Division choices

[pickax]

Because I am a data head as the ChainMeister puts it, I thought I would post some analysis of the Sinnissippi Open. The Sinnissippi is a nice choice for this analysis as two reasons for people playing up have been removed: it was a one day, so division choice was not influenced by Sat vs Sun; there as also a single am entry fee so the relative cost is constant between divisions.
Here's what I found after removing all the non-rated players from the equation:

	Played	2008up	2007up	Proper
Advanced	24	12	3	12
Intermediate	17	10	5	17
Recreational	9	7	0	12
Novice	1	0	0	10

From this, we can see that half the Advanced field was playing up at least one division using the 2008 ratings breaks. If players were going by the 2007 ratings breaks, only 3 would have been playing up for the Advanced division. If everyone played in their "proper" division, the divisions would have been more evenly divided.

I'll follow up later with the win/cash line data later (gotta get back to work).

[Bruce Brakel]

Playing up is a herd mentality thing.  It works fine for a lot of players if a lot of players do it.  If a few highly visible players break from the herd, the thing can devolve into PDGA disc golf pretty quickly. 

In 2003, when the PDGA was using 925 as the Intermediate cap, the Michigan disc golf culture pretty much agreed that 900 was when you played advanced.  I played intermediate half of the time that year and came in second a lot.  The next year I was Advanced rated but a bunch of former dreambaggers threw off the covers and dropped down to Intermediate.  Now you don't as much dreambagging in Advanced in Michigan as you see in other states.  At least that is my impression.  I have not run the numbers.

But in the lower am divisions, last weekend there were 29 in the rec division at Holly but there were only four who had a Rec rating.  There were 15 players in Intermediate but only 4 with an intermediate rating.  And I would have had to play 960 rated golf to win in Am Master! 

[pickax]

The table below is the round rating average to win/cash for the Sinnissippi. The actual is where everyone actually played, proper is where the PDGA puts them.

	Win Actual	Win Proper	Cash Actual	Cash Proper
Adv	986	986	932	940
Int	951	963	900	932
Rec	928	951	861	916
Nov	873	897	822	858

This is interesting in that with all of the dreambaggers, a player playing in their proper division for the most part only needs to shoot their rating to cash. If everyone was in their proper divisions, one would need to shoot above the divisional rating limit to cash.
Graphically it looks like this:

[Dan Michler]

I think Sinnissippi displayed that when the price for all amateur divisions is the same (why should high rated players have to pay more to play?) you will get more players playing up.  Competing and finishing well in advanced is more enjoyable for me than doing it in intermediate.  Increasing my odds of winning a couple more discs just isn't as important as that.  Not everybody feels this way and there is nothing wrong with that.  But I think it does explain why more players chose to play up a division at Sinnissippi than at other events.  At the end of the day, everybody should just pick the division they have the most fun in and nobody should complain about it.  That being said there should have been about 5 divisions on Saturday instead of 13 if the PDGA knew what was good for them.

[Bruce Brakel]

The PDGA offers the option to run tournaments with ratings based divisions only. 

[Chainmeister]

I think Sinnissippi displayed that when the price for all amateur divisions is the same (why should high rated players have to pay more to play?) you will get more players playing up.  Competing and finishing well in advanced is more enjoyable for me than doing it in intermediate.  Increasing my odds of winning a couple more discs just isn't as important as that.  Not everybody feels this way and there is nothing wrong with that.  But I think it does explain why more players chose to play up a division at Sinnissippi than at other events.  At the end of the day, everybody should just pick the division they have the most fun in and nobody should complain about it.  That being said there should have been about 5 divisions on Saturday instead of 13 if the PDGA knew what was good for them.

Dan

I think you make an excellent point. When all divisions are the same price I am much more likely to play in advanced GM rather than novice.  I play with better players and get more out of watching better players.  I figure I am not cashing anyway so its no big loss to me.  However, if it costs me $20 or so more to play GM I will opt to play novice.

[pickax]

What I find interesting is that other players may choose to play up precisely because there is a graduated entry fee. In this case, their normal division might be known for abysmal payouts and they are seeing the potentially bigger payout in the division up and want to try to get a piece of it even if they probably won't. But of course if a bunch of other dream baggers play up, the chance for a piece increases.

This is why I find division choices fascinating. There is much to muse about at the psychological/sociological level.

[Chainmeister]

I don't gamble.  It doesn't interest me other than when the lotto is a zillion dollars I will buy one ticket.  I figure that if lightening is going to strike I just want to be standing outside..  I really don't have a statistically greater chance even if I buy 100 tickets. The playing up mentality seems like a gambling mentality. How does your data stack up when you consider players who play up with a trophy only or half in or other limited engagement?  That being said, I suspect its less of a gamble for a boatload of plastic than the ego trip of saying, "my rating is rec but I think of myself as an (advanced or intermediate or whatever)"  I guess that I do buy into this when I contribute to the ace fund.  I have never hit one but keep donating money.  Its like the lightening thing. I don't want to finally hit one when I didn't pitch in one dollar.  Now it would be interesting if players could put in $5 and hope for a 5-1 payout where the TD was gambling that nobody would hit and get to keep the ace money if nobody hit it but might have to pay out a big bet if somebody played more than one share of the ace fund.

[pickax]

That was the other nice thing about the Sinnissippi data. I do not believe there was trophy only or half in options to complicate the sociological experiment. 

I'm with you Dave. The gambling aspect I could do without. I still haven't put in for the ace fund as I still have none to my name at this point. I play tournaments in divisions where my rating puts me because that is where I will feel competitive and know I have the ability to place and will not just be monkeying around on last card. I think that's one of the reasons I did so poorly at the club tourney last summer. There was nothing on the line pushing me. I was playing differently than I would if I  knew I could be in the hunt.

[skipache]

i see the club challenge as a one division type of deal,and  i understand the whole competitiveness thing but there can only be one "club Champion" right?

[pickax]

Yes. I have no problem with having just one division for the annual club tournament. My id is engaging in a little self psycho-analysis here. That's all.

[Mukey]

i see the club challenge as a one division type of deal,and  i understand the whole competitiveness thing but there can only be one "club Champion" right?

Highlander?