PGA FORUM

Comments

  • whodat2

    When: August 18-21

    Where: Greensboro, North Carolina

    Course: Sedgefield CC | A par 70 playing at 7117 yards

    Last Year’s Winner: Si Woo Kim at -21

    Last Year’s Cut: -3

    Coverage: PGATourLive | Golf channel | CBS

    Admin Note: The mod team is working to keep these daily threads more on topic – Golf strategy talk for this week’s contest. Post referring to last week’s contest will be moved to the correct thread. Any off topic posts or posts containing full lineups will be deleted..

  • monarch

    @jokah03 said...

    Anyone on Graeme McDowell? My model has him as great at SG:P, birdies and strokes gained on par 4s. 3 missed cuts in a row though..yikes.

    Yes, he hits in the fairway nearly every time, is great (well not great) on approach and can putt.

  • TeamTwerk

    @superstars92 said...

    Haha yea I like craps because you can’t lose your money that fast. I’m not a gambler or anything like that, but I went to Vegas a few years ago with some of my friends in college for senior year Spring Break, and one of my friends tried a martingale strategy on roulette black/red, and he chose the wrong color like 5 straight times so he ended up losing 100 + 200 + 400 + 800 + 1600 until we had to drag him out of the casino and he never got his double up. You just lose way too fast in roulette. I know craps is -EV but at least it’s more fun and you don’t lose as fast. I completely understand all games are -EV though except poker, but it’s just for fun.

    Lol Yeah Martingale is great until the 1 time it’s not.

    I literally lost the first 20x I played craps and then I realized I’d have won all those times if I had been playing the don’t . Now that is all I play and I’ve been very lucky with it. Some people at the table get annoyed with wrong way players but I don’t really care. They should play it too.

  • superstars92

    Too bad I’m gonna miss you guys once I win that 1 Billion in NFL. Definitely the best forum on RG is the golf forum.

    Ok, back to reality, so like I’m actually going to start making my lineups now, and it’s kind of sad, but I have some BIll Haas….guess still not back to reality.

    I can’t even talk myself off of him for a few lineups.

  • jokah03

    @superstars92 said...

    Too bad I’m gonna miss you guys once I win that 1 Billion in NFL. Definitely the best forum on RG is the golf forum.

    Ok, back to reality, so like I’m actually going to start making my lineups now, and it’s kind of sad, but I have some BIll Haas….guess still not back to reality.

    I can’t even talk myself off of him for a few lineups.

    Costs an insane amount, will be highly popular, ok but nothing special on bermuda, for his price to pay off he’ll need a top 3 finish because he’s not a strong fantasy scorer. A fair amount of birdies + little to no bogeys are less valuable than some bogeys but a higher birdie+ rate. I doubt it’ll talk you out of him, but I don’t plan on having any of him this week. (granted I’ll only have like 5-10 lineups)

  • PuddinCheeks

    • Blogger of the Month

    @superstars92 said...

    Too bad I’m gonna miss you guys once I win that 1 Billion in NFL. Definitely the best forum on RG is the golf forum.

    Ok, back to reality, so like I’m actually going to start making my lineups now, and it’s kind of sad, but I have some BIll Haas….guess still not back to reality.

    I can’t even talk myself off of him for a few lineups.

    I think you take Bill Haas if you are desperately needing someone likely to make the cut and have the money left over to use him. There is a .01% probability on the “Janky Roullette Wheel” that he beats the field in dk scoring per round by 9.4DK. So if he has some super human Haas show up this week like his Dad plays for him or something he may goat.

  • kbarnhill7523

    • 444

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2018 FanDuel WFFC Finalist

    • x2

      2017 FanDuel WFBBC Finalist

    @Jamcclea said...

    lol I’m just teasing ya.

    And no, I’m a degenerate. I’d gamble on that bitch laying heads another 500 times in a row if I had to.

    Guys… everyone knows you ALWAYS pick tails.

    Heads is a sucker bet.

  • TeamTwerk

    Initial thoughts is that I’m going to be going balanced this week. Nothing jumping off at me at the top or the bottom. Looks like I might start at Cauley or Stanley or maybe start with a high 8s guy. Anybody else feeling the same?

  • PuddinCheeks

    • Blogger of the Month

    @kbarnhill7523 said...

