Damn, 6 minutes to respond. I feel slighted.

Look, golf is not based on math. It's not poker, it can't be explained in terms of pure black and white. You keep trying make it all x's and o's and that just won't work. Plus you're taking all the fun out of it.

BO

To play along with Ship just a bit, what would it take to calculate all these %'s on a putt by putt basis?

First off, it is not really possible, since we have no clue how long the 2nd putts will be from when we are focused / unfocused on the 1st putt but it get's the general gist. If you don't know how far away you generally are after an unfocused first putt, it's tough to pin point 3 putt %'s when we are unfocused on the first and focused on the 2nd but we can get close enough to prove the point at hand, which is Tour player's aren't as close to 0% 3 putt even when 100% focused as everyone thinks)

I used Ships' 5% worth of decay when we are unfocused on the 1 putt and 2 putt %. I let Excel solve for the rest.




Shockingly, this simple spreadsheet illustrates is how close my simple EV calc get's you to the actual number. Use the focused/unfocused 3 putt % from the bottom of screen shot and place into 93%/7% equation.

= (93% * .75%) + (7% * 5%) = 1.05%

Rounded to 1.1%



Can we be done now?

ESPN 3 is going to live stream every round of Tiger's in the Open Championship

WEEEEEEEE

I have already, about 5 times. See:
You however do not even read, or consider my points. You simply get an idea in your head and start banging away on the keyboard.

This is where you are going awry. You are adding probabilities incorrectly. PERIOD.

Your 93% represents how many times they are focused on the first putt and 7% they are not. That should sum to 100% as it is one complete trial. Hey, it does!

You are then trying to add the odds of being focused on the second putt to that as well, it does not work that way.

Your equation above has zero to do with odds of three putting, it simply is about expectation of getting through 2 shots focused. Which would look like this:

100% = 7% chance of getting through first shot focused + ( 7% chance of getting through second shot focused AFTER successfully thinking on the first) + odds of being focused on both

100% = 7% + 6.51% + 86.49% = viola. Or to simplify: .93 * .93 = .8649

Back to flipping coins.

Your equation in coin terms would be: Odds of flipping 2 consecutive heads = (50% chance the first one is heads) + (50% chance the second one is heads after first one came up heads which is 25%) = 75% chance we flip consecutive heads. You don’t add the two outcomes together to derive the final odds. I know you know this and simply don’t see the data in the right light. No biggie, really. I’m not belittling you with comments, I’m simply saying you aren’t looking at it correctly.

No, two people have said they “skim over these arguments” and “I haven’t been following”.
Let’s see what they think of my clarifications for them in this post, it’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Since they haven’t been following I hope they will take the time to actually read and think for me.

The fact that NXT can get away with making up an equation that I have never once said is my position and then tell me the equation (he created) is wrong and that’s why I am wrong is amazing. I have never, not once, posted an equation that does not sum to 100%...if it should. Some stats don’t add to 100%, like batting averages for example. However, the sum of the odds of getting a hit vs not getting a hit would be 100%. I know you know this, I just find it funny that NXT has successfully created the illusion I don’t believe that.

Furthermore, is there a chance that they don’t understand where the mental commitment figures come from (since I made up the stat for myself) and thusly have never pondered the implications?

This is from 2010 when I first explained the idea:
Honestly NXT, if you had a leg to stand on it would be the fact that I (we) am using a statistic that is completely observational and created by my sports psychologist. I then used that stat to try and extract what a mental lapse represents in MY game. We are then using the stat (I created) to apply it to Derek’s potential choke. That methodology is wrought with invalidities, but somehow you’ve chosen to focus on one area and can’t even get that right.

How, exactly, are you telling me what a statistic I created accounts for?

Amazing.

Another wall of text with 0 substance.

No, this is precisely where YOU are messing up.

Bottom line is you're 3 scenarios are
1. 93% chance you hit focused putt on first putt
2. 7% chance you hit unfocused putt on first putt
3. of the 77% of the time you miss your first putt, 7% of those times you hit an unfocused 2nd putt(let's ignore for a second, the fact that you don't change the make % depending on whether or not the player hits a focused first putt)

That is all you have done. Even if you wanted to go this route, which is wrong, you would also have to add in a 4th scenario which is of the 77% of the time you miss the first putt you are focused 93% on the 2nd putt.

