Donates from the "Monday" Night Game - Block tracker

Ask questions, discuss and debate your strategies, euchre polls and more
User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Donates from the "Monday" Night Game - Block tracker

Unread post by Dlan » Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:55 pm

I've set up a simple spreadsheet to track the next 100 donations from our Monday games.

I will be including all donation calls plus my best guess on what may happen if first seat passes.

All data will include links to the corresponding games.

This will only cover first round calls.

Hopefully, this will provide some useful data on the risks and rewards of donating.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Scroll to the end of the spreadsheet for totals and average percentages.



User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:17 pm

can you also put who called the donate in another column? I'm willing to bet Wes has at least 50 and the rest of us combined dont :)

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:52 am

In a group of experienced players, such as those that play on Mondays, there will be those that tend to donate more than others. There will also be those that tend to donate less. Over 100 hands it should average out.

The object of this spreadsheet is to show the risks and rewards of donating.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:17 am

Dlan wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:55 pm
I've set up a simple spreadsheet to track the next 100 donations from our Monday games.

I will be including all donation calls plus my best guess on what may happen if first seat passes.
This part is critically important since obviously what we're trying to measure here is the cost of passing vs the cost of donating, but this part will also be inherently debatable. To figure out the cost of passing I simply play out the hand on the kitchen table making what I think is the very best decision for each player at each juncture of the hand (always assuming they can't see anyone's cards of course). In reality players make mistakes and what I think is the best decision may not be. Hence the inherently debatable part. But I don't think this is a big deal. It's just the way it is and at the end of the day we'll still get a pretty good estimate. And we'll also be able to all work together on this. If one guy claims the cost of passing is -2 points. Any of us can verify that by playing the hand out ourselves. This exercise will invariably lead to debate on what line is optimal for a given player which will be interesting and fruitful in itself.
Dlan wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:55 pm
All data will include links to the corresponding games.
Yep. Love the links. Now if say me and you play in a ranked game together after the main game has broken up, I still think you should include those donates that me and you may make, but that's up to you. If you want to only stick to the main game that's fine. My thinking is the faster we accumulate data the better.
Dlan wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:55 pm
This will only cover first round calls.
What's interesting to me tho is that not all donates are equal. For me there are basically 3 categories of donates.

1) The up 9-7/9-6 donates. These are the simplest of donates. If you're unguarded you donate. Since we are always donating when we are unguarded these donates will have the worst expected outcome. Irishwolf once brought up that he suspected that some of these donates may not be correct. I suspect he is right, but I don't see how we could prove that without a real simulation. I wouldn't worry about that tho. But it's worth pointing out that these donates will perform the worst. A mitigating factor is the legal communication this play sets up, as 3rd seat can now make looser but correct calls to win the game knowing his P in S1 is always guarded, but this cool play barely ever happens in reality. It's always a pleasure when it does tho.

2) Donates when my team is up 2 points or more.

3) Donates when my team is up 1 pt or less.

I will have a distinctly different donating range for each of these 3 categories. Category 3 will have the tightest range and thus the best expected outcome although I don't expect there to be a huge difference between 2) and 3). There will be a large difference between 1) and the rest tho. As said 1) will perform the worst.
Dlan wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:55 pm
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Scroll to the end of the spreadsheet for totals and average percentages.
I like the first 3 columns: Upcard, score, and first seat hand. And I like the links to the hand column. The rest seems unnecessary to me as it could all be condensed into these columns:

1) Cost of donate
2) Cost of passing
3) The difference between the two.

For example. I donate and get euchred. The cost of the donate is 2 points. But that donate blocked a 4 point enemy loner. So the cost of passing was 4 points. The difference between the two would be 4-2 = +2 pts. I.E. donating made my team 2 points. That running total is what we need in the spreadsheet. That's the critical number we need to capture. Sometimes a donate will not cost your team even if your P is guarded and your team gets euchred. That occurs when a pass would've led to everyone passing and S1's 2nd round call gets euchred.

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:35 am

By only showing the first round, anyone can look at the raw data and decide if they agree.

Projecting the outcome of a hand, and thus giving a plus or minus total, would require a lot of speculation. There are just so many variables. In its simplest form, say by leading a heart over a diamond, could change the outcome. We just don’t know if a hand would be played the same by all players.

Showing if a partner or an ace would have stopped a lone are important as these need to be factored in when deciding whether to donate or not. IMO, a consideration, especially at low scores.

I thought about adding games beyond those played on Monday by OE members. All of us want to win and play accordantly. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for all on WoCG. The game shown below made me decide against it.


https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:51 am

Dlan wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:35 am
By only showing the first round, anyone can look at the raw data and decide if they agree.

Projecting the outcome of a hand, and thus giving a plus or minus total, would require a lot of speculation. There are just so many variables. In its simplest form, say by leading a heart over a diamond, could change the outcome. We just don’t know if a hand would be played the same by all players.
True, but we have no choice but to embrace this uncertainty becuz ultimately what we are trying to find out is if passing is better than donating in many of these spots. We can only do that by comparing the cost of donating to the cost of passing over many hands. Our biggest problem is reaching a statistically significant sample size, but I don't really care about that cuz this exercise will be fun to me. To estimate the cost of passing I simply play out all 4 seats doing what I think is best at each step without seeing the cards. This is not perfect but it is a decent approximation of reality and that's as good as it gets.
Dlan wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:35 am
Showing if a partner or an ace would have stopped a lone are important as these need to be factored in when deciding whether to donate or not. IMO, a consideration, especially at low scores.


I certainly wonder about many of my donates that include an off ace.
Dlan wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:35 am
I thought about adding games beyond those played on Monday by OE members. All of us want to win and play accordantly. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for all on WoCG. The game shown below made me decide against it.


https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D
I think including ranked games will be fine. Obviously as long as at least 2 of us are there. No ranked games if any of us are alone cuz then we could be accused of cherry picking our sample.

Anyways, if there's a disagreement here don't worry about it. I like what you're doing. Just do what you wanna do as far as the spreadsheet, and I can always distill the data further. On my own, I'm still gonna keep track of my donates the way I started in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=484 But I'll switch to this thread. Right now my running total is 8 donates, +4 cost.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:01 am

Previous 1/12/21 total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

Source: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=484

Donates from 1/18:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 2-4. My donate gets euchred. If I had passed, the dealer would've called and gotten 1 point.

Net cost: -1

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 6-3. My donate gets euchred. Had I passed S2 would've went alone and gotten 1 point.

Net cost: -1

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 9-3. My donate scores a point. If I had passed, my P would've called and also scored a point.

Net cost: 0

4)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 6-4. My donate got euchred. If I had passed, either S2 or S4 is gonna call and they would've gotten 2 points anyways.

Net cost: 0

5)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Tied 7-7. My donate gets euchred. If I pass, S2 calls and their team gets 2 points anyways.

Net cost: 0

6)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 3-2. My donate gets euchred. If I had passed the dealer would've called and they would've gotten 1 point.

Net cost: -1

7)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Tied 4-4. My donate gets euchred. If I had passed S2 calls and his team gets 2 points anyways.

