The Debate Over Laying Up Continues

There's an article over at the Golf Digest site about whether players should lay up or go for it when they're in contention. This time the debate was set off by J.B. Holmes not going for the green on the 18th.

The article, called There's Science to Prove Laying Up Doesn't Pay Off, refers to a study published in December 2013 that found pro golfers who play more aggressively when trying to make the cut tend to make more cuts than the golfers that don't. The article concedes that these aggressive players have more volatile scores but says that the increased number of cuts made makes it worthwhile.

This does, of path, beg the query: Is it better to be an competitive player than a conservative one? The summary for that study (which charges $40 in case you want to examine the whole article) says, in component:

The convex payoff structure in professional golfing rewards scoring volatility, giving upward push to player sorts who reach spite of better average scoring. The same risk incentives have to affect all gamers to adjust chance techniques at key moments in tournaments when payoffs either crystallize or emerge as mainly convex.

Even though I haven't read the study, this bit of the abstract makes me question whether the strategy is really that clear, especially for golfers who aren't playing on a big tour.

As I see it, here's the stumbling block. Let me quote Golf Digest, which makes the questionable part more obvious:

...[In the study] Edmund M. Balsdon, a professor of Economics at San Diego State University, argues that pros should start playing more aggressive under pressure, because tournament purses are heavily skewed in favor of the winner. In other words: Start pin-seeking once you're in contention, because even if you bomb-out a few times, all it takes is one win to make the deal more than worth your while.

Do you see? It's all about the cash. Cuts made -- and theoretically, tournaments won -- are equated to money made, which may be a reasonable assumption on the PGA Tour (the study focuses on the 2003–2012 PGA Tour seasons) where many players are concerned with making a living. (Nothing wrong with making a living!)

I can also see where this is probably a potential method on a smaller tour just like the Symetra Tour where there may be a good deal less money available, so prevailing outright is sort of a need in case you hope to move to the subsequent degree.

Poker gamers are properly-familiar with this mind-set. A poker participant may additionally name or maybe raise a guess with a hand this is nearly positive to lose in a showdown because the "pot odds" make the danger desirable. Part of the good judgment right here is that the various fingers those players play aren't obvious winners; in Texas Hold'Em, as an example, a brand new card can be dealt that turns an otherwise dropping hand into a completely effective one. (A pair of twos is the weakest pair in the sport, yet a 3rd two offers you three-of-a-kind, a completely powerful hand in most cases.)

But the summary stated above additionally notes that:

Analysis of character players shows that a few elite gamers are more threat responsive.

And here's where using profitability as an indicator seems questionable to me. That statement seems to indicate that increased aggressiveness is one reason that many players become "elite." And I think that may be misleading.

First, it also manner that a few elite players aren't greater competitive. Aggressiveness and elite repute aren't robotically linked.

But are we arguing that, like the poker player with the vulnerable hand however super pot odds, taking a 'horrific' shot -- that is, one you'll omit more regularly than you make -- is an really helpful way to become a extra a hit participant? Playing pot odds does not require any ability past primary math. Presumably an elite participant has notably extra golfing skill than the less-a hit player, and therefore a lesser participant's "competitive" shot is extra of a "routine" shot for the elite player.

In other words, perhaps elite players appear more aggressive but their skill actually makes such a shot less risky for them. That makes more sense to me.

The debate will preserve, of direction. Should J.B. Have gone for the green along with his third shot on 18 and tried to win the tournament outright, even though he failed to just like the lie? Many will say so, and possibly they're proper...

But me? I'm quite sure that the secure play on 18 wasn't nearly as high priced to J.B. As airmailing the sixteenth green in the course of the playoff. If he couldn't hit a green with a mid-iron from a really perfect lie on a tee, I'm guessing that going for the 18th from a questionably lie with a protracted iron, hybrid or fairway timber would not have even gotten him into the playoff.

Maybe numbers don't lie, folks, but numbers are meaningless until they're interpreted... and interpretations lie all the time. Consider that next time you wonder whether to go for it or not!