Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Golf Discuss the game of golf

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-22-2013, 12:25 AM   #176
MikkeD
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,107
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Oh ****!

It's back.

So - anyways - how many people are going to try this in the next few weeks or so?

The making a putt from 100 feet thing....

That was the original topic ffs!

Please try putting the breaking/straight putt thing away for Xmas, because, let's be honest, nobody has a green where they can make a straight 100 foot putt anyway!

I will definitely try this in the next few weeks - as said before, 18 h/c, was down to 10 a few years ago, but probably a top 5% putter at my club.

OP - are you spending time getting ready for your bet?

Or are you just going to wing it on the day?
MikkeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:26 AM   #177
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by farewellyeship View Post
No, not along a ridge, but maybe the roof idea will help you see it. Put a hole in the middle of your roof. If you are right below it the putt will be straight up hill and dead straight. Now for the sake of clarity suppose you hit a horrible putt that starts 2 feet right. The line THAT putt is rolling on will break right further away from the hole.
All of that is true. But the opposite holds true as well. A putt hit straight down a slope that is hit slightly offline will hold its line. So.....?
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:37 AM   #178
tzwien
Pooh-Bah
 
tzwien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,267
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

So the box of marbles.
tzwien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:38 AM   #179
NxtWrldChamp
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
NxtWrldChamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LEVEL 10
Posts: 8,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Boss View Post
All of that is true. But the opposite holds true as well. A putt hit straight down a slope that is hit slightly offline will hold its line. So.....?
So.... ship this is good at golf but is terrible at applied physics which is a branch of mathematics despite this having nothing to do with math.

LOL LOL LOL LOL
NxtWrldChamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:58 AM   #180
ntnBO
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,509
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Rod's Cousin View Post
But if you want to put up $1,000 to my $1,000 and take an IQ test next time you are on a mini-tour in Houston let me know. If you beat me my $1K will go to a charity of your choosing.
Now I've said some arrogant things in this forum, but this statement is downright hilarious.

How about this, you both putt 15-footers. Yours is as straight as possible, ship has to putt one that breaks 4 inches or so. Best out of 100 wins for $1k. Then you guys take an IQ test for another $1k.

BO
ntnBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:07 AM   #181
pgjcbsn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 851
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

I will do the experiment sometime next week. The practice green at my course will be hard pressed to provide a 100 foot putt but I'll do the best I can.
pgjcbsn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:13 AM   #182
A-Rod's Cousin
banned
 
A-Rod's Cousin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Michelle Wie=the next Michelle Wie.
Posts: 37,168
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntnBO View Post
Now I've said some arrogant things in this forum, but this statement is downright hilarious.

How about this, you both putt 15-footers. Yours is as straight as possible, ship has to putt one that breaks 4 inches or so. Best out of 100 wins for $1k. Then you guys take an IQ test for another $1k.

BO
Why would I do that? I never called Ship a "****ing idiot at putting".

Logic, how does it work?
A-Rod's Cousin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:18 AM   #183
ntnBO
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,509
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Rod's Cousin View Post
Why would I do that? I never called Ship a "****ing idiot at putting".

Logic, how does it work?
According to your logic, ship has a much, much tougher putt than you do. Longer as well. You seem confident you will always win the IQ test, so the golf is a freeroll for you. No way for you to lose the bet, you either break even or win $2k. You'd be silly not to freeroll for $2k.

BO
ntnBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:23 AM   #184
Brocktoon
Unreada Bill
 
Brocktoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 8,540
If there's one thing this thread needed, it's IQ tests for rollz.
Brocktoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:33 AM   #185
A-Rod's Cousin
banned
 
A-Rod's Cousin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Michelle Wie=the next Michelle Wie.
Posts: 37,168
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

I have no chance at beating him at that putt, though. And I never called him the equivalent of a "****ing idiot" wrt putting skill. So he should feel no reason to challenge me to a putting contest. And no, I'm not going to ****ing challenge him to a putt-off when it decreases my EV.

But as usual, your penchant for being the third-man-in to a debate not concerning you is really awesome and helpful for everyone involved.
A-Rod's Cousin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:42 AM   #186
ahmed belal ali
stranger
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSoss View Post
I made a bet with a friend. We find a practice green with a long, as flat as possible, 100 ft putt. I get 100 tries to sink one for $100.
I'm an average putter for a bogey golfer.
Who has the edge in this bet?
لواء دكتور محسن الفحام-خبير امني و استراتيجي و دكتور باكاديميه الشرطه و العضو المنتدب لشركه تراك
ahmed belal ali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 02:56 AM   #187
DeathDonkey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DeathDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 12,190
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by durango155 View Post
the bet was $100 each for 100 putts from 100 feet. If I make 1 putt out of 100 I swoop the pot, if I miss all 100 you swoop the pot.