    Guys… everyone knows you ALWAYS pick tails.

    Heads is a sucker bet.

    Every knows you beat the house on Pick the Number!

  • jokah03

    @TeamTwerk said...

    Initial thoughts is that I’m going to be going balanced this week. Nothing jumping off at me at the top or the bottom. Looks like I might start at Cauley or Stanley or maybe start with a high 8s guy. Anybody else feeling the same?

    I think that’s how most lineup construction will be this week – could be wrong though..depends on how highly owned Kisner, Stenson, Webb, ect up top are.

  • miggs6876

    @rsw34 said...

    Kisner will miss the cut. Heard it here first

    I’ll rephrase it for you. You think Kisner will regress and may miss the cut.

  • TeamTwerk

    @jokah03 said...

    I think that’s how most lineup construction will be this week – could be wrong though..depends on how highly owned Kisner, Stenson, Webb, ect up top are.

    I’ll be watching for any news on Stenson. If he intends to play hard the whole event or what. Do you know if he still get to compete in the FedEx playoffs if he WD or is DQ’d?

  • PuddinCheeks

    • Blogger of the Month

    @miggs6876 said...

    I’ll rephrase it for you. You think Kisner will regress and may miss the cut.

    He actually did that mid tournament last week.

    His rounds were 99, 97 followed by 39,14 on the Weekend.

    Basically had two of his highest quality outcome rounds to start off the tournament.
    Beating the Field by 7.74 and 6.60 strokes.
    Then only .2 strokes on Saturday followed by -2.17 strokes on Sunday.

    That is quite typical for him, he rarely has 4 above average rounds in a tournament.

    WGC Champions 85 16 12 79

  • jokah03

    @PuddinCheeks said...

    He actually did that mid tournament last week.

    His rounds were 99, 97 followed by 39,14 on the Weekend.

    Basically had two of his highest quality outcome rounds to start off the tournament.
    Beating the Field by 7.74 and 6.60 strokes.
    Then only .2 strokes on Saturday followed by -2.17 strokes on Sunday.

    That is quite typical for him, he rarely has 4 above average rounds in a tournament.

    WGC Champions 85 16 12 79

    Where do you find this info? I assume it’s pretty solid for weekend golf to see who is going to regress to the means a bit, and who has room for improvement..

  • miggs6876

    @TeamTwerk said...

    Lol Yeah Martingale is great until the 1 time it’s not.

    I literally lost the first 20x I played craps and then I realized I’d have won all those times if I had been playing the don’t . Now that is all I play and I’ve been very lucky with it. Some people at the table get annoyed with wrong way players but I don’t really care. They should play it too.

    Well, superstar Vegas is smarter than you or I. Craps is all about odds and the payoff percentages are the same on the pass don’t pass line. Vegas would never be that ignorant to give an advantage to betting one side.

  • Dunzor

    @miggs6876 said...

    Well, superstar Vegas is smarter than you or I. Craps is all about odds and the payoff percentages are the same on the pass don’t pass line. Vegas would never be that ignorant to give an advantage to betting one side.

    It is true that the house has an edge either way because of the actual line bet, but if you max your odds behind the line the house edge is slightly less on the Don’t Pass than it is on the Pass so he is actually correct that the Don’t is the better bet, though both have a house edge (notably one of the lowest in the whole casino though at about 1% similar to basic strategy blackjack)

  • kps3205s

    Anyone looking at Sam Saunders?

    Last 16 rounds par or better. CH is 2/2 which is minimal but something

    My concern is SG:ARG….last 5 tournaments it’s( -1.1) and the last 10 tournaments it is (-1.3.). Concern or current play sort of negates it?

    Arigatou gozaimasu.

  • Inkbullets

    @superstars92 said...

    Yea I’m not saying what rsw34 is saying. Like I am just confused on how Chez and Webb were on the opposite ends of the spectrum when everything is supposed to be stats based. I mean it could be true, but I was just hoping someone can explain because those 2 are very similar as golfers imo.

    He doesn’t just use total stats, it’s stats against their baseline. So for example:
    Golfer A averages 60% gir but at this course (or course design or whatever he uses) averages 65% gir then he is +5.
    Golfer B also averages 60% gir and at this course averages 50%. He is -10. Both of their season stats are identical but for his article they are 15% different.