Net cost: 0

8)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-0. My donate gets euchred. If I pass, the dealer will make a 4 point loner.

Net gain: +2

9)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Tied 0-0. My donate gets euchred. If I pass, S2 will call and his team will get 1 point.

Net cost: -1

10)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 9-6. I feel like up 9-6/9-7 donates should be excluded or belong in a category of their own since I'm always donating if not guarded. Either way, I get euchred even though everyone would've passed, but my Next call also gets euchred.

Net cost: 0

11)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Tied 0-0. My donate gets euchred. If I had passed S2 would've went alone, but I would've led a club from this configuration and my P would've trumped in to stop the loner.

Net cost: -1

12)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 6-2. My donate gets euchred, but my P would've called and got euchred anyways.

Net cost: 0

Total 1/19/21 donates: 12. Net cost: -3

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates.

1) Up 2+ donates: 7 total, Net gain: +2

2) Up 1- donates: 12 total, Net cost: -1

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 19, Net gain: +1

Cumulative overall donates: 20, Net gain: +1

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:32 pm

I've added 4 games to the list. Although Richard2 was unable to attend, Wes, leftyK, and I were there.

In trying to keep this among OE members, I decided not to include the games that only Wes and I played later.

Interestingly, with 12 games in the books, 4 of those (25%) resulted in the donating team made a point.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:12 pm

Dlan wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:32 pm
I've added 4 games to the list. Although Richard2 was unable to attend, Wes, leftyK, and I were there.

In trying to keep this among OE members, I decided not to include the games that only Wes and I played later.

Interestingly, with 12 games in the books, 4 of those (25%) resulted in the donating team made a point.
Sounds good.

Just wanted to note that I am not a fan of the 12th donate (btw I do not recall who did this):

Image

Down 7-6 with 2 trump + an off ace you have to pass and gamble in that spot and hope for the best. S1 has too much of a hand to donate and most likely put his team down 9-6. If I had no trump+no aces I would donate in that spot tho. If I had no trump + 1 off ace I'd pass and gamble that one ace can save me. If I had one trump + no off aces I'm torn on what to do--that hand vs a Jack is pretty crappy too.

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:11 pm

After seeing the hand play out, plus or minus points could be calculated. However, any guesstimation of whether everyone would play it the same would be just that.

When deciding whether to donate or not, one has limited information. The up-card, the score, the cards one holds, and the possibility of the dealer's willingness to try lone calls.

The hope is, after looking at 100 donations, our readers will have a little more information to help in evaluating their decision.

User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:48 pm

Dlan wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:32 pm
I've added 4 games to the list. Although Richard2 was unable to attend, Wes, leftyK, and I were there.

In trying to keep this among OE members, I decided not to include the games that only Wes and I played later.

Interestingly, with 12 games in the books, 4 of those (25%) resulted in the donating team made a point.
Yeah my brother and I says these are the "prevents that went" :)

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:48 am

Dlan wrote:
Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:11 pm
After seeing the hand play out, plus or minus points could be calculated. However, any guesstimation of whether everyone would play it the same would be just that.
Yep, it's not that hard to figure out and yes there will always be some uncertainty in this but this approach will still be a very good approximation as many euchre hands kinda play themselves, and over a large sample the differences should basically average out anyways. And at the very least this approach will be even more accurate in tough games where players make few mistakes. Again tho, the most important thing to recognize here is that this approach is absolutely necessary becuz ultimate all that matters is the cost of donating vs the cost of passing. So we have to embrace the uncertainty to get a meaningful and potentially useful result. The fact that this model will not be precisely right isn't really important. What matters is that it is right often enough to be useful.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:00 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

Source: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=484

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-2 with no trump,no aces. My donate gets euchred (this was my only donate of the night). Had I passed, S2 would've called and his team would've gotten 2 points.

Net cost: 0

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates.

1) Up 2+ donates: 8 total, Net gain: +2

2) Up 1- donates: 12 total, Net cost: -1

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 20, Net gain: +1

Cumulative overall donates: 21, Net gain: +1

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:33 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

Source: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=484

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-2. 1 trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs TS upcard. My donate scores a point. Had I passed my P would've called in S3 and scored a point anyways.

Net cost: 0

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-4. 1 trump and an off ace vs a Jack. My donate gets euchred. If I had passed, the dealer would've called and scored a point.

Net cost: -1

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 3-1 with 1 trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs QD upcard. I donate and get euchred. What's interesting is what would've happened if I had passed. If I had passed and the dealer picked up a biddable hand with R+1+doubleton Next Ace they get a point. But a better play for the dealer is to actually pass that hand and try to trap me becuz if the dealer passes he has a monster euchre hand. Let's say the dealer does correctly pass. Well now we have another problem.
Firstly, I would call Next with no trump-no aces. No problem there. That's how I roll. But if I lead off with a club my team gets euchred and if I lead off with a spade my team makes the point. We have Tc9c and Ts9s, which path I choose will effect the net cost of this donate. Well I actually know exactly which way I would go becuz all ties go to the left. IOW when I have two paths I could take that are truly equal I always choose the cards on the left side of my hand. That's a habit I formed long ago to ease the brain. And that's the way I'll always do it for these samples so any difference in what path I take will get averaged out over time. Ok then, so if I had passed and the dealer passed, I would lead a club and my team would get euchred.

Net cost: 0

4)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 6-3 vs a Jack with an unguarded Left and a doubleton green ace I donated and made the point. If I had passed, the dealer would've picked up and we would've euchred them based on how I play. I would've led off with the AS and got the first trick, seeing the dealer played a spade and could have another one, I would've led the QS on 2nd street. My P would've then trumped in for the 2nd trick. At that point if I'm in 3rd I would lead the KD. It's my dirtiest suit as I'm hoping the maker gets overtrumped for the euchre or if the dealer has a diamond I'm hoping my P can trump it for the euchre. Diamonds is also a good lead becuz the dealer is more likely to have a diamond than a club given that most people discard green. So leading the diamond checks all the boxes. It's both the suit my P is most likely void in and the suit the maker is most likely to still have. It turns out the AD was in the kitty and the KD walks for the euchre. So this is a weird outcome. Our donate gets a point. We're supposed to be happy but passing leads to a euchre!

Net cost: -1

5)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 0-1, I donate with 1 trump, no aces, and no 2nd round hand vs the QS upcard and get euchred. If I had passed, the dealer would've called and gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates.

1) Up 2+ donates: 11 total, Net gain: +1

2) Up 1- donates: 14 total, Net cost: -3

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 25, Net cost: -2

Cumulative overall donates: 26, Net cost: -2

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:50 am

Winning is the final goal. What is missing with the analysis and spread sheet is who won the game after the donation. Especially when you donate to put the side ahead in score. In particular mid and late in the game when your chances of making up the difference is narrowed. Donating other than the Jack up is highly questionable unless up by 3 or more points. Seldom will you be able to justify donating.

