QFLOLs

Do you know what makes me chuckle? It's your complete lack of understanding for statistics.

L
O
****ing
L

Be more clueless. Do you want to know why that really occurs? VARIANCE

Oh man, you can't prove it so we just have to believe? Sorry I have a pretty big problem with that sort of statement.


I agree that the 93% of the chance tiger walked away with the trophy on those 54 attempts is indicative of *something*. It's indicative of the fact that he is better than everyone else, and when you give him a share of the lead or spot him shots over 1 round of golf he is going to succeed A LOT. It also leading us in the right direction of where his "actual" win % is when leading over 54 holes but nowhere near a large enough sample to pin point that %.

Unfortunately for you, your definition of "clutch" hinges on very accurately knowing both the "expected" success % of a certain scenario and the "actual" success % of a certain scenario for both the hero and his competitors. Since you are unable to ascertain either of these figures I don't know what ground you have to stand on anymore.

I'm not the one deciding "well that doesn't count". Statistics is doing that based on your sample sizes and what you want to accomplish with them.


The method they used to calculate a players average score is totally fine. They basically removed the course bias from different events and assigned players "course-neutral scoring average". The PGA Tour does almost the exact same thing in it's Adjusted Scoring Average which they use to give out the Byron Nelson Award.

Incredible. More gibberish. Using round by round scores for every player in the field and comparing it to the field average on a week to week basis to remove course bias is very "strokes gained" like. It's laughable you think their data is laughable, especially since as I stated above the PGA Tour does almost the exact same thing to award one of their most prestigious awards.

Amazing you ranted on me early about not being able to analyze information correctly and then you go and write something like this.

The scoring average they assigned Tiger is a COURSE NEUTERAL scoring average(for all intents and purposes it is his predicted scoring average on an AVERAGE PGA Tour course). It's not what they think his actual scoring average will be at the US Open and PGA championships.

His score at those events would likely be what? 3-4 shots worse on average?

So instead of being 59 > 79, it would be 62-63 > 82-83. Let's assume his average is around 72 for simplicity.

Let's look at Tiger's best and worst major rounds...

Best:
63(vicious lip out on 18) at 07 PGA
64 at 97 British Open
At least 5 more 65s
So 7 rounds that were 7 shots or more lower than his "average".

Worst:
81 in absolutely hellacious conditions in the 02 Open Championship
77 at 2011 PGA championship
So really only 1 round that was 7 shots or more worse than his "average".

So do I think their "quasi normal distribution curve" is a tad flawed. Most certainly not. The way the calculated it is perfectly sound from a statistical stand point. I know you have had problems with normal distributions before, but damn this is embarrassing. They calculated his course neutral score and his course neutral standard error and were able to create a normal distribution from the data.


LOL

Whatever Rain Man, just keep churning out your walls of text. Perhaps when you're older you'll understand what golf is all about.

BO

My favorite part is Ship ragging on NXT for "only" beating basically the hardest games in all of poker.

Hahaha, agreed. What a pathetic accomplishment!

Put me in the camp of Tiger beat everyone because he was just waay better.

I think this is kind of like the breaking versus str8 putt debate.. For a while, people were arguing different things.. The breaking putt team was really thinking of a funnel, and the straight putt team was talking a planar putt..

Ben Hogan talked a lot about building a swing that held up under pressure. I think choke definitely exists, and it shows up more frequently the more swing flaws a person has.

Tiger woods hit some incredible shots in his career when he had to. I think Foley said PGA players are actually at their best hitting very challenging shots (circus shots). I think the reasoning being that they aren't concerned with screwing up the shot, but are simply very focused on the task at hand.

This for sure. Good stats go hand in hand with having that reliable swing. Naturally a larger sample size will blur these two together, but thinking that there aren't a huge number of intangibles that impact players round by round and shot by shot is just silly.

Saw this article today on the CBS Sports web site.

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on...has-diminished

To me it shows why Tiger is not the GOAT. He has a major coming up that may be his best chance to win one this year, and instead of getting ready he's spending that time hanging out on his boat with his kids.

Which is admirable. I will certainly never fault a human being for wanting to be with his family. But I think it illustrates the reason that Tiger is no longer winning majors.

The last line is "everyone needs to realize that 2005 and pre-2005 Tiger isn't ever coming back."

If this is the case, does that impact the GOAT argument?

