Recent Posts

The par four hole in one might slightly change hole in one stats, but not albatross stats. I assume the lady in question holed in one and albatrossed different holes (as otherwise the achievement wouldn't be so noteworthy). So (leaving aside multiple opportunities through the round) the odds of it occuring are the product of the odds multiplied.

Not that simple, I'm afraid.

On Pro Golf, since 2001, there have been 8 holes in 1 on Par 4. 2 by women. Which satisfies both the hole in 1 and albatross at the same time.

That 4.5 billion to 1 is, I suspect, confusing (in poker terms) the odds of hitting quads with getting As, Ah, and in that order. One is very unlikely-the other massively unlikely

The albatross is huge odds in itself - according to the internet 1 milllion to one for pro's (male presumably). So multiply that by the hole in one odds and you get the huge figure. The actual 1 2 3 4 5 6 on the card doesn't require an albatross, so I would think the odds of that aren't a huge amount more than the hole in one.

2 interesting points of view there-thanks

Like all decades, PMs have varied in quality. I believe Cameron was as good while in control as he was terrible afterwards. And Rishi Sunak did extremely well, especially given the hand he was dealt. Did far more than anyone else to stop the massive spike in immigration under Johnson.

You are quite right to say there "doesn't look like there is anything better on the horizon". But what there is, IMHO, are things a whole lot worse. Because electorates still harbour this belief that raxes should be paid by other people, and benefits only given to those who act the way we want.

I don't believe Starmer is particularly bland. It just suits the Press to exaggerrate that. The bias is extreme-so (for example) we currently have a Home Secretary who seems to me to be further to the Right than most Tory PMs. But that only means she is ignored by the Mail etc-not praised.

Starmer's problem is this. He is a 20th Century politician in the 21st Century. He has no soundbites, no guff or meaningless "vision". And that is now essential. As is working a crowd.

Trump can work a crowd. So can Putin. So could most of the most evil men in history. They were all populists, too.

Charisma remains the most overrated quality to be a leader. The only difference is that it temporarily seems to be the be-all and end-all.

Before the end of this Decade we could have a Government where the only man with significant experience in Govt will be Robert Jenrick. With absolutely no-one in Opposition with any experience. Spending vast sums on vanity projects.

I’m inclined to contest the idea that Starmer is a ‘bit’ bland and grey. He’s utterly bland, grey and seemingly devoid of a political vision.
Say what you like about the two PMs who have had the biggest influence over our country in my lifetime but both Thatcher and Blair had a vision.
Blair’s was of himself as a saviour, but at least he could work a crowd.

The current government is as useless as all the preceding governments, at least for the last few decades. I think it has come as quite a shock for those that voted Labour thinking that it would be a change for the better. It hasn't been. The next general election looks like it is going to be between further left and further right, the centre ground has failed in it's job and that's quite sad. I despair as the UK population deserves better but it doesn't look like there is anything better on the horizon.   

The ONLY redeeming fact about UK government? At least we don't have Trump.

[I'm also a bit perplexed how they worked out the odds of 4.5 trillion to one, or whatever it actually was. How would they work that out?]

...and now for something completely different & really quite sensational (if true).

I was watching the LPGA (Ladies) golf at the weekend, the Joburg Ladies Open, & the commentators mentioned a really weird stat featuring New Zealander Amelia Garvey. She's not a world-beater (World Ranking 142) but had a good Tournament, finishing 13th.

So I went over to Wiki to check it, & sure enough, the stat was confirmed on there...


In 2024, during the final round of the Royal St Cloud Women's Championship on the NXXT Women's Pro Tour in Florida, Garvey made history being the first professional golfer to record a par, birdie, eagle, hole in one, and albatross all in one round, a one in 4.5 trillion likelihood.[9] She also had a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and a 6 on her scorecard.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Garvey





It's so unlikely that it's a struggle to believe it happened, but all the google searches seem to confirm it, as did the commentators on the TV.