~Irishwolf

RedDuke
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:22 am

Unread post by RedDuke » Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:40 pm

Down 7-6 with 2 trump + an off ace you have to pass and gamble in that spot and hope for the best. S1 has too much of a hand to donate and most likely put his team down 9-6. If I had no trump+no aces I would donate in that spot tho. If I had no trump + 1 off ace I'd pass and gamble that one ace can save me. If I had one trump + no off aces I'm torn on what to do--that hand vs a Jack is pretty crappy too.
Have to disagree with you on that one, Wes. That's a next Ace and it's not a singleton. There's a pretty good chance that Ace won't walk on a spades call, especially a first round one.

That hand as is will probably stop a sweep so I agree with you that it's too powerful for donating but I doubt that Ace will be good for a trick.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:48 pm

RedDuke wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:40 pm
Down 7-6 with 2 trump + an off ace you have to pass and gamble in that spot and hope for the best. S1 has too much of a hand to donate and most likely put his team down 9-6. If I had no trump+no aces I would donate in that spot tho. If I had no trump + 1 off ace I'd pass and gamble that one ace can save me. If I had one trump + no off aces I'm torn on what to do--that hand vs a Jack is pretty crappy too.
Have to disagree with you on that one, Wes. That's a next Ace and it's not a singleton. There's a pretty good chance that Ace won't walk on a spades call, especially a first round one.

That hand as is will probably stop a sweep so I agree with you that it's too powerful for donating but I doubt that Ace will be good for a trick.
Even an Ace that doesn't walk still has value tho. Just forcing the maker to spend a trump on the first lead significantly lowers the chances his call will march. That's not really the point tho. I'm just saying I think that's a bad hand to donate with. The combination of having 2 trump which lowers the probability of an enemy loner + that off ace that can still save you if youre wrong, makes donating not worth it down 7-6 even vs a Jack.

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:28 am

irishwolf wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:50 am
Winning is the final goal. What is missing with the analysis and spread sheet is who won the game after the donation. Especially when you donate to put the side ahead in score. In particular mid and late in the game when your chances of making up the difference is narrowed. Donating other than the Jack up is highly questionable unless up by 3 or more points. Seldom will you be able to justify donating.

~Irishwolf
That's a good idea. While it takes little more work, starting with next week's games, I will be adding that data.

As I delete games after review, prior info is lost.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:15 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:50 am
Winning is the final goal. What is missing with the analysis and spread sheet is who won the game after the donation. Especially when you donate to put the side ahead in score. In particular mid and late in the game when your chances of making up the difference is narrowed. Donating other than the Jack up is highly questionable unless up by 3 or more points. Seldom will you be able to justify donating.

~Irishwolf
Yeah I don't really care about winning or losing. Just make the best play possible every single hand. That's what's important to me. Do that and the winning will take care of itself in the long run. Same goes for when I play poker. In each session whether I make money or not is irrelevant for me. That takes care of itself in the long run. If I lose $1,000 but play mistake free, I will drive home happy and sleep well. If I win $1,000 but make 3 bad mistakes I'll be upset with myself and probably toss and turn all night thinking about it.

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:56 pm

"Just make the best play possible every single hand." Well and good but as I said, and I would bet the farm a bad decision in the Long Run when:

"Donating other than the Jack up even including those hands that are a sweep by the opponents."

And as this spread sheet goes on and on, you will see it play out. If I am wrong, I will KISS YOUR ASS! lol

~Irishwolf

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:12 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:56 pm
"Just make the best play possible every single hand." Well and good but as I said, and I would bet the farm a bad decision in the Long Run when:

"Donating other than the Jack up even including those hands that are a sweep by the opponents."

And as this spread sheet goes on and on, you will see it play out. If I am wrong, I will KISS YOUR ASS! lol

~Irishwolf
Yea I wouldn't be that surprised if I was wrong. Highly honed intuition from experience and study still can't beat out math/a good simulation. When you can't truly put something to the test you'll always be shooting from the hip to a degree no matter how much you study the game. So I'm going to be wrong about some stuff. It's inevitable. That said, I am a bit skeptical that this spread sheet or my logging of hands will get us to a statistically significant sample size enabling us to draw strong conclusions. But I'm not really worried about that. This project is still fun to me, and what we're doing here is still evidence. The evidence may not be that strong, but weak evidence is still better than no evidence at all. And there's always the possibility that new insights can be gained.

BTW I agree with your view that donating vs a Jack and donating vs a non-Jack really are two different situations. So much so that I need to break that down in my in my posts and I will do that in this thread in the future.

Tbolt65
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:24 pm

I understand both Wes's and Irishwolf's positions. What is the balance between donating and over donating? I believe wes is trying to find that out statistically to see if it does bolster his justifications for his donating situations. I however agree with Irishwolf's sentiments about over donating or what he is infering. I agree with that postion. As my own imperical data of play tends to back that up. Mind you its not math based but its evidence Ive personally seen in the tens of thousands games I have played and have stated on this subject matter before. I do disagree with Irishwolf's assertion about only the up card jack. Players, hand make up and score also are big factors.

Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:38 pm

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 donates: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will not be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 11 total, Net gain: +1

2) Up 1- donates: 14 total, Net cost: -3

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

4) Vs a Jack donates: 13 total, Net gain: +4

5) Vs a non-Jack donates: 13 total, Net cost: -6

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 25, Net cost: -2

Cumulative overall donates: 26, Net cost: -2
[/quote]

Small sample size but that's a very interesting result so for. My non-Jack donates are not doing good! In fact my non-Jack donates have not created even one Net gain situation for my team. It's all been -1s and 0s. This could just be me running bad on these donates or this could be a meaningful continuing trend. All I can say about that is stay tuned!

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:44 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 donates: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Score is 3-3. I donate vs the JH with 1 trump + a doubleton green ace and get euchred. Had I passed, everyone would've passed and I would've called Next with one low trump + an off ace and I would've scored a point. This is a rare outcome given that I didn't really even have a 2nd rd hand, but I'm certainly never passing in the 2nd rd at that score when I don't block reverse Next.

Net Cost: -3

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 6-0. I donate vs the JC with 1 trump, no aces and blocked a 4 pt loner.

Net gain: +2

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Score is 1-1. I donate vs the KH with 1 trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand, and get euchred. Had I passed, the dealer would've called and gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

4)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 7-4 vs the AC I donate with an unguarded Left + no aces and get euchred. Had I passed, the dealer would've called or went alone and gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

5)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 2-1, I donate vs the JD with one trump, no aces and get euchred. Had I passed the dealer would've called and gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

6)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 3-2, I donate vs the JS with no trump, one ace, and get euchred. Had I passed the dealer would've called and gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

1) Up 2+ donates: 12 total, Net cost: 0

2) Up 1- donates: 19 total, Net cost: -7

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

4) Vs a Jack donates: 17 total, Net gain: +1

5) Vs a non-Jack donates: 15 total, Net cost: -8

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 31, Net cost: -7

Cumulative overall donates: 32, Net cost: -7

User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:37 pm

Wes: My OE recall is that there the one bright spot that shows in blue down 0-6 still ended up a 0-10 whitewash. A game or two before that, is the one donation that kept you in the game and your team came storming back on us (I think we were up 4-0). But as it shows :
"2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5" , to me doesn't seems like a good donation night.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:07 pm

