Moderator: ADGO BOD
Rich Meade wrote:Ok, just a couple Q's for clarification...
Do we need to play all 3 rounds, or can playing only one round, either at JP, Perk, Or NGCT be enough to qualify in the Performance area?
As stated in the post you have THREE chances - you can play any of the 3 or all three if you wish to keep trying if you don't qualify at earlier 2 chances
Or is it cumulative for the 3 rounds?
NO
Also, the 12 "qualified" players getting the free stay saturday, come from the performance based scoring?
As stated in the post top 3 scratch scores AND top 3 Performance scores from each of the 2 SAT rounds stay for free
Lastly...
Do I understand that only 18 "Qualifying" players total will compete for the Rep spot, in a final round on Sunday at NGCT? And it will be performance based?
YES the winner will be based on performance scoring whether they qualified as scratch or performance based - 6 players from each of the 3 chances at the 3 courses
Rich Meade wrote:Thanks Keith
No need for the "as stated" btw...
You should know that not everyone can understand the way you explain things sometimes... (me in particular lol)
I'm sure your phrasing makes sense in your head, but the way I read it (the multiple times I read it) I still didn't get it all the way, and wanted to make sure.
$Dollar$ wrote:Is the 4th round going to be PDGA rated?
Bootsie wrote:rich meade did you finish 2nd grade because if you can read and retain the information longer then 60 seconds everyone of your questions the answer for it is in the top post
Bootsie (if he had used 2nd grade grammar, punctuation and capitalization) wrote:Rich Meade, did you finish the 2nd grade? Because if you could read and retain the information for longer then 60 seconds, the answer to every one of your questions is in the top post.
coreyphillips wrote: Ultimately, the 900 rated player would be the winner because his/her projected score would be much lower therefore giving him/her a higher rated round?
Bootsie wrote:rich meade did you finish 2nd grade because if you can read and retain the information longer then 60 seconds everyone of your questions the answer for it is in the top post
brick wrote:Why in the world would you have the first round of qualifying be real scoring and the final performance scoring? Why not just drop the performance scoring all together?
keith johnson wrote:brick wrote:Why in the world would you have the first round of qualifying be real scoring and the final performance scoring? Why not just drop the performance scoring all together?
I think my way of doing it with taking the 3 scratch and 3 performance based from each of the 3 qualifiers and giving them all 1 shot at a performance based round to be the rep is the most fair way to give everyone a shot.
keith johnson wrote:I'm working at NGCT and McCurry both days this weekend ...
$10 of each entry will go towards the overall winners ENTRY to the USDGC and the remaining money from the $10 per entry (if any) will be given to the winner for their expenses before the USDGC. $10 of each entry will go towards the prize fund for each round with additional prizes to be awarded to the Performance edition winners from each round.
$Dollar$ wrote:About the payout.....$10 of each entry will go towards the overall winners ENTRY to the USDGC and the remaining money from the $10 per entry (if any) will be given to the winner for their expenses before the USDGC. $10 of each entry will go towards the prize fund for each round with additional prizes to be awarded to the Performance edition winners from each round.
With the entry fee for the Performance edition only being $100, this years GA Rep should win enough to cover most of the expenses, which is really awesome!
Does it mean the other $10 (and additional prizes) are ONLY going to be paid on based on Performance scoring?
Chains for Perkerson???
Will the chains on the Innova discatchers work?
Innova sent us replacement chain for numerous baskets at White Oak.
We are replacing the worst ones (slightly rusted) but some of the ones we replaced are in good shape.
Was going to give the extra chain to Deerlick, but might be better utilized at The "P"
mason wrote:Do the the tee pees have any beds or do you sleep on the ground?
$Dollar$ wrote:You didn't answer my question. Where will the other $10 go and how will it be paid out?
$Dollar$ wrote:Wow, that Perkerson round came out super low. The rating system does not work at all when that few people play
mrpbody33 wrote:$Dollar$ wrote:Wow, that Perkerson round came out super low. The rating system does not work at all when that few people play
Sometimes you don't need to take a course in statistics to see the flaw in the rating system.
$Dollar$ wrote:Wow, that Perkerson round came out super low. The rating system does not work at all when that few people play
keith johnson wrote:$Dollar$ wrote:Wow, that Perkerson round came out super low. The rating system does not work at all when that few people play
Thats what happens when you have 3 under 950 and 2 over 950 players all playing within 3 strokes of each other - the top rating isn't that high.
Secondly they could be worse - I listed the par as 61 and not the 58-59 that Ritger said the new course is at - I figured the 4 chainless baskets evened that out - so I left it at 61 - the rounds for Moseley and the Finals look like the ratings worked out perfectly as both are a few points off of what I projected they would be.
mrpbody33 wrote:It is true. For what the SSA achieves there isn't much better.
There are too extreme examples for which the rating system fails. The first being a low sample size (or sample size that doesn't include many players rated over 1000). We can see from the results of this tourney that the Perkerson rounds didn't approach what is indicative of their true rating. A larger sample size would correct this.
The other way the rating system fails is when the par for a course becomes too high. A perfect example of this was Hotlanta 2010. First round was played on the 27-hole par-100 Flyboy layout. A very challenging course and some people shot some really good scores out there that day. Unfortunately since there wasn't a large scoring separation each stroke meant a large ratings jump. This is similar to what you see happen on a course with a low SSA (like Lenora). So where by Dollar and Childs both shot in the 80's there were rewarded with round rating barely over 1000.
Ridesbrd wrote:Now as far as Flyboy goes, I would think that not enough rated rounds have been played on that par 100 layout to give it an accurate (high enough) SSA.....just a guess though.
gvan wrote:Ridesbrd wrote:Now as far as Flyboy goes, I would think that not enough rated rounds have been played on that par 100 layout to give it an accurate (high enough) SSA.....just a guess though.
SSA is calculated on the fly, if I understand it properly. Number of rated rounds in the past will have no impact on a current round's rating.
Ridesbrd wrote:I believe this is true/also slightly misleading, a course has an established lets call it SSA average as well as an SSA for an individual round which is based off that courses SSA average and what people shot.
Chuck on PDGA Ask Chuck thread wrote: The SSA for each round is temporarily calculated based on the scores and ratings of propagators [...] Once the SSA is calculated from propagators with acceptable round ratings, everyone who played that layout will get a round rating from that SSA regardless whether they are a propagator or not, or a member or not.
Ridesbrd wrote:keith johnson wrote:$Dollar$ wrote:Wow, that Perkerson round came out super low. The rating system does not work at all when that few people play
Thats what happens when you have 3 under 950 and 2 over 950 players all playing within 3 strokes of each other - the top rating isn't that high.
Secondly they could be worse - I listed the par as 61 and not the 58-59 that Ritger said the new course is at - I figured the 4 chainless baskets evened that out - so I left it at 61 - the rounds for Moseley and the Finals look like the ratings worked out perfectly as both are a few points off of what I projected they would be.
Whatever the TD sets the course par at has absolutely nothing to do with ratings, par is relative. I imagine a course like perkerson does have a higher SSA similar to the courses at IDGC.
Return to Disc Golf Tournaments
Users browsing this forum: mrpbody33 and 1 guest