3rd Seat Order?

Ask questions, discuss and debate your strategies, euchre polls and more
Post Reply
Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

3rd Seat Order?

Post by Richardb02 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:16 pm

Wes used this hand in another post

Dealer upcard is the (Card_10-H)
You hold in S3.
(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-S)

Let’s assume score and players are n/a.

Would you order or pass?



patiencepays

Post by patiencepays » Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:45 pm

Richardb02 wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:16 pm
Wes used this hand in another post

Dealer upcard is the (Card_10-H)
You hold in S3.
(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-S)

Let’s assume score and players are n/a.

Would you order or pass?
In brief, I order. Let say score is them 9 us 4, I go alone.

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:57 pm

Richardb02 wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:16 pm
Wes used this hand in another post

Dealer upcard is the (Card_10-H)
You hold in S3.
(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-S)

Let’s assume score and players are n/a.

Would you order or pass?

I would Order from seat 3.

Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Post by Wes (aka the legend) » Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:07 am

Richardb02 wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:16 pm
Wes used this hand in another post

Dealer upcard is the (Card_10-H)
You hold in S3.
(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-S)

Let’s assume score and players are n/a.

Would you order or pass?
I would order it but I do think it's still a marginal call due to the "parlay problem" inherent with 3rd Seat calls, and the general problem associated with 3rd seat, I.E. not having the lead plus having the dealer behind you who can overtrump you who you just gave a trump + a void.

The parlay problem: Everytime you order in 3rd, 1st rd and the dealer would've called had you passed you've cost your team, and everytime you order in 3rd, 1st rd and your P had at least a 1 point 2nd round call you've also cost your team by taking an unnecessary risk in the 1st rd. IOW you need a parlay to occur to make your 3rd seat call technically correct, (both the dealer and your P have to have passing hands/or your P would've went set on a 2nd rd call). By technically correct I simply mean if you could see everyone's cards you still would've made that 3rd seat call. If that's not the case then a 3rd seat call would've been a technical mistake (not an actual real mistake, but technical mistakes are still something we would wish to minimize if possible).

All that said, subtly change the hand to this:

(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-D)

And I have a partner like Edward. Then I'm passing this at most scores. Having approx 2 tricks in Next is a licence to bag the dealer all day when you have a strong partner in the 1 seat.

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:50 pm

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:07 am
Richardb02 wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:16 pm
Wes used this hand in another post

Dealer upcard is the (Card_10-H)
You hold in S3.
(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-S)

Let’s assume score and players are n/a.

Would you order or pass?
I would order it but I do think it's still a marginal call due to the "parlay problem" inherent with 3rd Seat calls, and the general problem associated with 3rd seat, I.E. not having the lead plus having the dealer behind you who can overtrump you who you just gave a trump + a void.

The parlay problem: Everytime you order in 3rd, 1st rd and the dealer would've called had you passed you've cost your team, and everytime you order in 3rd, 1st rd and your P had at least a 1 point 2nd round call you've also cost your team by taking an unnecessary risk in the 1st rd. IOW you need a parlay to occur to make your 3rd seat call technically correct, (both the dealer and your P have to have passing hands/or your P would've went set on a 2nd rd call). By technically correct I simply mean if you could see everyone's cards you still would've made that 3rd seat call. If that's not the case then a 3rd seat call would've been a technical mistake (not an actual real mistake, but technical mistakes are still something we would wish to minimize if possible).

All that said, subtly change the hand to this:

(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-D)

And I have a partner like Edward. Then I'm passing this at most scores. Having approx 2 tricks in Next is a licence to bag the dealer all day when you have a strong partner in the 1 seat.
Excellent! This is the scenario I was looking for! There are no outside influences, specifically Bowers and Aces. I also have a bonus. Tbolt would order.

Let me explain that back in BPS, this hand is valued at 3.25. It is your edge hand when there are no other factors to consider. You would order at 3.25 (uncomfortably) if you used BPS-Basic. I have been using 2.75, but after our 3rd or 4th or Nth go round on this topic, I now see your wisdom. I will make 3.25 my minimum from S3.

I can also “quantify” the value of your “advanced concepts.” Your subtle change from a (Card_10-S) to a (Card_10-D) creates a protected Left in Next. That is worth at least -.25 as a disincentive to order. Additionally the protective Left being in Next is worth another -.25. I even see another -.25 from a Next protected Left from S3. So your subtly changed hand only rates 2.50. At 2.50 I would definitely pass because we have a strong possibility of euchring S4, if S4 picks up. Plus S1, expected to Call Next, has an excellent probability of earning us 1 or even 2 points.