LeftyK wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:37 pm
Wes: My OE recall is that there the one bright spot that shows in blue down 0-6 still ended up a 0-10 whitewash. A game or two before that, is the one donation that kept you in the game and your team came storming back on us (I think we were up 4-0). But as it shows :
"2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5" , to me doesn't seems like a good donation night.
During the heat of battle I thought it wasn't that bad but last night turned out to be my worst donating result so far. That -3 I picked up really set me back, a rare occurrence tho when I'm blocking vs a Jack and I have no 2nd round hand. -3s would happen more often if I were blocking vs a non-jack with a 2nd rd hand which I will do but that hand type is score sensitive. Speaking of score sensitive, the hypothesis that the score basically doesn't matter vs a Jack upcard is holding up so far. The hypothesis that the score doesn't matter vs a non Jack upcard when one has a donation-type hand with no where to go in the 2nd rd is not holding up so well, but the sample is still small. I also think there are hand configurations we can tease out where that hypothesis may be true. E.G. no trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs a non-jack. Maybe for that very specific hand the score will not matter. Who knows right now. What I can say so far is I'm running really bad with my non-jack donates. Haven't blocked 1 loner in 15 tries which is staggering to me considering the bad hands I'm donating with. Or one could argue I'd be running really hot in these spots IF I WASN'T donating :)

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:02 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

2/15 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-2 I donate against a Jack upcard with no trump+1 off ace and get euchred. As far as figuring out the cost of passing, this was a controversial hand. If I were in the dealer spot I would go alone with this 2 trump loner, and once that happens my S1 self would lead the KH and S4 would complete his 4 pt loner. So donating here creates a +2 swing but does it really? Is the KH really the best lead against a loner? Well we can't lead our single ace can we?

The problem with leading the KH from a KH9H set is you now will never stop an outside AHXH. We all know about the "never lead a single ace against a loner" dictate becuz if your P has 2 off aces you force him to guess on 4th street. But the biggest reason you should never lead a single ace isn't becuz of the rare times your P has the other 2 off aces. That's just an easy and in theory effective way of explaining why leading a single Ace is a bad lead.

The biggest reason not to lead a single ace is becuz IF your P has a void + a trump, he will usually only have one shot to use it, on the first lead. After that the maker will typically clean him out. So when one leads their single ace on the first lead they are effectively robbing their team of another way to stop a loner, I.E. those times you lead something else and your P trumps in to save the day. And it's a tragic and unnecessary robbery because those times our single ace is good it will be good any street as all you have to do is save it til the maker plays that suit.

That said, I have come across many strong players who believe there is an exception to the rule "never lead a single ace against a loner" and that is when you also have a suited Kx9x or a KxTx in your hand. Since Kx9x can never stop AxXx once you lead the King, and KxTx can only stop Ax9x once you lead the King, many strong players believe you should treat this configuration as another off ace. So in this case you would lead your single ace (AS), discard your other loser card as early as possible--in this case the QD--to signal to your P you are not covering that suit, and then when you play your 9D on 4th street a good P will know that means you're covering diamonds so even if he has the other two aces, he'll know to throw away the AD every time.

This exception by the way comes up in the last paragraph in this link:

https://members.tripod.com/~Borf_Books/ ... m#sorthand
"The answer is, if you have a king-high doubleton, it is at least as good as any your partner has. Many euchre experts believe you can treat a king-high doubleton as a second ace in your hand for the “Don’t lead an ace unless you have two” principle. You lead the ace on first trick and sit on the loner with your K-x. But if you don’t have even a king-high doubleton to go with your ace, defer to your partner’s doubleton (which might be a pair of aces, after all). If you lead from your longest suit (even if it is only a doubleton), you mnimize the risk of finessing your partner. Don’t lead your ace. Help your partner sort his hand."
What do you guys think? Is the best lead in this spot my AS or the KH? Do you agree or disagree that this is a good example hand to violate the principle "never lead a single ace into a loner".

Not relevant to this discussion but there is another clear exception to the "never lead a single ace into a loner" dictate. That's when you have 3 low trump Kxx or Qxx plus a single off ace. In this example, you'd want to lead your ace becuz that guarantees your team will stop a loner every time the maker has 3 trump.

Another controversial aspect of this hand is me just assuming S4 would go alone becuz I would go alone. The fact is 99% of the euchre population is NOT going alone with that hand. If we're really trying to capture the long run cost of passing it's probably best that our assumptions match up with reality as much as possible. Also a tangent that's not directly relevant to this discussion, but I don't have real proof that going alone with this hand is better than calling. It's never been put to the test as far as I know.

To avoid controversy here I'm just gonna take the easy and probably more accurate way out. I'll assume that the dealer would just call, and if he did I would lead my AS, and if S2-S4 plays the hand well, they will end up getting the 2 pt march.

Net cost: 0

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Score is 2-2, I have no trump, no aces, no 2nd round hand. I donate vs the 9C and get euchred. Had I passed, S2 would've called, I would've led the 9H, and the opposing team would've gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Score is 5-5. I donate vs a Jack upcard with 1 trump + an off ace and get euchred. Had I passed, everyone would've passed and I would've called clubs and led the 9S and my team would've gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -3

4)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 2-1, I donate with 1 trump, no aces, no 2nd rnd hand vs the KH and get euchred. Had I passed, S4 would've called and his team would've gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

5)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 6-0, I donate vs a KH with no trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand and got euchred. Had I passed, S2 would've called and if their teams plays the hand well they get 2 pts.

Net cost: 0

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 14 total, Net cost: 0

2) Up 1- donates: 22 total, Net cost: -12

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

4) Vs a Jack donates: 19 total, Net cost: -2

5) Donater has an off ace vs a Jack: 12 total, Net cost: -3

6) Donater has no off ace vs a Jack: 6 total, Net gain: +2

7) Donater has 2 low trump, no off aces vs Jack: 1 total, Net cost: -1

8) Vs a non-Jack donates: 18 total, Net cost: -10

9) No trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand donates: 4 total, Net cost: -2

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 36, Net cost: -12

Cumulative overall donates: 37, Net cost: -12

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Mon Mar 01, 2021 3:48 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

2/15 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -5

2/22 donates:


1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 3-1, I donated vs the JD with an unguarded Left an no aces and my team scored a point. Had I passed, S4 would've ordered, and I would've led the 9s. Here's where things get tricky. S3 would've won the first trick with the A or K of spades. Since the dealer--the maker--followed suit with a low spade there's a very good chance he has another spade. After S3 takes the first trick he has two low trump, a non-fresh boss spade and a fresh boss heart (AH). With two boss offsuit cards and two trump with one trick in, the expert play in this spot is for S3 is to lead trump, and if he does that his team will get the euchre. The thing is tho, very few euchre players in the world would make that expert play, so it's a bit unrealistic to assume S3 would. More likely S3 would double lead his spade and the dealer, the maker, would follow suit and then I'm put to a decision in S1. Should I trump in with my lone Left or play off? I'd probably gamble and play off, creating a void in hearts hoping S2 has no trump becuz if he does a euchre is imminent since S3 would win Trick #2 and now I'm sitting behind the maker with the Left and a telegraphed void in hearts. But that gamble would fail as S2 had one trump and S4's team would make the point.

