First, let’s look at the genesis of the argument. I did think that even a pretty good golfer would be a dog originally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ship---this
IMO getting the *one* that happens to have the right line AND correct speed to drop in is a long shot. I'd say the odds of this happening are well under 1 in a 100. Not sure if that means that it's a 1:150 or what, but I'd bet against all day long at 1:100.
I then had the ability as an adult to admit I was incorrect in how I handicapped myself and stated it wasn’t really a big EV either way most likely. Then I clearly began the derailing by noting that a straight putt would in fact put them massively –EV. Notice the context of my statement and realize that from the beginning this was about a 100 foot putt. Of course from there it was deduced that I felt ALL breaking putts were easier than straight putts which was never my stance. NXT took it to the extreme of a straight 3’ vs a 6 inch breaking 3’ putt. I guess I simply thought that with basic intelligence it would be derived there is an inflection point. I didn’t realize I would have to explain that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ship---this
I picked a 100 footer that turned a bit at the end on the putting green. I had 10 balls and could average about 6 per try before I felt the hole might be blocked and retrieved them. I made 2 of 54 and they were numbers 46 and 50. I was actually surprised how decent my speed was within about a 5 foot circle of the hole overall. Some sat on the lip and others were nowhere close. I think if I had a person near the hole removing the blockers and throwing the balls back to me I would probably make about 4-6%. Maybe a tad higher, but not less than 4% overall.
Sooooo.....I really don't know what to think of a bogey golfers chances. I agree it isn't massive EV (I never did though) but I do think they would be -EV in this bet.
As for straight vs breaking, if they took a straight putt I would put them MASSIVELY -EV. You need a breaker in order to have multiple ways of the ball going in. Needing the putter to be perfectly square on the one that happens to come off with the right speed simply isn't going to happen outside of pure luck. That is why in the "I always chip a few in" scenarios mentioned as reasoning work.
CW noted the following early on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwicemvp12
Brocktoon continues to win this thread.
Only to have Brocktoon state (and I am not trying to use his words against him here, merely quoting what he said about the 100’ putt)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brocktoon
Grunching all the thread that blew up after this post so I'm just replying to this part of your post, ship.
I'm going to really surprise you here (since we're "arguing" on the internet) and say that YES, I see what you are saying about this particular type of putt.
I will grant you that there are indeed breaking putts that are easier to make than straight ones, specifically ones that provide a "cushion" as you describe it where putts started slightly outside the line get pulled back in and vice-versa.
The relevant argument that I'm sure is brewing and that you'll have to have without me because I'm not interested in having it, is one where the slope is constant, a tilted plane. This is not a realistic thing you'll find on Earth, which makes it kind of silly to discuss, but I think it's what the debate is really about.
So I would say that the one person on the dissenting side who actually seems level headed and thought this out will now agree with the 2 former professionals as well as YB and Reid who I would say appear to have the most expansive physics background.
In addition, I would never think the constant plane breaker would be easier from 100’. Simply a relatively straight putt that then breaks in the last 8 feet or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtWrldChamp
Hint there is no such thing as an exact line on breaking putts as the line is dictated by the speed. One line could be great for a putt that dies into the hole, could be terrible for a putt with a little more speed to it.
I’d say that this sums up my point and when compared with our trial results as a forum so far. I could be wrong but have we had myself go 2/54, NXT 2/25 (left handed as a 130’s shooter) and another 1/63 that I am not sure of his handicap? For a total of 3.5% (or for you poor with math, about 3.5 makes per 100). I think we all agree that at best the correct speed would be hit about 20-25% of the time so I’ll just go with 25%. So to make 3.5 putts per 100 you need to hit your line about 14 times (14 * .25). You truly think that 14% of the time a bogey golfer will have the face angle to hit a roughly 4” target from 100’ considering the amount of force to hit it that hard.
Again, YAY ME!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Boss
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.
I’m not sure how many times I have to go over the concept of inflection point, but from the intelligence of you posts I assume you understand that concept exists.
Beyond that I would assume you agree that a flawed experiment is useless. I would assume that the authors of the experiment are not aware that flat putts of 10’ exist in reality due to the many times mentioned agronomy of greens. The simply can’t exist. So to prove that in a lab a straight putt 10’ is easier than a breaking 10’ putt is kind of pointless. I’d assume, again due to the fact you aren’t ignorant of reasonable parameters for a study, that you agree that the data is worthless in the real world where our experiment will take place.
Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlzBeALevel
NXT has been remarkably patient and restrained, given the scenario that has unfolded.
Welcome.
This thread has really helped me actually and I thank all for that. It really has given me the confidence that I do possess a strong aptitude for conceptualizing ideas. I had really begun to be frustrated with how cloudy my head has become, but watching quite a few people who I know are intelligent not be able to get this has really boosted my confidence.
Thanks!