OHIO WEEKLY  WAS IT LUCK?

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
OHIO WEEKLY  WAS IT LUCK?
The score is 6 to 3 your side ahead, you sit at seat 1 and the JC is the upcard. You hold the KC QC 10C 9C 10S at first seat.
1) Will you Pass or Order the dealer?
2) If you order what the odds of being euchred?
3) If you Pass, what's the chance the dealer will Pass?
4) If the Dealer passes what is your strategy now (pass or make what)?
Take a guess on how this played out?
1) Will you Pass or Order the dealer?
2) If you order what the odds of being euchred?
3) If you Pass, what's the chance the dealer will Pass?
4) If the Dealer passes what is your strategy now (pass or make what)?
Take a guess on how this played out?

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
In the actual hand Seat 1's team was down 63 but I don't think that changes anything.
To get an idea of whether it's worth passing with this hand, let's take a look at a similar situation from Eric Zalas' "Power Euchre Volume 5" book:
My basic strategy: Against someone who will pass Right+1 I will order with the OP's hand. Against a more aggressive player who you can generally count on to order with Right+1, I will pass and trap.EZ: "Hand 125: Seat #1 holds the AceKQ10 of diamonds and the King of clubs. Seat #1 orders the Dealer to pick up the Jack of diamonds. Seat #1 always leads trump. E0 = .778. N = 162
Analysis: This hand has a 92.59% win rate and a mean expected outcome of .778 points per attempt when played from the #1 seat based on a sample size of 162 hands played. If the dealer is a really aggressive player who rarely passes up a Bower, you might pass and induce him to name diamonds trump. When baited, the dealer will pick up the Jack of Diamonds just over 40.12% of the time (i.e. assuming that the dealer always picks up with a ZScore hand >7). Seat #1 will euchre the dealer on 71.64% of the hands in which he names diamonds trump based on a data sample of 167 hands played. By baiting the aggressive dealer to pick up the Bower, seat #1 and his partner will euchre the dealer on roughly 30% of all hands dealt and score .575 points, on average, per hand dealt. If the dealer was really aggressive and named trump with a ZScore > 6, the seat #1 team would euchre the dealer on 46.7% of all hands dealt and score .82 points for every hand that they passed to the dealer."
I don't know, but of course I will guesstimate!
To help hone my guess, I'll look to Hand 153 from Eric Zalas' Book:
The dealer turns down the , and Seat 1 jumps the fence in spades with:
In a sample size of N = 238, this hand got euchred 20.59% of the time.
Now in the OP's hand we are ordering up the Right, a significantly worse scenario. So I'll guess that we'll get euchred somewhere around 30%.
First let's assume the dealer is aggressive and is never turning down Right + 1. So a key clue here would be figuring out how often the Dealer will have at least 1 trump in addition to the Right bower upcard. Mathematically speaking, "At least 1" = "Total  None".
Total = 18!/(185)! 5! = 8,568 combos
None = 16!/(165)! 5! = 4,368 combos
8,568  4368 = 4200
The dealer will have at least one more trump 4200/8568 = 49.02% of the time.
For those who don't like factorials, the probability the dealer has at least 1 more trump = [1  (16/18)(15/17)(14/16)(13/15)(12/14)] = 49.02%
Note: There's only 2 trump unaccounted for in this hand, the AC and the Left.
16/18 represents the probability the first card the dealer looks at in his hand will not be a trump card. 15/17 represents the probability the 2nd card the dealer looks at will not be a trump card after he already knows the first card he looked at is not a trump, and so on.
Ok, so 49.02% of the time the dealer will have at least Right + 1 when seat 1 holds 4 trump. That's a good starting point for guesstimating at how often an aggressive dealer will order up. Now there are some hands an aggressive dealer may turn down even if he has another trump. Imagine if the dealer had hands like these if he passes the JC:
Or
A savvy aggressive dealer is passing both hands, as there's no sense calling marginal when you have a euchre hand should you pass. However a savvy aggressive dealer will also have many hand combos where he is picking up the Right with no other trump! For example:
upcard, and the dealer, a strong player, has a hand like this:
With two off aces, and only blocking 1 out of 3 second round suits a strong player is never passing this hand up 63 or down 63.
Even a hand like this you can expect a strong player to pick up:
upcard,
IMO Right + a doubleton green ace is an order when you block no suits at most scores. I would order this up 63 or down 63.
Ok so overall, knowing that the Dealer will have at least 1 more trump 49% of the time (and the Right + 1 hands that an aggressive dealer will pass on is a very small subset), and knowing that an aggressive dealer will pick up with other hand combos EVEN IF the Right is all he has, we can safely deduce that an aggressive dealer will be ordering up north of 50% even tho Seat 1 has 4 trump in his hand! How North of 50% is anyone's guess. I'll go with 55%, which implies I think the dealer will pass around 45% of the time.
Up 63, easy Next call imo. But even down 63, I'm calling Next with 1 low trump and nothing else, leading the TS praying I hit my partner hard. Gotta bite the bullet someway, I'd rather go down firing then pass a potential nothing hand that has no red cards after the dealer turned down a black jack.
I don't have to guess. I know how the hand played out
I'll just say I believe Seat 1 played the hand very well every street. And no mistakes were made by anyone in this hand.