Am I now grasping your concept of avoiding a technical mistake?



[/color

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Post by Wes (aka the legend) » Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 pm

Richardb02 wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:50 pm
Excellent! This is the scenario I was looking for! There are no outside influences, specifically Bowers and Aces. I also have a bonus. Tbolt would order.

Let me explain that back in BPS, this hand is valued at 3.25. It is your edge hand when there are no other factors to consider. You would order at 3.25 (uncomfortably) if you used BPS-Basic. I have been using 2.75, but after our 3rd or 4th or Nth go round on this topic, I now see your wisdom. I will make 3.25 my minimum from S3.

I can also “quantify” the value of your “advanced concepts.” Your subtle change from a (Card_10-S) to a (Card_10-D) creates a protected Left in Next. That is worth at least -.25 as a disincentive to order. Additionally the protective Left being in Next is worth another -.25. I even see another -.25 from a Next protected Left from S3. So your subtly changed hand only rates 2.50. At 2.50 I would definitely pass because we have a strong possibility of euchring S4, if S4 picks up. Plus S1, expected to Call Next, has an excellent probability of earning us 1 or even 2 points.

Am I now grasping your concept of avoiding a technical mistake?
I like where you're going with this Richard but keep in mind that if your partner is not a skilled player (like 99% aren't) then you have to loosen up a tad from 3rd (not too much cuz the nature of the position doesn't give you much wiggle room)

If you can't depend on your partner to call Next then

(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-D)

Is a must order.

In fact if your partner doesn't play well in the 2nd round then I suspect that all Right + 2 combos may be an order. An example to illustrate my point:

Dealer upcard is the (Card_K-H) and I'm in 3rd with:

(Card_Q-H) (Card_J-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-D) (Card_10-C)

If my partner is a skilled player, I'm passing this marginal hand with 1 trick in Next. I'm never passing this with the run of the mill partner.

Another example, same KH upcard:

(Card_A-H) (Card_J-D) (Card_10-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_K-S)

I'm always passing this with a skilled partner with 3 approx tricks in Next, and frankly I'm not sure what to do with an unskilled partner becuz you have two countervailing currents going on here. I wanna pass to trap the dealer becuz with the Right bower in the wild there's still a decent amount of calling combos the dealer can have, but I also wanna call due to not trusting my partner in the 2nd round. I tend to pass and gamble regardless due to the parlay problem unless Seat 1 is a horrible player but I'm not super confident in my approach.

Another example with (Card_A-H) upcard, score 0-0:

(Card_J-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_9-D) (Card_9-S)

This is the worst possible Right+2 hand from 3rd Seat. With a skilled partner I'm never calling this weak hand with 1 trick in Next. Even with an unskilled partner I really don't like this hand--I feel like I'm gonna regret my actions no matter what I do. I guess I would call in that instance but this could easily be wrong.

What about when we have a skilled partner but we have a marginal hand without 1 trick in Next. A hand like this:

Dealer upcard: (Card_K-H), we're in 3rd with:

(Card_J-H) (Card_Q-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_9-C) (Card_9-S)

Is this a call becuz our skilled partner can't hit us well in Next? or is this a pass due to the inherent marginality of the hand/parlay problem? I don't know the answer, I do tend to call with a skilled partner becuz they can't hit me well in Next, but that could easily be wrong. With an unskilled partner this is an autocall.

Like I've said before. 3rd Seat, 1st Rd is a mindf*#@!

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:53 pm

Since you liked my direction, let’s add player impact to our discussion.

My simplified approach is based on 2 principles: the factor must be easily determined and the smallest increment is .25 points.

Most players are weak let’s assign them a zero. Once we have seen a demonstration of strong calling and/or card playing let’s give them +0.25.

The next area we can observe is specific Seat performance. We like a player who Calls Next well from S1 or they lead trump to my S3 order that +0.25.

We can list out other positive performances from the other 3 seats.

I would limit my adjustment to 0.25 for general performance and 0.25 for specific seat performance. So the maximum adjustment is 0.50.

Any observations, criticisms or recommendations?

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:27 pm

Richardb02 wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:53 pm
Since you liked my direction, let’s add player impact to our discussion.

My simplified approach is based on 2 principles: the factor must be easily determined and the smallest increment is .25 points.

Most players are weak let’s assign them a zero. Once we have seen a demonstration of strong calling and/or card playing let’s give them +0.25.

The next area we can observe is specific Seat performance. We like a player who Calls Next well from S1 or they lead trump to my S3 order that +0.25.

