EricZalas POWER PLAYER POINT SYSTEM

Ask questions, discuss and debate your strategies, euchre polls and more
Post Reply
irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

EricZalas POWER PLAYER POINT SYSTEM

Unread post by irishwolf » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:13 am

I am starting a new thread and discussion on Eric Zalas and his Power Player.

These 50 questions that he says, quoting him, "I did have 105 people around the world complete my Euchre Research Self-Assessment (ERS) instrument.The ERS is a research tool - ... -which identifies the trump naming frequency of players based on the baseline hands used to name trump in my model.

It is true that my analysis of euchre is very mathematical. As I mention in my books I consulted with several statisticians with advanced degrees and MBAs with an emphasis on statistical analysis. I have earned several advanced degrees. My research methods were [uvalidated by a team of experts. I have taken great pains to be extremely detailed in the presentation of data in my five volumes, presenting experts with more than 600 data tables of information to review. To date, not a single mathematician or statistics expert has reached out to me regarding problems with my data or analysis."

There are so many questions in the statements above, that need to be explained if Eric is serious about someone buying or believing his work. This ERS, Self-assessment. In euchre there are 42,504 hands that each player dealt at each of the seats, and on each round. Not mention all the 100 scoring situation, when on offense and defense. It seems to also be loaded on making trump, not leading when on defense and all the other situations. Very complex. My question then is, " How would 50 hands even be possible to represent all these situations?

How is such an instrument going to provide "an authoritative direction what a player would or should do" not at 0 to 0 score but those 99 other scoring options. They not only differ by score but also who's my partner and what level of skill vs opponents. There are too many variables for these programmed Robots and how programmed.

My next point is how such an instrument, quiz or assessment tool be Validated. He said by experts but do these experts have experience and knownledge in euchre as well in psychological testing methods? He said, validated by a team of experts. How was this team formed, (around the world - when the best seem to be at these major tournaments held in the states) when met and their backgrounds. Not mention in Cornwall, they play with 25 cards (Benny) and the dealer 'shouts' first. This changes the dynamics totally. And Ontario where dealer partner has to assist and go alone. Don't except such statements without details. Not to mention just a few of the weakness of his bid system outline in the other posts on this same subject and much more to critique . . .

So, I am presuming, Eric is now one of these "Power Players" and said (to Don), "If Dlan wishes to reach out to me I would be happy to patiently answer any questions to clear up his misconceptions regarding my work. I think that Don the owner of this site can direct you to me. I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards, Eric Zalas, MBA"

So he should participate in these weeklies to provide discussion and direction on how we can all be "Power Players," don't you think? Let's critique his playing style. If he's really good, it will be demonstrated in his play. Proof is ALWAYS, in the pudding!

So where in the hell is Eric, speak up defend yourself?

And if anyone has some of his worked out hands and tables, post them for further discussion.

~Irishwolf



Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:58 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:13 am


And if anyone has some of his worked out hands and tables, post them for further discussion.

~Irishwolf

I do Irishwolf, but can I repost this information from his book here with out infringing on Copyright?

I know I can speak in general terms and discuss his work but to actually show, word for word hand for hand in the "tables" he shows for these hand. I just don't know. Can I?

Tbolt65
Edward

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:57 pm

I found this with google. I think you should be ok.

Fair Use doctrine permits the reproduction of copyrighted material for a limited purpose of teaching, reviewing, literary criticism and the like. Without the “fair use” doctrine, books and movies could not be reviewed and colleges and high schools would not be able to study works by people like Arthur Miller. This is also how television programs such as The Daily Show are able to use copyrighted material in their commentary. "Fair use," however, is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:23 pm

fair use employed
--------------------

Eric Zalas Ranks his hands on a Z-score method. His hand analysis breaks down each hand and assigns them various monikers to represent hand strengths. They range from Powerful(being the strongest) all the way down to Defenseless(being the weakest) with various other descriptors in between signifying various strengths and weakness associated with said hand groupings.

These hands groupings are as follows:


Powerful
Strong
Solid
Marginal
Sub-optimal
Weak
Desperate
Defenseless


-------
*Note: There is a little column graph associated with this that I am not reproducing do to time but it is explained with said numbers in the "Analysis" portion of said Hand # below. Everything else is as it is presented by Eric Zalas.
-------



Sub-optimal
Hand #126: Dealer Picks up the King of Clubs and now holds the Jack of spades, King-9 of clubs, and the king -Q of hearts. Dealer burries the 9 of diamonds and plays clubs trump. EO=0.776

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


Analysis:
This hand has an 89.79% win rate and a mean expected outcome of 0.776 points per attempt when played from the dealer seat based on a sample size of 223 hands played. This hand takes all five tricks 11.21% of the time and is euchred and Identical 11.21% of the time based on this referenced data set. This is another example of naming trump while holding the Left Bower "unguarded." As a general rule the Power Player eschews naming trump with an unguarded Bower. Avoiding this play was the first feedback performance adjustment that I made in my game as a result of my Euchremetrics(c) analysis.
That performance adjustment helped me to settle into a trump naming frequency of 17% which translate to a mean expected outcome of approximately 1.6 points whenever I name trump. The Power Player assiduously steers clear of naming trump with an unguarded Left Bower in most situations.



============================================




Tbolt65
Edward

edit: Here is just one for now.
Last edited by Tbolt65 on Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:00 am, edited 4 times in total.

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:12 pm

Tbolt,

I know there are pitfalls with this hand, opponents can have have the right, the Ac guarded, three trumps and/or AH. A lot stacked against going alone, but not with taking my partner along.

But what is ridiculous and says a lot about his knowledge of 'significant' is publishing a number to two decimal points, 89.79%, when the +/- is over 12 because of the small number of hands is 223 and associated variance. To zero in a variance should have been reported for a more accurate win percentage. So why would he report a number to two decimal points when the accuracy is no way to that degree. He should have rounded and reported a +/- or the variance or std deviation. Any of those statistical experts he refers to would not have let that go without comment. Why is he only doing 223 instead of getting better numbers that 400 hands would give questions his statistical knowledge on set up? I can't question or confirm the numbers reported for wins or euchres without doing a lot of work. Playing out hands is highly variable and complex taking your partner along for various reasons.

However, for me, analysis of taking the hand as it is, and you are way down in score 7/8 or 9 to 2/3, I would even go alone on this hand knowing my success rate is about 1 in 6 attempts. Being euchred is about the same or maybe 25%. Sweeps might be close to ~25%. I need three key cards buried or with my partner or the ace unguarded. Knowing the hazards, is key in this situation, and what I do is situational, you have to score with a loner or you will lose anyway. Who cares at that score of being euchred.

I am not sure if he goes through the analysis breaking down the hand in to the hazards bit it is critical to learning anything. This hand is a perfect example unless you passed that you want a trick from your partner. If you think your partner is going to help you at 23% as he suggests, way to low. If that is his formula he has to pass this hand. You need help!

So the question is what makes this hand a Power Euchre player strategy vs old time playing? It says nothing about calling vs passing as a strategy. A simple game with a lot of complexities. Lots of room for disagreement.

