The Masters 2015 **MOD warning in OP**

abff wrote: »

Did anyone watch the European Tour coverage on Sky yesterday? They spend the first ten minutes or so (at least it felt like ten minutes) going on and on about what everyone needed to do this weekend in order to break into the top 50 and qualify for the Masters. They then went on to say that qualifying for the Masters was the only thing on anyone's mind this weekend.

What a load of claptrap and such an obvious attempt to talk up their Masters coverage. I'm assuming they did the same thing today, but I couldn't bring myself to watch it.

Yeah completely ridiculous stuff, I think there's only about 6 players playing in Agadir that it applies to.

slave1 wrote: »

In fairness it is what a lot of folk are interested in, same as Open qualification if the week or two leading up to it, you'll always see claret jug in leaderboards indicating who's already qualified and where folk need to finish for late qualification...

I agree up to a point. However, the only events where they show the claret jug in leaderboards are those events that are in the Open Qualifying Series, where there are three places or thereabouts available in the Open for those finishing in the top ten who have not already qualified.

Before yesterday's coverage, they showed everyone who was playing in Morocco or Texas this weekend who could make potentially it into the top 50 and what they would need to do to get there. I found this fairly interesting, but it was the extent to which they went on and on about it that annoyed me.

And the fact is that getting the result specified does not necessarily guarantee top 50 as it will also depend on what others do this weekend. Anyway, it will be an interesting side story on Sunday afternoon if there are players in contention who are close to getting into the top 50.

Incidentally, when discussing the Masters, they pointed out that Paul Casey is currently ranked 49th and stated that Paul had decided that his best chance of staying in the top 50 was to sit out this weekend.

I assume this is speculation on their part and it shows how little they understand how the rankings work. Paul has played more than 52 events in the past two years and he scored zero world ranking points in the event that would drop out of the reckoning if he were to play this weekend. Therefore, he could not lose world ranking points by playing this weekend and any points he did pick up would improve his chances of staying in the top 50.

Anyway, rant over. But it annoys me to pay good money to Sky in order to hear people getting paid to spout rubbish and it makes me wonder to what extent I can take anything they say as being accurate.

coylemj wrote: »

Won't that event drop out of his points table whether he plays this w/e or not? Isn't the OWGR based on a rolling 104 weeks window so the event will drop out one way or the other?

Not necessarily. It's based on a rolling 104 week average, subject to a maximum of 52 tournaments. Therefore, if a player has played in more than 52 tournaments over the last two years, only the most recent 52 will count.

In Casey's case, his 52nd most recent tournament was the Ballantine's Tournament, played in week 17 of 2013. This has a weighting of 5/92 in the current week and this weighting will drop to 4/92 next week. However, if he had played this week, it would be excluded from his total points calculation.

Because he scored zero points in the Ballantine's, it doesn't make any difference to his overall points total whether it is included with a weighting of 4/92 or is excluded altogether. And the number of tournaments over which his average points value is calculated would remain at 52, whether or not he plays this week. Therefore, he could not have lost world ranking points by playing this week, but might have gained some.

The position would be different if he had earned any ranking points in the Ballantine's. Let's say for argument's sake that he had won 9.20 world ranking points in that tournament (just to make the calculations easy). The weighted value of those points in the current week would be 9.20 x 5/92 = 0.50 points and the weighted value next week would be 9.20 x 4/92 = 0.40 points. If he had played this week, he would have lost those 0.40 points and if he failed to pick up any points this week, his overall average points would therefore be 0.40/52 = .0077 points worse than if he hadn't played.

While it's unlikely that a margin of 0.0077 points would make the difference between finishing in the top 50 and finishing just outside, it should be noted that the differences in rankings can be quite small. For example, in this week's rankings there is only 0.0027 of a point between Gary Woodland in 46th and Danny Willett in 47th and only 0.0007 between Charl Schwartzel in 34th and Anirban Lahiri in 35th.