We can list out other positive performances from the other 3 seats.

I would limit my adjustment to 0.25 for general performance and 0.25 for specific seat performance. So the maximum adjustment is 0.50.

Any observations, criticisms or recommendations?

Richard,

I'm not certain you can assign a proper value here. Reason why is your partners playing style might be erratic. If so, you may be costing yourself at times with said values.

If not erratic. Then possibly it might work.
Now I don't use the bps for my play but I'll tell you what I do. I naturally assume my partner is competent until proven otherwise. When my partners shows me what they are capable of. Then I can make adjustments to better suit our chances of scoring/winning. So maybe you can do the same within your bps system.

Perhaps assign a +.50 until proven otherwise. Then adjust accordingly. Ie: +.25, 0.0, or -.25, -.50. Or you could assign a lower score first and work your way from there.



Tbolt65
Edward

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:25 pm

Excellent point about a player being erratic. Adding that into my recommendation:
0.00 Start with no information.
0.25 Once we see strong calling or playing. (This will also be the max if his play is erratic. You simply can’t count on them for more than +0.25).
0.50 Only if they pass the first test and now demonstrate exceptional play at a specific seat.
0.75 Is fine for you and Wes playing together. You know how they will respond by playing together enough to understand how they play. This would be my cap. Even the best player can’t overcome more than 0.75 points (about 60% of a trick,
relatively)
I also think about assigning points to a player this way:
80% of players will be 0. This is fine for 80% of the situations, most players play the cards and maybe a few guidelines.
16% of players will earn 0.25. They are analyzing their hands and making some good decisions. They may be erratic but that is why we limit erratic but good players to 0.25 points.
3.2% of players will earn 0.50.They have consistently proven good decisions and then have exhibited exceptional play from various Seats. I hope that I have reached this level and that it could be seen quickly.
0.8% are the geniuses that earn 0.75. No only have they proved themselves at 0.25 and 0.50. You have enough experience with them to be able to predict how they will respond. This is very rare. You and Wes are in this category.
I like this even more as a progression from 0 to 0.75. It puts it into perspective.

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:59 pm

Well it looks like that will help you then. Play around with it the next time you play. Get some time in with it to really get a feel for. I suspect it's goin to help the bps and you can tweak it when you get more data in vs different types of partners you get.

Tbolt65
Edward

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:06 pm

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 pm
Richardb02 wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:50 pm
Excellent! This is the scenario I was looking for! There are no outside influences, specifically Bowers and Aces. I also have a bonus. Tbolt would order.

Let me explain that back in BPS, this hand is valued at 3.25. It is your edge hand when there are no other factors to consider. You would order at 3.25 (uncomfortably) if you used BPS-Basic. I have been using 2.75, but after our 3rd or 4th or Nth go round on this topic, I now see your wisdom. I will make 3.25 my minimum from S3.

I can also “quantify” the value of your “advanced concepts.” Your subtle change from a (Card_10-S) to a (Card_10-D) creates a protected Left in Next. That is worth at least -.25 as a disincentive to order. Additionally the protective Left being in Next is worth another -.25. I even see another -.25 from a Next protected Left from S3. So your subtly changed hand only rates 2.50. At 2.50 I would definitely pass because we have a strong possibility of euchring S4, if S4 picks up. Plus S1, expected to Call Next, has an excellent probability of earning us 1 or even 2 points.

Am I now grasping your concept of avoiding a technical mistake?
I like where you're going with this Richard but keep in mind that if your partner is not a skilled player (like 99% aren't) then you have to loosen up a tad from 3rd (not too much cuz the nature of the position doesn't give you much wiggle room)
Let’s put BPS-Advanced to work. After investing several hours into this post, I’ve concluded that for BPS-Adv, we will add points to the minimum needed to order, instead of adjusting the value of the hand. The main reason is that the factors: player value, value of Jacks and value of Aces contribute to passing being more productive than ordering. This will make more sense as you work through examples. I just wanted to present this principle for reference asap.
If you can't depend on your partner to call Next then

(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-D)

Is a must order.
1.00 Right
0.50 Kh
0.25 9h
0.75 Ac, Green Singleton
0.25 Spade Void
0.50 3 trump
3.25 BPS, meets minimum, Poor Player, Matches Wes’ “Must Order”
_____Incompetent Player (My starting point for an unknown player)
+.25 Proven competent in general
3.50 Min, pass

