Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Golf! A thread for the hopelessly addicted! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dacoola who wrote (23632)	4/1/2012 2:11:10 PM
From: Sr K	3 Recommendations Respond to of 43980

Except for rare exceptions, Ken has the same rules for every contest, except for the current list of top ranked players. This time he changed from top 5 and 2nd 5 to top 6 and 2nd 6, and prohibiting picking Woods and McIlroy. But not all majors are played on courses set up as a par 72. That is why picking a tiebreaker as an amount under or over par is cheating. It's like teeing up ahead of the markers. It takes away an element of the contest with potential to differentiate participants, unless it is disregarded as if no tiebreak choice is made. Such an entry would lose in the event of a tie for not having made a valid pick. A player has to think about the course, what par usually is, check what it is for the event, and make a pick based on that information. A lazy or careless player can assume it is always 72 and even guess a total score thinking the course will play to par 72, and be off by 4 or 8 because it plays to a different par. If Ken allows picks based on difference from par, it would take an element of skill out of the game. It would not be a score as the instructions state and as the former Rule 3 stated. This comes into play in the Open and PGA quite often. But it applies to the Masters because the Contest instructions don't vary on this point for the Masters.