  • jokah03

    I feel like I’m never on super low owned guys but there are 3 in my sights this week projected under 5 percent ownership currently..not really a fan of a lot of the top chalk.

  • superstars92

    @Inkbullets said...

    He doesn’t just use total stats, it’s stats against their baseline. So for example:
    Golfer A averages 60% gir but at this course (or course design or whatever he uses) averages 65% gir then he is +5.
    Golfer B also averages 60% gir and at this course averages 50%. He is -10. Both of their season stats are identical but for his article they are 15% different.

    Wait then having anti-specialists makes no sense then.

    For example, what if someone like Jordan Spieth is +2 SG: Total, but on this particular course or course design, he is +1.2 SG: Total. +1.2 SG:Total is still elite, but it will show him as having -0.8 SG: Total, and he might be an anti-speicalist that way. That seems kind of ridiculous way to do it.

  • PuddinCheeks

    • Blogger of the Month

    @jokah03 said...

    Where do you find this info? I assume it’s pretty solid for weekend golf to see who is going to regress to the means a bit, and who has room for improvement..

    Its not very good for predicting the next round of golf. Guys can literally go 90, 15,85,5. I use it more for a measurement of longer term trends.

  • BIF

    Haven’t seen anyone mention it here yet but DK has introduced a new format for NFL, MLB and Soccer where you just draft who ever you want within a tier of player and no salaries (or salary cap).

  • PuddinCheeks

    • Blogger of the Month

    @BIF said...

    Haven’t seen anyone mention it here yet but DK has introduced a new format for NFL, MLB and Soccer where you just draft who ever you want within a tier of player and no salaries (or salary cap).

    That sounds great until people get tired of having duped lineups and splitting pots i would think.

  • Inkbullets

    @superstars92 said...

    Wait then having anti-specialists makes no sense then.

    For example, what if someone like Jordan Spieth is +2 SG: Total, but on this particular course or course design, he is +1.2 SG: Total. +1.2 SG:Total is still elite, but it will show him as having -0.8 SG: Total, and he might be an anti-speicalist that way. That seems kind of ridiculous way to do it.

    Yep that is correct. Which is why you hear all the complaining about his “picks” when in reality he isn’t making picks, just pointing out who should perform better or worse than their average.

  • Dewoc19

    Seems a lot of people have a lot of love for GMac this week and I was about to jump on the bandwagon until I saw that he has 5 MC in his last 6 tournaments over the past 2 months, and it’s not like he is just barely MC, he is missing the cut by a lot, that’s some terrible golf right there

  • karatesbadboy

    @PuddinCheeks said...

    Comparing golf to roulette was a terrible way to explain your thoughts though. In roullette every number has the same probable outcome. So when you were saying x number in a row you are taking samples of events with the same probability. Every round of golf a player plays does not have the same probability like rolling a dice or flipping a coin or spinning a wheel. So you can get an accurate means of probabilities by taking as large of sample as possible. Calling regression an opinion is quite funny though. Maybe you call it an opinion because the regression can span differing lengths of time but it will 100% return to mean at some point. Either by adjusting the mean upwards or by returning to original.

    But you will never find the answer comparing the normal distribution of a fixed probabilty to one that is not.

    I don’t think you get what I’m saying at all. I’m talking about the Gambler’s Fallacy and how people mistakenly confuse mean reversion with statistical dependence or correlation.

    “Samples” do not experience mean reversion. Averages over large amounts of samples do. The previous values of the last several samples do not influence the value of the upcoming sample for independent random variables. A 3-sigma event occurring in the immediate past does not reduce the likelihood of another 3-sigma event occurring in the immediate future.

    This is relevant to PGA DFS because it means there is no statistical argument for fading a golfer, all else being equal, just because he recently had a string of rounds that were among his best of the season. Those past results are in the books and do not impact the probability of the next round.

    Superstars is exactly right though with his point on the biased roulette wheel. If you assign a non-zero probability that the EV of the distribution you are drawing against is not what you think it is (which is almost always a wise thing to do), then you should weight observed results in your future expectation. For DFS purposes, this would lead you to ride hot golfers under the hypothesis that their underlying ability may have shifted upward, not fade them because of fallacious mean reversion.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).