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
You did a good job breaking this hand down.
I don't know about Eric's calculations on similar hands. I don't agree with some of his strategy, etc. But I do know the specifics for the hand I presented. You are right on parts of 49% for having JS/AC but there is more to it.
So here goes if you want to follow the statistical nature of euchres, my forte:
For the dealer, having either JS or AC is 49% (just call it 50%  half the time). However, 6.5% of that 49%, he will have both JS & AC. Nothing more needed here for a euchre. However, that leavces 42% either the JS or the AC. But here the AS has to also be with the dealer or his partner to win the 3rd trick. Even if the AS is buried, the KS is in play. And if the KS is also buried the QS is in play. So it is 2 to 1 (2/3s or 66%) the dealer's side wins the 9S eldest has. So you have to multiply 2/3s x 42% = 28% and add the 6.5% = 34.5% for euchres. That is easy math or statistics to follow for considering the dealer's holdings+.
But we are not done. What about the other times when the dealer is void of either the JS or AC, it could also be with his partner.? You missed this part. So the math is the same, but only counts when S2 has both JS & AC = 6.5%. (the 42% for either is subtracted) And here, the partnership must also have the AS at the same time (hand). So 6.5% (JS/AC) x 2/3s (AS) = ~4.3% and this has to be added to the 34.5% (from above) = ~39% EUCHRE RATE.
We could nit pick when being squeezed with AS & AX). One of the suits will be eliminated when the first trick is won and that leaves 2 suits left. Sometimes the holder will be squeezed down to trick 4 with ACES/KINGS (small %) to save. Not worth calculating, so maybe subtract 1%.
So the euchre rate will be close to 38%, played many times over, statistically. Surprisingly high and it cuts both ways. Replace one of eldest's trumps with the AC? Surprisingly, it does not change significantly as the low trump can be played to the first lead unless the player goes brain dead and goes high.
~Irishwolf
_________
To help hone my guess, I'll look to Hand 153 from Eric Zalas' Book:
The dealer turns down the , and Seat 1 jumps the fence in spades with:
In a sample size of N = 238, this hand got euchred 20.59% of the time.
Now in the OP's hand we are ordering up the Right, a significantly worse scenario. So I'll guess that we'll get euchred somewhere around 30%.
I don't know about Eric's calculations on similar hands. I don't agree with some of his strategy, etc. But I do know the specifics for the hand I presented. You are right on parts of 49% for having JS/AC but there is more to it.
So here goes if you want to follow the statistical nature of euchres, my forte:
For the dealer, having either JS or AC is 49% (just call it 50%  half the time). However, 6.5% of that 49%, he will have both JS & AC. Nothing more needed here for a euchre. However, that leavces 42% either the JS or the AC. But here the AS has to also be with the dealer or his partner to win the 3rd trick. Even if the AS is buried, the KS is in play. And if the KS is also buried the QS is in play. So it is 2 to 1 (2/3s or 66%) the dealer's side wins the 9S eldest has. So you have to multiply 2/3s x 42% = 28% and add the 6.5% = 34.5% for euchres. That is easy math or statistics to follow for considering the dealer's holdings+.
But we are not done. What about the other times when the dealer is void of either the JS or AC, it could also be with his partner.? You missed this part. So the math is the same, but only counts when S2 has both JS & AC = 6.5%. (the 42% for either is subtracted) And here, the partnership must also have the AS at the same time (hand). So 6.5% (JS/AC) x 2/3s (AS) = ~4.3% and this has to be added to the 34.5% (from above) = ~39% EUCHRE RATE.
We could nit pick when being squeezed with AS & AX). One of the suits will be eliminated when the first trick is won and that leaves 2 suits left. Sometimes the holder will be squeezed down to trick 4 with ACES/KINGS (small %) to save. Not worth calculating, so maybe subtract 1%.
So the euchre rate will be close to 38%, played many times over, statistically. Surprisingly high and it cuts both ways. Replace one of eldest's trumps with the AC? Surprisingly, it does not change significantly as the low trump can be played to the first lead unless the player goes brain dead and goes high.
~Irishwolf
_________
To help hone my guess, I'll look to Hand 153 from Eric Zalas' Book:
The dealer turns down the , and Seat 1 jumps the fence in spades with:
In a sample size of N = 238, this hand got euchred 20.59% of the time.
Now in the OP's hand we are ordering up the Right, a significantly worse scenario. So I'll guess that we'll get euchred somewhere around 30%.

