2005 ILLINOIS OPEN SERIES

[Jon Brakel]

Results are up for the IOS #1 Pro/Adv Saturday. I'll still try to get the Ams day up tonight but I'm not promising. I accidently deleted some info from one of the spread sheets and it has put me behind.

IOS #1 - Parkside - Pro/Advanced Results.

[Dan Michler]

thanks jon!

[Jon Brakel]

IOS #1 - Parkside - Ams results are up.

Results are here!

[CEValkyrie]

Sweet! Nice work Jon.

[D]

you guys are f-a-s-t!

[Brian]

Great Job.  How come these results don't show up on my player info for 2005 on the PDGA site?  Sorry to be a bother

[CEValkyrie]

Great Job.  How come these results don't show up on my player info for 2005 on the PDGA site?  Sorry to be a bother

They won't show up until the PDGA officially processes them.

[Bruce Brakel]

Corrected results are up!

[Dan Michler]

Great Job.  How come these results don't show up on my player info for 2005 on the PDGA site?  Sorry to be a bother

the ratings are only preliminary also.

[mirth]

this could have interesting implications for my rating... If I take my current 8 rounds and drop the two lowest and add in the two rounds from IOS #1 then I go ro 890. Of course, this is all subject to PDGA fuzzy math.

[Brian]

Thanks for the help

[Bruce Brakel]

this could have interesting implications for my rating... If I take my current 8 rounds and drop the two lowest and add in the two rounds from IOS #1 then I go ro 890. Of course, this is all subject to PDGA fuzzy math.

That is no longer similar to how ratings are calculated.  They used to drop your lowest 3 of your most recent 20.  Now they drop anything new that is lower than one standard deviation from your current rating.  And you are overdue to move up to Intermediate anyway.  I was surprised you were still below 875.  You look like a better player than that.  Jon too.  

[mirth]

bah

[D]

lazy baggers

stop stealing peoples money and move up to where you belong, youre ruining the game!!

[damonshort]

Now they drop anything new that is lower than one standard deviation from your current rating.

I'm not up on statistics lingo; what's "one standard deviation" mean? Granted that Mirth could be considered a "standard deviate", but...

[Bruce Brakel]

I think this is accurate:  "Standard deviation" is a statistics measure that measures how much numbers are scattered about their average. If the numbers follow a perfect Gaussian ("bell shaped") distribution, then 68% of the numbers will be within one standard deviation +/- from the average and 95% of the numbers will be within two standard deviations of the average.  

[Chainmeister]

a standard deviation is a statistical term for determining how far data is from the median (average).  I pulled this from a website:

Simply put, the standard deviation is a measure of the degree of dispersion of the data from the mean value. A large standard deviation indicates that the data points are far from the mean and a small standard deviation indicates that they are clustered closely around the mean.

For example, the sets {0, 5, 9, 14} and {5, 6, 8, 9} each have a mean of 7, but the second set has a much smaller standard deviation

If Mirth's scores are all over the board,   750, 850, 899, etc, there would be a large standard deviation.  If Damon is very consistent, 850, 860, 870 there is a small one.  I played with a guy on Sunday who had a huge deviation in one day.  He shot 68 from the shorts and 55 in the second round.  Went from Suckin' to smokin'. It is a measurement of how far you are from the norm.  Given this, I suspect most players have a large standard deviation from the rest of the population.   I personally think Mirth bagged the second round on Sunday just so he stay and wreak havoc on the rec division.  Or, you could just say it came natural as he was a big shooter from the Shorts.  

[Bruce Brakel]

I don't think the PDGA formula uses a personal standard deviation but a class standard deviation.  I think they are calculating the standard deviation off all players with a similar rating.  For most players this is an 80 rating point spread but it might be less for the highly rated.

One of the purposes of the new formula is to mystify the system.  It is much harder to game the system and bag your rating if you don't know whether a score will be counted.  

[Dan Michler]

so will ratings that are more than 1 std. deviation HIGHER be dropped?  if they are then i think this will create some inaccuracy as some players will increase their skill level rapidly and the high rating will not truely be a deviation.  what if a players rating is 850 based off of 2 rounds and then they play the next year and are shooting 1000 golf.  pretend every round they shoot is 1000 or better.  all the rounds would be dropped and their rating would stay at 850.  the same could be said for a player who's skill level drops off rapidly (say if they are throwing with their off hand).

[Bruce Brakel]

Higher is not dropped.  Only lower.  Whether an off-hand rating gets dropped will depend upon how much you practice before you play that round.  I'm good enough no that my off-hand rounds will count.  Hellooooo Mid-Nationals 2006!  I'll crush the field when I get my new rght arm installed.