So you are trying to cut my odds in half lol

If you want to do $100 for the original 100 putts, I am game. What course lol?
Quote:
Originally Posted by durango155 View Post
when is someone going to lay some cash down and do this? i offered and there's a guy here in Arizona that wants to do it except he will only give me 50 tries lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brocktoon View Post
At this point I actually think most people realize that if you own a putter and can button your pants before leaving the house you're +EV here.
Yeah exactly. I'm not offering the original bet, I think its clearly too easy to be a fair bet. I am having second thoughts about the 50 putts honestly, you probably should have snapped that up already. Let's just forget it, I've lost money on some dumb props in my life but this one is already less fun that it started out.
DeathDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 04:42 AM   #188
ReidLockhart
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ReidLockhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: prolly ATF
Posts: 7,777
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

sigh. I really wish I still had access to the various engineering departments at OSU, but it's winter break and I'm certain that I can't get in there to use the computers with appropriate software to model what I would like to model for definitive results on what I was talking about.


I will be the first to admit that I don't even know that I'm correct, but here again is the reason I think that in the scenario I mentioned (where the speed is correct on a breaking putt on an intended line that is known to work), the margin for directional error is greater than those of a flat putt.


Firstly, if you miss left of the intended line, I think intuitively it's obvious that the range for margin for error(1) is smaller than that of a flat putt because the putt will move away from the center of the hole...for an arbitrary example, if you miss it low by 1% of face angle on a flat putt, it will catch the left side of the hole and go in, but on the breaking putt, you can only miss by 0.5%. I will grant that. If you miss higher on the line, this continuum(2) of misses catch the high side of the hole. The next section(3) of the continuum starts as holing out on the high side and moves through results back to the center of the hole (picture a parabola going higher but ending shorter). Now if we hit the putt even higher offline, there is a range of misses(4) that catch the lower side of the hole until we start to see misses.


I really think in comparison to a flat putt that the total sum of angles of "high misses" 2, 3, and 4 is an amount greater than what "low misses" loses, resulting in an overall greater margin of error for direction. This is my idea, and I don't know if it's right or wrong, but please read on as I'm starting to think it might not even matter if the range of successful right/left misses is the same as a flat putt. This idea in itself takes zero consideration into account for the fact that the golfer now knows he can lose it a little to the high side and still be okay (thus guarding against a low miss...as opposed to a straight putt that has a smaller absolute margin for error in either direction).

I know twizen said "you gain margin of error high side but lose it all on the low side". I wish I had a way to prove this one way or the other. Perhaps it really is the same as the tee shot fading/drawing example earlier about hitting fairways. Maybe it even IS the same total margin for error, but in practice, consciously knowing to avoid one side allows for a greater number of successes. I understand that in a vacuum, the left/right error should be an even distribution, but on breaking putts where you know that you can miss it high side (whether you consciously know this or not, or if it's just unconscious intuition from years of practical experience), I would think that the distribution of misses would be skewed to the high side, thus resulting in more made putts.

NXT, what do you think? Obviously there is a point where the golfer will see diminished returns.



p.s. Ship, don't leave

Last edited by ReidLockhart; 12-22-2013 at 04:53 AM.
ReidLockhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 04:59 AM   #189
ReidLockhart
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ReidLockhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: prolly ATF
Posts: 7,777
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Oh, and for the record, sometime when Spring hits, I'll go out to the course putting green and run some experiments. I'll build an appropriate small ramp and be very scientific about various trials involving constant and variable speeds and angles and distances on various flat/sloped putts. I'll take pics and everything and make it a new thread. I'm super serious about this.
ReidLockhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 10:18 AM   #190
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidLockhart View Post
This idea in itself takes zero consideration into account for the fact that the golfer now knows he can lose it a little to the high side and still be okay (thus guarding against a low miss...as opposed to a straight putt that has a smaller absolute margin for error in either direction).
If someone could control against a miss like this then they should aim just inside the edge for a straight putt as well, and just guard against a further miss to that side.
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 10:33 AM   #191
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidLockhart View Post


