|
|
Post by paulus on Jul 25, 2017 8:45:55 GMT -5
Statistics says you can be *almost* certain if you base your "normal" off a large enough set of data. Once you have a distribution of anything - it's just some relatively simple maths to get the 99% percentile. I'm happy with that level of confidence  That is why I suggested when it comes to deviations from the mean - base the standard deviation off a *group* of known clean players. The numbers are there - and the mathematical tools to analyse these numbers are also there - lets use them both And this is completely dispassionate - no human assessment needed = no witch hunt.... just the algorithms says you're too straight, please look at/change your equipment, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Jul 25, 2017 8:48:40 GMT -5
The numbers are there - and the mathematical tools to analyse these numbers are also there - lets use them both And this is completely dispassionate - no human assessment needed = no witch hunt.... just the algorithms says you're too straight, please look at/change your equipment, thank you. Yep, it doesn't have to be accusatory. We are all playing within the same boundaries, set by the admins based on tons of data.
Anyone outside of them (deliberately or not) needs to take steps to get back inside them.
As long as everyone understands that - no problem
|
|
|
|
Post by KenTremendous on Jul 25, 2017 8:49:27 GMT -5
The chance of hitting 1 shot in the red is minuscule. 2 in 1 round is impossible so DQ. If it can be done once, it can be learned to be repeated. The fact that it can be done once eliminates the impossibility of it. No, it cant - not on a consistent basis. Its like finding a needle in a haystack, you may by 1 in a million chance find one in a large bail of hay - theres no chance you find two. You need to read what Tim has said about the red zone - anyone hitting in that zone is almost certainly either a: cheating or b: using a manipulated device. The probability of doing without one of those things is so minute its not worth considering. |
|
|
|
Post by Doyley on Jul 25, 2017 8:51:59 GMT -5
So eliminating the guys with all straight shots is a no-brainer. Smurf says numerous - what is numerous? 2? 4? 6? 8? 10? 12 per round?
|
|
|
|
Post by smurfblade88 on Jul 25, 2017 8:54:26 GMT -5
I dont agree. I remember the quartz watches we had in high school with a stop watch on it. We had a little game where we tried to stop the stop watch at exactly 1 sec. Very easy with only 2 decimal numbers. I think TGC2 works with a stop watch with 9 decimal numbers. Not so easy anymore to stop it at 1 sec exactly is it? Even more so for 2 times in a row. We are getting into deep philosophical questions now.
timeracer is of course right that it's not impossible
but it's so unlikely as to make it virtually impossible.
It's the equivalent of throwing two darts into EXACTLY the same spot on a dart board
Lol, not quite. Sure if theres 1 dart already in that spot another cant join it in the exact same spot. Thats not the case with replicating a swing. |
|
|
|
Post by bentfivewood on Jul 25, 2017 8:55:34 GMT -5
It's interesting that individuals who have been posting for weeks that 3rd party controllers and mouse users should be eliminated from competing are now saying that only those with numerous consecutive shots should be. Mouse users and 3rd party controllers don't look like player A. They look like other players who are listed here.
If people here are looking for fair play then you need to trust that we can work to ensure that the playing field is level. In the meantime, enjoy yourselves. But understand that there's going to be a period of adjustment and that we are only interested in achieving fair play. We are not interested in witch hunts, casting suspicion, and acidic topics of conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mde8965 on Jul 25, 2017 8:58:43 GMT -5
So eliminating the guys with all straight shots is a no-brainer. Smurf says numerous - what is numerous? 2? 4? 6? 8? 10? 12 per round? Problem is there is no exact answer to that question. Did it happen four times in one round and then never again? If so you can question if you can't do anything about it. Is it happening six times every single round? Then maybe yes. Did it happen one time and one round and four times and another round in no time is in another round after that? If so what are you going to do? Call somebody out privately for that? Unfortunately you're just going to have to use your best judgment. Probably more likely to call somebody out privately if those straight shots Ended up with that person winning a tournament. As opposed to finishing 30th or something. I don't envy the people that have this data. It's great to have but what do you do with it? It's kind of like when I was in human resources in the company I work for and I knew how much money everybody made. Sure it was interesting but knowing it definitely changed my perception of some people even if subconsciously...and unfairly |
|
|
|
Post by Doyley on Jul 25, 2017 8:59:11 GMT -5
Just want to make it clear on what the charts are showing 1. Jeff's charts are accurate for all flat shots off a tee/fairway (ie best case scenario) 2. If you are on a red slope fairway bunker/rough shot - it will take your swing data and add a multiplying factor to it effectively shrinking the yellow zone the worse the lie So then you get a chart that could look like this for those shots. Notice now how the blue zone (the first and last zone) is much larger. So now a shot (say 0.028) that would have just a minor draw/fade off a tee is now a shank from a tough lie. So those that have less sensitive controllers are at a major advantage because they can recover from these types of shots much easier. TOUGH LIE/RED SLOPE BUNKER VS OFF TEE/FLAT SHOT |
|
|
|
Post by xraylucy on Jul 25, 2017 8:59:42 GMT -5
So eliminating the guys with all straight shots is a no-brainer. Smurf says numerous - what is numerous? 2? 4? 6? 8? 10? 12 per round? 2/round |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 9:03:39 GMT -5
Boy am I glad I suck at this game. LOL.