What hurts the brain about NXTs arguments is that he thinks statistics explain everything when anyone who has ever played golf at any competitive level knows how situational it is. That is actually one thing that makes golf great, it is so un-static. You won't face many identical situations ever no matter how much you play because things like course, course conditions, weather, lie, green speed, stakes played for, competition all impact results.

It is a really dumb way to analyze golf to ignore this. All I ,and I think others in this thread, mean when we say clutch is that the pressure doesn't negatively affect that player as much. That pressure is real and something that statistics alone cannot quantify.

That article shows why all this GOAT talk is premature. All the guys who get butthurt over someone saying he isn't just don't realize that his career isn't over yet, and he still has more to accomplish before "All time" is realized. I don't understand the rush. Heck, Tiger himself says he's got more to do. He's probably best in a lot of stats, but he's still behind in two of the most important measures by most accounts (total wins and total majors).

Not faulting the guy at all for being more of a family man or not putting as much of a premium on golf right now, but that is where his head is at. Thing is, Jack did that too. He recently said on Golf Channel that his greatest accomplishment is that "I have kids who know who I am". I'm sure he went though times when he didn't give 100% on course as well. That will come in waves as family grows, you mature, etc.

So if Tiger doesn't win many, or any, more tournaments or majors, I don't see how you can call him GOAT. Doesn't take away anything from what he's done, but "All Time" is more than just up to age 40. If he had all those accomplishments (say 110 wins and 20 majors) already and then turned into Stricker, sure you can make the GOAT statement and it wouldn't even be an argument.

For the record, I give Tiger another two or three years and I think the fire will come back. He'll rattle off wins and some majors, probably get those records, and then GOAT will be a given. Right now though, he hasn't yet reached "All Time".

Of course clutch exist. And no pencil neck micro examining stats is going to prove otherwise. Clutch and choke aren't realities that exist to a person that doesn't get out of their comfort zone. That's where the artists live and the mechanics can't comprehend so they spew meaningless statistics so their head doesn't explode.

Except choking has been proven to exist using statistical analysis. So yes, it is a "reality".

But I've done as much as I can on this subject. You guys can go stand on the street corners with your sandwich boards, shouting incoherently trying to convince people Jesu... I mean "clutch" exists without any quantifiable proof. Have fun.

you do understand the majority of poker players(many winning players btw) have yet to grasp the true concept of just how much impact variance has on sample size?(even such a large sample size)

then how do u expect some old school mini tour grinders holding on to days of past glory to make that leap?

Good point, the PGA Tour has proven that their way of calculating stats for years is perfect.
You do realize that in 54 rounds of golf there are more than 3,600 individual shots to consider, right? I know that 3,600 is still far too few data points for a stat guy like you who needs pure black and white to be able to glean any information from a trial, but other more experienced people can form ideas and then test them in practice. What’s amazing is this is now the second time you have created a debate and then simply ended your side by saying that there is no way the other side can offer sufficient evidence for you….why do you even start debates then? Very odd to me, but also exactly what my ADHD buddy in Dallas would do, so the shoe still fits.

I understand this is the thinking and fully recognize that an online game is far superior to a significantly higher stakes live game. But the idea that beating low level games is hard seems funny to me. I understand that the majority of all players are by definition losers, but I can’t believe that it is challenging for a guy as smart as NXT be a winning player. Study the correct material, study your own game, and work away from the tables.

The saying “low level games are basically the hardest games in all of poker” just feels like something the better players would promulgate to fish make the fish feel better while losing. If they are so hard, move up. I know, I know, bankroll management. If you don’t have any money, stop playing online poker. If you are a winning online player that simply can’t scratch the roll together to play the “softer” bigger games you should really focus on spending less and playing more so you can grind up to play the easy money big games. That seems pretty self explanatory.

I’ve covered the basics of strategy and played quite a bit but nothing crazy. I simply was never that awe struck by anything fancy while donking around online. Several times in live larger games and in several WSOP events I was quite impressed with what I witnessed. Maybe I’m just too slow to pick up what’s really happening online.

Haha haha

Wow

Could have sworn in one of your mudslinging posts from above you claimed I was incapable of the bolded. Now you think I'm smart?
LOL at his whole thing. Are you not aware that 2/4 NL online can be more lucrative with less stress than 25/50 NL live, even if the game is tougher?