' It's clear you have no clue how anything works.

This isn't even right because you don't even address the scenario where you are unfocused on both shots. So explain how if you don't even account for all of the possible outcomes, your total adds up to 100%?

Let's look at the 2 equations you have used in this thread.

I'll try once more to show you this is wrong, maybe if I break down 1 putt % into focus(due to skill)/unfocused(due to mental error) it will make sense to you.

Odds of making a a 15 footer- Overall it's 23%
93% of the time were focused and make it 23.08% of the time
7% of the time were unfocused and only make it 21.93%

Amazingly (93% * 23.08%) + (93% * 21.93%) = our average 1 putt % of 23%

Notice how if I break one putt % down into focus/unfocus I can't just add them together and get my total 1 putt %? Because one happens 93% of the time and the other happens 7%. My god man.

And then you have this gem of an incomplete calculation
When you do a calculation like this, the sum of all of the first % numbers inside each bracket(which represent the frequency that particular event happens at) has to add up to 100%. Yours do not. It is wrong.


Luckily for you I did all of the math for you in the above spreadsheet, when you want to control for focus % on each shot.

That results in standing over a 15 foot putt, there are 3 scenarios where we hit an unfocused putt.

1. Hit a focused first putt and unfocused 2nd putt = (93% * 7%) = 6.51%
2. Hit an unfocused first putt and focused 2nd putt = (7% * 93%) = 6.51%
3. Hit both putts when unfocused = (7% * 7%) = .49%

These scenarios adds up to 13.51% of the time we will hit an unfocused putt at some point.

So the other 100% - 13.51% = 86.49% of the time we hit no unfocused putts. This would be scenario 4.

So really our simple equation should be

3 putt % = (86.49% * 3 putt % when we hit no unfocused shots) + (13.51% * 3 putt % when we hit at least one unfocused shot)

This is your hang up. You lose 5% PER LAPSE. Whether that is on the first putt, the second putt, or both putts. It is irrelevant if you concentrate on both or neither. You actually get it by the end of your post though, so hang in there for a second. All we are trying to do is figure out how many times you will hit an unfocused first putt, or an unfocused second putt. I simply want to know how many times in isolation you will daydream on either.

Wow, first of all, you have a typo (I think). Your second bracket should be (.07 * .2193). That makes the sum 100%, as it should be in this case since we are looking at one trial. I really can’t figure out what you’re missing here (assuming that is a typo). Your correct calculation above should read:

(93% * 23.08%) + (7% * 21.93%) = 23%.
(.2146) + (.0154) = 23%

It’s just a simple pro-rata distribution of the expectations. And then yes, you simply add them together. What do you possibly mean by “can’t just add them together and get my 1 putt %”? That’s exactly what you do. Coin flipping, again, 50% of the time you flip a head and 50% of the time you flip a tail. Those sum to 100% and represent their pro rata share of the one trial expectation. If you start flipping the coin multiple times it changes the dynamics of the entire equation.

Ok, now you start to turn the corner above. This particular (closer) equation looks similar to my figure from days ago (notice the .8649):

But your closer equation is quite different from what you have been saying all along. You have repeatedly said that the focus rate on the second putt is irrelevant. Now your focus number has dropped to only 86.49% vs the 93% you’ve been using all along…which I’ve been repeatedly telling you is wrong and to account for the second putt focus EV. Notice all your 93% equations:

You are now at least appreciating that you must consider the fact you will lose expectation on the second putt sometimes. You were adamant that the second putt was baked into the first putt figures all along (^^^^) and that is what I was telling you was incorrect. It needed to be considered separately.

Now you at least agree with me. I know you don’t even realize you do, but, you do.

And I thought I was bad.... take this to PM guys, SO MUCH TEXT!

Rather than continue to go back and forth, even though you are still doing a bunch of math wrong, let's end this.