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
3.75 Min, Pass

+.75 You have complete confidence in your Partner
4.00 Min, Pass


In fact if your partner doesn't play well in the 2nd round then I suspect that all Right + 2 combos may be an order. An example to illustrate my point:

Dealer upcard is the (Card_K-H) and I'm in 3rd with:

(Card_Q-H) (Card_J-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-D) (Card_10-C)

If my partner is a skilled player, I'm passing this marginal hand with 1 trick in Next. I'm never passing this with the run of the mill partner


1.00 Right
0.50 Qh
0.25 Th
0.25 Spade Void
0.50 3 Trump
2.50 This hand is 3 klicks weaker than the previous hand. Pass

+.25 Proven competent in general
3.50 Min, pass

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
3.75 Min, Pass

+.75 You have complete confidence in your Partner
4.00 Min, Pass

This goes against Wes’ guidance but this hand is too weak to order IMO. Note: I was at 2.75 points minimum order and in fact 2.50 before going to 2.75 as the typical poor player minimum. So 2.50 may be the best min once we add in all of Wes’ factors including Player, Jacks, Aces and Donation. I.E. No Jacks, No Aces, add 0.75 to the hand value = 3.25, order (I would rather donate than allow Opp to get 4)
.

Another example, same KH upcard:

(Card_A-H) (Card_J-D) (Card_10-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_K-S)

0.75 Left, Jd
0.50 Ah
0.25 Th
0.75 Ac
0.25 Diamond Void
0.75 3 Trump with Power (Power is 2 out of 3 RLA)
3.25 Meets minimum with unskilled player to order

+.25 Proven competent in general
3.50 Min, pass

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
3.75 Min, Pass

+.75 You have complete confidence in your Partner
4.00 Min, Pass

This lines up well with Wes’ direction.


I'm always passing this with a skilled partner with 3 approx tricks in Next, and frankly I'm not sure what to do with an unskilled partner becuz you have two countervailing currents going on here. I wanna pass to trap the dealer becuz with the Right bower in the wild there's still a decent amount of calling combos the dealer can have, but I also wanna call due to not trusting my partner in the 2nd round. I tend to pass and gamble regardless due to the parlay problem unless Seat 1 is a horrible player but I'm not super confident in my approach.

If we ignore “3 approximate tricks in Next” the BPS recommendations make sense.

My concept to address, “3 approximate tricks in Next”, is focused on assigning values to Jacks and Aces. They are easy to observe and reflect “approximate tricks.” They will add points to the minimum and indicate pass.


Another example with (Card_A-H) upcard, score 0-0:

(Card_J-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_9-D) (Card_9-S)

This is the worst possible Right+2 hand from 3rd Seat. With a skilled partner I'm never calling this weak hand with 1 trick in Next. Even with an unskilled partner I really don't like this hand--I feel like I'm gonna regret my actions no matter what I do. I guess I would call in that instance but this could easily be wrong.


1.00 Right
0.25 Th
0.25 9h
0.25 Club Void
0.50 3 Trump
2.25 3.25 min, pass

To me, this is an example of how a point system shines. We get fixated on one point, in this case an unskilled partner and miss the most important factors. This hand is too weak to order, period, unless you are happy with 45% success, 55% euchred!


What about when we have a skilled partner but we have a marginal hand without 1 trick in Next. A hand like this:

Dealer upcard: (Card_K-H), we're in 3rd with:

(Card_J-H) (Card_Q-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_9-C) (Card_9-S)

1.00 Right
0.50 Qh
0.25 9h
0.25 Diamond Void
0.50 3 Trump
2.50 Min 3.25 Pass.

This is similar to a post where you corrected me that it is not always up to me. You have a Partner. P sits in a superior seat. P has a 30% probability of having the cards in the wild. S4 R1 can’t result in 4 points.

Now having said all of that, 3.25 min may be too high. I have suggested that it could be as low as 2.50 especially once we factor in Players, Jacks and Aces that would raise the min and direct us to pass. If 3.25 is the correct min for a very skilled player, that would be 2.50 for a poor player.

We now have a framework where we go back through the hands, recalibrate the numbers and see if the results pass the smell test. Then try it in real games.

Fortunately, the other 3 seats aren’t as variable as S3.


Is this a call becuz our skilled partner can't hit us well in Next? or is this a pass due to the inherent marginality of the hand/parlay problem? I don't know the answer, I do tend to call with a skilled partner becuz they can't hit me well in Next, but that could easily be wrong. With an unskilled partner this is an autocall.