If you can beat 2/4 NL online for 4bb/100 over 1500 hours getting 500 hands/hr your expectation for the year is $80,000

If you can beat 25/50 NL live for 5bb/100 over 1500 hours getting 30 hands/hr your expecation for the year is $72,000

And of course since you don't understand variance, you would much rather just hope you run good in the 45,000 hands you play live for the ENTIRE year, rather than the 750,000 hands you could get in online.

Also forget you need around a liquid $200K to play live 25/50 games on the reg, where as you need at most 20% of that to play 2/4 NL online.

Just amazing. "Low stakes" poker.

I’ve always agreed you are a smart kid, never said different (not seriously at least). I fully believe you are strong with stats and a solid poker player. I simply don’t think you can think outside the box at all, no biggie.
As for the rest of your post, it’s another oddity I find with you that you make these long posts as though my statement was “you can make more playing 25/50 live than 10 tabling 2/4 online”. I never said that, nor do I believe that. So I guess all I can say is I agree with your expectation math. I am truly not even sure what your point here is other than:

(hands per hour * hours) * bb/100 expectation = moniez.

I’m pretty sure we can all handle win rate math and agree that if you can 10 table online that’s great. How about moving up ONLINE if the low limit games are so hard is/was the point.
Never mind I guess, keep dreaming of the day you were grinding out $100k/yr. Heaven forbid your roll ever get over $40k. LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Why are we measuring dicks with poker rolls or stakes or whatever. This isn't 2004, you that tilted by the way someone makes their money?

How am I possibly tilted with how he makes money? I'd love for poker to come back, it would be a perfect time supplement to my trading.

I simply said we get how win rate math works.

The $100k dreaming joke was more to the point if he had any social skills he could use his intelligence to do far better than $100k a year. Actually he wouldn't even need social skills, all he would need is to not be offensive and be able to carry on any sort of conversation without turning it into an argument.

ITT, ship has no idea how hard it is to beat midstakes online.

Ship, do you honestly believe all of the nonsense you just spewed about 2/4? Most 2/4 players also play higher...

My point was countering this statement of yours
Yes the big money games in Vegas were likely "softer" than a tough online MSNL game, but it's really not worth it EV wise. Not even accounting for the other benefits of playing online vs live for 1500 hours a year.

This. I played 2/4-5/10 mostly with some 10/20 and 25/50 sprinkled in.

By late 2009 and early 2010 5/10 NL online was probably the hardest poker game in the world that ran on a very regular bases. I think that is what twzien was refering to when he called MSNL one of the hardest poker games on the planet.

/derail that Ship has no clue about

So the brilliant NXT has stated that neither Ship nor myself have a clue about what we are discussing in this thread. Interesting.

And now some people have moved to measuring their poker dicks of the past in the golf forum. Good stuff.

BO

It was just a counter to some mudslinging Ship did about how I have no ability to learn or apply what I learn.

Then it got a bit out of control after some more nonsense was spewed by Ship.

Now it's over. Hopefully

On a side note are all of your posts just going to be cheap shots or do you have anything of substance to offer?

It seems all NXT is looking for is some data/research/statistics to back up what Ship and I guess no BO is saying. NXT has provided plenty of data to back up his side of the argument. Im genuinely curious if BO and Ship can find any (I respect both of your opinions for sure when it comes to golf) to back up their side as research has shown over and over that the naked eye can be very deceiving

I have to admit I’m more than confused how any animosity is aimed at me on this. The first time in the golf forum I’ve ever seen poker stakes or roll’s mentioned was NXT here:


Which I made fun of him for bringing up.
Cue the peanut gallery Twizzle and Dick. But they jumped on me for LOL’ing LOW LIMIT.

NXT wows us all with unrelated EV calcs never before seen in internet history.


BYN now raises the bar to MIDSTAKES…where did that come from? And brings up 2/4 which I never brought up, odd.

NXT confirms they are completing the derail by talking about MSNL and somehow keeps ranting about live vs online as though we all can’t figure out that seeing 10x more hands is a good thing.

I’ve never said you can’t learn, I simply know you can’t create. You are clearly good at taking ideas of others and stuffing data in their calculators. You really are, you have a great ability to understand the flow of statistical thinking. You simply can’t do anything but that, and that’s ok.

FYP


Cliffs: Ship twisted the knife in NXT with “gee, how’d you beat low limit” and NXT takes it perfectly. Gets all pissy and goes off on stat-tangent, again.
Multiple other low-limit losing players get mad and say it's the hardest game on earth. NXT and others confirm as online games get bigger they get tougher.

Midstakes was mentioned early on in the poker "derail"