Maybe Watson is the GOAT...

That still screws over Old Tom, though.

This is correct with regards to how Broadie calculates strokes gained and three putt avoidance, which represents one of two concepts we are applying. This however is not correct with regards to a commitment level for each individual shot. This has ZERO to do with length of putt, length of drive, or even if you putted one off a green into a lake. It is entirely possible to hit bad shots and yet still give yourself a “yes” for commitment or vice versa. All the Second Scorecard does is measure whether you were committed to the shot you were hitting or not. Nothing else.


You don’t think so because you don’t understand the metric I used. You need to set aside some bias and think for a minute or two.



Now just drop in one more 7% brain fart rate and you’ve got it!




Because I’m using the strokes gained for three putt rates which includes the second putt length, as you know. As for the length of the putt when a brain fart occurs on the second putt, that’s irrelevant. It is simply a metric if you were or were not paying attention and executing the shot with a clear picture. But it must be calculated for every shot hit. Just like flipping coins, each trial is independent.



How is I am saying .48% is their three putt rate from 3’ here, exactly?

Or maybe you just read them wrong. Even with as ****ty of a writer as I am #1 above is pretty straightforward.
Or, again, you need to add in one more opportunity to have an unfocused shot.


Or, again, again, you just still don’t quite get it.




This is your only hang up and then you’ll see the light and get it, but you won’t ever admit as much so I guess we are good to go now! YAY!

To be clear, the length of the second putt is irrelevant. That is baked into the three putt avoidance figures. Furthermore, the length of the second putt is irrelevant with regards to measuring if a player was committed to the shot at hand.

Sleep tight, I hope my horse sleeps tight on the lead AGAIN. Maybe, just maybe I’m pretty good with course management and teaching a statistical way to attack a golf course.

I very clearly had a typo when I was asking what you thought a Tour pros 3 putt avoidance was from 15 feet(I accidentally typed "3 feet")

Rather than anymore walls of text I will just ask simple questions.

1. What do you think is a Tour pros 3 putt % from 15 feet when they are focused?

2. What do you think is a Tour pros 3 putt % from 15 feet when they are unfocused?

3. Do you know that you can multiply the answer to #1 by the 93% and the answer to #2 by 7%, add them together and get a Tour pros overall 3 putt % from 15 feet?(assuming focus rate is 93%)

4. Can you show me?

5. Does it equal the 1.1% which you agreed is likely a correct 3 putt figure for Tour players from 15 feet?

6. Do you see yet that the calculation doesn't require you to do anything related to a 2nd putt at all? All of the outcomes from the 2nd putt are baked into the 3 putt %'s from the first putt.

Let's start with those 6, very simple questions. They do not require you to write a book.

And I realize you are hung up on trying to do calculations for a 2nd putt whose distance you don't know, but the "unfocused" 3 putt rate answer from question #2 includes the 3 scenarios where a player hits an "unfocused" putt.

1. On putt #1
2. On putt #2
3. On both putts

And you appear to belive that all of those scenarios would lead to an unfocused 3 putt % of 5%.

I didn’t realize you had a typo since you were busy telling me I was wrong. I guess I could have realized you were simply wrong with regards to your point, as well as had a typo making it even cloudier.
1. .48%
2. 5% of the time they hit an unfocused putt
3. Again, all you are missing is that they have two opportunities to day dream. You are taking a statistic that is based on expectation for multiple shots (3 putt avoidance) and multiplying it against a statistic that is based on one single shot. I can’t really come up with a great analogy other than you are trying to multiply hours * minutes, or days * weeks…they are simply different metrics.

Think of it this way, 5% of the time they hit an unfocused first putt they will three putt. That makes sense because a horrendous putt from 15’ would leave around 3’ for a PGA Tour pro and they are 96% from there. The majority of misses are simply 2’ tap ins. Occasionally though a lack of focus will result in a terrible putt leaving 3-4’ and from there basic expectation plays out.

Additionally, 5% of the time they hit an unfocused 2nd putt they will three putt regardless of where that putt is from.. For simplicity 87.6% of the time they will hit a lazy putt at some point holing out from 15’ due to making 23% of the first putts and having 93% focus rate.

4. I guess: (93% * .48) + (7% * .05) + (.77(7% * .05)) = 1.07%


5. Yes.

6. I see that your calculation doesn’t require it, but the correct one does.

Honestly, what you are missing is that you are thinking of the Second Scorecard as being inclusive of all future shots. Strokes gained is a metric for each individual shot, whereas the average score to hole out accounts for all shots to hole out whether you start from from 450 yards or 15’. The Second Scorecard is more like Strokes Gained than total strokes.