I would suggest that Left in Next is still valuable, if just because Opp do not have it. Secondly if S1 has power in Trump, he doesn’t need it. If he has a weak Next call you would expect him to lead a low trump or off trump. Your Left can take a trick or draw the Right. BPS gives you 1.00 in next, 0.75 Left + 0.25 Void. That’s 0.80 trick. That is close enough to the 1 trick S1 is counting on.

Like I've said before. 3rd Seat, 1st Rd is a mindf*#@!

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:16 pm

I am modifying my own post!
While working through the post, I discovered that adjusting the minimum as opposed to the adjusting the hand value was much more effective.
I also missed an adjustment for the upcard.
And finally, I am flipping back to 2.50 points as the minimum order from S3 because the adjustment for Player Strength compensates for the lower minimum.
Richardb02 wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:06 pm
Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:02 pm
Richardb02 wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:50 pm
Excellent! This is the scenario I was looking for! There are no outside influences, specifically Bowers and Aces. I also have a bonus. Tbolt would order.

Let me explain that back in BPS, this hand is valued at 3.25. It is your edge hand when there are no other factors to consider. You would order at 3.25 (uncomfortably) if you used BPS-Basic. I have been using 2.75, but after our 3rd or 4th or Nth go round on this topic, I now see your wisdom. I will make 3.25 my minimum from S3.

I can also “quantify” the value of your “advanced concepts.” Your subtle change from a (Card_10-S) to a (Card_10-D) creates a protected Left in Next. That is worth at least -.25 as a disincentive to order. Additionally the protective Left being in Next is worth another -.25. I even see another -.25 from a Next protected Left from S3. So your subtly changed hand only rates 2.50. At 2.50 I would definitely pass because we have a strong possibility of euchring S4, if S4 picks up. Plus S1, expected to Call Next, has an excellent probability of earning us 1 or even 2 points.

Am I now grasping your concept of avoiding a technical mistake?
I like where you're going with this Richard but keep in mind that if your partner is not a skilled player (like 99% aren't) then you have to loosen up a tad from 3rd (not too much cuz the nature of the position doesn't give you much wiggle room)
Let’s put BPS-Advanced to work. After investing several hours into this post, I’ve concluded that for BPS-Adv, we will add points to the minimum needed to order, instead of adjusting the value of the hand. The main reason is that the factors: player value, value of Jacks and value of Aces contribute to passing being more productive than ordering. This will make more sense as you work through examples. I just wanted to present this principle for reference asap.
If you can't depend on your partner to call Next then

(Card_J-H) (Card_K-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_10-D)

Is a must order.
1.00 Right
0.50 Kh
0.25 9h
0.75 Ac, Green Singleton
0.25 Spade Void
0.50 3 trump
-.25 Value of K Up vs 9 min, 5-.25
3.00 BPS, meets minimum 2.50, Poor Player, Matches Wes’ “Must Order”
_____Incompetent Player (My starting point for an unknown player)
+.25 Proven competent in general
2.75 Min, Order

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
3.00 Min, Order

+.75 You have complete confidence in your Partner
3.25 Min, Pass, trust your Partner to Call Next

Matches Wes’ “must order”


In fact if your partner doesn't play well in the 2nd round then I suspect that all Right + 2 combos may be an order. An example to illustrate my point:

Dealer upcard is the (Card_K-H) and I'm in 3rd with:

(Card_Q-H) (Card_J-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-D) (Card_10-C)

If my partner is a skilled player, I'm passing this marginal hand with 1 trick in Next. I'm never passing this with the run of the mill partner


1.00 Right
0.50 Qh
0.25 Th
0.25 Spade Void
0.50 3 Trump
-.25 Value of K Up vs 9 min, 5-.25
2.25 This hand is 3 klicks weaker than the previous hand. Pass

+.25 Proven competent in general
2.50 Min, pass

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
2.75 Min, Pass

+.75 You have complete confidence in your Partner
3.00 Min, Pass

This goes against Wes’ guidance to order, but this hand is too weak to order IMO. I am using 2.50 as the best min once we add in all of Wes’ factors including Player, Jacks, Aces and Donation. I.E. No Jacks, No Aces, add 0.75 to the hand value = 3.25, order (I would rather donate than allow Opp to get 4)

.

Another example, same KH upcard:

(Card_A-H) (Card_J-D) (Card_10-H) (Card_A-C) (Card_K-S)

0.75 Left, Jd
0.50 Ah
0.25 Th
0.75 Ac
0.25 Diamond Void
0.75 3 Trump with Power (Power is 2 out of 3 RLA)
-.25 Value of K Up vs 9 min, 5-.25
3.00 Min 2.50 with unskilled player, Order

+.25 Proven competent in general
2.75 Min, Order

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
3.00 Min, Order

+.75 You have complete confidence in your Partner
3.25 Min, Pass with a Trusted Partner

This lines up well with Wes’ direction.


