Hi Jan,
I agree with you. I have a mathematical background but I cannot
see a lot of logic in this new system. Also, when introducing a
new system it would be nice if there was some better explanation
of why it was changed. eg if it was thought to be a good idea for
players on handicaps of10 and greater not to lose index points
when they lost a game, why has this been changed? Has there been
some analysis to determine that the previous system was not
working? If so, how about giving us an explanation.
One of my beefs with the handicap system is that, in terms of
index points won or lost, there is no differentiation between a
7/6 win and a 7/1 or 7/0 win. In my experience a 7/6 win or lose
means that the two players are virtually equal and so shouldn't
win or lose as many index points as they would with a 7/1 or 7/0
win. It would not be difficult to include the winning margin (eg
net points) into the index point calculation but I don't know
whether this has been considered.
Any system can be improved and, although, as Peter(s) indicate,
we will have to support this new system, I doesn't seem to be a
'perfect' system and so we should be able to suggest
improvements. I intend to be one of those who continues to ask
'silly' questions.
Cheers
Roger Evans
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 13/01/2017 6:48 AM, Jan Sage wrote:
I’m not sure we should blindly follow a SYSTEM that could
be
improved.
“The only silly question is the one that you do not ask”.
Jan Sage
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [cnswplayers] New handicaps for
GC
As far as I can see Peter, you have hit the
proverbial nail on the head. I
assume the CNSW tournament committee will advise us of
the make-up of the
divisions. Personally I liked the idea of players above
10 not losing points in
play but its not in the rules so there it goes.
Not being the world's most advanced mathematician, I
assume the "two steps"
involved from 12 up has something to do with making the
whole range sound great
but not doing much at all. While I'm at it why have the
minus numbers ? Surely
these clever people who devised the scheme, could have
made the scale suit 0 to
20 properly with all numerals in that range included.
There ! I've said it and
most probably put my big foot right in the middle of
where it should not be. I
dare say I am not the only one thinking that. THE MAIN
THING IS THAT WE
HAVE A SYSTEM and we need to support it fully. So we all
will need to just shrug
off those silly questions and prepare to adopt it fully.
Peter Smith
-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: Re: New handicaps for GC
From: "Peter Freer" <
pfreer@...>
Date: Mon, January 09, 2017 10:27 am
To: <
cnswplayers@groups.io>
Cc: <
national.handicapper@...>,
<
handicaps@...>
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->there
are no GC handicaps of 13, 15, 17 or 19 – the
steps below 12 are in multiples of 2, so you go
from 12 to 14, and 14 to 16 (see the revised
trigger points on p4);
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->everyone
will now gain or lose points, including at
either end of the range (which explains how
someone might drop to 14 or 16); and
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->I
gather that CNSW is likely to stick to the 3
existing GC Divisions ie Div 1 would now be -3
to 4; Div 2 stays 5 to 8; and Div 3 is 9 or
higher (I suggest that anyone on more than GC 12
shouldn’t be playing GC Pennants until their
handicap improves). No doubt CNSW will confirm
this before the 2017 GC Pennants entry closes…
Regards, peter
Peter Freer
Canberra CC
0412 178 254