I'm also a bit perplexed how they worked out the odds of 4.5 trillion to one, or whatever it actually was. How would they work that out?

Doobs is better qualified to answer this, but they are multiplying the odds, as they see them, of each event.
The key question is about how they arrive at the odds of each event.
A quick search says that a hole in one is a 1/12500 shot across all golfers and a 1/2500 for a pro.
No doubt similar stats can be found for birdies pars and albatrosses and all will be in a similar range.
That being said, I think it’s safe to say that it is an unlikely set of scores in a single round.

But then, were led to believe that the sequence of each shuffled deck of cards is ‘unique’ but that doesn’t stop my opponent hitting a one-outer on the river at a frequency that is annoyingly recurrent.

While I'm warming to a theme, here's an example of just how much trouble the Conservatives are in as we approach the local elections.

I live in a Rural constituency in Essex-a Council run by the Tories since God was a Boy. In my constituency, the sitting Tory at the last Local elections got more votes than everyone else combined.

I've just received his 6 page election leaflet. Spends 6 pages talking about himself, and what he has done locally. On those 6 pages, makes no mention whatsoever about the future, or why Reform (who are the only likely challenger) might be less than ideal. Nothing about the reorganisation of Essex. And-incomprehensibly-tries to hide the fact that he is standing for the Tories. He only mentions it once-in the middle of a paragraph near the bottom of Page 2.

I am (like a lot of people) torn on how to vote. To cast a largely symbolic vote for Labour. Or to vote for the Tory, on the "Anyone but Reform" ticket. But voting for a man who appears ashamed of his own Party is not easy...

Contrary to popular belief, it is not when their lips move

Let's use this latest Starmer/Mandelson spat as an example.

It is clear to me that recent statements made by Starmer and Sir Olly Robbins are incompatible. At least 1 of them is lying. And the way statements are made has been very telling.

Starmer is unequivocal. He states that he never received the vetting advice. That it was hidden from him. And, logically, this bit (at least) must be true. There are too many people with the potential to prove that this was not true. And, were that to be proved to be the case, he would have to resign.

Compare/contrast with Robbins statement to the House today. He "does not recall" whether things happened. Usually the sign of someone who either doesn't know or does, and hopes it cannot be proved. He received documents, but he can't remember which ones, and he didn't read them. He pretends that Govt trying to get over the vetting hurdle is in some way problematic-it happens. Every. Single. Time.

Horrible man. Clearly not got the ability of his predecessor-the 1 who insisted on the vetting.

Will Starmer survive? IMO. yes and no. Survives this, then local elections are going to do for him.

Starmer is of a different age. A basically decent man. Bit bland. Bit grey. Solid. Unremarkable. More Brown or Sunak than Blair or Johnson.

Look at the likely next Leaders. Full of soundbites. Big ideas. And absolutely no idea (or experience) how to Govern or Budget.

Imagine a World where Reform is in Power. And the Greens in Opposition. And shudder.

...and now for something completely different & really quite sensational (if true).

I was watching the LPGA (Ladies) golf at the weekend, the Joburg Ladies Open, & the commentators mentioned a really weird stat featuring New Zealander Amelia Garvey. She's not a world-beater (World Ranking 142) but had a good Tournament, finishing 13th.

So I went over to Wiki to check it, & sure enough, the stat was confirmed on there...


In 2024, during the final round of the Royal St Cloud Women's Championship on the NXXT Women's Pro Tour in Florida, Garvey made history being the first professional golfer to record a par, birdie, eagle, hole in one, and albatross all in one round, a one in 4.5 trillion likelihood.[9] She also had a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and a 6 on her scorecard.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Garvey





It's so unlikely that it's a struggle to believe it happened, but all the google searches seem to confirm it, as did the commentators on the TV.

I'm also a bit perplexed how they worked out the odds of 4.5 trillion to one, or whatever it actually was. How would they work that out?