I don't see a way to model that, because the imaginary 4th player could be really good or really bad and may never score... or score 18 times.
I think the 1.33 multiplier method is pretty reasonable. It doesn't assume the imaginary player's score counts every time. It assumes it counts 10 times (and scores the average of the other 30 scores). Not too bad.
After saying all that... I would just make the threesomes count 40 actual scores. It would be interesting to score using both methods over a number of rounds and see how close the total scores for the two methods line up.
Last edited by jacone21; 11-06-2019 at 09:58 PM.
Mixng golf and math and then use "ymm, Beer" types gotta force in beer, go figure
Have a big tourney tomorrow!! Many pros playing, plenty of cash on the line...will pose this question to them (or not).
No shortage of consumption there, either!! And yes, my buddy is driving
There goes my reputation as probably the only student who attended Duke Engineering with a higher verbal SAT than math. 😂😂😂
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/are-you-golfing-or-playing-golf-washington-post-readers-debate
Salient quote:
“I suspect serious golfers cringed when they spotted the headline,” Philip C. Meyer wrote in a letter to the editor. “I’ve been playing golf for more than 60 years and have never heard a serious golfer use ‘golf’ as a verb, even though you can find a dictionary reference to such.
The real problem I’m not a serious golfer 🤣
(You can also extrapolate that while I do enjoy playing golf, I am not good.)