Forums

Best of Par 5 holes

• genorb 1,255 Posts

  Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:12 AM

  alosso:

  genorb:

  What I am saying Jim is that the number of rounds required for advancement and the number of rounds required to reach saturation are the same number. This is the number of rounds played which influence your average.

  I have read reliable testimonies for both POVs, based on game counts. You said you didn't pay attention yourself. Therefore please allow me to enquire what is your proof or testimony, apart from your firm conviction?

  Edit: Quote added for reference.

  Nice way to use my words in a wrong way... :) I said I didn't pay attention on how best of par 5 and 3 was modifiying all the stats. But as long as those rounds don't change your average they cannot count for advancement or for saturation (which are both related see below) for sure.

  My testimonies are just plain logic.

  1. Best of par 3 and par 5 cannot count for the minimal number of rounds required for advancement (moving up tier) : indeed otherwise you potentially just need to play one round counting for your average, such as your average is below the average required for advancement, and then you play only best of par 3 and par 5, such as your average does no longer change, to have the number of rounds required to move up. That would not make any sense.
  2. Best of par 3 and par 5 don't count either for staturation. Indeed the minimal number of rounds required for advancement coincides precisely with the number of rounds required to reach saturation. They are the same number and let's call it XX. The value of this number of rounds depends on your tier. Again otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Indeed, reaching saturation means that one keeps only your XX best rounds to compute your average. If best of par 3 and 5 would count for saturation, then it makes no sense. For exemple if you play 1 normal round couting for your average and XX-1 Best of par 3 and 5 rounds, you have then played XX rounds (thus you have reached saturation if those rounds count), but still your average would be computed with only 1 round and not with your XX best rounds. In this example, this would mean that if the only round you played couting for your average was a 26, thus your average is 52, then after playing XX-1 Best of par3 and par 5 rounds, your average will never be above 52 (since you reached saturation) and any subsequent round conting for your average above 52 is removed from the average calculation... This makes no sense to have a saturated average computed with only 1 round while those who never play best of par 3 and par 5 have a saturated average computed with 500 rounds....

  I hope I was clear enough.

  Regards

• BeachedMulligan 1,238 Posts

  Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:23 AM

  Your average means absolutely nothing, I don't know why people care so much. 

  Play the game and have fun. 

   

• indianlove 98 Posts

  Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:28 AM

  why isnt there a hole from oakmont???

• alosso 21,037 Posts

  Fri, Aug 9 2013 11:02 AM

  genorb:

  Nice way to use my words in a wrong way... :)

  I hope I didn't - I only wanted to know the reason for your thesis. Thank you for responding in detail.

  First of all, I'm discussing options, not proofed situations.

  Second, we have to be careful to use terms and conditions "as usual" because the situation and calculation has changed. Unfortunately we know that the company's ameliorations are not always bettering the situation - I've used "betterworsening" a few times already. Therefore, the term "it makes no sense" would not exclude a scenario from becoming real IMHO.

  This happened to me, too.

  I've been calculating my average from day 1, and I have had detailled looks into some users' score histories to answer their questions with some success. For this, I have a spreadsheet with some functions working on the scores which I copy&paste into it. I have two major items included:

  - an average calculation from the "equivalent" 18 hole scores, an internal function of the program which only needs a selected range of cells as an input.

  - a counter for ranked rounds, added after I became a Legend, sparing me the look 300 lines down to see how many they are. It will tell me, "no. of ranked rounds = minimum rounds", and then I'll have to select the rounds for a saturated average.

  My spreadsheet has been challenged by changes in WGT's averaging conditions, that is the anti-sandbagging changes (match play & credit wins included) and the new Par3/5 courses. I cannot cope with the former because it's outside my data, and I only barely manage the latter if they hide the course names behind CC tournament names.

  If I detect such score, I delete it in the appropriate column, making it invisible for the averaging function.

  Now I have a good tool, telling me both the average of valid rounds and the arrival at the 500 ranked rounds mark. It's brilliant, isn't it?