So if S3 plays expertly and leads trump on 2nd street, then my Net cost is -1. But if S3 double leads spades on 2nd street, my donate gets a net gain of +2. For the sake of conservatism I will assume the former happens.

Net cost: -1

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 6-2 I donate vs the Right with no trump, no aces and get euchred. Had I passed S4 would've went alone, but I would've led the KH from that configuration and that lead would've saved the day as my P had a trump and a void in hearts and the maker had the AH.

Net cost: -1

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 1-2 I donate vs the Right with 1 trump + an off ace and get euchred. Had I passed S4 would've went alone but my P would've have stopped the 4 pt sweep with his offsuit guarded Qs vs the makers outside AsTs.

Net cost: -1

4)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 4-2 I donate vs the Right with 1 trump + an off ace and get euchred. Had I passed the dealer would've ordered and gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

2/22 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -4

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 17 total, Net cost: -3

2) Up 1- donates: 23 total, Net cost: -13

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 1 total, Net cost: 0

4) Vs a Jack donates: 23 total, Net cost: -6

5) Donater has an off ace vs a Jack: 14 total, Net cost: -5

6) Donater has no off ace vs a Jack: 8 total, Net gain: 0

7) Donater has 2 low trump, no off aces vs Jack: 1 total, Net cost: -1

8) Vs a non-Jack donates: 18 total, Net cost: -10

9) No trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs non-Jack donates: 3 total, Net cost: -2

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 40, Net cost: -16

Cumulative overall donates: 41, Net cost: -16

User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:47 pm

Wes, you forgot about the one you did not call when up 7-6 from S1 when I was dealer that cost you the game :>) (it was either the 1st or 2nd game).

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:28 pm

LeftyK wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:47 pm
Wes, you forgot about the one you did not call when up 7-6 from S1 when I was dealer that cost you the game :>) (it was either the 1st or 2nd game).
I do nothing by accident. I passed that hand up 7-6 vs a small upcard because I had a 2nd rd hand. It takes a bit more for me to donate at that score and put my team down 8-7. If up 7-5, I would've donated. Or if vs a Jack upcard I donate with that hand up 7-6. Those are the breaks.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:23 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

2/15 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -5

2/22 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -4


3/1 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-3, I donate vs a TD upcard with 1 trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand and get euchred. Had I passed, S2 would've called, I would've led trump from this configuration vs a 2S-R1 call, and S2's team would've gotten 2 pts assuming they play the hand well.

Net cost: 0

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 3-0 with no trump, no aces, I donate vs the QD and get euchred. I have reverse Next blocked in the 2nd rd. With good 2nd rd defense, I don't always donate vs a low card with no trump, no aces, but being up 3 pts compelled me to do it. Up 1, I'd probably pass, up 2 is a grey area for me but I usually donate in that spot. Had I passed S2 would've called and their team would've gotten 1 pt.

Net cost: -1

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 9-6, I donate with no trump + an off ace vs a KH and get euchred. Had I passed, it would've passed around, and I would've called clubs in the 2nd round and scored a point.

Net cost: -3

4)

Up 5-3 with no trump, one ace, and no 2nd round hand I donate vs an AC upcard and get euchred. Had I passed S4 goes alone for a 4 pt loner.

Net gain: +2

3/1 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -2

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 20 total, Net cost: -2

2) Up 1- donates: 23 total, Net cost: -13

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 2 total, Net cost: -3

4) Vs a Jack donates: 23 total, Net cost: -6

5) Donater has an off ace vs a Jack: 14 total, Net cost: -5

6) Donater has no off ace vs a Jack: 8 total, Net gain: 0

7) Donater has 2 low trump, no off aces vs Jack: 1 total, Net cost: -1

8) Vs a non-Jack donates: 20 total, Net cost: -9

9) No trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs non-Jack donates: 3 total, Net cost: -2

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 43, Net cost: -15

Cumulative overall donates: 45, Net cost: -18

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:16 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

2/15 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -5

2/22 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -4

3/1 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -2


3/8 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 4-5, I donate vs the JH with no trump, one ace and get euchred. Had I passed S4 would've went alone but I would've stopped him with my Ac.

Net cost: -1

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 9-5 with no trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand I donate vs the 9c and get euchred. Had I passed the action would get back to S4 who would have the option of picking up and having a 3 trump, 3 suited, no ace hand or S4 could make the expert play and pass with his nice euchre hand that can trap a Next call. If S4 passes, I would've called Next, and led the 9S and my team would've gotten euchred.

Net cost: 0

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 8-5, I donate vs the TS with 1 trump, no aces, and get euchred. Had I passed S2 would've called, and I would've lead the TH, and S2-S4's team would've gotten 2 pts assuming they play the hand well.

Net cost: 0

3/8 total: 3 donates. Net cost: -1

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 22 total, Net cost: -2

2) Up 1- donates: 24 total, Net cost: -14

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 2 total, Net cost: -3

4) Vs a Jack donates: 24 total, Net cost: -7

5) Donater has an off ace vs a Jack: 15 total, Net cost: -6

6) Donater has no off ace vs a Jack: 8 total, Net gain: 0

7) Donater has 2 low trump, no off aces vs Jack: 1 total, Net cost: -1

8) Vs a non-Jack donates: 22 total, Net cost: -9

9) No trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs non-Jack donates: 4 total, Net cost: -2

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 46, Net cost: -16

Cumulative overall donates: 48, Net cost: -19

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:53 am

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

2/15 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -5

2/22 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -4

3/1 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -2

3/8 total: 3 donates. Net cost: -1


3/15 donates:

1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

0-0, I donate vs a JH with no trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand and get euchred. Had I passed S4 would've went alone and gotten 1 pt. I would've led a diamond and his loser KC would've been stopped by my P's Ac.

Net cost: -1

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 5-2, no trump, no aces vs the AS, I donate and get euchred. Had I passed, S4 would've called, I would've led the JD and if S2-S4's team plays the hand well they will get 2 pts.

Net cost: 0

3)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Up 4-1, with 1 trump, no aces I donate vs the KS and get euchred. Had I passed S2 would've called, I would've led the JH, and assuming S2-S4 plays the hand well they will get 2 pts.

Net cost: 0

3/15 total: 3 donates. Net cost: -1

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 24 total, Net cost: -2

2) Up 1- donates: 25 total, Net cost: -15

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 2 total, Net cost: -3

4) Vs a Jack donates: 25 total, Net cost: -8

5) Donater has an off ace vs a Jack: 15 total, Net cost: -6

6) Donater has no off ace vs a Jack: 9 total, Net cost: -1

7) Donater has 2 low trump, no off aces vs Jack: 1 total, Net cost: -1

8) Vs a non-Jack donates: 24 total, Net cost: -9

9) No trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs non-Jack donates: 4 total, Net cost: -2

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 49, Net cost: -17

Cumulative overall donates: 51, Net cost: -20

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:09 pm

1/12/total: 8 donates. Net gain: +4

1/19 total: 12 donates. Net cost: -3

1/25 total: 1 donate. Net cost: 0

2/1 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -3

2/8 total: 6 donates. Net cost: -5

2/15 total: 5 donates. Net cost: -5

2/22 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -4

3/1 total: 4 donates. Net cost: -2

3/8 total: 3 donates. Net cost: -1

3/15 total: 3 donates. Net cost: -1

3/29 donates:


1)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 0-2, I donate vs the Right with 1 trump + an off ace and get euchred. Had I passed the dealer would've went alone but my P would've stopped him.