I'm always passing this with a skilled partner with 3 approx tricks in Next, and frankly I'm not sure what to do with an unskilled partner becuz you have two countervailing currents going on here. I wanna pass to trap the dealer becuz with the Right bower in the wild there's still a decent amount of calling combos the dealer can have, but I also wanna call due to not trusting my partner in the 2nd round. I tend to pass and gamble regardless due to the parlay problem unless Seat 1 is a horrible player but I'm not super confident in my approach.

If we ignore “3 approximate tricks in Next” the BPS recommendations make sense.

My concept to address, “3 approximate tricks in Next”, is focused on assigning values to Jacks and Aces. They are easy to observe and reflect “approximate tricks.” They will add points to the minimum and indicate pass.

The adjustment range for Jacks and Aces will be 0.25 to 0.75. The additional parameter is that the adjustment will not be applied if Partner is not proven in S1 R2. So with minimum details Jd, Ah, Ac (Wes’ 3 tricks in Next) is valued at 0.50.

+.50 Proven competent in general plus at the appropriate Seat (S1 R2)
3.50 Min, Pass vs order before considering Jacks and Aces



Another example with (Card_A-H) upcard, score 0-0:

(Card_J-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_9-D) (Card_9-S)

This is the worst possible Right+2 hand from 3rd Seat. With a skilled partner I'm never calling this weak hand with 1 trick in Next. Even with an unskilled partner I really don't like this hand--I feel like I'm gonna regret my actions no matter what I do. I guess I would call in that instance but this could easily be wrong.


1.00 Right
0.25 Th
0.25 9h
0.25 Club Void
0.50 3 Trump
-.25 Value of A Up vs 9 min, 5-.25
2.00 2.50 min, pass, all types of players

To me, this is an example of how a point system shines. We get fixated on one point, in this case an unskilled partner and miss the most important factors. This hand is too weak to order, period, unless you are happy with 45% success, 55% euchred!


What about when we have a skilled partner but we have a marginal hand without 1 trick in Next. A hand like this:

Dealer upcard: (Card_K-H), we're in 3rd with:

(Card_J-H) (Card_Q-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_9-C) (Card_9-S)

1.00 Right
0.50 Qh
0.25 9h
0.25 Diamond Void
0.50 3 Trump
-.25 Value of K Up vs 9 min, 5-.25
2.25 Min 2.50 Pass, all players

This is similar to a post where you corrected me that it is not always up to me. You have a Partner. P sits in a superior seat. P has a 30% probability of having the cards in the wild. S4 R1 can’t result in 4 points.

We now have a framework where we go back through the hands, recalibrate the numbers and see if the results pass the smell test. Then try it in real games.

Fortunately, the other 3 seats aren’t as variable as S3.


Is this a call becuz our skilled partner can't hit us well in Next? or is this a pass due to the inherent marginality of the hand/parlay problem? I don't know the answer, I do tend to call with a skilled partner becuz they can't hit me well in Next, but that could easily be wrong. With an unskilled partner this is an autocall.

I would suggest that Left in Next is still valuable, if just because Opp do not have it. Secondly if S1 has power in Trump, he doesn’t need it. If he has a weak Next call you would expect him to lead a low trump or off trump. Your Left can take a trick or draw the Right. BPS gives you 1.00 in next, 0.75 Left + 0.25 Void. That’s 0.80 trick. That is close enough to the 1 trick S1 is counting on.

Like I've said before. 3rd Seat, 1st Rd is a mindf*#@!

irishwolf
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Post by irishwolf » Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:25 am

Richard,

I think you are place Way too much emphasis on BPS numeric scores. Rating of hands as 3.25 or 3.50 or 3.75 are only estimates. They should be used for players without a lot of experience. I don't see it moving you to the next level. You have to graduate from this and move to experience by just playing, evaluate the situation in the way of do I need points or protecting score, evaluating skill of your partner/opponents, and then developing sensing skills. I like to think of my partner as only average unless I have more information. Watch his or her play. If too conservative, then you can be more aggressive, etc. If aggressive, then I can be more conservative. When playing, sometimes you have to be conservative and others swing for the fence. Most of the time, just play your hand skillfully.

Just an opinion!