  Still it breaks your logic rules - did you recognize it?

  Answering your points:

  ad 1) The "1+499" situation was my conclusion from my first thoughts in this direction. Would we consider it faulty? Yes. Is it impossible? No. It corresponds to the counter in my spreadsheet.

  ad 2) I agree that these rounds do not count towards saturation, because they are excluded from the average. Alas, there's no guarantee that saturation would be a necessary logical condition for tiering up. That is, in the 1+499 condition, the average is not saturated from 1 score, it would of course move up or down from any further legit score.

  The combination would possibly result in cases where

  a) the minimum no. is reached by 1+499 (or n +(500-n)) rounds,

  b) the "average" of one (or any no. below 500) score(s) would not be saturated but below the threshold.

  Conditions met => tier-up, confirmed by my spreadsheet.

  As I said, someone has posted here that 494+6 rounds allowed for tiering up to TL, another said that he's still Legend (ave. 59.x) after 505 rounds minus an unknown no. of Par3/5s.

  Difficult to decide, isn't it?

  And I want to set up my spreadsheet for the real thing :)

• genorb 1,255 Posts

  Fri, Aug 9 2013 11:23 AM

  As I wrote above, if best of par 3 and par 5 count for advancement, then you can move up tier by playing only 1 round counting for your average.

  If best of par 3 and par 5 count for saturation, then you can have a saturated average after playing only 1 round counting for your average.

  As both do not make sense, I do believe those best of par 3 and 5 do not count at all for both advancing and saturation.

  Now if WGT as messed up their system, it's their problem.

  I do keep track of my scores and the average I compute after each round always coincide with my displayed average. I continue to do that just because I am used too, but at my stage, there is no point to continue to do it. Indeed, I reached a point were there is no longer any promotion and where average do not make sense. So in short, I do no longer care at all.

  Regards

• saltiresfan 2,266 Posts

  Fri, Aug 9 2013 12:41 PM

  After a few Cabos I've tiered up. Definitely doesn't include Bo5 and Bo3.

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Sun, Aug 11 2013 3:37 AM

  saltiresfan:

  After a few Cabos I've tiered up. Definitely doesn't include Bo5 and Bo3.

  First of a big congratulation's for that one, enjoy:).................Second thanks for the info.  With no disrespect to WGT or any one in this thread what should be the case is not always.  Nothing from par BoP3/5 should be in the stats but they are as discussed.  I am glad this very important one has not been missed by WGT. 

• mantis0014 8,946 Posts

  Sun, Aug 11 2013 4:31 AM

  I don't play the Par3 course anymore, after I seen my best 9hole score is 20....ugh

  The Par5 course is a good one to play....  not a bad course to get your Course Awards and easy extra Xp points.... It's also good for M/P games,  gives everybody a chance.

  -Roger

• MBaggese 15,367 Posts

  Sun, Aug 11 2013 11:15 AM

  genorb:

  As I wrote above, if best of par 3 and par 5 count for advancement, then you can move up tier by playing only 1 round counting for your average.

   

  Fabian, 

   

  I wonder though if say a new Legend, TM, etc...on his/her first round (I'll use legend for example) shoots a 59, then plays 499 par 3 ranked rounds...I wonder if he/she would have 500 ranked rounds and an avg of 59, and be bumped to TL?

  It would be easier to know if a lower tiered player did it, as not as many rounds would be needed.

  Edit:

  I think maybe I'm saying/asking what I have quoted yourself saying.

• genorb 1,255 Posts

  Sun, Aug 11 2013 11:44 AM

  MBaggese:

  I wonder though if say a new Legend, TM, etc...on his/her first round (I'll use legend for example) shoots a 59, then plays 499 par 3 ranked rounds...I wonder if he/she would have 500 ranked rounds and an avg of 59, and be bumped to TL?

  I guess no because it makes no sense, that's what I wrote indeed :) . But perhaps WGT messed up completely their system with the introduction of best of par 3 and 5. But I don't think so.

  Regards