Stableford Punishes Good Players?

[Middler]

While probably not true when all players are similar skill level, but it seems when players are of widely varying skill levels, better players don’t seem to win their share. I’m a mid level player and I win more than my share, as do the lower level players. I found a few threads saying they see the same issue, but no solutions. Anyone found a solution to make it more equitable?

We do eagle 6, birdie 4, par 2, bogey 1, doubles and worse 0. I’m told eagle 5, birdie 3, par 2, bogey 1, doubles and worse 0 is more common. Is our system making it even harder on better players.

We’d really like a better system that rewards good players more often.

[I’ve also noticed the less consistent you are, the more you win versus a very consistent player...]

[DaveP043]

Classic Stableford uses increments of 1 point per stroke, usually 0 for double or worse, 1 for bogey, 2 for birdie, 3 for eagle, etc.  Because really high scores aren't "penalized", its possible that higher handicaps receive more benefit than better players.  But have you really looked into seeing how much money goes to each handicap group?  Generally speaking, there are substantially fewer low-handicappers, so they typically would win less money as a group.  Many times this is perceived as being unfair, but it could be an appropriate distribution of winnings.

 

 

[tony@CIC]

We use Stableford for our Club's summer long 18 hole men's league. While I can't retrieve 2020 data, my sense is that the best players are at the top of the list for earning $$.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[FrogginBullfish]

Based on the scoring system, my immediate thought would be that it actually favours the better player as the birdie and eagle percentage a low cap has over a high cap is rather significant so my best guess as to why it's swinging towards mid to high caps has more to do with the way handicaps are applied than it does the scoring system.

While probably not true when all players are similar skill level, but it seems when players are of widely varying skill levels, better players don’t seem to win their share. I’m a mid level player and I win more than my share, as do the lower level players. I found a few threads saying they see the same issue, but no solutions. Anyone found a solution to make it more equitable?
We do eagle 6, birdie 4, par 2, bogey 1, doubles and worse 0. I’m told eagle 5, birdie 3, par 2, bogey 1, doubles and worse 0 is more common. Is our system making it even harder on better players.
We’d really like a better system that rewards good players more often.
[i’ve also noticed the less consistent you are, the more you win versus a very consistent player...]

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[MmmmmmBuddy]

Based on the scoring system, my immediate thought would be that it actually favours the better player as the birdie and eagle percentage a low cap has over a high cap is rather significant so my best guess as to why it's swinging towards mid to high caps has more to do with the way handicaps are applied than it does the scoring system.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

I have made 3 eagles this year. One of my 26 handicap members makes at least 1 “net eagle” per round, or like 80+ this year. This type of stableford scoring absolutely favors the extremely high caps.


Sent from OregonMyGolfSpy

[FrogginBullfish]

Well that's kind of what I mean. If the scoring is played straight up, it's more likely to favour the better player but as soon as net scores come in to play it immediately swings the other way.

I have made 3 eagles this year. One of my 26 handicap members makes at least 1 “net eagle” per round, or like 80+ this year. This type of stableford scoring absolutely favors the extremely high caps.


Sent from OregonMyGolfSpy

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Middler]

1 hour ago, MmmmmmBuddy said:

I have made 3 eagles this year. One of my 26 handicap members makes at least 1 “net eagle” per round, or like 80+ this year. This type of stableford scoring absolutely favors the extremely high caps.


Sent from OregonMyGolfSpy

 

48 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Well that's kind of what I mean. If the scoring is played straight up, it's more likely to favour the better player but as soon as net scores come in to play it immediately swings the other way.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

We don’t use net scores, every player gets Stableford points using their actual scores.

 

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Classic Stableford uses increments of 1 point per stroke, usually 0 for double or worse, 1 for bogey, 2 for birdie, 3 for eagle, etc.  Because really high scores aren't "penalized", its possible that higher handicaps receive more benefit than better players.  But have you really looked into seeing how much money goes to each handicap group?  Generally speaking, there are substantially fewer low-handicappers, so they typically would win less money as a group.  Many times this is perceived as being unfair, but it could be an appropriate distribution of winnings.

 

 

I do have complete data for our group of 8 and the two best players rarely win, the guys at the bottom and inconsistent middle players are taking most of the winnings. We all want a fair shake, including those who are winning more than their fair share. And the better players aren’t complaining even though they’d be justified IMO.

I also play in another group of 12 and while I don’t have all the data, I’m there for the payouts and the four top players rarely win. Again the high handicappers and inconsistent middle players win most often...

[Kenny B]

It seems to me that it depends on the skills of the better players and the higher handicap players.  What I mean is that if the better players are not big hitters, but are consistent, their eagle/birdie chances might be fewer than less skilled players who drive the ball a long way, but are erratic.  

The reward for making eagles and birdies is high, but there is very little risk to the less skilled players if they make a big number, which they are more likely to do than better players.  I would say yes, your system is likely harder for better players.

[Buffly]

@Middler I wonder what the winning scores are most often?

Say player 1 is at +5 with all pars and 5 bogeys = using 6-4-2-1-0 = 31

Say player 2 is at +12 with 4 doubles, 6 bogeys, 6 pars, and 2 birdies = 26

Player 3 is at +15 with 3 triples, 4 doubles, 3 birdies, 1 bogey, and 7 pars = 27

Obviously, the best player with lots of pars and a low score wins. But, the two mid-cappers get flipped where the better player gets a lower stableford score. 