Firstly, if you miss left of the intended line, I think intuitively it's obvious that the range for margin for error(1) is smaller than that of a flat putt because the putt will move away from the center of the hole...for an arbitrary example, if you miss it low by 1% of face angle on a flat putt, it will catch the left side of the hole and go in, but on the breaking putt, you can only miss by 0.5%. I will grant that. If you miss higher on the line, this continuum(2) of misses catch the high side of the hole. The next section(3) of the continuum starts as holing out on the high side and moves through results back to the center of the hole (picture a parabola going higher but ending shorter). Now if we hit the putt even higher offline, there is a range of misses(4) that catch the lower side of the hole until we start to see misses.
Assuming a constant slope I'm not sure why the benefit of hitting it higher and more up the slope, and thus gaining the lose speed faster break more scenario, would outweigh the losses of the hit it lower and more across/less up the slope. Seems like it should be equal.
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 10:39 AM   #192
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Since it appears this was lost in the shuffle, I'm going to quote it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Boss View Post
http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...f7fe948540.pdf

There's some real life data on how a breaking putt affects performance.
Here's the conclusion if you don't want to muddle through it.

From 15 feet, in a controlled experiment, a group of college golfers made:

51% of their straight putts
41% of putts that had roughly 4 inches of break
11% of putts that had roughly 8 inches of break.

So.......?
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 11:11 AM   #193
ReidLockhart
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ReidLockhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: prolly ATF
Posts: 7,777
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

I read the abstract. I wrongly assumed (as a student researcher with experience in having to pay for articles presented like this) that I wouldn't be able to view the pdf. I see that I can and will check the paper out a little later today.


Quote:
I'm not sure why the benefit of hitting it higher and more up the slope, and thus gaining the lose speed faster break more scenario, would outweigh the losses of the hit it lower and more across/less up the slope. Seems like it should be equal.
I'll draw a picture when I get home later tonight. I'll show you why I think it allows for greater deviation when missing higher than what would normally be found on a flat putt. Like I said, I could be wrong.
ReidLockhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 11:26 AM   #194
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

I know exactly what you're saying, i just think it's probably a really specific math/physics problem that nobody here has the credentials to answer.

We can boil the question down to this (I think):

Does a ball moving across a slope at varying speeds and angles end up having a tighter distribution at a given point than a a ball moving at those same angles and speeds?
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 11:29 AM   #195
ship---this
veteran
 
ship---this's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,179
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Boss View Post
Since it appears this was lost in the shuffle, I'm going to quote it.



Here's the conclusion if you don't want to muddle through it.

From 15 feet, in a controlled experiment, a group of college golfers made:

51% of their straight putts
41% of putts that had roughly 4 inches of break
11% of putts that had roughly 8 inches of break.

So.......?
The flaw in this experiment is pretty simple, and one Iíve noted about 20 times. To be honest I am pretty surprised the results were not MORE skewed to the holing of the straight putt which is EVEN MORE data supporting my assertion. So for that I thank you.

The straight putt in this instance is straight and FLAT. Iím surprised that college golfers did not hole a HUGE % of straight FLAT 10í putts on a perfect surface rolling at 12.5. Furthermore, I would assure you that a green rolling 12.5 is significantly faster than they are used to which would certainly hinder their performance on the breaking putts. So all in all I would say this helps the argument since in reality, again, there is not a straight and FLAT 10 foot putt. Clearly there is not a straight and flat 100 foot putt either.

With regards to these:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Boss View Post
All of that is true. But the opposite holds true as well. A putt hit straight down a slope that is hit slightly offline will hold its line. So.....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtWrldChamp View Post
So.... ship this is good at golf but is terrible at applied physics which is a branch of mathematics despite this having nothing to do with math.

LOL LOL LOL LOL
I was actually waiting for one of the dissenters to point that out. Yes, it is true that a downhill and straight putt will tend to correct to the desired line, not ďhold its lineĒ as you state. It does not revert to the intended line, instead it will eventually follow a parallel path depending on the normal variables of degree offline at impact, speed of green, and severity of downhill slope.

Letís apply this idea to the actual debate. On a 100 foot putt if you were able to select a dead straight and downhill putt but pushed it yes it would correct to a parallel path along the intended line. That is exactly why I had prepared the post below in advance as a counter to that argument, I certainly thought that NXT would be able to point that out since I had gone out of my way 20 times to capitalize the word FLAT so he could grasp that downhillers would benefit and make that claim. I agree I am not as good at applied physics as YB or Reid, but unlike NXT I donít need them to point out a relatively simple flaw in my oppositions argument.


