31–40 of 53 posts
I have heard of this "tradition", but after travelling week to week with the PGA tour for years and playing golf with a multitude of new people every week, and have never even heard of someone buying more than three drinks for their playing partners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you play golf, does not mean you wouldn't miss several hundred dollars. Golf is not really a poor man's sport, but neither is it polo.
I can't shake this image of someone holding a $5 Starbucks in one hand, paying a $3 insurance premium to cover a less than 1 in 10K chance of losing $500 and complaining that they can't "afford to risk the $500". Let's see: you just paid $3 to hedge a risk with less than a nickel's worth of -EV and you're holding your daily Starbucks. I'm beginning to understand why you can't afford the risk... Yes, yes. I know I'd b…
The article doesn't cover it - but the reason why people are expected to buy everyone drinks is because if you're lucky and skilled enough to get a hole in one, you will likely win the round and all the money wagered. If it is a local club or casual tournament, this can be a few hundred or thousand dollars. Even if it is just four people playing, there will usually be money wagered between themselves. If it's a large…
Tell that to my $20 set of clubs and $5 bucket of range balls.
Am I to understand that someone who is golfing is unable to absorb the costs of several hundred dollars of drinks in? And that this is common enough that there's an insurance product to hedge that miniscule risk? It seems like a much shorter article could have been written: Because they can't do math.
hole in one insurance is usually just charged by the club in addition to membership fee, not by an actual insurance company. its also inaccurate to assume that anyone who plays golf can afford $500+ in alcohol.
One would hope then that upon getting a hole in one they would not spend $500 that they cannot afford. It's not a requirement to buy anyone else a drink.
This looks more like a gimmick to cash in on overconfident people, who want to have some extra bragging rights on the course, than an insurance. Who gets insured for something that costs you $650 at max and is totally avoidable?
$3/mo is a flat, fixed fee that can be budgeted against. $650 out of the blue is a lot like having a car break down, and is enough to put a crimp in any other plans one may have coming up. If someone really enjoys golf, it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
This looks more like a gimmick to cash in on overconfident people, who want to have some extra bragging rights on the course, than an insurance. Who gets insured for something that costs you $650 at max and is totally avoidable?
$3/mo is a flat, fixed fee that can be budgeted against. $650 out of the blue is a lot like having a car break down, and is enough to put a crimp in any other plans one may have coming up. If someone really enjoys golf, it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you play golf, does not mean you wouldn't miss several hundred dollars. Golf is not really a poor man's sport, but neither is it polo.
I can't shake this image of someone holding a $5 Starbucks in one hand, paying a $3 insurance premium to cover a less than 1 in 10K chance of losing $500 and complaining that they can't "afford to risk the $500". Let's see: you just paid $3 to hedge a risk with less than a nickel's worth of -EV and you're holding your daily Starbucks. I'm beginning to understand why you can't afford the risk... Yes, yes. I know I'd b…
Whattt? Golfers who get a hole in one are expected to buy everyone drinks? I caddied during the summer months in high-school and college. Whenever someone got a hole in one there would be a 2-4 hour open bar after that round came in, for all of the members and their guests who happen to show up at the bar during that time. This is not the tradition around the world?!
I worked in reinsurance, and there was the (apocryphal) story one year of how the government of South Africa had promised a million dollars to every player if their team won the world cup. On the flip side, the government looked for a reinsurer to insure them for that risk. My company said no because so basically it distilled down to sports betting and we did not have any experience in that market.
Say that the difference between winning and losing a final is £50k, and the bookmakers pay out even on a bet that you lose. If you bet £20k on you losing, you change a "nothing if I lose, £50k if I win" game into a "£20k if I lose, £30k if I win" game.
Some players prefer such a game. Placing that bet might even increase their chance of winning, as part of the stress gets removed from the game (you're playing for £10k, not for £50k)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't shake this image of someone holding a $5 Starbucks in one hand, paying a $3 insurance premium to cover a less than 1 in 10K chance of losing $500 and complaining that they can't "afford to risk the $500". Let's see: you just paid $3 to hedge a risk with less than a nickel's worth of -EV and you're holding your daily Starbucks. I'm beginning to understand why you can't afford the risk... Yes, yes. I know I'd b…
Do you have car and home insurance? All insurance has negative average payout.
I have liability-only car insurance (and high limits at that) but not collision/comprehensive, as I can readily write a check for a replacement car. (My car is worth about $5K; my wife's car about $7K.)
I have home insurance as I'm required by my mortgage to have it, but also because losing the house would be lifestyle-changing.
I don't insure risks that wouldn't be lifestyle-changing (unless legally mandated). I'd wager that $650 for a round of drinks isn't lifestyle changing for most golfers.
This insurance makes extended warranty plans for electronics a positively great deal in comparison...