Round Ratings

[Dave242]

who updates the course page with that info?

We do. As in, everybody and anybody who wants to contribute to the DGCR wiki experience.

Just click the "Update Hole Info." tab when you are in the "Hole Info" area (tab) of the course page.

 

[Dave242]

Here is the FAQ I just submitted. I'm sure it can and will be improved upon.

What are DGCR Player Ratings and how do they work?

DGCR Player Ratings (DGCRPR) are an estimate of what your PDGA Player Rating might be based on the scores you have entered into DGCR's Scorebook.

Your DGCRPR is the average of your recorded rounds over the past calendar year (i.e. there will be up to a year between your most recent round and the oldest round included), weighted according to how many holes were played in the round (e.g. a recorded round for a 9-hole layout only weighs half as much as a recorded round for an 18-hole layout), with your most-recent 25% of included rounds double-weighted. If you have less than 12 rounds for the year we will pull some older rounds to use in our calculation. You must have at least 5 rated rounds recorded to obtain a DGCRPR.

To get a Round Rating (and a DGCRPR), you must enter your round correctly. Make sure you use the "Detailed" tab (not the "Quick" tab). Select your course (you must have that course marked as played for it to show up on this list) and then select the "Tee Played". Choose the color layout that matches what you played (hole "Distance" will auto-populate). If there is not a selection that matches the course configuration you played, fill in each "Distance (ft.)" manually. These Distances must be populated to get a Round Rating.

Your Round Rating is displayed in your Scorebook and your Player Rating is displayed on your DGCR Profile.

How is your DGCR Player Rating calculated?
Your DGCRPR is a comparison to how a Pro (Scratch player) would score. A Scratch player has a PDGA Rating of 1000. As a starting point to get your DGCRPR, we calculate a Scratch Scoring Estimate (SSE) based on the course length and how wooded the course is (Lightly, Moderately, or Heavily). Par is not a factor. For more information on SSE's see this FAQ.

For your Round Rating, SSE is based on the Distances recorded in your Scorebook. Then, for every throw that your score is above this SSE, a certain amount is subtracted. An average course subtracts 10 ratings points per throw above SSE. A very short course could take 15 points off, and a very hard course could only penalize you 6 or 7 ratings points per extra throw. Of course, if you score better than SSE, your rating will be above 1000 since those points will be added rather than subtracted.

 

[Brodysseus]

Nice, Dave!

I will say this about the new ratings; it has convinced me to record all of my rounds.

 

[Monocacy]

Interesting - I checked my page and noticed two things:

1. Definite selection bias in rounds recorded
2. The last couple of years I have been playing casual rounds more for practice (multiple throws, trying out new lines, etc.) rather than for score (and seven years ago).

 

[discgolfkyle]

I'm sorry if this has already been answered, but I have a quick question. I play Buffalo ridge quite often because it is my home course, but I can't ever seem to get a rating unless I play all 27 holes. I usually only play 18 because the other 9 are separate from the rest of the course and the 18 I play are the original. Is there any way I can still get a rating for playing 18/27 holes? When i submit a score, I click that I played 18, but I still don't get a rating because I didn't play all 27. I hope that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Good job Dave! That explains it quite clearly. :thmbup:

As for DGKyle's post, it would be nice if you could get ratings for rounds where you skip optional holes. Many courses are laid out where lettered holes are optional, but I can llive if that's more trouble than it's worth.

 

[dreadlock86]

I'm sorry if this has already been answered, but I have a quick question. I play Buffalo ridge quite often because it is my home course, but I can't ever seem to get a rating unless I play all 27 holes. I usually only play 18 because the other 9 are separate from the rest of the course and the 18 I play are the original. Is there any way I can still get a rating for playing 18/27 holes? When i submit a score, I click that I played 18, but I still don't get a rating because I didn't play all 27. I hope that makes sense. Thanks.

there is a way around this

go to the course's hole info page. create a new set of tees but only include 18 holes. then you can select the 18 hole layout under that tee option when you're recording the round in the scorebook.

 

[dreadlock86]

i just went in and did it. you can see what i mean.

now just go back and change the tee setting on all your old rounds and you should get ratings on them.

 

[discgolfkyle]

Thanks

 

[timg]

there is a way around this

go to the course's hole info page. create a new set of tees but only include 18 holes. then you can select the 18 hole layout under that tee option when you're recording the round in the scorebook.

Actually that's false, if a course is marked as having X number of holes, you have to play that number of holes. You can't create tees with less holes, etc. So you need to play all 27.

I also removed dreadlocks change (which wouldn't work anyways) as it's just confusing. All that would do is fill in distances for 18 holes and the last 9 would count as skipped.

 

[discgolfkyle]

Actually that's false, if a course is marked as having X number of holes, you have to play that number of holes. You can't create tees with less holes, etc. So you need to play all 27.

I also removed dreadlocks change (which wouldn't work anyways) as it's just confusing. All that would do is fill in distances for 18 holes and the last 9 would count as skipped.

Okay, that makes sense. Now I have an excuse to play all 27! Thanks.

 

[jeverett]

Well.. sorry everyone.. apparently I made a math error when I originally attempted to adapt Dave242's SSE formulas to non-18-hole courses. So, right now round ratings for non-18-hole courses are wrong, typically in the too-punishing variety. I think that explains why so many short 9-hole courses are coming out with SSE's bordering or exceeding a birdie on every hole.

For reference, here are the new formulas I just send Timg:

Lightly Wooded:

SSE = length * (1/ 355 + 1 / (100 * number_holes)) + 1.67 * number_holes – 3

Moderately Wooded:

SSE = length * (1/ 285 + 1 / (250 / 3 * number_holes)) + 1.67 * number_holes – 3.6

Heavily Wooded:

SSE = length * (1/ 255 + 1 / (200 / 3 * number_holes)) + 1.67 * number_holes – 4.5

The problem was the extra scalar that Dave242 designed, the:

(length - 5400) / 1800

one. This needed to be adapted for non-18-hole courses (as it is assuming 5400ft. over 18 holes, not 5400ft. over any number of holes). The new formulas handle that properly.