If NXT were as good at applied physics as implied via stating how bad I am at it he should have been able to point that out slight flaw on his own. Of course then I would have released the counter argument of a simple probability and distribution exercise below to him, yet again making every one of his arguments invalid.

But I guess at the end of the day since NXT agrees with this concept that a downhill putt will track via gravity to a straight yet parallel path he CLEARLY agrees with the opposite effect on the uphillersÖ.I mean you canít have one without the other, thatís the way physics works (I think).

YAY, I WIN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by farewellyeship View Post
On Tour last year there were 21,860 4 footers, 19890 were holed for an average of 90.9%
A hole is 4.25 inches wide so letís say at a minimum the average miss is due to a 2Ē error meaning it at least lipped out. Iíll grant you that is speculation and I chose 4í so that most of those would be pretty straight. Since that is 4í and 4í is 1/25 of 100í that would put a PGA Tour window of results at 100í about 4.16í. Letís, again this is conjecture but it is based on some logic, suppose that a bogey golfer would have a window of AT LEAST 6-7 feet on either side. Of course this distribution should be relatively normal so the putts that are 7í offline are the outliers, I certainly agree. But how many out of 100 putts that would be normally distributed over 168 inches and need to hit a 4.25 inch hole to have any chance of going in can we expect? I donít feel like actually figuring out the number since this is all speculation, albeit pretty solid speculation, but letís just guess there arenít going to be many that hit the line. Iíll base the speed component on my test since NXTís picture is of a fake experiment and Iíd guess about 30% of my putts had the speed that would result in a make. So Iíll give the bogey golfer MAYBE 15%. For the sake of it Iíll note that in his fairy tale picture it looks like he has about 6 balls including the 2 in the hole that are within reasonable tolerance past the hole for 24%.

Now take the really low number of putts that will be hit online * the odds of having the correct speed and what do you get? Now compare that to the tests actually run on putts that did have break and which way does the greater than or less than hungry alligator face?

I am sorry if the ability to run a little math and thought in your head doesnít work for you and you need to read a scientific report to come to a pretty simple conclusion. But this is all pretty straight forward, and Iíd say pretty reasonable.


Again please don't criticize any basic errors, I'm not proofing this.

ship---this is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 11:45 AM   #196
ship---this
veteran
 
ship---this's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,179
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtWrldChamp View Post
You still have not addressed the scientific fact that a breaking 100 footer will have to travel "farther" than a straight 100 footer and the effect that has on your make %

Much less the geometric effect that a 105 foot putt (the breaking 100 footer) has compared to a straight 100 footer with regards to face angle margin of error.
I was going to guesstimate 103í feet for total length traveled on my putt as it was basically flat until the last 8 feet or so. Iíll split the difference with you at 104í. How much equity do you think you lose moving from 100í to 104í? Iíd venture a guess of not much. This isnít like moving from 5í to 9í.

As for face angle margin of error, that is the specific point that you clearly lack the capability to grasp. There is less face angle importance on the breaker since it obviously has multiple lines it can go in on. There is zero margin for error on the straight putt. I do appreciate the fact you didnít respond to the relatively simple (albeit hypothetical) probability thoughts I posted. Iíll just assume that you think that 10% of putts would be hit exactly perfect by a bogey golfer in order to yield roughly 2 makes due to approximately 20% having the correct speed? Bearing in mind the stroke must be long enough to hit the ball 100í. Itís truly amazing as I type that and think of the implications you think are possible in your arguments. I canít believe I am falling for this trolling. I feel dirty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-Rod's Cousin View Post
Seriously. Why the hell would you need to clear balls? As long as you had like a 6" path from you to the hole you can keep banging them. Any putt that hits a ball doesn't matter because it was clearly off-line and not coming back. And some (most, all?) of the putts that you hit on line went into the hole and are thus not in the way anymore.

I have no idea what this means and didn't say it. Don't really care to get dragged into this portion of the debate. We would have to run several trials of this to get any kind of decent representation. The number of trials so far (a few?) are not enough imo to draw any substantial conclusion from.

But I do know a 100 foot putt that breaks is not any damn easier to make than a 100 foot putt that does not break.
When you run the trial you will see that you need to clear balls more than every 25 balls. Thinking about it though, if you are so narrow minded as NXT is and canít accept a 100í putt might be able to go in on multiple lines you donít have to clear them every so often. I apologize NXT, you might have ran the experiment but your bias would not allow you to run it correctly.