Picking this up only have Left + one, never would I as the dealer on such a weak hand.

~Irishwolf

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:22 pm

I forgot to say this reported number of "a mean expected outcome of 0.776 points per attempt when played from the dealer seat based on a sample size of 223 hands played.. ." is only half the equation. If dealer passes what is the expected outcome of points per attempt with 2nd round? Is it going to be (less than 0.776) what number of points for opponents (or my partner making trump) random dealing on xxx number of hands? What if this is STD?

One can pass on a marginal hand and it only gets worst from there.

~Irishwolf

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:52 pm

Here is some information on "significant numbers" reporting:

A good tutorial on significant figures can be found at http://www.chem.sc.edu/faculty/morgan/r ... s/sigfigs/

I wonder if our mathematician (Eric) with extra degrees ever learned how to report "significant numbers"? All his numbers and percentages should have been rounded to one decimal point because of the degree of uncertainty involved. A comment about the standard deviation or variance in euchre is high because you are dealing in 2s and 3s with 5 cards to each player, and Eric is only doing a small sample of 223 hands. To explain, when you know six cards, there are 18 unknown and calculates to 8568 hands (unknown) possible to be distributed to 3 other players. Thus, 223 / 8568 = 2.6% is a low sample, he could get to 95% +/- 5% with about 400 hands (any basis statistics book will explain this). Or Google on Dr. Math and ask a question.

When determining the mean and standard deviation based on repeated measurements: The mean cannot be more accurate than the original measurements.

The standard deviation provides a measurement of experimental uncertainty. Experimental uncertainty should almost always be rounded to one significant figure.
The only exception is when the uncertainty (if written in scientific notation) has a leading digit of 1 when a second digit should be kept.For example if the average of 4 masses is 1.2345g and the standard deviation is 0.323g, the uncertainty in the tenths place makes the following digits meaningless so the uncertainty should be written as +/-0.3.

The number of significant figures in the value of the mean is determined using the rules of addition and subtraction. The value should be written as (1.2 +/-0.3)g.

~Irishwolf

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:29 pm

Wish we had Eric available for Hand 123 "Sub-optimal"
Hand #126: Dealer Picks up the King of Clubs and now holds the Jack of spades, King-9 of clubs, and the king -Q of hearts. Dealer buries the 9 of diamonds and plays clubs trump. EO=0.776

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

Eric stated, “I consider naming trump when I hold a hand with a Z-Score strength = 9 or higher."

His Z-Score on the hand above is 7 points (Left = 3, both trumps 4 = 7 points. This hand has an 89.79% win rate and a mean expected outcome of 0.776 points per attempt when played from the dealer seat based on a sample size of 223 hands He is scoring 89.88% and 0.788 pts per hand on the average.
So he should be passing on this hand as it does not meet his criteria based on quoting his statement above, 7 points. From the dealer seat based on a sample size of 223 hands played. This hand takes all five tricks 11.21% of the time and is euchred and Identical 11.21% of the time based on this referenced data set.

Since this is experimental with computer modeling, What would the outcome be going alone instead, taking my partner, and thirdly, Passing. Those are the options to compare outcome with points per hands.

My questions for Eric would be, 1) Is points per hand not more important than the Z-score? 2) What is the MINIMUM points per hand as an acceptable success rate? 3) And has he statistically correlated points per hand number with his Z-score? Does it correlate well at what number?

For me I like points per hand IF reported in the format of how many 1 - pointers, how many 2 pointers, how many euchres, -2 pointers and how many loners +4. The are numerous ways for example to arrive at at points per hand, like 1.00.

The number he reported in a 9 game tournament of 1.68 points per hand, I am saying extremely rare success rate. There are about 10.2 hands per game (3 is minimum and 19 the max) of 10 points (based on tracking 700 games, my data). So if 9 games, round it to 90 hands for all 4 players. You have to win every game and score 60 @ 1 pointers, 14 loners @ 56 points and 26 Sweeps - 52 points (and no euchres) for 1.68 or if euchred then loners or sweeps have to be increased (my issue with just reporting points per hand). If you lose a game, then those numbers have to be increased to off set. 14 loners / 90 hands = 15.6% loner rate and for sweeps 26 / 90 = 29%. I say BS - UNBELIEVABLE.

Maybe Eric was just trying to sell his books.

It looks like I am picking on Eric, not really, just digging deeper for Facts. Maybe a New tool, this Z-score with Power Player. I am sure there are some caveats, all euchre books have sometime good to offer.

~Irishwolf

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:36 am

Fair use employed.
---------------
Excerpt of hand analysis from Eric Zalas Power Euchre Vol. V

Hand rankings in the grouped categories from best to worst:

Edit:(I went back to the 1st hand analysis post and put the correct color scheme used to identify each category of ranked hands in accordance to strength and playability as used in Eric's book, in which I properly use below in this new post)

Powerful
Strong
Solid
Marginal
Sub-optimal
Weak
Desperate
Defenseless






Category:
Weak

Hand #142 Dealer picks up the King of clubs and now holds the King-10-9 of clubs and the Ace-King of Hearts. Dealer discards the 9 of diamonds and plays clubs trump. EO=0.577

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


Analysis:
This Scenario is a slightly weaker version of Hand 140. This hand wins 79.04% of the time with a mean expected outcome of 0.577 points per play when played from the dealer seat based on a sample size of 291 hands played. Hand 142 is euchred almost 21% of the time based on the referenced data set. While certainly repetitious, I continue to reiterate how casually euchre experts seem to promote naming trump with weak hands. Author Joe Andrews recommends naming trump with any three cards of the same suit. Author Fred Benjamin, Euchre Strategies(2007), gives the green light to players when they hold any three trump and at least one non-trump Ace. This is a gambling, low reward play. In toto, it should be obvious to the reader that the old school, one-size-fits-all, conventional euchre wisdom axioms regarding when to name trump simply do not work.

=========================


Tbolt65
Edward

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:12 am

Fair use employed.
---------------
Excerpt of hand analysis from Eric Zalas Power Euchre Vol. V

Hand rankings in the grouped categories from best to worst:


Powerful
Strong
Solid
Marginal
Sub-optimal
Weak
Desperate
Defenseless



Category:
Marginal

Hand #114 Dealer turns down the 9 of clubs. Seat #1 holds the Jack-10-9 of diamonds, the Ace of clubs, and the 9 of hearts. Seat#1 names diamonds trump and leads Right Bower. EO=0.817


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


Analysis:
Yet another holding that meets all of the euchre conventional wisdom requirements to name trump but stumbles when it comes to delivering points. Hand 114 seems stronger than Hand 108 but is still generates 6.7% less in mean expected outcome(i.e., 0.817 vs. 0.876). Why is that? Hand 114 is being played from seat #1 and, in my opinion, this is a more problematic location to be playing a marginal hand. This hand wins 90.83% of the time but only generates a mean expected outcome of 0.817 points based on a data set of 229 hands played. Played from the dealer seat, Hand 108 has the advantage of being able to trump a spade lead on first trick and then come back with the Right Bower. The player in seat #1 is in a far more vulnerable position with Hand 114. Seat #1 will lead the Jack of diamonds and probably follow with the Ace of Clubs. The rest is guess work(i.e., making complex decisions) and that explains perfectly why this is a Marginal Hand.




