ask me about: hustling golf

[JTrout]

You want to raise the bets, to raise the pressure. How do you determine when "enough is enough" so that:

1) they are financially able to pay
2) future action against the player isn't killed


I assume your games have put you in the company of some very wealthy people.
Have the tides been turned to where you were playing out of your comfort zone?
If so, stories.
If no, how do you avoid it?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]

You want to raise the bets, to raise the pressure. How do you determine when "enough is enough" so that:

1) they are financially able to pay
2) future action against the player isn't killed


I assume your games have put you in the company of some very wealthy people.
Have the tides been turned to where you were playing out of your comfort zone?
If so, stories.
If no, how do you avoid it?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, i dont really play nosebleed stakes. the guys who do that have to do alot of checking up. thats really the only work they have to do. they're not really hustlers cuase they dont actually hustle. the action comes to them becuase they are the only ones who will take action that big.

in general i know how much my opponets bet on sports and poker so i have an idea of their comfort level. i players comfort level has very little to do with how much he makes but more to do w/ how much he bets. i know guys who make a million a year who normally bet 100 a hole and get stressed when its pressed to 200. its not the money its the stress of losing a bet that they think is BIG mainly becuase others in the 4some think its big and they view any loss as a choke and people who are trying not to choke always do. there are others who bet 5k like its nothing even if they are firing an air barrel. these are degenerates who dont necessarily choke but just are destructive losers. they have a sort of self fulfilling prophesy, most great gamblers/hustlers started out this way and wised up. wisdom on top of an utter disregard for money is dangerous.

i got in way over my head when i was younger. pressing w/ money i didnt have and such. but i grinded my way out of so many of these binds it was that success that lead me down this path.

[southerndog]

I'd just like to say that those who don't think the reverse scramble would be that difficult probably know nothing about golf. The pressure would be CRAZY. Imagine a shot that will go OB 20% of the time.. You've gotta hit it twice, its gonna go outta bounds 36% of the time.. (Assuming independence.) Now, if it goes OB, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT AGAIN!!!! LOL. That's sick.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some people try this and report back with their scores.

One question, how is the "worst shot" determined? Is it from the opponent, or shot furthest from hole, or something else?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to say that those who don't think the reverse scramble would be that difficult probably know nothing about golf. The pressure would be CRAZY. Imagine a shot that will go OB 20% of the time.. You've gotta hit it twice, its gonna go outta bounds 36% of the time.. (Assuming independence.) Now, if it goes OB, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT AGAIN!!!! LOL. That's sick.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some people try this and report back with their scores.

One question, how is the "worst shot" determined? Is it from the opponent, or shot furthest from hole, or something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi. It is tough, but we were debating about waht a scratch golfer or even better (a +2 or +3) or even a Tiger Woods would be shooting. As such, you would not be seeing every 5th shot going out of bounds.

I think we are all acknowledging, though, that the relationship to your normal score is not linear.

Someone who normally shoots 75 might score 90 in a reverse scramble format, someone who shoots 85 might score 110, and someone who shoots 95 might shoot 130 (or worse). The more inconsistent you are the more penal it is.

I think anyone who shoots over 85 would probably go crazy playing this format. It would be demoralizing, unless you were just practicing to work on consistency, and were not worried about score.

Our friendly bantering back and forth here was about how the very good or even great players would fare, and there is debate on how well they could perform under the reverse-scramble position.

As to your question, if you were playing a serious game, your opponent would tell you which is your worst shot, and in many cases it won't be the one farthest from the hole. He'll just size up the most difficult shot you have and tell you to play that ball. In most cases it will be obvious though.

[Erik W]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to say that those who don't think the reverse scramble would be that difficult probably know nothing about golf. The pressure would be CRAZY. Imagine a shot that will go OB 20% of the time.. You've gotta hit it twice, its gonna go outta bounds 36% of the time.. (Assuming independence.) Now, if it goes OB, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT AGAIN!!!! LOL. That's sick.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some people try this and report back with their scores.

One question, how is the "worst shot" determined? Is it from the opponent, or shot furthest from hole, or something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, anyone playing at 6 hcp or higher would probably shoot really high. Their game is typically (hcp 8, average 83 strokes).


Par 4. Hit a somehwat bad driver, 50% off fairway.
Approach the green, hit it like 35% of the time.
30% of the times 2-put for par
5% 3-put for bogey(cancelling oout birdies).

25% up and down
35% bogey or at times 2bogey.


Well, this is a very bad golfer.
If you are a very good golefr with a really good swing it
is more like.

I'm a 1 hcper and I swing very good.

The main problems with a revers scramble will be on the tee and the short puts. If you adjust your game you will shoot the easy tee shots(water at the right, you shoot a 3-iron to the left of the fairway). Any iron will be to the safe side of the green. Any second iron shot will be easier than the first, you see the lentgh.

Birdies will be almost impossible but to shoot below 77 will be possible if you are really good and you have a good day on a regular course.

Short chips will be easy since you see the length of the first one the second will almost always be better. Long puts will be easy too since you will have the length feeling in(I puted 180 holes in competition without a 3put). Short puts like 5 feeters will be very hard if they have a difficult tracjectory. If they are straight they should be somwhat easy(if you see how the fist one falls and you hit it the second one will be easy).

