More BO goalpost-shifting. Ignore my very obvious point and now take the position "it's easier to beat 63 players than it is to beat 78 players". That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand - which is that you think it's just as easy to beat a field of 63 match-players as it is to beat a field of 7 stroke-players. Because in each case, the winner simply must beat 6 other players. So it's exactly the same.

Logic fail. Or wait - maybe those 7 players in the 7-player stroke play event all have about a 63-1 chance of winning the 7-player event. Oh man I didn't consider that but that sounds logically accurate. Wait, no it doesn't. At all.

This makes about as much sense as claiming that teeing off split 9s does not speed up play.

Enjoy your week off, BO. I suggest reading "Logic for Dummies".

No idea what BO's posts in SE are about, but ARC you're coming off as a complete moron here and anyone who's played any kind of competitive golf knows why.

Then please explain how one tourney where you have to beat 63 entrants* is easier than another where you also have to beat 63 entrants. I'd love to know.

I hope BO realizes that the other 63 people in the match play tourney also just have to beat 6 players! So easy! Yet only 1 will win! Just like the stroke play tourney in which you "have to beat 63 players"!!!

It has nothing to do with golf skill and everything to do with logic. I've already stated that the better player may be more likely to rise to the top of match play based on some intangible head-to-head intimidation factor but it has nothing to do with only having to beat 6 players. You are beating 63 players. It's not any more complicated than that.

The argument about half the field being gone after 1/6th of the tourney is akin to a cut being moved up from after Friday (36 holes) to after 12 holes on Thursday. After 12 holes on Thursday the leader may be like -5 and last place may be +5. It would certainly be dumb for the stroke play cut to be after 2/3 of the first round because players can come back from that deficit and win. Imagine Tiger's first Masters in which he shot like 40 on the front 9 - he may have been in the bottom half of the field after 12 holes and would have been cut if it were match play (theoretically). Yet he came back and won.

None of this has anything to do with odds, and everything to do with variance.

*The 63 match-play entrants also have it "easy" by only having to beat 6 players to win it all! SO EASY! All the players' odds have to add up to 1.0 wins for the tourney. This is starting to morph into muckslogic where he thinks it's harder to win a major because of the media, when in fact the major will yield 1.0 winners just like any other non-pressure tour event.

Depends if you're better than the average competition or worse.

For Tiger it'd be much easier to win a 512 person stroke play event. If I was playing against the pros I'd have a better chance at binking the match play. The statistical probability of me winning stroke play would be exactly 0%. Each extra round of match play makes it exponentially harder for the favorite to come out as champion.

If I had to play a tour pro, Id choose match play all day every day. ARC I have skimmed your posts about this but are you arguing that it is roughly the same level of difficulty to win?

Yes. 64 enter, 1 wins. Not complicated. Doesn't matter if it's stroke play, match play, or putt-putt.

You simply cannot say it's "easier" to win a match play event without accounting for the fact that it's also "easier" for the other 63 entrants to win it (because they also ONLY have to beat "6 guys"). And therefore... if it's "easier" for everybody, then it's not really easier for ANYBODY.

How do people not get this. There are 1.0 wins. This isn't hard.

Lol ARC you can tell your a 26 handicap and have never played any kind of competitive golf. It just isnt that simple.

Sigh. You don't have to be a +handicap to understand basic probability. People who use the "your handicap is low" argument to win a logic battle really are the nut low of this forum. That's not even an argument. It's just admitting that you don't understand the math but think that because you break 80 you know what you are talking about wrt the math. Would be awesome if Cwicemvp12 stayed true to his word and banned you people for using such lame non-"argument".

Your IQ would put you in the 36 handicap range, clearly. Also, the word is "you're", not "your". Now I can see why you don't understand that 1 of 64 is the same as 1 of 64. Analogies are hard!

Increased variance does not change the odds. Let me guess, "your" "can we run it 3 times?" guy, because you think that helps your odds?

winning a match play event is going to be harder than winning a stroke play event of the same size for some players, and easier for some players.

assume a stroke play event of 8 players of exactly equal stroke play ability. Each will win the event 12.5% of the time. Now put them in a match play tournament. If it is easier to win the match play, each players chances would go up, no? But that's impossible, because the total can't be over 100. So if one player will now win the event 20% of the time because it's 'easier' to win match than stroke, SOMEBODY'S percentage of winning MUST go down correspondingly.

It's astounding that people cannot grasp this concept on a poker forum.

That match play may come with more variance, and be easier to win for a hack, does not mean that, overall, the tourney is easier to win than a stroke play tourney with the exact same entrants.

We really need a name for this brand of logicfail. Mucksandgravs uses this same logicfail to talk about how much "harder" it is to win a major than a regular tour event. And now his boy BYN and BO use the same logicfail to differentiate match play from stroke play.

The BreakYaBOgravs Theorem. A theorem that is based entirely in non-fact.

ARC if you had to play a 10 handicap for your life savings would you want to play stroke play or match play?

Completely immaterial to the discussion at hand. I expected nothing more from you.

A better question is:

Would I rather play 63 other 26 handicaps in a stroke play format or a match play format?

The answer is "it doesn't ****ing matter"

Unless it's 63 clones of EdBratz, in which case I'd definitely rather play him in stroke play than match play, considering his game seems way swingier than mine.

