It is awesome seeing how much more 'DPC appealing' she has been shooting. I'd like the league to take a close look at her for the possibility of performance enhaning substance use. ;)
Kidding, of course. Awesome work, Joanne. |
I should mention that there will be regular drug testing for the top 5 participants after the competition :P |
FOR THE RECORD...alcohol is not a performance enhancer...unless you ask my wife. ;)
|
|
|
|
10/22/2009 09:13:50 AM · #520 |
| Surprisingly, there are still a few of us with entries for each week who are being beat by those who haven't entered at all or have only entered once. Methinks there's a lesson here... I'll get back to you with just what that is... :-) |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 10:14:28 AM · #521 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Surprisingly, there are still a few of us with entries for each week who are being beat by those who haven't entered at all or have only entered once. Methinks there's a lesson here... I'll get back to you with just what that is... :-) |
Who would that be? Can't find anyone with more than two mulligans... |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 10:25:34 AM · #522 |
| ambaker has two mulligans and no entries at all and he's still ahead of me and several others who've played all the holes so far. In essence he's getting +4.9 for each hole NOT played, while I can rack up a score much higher than that by actually playing the hole but not playing it very well. Kind of interesting. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 10:44:20 AM · #523 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Surprisingly, there are still a few of us with entries for each week who are being beat by those who haven't entered at all or have only entered once. Methinks there's a lesson here... I'll get back to you with just what that is... :-) |
Deb, that'll all change when he assigns VALUES to the did-not-compete finishes at the end. He's going to rank them at 0% and they will take a major hit. He's not doing that NOW because it would majorly skew the results as they show on the page, for those who only have a single no-show or two no-shows in their rankings, since those would be dropped at the end of the competition.
R. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 11:04:18 AM · #524 |
| No, he IS assigning scores to the did-not-competes for all holes beyond the two mulligans. And believe it or not, some of those folks aren't doing too poorly! :-) Hopefully, when the mulligans get dropped and the lowest scores get dropped, some of us who've actually tried won't look quite as bad. Still bad, but not quite as bad. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 11:19:21 AM · #525 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
No, he IS assigning scores to the did-not-competes for all holes beyond the two mulligans. And believe it or not, some of those folks aren't doing too poorly! :-) Hopefully, when the mulligans get dropped and the lowest scores get dropped, some of us who've actually tried won't look quite as bad. Still bad, but not quite as bad. |
I see that now, my bad. There are proposals in hand to fix this for the next tournament, thankfully.
On a more personal note, using a mulligan now brings me back up to -24, which ties me with that fricking teenager, Connor :-) Plus I got a nice score running in "Corner of the World" so I look to gain a few more points. Looks like Eric is uncatchable though, unless he craters in the last 4 challenges.
R. |
|