Where the difference between playing and not playing can be more significant is when a player has played fewer than 52 tournaments within the last two years, in which case he would be increasing the divisor by 1 by playing in the current week. In fact, if either Danny Willett in 47th or Luke Donald in 48th had played this week and had failed to pick up any points, they would have fallen behind Paul Casey in the rankings.

Apologies for the long winded reply, but you did ask.

abff wrote: »

Apologies for the long winded reply, but you did ask.

Thanks for the response, I have no problem with detail as I'm a numbers man though not as good as you when it comes to hypothetical OWGR scenarios!

I knew the maximum divisor was 52, I wasn't aware that if a player had played more than 52 events in the past 104 weeks that only the most recent 52 events counted. I thought the maximum divisor was there solely so as not to penalise dedicated and hard working players who showed up for every tournament and might clock up more than 52 events.

For the benefit of others...

There is a minimum divisor of 40 tournaments over the two year ranking period and a maximum divisor of a player’s last 52 events.

http://www.owgr.com/about

Any facts to back it up.

The only person with as bad a record near the top 10 of OWGR is Jordan Spieth who is 21 (and he has a 2nd).

Dustin is 30 years of age has one Top 3 in 2011.

You'd struggle to find any leading golfer at that age with as bad a record.


So maybe this is his year - but , he would want to get a move on.

Some golfers don't peak well into their 30's Fix... you should know that

Considering DJ was a "bit wild" off the course in his 20's, I think he has a decent record so far. With his head screwed on, he'll get his major imo and many more over the next decade.

The Masters wouldn't be his ideal chance imo but I'm still saying he'll get his major this year, and possibly two as a real outside bet.

I would worry slightly for McIlroy, he has put a huge amount of pressure on himself to win this.

If Adam Scott picks the long stick, then he'll be my bet.

abff wrote: »

Thanks for getting back to me. So he didn't specifically say that Paul was moving up to 48th because he wasn't playing - more the other way round? That makes more sense, but it's still a high risk strategy by Paul. I haven't examined the results to see if it backfired on him. (Can't be bothered as I'm just back from the Aviva).

Casey remains at 48th but it was a close call, one or two results and he may have missed out.

Strange to see the world rankings without Tiger in the top 100. Down to 104 this week. I wonder will we see him in the Masters.

jewson wrote: »

Michael Murphy's Sport shop in Letterkenny are giving full refunds if Rory McIlroy wins the masters on all golf purchases. Seems like a good deal to me

That's very clever! Are Paddy Power doing this, this year? If so the shop should just put the money they take in on other golfers themselves....if Rory wins they would be able to pay back their customers from the refund with PP, if Rory loses then have a change to make even more money if one of the players they backed wins....I like it! *

This assumes PP are doing the same deal. Terms and conditions apply!

Loire wrote: »

That's very clever! Are Paddy Power doing this, this year? If so the shop should just put the money they take in on other golfers themselves....if Rory wins they would be able to pay back their customers from the refund with PP, if Rory loses then have a change to make even more money if one of the players they backed wins....I like it! *

This assumes PP are doing the same deal. Terms and conditions apply!

I don't think you've thought that through fully. Let's assume that Paddy Power are offering a refund on losing bets on other golfers if Rory wins.

If Rory loses and the winner is not one of the golfers picked by the store, then they lose the amount they have wagered. If Rory wins, they get their money back, but it's the money they wagered, so there's no gain. And they still have to refund all the money that was spent in the store.

I think the only way the store can protect themselves is by backing Rory to win. He's currently 5 to 1 with Paddy Power. So, if they stand to refund €10,000 in the event of Rory winning, they can hedge this liability by wagering €2,000 at 5 to 1. This is the same as giving a 20% discount on everything they sell.

I presume their profit margin is sufficient to cover a 20% discount, so it seems like a good marketing gimmick to me. If they can find better odds than 5 to 1, then it's an even better outcome for them.