==============



I disagree with the assessment of Seat 1 always leading the Right bower. This hand is a perfect example to protect yourself. Remember a couple months ago I was advocating underleading the right. This is a perfect hand to do so. I suggest to lead the 9 of Diamonds in hope of pulling trump and perhaps making your partners sole singleton Left Bower or even Ace of diamonds take a trick depending on if seat 2 holdings. This way you give your team the chance of a march and even a better chance of not getting set by sucking trump out. Now There are two suits left out of three that they have to come to you if the opponents do take the opening lead. If they either lead a spade (your void) or to your Ace of clubs. Odds are that you will be taking it uncontested and the rest will be history with you still holding the Right Bower for the point. Leading the Right bower here exposes your hand when trump is split and stacked between your opponents and can put you in a tough spot and likely euchre if played correctly in those scenario's. You can also be fortunate enough when your opponents make a mistake. Either way, with this hand play it safe when jumping the fence. DO NOT LEAD THE RIGHT BOWER!


Tbolt65
Edward


edit: I just put my response in this post so I wouldn't have to quote it and bury too much the previous posts.

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:10 pm

On Hand 142 Dealer picks up the King of clubs and now holds the King-10-9 of clubs and the Ace-King of Hearts. Dealer discards the 9 of diamonds and plays clubs trump. EO=0.577
ABOVE POST, Eric does not give the flip side if the dealer passes. How many points will the opponents score? Secondly or supporting this is, "You have no ability to stop loners if you pass, especially weak loners in next." Everything is not just the hand but like Billiards, not giving the opponent an easy next shot. Eric would have to simulate what would happen statistically if the dealer would "pass" to make this complete and provide proof that it is a bad call.

For me, I would not call winning in clubs at 79% a weak hand. It appears that his criteria for making good calls is approximately 1.00 pts per hand (does he comment on this?) I see it as "moderate." My partner, statistically will have the JC, 27% of the time. For me, I will call on that hand all day long. Call it old school if you will, I am comfortable calling trump with 3 and A/K.

As to Fred (Sword) he also had his computer modeling/book and I am sure put this to the test. For the opponents to euchre me, one has to have 3 of the 4 unknown trumps - ~6-7%. Or both have to have two each - 6.5%, and have to be void in hearts at the same time. Looking at that I can estimate a euchre rate of about 15%. 21% seems a little too high as I see it to be euchred, and have done hands testing awhile back.
He does not say what his variance (std deviation) which would give us a +/- of his mean, and will be quite high with small sample size. It's like saying this guy has one foot in a bucket of hot coals and the other in bucket of ice, but on the average he is comfortable. Which, statistically makes his reporting of results WEAK!

~Irishwolf

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:29 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:12 pm
Tbolt,

I know there are pitfalls with this hand, opponents can have have the right, the Ac guarded, three trumps and/or AH. A lot stacked against going alone, but not with taking my partner along.

But what is ridiculous and says a lot about his knowledge of 'significant' is publishing a number to two decimal points, 89.79%, when the +/- is over 12 because of the small number of hands is 223 and associated variance. To zero in a variance should have been reported for a more accurate win percentage. So why would he report a number to two decimal points when the accuracy is no way to that degree. He should have rounded and reported a +/- or the variance or std deviation. Any of those statistical experts he refers to would not have let that go without comment. Why is he only doing 223 instead of getting better numbers that 400 hands would give questions his statistical knowledge on set up? I can't question or confirm the numbers reported for wins or euchres without doing a lot of work. Playing out hands is highly variable and complex taking your partner along for various reasons.

However, for me, analysis of taking the hand as it is, and you are way down in score 7/8 or 9 to 2/3, I would even go alone on this hand knowing my success rate is about 1 in 6 attempts. Being euchred is about the same or maybe 25%. Sweeps might be close to ~25%. I need three key cards buried or with my partner or the ace unguarded. Knowing the hazards, is key in this situation, and what I do is situational, you have to score with a loner or you will lose anyway. Who cares at that score of being euchred.

I am not sure if he goes through the analysis breaking down the hand in to the hazards bit it is critical to learning anything. This hand is a perfect example unless you passed that you want a trick from your partner. If you think your partner is going to help you at 23% as he suggests, way to low. If that is his formula he has to pass this hand. You need help!

So the question is what makes this hand a Power Euchre player strategy vs old time playing? It says nothing about calling vs passing as a strategy. A simple game with a lot of complexities. Lots of room for disagreement.

Picking this up only have Left + one, never would I as the dealer on such a weak hand.

~Irishwolf

Irishwolf,

From what I have gathered from reading this book. He mentions several times he wishes to exclude "complex decisions." He wishes to remove himself from the scenarios and to simplify his decision making process. His system of play (the power euchre player) ignores and doesn't understand various modes of plays, ploys and conventions. So the author is inept in confidently making these complex decisions and hence why he is using his numbers to cover up that fact or hole in his euchre playing game. That is my opinion because statistical he can't show why conventions work but he can present data to show why the math works. To a certain extent he is not wrong but he misses the bus when he fails to use/employ other ideologies. The stats he presents with different hands that show you it is better to take your partner along for 2pts is enlightening but overall he constantly critique' s the standard conventions and authors in many situations all because he is trying to simplify euchre to a statistical type game instead of what it really is. Its a partners game. Which involves a myriad of decisions that one must learn and understand to really grasp the possibilities that come in each game. Also the many ways to play each hand that will constantly evole and euchre is a game of situations.


Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:14 pm

I think you pretty much summed it up. If one developed a new "mouse" wouldn't you want to test it against the "old school mice" to see how well it works. I bet you will never meet ole Eric at the table knowingly. Ha, ha!

On his eight (8) categories of hands, way too many. I wonder if he defines each? I think he would find it difficult to define these based on his Z-score where they stand alone. Especially how he defines these three: Marginal, Sub-optimal and Weak. If you pass with all those Marginal and below, what is the sense in having as a category? Or the difference between Desperate and Defenseless?

Eight that could easily be categorized with five. If I am a new player to Euchre, simple is good.

~Irishwolf

Powerful
Strong
Solid
Marginal
Sub-optimal
Weak
Desperate
Defenseless

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:26 pm

Irishwolf Wonder no more...……...

-------------
Fair use employed
--------------

Description of the Hand Rankings

Taken from Table 5.1 in Eric Zalas Power Euchre Vol. V


Powerful Hands

Powerful Hands are arbitrarily defined as those euchre hands that generate mean expected outcomes ranging from 4.0 and 1.6 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.

Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 38
Mean Hands Played 236.32
Total Hands Played 9182

Play Strategy
Play Alone 92.11%
Play with Partner 7.89%
Order 13.16
Play "Next" 0%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 2.337
Mean Win % 96.94%
Mean Euchre % 3.06%
Mean Trump 3.289
Mean Z-Score 10.553

-----------

Taken from table 6.1

Strong Hands

Strong Hands are arbitrarily defined as those Euchre hands that generate a mean expected outcomes ranging between 1.599 and 1.2 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.


Data Set
Scenario's Analyzed 31
Mean Hands Played 236.77
Total Hands Played 7340


Play Strategy
Play Alone 25.81%
Play with Partner 74.19%
Order 0%
Play "Next" 0%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 1.365
Mean Win % 97.90%
Mean Euchre % 2.10%
Mean Trump 3.355
Mean Z-score 10.323
-----------------

Solid Hands

Solid Hands are arbitrarily defined as those Euchre hands that generate a mean expected outcomes ranging between 1.199 and 0.95 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.

Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 30
Mean Hands Played 209.33
Total Hands Played 6280

Play Strategy
Play Alone 10%
Play With Partner 90%
Order 36.7%
Play "Next" 0%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 1.072
Mean Win % 93.15%
Mean Euchre % 6.85%
Mean Trump 2.8
Mean Z-Score 9.1
-----------------------------------------

Marginal Hands

Marginal Hands are arbitrarily defined as those euchre hands that generate mean expected outcomes ranging from 0.949 and 0.8 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.

Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 21
Mean Hands Played 292.29
Total Hands Played 6138

Play Strategy
Play Alone 9.52%
Play with Partner 91.48%
Order 9.52%
Play "Next" 0%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 0.869
Mean Win % 88.33%
Mean Euchre % 11.67%
Mean Trump 2.86
Mean Z-score 8.905
-------------------------------------

Suboptimal Hands

Suboptimal Hands are arbitrarily defined as those euchre hands that generate mean expected outcomes ranging from 0.799 and 0.65 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.

Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 14
Mean Hands Played 230.64
Total Hands Played 3229

Play Strategy
Play Alone 0%
Play With Partner 100%
Order 28.57%
Play "Next" 0%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 0.732
Mean Win % 86.37%
Mean Euchre % 14.63%
Mean Trump 3.21
Mean Z-score 8.214
--------------------------------




to be continued...................................
Last edited by Tbolt65 on Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:26 pm

Fair use employed
-------------

Referenced from Tables in Eric Zalas Power Euchre Vol. V





Weak Hands

Weak Hands are arbitrarily defined as those euchre hands that generate mean expected outcomes ranging from 0.649 and 0.45 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.

Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 22
Mean Hands Played 257.27
Total Hands Played 5660

Play Strategy
Play Alone 18.18%
Play With Partner 81.82%
Order 18.18%
Play "Next" 4.55%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 0.55
Mean Win % 78.27%
Mean Euchre % 21.73%
Mean Trump 3.00
Mean Z-score 8.250

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


Desperate Hands


Desperate Hands are arbitrarily defined as those euchre hands that generate mean expected outcomes ranging from 0.464 and 0.00 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.


Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 29
Mean Hands Played 246.38
Total Hands Played 7145


Play Strategy
Play Alone 3.45%
Play With Partner 96.55%
Order 24.14%
Play "Next" 17.24%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO 0.203
Mean Win % 69.59%
Mean Euchre % 30.41%
Mean Trump 2.21
Mean Z-Score 6.586

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


Defenseless Hands


Defenseless Hands are arbitrarily defined as those euchre hands that lose points, or generates negative mean expected outcomes ranging between -0.001 and -2.0 points per play over the long term based on a minimum of 150 played hands analyzed.

Data Set
Scenarios Analyzed 40
Mean Hands Played 317.13
Total Hands Played 12,685

Play Strategy
Play Alone 5%
Play with Partner 95%
Order 17.5%
Play "Next" 32.5%

Performance Metrics
Mean EO -0.554
Mean Win % 45.68%
Mean Euchre % 54.32%
Mean Trump 1.70
Mean Z-score 4.825

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



All of the above mentioned preceded Each Section where "x" number of hands for each category(Scenarios Analyzed) was analyzed and the data and information above was the summary and information gathered as a whole for that particular section, ie: Poweful Hands, Strong Hands ect…etc. From Tables in Eric Zalas Power Euchre Vol. V








Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:00 am

Thanks Ed for sharing this excerpt and breakdown. Provides a good overview, the big picture, of the categories and how he is using his Z-score.

For the author, does mean he would be passive, pass and not call on all those hands and situation with a Marginal and below hand strengths?

How much of his work has changed your game?

~Irishwolf

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:42 am

irishwolf wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:00 am
Thanks Ed for sharing this excerpt and breakdown. Provides a good overview, the big picture, of the categories and how he is using his Z-score.

For the author, does mean he would be passive, pass and not call on all those hands and situation with a Marginal and below hand strengths?

How much of his work has changed your game?

~Irishwolf

The author does mention that at some Z-score 9 spots he would pass and for some Z-score 7 and 8 hands he would play alone. Although he doesn't specifically highlight those scenarios in my mind he mentions it in a passing comment amongst his pages.


Not much. I've tighten up a little bit on the loner tries which I thought I balanced out pretty good before but just tightening up a little bit and play for 2 pts in spots that would be advantageous. He also confirmed much of what I already know from my extensive time playing, seeing the hands. I must confess I am no big math geek. Though by repetition and seeing many hand situations play out over the thousands to tens of thousands of hours in the game of euchre I got to the same place that Eric did.

Like I said in my initial review of the book I posted to amazon there is stuff to learn from the book but...…………………………. It's just another tool to use in the continuing learning process in the game of Euchre.



Tbolt65
Edward

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:06 pm

Something that I noticed but I haven't really made a comment about. While reading Eric's book. I seen he was focusing on the Mean expected outcome. That's all fine but what peeked my curiosity was that it seemed to me he was ignoring the hands winning percentage. If a hand lets say is wining at an 84% rate, wouldn't you think that's a playable hand. What about a 70% win rate? Pretty good on its own, right?

But as you see he starts to shy away from calling with hands with a win percentage in the high 80s percentile. With the marginal and suboptimal hand groupings. It leads me to believe that he lost focus or got blinded by other data, which can happen.

To say even hands that win at 70% win rate is desperate than that really speaks volumes to the mindset and lack of confidence in not only his play but partners as well.


Thoughts?


Tbolt65
Edward

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

Unread post by RedDuke » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:41 pm

Tbolt65 wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:06 pm
Something that I noticed but I haven't really made a comment about. While reading Eric's book. I seen he was focusing on the Mean expected outcome. That's all fine but what peeked my curiosity was that it seemed to me he was ignoring the hands winning percentage. If a hand lets say is wining at an 84% rate, wouldn't you think that's a playable hand. What about a 70% win rate? Pretty good on its own, right?

But as you see he starts to shy away from calling with hands with a win percentage in the high 80s percentile. With the marginal and suboptimal hand groupings. It leads me to believe that he lost focus or got blinded by other data, which can happen.