Ex. If you hit a drive 300 in the fairway and gained a couple tenths of a shot that has no bearing on the Strokes Gained of the next shot, they are independent events. Similarly, if you have a good focus on the first putt it has no bearing on whether or not you focus on the next. Each day dream costs you 5%.

Love this, pretty sure you have wall of irrelevant stat’d this thread to death.

No, you are.

Here is a big key: even if a tour pro is choking, they will still 2 putt >90% of the time from 15 feet.


Knowing this, you can easily explain away all 3 putts inside 15 feet.

Either the first putt was a super fast downhiller, the player needed to make the putt so was very aggressive, or the player choked (first tee jitters, last hole nerves, whatever).


Tour pros simply don't 3 putt from 15 feet in normal situations, especially not 1% of the time, so if a pro 3 putts from 15 feet, and the first putt wasn't massively downhill or a must-make, then it's almost a lock that he choked(nerves or a brainfart or whatever you want to call it).

Ship, can you explain one thing for me....

Last time I checked when you are calculating the odds of something happening, the % chance that each outcome occurs should add up to 100%. This seems like a fairly simple concept.

Can you explain how yours adds up to

93% + 7% + (77%*7%)

=

105%

That is pure gold.

Somehow I don't think this will even convince you you're wrong. Maybe tho.

How do you butcher the above equation into this?
My equation is showing the odds of 3 putting. Why would that have to add up to 100%? If you added the odds of three putting + the odds of NOT three putting, that would add up to 100%. See the difference?

I literally can’t even tell what your equation is supposed to represent. It is certainly nothing I have ever purported here.

Since you’re still struggling, how’s this:

Odds of concentrating on one shot:
93% = 100% - 7%

Odds of concentrating on two consecutive shots:
86.49% = (93% * 100) * (93% * 100)

Odds of concentrating on 2 shots IF there is a 23% chance the first one was holed:
87.6% = (1-.07) – (.77 * .07)

Odds of three putting we’ve agreed upon is 1.1%

This leaves us with:

(1 - .011) = 98.9% = odds a PGA Tour player 2 putts from 15’

.48% of the time they three putt from lack of skill or bad bounce.

.62% of the time they three putt from mental distraction

So, to make you happy, that is a series of numbers that should add to 100% since it is a complete data set of fractions of a whole.

.989 + .0048 + .0062 = 1.00

This also looks about right as clearly there are some instances that a player has an extremely hard first putt and simply three putts due to lack of skill and difficulty. There also are clearly occasions that a Tour pro 3 putts due to distraction. Having the ratio be slightly skewed to distraction over skill makes sense as well since, quoting you, putting simply isn’t that hard.

Now that’s cleared up, back to the actual debate.

Obviously, now, there is a .48% chance Derek three putted from 15’ to not win the event due to skill. I agree is it possible that a 1 in 208 event peered its ugly head at the wrong moment. I’m simply telling you the odds are better there was either a mental or physical choke involved somewhere.

HAHAHAHAHA
Yes I see the difference. You apparently don't.

That would look like this for a 15 foot putt.

Odds of not 3 putting
Odds of 1 putting - 23%
( you think this is 23% so I will use your numbers so as not to confuse you, but shot link data I've found has it at 22% 1 putt, 77% 2 putt, 1% 3 putt)
Odds of 2 putting - 75.9%


Odds of 3 putting - 1.1%

Add those all up and you get 100%

Shockingly this is not what you are doing.

My equation calculates the the overall 3 putt % from 15 feet by adding the chance you 3 putt when focused to the odds you 3 putt when unfocused.

With our given focus rates that equation is the following.

3 putt % =
(Focus rate * 3 putt % when focused)

+

(Unfocused rate * 3 putt % when unfocused)

It's worth noting that the unfocused 3 putt % would contain all of the unfocused scenarios I've listed previously.
1. Unfocused on putt #1
2. Unfocused on putt #2 (almost irrelevant since most 2nd putts will be tap ins when player was focused in the first putt)
3. Unfocused on both putts.

It's not rocket science, it's a simple expectation calculation that you belittled me for doing with poker a few pages back and now can't even do yourself with golf.

You are right tho, it's certainly nothing like what you have purported, which is complete gibberish.

Have you figured out that since the 3 putts that come from lack of skill and the putts that come from mental distraction happen and such significantly different frequencies you can't just add them together to get the overall 3 putt %?

Do you realize there is a difference between saying someone 3 putts .48% of the time from 15 feet

And

3 putts from lack of skill represent .48% of the 1.1% overall 3 putt %?

You are using this .48% number for 2 completely different things.

Using your .48% number for focused 3 putt rate and 5% for unfocused 3 putt rate

You get the following.

From 15 feet-

93% of the time they are focused and 3 putt .48%.