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
Oops, I needed to add the 1% not subtract it when the opponents get Squeezed with AS/AX. now at 40% euchre rate.
~Irishwolf
~Irishwolf

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
I was curious about the 20.59% euchre rate of Eric's hand. I reviewed Hand 153 which on the surface looks similar, where S1 jumped the fence with almost the same type of hand from Ohio Weekly and had a euchre rate of 20.59%. But like the dog and the wolf which looks similar, this is a very different situation. So why is that so?
Because a very significant card is the upcard, the JC in one hand, but not the other. This makes the comparison significantly different. In Eric's hand 153, the Right, Left and Ace of trump are all unknown and can be distributed to not only the opponents but also your partner. The off suit ace, is no change of either hand. Thus, the location of the Right bower is unknown in Hand 153. It could be with your partner  27% or could be buried  17% (44%) which favors S1 in Hand 153 and reduces the euchre rate. So no wonder that this cuts the euchre rate in half. I did not go through the calculations to see precisely what it would be, but I think it is close. Maybe I will do that in my sleep tonight!
Thus comparing the two is very misleading which I am sure giving it a second look, you will also agree.
~Irishwolf
To help hone my guess, I'll look to Hand 153 from Eric Zalas' Book:
The dealer turns down the , and Seat 1 jumps the fence in spades with:
In a sample size of N = 238, this hand got euchred 20.59% of the time.
Because a very significant card is the upcard, the JC in one hand, but not the other. This makes the comparison significantly different. In Eric's hand 153, the Right, Left and Ace of trump are all unknown and can be distributed to not only the opponents but also your partner. The off suit ace, is no change of either hand. Thus, the location of the Right bower is unknown in Hand 153. It could be with your partner  27% or could be buried  17% (44%) which favors S1 in Hand 153 and reduces the euchre rate. So no wonder that this cuts the euchre rate in half. I did not go through the calculations to see precisely what it would be, but I think it is close. Maybe I will do that in my sleep tonight!
Thus comparing the two is very misleading which I am sure giving it a second look, you will also agree.
~Irishwolf
To help hone my guess, I'll look to Hand 153 from Eric Zalas' Book:
The dealer turns down the , and Seat 1 jumps the fence in spades with:
In a sample size of N = 238, this hand got euchred 20.59% of the time.

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
Okay, I was just poking fun. The real number of Eric's Hand 153 for euchre rate is actually closer to 22.2% than his reported number of 20.59% (but close enough considering all things).
Taking a short cut, the difference is 40% minus the Right bower from Hand 153 which we know is 44.4% (buried or with S3). 40% minus [44.4% x 40% = 17.76] = 22.2%. Eric did not do 400 hand which is standard practice, would have gotten him closer to the true euchre rate. That is why you have not take his numbers as being exact, most cases +/2% would be my guesstimate. Not surprising though 1.6% difference between the two is well within the margin of error for sample size.
~Irishwolf
Taking a short cut, the difference is 40% minus the Right bower from Hand 153 which we know is 44.4% (buried or with S3). 40% minus [44.4% x 40% = 17.76] = 22.2%. Eric did not do 400 hand which is standard practice, would have gotten him closer to the true euchre rate. That is why you have not take his numbers as being exact, most cases +/2% would be my guesstimate. Not surprising though 1.6% difference between the two is well within the margin of error for sample size.
~Irishwolf

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
I agree 100% with everything you're saying. Extrapolating from nonanalogous events is generally a terrible way to find truths or figure anything out with precision. But as I was just guessing and didn't care if I was wrong, I figured extrapolating from a nonanalogous event was better than nothing.irishwolf wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:34 pmI was curious about the 20.59% euchre rate of Eric's hand. I reviewed Hand 153 which on the surface looks similar, where S1 jumped the fence with almost the same type of hand from Ohio Weekly and had a euchre rate of 20.59%. But like the dog and the wolf which looks similar, this is a very different situation. So why is that so?
Because a very significant card is the upcard, the JC in one hand, but not the other. This makes the comparison significantly different. In Eric's hand 153, the Right, Left and Ace of trump are all unknown and can be distributed to not only the opponents but also your partner. The off suit ace, is no change of either hand. Thus, the location of the Right bower is unknown in Hand 153. It could be with your partner  27% or could be buried  17% (44%) which favors S1 in Hand 153 and reduces the euchre rate. So no wonder that this cuts the euchre rate in half. I did not go through the calculations to see precisely what it would be, but I think it is close. Maybe I will do that in my sleep tonight!
Thus comparing the two is very misleading which I am sure giving it a second look, you will also agree.
~Irishwolf
Well yeah, most of Eric's strategy advice is ridiculous, but I do think some of his hand simulations can be useful. And I like how Hand 125 shows that bagging the dealer with 4 trump when the upcard is the Right, is a viable strategy.
Won't Seat 1's euchre rate be less than 38% tho due to the fact that he's not completely married to the Spade suit with his TS? For example, say Seat 1 calls trump and leads it, and the dealer takes the first trick, and now the dealer leads a nonAce Heart or Diamond. The correct move for Seat 1 would be to throw off the TS hoping his partner has the boss card in either one of those suits. This should lower Seat 1's euchre rate. By how much IDK.irishwolf wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:34 pmYou are right on parts of 49% for having JS/AC but there is more to it.
So here goes if you want to follow the statistical nature of euchres, my forte:
For the dealer, having either JS or AC is 49% (just call it 50%  half the time). However, 6.5% of that 49%, he will have both JS & AC. Nothing more needed here for a euchre. However, that leavces 42% either the JS or the AC. But here the AS has to also be with the dealer or his partner to win the 3rd trick. Even if the AS is buried, the KS is in play. And if the KS is also buried the QS is in play. So it is 2 to 1 (2/3s or 66%) the dealer's side wins the 9S eldest has. So you have to multiply 2/3s x 42% = 28% and add the 6.5% = 34.5% for euchres. That is easy math or statistics to follow for considering the dealer's holdings+.
But we are not done. What about the other times when the dealer is void of either the JS or AC, it could also be with his partner.? You missed this part. So the math is the same, but only counts when S2 has both JS & AC = 6.5%. (the 42% for either is subtracted) And here, the partnership must also have the AS at the same time (hand). So 6.5% (JS/AC) x 2/3s (AS) = ~4.3% and this has to be added to the 34.5% (from above) = ~39% EUCHRE RATE.
We could nit pick when being squeezed with AS & AX). One of the suits will be eliminated when the first trick is won and that leaves 2 suits left. Sometimes the holder will be squeezed down to trick 4 with ACES/KINGS (small %) to save. Not worth calculating, so maybe subtract 1%.
So the euchre rate will be close to 38%, played many times over, statistically. Surprisingly high and it cuts both ways. Replace one of eldest's trumps with the AC? Surprisingly, it does not change significantly as the low trump can be played to the first lead unless the player goes brain dead and goes high.

