6-11 Hand #11

Ask questions, discuss and debate your strategies, euchre polls and more
Post Reply
Tbolt65
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

6-11 Hand #11

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:08 pm

Classic case of getting greedy and should be taking your partner for 2 points.

Image

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



Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:31 am

Tbolt65 wrote:
Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:08 pm
Classic case of getting greedy and should be taking your partner for 2 points.
Strongly disagree with this assessment. S1 has JJX + a boss card + a loser, and with the lead his opponents could easily save the wrong suit in the end. Gotta go alone on this one, especially down 8-4.

Tbolt65
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:47 pm

If you have a higher card say like even a jack of hearts preferably a Queen. I would agree. This person knows they made the mistake and it's clear. There are times to go for it but over doing it in a situation like this can cost you the game. Better to be at 6-8 then 5-8. Too often these scenarios(which are small) where two could have been made but only one was attained effects the outcome of the game. There are better spots to take long shot loner attempts, usually with the up card suit being turned down and calling a lighter than normal Next loner, is one of those situations that come to mind. if you have a 9-10 or even jack off suit, depending on table seating. You usually want to play for two in nearly 100 precent of the time to maximize points. Being down -3, -4, -5, -6 points or more IS NO JUSTIFICATION or excuse to try loners. It's the faulty logic of well I gotta try to catch us up. Being steady will often prove better and more consistent +2 points then the magical 1 out of 50(not proven but to show emphasis) times you might get that +4. And With those loser 9-10 and even Jack off suits. You'll get plus two more often than those loners.

So many times in the past I've tried these loners twice in a game to get back in the game and I only get 1 point where I possibly could have gotten two. That's a big point differential in what your giving up by not potentially getting two each time. Like I said before it add's up.


There are better situations and scenario's to try to make skimpy loners, I already named one above. There are others.

In this hand I knew better and I let emotion and the glory get in the way of sound thinking and years of experience.


Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:29 am

Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:47 pm
If you have a higher card say like even a jack of hearts preferably a Queen.
Eric Zalas' work indicates that going alone with even a 9 loser is the right play from S1 but not from S4. Having that lead is critical becuz the enemy is more likely to guess wrongly. The Eric Zalas hand type I'm referring to is the 4 trump + a loser 9 variety, so not the same hand as this one, but it's reasonable to extrapolate from that hand to this hand given that this hand really only has one loser also and critically we have the lead. At the very least, the similar but non-analogous data we have on this spot suggests we need to be open to the possibility that going alone with this hand is better than calling at any score save 8/9. Worst case scenario it's going to be extremely close and when it's that close the score should be the tie breaker. Being down 8-4, we gotta pull the trigger here IMO.
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:47 pm
I would agree. This person knows they made the mistake and it's clear.


It's not clear at all and there's no need to pretend otherwise. This is me you are talking too. You can't BS me. I know you don't really know becuz no one does.
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:47 pm
if you have a 9-10 or even jack off suit, depending on table seating.


Based on Zala's work, having a jack loser is still a +EV loner from S4, but a green 10 loser is not (I assume a Next 10 loser will be +EV since that's equivalent to a green jack). From S1, even having a 9 loser is a +EV loner but again, the configuration tested is different than the one in this thread. I also have a hypothesis from the 2 Seat: One should be significantly tighter on loner tries from 2S-R1 becuz their P is more likely to help them than in any other spot given that they get to pick up a trump and create a void. Even tho a Jack loser is a +EV loner from S4, I suspect it will not be from the 2S-R1 given the above dynamic, so the 2S should not be going alone with a Jack loser in R1 unless desperate. Obviously if the 2S has a King loser he should go for it. What should the 2S-R1 do with a queen loser? Your guess is as good as mine.
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:47 pm
You usually want to play for two in nearly 100 precent of the time to maximize points. Being down -3, -4, -5, -6 points or more IS NO JUSTIFICATION or excuse to try loners. It's the faulty logic of well I gotta try to catch us up. Being steady will often prove better and more consistent +2 points then the magical 1 out of 50(not proven but to show emphasis) times you might get that +4. And With those loser 9-10 and even Jack off suits. You'll get plus two more often than those loners.


It's not faulty logic. The game is only up to 10. When down a lot it certainly may be best for a team to make some -EV loner decisions hoping to catch that variance wave.
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:47 pm
So many times in the past I've tried these loners twice in a game to get back in the game and I only get 1 point where I possibly could have gotten two. That's a big point differential in what your giving up by not potentially getting two each time. Like I said before it add's up.


There are better situations and scenario's to try to make skimpy loners, I already named one above. There are others.

In this hand I knew better and I let emotion and the glory get in the way of sound thinking and years of experience.


Tbolt65
Edward
Cool story bro.

Tbolt65
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:00 am

You are confusing 4 trump and off suit vs. What's showing boss king with crappy off suit. Also, just because you don't know or can't prove or even begin to surmise what may or may not be correct doesn't mean others haven't tried to figure it out or to postulate. If you don't try you will never know. This goes with anything. Believe me I've have tried plenty, I have failed plenty. I have tried some more. That's how I work things out. That's how I get better. I don't use a calculator to double check my math. I am either wrong or right. IF it get it wrong I go see what makes it right or better or more likely to be better . There are many, many area's where it's so slim, that either way could be played but I like to error on the side that get's more points, more often or reduces the euchre's more often. Not to say I don't get euchred thats not the point the point is I'm trying to maximize the long run and situational spots at the same time.


Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:36 am

Tbolt65 wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:00 am
You are confusing 4 trump and off suit vs. What's showing boss king with crappy off suit.
I'm not confusing ANYTHING. Your reading comprehension needs some work. I'm extrapolating from a non-analogous hand. But that non-analogous hand--4 trump+offsuit--has 2 key things in common with the hand in this thread: In both cases the person going alone 1) has the lead and 2) only has one loser card. We have hard data showing us that going alone from S1 with 4 trump + a green 9 loser is the correct play. From that data I would surmise that going alone with JJX + boss + a green 10 loser from S1 is also the correct play.
Tbolt65 wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:00 am
Also, just because you don't know or can't prove or even begin to surmise what may or may not be correct doesn't mean others haven't tried to figure it out or to postulate. If you don't try you will never know. This goes with anything. Believe me I've have tried plenty, I have failed plenty. I have tried some more. That's how I work things out. That's how I get better. I don't use a calculator to double check my math. I am either wrong or right. IF it get it wrong I go see what makes it right or better or more likely to be better . There are many, many area's where it's so slim, that either way could be played but I like to error on the side that get's more points, more often or reduces the euchre's more often. Not to say I don't get euchred thats not the point the point is I'm trying to maximize the long run and situational spots at the same time.
The above is just a bunch of nonsense gibberish. Either we have hard data or we don't. In the case of the hand in question we don't, so it's just your opinion vs my opinion and others are free to chime in with their opinions.

Post Reply