I am with the other poster who said that net scores favor worse players in the stableford format, so pick one or the other and not both at the same time. 

[Buffly]

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Classic Stableford uses increments of 1 point per stroke, usually 0 for double or worse, 1 for bogey, 2 for birdie, 3 for eagle, etc.  Because really high scores aren't "penalized", its possible that higher handicaps receive more benefit than better players.  But have you really looked into seeing how much money goes to each handicap group?  Generally speaking, there are substantially fewer low-handicappers, so they typically would win less money as a group.  Many times this is perceived as being unfair, but it could be an appropriate distribution of winnings.

 

 

Minor note: missing par at 2 points, birdie 3, eagle 4. 

0 pts = double or worse

1 = bogey

2 = par

3 = birdie

4 = eagle, etc

[DaveP043]

In my estimation, the lack of "penalty" for really high scores helps more erratic players.  The un-balancing of the points, giving 2 more points going from birdie to eagle when bogey to par is only 1 point difference. for example, also helps erratic players.  Try using consistent single-point differences and see what happens for a bit. @Buffly has given the correct point values for normal Stableford, correcting my mistake earlier.

[RickyBobby_PR]

So far I see no penalty for making a bad score so that’s definitely going to favor the higher hdcp players in the group.

The group I’ve played with for the last 20+ years has been using a modified stableford for the last 5 years or so. The golfers who have the 12-18 hdcp win more frequently than the single digit golfers when we have at least 8 playing. The smaller the group the better chance the lower hdcp in the group has of winning. 

Eagle = 8

Birdie = 4

Par = 2

Bogey = 1

Double bogey = 0

Triple or worse = -1

 

[Middler]

10 hours ago, Kenny B said:

It seems to me that it depends on the skills of the better players and the higher handicap players.  What I mean is that if the better players are not big hitters, but are consistent, their eagle/birdie chances might be fewer than less skilled players who drive the ball a long way, but are erratic.  

The reward for making eagles and birdies is high, but there is very little risk to the less skilled players if they make a big number, which they are more likely to do than better players.  I would say yes, your system is likely harder for better players.

A good insight that hadn’t occurred to me, thanks. We are seniors. Wish we could figure out a way to balance winners.

Again to another post above, none of our groups use net scores at all.

I did find a study online that suggested 6-4-2-1-0 favors higher handicappers more than  4-3-2-1-0. So I'll probably propose we try the latter in our league and see if that creates more balance.

[MmmmmmBuddy]

Our Sunday game is standard Stableford points (3,2,1,0) - your "Point". each players "point" is determined by averaging their stableford points each week for the duration of the game. It is all Gross, and is absolutely fair. If you have a hot week, you win $$. If you play worse that your point, you had a nice 4 hours on the course.  

In our game, I had 41 2 weeks ago, and lost to a player who had 32. His point was much lower than mine, even though I had my highest score of the year. Good format, and lends itself to allowing other games while playing..

 

 

 

 

[revkev]

My league is Stableford but we are also flighted by handicap so I haven't really noticed.  I'm playing against guys of similar skill level.  It is rare that a low handicapper wins the year end tournament but single digits are in the A and some years B flight while we go all the way down to G so there are always far more mid and high handicappers in that group.  Additionally we give prizes for low score as well as season long low handicap index - I've never seen a high handicapper win that won so perhaps that's unfair.

 

Interesting topic, I had not thought of it - I like the way that my league scores because it's taught me the value of digging out a bogey from a tough situation.  

[MmmmmmBuddy]

I have made 3 eagles this year. One of my 26 handicap members makes at least 1 “net eagle” per round, or like 80+ this year.


Sent from OregonMyGolfSpy

Played with this guy today.
I made 1 gross eagle (4th of the year) and he made 4 net eagles.




Sent from OregonMyGolfSpy

[MadMex]

When I used to play this format in New Mexico, it was totally different as how points were rewarded:

Double  -1 , plus , if your were laying double, you picked up you ball. Also sped play up.

Bogey 0

Par 1

Birdie 2

Eagle 3

[HardcoreLooper]

14 hours ago, MmmmmmBuddy said:

Our Sunday game is standard Stableford points (3,2,1,0) - your "Point". each players "point" is determined by averaging their stableford points each week for the duration of the game. It is all Gross, and is absolutely fair. If you have a hot week, you win $$. If you play worse that your point, you had a nice 4 hours on the course.  

In our game, I had 41 2 weeks ago, and lost to a player who had 32. His point was much lower than mine, even though I had my highest score of the year. Good format, and lends itself to allowing other games while playing..

 

We play Stableford on my buddies trip in a similar way - gross points minus your quota (point).  We start the trip with quotas based on handicap/85% of average score, and we adjust every round.  If you beat your quota, we adjust as follows:

+1 - Raise quota by 1
+2/+3 - Raise quota by 2
+4/+5 - Raise quota by 3
+6 - Raise quota by 4
+7 - Raise quota by 5
and so on.  So if you have a really hot day, you're going to get killed on your quota for the next day.  If you miss your quota, we adjust as follows:

-1 - Lower quota by 1
-2/-3 - Lower quota by 2
-4/-5 - Lower quota by 3
-6/-7 - Lower quota by 4
and so on.  So your quota will not go drop as quickly as it rises.  But after four rounds, everyone should have had at least one quota that would let them finish in the money.  If you do this for a long period of time, it should give everyone a shot.