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
Yes, it could be true for all leads by the Dealer. There would then be a 50% chance after sloughing that his partner could win the trick vs 66% saving it to the last for a nonace lead. So that does reduce the euchre rate about ~6% down from 40% in your scenario. So now you know both. In Erik's computer program, I have no idea of how it would have been programmed it with Hand 153 under those circumstances, or what he did when squeezed for the last trick with two aces?
"For example, say Seat 1 calls trump and leads it, and the dealer takes the first trick, and now the dealer leads a nonAce Heart or Diamond. The correct move for Seat 1 would be to throw off the TS hoping his partner has the boss card in either one of those suits. This should lower Seat 1's euchre rate." I agree!
"For example, say Seat 1 calls trump and leads it, and the dealer takes the first trick, and now the dealer leads a nonAce Heart or Diamond. The correct move for Seat 1 would be to throw off the TS hoping his partner has the boss card in either one of those suits. This should lower Seat 1's euchre rate." I agree!

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
Ok cool, so assume Seat 1 plays well, if he calls he will euchred approx 34% of the time. Just curious, Irishwolf what do you think of my guesstimate that the dealer's team will call clubs around 55% of the time in this scenario? Reasonable? Too high, too low?irishwolf wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:37 pmYes, it could be true for all leads by the Dealer. There would then be a 50% chance after sloughing that his partner could win the trick vs 66% saving it to the last for a nonace lead. So that does reduce the euchre rate about ~6% down from 40% in your scenario. So now you know both. In Erik's computer program, I have no idea of how it would have been programmed it with Hand 153 under those circumstances, or what he did when squeezed for the last trick with two aces?
"For example, say Seat 1 calls trump and leads it, and the dealer takes the first trick, and now the dealer leads a nonAce Heart or Diamond. The correct move for Seat 1 would be to throw off the TS hoping his partner has the boss card in either one of those suits. This should lower Seat 1's euchre rate." I agree!
And what would you do if you passed, and the dealer passed. Do you call Next or pass? Would your strategy differ btw up 63 and down 36?

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
Wes,
That's a tough one. In the actual hand I guessed 90%, knowing some things. With that hand, I would not order and call next.
I suspect the average player, probably around 40% but with the left or ace. Women are more conservative, so lower there unless both bowers  27%. Good players those in the 75 percentile and above, they do it without another trump some without an ace and nothing in next or to run to. So many variables to consider. Knowing who the dealer is and their tendencies is critical.
Until I did the calculations I thought ordering the euchre rate was much lower  25 to 30%. I would only worry anticipate the dealer had Left or Ace, not worrying about my 9S too much as four trumps is a very strong hand.
All in all, I agreed with your assessment. Good analysis.
Just curious, Irishwolf what do you think of my guesstimate that the dealer's team will call clubs around 55% of the time in this scenario? Reasonable? Too high, too low?
That's a tough one. In the actual hand I guessed 90%, knowing some things. With that hand, I would not order and call next.
I suspect the average player, probably around 40% but with the left or ace. Women are more conservative, so lower there unless both bowers  27%. Good players those in the 75 percentile and above, they do it without another trump some without an ace and nothing in next or to run to. So many variables to consider. Knowing who the dealer is and their tendencies is critical.
Until I did the calculations I thought ordering the euchre rate was much lower  25 to 30%. I would only worry anticipate the dealer had Left or Ace, not worrying about my 9S too much as four trumps is a very strong hand.
All in all, I agreed with your assessment. Good analysis.
Just curious, Irishwolf what do you think of my guesstimate that the dealer's team will call clubs around 55% of the time in this scenario? Reasonable? Too high, too low?