Net cost: -1

2)

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Down 4-6, I donate vs the Right with no trump + 1 Ace and get euchred. Had I passed the dealer would've went alone but my P was guarded.

Net cost: -1

3/29 total: 2 donates. Net cost: -2

Further cumulative breakdown: I'm gonna separate my donates into 3 categories: Up 2 or more donates referred to as up 2+, Up 1 or less donates referred to as up 1-, and up 9-6/9-7 donates. There will now be an additional vs a Jack upcard/vs a non-jack upcard breakdown.

1) Up 2+ donates: 24 total, Net cost: -2

2) Up 1- donates: 27 total, Net cost: -17

3) Up 9-6/9-7 donates: 2 total, Net cost: -3

4) Vs a Jack donates: 27 total, Net cost: -10

5) Donater has an off ace vs a Jack: 17 total, Net cost: -8

6) Donater has no off ace vs a Jack: 9 total, Net cost: -1

7) Donater has 2 low trump, no off aces vs Jack: 1 total, Net cost: -1

8) Vs a non-Jack donates: 24 total, Net cost: -9

9) No trump, no aces, no 2nd rd hand vs non-Jack donates: 4 total, Net cost: -2

Cumulative up 2+ & up 1- donates: 51, Net cost: -19

Cumulative overall donates: 53, Net cost: -22

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:19 pm

How and when will you ever BREAKEVEN!

Cumulative overall donates: 53, Net cost: -22

Next question, if donating is a great strategy, why is the team donating not winning the game at a higher percentage?

What is that expected win rate of the donating team?

What would it be if not donating?

If you donate, and the end result is 0 - 0 (no cost due to a Sweep) is it really a zero cost prior to donating?

~IRISHWOLF

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:28 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:19 pm
How and when will you ever BREAKEVEN!

Cumulative overall donates: 53, Net cost: -22
The better number to go with is 51 donates, Net cost: -19.

I think we should separate out up 9-6/9-7 donates as those are gonna be extra costly since we are donating with our whole unguarded range. Of course one could always question the underlying assumption that we should always donate up 9-6/9-7 when unguarded. I myself certainly wonder.
irishwolf wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:19 pm
Next question, if donating is a great strategy, why is the team donating not winning the game at a higher percentage?
I don't know what the winning percentage is.
irishwolf wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:19 pm
What is that expected win rate of the donating team?

What would it be if not donating?
I do not know.
irishwolf wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:19 pm
If you donate, and the end result is 0 - 0 (no cost due to a Sweep) is it really a zero cost prior to donating?

~IRISHWOLF
If I donate and get euchred but would've lost 2 pts anyways, yes I would count that as a zero cost. But one could argue it's not really a zero cost becuz your opponents could always make a mistake on their order.

Anyways, I'm not ready to conclude anything yet due to the small sample size but I admit things aren't looking good, and what I really need to be doing is testing out donates on the kitchen table but I'm backed up with other samples I wanna do. I'm sure I'm not donating optimally but it's hard to break from a habit that has been so successful for me. Winning the 2019 Euchre Vegas championship + setting probable records on the app I play (recently reached 5 crowns in just 305 games played, if anyone beats that PM me a screenshot), make it hard for me to clean up my leaks without testing out hands. It's hard to find leaks when everything has been going so well over the last probably 27K games I've played. I know the leaks are there tho. They have to be. Math is the ultimate answer, and I'm shooting from the hip in many spots.

My big question is this, let's say we conclude--for the sake of argument--that donating costs around 1/3 a pt. What do we do with this information? Do we just stop donating altogether or do we only donate at a big enough lead. Even if donating costs a little it still has to have some value as it does help manage some variance. Buying insurance is the perfect analogy. Insurance is -EV but it has value becuz of the managing variance/bad luck part. Maybe this claim is correct:
irishwolf wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:50 am
Donating other than the Jack up is highly questionable unless up by 3 or more points. Seldom will you be able to justify donating.

~Irishwolf
Maybe when we are up 3 pts or more vs a non-jack the insurance aspect kicks in. Take this hand from yesterday's game:

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Notice S1's team is up 5-2 and S1 has no trump + 1 off ace. IMO not donating in that spot is a mistake vs any upcard. That's the kind've spot where I HAVE to donate. Would you also donate up 5-2 in that spot?

I'm already thinking about refining my strategy to this: Vs non-jack only donate up 2 or more except when I have "no trump-no aces-no 2nd rd hand", with that hand I reserve the right to donate at any score except when the dealer is at 7. I.E. eliminate all my donates up 1 or less except with "no trump-no aces-no 2nd rd hand" donates.

I don't think your idea and my idea of donating are that far off. Like if you were my P, I think we could easily agree on an overall donating strategy. I'm not married to many of my donates. But there are certain spots where I wont budge. Like that 5-2 hand example, but I suspect you would've donated in that spot also.

PS: Here's another way to frame the "manage variance" argument to donating: Imagine when you played euchre you didn't play up to 10. Instead you played up to 1 million (assume your live forever in this hypothetical). In this game, the concept of "managing variance" would lose all value (unless the game got crazy close near the end). You would simply and always make whatever the best EV play was in the long run. But when you do play just to 10 pts, now the opponents getting a 4 point loner is devastating. There has to be some value in trying to manipulate some short term luck through donating that cannot be captured in a simple EV number. I mean at least I think there is. What do you think? At least in some respect anyone who always donates up 9-7/9-6 has to agree with me on the managing variance part cuz that's exactly what they're doing. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the "managing variance" argument is sound. Having subscribers doesn't make an argument right obviously.

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:44 pm

Last I checked the donating team (since Don started that feature), 60 games, is winning 35 of 60.

So obviously, lots of things to consider. For sure donating and the outcome is zero - zero is not accurate when the team does not actually sweep. I suspect somewhere of .33 to .50 but only good tracking would confirm. I always felt good when the other team would have Marched. However, I was only fooling myself. lol

~IRISHWOLF

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:12 pm

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:28 pm


Maybe when we are up 3 pts or more vs a non-jack the insurance aspect kicks in. Take this hand from yesterday's game:

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Notice S1's team is up 5-2 and S1 has no trump + 1 off ace. IMO not donating in that spot is a mistake vs any upcard. That's the kind've spot where I HAVE to donate. Would you also donate up 5-2 in that spot?
Here is another example of a missed donation, the same type of hand, but a different player in first.

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:28 pm

Dlan wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:12 pm
Here is another example of a missed donation, the same type of hand, but a different player in first.