To say even hands that win at 70% win rate is desperate than that really speaks volumes to the mindset and lack of confidence in not only his play but partners as well.


Thoughts?


Tbolt65
Edward
I had the same thought. A hand with a 70% win rate certainly isn't ideal but it's not a desperation play. It may also be best to call such hands in many cases anyway in order to prevent the opponents from making a play. This is especially true with those hands that have nothing blocked.

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:10 pm

RedDuke wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:41 pm
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:06 pm
Something that I noticed but I haven't really made a comment about. While reading Eric's book. I seen he was focusing on the Mean expected outcome. That's all fine but what peeked my curiosity was that it seemed to me he was ignoring the hands winning percentage. If a hand lets say is wining at an 84% rate, wouldn't you think that's a playable hand. What about a 70% win rate? Pretty good on its own, right?

But as you see he starts to shy away from calling with hands with a win percentage in the high 80s percentile. With the marginal and suboptimal hand groupings. It leads me to believe that he lost focus or got blinded by other data, which can happen.

To say even hands that win at 70% win rate is desperate than that really speaks volumes to the mindset and lack of confidence in not only his play but partners as well.


Thoughts?


Tbolt65
Edward
I had the same thought. A hand with a 70% win rate certainly isn't ideal but it's not a desperation play. It may also be best to call such hands in many cases anyway in order to prevent the opponents from making a play. This is especially true with those hands that have nothing blocked.
RedDuke,

What he says is that euchre players who try to justify calling on thin hands to order in hopes to prevent the other team from naming or to block a loner, is a losing proposition in the long run and is illogical.

Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:25 pm

Edward,

I have been saving this. Suppose the dealer turns down the 10C. Eldest hold AS 9S AD KC QC FOR A Z SCORE OF "6" FOR STRENGTH OF HAND. Eldest call Next, spades and leads the 9S. Even if my partner does not win the trick Eldest has 2 probable tricks with one void. He can trump a heart, which I would or if diamonds is led, the AD most likely will win it. If both bower fell, he could lead the AS. He has two clubs which may come in handy as well.
So we don't know the outcome but suppose Eldest wins 56 out of 100 similar situations and has 22 sweeps but also 22 euchres. These cancel each other out in points. So now computing win rate is 78% and mean points for 100 hands is only 0.56.

Now according to Eric a bad call as this hand has a Z-score of "6" is classified as Weak with a Mean score of 0.56 points per trick, and as a Desperate Hand for with a Z-score strength of "6." Yet you are controlling play and winning 78% of your hands.

Realistically, if opponents do not get the spades in next they cannot euchre eldest. I would estimate, that one opponent will have to have three trumps to euchre that hand with what Pone will also be holding. It is a partnership game, and eldest is expecting his partner to have a bower, JS or JC. Maybe the AH or AC, or any other combination to win one trick. This is how good players call and play. If the opponents are bagging on next, it will be in the 20 - 25% range. Of course it depends on the score and how things are going.

Suppose eldest makes one point 44 times in 100 hands, and gets euchred 28 times and sweeps 28 times to cancel each out. Eldest then has a Mean score of just 0.44 (Desperate in Eric's system). Yet the Win percentage is 72%. Meets my expectation. And this is typical play with good players in my experience and observation. This is easy to test with real hands. You have 18 unknown cards, remove the six and now randomly deal out the hands, voiding all those where a player would order the dealer. Play the hands out according to Eric's experimental method (will take a while) but can be tested. That is one way or using statistics you can predict and get to +/- 10% because different players play differently. But you can also see that if eldest passed, 2nd seat will be calling most of the time, seldom getting back to the dealer except STD.

But under Eric's Power Euchre player, he is passing every time. 2nd seat will be going "green" and eldest is screwed again.

Anyway, I will stick to my style and methods of play.

~Irishwolf

jspectre
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:04 am

Unread post by jspectre » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:18 pm

I'm not very fond of math, so I'll leave that to the rest of you folks, but it seems to me that by any metric, Eric's Z-Score system is simply too conservative, and doesn't take enough factors into account, such as the cost of passing versus trying to swing that next call. I think there's something to be learned from his more conservative approach, however, calling too aggressively can get you into trouble, it's important to find a balance and minimize high risk calls if they can be avoided, such as holding off on some of those enticing calls if you can still make plays in next.

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:28 pm

Yeah, no beef here from me. I take that line the majority of the time. But like you said it potentially depends on the score and how the game has been going(namely is your partner calling or not calling amongst other factors). Some might call it madness but I say...

A method to the madness indeed, ;)

Tbolt65
Edward

jspectre
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:04 am

Unread post by jspectre » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:46 pm

Oh yeah, I was more talking about if your partner is a pro, I pretty much just call everything for my partner unless they demonstrate they are capable of independent thought. lol

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:11 am

jspectre wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:18 pm
I'm not very fond of math, so I'll leave that to the rest of you folks, but it seems to me that by any metric, Eric's Z-Score system is simply too conservative, and doesn't take enough factors into account, such as the cost of passing versus trying to swing that next call. I think there's something to be learned from his more conservative approach, however, calling too aggressively can get you into trouble, it's important to find a balance and minimize high risk calls if they can be avoided, such as holding off on some of those enticing calls if you can still make plays in next.

Yep.


Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:06 pm

jspectre wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:18 pm
I'm not very fond of math, so I'll leave that to the rest of you folks, but it seems to me that by any metric, Eric's Z-Score system is simply too conservative, and doesn't take enough factors into account, such as the cost of passing versus trying to swing that next call. I think there's something to be learned from his more conservative approach, however, calling too aggressively can get you into trouble, it's important to find a balance and minimize high risk calls if they can be avoided, such as holding off on some of those enticing calls if you can still make plays in next.
What's so f***ing strange about reading EZ's book is he'll run the simulations on a given hand, do the math, say such and such hand has a positive EO (expected outcome), which PROVES we should call, and then talk about how we should pass this hand cuz it gets euchred too much and then trash all the experts for erroneously and delusionally thinking this hand is a call. Um but WTF!?!?! YOUR OWN MATH JUST PROVED IT'S A CALL!!! It's like this book was written in the Twilight Zone or something.

In a game structure that is a race to 10 points, it would be completely irrational to pass up ANY +EO hand. We have to grab ANY +EO opportunity we can get. This isn't nl poker where we can just set mine and wait for the nuts. In euchre we don't have the time to pass up +EO hands waiting for better +EO hands. Keep in mind this craziness is independent of the author's most ridiculous mistake: implicitly assuming the cost of passing is zero. Like EVEN IF the cost of passing was zero it would STILL never make sense to pass up a +EO hand in a race to 10 game structure (excluding those hands where you have every suit covered when passing can now have a higher +EO than calling). Here's a hand example of what I'm talking about:
EZ: "Hand 151: Dealer turns down the 9 of diamonds. Seat #1 holds the Jack of clubs, the Ace-K of spades, 10 of clubs, and the 9 of hearts. Seat #1 names spades and leads trump. EO = .513. N = 300.