 Posts: 383
 Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
 Location: Florida
irishwolf wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:30 pmThe score is 6 to 3 your side ahead, you sit at seat 1 and the JC is the upcard. You hold the KC QC 10C 9C 10S at first seat.
1) Will you Pass or Order the dealer?
Let’s analyze with the simpler BPS and compare to the more detailed analysis:
0.25 S1 R1
0.50 Kc
0.50 Qc
0.25 Tc
0.25 9c
0.75 2 Voids
0.75 4 Trump no Bowers
.75 Min Value of Up Card (0.25, 9) minus Value of Upcard, (R,1.00)
2.50 vs. 2.25 min (65% expectation), 3.75 (95% expectation)
Simple interpolation yields 70% expectation and 30% euchred.
Simple EV: 70% x 1  30% x 2 = +0.70 .60 = +.10
[On 1/19/20 I corrected the EV]
So far, with a positive EV, I lean towards an Order.
2) If you order what the odds of being euchred?
30% per #1
3) If you Pass, what's the chance the dealer will Pass?
I enjoyed the discussion but the answer is not germane to my analysis. I pass on #3
4) If the Dealer passes what is your strategy now (pass or make what)?
I will only pass if the value of the R2 hand is equal or greater than my R1 hand or if I have a euchre hand (and maybe a blocking hand). I keep it that simple. The only R2 hand worth considering is Next:
0.50 S1 R2
0.75 S1 R2 Next
0.25 Ts
0.75 2 Voids
.50 Only 1 trump
1.75 Value vs 2.25 minimum
Interpolating, I “guesstimate” a 50% success rate.
EV: 50% x 1  50% x 2 = 0.50  1.00 = .50
So I definitely order this hand.
In addition, this hand is so weak, I am not confident that it even deserves a 1.75 value. Yes, that is my gut reaction. Logically, weak hands are not accurately reflected in the BPS. Weak hands are weak, to paraphrase an OE lesson. This hand does not have a good chance of taking 1 trick. Observationally but dynamically, this hand does not have a good lead to take advantage of S1 R2. This factor negates the 0.50 value of S1 R2, at a minimum. So if I subtract 0.50, I now have BPS 1.25. It even weakens the value of S1 R2 Next, so subtracting another 0.25 or 0.50 makes sense. I am now down to 0.75, a 60% expectation to take 1 trick. This is an excellent example of applying BPS even when the factors are not detailed. It is a concept as much as a quantitative approach to playing.
I will answer, “take a guess on how this hand played out.” This is a reminder to newer players that it does not matter how a particular hand plays out. I have estimated a 70% success/ 30% euchre outcome. You have to experience about 400 hands (this number was offered on OE, wasn’t it?) to have a definitive answer.
What is more useful to me is to count cards. If the distribution of cards went against me, I have no problem accepting an euchre. With that mindset, I can easily refocus on the next hand. If the distribution was “normal” and we lost, I look first at how I played the hand. Did I play it reasonable well? Was there something that I missed? Does the website, like WoCG (World of Card Games) allow me to replay (and/or save the hand. I have to accept responsibility first. I can only very rarely change my partner or opponents.
Take a guess on how this played out?
Last edited by Richardb02 on Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

 Posts: 490
 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
So the result was the dealer picked up the JC but also had two red aces. He only won the first trick. The JS & JC fell to the first lead of trump. S3 had the AS.

 Posts: 383
 Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
 Location: Florida
Wes (aka the legend) wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:26 am
To get an idea of whether it's worth passing with this hand, let's take a look at a similar situation from Eric Zalas' "Power Euchre Volume 5" book:
I want to compare BPS to EZ:EZ: "Hand 125: Seat #1 holds the AceKQ10 of diamonds and the King of clubs. Seat #1 orders the Dealer to pick up the Jack of diamonds. Seat #1 always leads trump. E0 = .778. N = 162
Analysis: This hand has a 92.59% win rate and a mean expected outcome of .778 points per attempt when played from the #1 seat based on a sample size of 162 hands played. If the dealer is a really aggressive player who rarely passes up a Bower, you might pass and induce him to name diamonds trump. When baited, the dealer will pick up the Jack of Diamonds just over 40.12% of the time (i.e. assuming that the dealer always picks up with a ZScore hand >7). Seat #1 will euchre the dealer on 71.64% of the hands in which he names diamonds trump based on a data sample of 167 hands played. By baiting the aggressive dealer to pick up the Bower, seat #1 and his partner will euchre the dealer on roughly 30% of all hands dealt and score .575 points, on average, per hand dealt. If the dealer was really aggressive and named trump with a ZScore > 6, the seat #1 team would euchre the dealer on 46.7% of all hands dealt and score .82 points for every hand that they passed to the dealer."
0.25 S1 R1
0.50 Ad
0.50 Kd
0.50 Qd
0.25 Td
0.75 2 Voids
0.75 4 Trump No Bowers
.75. Strong Up Card Adjustment
2.75 min 2.25 (65% success rate) 3.75 (95% Success Rate)
[Note: +.25 point stronger hand than the OP, +5% Success Rate]
75% Success Rate via interpolation
25% Euchre Rate
EV: 75% x 1  25% x 2 = .75  .50 = +.25
[My EV of the OP was incorrect at +.40, I corrected it to +.10]
My most important takeaway is my 25% euchre rate compares to
EZ’s 20.6% based on his limited simulation compared to
23% Irishwolf’s estimation
Conclusion: Simple BPS correlates well to:
EZ’s “Mythical Euchre Simulator” and to:
Irishwolf’s impressive, detailed analysis
My Question:
Why turn down a positive EV, when there is no definitive analysis yielding expected positive results?