~Irishwolf

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:34 am

irishwolf wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:25 am
Richard,

…. move to experience by just playing, evaluate the situation in the way of do I need points or protecting score, evaluating skill of your partner/opponents, and then developing sensing skills. I like to think of my partner as only average unless I have more information. Watch his or her play. If too conservative, then you can be more aggressive, etc. If aggressive, then I can be more conservative. When playing, sometimes you have to be conservative and others swing for the fence. Most of the time, just play your hand skillfully.

Just an opinion!

~Irishwolf

Good points IrishWolf, but he can do that and incorporate into his bps system with certain values and I think that can help him round out his system.

Tbolt65
Edward

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:33 am

Thanks IrishWolf and Tbolt for your observations. Every point was solid. Tbolt has captured my vision. IrishWolf sees the steps along the way.

I post because OE has shared Euchre knowledge and wisdom with me and I want to share my quantification of OE knowledge and wisdom with OE. I could keep it to myself but that is selfish. My contribution is being able to assign an estimated value to observable factors (Seat, Round, Score, Card strength, Voids, Card Combinations, Up card, Player strength, {Jack & Aces: aka Euchre hand, blocking hand, passing hand} and even card play, despite a recent beginner mistake on Monday night. I hope every reader gains at least some insight from my BPS posts. If not, simply ignore it. My life will not be harmed.

Dlan (Don Bunn creator of OE) recently posted that OE was actually designed for beginners and average players. I developed BPS-Basic as I went from a beginner to average player and beyond. I think BPS-Basic reflects Don’s vision for OE.

The forum has gravitated towards advanced discussions. I struggled at first with the advanced concepts because I did not fully grasp the basic concepts. Some of my questions were weak, off target and worthy of ridicule. I simply ignored posts when they went over my head. In time the concepts made sense. I grasped the concepts and posted appropriate questions, but it took time. Much more time than many people would allow.

I sense that a lot of visitors and first time posters get frustrated and leave our forum. I suggest adding a Forum, “Beginners to Casual Players”, or something similar. Experienced posters will understand, while on that forum, that they are in the nursery of Euchre players. They have to be gentle with the new-borns, infants, toddlers and pre-teens.

What do you think?

irishwolf
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Post by irishwolf » Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:03 am

Richard,
Good comments! You have done well with your progression and refinement of your BPS. I do think a tab or forum for beginners is a good suggestion (lots of work for Don if that is his objective).

Looking down the road for Euchre, the future is attracting new and younger players so this game does not become obsolete and die. Except for Poker, card playing in general is becoming obsolete. I fear that could happen for euchre in the next generation as new recreational activities develop. There are so many things that one can do to occupy your spare time today. This was not so a century ago when cards were the primary recreational activity pre-1900. The neat thing about the history of Euchre is that it came about during the Revolutionary War days of 1776 era, the promotion of the Knaves, the peasants over royalty (i.e. the Jacks) had social significance, both in France and the Colonies of that era. Then it developed into our National Card game during the late 1800s, played at all levels of society. It has a very interesting history (I am writing a history on) not mention some inherent challenging qualities that translates to daily life (strategy, planning, tactics, chance, psychology, assessing human characteristics, etc.).

As for the future of the game, if we all had an objective of introducing new players to Euchre, it just might survive. It's still big at most universities in the Midwest. That is the area to attract new players to the game. If each of us just taught two new players each year. Start euchre clubs in your area. Meet up is a good forum to start euchre meet-ups in your area (I have). About a hundred players over ten years participated, but all had some prior knowledge.

Just some thoughts!

~Irishwolf

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Post by Wes (aka the legend) » Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:59 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:03 am
Looking down the road for Euchre, the future is attracting new and younger players so this game does not become obsolete and die. Except for Poker, card playing in general is becoming obsolete. I fear that could happen for euchre in the next generation as new recreational activities develop. There are so many things that one can do to occupy your spare time today.
At our Vegas tournament I would say most are 60 years or older. And most are in poor shape with known health ailments. I am definitely concerned about the future of this game.

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by Dlan » Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:54 pm

Image

This is from all 2019

There seems to be interest among younger players, although we are not seeing on-line or at even tourneys.

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:35 pm

Dlan, what is the source?

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by Dlan » Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:10 pm

I get reports on this site from google. I'm not really allowed to show them, but I don't think they'll mind if I only show a little piece.

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:51 am

TY. So more than half are 47 and younger, probably, mostly “beginners to casual.” That seems to justify a “Beginner to Casual” forum. What do you think Dlan?