Not really. The real question omits the "for who?" part of the question "which is easier to win?"

Case 1: Assume Tiger plays against 63 10-handicappers. Which format gives him the bigger edge?

Case 2: Assume a 10-handicapper tees it up against 63 tour pros. Does he even have any chance in stroke play?

In the equal skill case it doesn't matter. With unequal skill the higher variance format favours weaker players (e.g. 1 hole match play vs 18 hole match play.) Weaker players will win more often in a higher variance format, therefore it is "easier" for a weaker player to win a matchplay tournament and "harder" for the top players to win one (assuming that match play is in fact higher variance than stroke play which is certainly true)

Back to my question...do you think winning NCAA tournament required you to win 6 games or beat the entire field?

Do you comprehend that 1/2 the field is eliminated in each round of a match play thus 32 then 16 then...less players that can win?

I agree that everyone starts with 63-1 odds (assuming 64 equally skilled) but those odds go to zero for half the field after day 1. That means there are half as many players left to beat to win the event.

In stroke play, virtually no players in the field (or at least significantly less than 1/2 the field) see their odds go to zero after 1 round. Oh and by the way in the finals of a match play event you have to beat 1 player vs a stroke play maybe you have to beat 4-8+ that start within say 3 shots or so of the lead.

I do agree that different players are better equipped to play match play vs. stroke play. But the are very different events and I think most good players would argue it is "easier" to win a match play.

How many times have you heard a good player at say US Am or whatever say the hardest part is just getting in?

In either case Tiger crushes. But yes, a bad player (let's say a scratch) can bump Tiger out of match play with 1 good round. This doesn't change the overall odds of the tourney. And it also doesn't help BO make his point that Tiger winning a match play event is "easy" if you consider that increased short-term variance helps the worse players. How the hell does that help the case that the #1 player in the world winning match play event is "easy"? LOL. They are arguing against themselves.

Yes. Doesn't change the overall odds though. Just makes it more of a donkfest, if you will.

To answer your dumb question, winning the NCAA tourney requires you to outperform all 63 of the other 63 teams. Not just 6.

Your argument is bad. Yes, half the field is cut after the equivalent of 12 stroke play holes. Who cares? This benefits ALL of the 32 players who make it in. Consider that all 32 of these players get a "fresh" start in round 2. This is different from stroke play where the difference between the leader and the guy who barely made the cut may be like 8 strokes or whatever. It all evens out wrt probability.

Like... if Hunter Mahan squeeks into round 2 of a match play tourney by shooting the equivalent of a 78 and winning by being AS on the 18th hole and winning with a double when his competitor made a triple.......

He still starts round 2 with a fresh start and can easily win the entire match play tourney.

If he shoots a 78 (say, pro-rated, he's +4 through his first 12 holes on Thursday) in stroke play he's already way behind. He probably doesn't even make the cut or if he does he probably has almost no shot of winning.

This is the downside of match play that negates the benefit of many members of the field being cut after only 1 round of 6. You are failing to account for this. Every aspect of each format adds up to one simple truth: A 64-player event yields 1.0 winners and 63.0 losers. Everything else, all the noise, is accounted for in this tidy mathematical FACT. End of story.

Lol your Mahan example makes my argument sir. He simply would becer win a stroke play event after that round. I understand the flip side of this means u could shoot 65 and lose 1 down.

I doubt anyone is arguing that there is 1 winner and 63 losers. Using your 12 hole e ample are there generally more or less than 8 players that can win a medal play event after 36 holes? Pretty sure a lot more.

Anyway this is dumb. Good luck

The example does not make your argument, it hurts it. Do you think the player who shoots a 62 in round 1 of match play and is all over his game is GLAD that a guy like Hunter Mahan gets a fresh start in Round 2? No. This is different from stroke play where the leader is -10 and Mahan is +8 after 1 round.

So tell me again how the match play format is EASIER to win because "ZOMG half the field is gone after 1 round and you don't even haz to play them!" ???

Sorry to be a dick but this is really simple math. Any benefit you assign to match play is negated by some other detriment to match play. It's just a different format - that's all. Yes, it welcomes a little more variance but that does nothing to the overall tourney odds.

Think about recent history here. Tiger got out to like an 8 shot lead at Bridgestone and took his foot off the gas for the last half of the tourney and coasted to a 7 shot win. You cannot take your foot off the gas in rounds 4, 5, and 6 of a match play tourney. That 32, 48, and 56 players, respectively, have already been eliminated DOES NOT HELP you much. lol.

I agree, this is dumb. Like 3 people itt get it and all the people who don't get it just want to flaunt their + handicaps. It's mightily frustrating to say the least.

I have no idea what his handicap is, but why has nobody responded to Black Aces 518 yet? Or attacked him and asked him what his handicap is? What if he's a +4 or something AND understands logic. What will you guys do? I guess just ignore him like you've done to this point. But I'd like for you and the others to please respond to his post.

and now i'm reminded why i rarely post in the golf forum.

going back and forth with ARC (while he attacks you) seems like a lot of fun.

Instead of chiming in on why you don't want to chime in, why don't you just chime in on the subject at hand? Do you have an opinion?

Arod walls of text aren't going to change the fact you are wrong. Blabber on as usual though.