|
11
on: April 21, 2026, 05:20:35 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by EssexPhil
|
|
That last 1 in that article is, logically, longer odds than this one.
Incidentally, the lady in the original article did ace a par 3, and the albatross/eagle were at par 5 holes
|
|
|
12
on: April 21, 2026, 05:05:54 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by Pokerpops
|
I just don't get these million to 1 odds. Top lady golfers now hit up to 290 yards off the tee. The minimum yardage for a ladies Par 5 is 401 yards, and 450 yards is common. If someone is telling me that if there are (say) 3 Par 5 holes between 401 and 499 yards, and that it is a million to 1 chance that a lady hits a good drive and then holes an iron from between 120-200 yards, then I'm taking those odds. The Par 5 become Par 4 effectively. Trillions to 1 someone hits a hole in 1, another eagle and a birdie in the same round? Show me the bookie  The bookies have learnt a lot about golf odds since 1991 https://www.honestbettingreviews.com/hole-in-one-betting-coup/ |
|
|
13
on: April 21, 2026, 04:52:09 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by doubleup
|
|
yes I agree that the albatross odds seem a little high, but they are very likely the odds used in the wikipedia article hence the huge figure
|
|
|
14
on: April 21, 2026, 04:28:01 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by EssexPhil
|
I just don't get these million to 1 odds. Top lady golfers now hit up to 290 yards off the tee. The minimum yardage for a ladies Par 5 is 401 yards, and 450 yards is common. If someone is telling me that if there are (say) 3 Par 5 holes between 401 and 499 yards, and that it is a million to 1 chance that a lady hits a good drive and then holes an iron from between 120-200 yards, then I'm taking those odds. The Par 5 become Par 4 effectively. Trillions to 1 someone hits a hole in 1, another eagle and a birdie in the same round? Show me the bookie |
|
|
15
on: April 21, 2026, 02:44:56 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by doubleup
|
|
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.
|
|
|
16
on: April 21, 2026, 01:58:46 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by EssexPhil
|
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 |
|
|
17
on: April 21, 2026, 01:48:45 PM
|
|
Started by tikay - Last post by doubleup
|
|
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.
|
|
|
18
on: April 21, 2026, 01:47:19 PM
|
|
Started by EssexPhil - Last post by EssexPhil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
19
on: April 21, 2026, 12:55:55 PM
|
|
Started by EssexPhil - Last post by Pokerpops
|
|
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.
|
|
|
20
on: April 21, 2026, 12:51:39 PM
|
|
Started by EssexPhil - Last post by Enut
|
|
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.
|
|
|
| |