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:44 pm

Richardb02 wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:33 am



Dlan (Don Bunn creator of OE) recently posted that OE was actually designed for beginners and average players. I developed BPS-Basic as I went from a beginner to average player and beyond. I think BPS-Basic reflects Don’s vision for OE.

The forum has gravitated towards advanced discussions. I struggled at first with the advanced concepts because I did not fully grasp the basic concepts. Some of my questions were weak, off target and worthy of ridicule. I simply ignored posts when they went over my head. In time the concepts made sense. I grasped the concepts and posted appropriate questions, but it took time. Much more time than many people would allow.

I sense that a lot of visitors and first time posters get frustrated and leave our forum. I suggest adding a Forum, “Beginners to Casual Players”, or something similar. Experienced posters will understand, while on that forum, that they are in the nursery of Euchre players. They have to be gentle with the new-borns, infants, toddlers and pre-teens.

What do you think?



I think there is enough basic , intermediate,
And advanced concepts that is not in the forum that people can read through on Ohio euchre here. I really don't think we should segregate into two separate boards. While yes there are advanced concepts discussed so are basic ones. No matter how much one reads or what they read. They need to put in the time to play the game of euchre and see how the various situations play out. Much of what I say in the thread, "What makes a good euchre player" is very applicable in that sense. Even if newcomers don't at first understand the advanced concepts they will have a better understanding through their play provided if they have people there to guide them along. Thats kinda what this forum is for. Discussion, guidance and peer review. Hopefully we will get things straighten out for the weekly games so members can have real time learning and critiques that will help foster their game to become better.


Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Post by irishwolf » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:23 pm

Learn comes best when as errors occur (BUT THAT IS CRITICISM??) ... not hours and days later.

.."weekly games so members can have real time learning and critiques that will help foster their game to become better."

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:58 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:23 pm
Learn comes best when as errors occur (BUT THAT IS CRITICISM??) ... not hours and days later.

.."weekly games so members can have real time learning and critiques that will help foster their game to become better."
Hence why it's most imperative to get actual game time in with immediate critiques/analysis. So when mistakes are made or something is done well. That can be reinforced with hands on help from those at the table.

The stuff that comes hours and days later on the forums can be reinforcement of the ideas and concepts shared from the experience at the tables.


Tbolt65
Edward

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:05 pm

The way I mostly learned was playing games and my various astute partners telling me I was wrong. I didn't read any euchre books. It was mostly through the knowledge and sharing of ideas from other players which groomed my game. Plus the enormous amount of time put in to play games. Through various discussions like in Euchre Science helped me to see other ideas as well helped me refine my game.

Ohioeuchre is now that place for many people and an emense resource.


Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Post by irishwolf » Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:10 pm

AGREED!

Richardb02
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Richardb02 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:42 pm

I appreciate your posts Tbolt and IrishWolf.

First let me clear up my terminology and recommendation. I am not recommending a new forum. More accurately it is a new topic on the Message Index titled “Welcome Beginners and Casual Players.” Nothing is lost from how we currently enjoy the website. The intention is to welcome players who are not as intensely interested in Euchre as the core players. Some facts:

I could not upload my screen shots to OE. They were rejected as being too large. Perhaps someone could help me out. In lieu of the screenshots please accept my compilations.
The Top 10 Posters
1. Wes_______366 posts
2. RedDuke___288
3. Irishwolf___259
4. Richardb02_222
5. Tbolt65____142
6. Dlan________95
7. Jblowery____73
8. Marya_______39
9. Patiencepays_36
10. Jspectre____25

Total Posts___1752

The top 5 posters represent 1277 posts and 73% of the posts. We have a great forum for intense Euchre players. I suggest that we are failing to “Welcome Beginners and Casual Players.” More than 50% of visitors to OE are under 47 and probably beginners or casual players. OE is an immense resource of information for them, but our intense approach may be turning them off. What do we have to lose by offering them a friendlier starting point to improving their Euchre game with a dedicated topic on our Message Index (forum)?

Tbolt65
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Post by Tbolt65 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:47 pm

Richardb02 wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:42 pm
I appreciate your posts Tbolt and IrishWolf.

First let me clear up my terminology and recommendation. I am not recommending a new forum. More accurately it is a new topic on the Message Index titled “Welcome Beginners and Casual Players.” Nothing is lost from how we currently enjoy the website. The intention is to welcome players who are not as intensely interested in Euchre.......
Yeah I think that is a welcome idea. Perhaps a brief intro to the forum and perhaps some helpful hints to what part of the site to check out and help direct the newcomers.


Tbolt65
Edward

Post Reply