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

Analysis: This hand wins 80% of the time with a mean expected outcome of .513 points per play when played from Seat #1 based on a sample size of 300 hands played. Hand 151 is euchred exactly 20% of the time based on the referenced data set. When looking at Hand 151 I can imagine some readers thinking, "How can you not name trump with this hand?" Holding the Left, Ace and King of trump is a sure two tricks any way that you slice it. However the numbers do not lie. This play barely generates half a point when played over the long term from Seat #1. Imagine how much lower the mean expected outcome would be if this hand was played from the second seat. Don Bunn, the creator of the Ohio Euchre website provides the general guideline when playing from the first seat position, "bid if you hold three trump with one being a bower." Author Joe Andrews suggests that players order up whenever you hold two of the top three trump cards."
So the author just proved that this hand is a call and yet he wants us to pass. Ironically, the numbers don't lie. The hand has a +EO of .513 and there's no reason to believe passing could somehow generate a higher EO with this hand (a possibility the author never considers anyways). He does this over and over in the book. Proves a hand is call with his own math and then trashes the experts for advocating a call with the same hand. It's bizarro world man. I have never read anything like this before in my entire life.

And all of this is besides the fact that several times the author ends up owning himself becuz he somehow doesn't realize that passing has a cost. For example:
EZ: "Hand 205: Dealer turns down the King of hearts. Seat #1 holds the King-10-9 of diamonds, Queen of spades, and the 10 of clubs. Seat #1 names "next" and plays diamonds trump. E0 = -.366. N = 303

(Card_K-D) (Card_10-D) (Card_9-D) (Card_Q-S) (Card_10-C)

Analysis: This hand has a mean expected outcome of negative -.366 points points per attempt and gets rocked 48.18% of the time based on the sample of 303 hands played. Hand 205 is another classic next hand which many experts love. Author Joe Andrews states "any three trump are worth calling." Don Bunn, creator of the Ohio Euchre website, notes that "a fairly safe time to call next is if you have three or more (trump cards) in next." The Euchre Strategy Blog recommends to "call next with three or more cards in next." Author Fred Benjamin says to "call trump with any three cards of the same suit if the opposition turned down the same color." Harvey Lapp of Vegas Euchre says "call next with two trumps and a side Ace, or better, as long as you have one void suit." Perry Romanowski says "Calling next is not a point winning strategy. Over the long haul you should expect to lose points. However, it is less a losing strategy than passing which, if you are playing skilled players, results in even more points lost." That quote reads like a back-handed endorsement of next. The implication is that any action is better than no action. Passing seems a better option because naming next with Hand 205 generates .964 points per play for the opponents."
First of all, I'm just gonna ignore that last sentence which makes no sense. According to the Author's own math, calling next generates .366 for the opponents (not .964) given that calling has an EO of -.366. Also, I'm more than a little skeptical that calling Next with this decent of a hand actually has a negative EO, I wonder if this simulation is taking into account the hand distribution of our opponents and our partner AFTER the King of hearts was turned down in the first round. Either way, even if we take the author's numbers at face value, passing is absurd. Ok so calling costs our team a fraction of a point (-.366). Do we really think that we will lose less than that number if we pass? I mean I know that the cost of passing is a theoretical number that we can only guess at, but there's no way that the cost of passing isn't more than -.366 (roughly a third of a point) when we are passing a hand that blocks nothing (with only a single small spade and a single small club), and has no aces. Whatever the theoretical cost of passing is, it's close to its highest point if we pass such a holding.

Here's what my EV model spits out using that probability chart (http://members.tripod.com/borf_books/euchprob.htm) and assuming the cost of passing = 1 point, working with the author's numbers:

EV of calling Next: (.4818 x .38) + (.4389 x .57) + (.0792 x .64) = 48.39%

EV of passing: 45%

Calling is better than passing. 48.39% > 45%

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:39 pm

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:06 pm
So the author just proved that this hand is a call and yet he wants us to pass.
BTW, the above is why I would never recommend this book to a novice but would to any strong euchre player who can quickly discern what these numbers really mean. The magic of the book is the Author unknowingly confirms why the experts are right over and over with his own numbers. And from this data we get some pretty interesting results. For instance, in my Advanced Euchre Quiz I advised people to make this thin call from the dealer spot:
2) The score is 0-0. You are the dealer.

The upcard is the (Card_10-C)

You hold (Card_A-D), (Card_K-C), (Card_10-H), (Card_9-H), (Card_9-S)

ANSWER: Call clubs. When you block no suits, two trump plus a singleton green ace is a call more for defensive purposes than offensive purposes. Yes it's a marginal call, and you will certainly get euchred more than you'd like. The theory here is you will squeeze out enough points offensively, plus block enough seat 1 loners + seat 1 calls that end up getting 2 points or 1 point, to make up for the higher euchre frequency of this marginal holding. I would also make this defensive call with two trump and a doubleton green ace, or two trump and a singleton non-green ace.
This hand was interesting becuz it got almost a split decision by the quiz takers:
RedDuke wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:26 pm
2. Pass
Don wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:35 pm
2) Pick the 10.
irishwolf wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:55 am
2. order – AND could also be pass
Richardb02 wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:26 pm
2. Bid, if you have decided you want to play aggressively. 2.00
Suz wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:31 pm
2) I would pass
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:13 pm
2) Pass. I don't donate at 0-0.
Now wouldn't it be cool if we had some math to back up my answer? Well we kinda do thanx to EZ's book:
EZ: "Hand 198. Dealer picks up the Ace of Hearts and now holds the Ace-10 of hearts, the 10-9 of clubs, and the Ace of spades. Dealer discards the 9 of spades and plays the hearts trump. EO = -.274. N = 321

(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-C) (Card_9-C) (Card_A-S)

Analysis: This hand has a 56.07% win rate and a mean expected outcome of negative -.274 points per attempt when played from the dealer position based on a robust sample size of 321 hands played. This hand gets slapped silly 43.93% of the time based on the referenced data set. Don Bunn, creator of the Ohio Euchre website, says, "Bid, if you're the dealer and you already hold one of the turn suit, plus a green Ace. On this hand you are going to need your partner's help." The dealer will need more than just help from your partner with hand 198. Euchremetrics analysis shows that the partner takes a meaningful trick on 180 hands, or 56.1% of the total hands that the dealer named trump with this hand. Despite the partner helping out more than half of the time, this play generates .879 points per play for the opponents.
Hand 198 is an example of a highly aggressive player trying to invent a reason to name trump. In this case the dealer's illusion of control comes with a heavy price tag."
First, I don't know why the author said "this play generates .879 points per play for the opponents." The author's numbers indicates this play actually generates .274 points for our opponents, as the EO = -.274. The author does this quite often. He brings a number out of nowhere that doesn't comport with his actual data. Ok back to the actual hand, the reason why I said we 'kinda' have some math to back up my quiz answer is becuz my hand and the book's hand aren't perfectly analogous, but I think they're close enough. Now let's do an EV analysis--correctly factoring in that passing has a cost--using the author's numbers to see if calling with this hand is a good idea. The author's hand gets 1 point 51.71% of the time, 2 points 4.36% and euchred 43.93%.