You have no idea what that means? Itís a basic probability thought. You know, like if I flip a coin I wonder how many times will it be heads.
ship---this is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:25 PM   #197
NxtWrldChamp
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
NxtWrldChamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LEVEL 10
Posts: 8,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ship---this View Post
The flaw in this experiment is pretty simple, and one I’ve noted about 20 times. To be honest I am pretty surprised the results were not MORE skewed to the holing of the straight putt which is EVEN MORE data supporting my assertion. So for that I thank you.

The straight putt in this instance is straight and FLAT. I’m surprised that college golfers did not hole a HUGE % of straight FLAT 10’ putts on a perfect surface rolling at 12.5. Furthermore, I would assure you that a green rolling 12.5 is significantly faster than they are used to which would certainly hinder their performance on the breaking putts. So all in all I would say this helps the argument since in reality, again, there is not a straight and FLAT 10 foot putt. Clearly there is not a straight and flat 100 foot putt either.
How can you possibly keep saying stuff like this and not realize the flaw in your thinking?

The reason the fast greens would hinder their performance on breaking putts is how incredibly precise they would have to be with regards to the speed since it has to be perfectly matched up with the line.

The straight putt didn't suffer from this bc speed is not as important on straight putts. Line is king.



With regards to these:



I was actually waiting for one of the dissenters to point that out. Yes, it is true that a downhill and straight putt will tend to correct to the desired line, not “hold its line” as you state. It does not revert to the intended line, instead it will eventually follow a parallel path depending on the normal variables of degree offline at impact, speed of green, and severity of downhill slope.

Let’s apply this idea to the actual debate. On a 100 foot putt if you were able to select a dead straight and downhill putt but pushed it yes it would correct to a parallel path along the intended line. That is exactly why I had prepared the post below in advance as a counter to that argument, I certainly thought that NXT would be able to point that out since I had gone out of my way 20 times to capitalize the word FLAT so he could grasp that downhillers would benefit and make that claim. I agree I am not as good at applied physics as YB or Reid, but unlike NXT I don’t need them to point out a relatively simple flaw in my oppositions argument.


If NXT were as good at applied physics as implied via stating how bad I am at it he should have been able to point that out slight flaw on his own. Of course then I would have released the counter argument of a simple probability and distribution exercise below to him, yet again making every one of his arguments invalid.

But I guess at the end of the day since NXT agrees with this concept that a downhill putt will track via gravity to a straight yet parallel path he CLEARLY agrees with the opposite effect on the uphillers….I mean you can’t have one without the other, that’s the way physics works (I think).

YAY, I WIN! [/QUOTE]

Except again in your downhill example you are missing how important pace will be.

You may be able to get more putts to actually hit the hole but you will likely experience more lip outs bc as it's tougher to control the pace.
NxtWrldChamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:55 PM   #198
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Quote:
Originally Posted by ship---this View Post
The flaw in this experiment is pretty simple, and one Iíve noted about 20 times. To be honest I am pretty surprised the results were not MORE skewed to the holing of the straight putt which is EVEN MORE data supporting my assertion. So for that I thank you.

The straight putt in this instance is straight and FLAT. Iím surprised that college golfers did not hole a HUGE % of straight FLAT 10í putts on a perfect surface rolling at 12.5. Furthermore, I would assure you that a green rolling 12.5 is significantly faster than they are used to which would certainly hinder their performance on the breaking putts. So all in all I would say this helps the argument since in reality, again, there is not a straight and FLAT 10 foot putt. Clearly there is not a straight and flat 100 foot putt either.
!
So an experiment where good players make more straight putts than breaking putts supports your theory that breaking putts are easier than straight putts to hole? Ooooooookkkkkkkkkkk.
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 12:58 PM   #199
NxtWrldChamp
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
NxtWrldChamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LEVEL 10
Posts: 8,985
Hahaha

Can't wait until he again counters with the fact that straight/flat putts are incredibly rare in the real world as if that somehow helps his side the discussion
NxtWrldChamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2013, 01:01 PM   #200
Your Boss
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,821
Re: Putting prop bet: 100 tries @100ft for $100

Ship, to follow up on that, let's assume that the testers also included trials where they raised the hole side of the platform to create a 4 degree uphill putt, and then tested both the straight and breaking putts again.

The golfers would hole:

What percentage of straight putts that were 4 degrees uphill?
What percentage of putts that broke as designated in the experiment while also 4 degrees uphill?
Your Boss is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online