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D
Obviously I disagree. It's important not to be results oriented in these spots or a meaningful discussion becomes impossible. I'm not donating down 5-4 with a 2nd rd hand, likely putting my team down 7-4, vs a King. Sometimes you have to gamble. This is one of those times. Gotta gamble on that King and hope for the best. It didn't work out. Those are the breaks. Vs a Jack I'm donating. Not a King in that spot. Ofc if I was up 5-2 then I'm donating vs a King with that hand.

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:34 am

Your data already says don't donate with non Jack up. What was the situation with the opposing team - had they been losing games? What was the trigger with the dealer?

To tell you the truth guys, I think that WOCG does not always randomly deal the cards. Way too many loaded, opposing hands, and loners. Dealer holds 4 clubs with an off suit ace (why not a 9, 10, Q, etc.) is less than a 2% holding. Yes, it will happen but there are very few of those in 8568. And I see it a lot in WOCG. WOCG has it triggers and patterns, I suspect. So you adjust your game to the pseudo-random dealing. So it makes donating at a higher risk, or not donating.

One thing I noticed is that lone hands come in bunches on WOCG. Just an observation.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:05 am

irishwolf wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:34 am
Your data already says don't donate with non Jack up. What was the situation with the opposing team - had they been losing games? What was the trigger with the dealer?
Are we talking about the hand Don posted? If so, I agree that the data I have so far suggests not to donate with that hand vs a non-jack. My donating strategy excludes that spot also as evidenced by my pass in that hand (I was S1). Would you agree tho that up 5-2 with the same no trump and only 1 off ace hand (the hand Don posted), that we now should donate? I'm assuming you do agree. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you do agree on that then imo any difference in donating strategy we have could easily be worked out in our hypothetical partnership. You could simply say "wes I don't want you donating in this spot and this spot, etc, and I'd be cool lets go!" There's only certain spots I wont bend, like the up 5-2 spot I posted.

IOW even if the data says this donate has a -EV of around 1/3 pt, I'm still doing it up 5-2 in that spot with no trump and only 1 off ace. I.E. what I'm implying is I think the insurance policy is worth it up 3+. Do you agree? I actually think it's worth it with up 2 also if we have no 2nd rd hand. I suspect you don't agree with that. Ofc the fundamental problem here is I don't see a way to "prove" my case becuz this isn't a simple EV problem. If it was then nobody should donate up 9-7/9-6.
irishwolf wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:34 am
To tell you the truth guys, I think that WOCG does not always randomly deal the cards. Way too many loaded, opposing hands, and loners. Dealer holds 4 clubs with an off suit ace (why not a 9, 10, Q, etc.) is less than a 2% holding. Yes, it will happen but there are very few of those in 8568. And I see it a lot in WOCG. WOCG has it triggers and patterns, I suspect. So you adjust your game to the pseudo-random dealing. So it makes donating at a higher risk, or not donating.

One thing I noticed is that lone hands come in bunches on WOCG. Just an observation.
I don't take my own views seriously on this but I do suspect there are more loners on WOGCs and on the app I play vs real life. This possibility is a bit disturbing since my donating strategy was forged mostly from playing on the app. Out of the 27K games I've played, only around an estimated 2K have been in real life. Actually It's probably closer to 3K games cuz I forgot to account for the after hours games in our tournament. Still alot more games online/app.

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:05 am

According to the information on WoCG they use a fisher yates shuffle algorithm to shuffle cards. (Same as I use in the workshop) Here is some info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%E2 ... es_shuffle

Computer deals tend to differ from live games because of the way they are dealt. Most live deals in the US are are normality poorly shuffled and dealt in groups of 2's and 3's.

Is one way better than the other? hard to say, In both types, cards seem to run in spurts, On our Monday games, I had nights where I lost almost every game, but then again there are nights I've won more than my share.

In this image, a punch is a successful lone. 9 lones in one night? Yes, it happens.
(This group played 10 sets of progressive, all the hands you could play in 15 minutes)

Image

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:25 am

My comment was about the data Don put on the spread sheet, 77 up to Mon 29 non-Jack up. Only 2 successful loners in 38 donates. I did not look at the score, all associated scores and have no details about what triggered the donator to donate. However, 2 of 38 does not and will not justify donating. And all donates, donating team wins about 55% of the time. Of course there is more to the story, mainly the score. If my team donates and we don't win at least 70 - 75%, I am very disappointed.

So you donators have to carefully consider - WHAT WENT WRONG! Was it the score you donated, or just the flow of a streak of the flow of cards. Cards might be 10 - 15%, but 45%? NO WAY should it be at that rate, IMO! I like my cake and eat it too. Euchre is not about just making random decisions.

I can confidently say on Donating, from Eldest seat, about the dealer or his partner the following:

JACK UP: (of course you have no knowledge what S3 has) No stoppers - successful loners 21 to 27%. But the range is wide because the runner may be conservative to aggressive. Of course attempts are higher, in the 38 to 40%. But success is what is the bottom line. Some players consider, I stopped an attempt as successful. To me that not enough.

NON-JACK UP: That rate is 6 to 10% successful loners. Some situations way ahead in score, you only lose one point as they may get a point any way.

The "breakeven" is you have to be successfully preventing a loner (by donating) at least 1 in 4 attempts whether the Jack is up or any other card. If you are not at that rate, GIve it up. Don't data, 10 success out of 38 attempts with Jack up, right at the break point. Fact is the team scoring a loner will win the game 85 to 90% of the time UNLESS your team also scores a loner to counter it. I don't use that random method of donating, even the Jack up of just looking at my hand and score but those are important factors to consider, but not all.

Look at the (Don's) data 12 loners in 77 recording up to Monday 29th. 2 successful non-Jack donates, at various scores vs 10 succesful for Jack up. Only two at 9 to 6/7. Players treat 9 to 6 or 7 as equal. They are not equal. 9 to 7, reduce your chances of winning by about 10% for comeback. So ya, you win the game 65 to 70%. That may be good enough for most players but if not a successful donate, you have reduced your chances of winning by giving away point(s) where it was not a successful loner.

But back to Don's data. The reason for such poor performance with non Jack up has to do with two major factors. One is the random distribution of cards the Dealer has and secondly, is what S3 holds. Loners in general run at 4 - 6%, statistically, all positions, 1R & 2R. The majority of players who think they can out guess the cards are only fooling themselves donating - giving away points. Me personally, I don't want my partner donating unless the Jack is up or ahead in score by 3 or more points. And NEVER to put the other team ahead in score. Sometimes you just have to take your chance and occasionally you get it wrong, but in the long-run of many games played, I am ahead.
But that is just me, IMO.

Yes, doubling the (Don's) data will firmly confirm. I would say, keep Jack data separate as being done. The score and who won the game also, Good stuff.

Enough said.

~Irishwolf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your data already says don't donate with non Jack up. What was the situation with the opposing team - had they been losing games? What was the trigger with the dealer?

Are we talking about the hand Don posted? If so, I agree that the data I have so far suggests not to donate with that hand vs a non-jack. My donating strategy excludes that spot also as evidenced by my pass in that hand (I was S1). Would you agree tho that up 5-2 with the same no trump and only 1 off ace hand (the hand Don posted), that we now should donate? I'm assuming you do agree. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you do agree on that then imo any difference in donating strategy we have could easily be worked out in our hypothetical partnership. You could simply say "wes I don't want you donating in this spot and this spot, etc, and I'd be cool lets go!" There's only certain spots I wont bend, like the up 5-2 spot I posted.