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
This is not the right approach to Seat 1 play. Becuz passing in the first round gives you the opportunity to euchre the enemy, your R2 option can be worse than your R1 option, and yet passing can still be correct. Now how much worse your R2 option can be is of course a whole other discussion, which can only be resolved hand by hand becuz so many variables go into it (especially individual tendencies). What matters right now is recognizing that your approach of wanting your R2 hand to be equal or greater than your R1 hand before you'll pass HAS to be theoretically wrong becuz you're ignoring the benefit of having a chance to euchre the enemy in the first round.Richardb02 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:07 amI will only pass if the value of the R2 hand is equal or greater than my R1 hand or if I have a euchre hand (and maybe a blocking hand).
Last edited by Wes (aka the legend) on Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
For those who'd like to see the hand play out:
https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
Here's a rudimentary EV analysis on calling vs passing (with the intention of calling Next).
First some assumptions.
1) The dealer is aggressive, so we can expect his team to order up around 55% of the time.
2) If Seat 1 orders, he will get euchred 34% of the time
3) If Seat 1 passes, and the dealer passes, Seat 1 will call Next and get euchred 75% of the time, make a point 23% of the time and score two points 2% of the time.
Where did I get those Next call numbers? They're just guesstimates honed from other nonanalogous hands in Eric Zalas' book:
Overall I think the assumptions of our Next call with 1 low trump and no aces getting euchred 75% of the time, making a point 23% of the time, and getting lucky and scoring 2 points 2% of the time are conservative/reasonable enough.
Ok so here we go:
The EO (expected outcome) of calling is simple enough once we go with the 34% euchre rate:
EO of calling: (.34 x 2) + (.66 x 1) = .02
The EO of passing is a tad more complicated becuz we have to account for those times the dealer's team orders up and those times the dealer's team passes and we call next. Remember we assumed the dealer's team would pick up 55% of the time, and thus pass 45%:
EO of passing: [.55((.66 x 2) + (.34 x 1))] + [.45((.75 x 2) + (.23 x 1) + (2 x .02))] = .0145
Ok so the EV of passing is .0145 + .02 = +.0055.
Versus an aggressive dealer passing so slightly beats out calling that we have to call it a statistical tie. So Irishwolf's play is at least defensible. No one can say it's wrong if they accept the above assumptions as reasonable.
What's more interesting tho is when we assume the dealer is NOT that aggressive. Say the dealer plays more in the normal/average range and only orders up in this spot at a 40% frequency. Let's see what happens now.
The EO of calling is still the same:
EO of calling: (.34 x 2) + (.66 x 1) = .02
But the EO of passing takes a big hit:
E0 of passing: [.40((.66 x 2) + (.34 x 1))] + [.60((.75 x 2) + (.23 x 1) + (2 x .02))] = .346
Now the EV of passing vs an average dealer is .346 + .02 = .326
That's a big enough difference btw passing and calling where I think we can confidently say, passing this holding vs an average dealer is NOT a good play. Passing this hand vs an average dealer costs your team almost a third of a point on average.
This hand is a good illustration on how the nature of our opponent(s) can impact our strategy.
First some assumptions.
1) The dealer is aggressive, so we can expect his team to order up around 55% of the time.
2) If Seat 1 orders, he will get euchred 34% of the time
3) If Seat 1 passes, and the dealer passes, Seat 1 will call Next and get euchred 75% of the time, make a point 23% of the time and score two points 2% of the time.
Where did I get those Next call numbers? They're just guesstimates honed from other nonanalogous hands in Eric Zalas' book:
Being able to lead with the Right is considerably better than leading with the TS, so we know our Next call numbers need to be worse than these.EZ: Hand 217. Dealer turns down the King of hearts. Seat #1 holds the Jack of diamonds, Queen10 of spades, and the King9 of clubs. Seat #1 names "next" and plays diamonds trump. E0 = .893. N = 403.
Takes 3 tricks: 30.27%
Takes all 5 tricks: 4.96%
Euchred 64.76%
Seat 1 jumps the fence with no trump, no aces. Our Next call numbers should fair better than these.EZ: Hand 222. Dealer turns down the 9 of hearts. Seat #1 holds the Queen9 of spades, the 109 of diamonds, and the 10 of hearts. Seat #1 names clubs trump. E0 = 1.284. N = 204.
Takes 3 tricks: 22.55%.
Takes all 5 tricks .98%.
Euchred 76.47%
Seat 1 calls Next with no trump, no aces and leads off with the worst possible card, the turned down suit. Our numbers should beat those numbers out.EZ: Hand 223. Dealer turns down the 10 of hearts. Seat #1 holds the 109 of clubs, the 109 of spades, and the 9 of hearts. Seat #1 names diamonds "next" and leads the 9 of hearts. EO = 1.367. N = 251
Takes 3 tricks: 17.93%
Takes all 5 tricks: 2.39%
Euchred 79.68%
Overall I think the assumptions of our Next call with 1 low trump and no aces getting euchred 75% of the time, making a point 23% of the time, and getting lucky and scoring 2 points 2% of the time are conservative/reasonable enough.
Ok so here we go:
The EO (expected outcome) of calling is simple enough once we go with the 34% euchre rate:
EO of calling: (.34 x 2) + (.66 x 1) = .02
The EO of passing is a tad more complicated becuz we have to account for those times the dealer's team orders up and those times the dealer's team passes and we call next. Remember we assumed the dealer's team would pick up 55% of the time, and thus pass 45%:
EO of passing: [.55((.66 x 2) + (.34 x 1))] + [.45((.75 x 2) + (.23 x 1) + (2 x .02))] = .0145
Ok so the EV of passing is .0145 + .02 = +.0055.
Versus an aggressive dealer passing so slightly beats out calling that we have to call it a statistical tie. So Irishwolf's play is at least defensible. No one can say it's wrong if they accept the above assumptions as reasonable.
What's more interesting tho is when we assume the dealer is NOT that aggressive. Say the dealer plays more in the normal/average range and only orders up in this spot at a 40% frequency. Let's see what happens now.
The EO of calling is still the same:
EO of calling: (.34 x 2) + (.66 x 1) = .02
But the EO of passing takes a big hit:
E0 of passing: [.40((.66 x 2) + (.34 x 1))] + [.60((.75 x 2) + (.23 x 1) + (2 x .02))] = .346
Now the EV of passing vs an average dealer is .346 + .02 = .326
That's a big enough difference btw passing and calling where I think we can confidently say, passing this holding vs an average dealer is NOT a good play. Passing this hand vs an average dealer costs your team almost a third of a point on average.
This hand is a good illustration on how the nature of our opponent(s) can impact our strategy.

