Because it probably has other uses besides here, I wrote a program to evaluate putts over various conditions:
-distance;
-speed of greens (friction);
-slope (both in x and y coordinates);
-clubhead speed;
-face angle in relation to direct line to hole;
-normalized randomness of both clubhead speed and face angle.

I did not program for grain, but that would be an interesting exercise.

Units are in centimeters.

My results for 5,000 samples of 2 putts:
-200 cm;
-zero elevation change;
-friction 40 cm/sec (i.e. putt will lose 40 cm/sec in speed for each second in motion);
-clubhead speed std. dev. 13.2 cm/sec;
-face angle std. dev. 1.6*.

Putt (A):
-straight (no slope left-to-right).

Results:
-Optimal clubhead speed: 135.6 cm/sec;
-average ball speed at hole: 60.2 cm/sec;
-Made: 2,610/5,000 52.2%.

Putt (B):
-slight left-to-right break 2.54 cm/sec/sec (gravitational force).

Results:
-Optimal clubhead speed: 136.0 cm/sec;
-Optimal face angle: 91.2*;
-average ball speed at hole: 61.2 cm/sec.
-Made: 2,629/5,000 (52.6%);

I will run this again with a faster green (i.e. less friction).

Forgot to mention: the most difficult part for me was to program maximum speed ball could travel to fall into hole for various angles.

I used this utility function:
maxSpeed = sin(angle of ball path in relation to tangent of hole edge) * 250 cm/sec

If the ball speed upon reaching the hole < maxSpeed above, then ball would go in. Otherwise, ball would lip out.

So, if the angle was 0* or 180*, ball could never go in. If the angle was 90*, ball would have maximum chance to go in.

I brought this up 1000 posts back, the idiots just laughed and called me names. Don't expect anything different.

BO

Ran it again for 20,000 samples. Reduced friction to 20 cm/sec/sec. Normalized error on clubhead speed and face angle. Best results shown scanning various clubhead speeds and face angles.

Putt (A):
-straight;
-103.5 cm/sec clubhead speed;
-54.1 cm/sec avg. speed at hole;
-12,250 made out of 20,000.

Putt (B):
-break 1.25 cm/sec/sec (about 3cm total break);
-no elevation change;
-102.9 cm/sec clubhead speed;
-90.9* face angle;
-53.5 cm/sec avg. speed at hole;
12,083 made out of 20,000.

Straight putt wins on fast green with small break.

Pretty funny to say "end thread" when what you said isn't even factually correct.

A putt with side-slope requires a harder putt whether it's offline left (pulled) or right (pushed) to get to a specific POINT.

A hole does have width though so depending on the inputs, the putt may fall but you are WRONG in saying BLANKETLY that the putt hit slower will die into the hole. It is traveling uphill, and if it is indeed hit slower, it will tend to die before reaching the hole, or put a better way, die on the amateur or low side of the hole. There is a chart that shows this.

It's pushed further up the hill so it experiences more friction due to gravity, as well as it is hit softer so it begins its trek with less kinetic energy. These 2 things impact the putt a great deal.

Great work.

What length are these putts? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that putts that break about 2/3cm can be slightly easier than dead straight putts.

Any chance of a graph of make % versus break for the two types of green?

Not to drop bombs on a field of dead horses, but Roger, browse through this for a moment: http://puttingzone.com/Science/cjp-putting.pdf

There is a section on how a ball falls into the hole. It may help add accuracy to your model.

200 cm, or 2 meters. About 6 feet 7 inches.

From my brief analysis, it appears that slightly breaking putts with no elevation change MAY be easier than dead straight level putts, on slow greens. When I modeled faster greens straight level putts appeared to be about 0.5% easier than straight putts, but with 20,000 samples statistically significant.

When I get some time (and review my model vs. the research referenced above) I can produce some charts.

Thanks for the article. A lot of what I theorized aligns with the article, but my model for making a putt uses numerical methods (sine of ball path compared to hole tangent x ball speed) that are completely different. It may amount to something similar, but I will need to research that if I want to take my model to the next level.

The smart ones here came to the conclusion way back when that shorter putts are easier when straight, longer putts easier with slight amount of break. That number was around 10 feet or just under.

Pretty sure that everyone here agrees that a 2m putt is easiest when straight.

BO

Bo can you please try to explain why that is.

Why does a 6 foot putt not benefit from the phenomenon that makes a 12 foot breaking putt easier than its straight counterpart.

Or even better, wherever the imaginary line that you claim exists(let's say 10 feet) explain why you want a straight 9 foot 11 inch putt but a breaking 10 foot 1 inch putt

Thanks. I was not going to read the entire thread.

Homework for me to chart out some results of my model over various distances to see if it agrees with conventional wisdom.

Not going to rehash all the arguments that have already gone on here with you and a few others.

BO

Do you play golf? You do not putt to a point. The hole isn't a circle where you have to stop it. I hit a putt to usually go a foot or 2 feet by. Thus when i pull it it's going to go 3 feet by, break less, and hopefully snap in the left edge. And when I push it it's going to barely get to the hole and hopefully fall in as it breaks more. Everyone can run computer models but humans aren't computers.