All kidding aside, I don't envy the job that the admins have ahead of them. I can only trust that they'll do the right thing. I live in a world of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and a lot of those posted results just don't fit that criteria in a court of law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slymas on Jul 25, 2017 9:08:03 GMT -5
Out of curiosity does the red zone or Orange zone grow for things like putts or easier clubs.
Just trying to determine how hard it is to hit a red zone or orange zone shot.
Also have you lot done tests with legit stock controllers and how often would you say orange or even red shots were with those pads?
|
|
|
|
Post by frank70 on Jul 25, 2017 9:08:11 GMT -5
Just want to make it clear on what the charts are showing 1. Jeff's charts are accurate for all flat shots off a tee/fairway (ie best case scenario) 2. If you are on a red slope fairway bunker/rough shot - it will take your swing data and add a multiplying factor to it effectively shrinking the yellow zone the worse the lie So then you get a chart that could look like this for those shots. Notice now how the blue zone (the first and last zone) is much larger. So now a shot (say 0.028) that would have just a minor draw/fade off a tee is now a shank from a tough lie. So those that have a less sensitive controllers are at a major advantage because they can recover from these types of shots much easier. TOUGH LIE/RED SLOPE BUNKERVS OFF TEE/FLAT SHOTDoyley, as you are in conversation with HB. I have two questions: 1.) What do you think personally about the "penalty system" for the "tough lie"-situation? We see by the charts how much more difficult it is to make a quality shot. Do you find that realistic? 2.) Would HB consider changing that if TGCTours would pledge for it? I for myself find those penalties (primary rough, fairway bunker) way too harsh, unrealistic, weakest part of the game if compared to real golf (and the extreme loft/deloft feature of course  ). Maybe an official poll would be a good idea to get a feeling what the majority here thinks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 9:08:52 GMT -5
So eliminating the guys with all straight shots is a no-brainer. Smurf says numerous - what is numerous? 2? 4? 6? 8? 10? 12 per round? Maybe an investigation line rather than elimination. If someone can show you their system and what they're doing, adjustments could be made to get them inside the boundaries. Now that I've read that red is absolute zero, if the top 5% of players average 1 (example only), then anyone producing 3 in any given round could be investigated and need to provide a video or appear live reproducing the results. I wouldn't imagine it would take long to weed them out. |
|
|
|
Post by Friz on Jul 25, 2017 9:09:24 GMT -5
I have absolutely no desire to start another conversation about which clubs should be allowed, but I think the question is at least relevant - is the club set taken into account at all when looking at these? Or, does it even need to be? In a million and a half of the other threads on this topic, its been relentlessly stated "Players Clubs are easier to hit straight", so if that logic holds, does that mean someone using Players or Standard clubs is hitting that red zone legitimately more often? My expectation in that scenario is you would have more straight shots, perhaps not perfectly straight, but at least more skewed centrally. But maybe not, and maybe thats information you don't want to share to avoid releasing too much.
Regardless, my thought would be, if as you say shots in the red virtually never happen, anyone hitting more than one shot in the red in a round should be flagged. A, B, F, G, H, and I would all fall into this pool. Additionally, a shot doesn't have to be perfectly straight to be unfair. If you have a mechanically repeated swing, something that hits the same spot 10+ times in a round, that seems just as egregious to me as that doesn't seem like something you could naturally do. That would flag C, D, and J. That leaves only player E, which I would argue is the closest to legit on here, however still questionable. Many players will state they have a natural swing that ends just left of center, and can do so repeatedly. I could potentially believe this was a naturally repeatable swing as its not excessively hitting the exact same spot, but the lack of any error at all would make me question it.
Which brings me to my final thought...there are some extreme cases where it is obvious in a single round something is up. However, most cases one round is probably not enough to convict. Every case presented here would be enough in my eyes to flag for review, and if similar patterns continued across perhaps a full four round tournament, that is where I think it'd be time to step in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macs Power on Jul 25, 2017 9:09:24 GMT -5
I'm always inside the cone and sometimes I hit literally straight. A perfect white line. Not even a pixel out of place. Is that orange or red? Is possible to see a "red" shot?
|
|
). Maybe an official poll would be a good idea to get a feeling what the majority here thinks.
- Season 2 winner of the Golden Cow