 

[dreadlock86]

Actually that's false, if a course is marked as having X number of holes, you have to play that number of holes. You can't create tees with less holes, etc. So you need to play all 27.

I also removed dreadlocks change (which wouldn't work anyways) as it's just confusing. All that would do is fill in distances for 18 holes and the last 9 would count as skipped.

damn, that's too bad. thanks for clarifying, tim.

 

[dmbrun2]

We should have a board with everyone's ratings up, to see where people stand

 

[rd.bittle]

^Maybe the hall of fame page. :hfive:

 

[KnightDisc]

Well.. sorry everyone.. apparently I made a math error when I originally attempted to adapt Dave242's SSE formulas to non-18-hole courses. So, right now round ratings for non-18-hole courses are wrong, typically in the too-punishing variety. I think that explains why so many short 9-hole courses are coming out with SSE's bordering or exceeding a birdie on every hole.

For reference, here are the new formulas I just send Timg:

Lightly Wooded:

SSE = length * (1/ 355 + 1 / (100 * number_holes)) + 1.67 * number_holes – 3

Moderately Wooded:

SSE = length * (1/ 285 + 1 / (250 / 3 * number_holes)) + 1.67 * number_holes – 3.6

Heavily Wooded:

SSE = length * (1/ 255 + 1 / (200 / 3 * number_holes)) + 1.67 * number_holes – 4.5

The problem was the extra scalar that Dave242 designed, the:

(length - 5400) / 1800

one. This needed to be adapted for non-18-hole courses (as it is assuming 5400ft. over 18 holes, not 5400ft. over any number of holes). The new formulas handle that properly.

Awesome! My game is crap compared to most people on this site, but I still like to have a good idea of what my round ratings might be, and there is one local pitch-and-putt that I play on lunch breaks fairly regularly.

Out of curiosity I applied the new calculation to the 9 hole course that was giving me such low ratings. Assuming my math was right, the new SSE would be 20.72 instead of 19.5. Not a huge change, but definitely seems more reasonable. I'll be curious to see how many points the round ratings change by for scores in the 23 to 25 range.

 

[jeverett]

Awesome! My game is crap compared to most people on this site, but I still like to have a good idea of what my round ratings might be, and there is one local pitch-and-putt that I play on lunch breaks fairly regularly.

Out of curiosity I applied the new calculation to the 9 hole course that was giving me such low ratings. Assuming my math was right, the new SSE would be 20.72 instead of 19.5. Not a huge change, but definitely seems more reasonable. I'll be curious to see how many points the round ratings change by for scores in the 23 to 25 range.

Hi KnightDisc,

Yeah, that was kind of the hope with the fixed formulas.. however there were some other courses that the revisions aren't coming out very well for still. I've PM'd Dave242 about potential fixes, and we'll see what we can figure out. Out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of any 13 hole layout sanctioned event reports that we could look at? That might help better calibrate the SSE formulas (and thus round ratings) for non-18-hole courses.

 

[Dave242]

Well.. sorry everyone.. apparently I made a math error when I originally attempted to adapt Dave242's SSE formulas to non-18-hole courses.
..........
The problem was the extra scalar that Dave242 designed, the:
(length - 5400) / 1800
one. This needed to be adapted for non-18-hole courses (as it is assuming 5400ft. over 18 holes, not 5400ft. over any number of holes). The new formulas handle that properly.

The formula for 18 hole courses was:
SSE Light = Length/355+30+(Length-5400)/1800
SSE Moderate = Length/285+30+(Length-5400)/1500
SSE Heavy = Length/235+30+(Length-5400)/1200

The way the formulas read are (for SSE Heavy as the example):
"Scratch Scoring Average for Heavily Wooded courses assumes 235' average drives (Green) and then an average of 1.67 putts and short range upshots to clean up (Blue). Longer (or shorter) length than the average course length of 5400' adds (or subtracts) one throw for every 1200' of total additional length (67' average per hole)"

These formulas assume 18 holes. So to modify them to fit any number of holes simply divide by 18 then multiply by the number of holes:
SSE Light = Holes*(Length/355+30+(Length-5400)/1800)/18
SSE Moderate = Holes*(Length/285+30+(Length-5400)/1500)/18
SSE Heavy = Holes*(Length/235+30+(Length-5400)/1200)/18

FYI, for my courses I used to test this (courses I knew the exact layout used, weather conditions and corresponding SSAs), the average SSE worked out to 0.07 points lower than actual SSA.

If my sample set of courses is good, this means that DGCR Player Ratings will be almost perfect if players play a wide variety of courses (and record the rounds in the Scorebook).

 

[Dave242]

Duh....I need to pay a little more attention before posting. In the length scalar, I cannot just adjust for holes.....the length comparison and the divisor must also compensate for the number of holes. So....
(Length-5400)/1800)
needs to be
(Length-(Holes*300))/(Holes*100)
and so forth for the others.

 

[Steve West]

Duh....I need to pay a little more attention before posting. In the length scalar, I cannot just adjust for holes.....the length comparison and the divisor must also compensate for the number of holes. So....
(Length-5400)/1800)
needs to be
(Length-(Holes*300))/(Holes*100)
and so forth for the others.

The "5400" adjustment seems to just take a fraction of a throw off each hole.

I wonder if you could do nearly as well by starting fresh and coming up with throws per hole by fitting a line to average length of hole. The constant would be around 1.4 to 1.5, not 1.67, I think.