IOW even if the data says this donate has a -EV of around 1/3 pt, I'm still doing it up 5-2 in that spot with no trump and only 1 off ace. I.E. what I'm implying is I think the insurance policy is worth it up 3+. Do you agree? I actually think it's worth it with up 2 also if we have no 2nd rd hand. I suspect you don't agree with that. Ofc the fundamental problem here is I don't see a way to "prove" my case becuz this isn't a simple EV problem. If it was then nobody should donate up 9-7/9-6.

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:45 pm

Don,

To get at the truth, you would have to know the programmer, seeds, etc. etc.

And as far as what you posted on the Progressive, cards were not randomly dealt,obviously. How many of those with the Jack up? That is speed dealing and shuffling is severely lacking in those. That is what you will get as the dealer is not shuffling the cards. Over and Under, will never randomize the cards. And neither does 2 Riffle shuffles but better than over and under. It takes at least 3 riffles to decently randomize the cards. Sure you see runs and streaks.

According to the information on WoCG they use a fisher yates shuffle algorithm to shuffle cards. (Same as I use in the workshop) Here is some info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%E2 ... es_shuffle

Computer deals tend to differ from live games because of the way they are dealt. Most live deals in the US are are normality poorly shuffled and dealt in groups of 2's and 3's.

Is one way better than the other? hard to say, In both types, cards seem to run in spurts, On our Monday games, I had nights where I lost almost every game, but then again there are nights I've won more than my share.

In this image, a punch is a successful lone. 9 lones in one night? Yes, it happens.
(This group played 10 sets of progressive, all the hands you could play in 15 minutes)

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:23 pm

I know the programmer :),

All info on the shuffle is in the Wikipedia link. Most game sites use it.

Any interest in testing computer vs live dealing? If so, We'll start a new post.

We could set-up a test hand, deal out, say 50 hands, and see how many points, euchres, or sweeps are made. I would use the workshop if someone else would be interested in using a table.

In theory, the results should be within a few points of each other.

Tbolt65
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:00 pm

I'm a fan of donating but not over donating. Early game donates I cut out a while back. Too many free points. I really hate mid game donating. Like 5-5 or 6-6. However I have pulled the trigger there in some spots. It sounds like Irishwolf's stricter than I am at donating. Maybe Ive become a little looser in mine own strategy since my euchre return. Something I'll have to address.

Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:26 pm

Okay, you know the programmer. So does he have certain triggers, that change (and for what reason if so,) based on what, when and why?

As to a test, the programmer should already know the answer! Who programmed those robots we complained about when firs using WOCG? Was it the same person?

I would have to think about spending any major time seeing if cards are randomly dealt. The way to look at it for sure is evaluate "opposing" hands (one player has 3 trumps vs another we know the probability of that), another is hands dealt 4 trumps or 5 of a kind. Jack as the upcard is another. But you would need few hundred deals and that is time consuming beyond my interest as what do you get for it? It would in reality, take another program to analyze the dealing for randomness, IMO.

That said, it is the first that I would be most interested in (opposing hands), seems like abnormally high, more routine than I would suspect. And one has to first define, what is randomly dealt cards in euchre? With a computer dealing, you expect closer to random than live. In live, Is it one riffle, over and under shuffle, two riffles, or three, or is it with or without a cut? So what do you compare one vs the other?

But getting back to dealing on WOCG, the programmer is going to know for sure. He has a vested interest in even giving you the answer. You can't expect someone to reveal such information when it is their livelihood. Just an opinion.

I THINK WHAT I WANT TO TRACK IS "OPPOSING HANDS" - If a player has three trumps - (4 unknown) an opponent should have an opposing hand on the average about 4.2% x two = 8%. Yes you get some swings both ways, but 1 every 12 hands, any suit should result if truly random dealing. Another one is maker has 3 trumps, both opponents should only have 2 trumps each of 4 unknown 25.5 x 25.5% = 6.5% of the time. Track at least 20 games and see the results. Can save the hands and hold for analysis. If it is not true, I will shut up!

~IRISHWOLF


I know the programmer :),

All info on the shuffle is in the Wikipedia link. Most game sites use it.

Any interest in testing computer vs live dealing? If so, We'll start a new post.

We could set-up a test hand, deal out, say 50 hands, and see how many points, euchres, or sweeps are made. I would use the workshop if someone else would be interested in using a table.

In theory, the results should be within a few points of each other.
Top
Last edited by irishwolf on Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:48 pm

I am not sure Ed. I do know other than the Jack up and even then I sometimes donate. I probably have not spent enough time establishing the sweep if I did not donate. But I have that on my list of projects. I know the success loner w/JACK UP. The other side of the equation is the sweep if you don't sweep. And I know about the Jack not up.

The history of the Donate goes back 160 years when they played with 32 cards, game to 5 points, and there were 11 unknown cards in the Stock. The Donate was recommended when at 4 to 1 or 2 as a loner would win the game. But even then, some authors were questioning if that was a good strategy. However, it is fact that 11 cards in the Stock, 9 trump cards, luck was by far more in play. So you could justify the donate as significant cards could be buried. I had all the statistics on that but no worth going into it here. That, the donate, has bled over to the Modern game with 24 cards but not until the year 200. The donate was not used much and even a rule, you had to have a natural trump to order. Still exists in some locals, like Canada.

Bottom line, you have to stop the loners, but it is a two sided blade. Donate at 9 to 6/7, opposing team will come back to win about 30% of the time. So pick your moments with care and precision. But for most, if you don't know what you are doing, LEAVE IT ALONE.


Ed said, I'm a fan of donating but not over donating. Early game donates I cut out a while back. Too many free points. I really hate mid game donating. Like 5-5 or 6-6. However I have pulled the trigger there in some spots. It sounds like Irishwolf's stricter than I am at donating. Maybe Ive become a little looser in mine own strategy since my euchre return. Something I'll have to address."

~IRISHWOLF

User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:59 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:34 am
Your data already says don't donate with non Jack up. What was the situation with the opposing team - had they been losing games? What was the trigger with the dealer?

To tell you the truth guys, I think that WOCG does not always randomly deal the cards. Way too many loaded, opposing hands, and loners. Dealer holds 4 clubs with an off suit ace (why not a 9, 10, Q, etc.) is less than a 2% holding. Yes, it will happen but there are very few of those in 8568. And I see it a lot in WOCG. WOCG has it triggers and patterns, I suspect. So you adjust your game to the pseudo-random dealing. So it makes donating at a higher risk, or not donating.

One thing I noticed is that lone hands come in bunches on WOCG. Just an observation.
I tend to agree here - cards not always dealt randomly..... and the loners get hot streaks on WOCG.
We need to play a OE on trickster or 3D or elsewhere, b/c all these apps have their "randomizers"

irishwolf
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:45 pm

Trickster is is far worst that WOCG. WOCG seems more reasonable on dealing than any I am familiar with.

Post Reply