You appear to agree that a correct calculation for 3 putting from 15 feet would look like

3 putt % = (~86.5% * 3 putt % when focused) + (~13.5% * 3 putt % when unfocused at any point)

Since you think players 3 putt .48% of the time when focused and 5% when unfocused we get the following.

1.1% = (86.5% * .48%) + (13.5% * 5%)

1.1% = .42%(focused putts) + .68%(unfocused putts)

1.1% = 1.1%

Note how if they 3 putt when focused .48% of the time, it makes up .42 of the 1.1 % overall 3 putt %, because they only do it 86.5% of the time.

You kept saying they 3 putt .48% of the time and it makes up .48 of the 1.1% of the time with the unfocused 3 putts making up the other .62, when in fact you can see above they would make up the other .68.

Using those incorrect numbers interchangeablly(.48% and .42) makes it very difficult to understand what you are even saying.

You even give me a hard time for using the 93% number, despite using it constantly yourself in an incorrect manor multiple times

What's great is that if you had just done the equations with more correct(still not correct) it would look like this...

(86.49% * .48%) + (7% + 5%) + (77%(7% * 5%)) = 1.03%(not our 1.1% target) but at least your frequencies

86.49% + 7% + 5.39%(which is 77%*7%) = 98.88% and not 105.39 % like your equation.

Still not 100%, but at least closer and then maybe there wouldn't have been so much confusion.

All in all, this was fun, would be more fun if you didn't go straight for the personal attack tho.

lol at what this thread became

Man I'm glad I dropped stats in college

*Roughly*, since that’s close to what I’ve been saying all along.

I think I follow what you’re saying here, but to be honest it is such a glaze over at this point I don’t care. You are close enough now and get the major points that I think you are going to make it through the weekend alive.

Because the way you used 93% is categorically wrong. There is not a 93% chance they get through both putts without a brain fart. Which you now agree with since you are using my 86.49% somewhat correctly (see NXT equations v1.0 and v2.0 below).

You only think I was using it incorrectly because you couldn’t grasp what the string of parenthesis represented. You keep thinking they are representative of some whole number. Those strings were never supposed to add to 100% because they were not representative of a one trial event. What you are trying to do is akin to adding 5 players batting averages and then being pissed they don’t total to 100%. One trial events have pro rata shares that will sum to 100%. That however is not what this idea is.

Here’s where I think it gets fun though. Here is your first /thread/math lessons “this is THE EQAUTION!, v1.0”

There were several more iterations encompassing v1.1-1.5 over the last few days.

Here is your current “THIS IS THE PERFECT EQUATION! v2.0” Notice how your original thoughts are morphing into my original equation and this is in direct opposition to your first equation?

It’s hard to debate a person who thinks they have been correct the whole time yet their final product has changed this drastically.

Like I say, you are close and at this stage you agree with every point I’ve made. Several times you have now created your version of THE ABSOLUTE EQUATION only to 100% contradict yourself later. I have not done that and my original equation is now what your equation now resembles.

If you want to haggle over it being .42% or .48% have at it. Remember, the original dispute stemmed over calling Derek’s three putt a likely choke or not. I don’t care if it is .42% of .48%, I say either of those rates indicate a likely choke in this specific incident.

That truly is /the great summer debate of 2014.

I’m heading to the club now to work with Will in preparation for the US Junior. Sleep tight.

I love how it appears you think you have won?

Amazing.

My v1.0

and V2.0 equations

are the exact same equation, with different focus rates and thus different 3 putt%s to equal 1.1%

The bones of the calculation are the exact same

3 putt % = (% chance you never hit an unfocused putt * focused 3 putt %) + (% chance you hit at least one unfocused putt * unfocused 3 putt %)

And yes, the first %'s in each parenthesis when totaled together MUST TOTAL 100%

Hilariously, you chastise me for utilizing the 93% figure for my initial focus rate, and seem to be claiming victory bc of that, yet your equation below

Makes the EXACT same mistakes I made in the first 2 brackets, and then adds in a completely unnecessary 3rd bracket of events that takes the total frequency over 100%.