Using the usual probability chart:

http://members.tripod.com/borf_books/euchprob.htm

And assuming the cost of passing = 1

Our win equity if we call: (.5171 x .55) + (.0436 x .62) + (.4393 x .36) = 46.96%

Our win equity if we pass: 43%

46.96% > 43%, therefore calling is best.

If you ask me, it's pretty cool that we can use data from EZ's book to help guide us on some close/debatable spots. All we have to do is ignore the author's words and just look at his numbers.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:17 pm

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:06 pm
And all of this is besides the fact that several times the author ends up owning himself becuz he somehow doesn't realize that passing has a cost. For example:
EZ: "Hand 205: Dealer turns down the King of hearts. Seat #1 holds the King-10-9 of diamonds, Queen of spades, and the 10 of clubs. Seat #1 names "next" and plays diamonds trump. E0 = -.366. N = 303

(Card_K-D) (Card_10-D) (Card_9-D) (Card_Q-S) (Card_10-C)

Analysis: This hand has a mean expected outcome of negative -.366 points points per attempt and gets rocked 48.18% of the time based on the sample of 303 hands played. Hand 205 is another classic next hand which many experts love. Author Joe Andrews states "any three trump are worth calling." Don Bunn, creator of the Ohio Euchre website, notes that "a fairly safe time to call next is if you have three or more (trump cards) in next." The Euchre Strategy Blog recommends to "call next with three or more cards in next." Author Fred Benjamin says to "call trump with any three cards of the same suit if the opposition turned down the same color." Harvey Lapp of Vegas Euchre says "call next with two trumps and a side Ace, or better, as long as you have one void suit." Perry Romanowski says "Calling next is not a point winning strategy. Over the long haul you should expect to lose points. However, it is less a losing strategy than passing which, if you are playing skilled players, results in even more points lost." That quote reads like a back-handed endorsement of next. The implication is that any action is better than no action. Passing seems a better option because naming next with Hand 205 generates .964 points per play for the opponents."
This one's even worse:
EZ: "Hand 174. Dealer turns down the King of hearts. Seat #1 holds the King-10-9 of diamonds, Ace of spades, and the 10 of clubs. Seat #1 names "next" and plays diamonds trump. E0: +.204, N = 201

(Card_K-D) (Card_10-D) (Card_9-D) (Card_A-S) (Card_10-C)

Analysis: This hand has a 70.15% win rate and a mean expected outcome of just .204 points per attempt when played next from seat #1 based on a sample size of 201 hands played. This hand gets euchred 29.85% of the time based on the referenced data set. A bevy of euchre experts recommend naming trump with this hand. Author Joe Andrews suggests that any three trump are worth calling. Fred Benjamin says to "name trump with three cards of the same suit when the opposition has turned down that color." Harvey Lapp of Vegas Euchre says "call next with two trumps and a side ace, as long as you have at least one void suit." Perry Romanowski, creator of the Euchre Universe blog, recommends naming trump in the second round if you have sixteen or more points (i.e. Romanowski Score = 18). Don Bunn, creator of the Ohio Euchre website, states in his website that it is fairly safe to call next when you have two or more cards in next with one off-suit Ace. I'm perplexed by seeing so many expert recommendations for a hand that gets euchred almost 30% of the time and barely scores one-fifth of a point per attempt."
The Author's own math shows this is a +EO call (in a race to 10 you certainly can't afford to turn down ANY +EO opportunity) and yet he's "perplexed" as to why the experts would play this hand. You can't get more clueless than that. Instead, the author wants us to pass up a +EO call with a hand that blocks nothing in the 2nd round becuz it gets euchred too much. I mean seriously??!! You can't make this stuff up man.

Anyways, here's an EV break down using the author's numbers (euchre rate 29.85%, 1 pt rate 60.2%, 2 pts 9.95%). Same assumptions as before, passing costs 1 point, and using the probability chart.

Win Equity of calling next: (.2985 x .38) + (.602 x .57) + (.0995 x .64) = 52.03%

Win Equity of passing: 45%

52.03% > 45%, therefore we should call Next. EV of calling = +7.03%

The author wants us to light 7% win equity on fire becuz getting euchred hurts too much.

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:48 am

bump for Irishwolf.

Catch10110
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:50 pm
Location: Aurora, IL

Unread post by Catch10110 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:57 am

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:39 pm
(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-C) (Card_9-C) (Card_A-S)

Analysis: This hand has a 56.07% win rate and a mean expected outcome of negative -.274 points per attempt when played from the dealer position based on a robust sample size of 321 hands played. This hand gets slapped silly 43.93% of the time based on the referenced data set.
First, I don't know why the author said "this play generates .879 points per play for the opponents." The author's numbers indicates this play actually generates .274 points for our opponents, as the EO = -.274. The author does this quite often. He brings a number out of nowhere that doesn't comport with his actual data.
He's just not counting the makers wins as a negative against the opponents.

43.93% x 2 = .8786 points.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:22 pm

Catch10110 wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:57 am
Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:39 pm
(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-C) (Card_9-C) (Card_A-S)

Analysis: This hand has a 56.07% win rate and a mean expected outcome of negative -.274 points per attempt when played from the dealer position based on a robust sample size of 321 hands played. This hand gets slapped silly 43.93% of the time based on the referenced data set.
First, I don't know why the author said "this play generates .879 points per play for the opponents." The author's numbers indicates this play actually generates .274 points for our opponents, as the EO = -.274. The author does this quite often. He brings a number out of nowhere that doesn't comport with his actual data.
He's just not counting the makers wins as a negative against the opponents.

43.93% x 2 = .8786 points.
Ahh. Thanks man. Glad to know where that number comes from now.

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:11 pm

The dealer discarded the 9S???????????????? How stupid was that? The proper discard is the 9C not the 9S. I wonder how the dealer played the hand? And how Eric programmed these robots?

EZ: "Hand 198. Dealer picks up the Ace of Hearts and now holds the Ace-10 of hearts, the 10-9 of clubs, and the Ace of spades. Dealer discards the 9 of spades and plays the hearts trump. EO = -.274. N = 321

(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-C) (Card_9-C) (Card_A-S)

Analysis: This hand has a 56.07% win rate and a mean expected outcome of negative -.274 points per attempt when pl

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:35 pm

irishwolf wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:11 pm
The dealer discarded the 9S???????????????? How stupid was that? The proper discard is the 9C not the 9S. I wonder how the dealer played the hand? And how Eric programmed these robots?
Wow. I somehow missed that. That's really bad. So he purposely makes it harder to get rid of his garbage suit. Lol

I've actually seen players do that in the Monday night game more than once (not by you).

Like say the upcard is the (Card_9-S)

And they have:

(Card_A-D) (Card_9-D) (Card_K-H) (Card_Q-H) (Card_J-S)

They pick up the spade and get rid of the 9D!!

