Alright, let’s talk about this “cj cup” thing I messed around with today. It was kinda a spur-of-the-moment deal, ya know? Saw some chatter about it online and figured, “Eh, why not give it a shot?”
First thing I did was try to actually figure out what the heck “cj cup” even was. Turns out it’s some kinda golf tournament. Okay, cool. Golf. I’ve watched it on TV sometimes when I’m bored. Never played it myself, though. Too much walking.
Next up, I started digging around for data. I mean, you can’t just do something, you gotta have some info, right? I started hunting for past winners, player stats, course conditions, anything that seemed even remotely useful. Scraped a few websites, found some PDFs buried on golf association pages… the usual internet sleuthing.
Once I had some data, I started trying to make sense of it. I mainly looked at recent performance. I downloaded a CSV of player rankings and started messing around with it in a spreadsheet. I tried to spot any trends, see if anyone was on a hot streak, or if there were any consistent underperformers I should avoid. Honestly, it was kinda boring.
Then, just for kicks, I looked into the course itself. Apparently, course difficulty can play a big role. I checked out some articles that discussed things like green speeds, rough height, and water hazards. The more hazards, the more exciting, right?
Okay, so I had a pile of semi-organized data and a vague idea of what to do with it. Now it was time to put it all together. I didn’t really have a plan so I just picked some of the top ranked players, cross-referenced them with their recent tournament results, and then made a purely gut-feeling call.
Now the fun part, I waited! I watched the tournament play out, glued to the screen. And honestly? Most of my picks were busts. A few guys did okay, but overall I just didn’t have enough info.
What did I learn? Golf is harder than it looks. And predicting anything based on a few stats is a recipe for disaster. I guess it’s just more complicated than that.
It was fun to mess around with, though. Maybe I’ll try again next year, but this time I’ll use a lot more data.