The other 7% of the time they are unfocused they 3 putt 5% of the time.

Multiply each sentence.

.45% and .35% respectively.

Add them together and get .8% overall 3 putt %. Not your 1.1%(also note how the frequency of each occurrence adds up to 100%)

Find someone with a brain to say the above equation for calculating overall 3 putt % from 15 isn't 100% accurate given our assumptions.

Is this the twilight zone?

Headexplode.gif

Rank the following in order from most taxing to least taxing:

A. qualifying for the U.S. Open
B. tutoring a teenager into winning the state Am
C. advancing to the final stage of Q school as an amateur
D. arguing with NXT

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

As a fellow well respected poker player.

Can you please confirm that my expectation calculation for 3 putting from 15 feet is correct?

Well, to cite a source of 23% it’s on page 55 of Every Shot Counts, ever read it? You do realize that there could be year to year variations where the book, based on the entire database of ShotLink, varies slightly from that year’s statistic. That is a phenomenon known in the statistics community as “variance”. Furthermore, often times authors of mathy books will round to the nearest whole unit to not overwhelm the casual reader. Apparently Broadie should have just gone to the nearest 10 to keep you on board.

Beyond that we agree that (22% 1 putt + 77% 2 putt + 1 % 3 putt) adds to 100%.

I apologize for this not saying “odds of two putts or better” for the 98.9% figure, that was certainly an error similar in nature to yours earlier. I would think that is fairly obvious. I was under the impression that we agreed upon their make rate of 23% and were only disputing the 1.1% three putt components so that’s where my focus was.

No it wouldn’t. There is a 7% chance to hit an unfocused golf shot on any shot. You must run that figure twice. PERIOD.

No it’s not. Just like when you flip a coin twice you have to run the expectation twice. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

Flip one coin: Heads 50%, flip it again and the odds of flipping 2 heads is 25%. Again, you are using different metrics interchangeably, and I don’t see that changing. The Strokes to Putt Out statistic is based on the entirety of the remaining shots, the Second Scorecard is a pass/fail for every individual shot.



One happens .48% of the time and the other happens .62%. All we have done is extrapolate what each errors pro-rata share is of the 1.1% total three putt rate.




See above, or above, or above that, or above that.

D.
C.
A.
B.

I mean I can easily see where Ship is getting confused.

He is saying .48 of the 1.1% overall 3 putt is attributable to skill and .62 is attributable to choking.

The problem here is he also says your chance of 3 putting when focused is .48%.

The 2 .48 #s can't be the same, because if you 3 putt .48% of the time when focused, but only attain that focus 93% of the time, it actually only represents

93% * .48%= .45

.45 of the 1.1% overall

Meaning skill 3 putts account for .45/1.1= 41% of 3 putts.

If he really wanted skill to account for .48 of the 1.1 he would have to say the focused 3 putt % is .52% bc

93% * .52% = .48

Or .48/1.1= 44% of total 3 putts

And then if you wanted chokes to account for the other .62 of the overall 1.1%, the unfocused 3 putt % would have to be 8.9% not 5%.

7% * 8.9% = .62%

And unfocused 3 putts would account for .62/1.1 = 56% of total 3 putts.

That would leave a perfect 15 foot EV calculation.

1.1% = (93% * .52%) +(7% *8.9%)

1.1% = .48% + .62%

1.1% = 1.1%

Voila!

/math lessons

Holy **** you guys.

QFT!

To be honest I just skim over these arguments so I'm not sure exactly what the heart of the debate is. But the expectation above is correct, and yes, whatever the assumptions are the probability of all of the outcomes has to add up to 100%.

I don't know if the basis for the argument is correct as I haven't been following, but NXT's math is correct in breaking down the probabilities.

Draw a tree with all the possibilities if you don't understand. I assure you the total expectation will total 1.

You mean if you total the chance of each outcome, that should add up to 100%? I am shocked.

So I guess you can confirm that Ship's equation

(93% * .48) + (7% * .05) + (.77(7% * .05)) = 1.07% overall 3 putt % from 15 feet

Is complete gibberish with regards to a players 3 putt % from 15 feet? Bc it breaks down as

(93% * .48%) = focus rate * 3 putt % when focused

+

(7% * 5%) = unfocused rate * 3 putt % when unfocused.

+

(77% * (7% * 5%)) = the 77% of the time you miss the first putt, 7% of those time's you brain fart the 2nd putt resulting in a 5% chance you miss the 2nd putt??? I honestly don't know and it doesn't even matter bc it is wrong. This whole calculation can easily be cooked into the above "unfocused rate's 3 putt %" for simplicity.