If you don't hit you're irons good or have problem with your chips or long puts with distance you won't shoot below 90.

Anyway, it will be almost difficult to break par but to shoot below 80 won't be too hard on a good day.

I played a friend and he got 3 strokes. When I pared the 13 first holes and then shot a birdie he gave up [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Tuco]

Last year myself and another 2+2'er made a few k of a local gambler here in Vancouver on the reverse scramble prop.

I play to about an 7 and bet that I could break 90. I let him pick the course (because I knew which one he'd pick) and it was from the white tees (6000 yrds). I actually knew that 90 would be easy to do. I hit 3 iron off every tee (I hit 3 about 220) and just concentrated on where to miss on the approach so as not to leave myself dead.

I also knew that if it appeared close that I could probably get a rematch to where it was a closer bet so I would be freerolling. I was 42 on the front with a few three putts (and one birdie!) and cruised in with a 46 on the back.

Next we played double or nothing for 85 and I shot 84. That one was closer but the line I wouldnt make the bet at was about 83. Good times. Other 2+2'er is one or two better than me and won both bets as well.

Tuco.

[fingokra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to say that those who don't think the reverse scramble would be that difficult probably know nothing about golf. The pressure would be CRAZY. Imagine a shot that will go OB 20% of the time.. You've gotta hit it twice, its gonna go outta bounds 36% of the time.. (Assuming independence.) Now, if it goes OB, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT AGAIN!!!! LOL. That's sick.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some people try this and report back with their scores.

One question, how is the "worst shot" determined? Is it from the opponent, or shot furthest from hole, or something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi. It is tough, but we were debating about waht a scratch golfer or even better (a +2 or +3) or even a Tiger Woods would be shooting. As such, you would not be seeing every 5th shot going out of bounds.

I think we are all acknowledging, though, that the relationship to your normal score is not linear.

Someone who normally shoots 75 might score 90 in a reverse scramble format, someone who shoots 85 might score 110, and someone who shoots 95 might shoot 130 (or worse). The more inconsistent you are the more penal it is.

I think anyone who shoots over 85 would probably go crazy playing this format. It would be demoralizing, unless you were just practicing to work on consistency, and were not worried about score.

Our friendly bantering back and forth here was about how the very good or even great players would fare, and there is debate on how well they could perform under the reverse-scramble position.

As to your question, if you were playing a serious game, your opponent would tell you which is your worst shot, and in many cases it won't be the one farthest from the hole. He'll just size up the most difficult shot you have and tell you to play that ball. In most cases it will be obvious though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beyond just their final score you would have to take into serious consideration the type of game the person plays. You take a 4 handicap that hits it a mile, makes lots of birdies, but is inconsistent and prone to big numbers and put him against a steady 4 handicapper who consistently makes pars with a few bogeys here and there and the steady 4 would likely wear out the inconsistent 4 in this format.

You take the old man shooting 90 from the senior tees because he can't hit it but 150 yards and he will likely were out most any 30 year old shooting 90 in this format.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to say that those who don't think the reverse scramble would be that difficult probably know nothing about golf. The pressure would be CRAZY. Imagine a shot that will go OB 20% of the time.. You've gotta hit it twice, its gonna go outta bounds 36% of the time.. (Assuming independence.) Now, if it goes OB, YOU'VE GOTTA DO IT AGAIN!!!! LOL. That's sick.

Anyway, I'd love to hear some people try this and report back with their scores.

One question, how is the "worst shot" determined? Is it from the opponent, or shot furthest from hole, or something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi. It is tough, but we were debating about waht a scratch golfer or even better (a +2 or +3) or even a Tiger Woods would be shooting. As such, you would not be seeing every 5th shot going out of bounds.

I think we are all acknowledging, though, that the relationship to your normal score is not linear.

Someone who normally shoots 75 might score 90 in a reverse scramble format, someone who shoots 85 might score 110, and someone who shoots 95 might shoot 130 (or worse). The more inconsistent you are the more penal it is.

I think anyone who shoots over 85 would probably go crazy playing this format. It would be demoralizing, unless you were just practicing to work on consistency, and were not worried about score.

Our friendly bantering back and forth here was about how the very good or even great players would fare, and there is debate on how well they could perform under the reverse-scramble position.

As to your question, if you were playing a serious game, your opponent would tell you which is your worst shot, and in many cases it won't be the one farthest from the hole. He'll just size up the most difficult shot you have and tell you to play that ball. In most cases it will be obvious though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beyond just their final score you would have to take into serious consideration the type of game the person plays. You take a 4 handicap that hits it a mile, makes lots of birdies, but is inconsistent and prone to big numbers and put him against a steady 4 handicapper who consistently makes pars with a few bogeys here and there and the steady 4 would likely wear out the inconsistent 4 in this format.

You take the old man shooting 90 from the senior tees because he can't hit it but 150 yards and he will likely were out most any 30 year old shooting 90 in this format.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what i was thinking too. i was thinking that in a 1 man reverse scramble fred funk would kill phil mickelson.