Just wanted some thoughts on this for sec...
Who do you think has a better chance of beating 230 + avg bowler @ 90% of 220...
Bowlers around avgs around 189 and higher or bowlers with avgs around 165 to 170....

Keep in mind the 90% of 220....

Zanatos,

Mathematically speaking, you have left out too many variables to solve the question posed.

Is the 230 bowler one who is consistent or does he/she bowl 270's when hot and 200's when cold?  Does the 189 bowler have big game capability? Is the 170 bowler consistently around 170 and never breaks 200?

Averages only say so much about a bowler.  A bowler's consistency in scoring and variability in scoring has a major impact on expected outcomes.

The one thing I will say with certainty is that any bowler who's is consistent with a low standard deviation in their scoring with an average that is higher than the base in which handicap is calculated off of will beat his or her opponent who is receiving handicap MOST of the time.  Randomness and variability make it impossible to win all the time.

I guess we needed more detail....

If I am not mistaken but I think if you score all 9 spares you will reach 190 and that is already 20 pins over your avg plus the extra handicap pins... I think the 170 bowlers has a better shot... But again - they wouldnt have a 170 avg....

"If I am not mistaken but I think if you score all 9 spares you will reach 190"

That would include leaving some corner pins. If they had an all spare game/clean game that would be a very rare thing for a 170 average bowler.

90% of 220

165 average gets 49
190 average gets 27

230-49= 181, The 165 bowler has to bowl 16 pins above average
230-27= 203, The 190 bowler has to bowl 13 pins above average.

190 average bowler will have a higher spare and strike percentage then the 165 average bowler. I like there chance of shooting 13 pins over average.

I know, just saying I'd take the 230 average bowler first then the next highest average after that. The numbers I posted clearly favor the higher average. Since most are based off of 80% of 220 it increase the higher average bowlers chances even more.

This is a simple answer. The higher average bowler always has the better odds. I would imagine that these averages were established on the same pattern

1st - The 189 average bowler has less pins to make up since the handicap percent is less than 100%.

2nd - Just the simple fact that the average is higher states the bowler has the ability to pick up mores spare and put more strikes together.

But lets get real. At 90% of 220, the chance of either of these bowlers beating a 230 average bowler is real low. 

Using actual results from last year, I just did a comparison of a 229 average bowler vs. a 171 average bowler and a 191 average bowler who all bowled in the same league last year over 108 games each (a 36 week season; decent sample size).

With handicap calculated off of 90% of 220, based on the games bowled, the 171 bowler would have beat the 229 bowler 31.48% of the time and the 191 bowler would have beat the 229 bowler 37.96% of the time.

With that said, is a 37.96% chance of winning real low?  To me, real low is not a 1 in 3 chance, it's much lower than that - but like I said earlier in the thread, the higher average bowler is going to win MOST of the time. 

I know, but our town has no scratch leagues left.. Because everyone is afraid to bowl a few guys in this town..  So they kept raising the handicap..
used to 80% then to 90% now 100%