My immediate thought is that OP is reinventing dynamic programming/RL from first principles. The final visualization looks exactly like a standard value estimate heatmap. Golf is a MDP over all the physical points on the course, with stochastic probabilities of transition to each one based on golfer skill and physical randomness. Strokes are the cost to be minimized, the colors are the value estimate at each state, and his difficulties with the different maps is because a value function is defined as the expected value of being in that state assuming you will follow a particular policy thereafter (ie. be a golfer of a particular skill level, playing optimally for that skill). This lets you formalize 'strategicness' of a golf course: it is how much the value estimates differ on average across the full range of golf skills; a non-strategic course looks identical for the beginner and pro, while an incredibly strategic course might have completely different values for every point for every bracket of skill. (You could probably automate creation of pathological golf courses this way, where even a slight increase in skill makes the new strategy different.)
This is sick. But also i think that stuff like this is making us less human. Before tournaments good players take a book with then and their caddie and do this themself. A model takes all the fun and strategy out of it imo. Like if i suck at 7-9 irons but am good with my 4-6 irons this type of work doesnt take that into account. Also likee the optimal way to play a course isnt very fun. We play at a course where on the fourth hole we always play to the fairway to the left cause of all the trees. If a player were to use this they wouldnt have been able to come up with such a fun way to play the game
This is my project and after publishing it today, and while I'm very flattered that so many folks have read it already. Still, I've found myself pushing back against this 'unweaving the rainbow' narrative.
The maps, importantly, don't tell you how to play the hole. They just show where the hole is easier to play from, if you're already in that location. Whether or not you ought to attempt to reach those areas is the choice the player makes, and it's going to be different based on what the strategy the player uses is. I allude to this in later image of Talking Stick O'odham #2, which has the internal aiming system tuned up to be aggressive (say, for a skins game), and another image where it is tuned down for safety (say, for a derby or defending a lead in a stroke play tournament).
The maps really just kind of "show the idea" behind the strategic design. The best use case would be for helping golf course architects communicate the changes they want to make to potential memberships, who might be hesitant to change they don't understand.
It's very much not a system like Decade, or ones that companies like Arccos can provide to improve performance.
My immediate thought is that OP is reinventing dynamic programming/RL from first principles. The final visualization looks exactly like a standard value estimate heatmap. Golf is a MDP over all the physical points on the course, with stochastic probabilities of transition to each one based on golfer skill and physical randomness. Strokes are the cost to be minimized, the colors are the value estimate at each state, and his difficulties with the different maps is because a value function is defined as the expected value of being in that state assuming you will follow a particular policy thereafter (ie. be a golfer of a particular skill level, playing optimally for that skill). This lets you formalize 'strategicness' of a golf course: it is how much the value estimates differ on average across the full range of golf skills; a non-strategic course looks identical for the beginner and pro, while an incredibly strategic course might have completely different values for every point for every bracket of skill. (You could probably automate creation of pathological golf courses this way, where even a slight increase in skill makes the new strategy different.)
Not a golfer but I'm a big fan of the pretty plots.
This is sick. But also i think that stuff like this is making us less human. Before tournaments good players take a book with then and their caddie and do this themself. A model takes all the fun and strategy out of it imo. Like if i suck at 7-9 irons but am good with my 4-6 irons this type of work doesnt take that into account. Also likee the optimal way to play a course isnt very fun. We play at a course where on the fourth hole we always play to the fairway to the left cause of all the trees. If a player were to use this they wouldnt have been able to come up with such a fun way to play the game
This is my project and after publishing it today, and while I'm very flattered that so many folks have read it already. Still, I've found myself pushing back against this 'unweaving the rainbow' narrative.
The maps, importantly, don't tell you how to play the hole. They just show where the hole is easier to play from, if you're already in that location. Whether or not you ought to attempt to reach those areas is the choice the player makes, and it's going to be different based on what the strategy the player uses is. I allude to this in later image of Talking Stick O'odham #2, which has the internal aiming system tuned up to be aggressive (say, for a skins game), and another image where it is tuned down for safety (say, for a derby or defending a lead in a stroke play tournament).
The maps really just kind of "show the idea" behind the strategic design. The best use case would be for helping golf course architects communicate the changes they want to make to potential memberships, who might be hesitant to change they don't understand.
It's very much not a system like Decade, or ones that companies like Arccos can provide to improve performance.
Someone get this in front of Tom Doak immediately