But I totally see how you have been right the whole time. You're opinion's now also confirm your initial post on the subject.
Except now they 3 putt > 1% of the time, and they actually do 3 putt from 15' even when they are focused.

One last gem
And to sum it all up you still don't think the total frequency of outcomes should total 100%. We are calculating the % chance that someone 3 putts. The sum of all it's calculated parts must equal 100%.

I'm happy to know that other types of intelligence exist.

For posterity.

To me, I think GOAT is about who was the greatest to ever hold the club in their hands.. And I think NXT posed the question to nitBo.. Who in the history of golf would you pick to win in a 216 hole event? ( I guess the answer is the same as for 72 holes, but the idea is that 216 holes prevents for fewer flukes..)

If you went to a HS football game, and watch a running back playing against a very good team, and the running back absolutely tore it up, to the point you said 'that's the best HS running back I have ever seen...' Would you have to see his career stats to verify exactly how good he was? Sure, it might help, but if you saw someone perform at another level, why should they have to do that for some arbitrary length of time?? (Obviously one game, really isn't enough, but maybe you got to see this player play for 5 games, same story every game..)

Take 100 meter sprinting, (and ignore PEDs.) Why should it matter whether the fastest man in the world wins at the Olympics? What if he trips getting out of the blocks? If someone shatters the world record, and is to that point, the fastest man that has ever been timed, What does it matter how he performed at the Olympic games? He is still greatest sprinter of all time.

And in golf, we have different swing styles which take a different toll on the body.. Would we really say that a player that accumulates 15 wins over a 20 year career is a better golfer than a player that wins 10 events in 2 years? If a player is lightning in a bottle for 3 years, winning at an amazing rate, and then his body breaks down, where is his place in golf history? What if they won more events each year than anyone ever has for 3 years, set scoring records but the career records fall short. Jim Rice was considered the best hitter in baseball for ten years, but struggled to get into the HOF because his batting averaged dipped under .300 at the end of his career after having a really bad year. I don't see how anyone who is at any point the best in the game, doesn't get in the HOF. I'd much rather someone who was an incredible player for a short period of time, over someone who was never in the discussion at any point in their career.

Tiger Woods won 4 straight majors!!! And people like nitBo are challenging his greatness... They wondered if Fred Couples would have the guts to leave him off of a Ryder Cup Team. Could you imagine if it was Nicklaus at the end of his career? Nitbo would be saying 'You can't leave a legend like that off the team, he's earned the right to play on that whenever he wants.' Which, I would pretty much agree with, I just also think it applies to Tiger.

Wrong thread. This is the one about 3 putting.

Sergio Garcia has finally learned to putt. Sergio may win number one before Tiger wins number 15.

He's been a top putter for years already.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.104.2008.html

Check the putting average. Up to 2010 Sergio was outside of the top 100 often. Last year he finally finished in the top 50.

The putting stat you are using is basically worthless, as it's pretty unfair to just count compare total putts vs other players when some players hit it closer to the hole than others.

Strokes gained putting is an infinitely better measure of putting skill and shows that Sergio has been a better than average putter for a few years now.

Sergio's rank the last few years-
2012- 26th
2013- 8th
2014- 27th

so a friend of mine told me that not washing his hair makes it nicer. So i didn't wash my hair for 9 days. last night my head was itching like something crazy. Can both Ship and NXT please do an EV calculation for whether or not I have head lice, vs dandruff or both. This will affect my journey to get this problemfixed for me. Thanks!

Well at least now I don't have to go through the effort of helping you get on some nice private clubs in ATL.

I was close

Before the itching due to lice/dandruff started, was your hair noticeably nicer?

i had pretty great hair during shampoiing stage and during days 1-8 of no shampoo. day 9 was a bad day. Got some H+S so I hope to be in business.


NXT once my head condition is resolved and game is up to snuff I can play some public golf if you are interested!

I recommend Head and Shoulders Clinical Strength like once a week until it's all better. I'm pretty sure they bought out a company named Nizoral and just changed the color of the formula. Really hard on your hair but my scalp always feels perfect afterwards.

Awesome!