 Posts: 383
 Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
 Location: Florida
I will agree immediately that requiring R2=>R1 (my Round 2 evaluation must be equal to or greater than my R1 evaluation) is theoretically incorrect.Wes (aka the legend) wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:28 amThis is not the right approach to Seat 1 play. Becuz passing in the first round gives you the opportunity to euchre the enemy, your R2 option can be worse than your R1 option, and yet passing can still be correct. Now how much worse your R2 option can be is of course a whole other discussion, which can only be resolved hand by hand becuz so many variables go into it (especially individual tendencies). What matters right now is recognizing that your approach of wanting your R2 hand to be equal or greater than your R1 hand before you'll pass HAS to be theoretically wrong becuz you're ignoring the benefit of having a chance to euchre the enemy in the first round.Richardb02 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:07 amI will only pass if the value of the R2 hand is equal or greater than my R1 hand or if I have a euchre hand (and maybe a blocking hand).
However, it is a serious hurdle, before I would Consider a pass. That places the burden on you, suggesting a pass. Your evidence must be convincing.
I watched you and IW go through the analysis of the card distribution and the expected euchre rate go from 40% to 38% to 34%. (I am not questioning the statistical analysis. That is not my forte). I simply consider all of that analysis relatively, as static analysis, the analysis of the cards in the hand. I think that the rudimentary BPS is better at dynamic analysis, the analysis of cards as they are played. (Of course that is debatable but that is why we post). BPS predicts a 30% euchre rate based on simplified values for S1 leading, 4 trump, having 2 voids, the power of 4 weak trump and a negative adjustment for the R Up Card. I suggest that the BPS’ takes into account an additional factor or 2. So even if it suffers from less refined observations, it provides more thorough analysis. If IMHO, your EV would have to be advantageous with a 30% euchre rate to meet the hurdle. It does not.
Secondly, your analysis of passing is definitely questionable IMO. You talk about an Aggressive vs Weak Dealer. I suggest that is static analysis. I use Smart vs Average Dealer. I suggest that is dynamic analysis. Using Wes as an example, he is an aggressive player but more accurately a smart player. Wes often passes “strong” hands making him look nonaggressive, but that is playing smart, taking into account jacks, aces and scores. Don talks about changing up your play to confuse your opponents. In my case, 6 months ago, I was an aggressive player, almost always ordering. But now, I take into account the more subtle factors and pass more often. So I am playing smarter, if not yet rising to the level of smart player. So I have no confidence in a 55% expectation of the Dealer picking up if I pass.
So emphasizing practice over theory, I will require stronger evidence that passing is the best choice, with this and similar hands.
Thirdly, I suggest that BPS looks at hands of similar strengths when the BPS value is the same. The BPS’ forte of quantitatively amalgamating observable factors and grouping hands of similar probabilities is much more powerful than expected. In short, the totality of the BPS evaluation is much greater than the sum of its components. That also defines dynamic analysis vs static analysis!
I realize that I am privileged to be posting with much more experienced, deeper thinking players. Thank you for considering my current conclusions. I offer them as my collective assimilation of what I have learned from OE and the very knowledgeable posters to OE. They are a tribute to OE and the posters, not meant as a slight in any shape, form or fashion. I hope that all y’all will continue to let me play Monday nights!