The combined chance of his first 2 "outcomes" already totals 100%, so trying to squeeze a 3rd outcome in there is pointless. He had to do it though, to get his imaginary overall 3 putt % close to 1.1%.


Reid: For a little cliffs, Ship initially stated Tour pros 3 putt 0% when focused from 15 feet, and thus a 3 putt on the last hole to lose a tournament is 100% a result of choking, since if you didn't choke you would never 3 putt. I disagree, citing Tour pros 3 putt ~1.1% of the time, to which everyone else responded well that 1.1% is just from when they aren't paying attention. I agreed it's likely the majority of 3 putts from 15 feet are due to lack of concentration, but they couldn't 3 putt enough even if they didn't care to offset the 0% 3 putt % when they were focused.

So I created the equation that campfirewest quoted above you to show that if they never 3 putt when focused, and are focused 93% of the time, they would have to 3 bet from 15 feet a whopping 12% of the time they were unfocused to create an overall 3 putt of 1.1%. Obviously even a tour pro who gives zero ****s is not going to 3 putt 12% of the time or even close to that from 15 feet, so something had to give.

Then things got mental

Of course they all have to add up to 100%. The point NXT was making when saying my figures didn’t add up to 100% was some random equation that I never posted nor said I thought was correct. My figures add up to 100%.

76% 2 putt + 23% 1 putt + .48% three putt due to skill + .62% three putt due to mental error = 100.1% and a three putt avoidance of 1.1%

Let’s assume Broadie rounded somewhere along the way in the first two figures for the whooping .1% error.

Yes, of course this is correct. But his formula is eliminating the odds of having a mental lapse on the second putt.

****ty example:

Flipping a coin is a pass/fail, heads/tails outcome. Tracking your mental process is a pass/fail, committed/uncommitted outcome.

If you want to know the odds of flipping 2 heads in a row you count the probabilities twice (.5 * .5) = .25% of the time you will flip consecutive heads. If you want to know the odds of hitting two consecutive focused shots in a row you must count the probabilities twice.


Where NXT goes wrong here is he thinks it is a 5% three putt rate if you fail to concentrate and that figure is baked into the 3 putt avoidance odds. What I’m telling you from tracking this metric for 6 years is that you lose 5% EV for each occurrence of a mental error. So the 93% focus rate must be tried against both putts. Meaning (.93 * .93) = 86.49% of the time you hit 2 shots you will be focused on both.

So you lose 5% of expectation the 7% of the time you are unfocused on the first putt = .0035%.
23% of the time you make the first putt so you only have a second putt 77% of the time. In that 77% you are daydreaming 7% again and lose another 5% EV. (.77 * (.07 * .05)) = .0027%

This shows us that .62% of the time you three putt from 15’ it was from a lack of focus. We have agreed, and Every Shot Counts shows that a PGA Tour player will 3 putt from 15’ 1.1% of the time. If 1.1% is the total and .62% is from daydreaming, then the remaining .48% is due to skill and/or bad bounces.

I’m really not sure where the rest of NXT’s equations “93% * .52% = .48

Or .48/1.1= 44% of total 3 putts” come into play at all with the way I created the figures.


The 93% focus rate has already been backed out via solving from that side so you don’t need to apply it again.

Closer. I feel like you are getting it, but just can’t quite put the reasoning into the second trial. Really think through the analogy of flipping a coin multiple times.

Sleep tight.

I know my horse is.

https://twitter.com/TransMissGolf/st...939776/photo/1

Amazing. Just no hope.
Just so wrong, my formula accounts for this by using an unfocused 3 bet % that represent your 3 putt % whenever a mental lapse appears anywhere(be it the first putt, second putt, or both putts)

Let's make this real simple.

Ship, please post an equation that calculated the overall 3 putt % of a player from 15 feet that meets the following simple criteria.

-However many outcomes you wan't to create, the total combined frequency of those outcomes adds up to 100%.

You currently have 3 outcomes, one that happens 93% of the time, one that happens 7% of the time, and one that happens another 5.4% (77% * 7%) of the time for a grand total of 105.4%. This is not possible.

2 people besides myself have pointed out that my EV calculation is correct, and thus yours is incorrect, yet you are still writing novels of gibberish.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US

Rank the following in order from fastest to slowest:

A. A mongoose reacting to a cobra
B. A stock order being routed from LA to NJ
C. Initial speed of a golf ball driven by Bubba
D. NXT response to a ship--this post

Hey Robin, that would be a funnier post if your Batman wasn't so incredibly wrong.

I wonder what is more valuable to this discussion, Ship's ability to hit a golf ball or my experience in doing thousands upon thousands of EV calculations.

Nxt, at the end of the day, your LOL's and hahahaha's are a bigger embarrassment to yourself than any EV miscalculations anyone could make.