How this works:
I took all the scores from the past two years* of the Masters from non-ceremonial(past champions, amateurs, special exemptions) and averaged them. I then used my two year rankings(Last weeks events excluded) and established an average score for each player over 72 holes.
*I copied down the 2007 Masters too, but those scores were so ridiculously high that year that I think it made it less accurate. Looking back at other Masters that seems to be a pretty obvious outlier.
What this says:
Tiger will not win this tournament by 7 shots. It says if you played it infinity times under similar conditions to the previous two years and each player’s skill was indicated by their average play over the last two years Tiger is 7 shots better than anyone else on average.
In fact, an average performance from anyone(Tiger Included) will probably not be good enough to win. In fact, the average winning score should fall around -11.1(under similar conditions) and puts Tiger(assuming he plays to his two year average, although who knows how to project him) at about 33% to win.
This is the first run through, hoping I can get around to doing this hole for hole and update it as different players are at different stages of the tournament come April.