 Posts: 727
 Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
Yeah, an easy response is to say never order in the first round from Seat 1 when you have a 2nd round hand (unless you have a loner in the first round). And just remember that your 2nd round hand can be worse than your first round hand, and passing can still be correct due to the benefit of getting a chance to euchre your enemy in the first round (this logic doesn't apply in 99 scenarios). That's the general idea, but of course it's not always that simple. The devil's in the details, so as far as mounting strong arguments/providing convincing evidence, we will leave that to a hand by hand basis.Richardb02 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:52 pmI will agree immediately that requiring R2=>R1 (my Round 2 evaluation must be equal to or greater than my R1 evaluation) is theoretically incorrect.
However, it is a serious hurdle, before I would Consider a pass. That places the burden on you, suggesting a pass. Your evidence must be convincing.
Well I wouldn't put too much faith in any of those euchre numbers, yours or Irishwolf's. I mean I would bet on 34% being closer to the truth than 30% but who really knows until we simulate this spot for thousands of hands.Richardb02 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:52 pmI watched you and IW go through the analysis of the card distribution and the expected euchre rate go from 40% to 38% to 34%. (I am not questioning the statistical analysis. That is not my forte). I simply consider all of that analysis relatively, as static analysis, the analysis of the cards in the hand. I think that the rudimentary BPS is better at dynamic analysis, the analysis of cards as they are played. (Of course that is debatable but that is why we post). BPS predicts a 30% euchre rate based on simplified values for S1 leading, 4 trump, having 2 voids, the power of 4 weak trump and a negative adjustment for the R Up Card. I suggest that the BPS’ takes into account an additional factor or 2. So even if it suffers from less refined observations, it provides more thorough analysis.
Becuz we are dealing with guesstimates and not precision, your idea of wanting a margin of safety before you pull the trigger and pass is perfectly rational!Richardb02 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:52 pmIf IMHO, your EV would have to be advantageous with a 30% euchre rate to meet the hurdle. It does not.
Well the 55% is just a guesstimate. You have every rational right to be skeptical of it! I mean I think we can all agree it's in the right ballpark given that we know the dealer will have at least R+1 here 49.02% of the time, and we know the aggressive dealer has a calling range even if the Right is his only trump. But I still would not put much faith in that number either.Richardb02 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:52 pmSecondly, your analysis of passing is definitely questionable IMO. You talk about an Aggressive vs Weak Dealer. I suggest that is static analysis. I use Smart vs Average Dealer. I suggest that is dynamic analysis. Using Wes as an example, he is an aggressive player but more accurately a smart player. Wes often passes “strong” hands making him look nonaggressive, but that is playing smart, taking into account jacks, aces and scores. Don talks about changing up your play to confuse your opponents. In my case, 6 months ago, I was an aggressive player, almost always ordering. But now, I take into account the more subtle factors and pass more often. So I am playing smarter, if not yet rising to the level of smart player. So I have no confidence in a 55% expectation of the Dealer picking up if I pass.
And I agree that the distinction between smart and aggressive is very real and not merely semantics. Altho it is rare to find the dumb/aggressive phenotype out there, most people are too passive after all, BUT I actually think nearly ALL people will make dumb/aggressive plays from time to time. E.G. even passive players can make 3rd Seat, 1st calls they shouldn't make, and even passive players will order up their partner's bower when they shouldn't. And even looking at my play, I know there are several spots where good players think I'm too aggressiveinvariably defensive calls I feel compelled to makeand they could easily be right. The jury is still out on some of those plays until we get hard data.
Going back to my EV calcs, when passing is wrong you pay a relatively heavy price. When passing is correct, you don't really gain much. In fact it was a statistical tie. What this means is you SHOULD require a high burden of proof before you pass in this spot. So your way of thinking about this is absolutely right!Richardb02 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:52 pmSo emphasizing practice over theory, I will require stronger evidence that passing is the best choice, with this and similar hands.
I would still say Irishwolf played the hand well tho. He was passing for the right reasons, and the EV calcs at least suggest he could be right.