I've played golf my whole life. Was an assistant pro for 2 years. Passed the PAT on first attempt. Not that it's hard but anyone in the industry knows being an assistant doesn't mean much. I almost qualified for US Open when I was 16(I've gotten much worse probably a 2 or 3 handicap with a real job ATM). So I've played a lot of golf and there is no way I'm incorrect.

Go read the entire thread. Nobody is going to rehash this with you and start from the beginning. And Ship___This is better than you at golf so unless you are smarter than him you should probably stop your dick-swinging.

I said in my post the hole has thickness so there is some leeway that happens. And for some bat**** stupid reason, you completely ignored that I said that. And started telling me that you almost did something once.

Lol you're an idiot you don't understand. Go do a human study and figure it out. A straight putt needs a perfect stroke. A right to left putt does not. /thread

/thread
Ship---this
/thread
[ ] Understands inflection points
[ X ] Does not understand inflection points

Wow, I've always hated the [ x ] snark post, but I must admit that felt a-ok.

Well, this is the second time you've unilaterally ended the thread.

How's that working out for ya?

If Ship---This can get banned for name-calling, I doubt you're safe.

Might want to go crank out some dumbbell curls bro and calm down.

[ ] my post shows a misunderstanding of inflections points
[X] my post asks for an explanation of the existence of said inflection point

It is BO's assertion that right to left putts for righty's have higher make %s for a very specific reason...

Bc if you pull the putt you naturally hit it harder and if you push the putt you naturally hit it softer.

This phenomenon, if it exists, would exists on literally every right to left putt in the world no matter the distance.

So if someone came up to BO and asked him whether he would rather have a right to left putt or a straight putt, the next words out of his mouth should be "The straight putt", not "How long is the putt?".

It really should be quite a simple explanation for BO, but of course he dodged it.

It's also quite interesting that Broadie has a few scatter plots of putts hit by Tour players like the one below.



If BO's theory were true, the above scatter plot would likely show a bias for putts that miss left to travel further, and putts that miss right to travel shorter.

Luckily the grids on made it fairly easy for me to do some quick calculations. Putts finishing to the right of the hole in the above scatter plot actually travel farther on average(1 row farther to be exact) than putts that missed to the left of the hole. Both of their medians fell in the row containing the hole which is what I would expect. The putts were relatively evenly distributed and not skewed like they would be according to BOs theory. Also considering this is a scatter plot of a 30 foot putt, BO's theory should be more likely to show itself compared to if the scatter plot was of 10 foot putts because distance dispersion will be larger.

I'm still kinda shocked (well, not really, but still...) that people are continually using the "I've played a lot of golf, am really good at it and what I feel/think is therefore clearly correct"-argument.

On a different site it wouldn't be surprising, but this is a poker forum... where we know (or at least should know) just how terrible our brains are at actually interpreting stuff like this correctly rather than feeding us bias that is usually miles from the truth.

Here's a quote from Mark Foley, talking about Broadies stats:

So - Justin Rose is better at golf than anyone ITT. And he still doesn't have a clue how he's actually doing with certain shots.

But people ITT can categorically state that certain putts are easier than others purely based on their experience and skill level?

(Foley gets one thing wrong btw - it doesn't happen to athletes because "they're always in the thick of it", it happens because they're human. It is how our brains work.)

Well said

I couldn’t agree more, but that does not mean that all experience is categorically incorrect either. Furthermore, I’m not using the “I’m good at golf argument”. I went out and ran reasonable (at a minimum) trials to prove the point that I could find a breaking putt with MUCH higher EV than a dead straight putt. I think we have all agreed that my EV calculations for a dead straight/dead flat 100’ putt are pretty accurate. We have also seen my results from the first putt I tried running well above that EV. That is not what my brain *thinks* it saw, it is what my body did.

However, with regard to people who can’t get their own experience to benefit them, remember this thread my experience and intuition led me to write almost 3 years ago:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/93...-true-1042836/

In which NXT said:

Finally in March of 2014 an article with a perfect title was written:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours...k-broadie.html

Of course that all led NXT to saying (for the 20th time):

Good post MinusEV

Nothing like bringing up a post from 3 years ago as proof someone is wrong today. Although I'm not quite sure how you can state it is an example of me not learning from my experience. It's actually the exact opposite. The timing of that thread is also important. I stayed out of that thread when it started for the most part because it was about a month after Black Friday and I was just getting back into golf seriously. I didn't have a whole lot to add but obviously that has changed in the last 3 years.

Regarding that entire thread, as I've already stated before, your OP is flawed with regard to the data you were comparing. You were comparing Strokes Gained Putting and GIRs. I looked at the exact same data and your conclusion was not correct based on THAT data.

Why? Because GIR is a flawed statistic. Your conclusion was right but your explanation of why was incorrect.

Even looking at this year, what do you think is a better predictor of someone's Fed Ex Cup standing, SGP or GIRs? It's SGP, which would possibly lead someone to believe that SGP is more important than ball striking.

Its also worth noting JTrout, who is a very good player, was skeptical of your conclusion though I have no doubt if he showed up in this thread and said "breaking putts are easier" BO would be like "Another great player thinking breaking putts are easier #experience"