Note: if one were going alone on a desperation loner, getting rid of the 9D would be the correct play, but if you're just calling (which is what one should be doing like 99% of the time) then getting rid of the 9D is terrible.

User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:39 pm

i'm lost, how does keeping a green winner and the other green doubleton winner not good play by discarding the 9d as dealer? I do this all the time !

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:09 pm

Normally Lefty, you want to keep a doubleton Ace over say doubleton K-Q unless your trying to defend against the loner than just ditch trump and hope the ace or suited King-queen could be a potential stopper. You are able to create a void when throwing off on a trick, plus your A-x suited has value in taking two tricks or forcing out trump.


Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:55 pm

LeftyK wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:39 pm
i'm lost, how does keeping a green winner and the other green doubleton winner not good play by discarding the 9d as dealer? I do this all the time !
When you purposely keep a doubleton garbage suit you're just needlessly making it harder on yourself. Cut your garbage to just one card and now you give yourself a chance to get rid of it during the hand.

For example say you call spades with my mentioned hand and correctly discard the QH:

(Card_J-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_A-D) (Card_9-D) (Card_K-H)

S1 leads off with the QC and the S2, your P, plays the AC or trumps in and S3 follows suit. Now you can get rid of your garbage card (KH). If you incorrectly keep (KHQH) you're still stuck with a garage card after the first lead. There's other possible spots in a hand where you can get rid of that singleton garbage card too. Those times you throw off hoping your P can take the trick.

Also, the X in your suited AX has value. That X can take a trick later in the hand on a non-fresh lead after trump has been led--even a 9--or force out enemy trump. Getting rid of that X to keep a doubleton garbage suit and basically crippling your team's chances of a 2 pt march is damn near a capital offense.

User avatar
LeftyK
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:45 am
Location: North Carolina

Unread post by LeftyK » Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:36 pm

I see it but I see just the opposite; I'm trying to unsure our team doesn't get euchred and want to win dang near guaranteed 3 tricks.... in fact I would almost be tempted to lone it with that KQ off hand in down five or more desperation. If my P called me up, I am playing like I normally do in keeping that. You guy are all about stats, numbers and over thinking hands, so tell me the math reasons this pays off to march instead of ensuring my team doesn't get set?

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:11 pm

I think it's self-evident that if you make it harder to rid yourself of your garbage suit your team will go set more often.

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:27 am

EZ: Hand 198
I just completed 150 hands on EZ Hand 198. Of 150 hands I pull out 22 hands that S2 would have assisted and the loner attempts (those don't count). So the number is now 128. But I discarded properly the 9C. Of course you have 5 or 6 hands could have been played differently as well. With this hand I had 50/128 times being euchred for 39%.06. And a 3 sweeps for a net negative EO = -.19 for the dealer. So I am experienced a lower euchre rate on this hand. Possibly for one of two reasons, or both. One is not going to 321. But more IMPORTANT, is the discard the 9S vs holding the 9C/10C. I discarded properly because it means more to me than the other alternative. I think the discard is more significant for the difference in results because of the way I rotate the hands. I am sure he does not. The euchre rate at 5% is pretty big difference. 39.06 vs 43.95, but there were 4 or 5 hands it could go either way and i split the difference. So this hand has a 61% win rate, 64 to 68% is breakeven point. There is an advantage in controlling play, but you have to pick your spots.

Interestingly, S2 certainly had more times of winning a trick than what Eric contends. I play such to always maximize this unless I don't need my partner. In this hand, he MUST as the dealer only has a 2 trick hand, really weak. Myself, I would be on the fence as to this call even though I do not have Next blocked. I have two aces (if the up card was the 9H) and do not fear a successful loner, BRING IT. Seriously, I don't like hands with a euchre rate over 38%, just me. I have a helper hand and if gets back around (STD) I would call clubs and get a point 70 - 80% of the time. Better than making hearts trump, IMO. Just how far do you want to push the envelope?

To continue, if S2 does not win a trick with AC, AD or trumping a trick,
Club, Spade or Heart, the dealer surely ends up being euchred. It is almost a miracle to win 3 tricks. And with properly discarding, if S2 trumps a spade trick, the dealer gets to slough the 9S. Or if AD or AC the dealer gets to now have two voids. That is not how it would be discarding the 9S (so important to Discard properly). Anyway, to get S2's help, the Dealer has to finesse such that his partner can win a trick and there are several ways to accomplish this, but I will not elaborate at this time in this discussion.

However, with the results above, now the question becomes: Will there be more of a Negative EO if the Dealer passes? I suspect quite possibly this is true, but I did not proceed as I did not know if I should use EZ hand point system for making trump or my own. If you use his methodology, S1 is passing at least 50% of the time. That is a losing proposition in my book. So with an experienced good player at S1, will S1 do better than the EO = -.19. My estimation (and you can discount this as it is SWAG) is around E0 of -.30 to -.37. When I get some time, I will be working on this as how I would call at S1 (or S2/S3/S4 if S1 pass-pass) and play out the 128 hands for comparison. I trust my numbers more than his.
~IRISHWOLF

NOTE: This type of analysis is BUNK to not include what the other side gets. Lopsided analysis. ! He's just not counting the makers wins as a negative against the opponents.

43.93% x 2 = .8786 points. NOTE:

EZ: "Hand 198. Dealer picks up the Ace of Hearts and now holds the Ace-10 of hearts, the 10-9 of clubs, and the Ace of spades. Dealer discards the 9 of spades and plays the hearts trump. EO = -.274. N = 321

(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-C) (Card_9-C) (Card_A-S)

Analysis: This hand has a 56.07% win rate and a mean expected outcome of negative -.274 points per attempt when played from the dealer position based on a robust sample size of 321 hands played. This hand gets slapped silly 43.93% of the time based on the referenced data set. Don Bunn, creator of the Ohio Euchre website, says, "Bid, if you're the dealer and you already hold one of the turn suit, plus a green Ace. On this hand you are going to need your partner's help." The dealer will need more than just help from your partner with hand 198. Euchremetrics analysis shows that the partner takes a meaningful trick on 180 hands, or 56.1% of the total hands that the dealer named trump with this hand. Despite the partner helping out more than half of the time, this play generates .879 points per play for the opponents.
Hand 198 is an example of a highly aggressive player trying to invent a reason to name trump. In this case the dealer's illusion of control comes with a heavy price tag."

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:19 am

Irishwolf, I would have loved to ask him questions and what not but I seriously doubt he would come here to answer or give insight or clarification. Personally I think he thinks of himself as the authority in euchre and everyone else is just playing antiquated euchre. Oh and the calling rate for his Power euchre player ideally is 17% so yes he's passing more than 50% of the time for sure. He lacks the understanding or perhaps the know how, as to how to play with your partner, or for your partner. He as much said that there may be stuff he is missing but to try to learn it all is too time consuming/not worth while. He wanted to find and easy way to quantify and simplify euchre and he came up with his Z-score system and Power euchre player style of play.


Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:05 pm

WOW! to this on DISCARDING and OVERTHINKING:

by LeftyK » Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:36 pm
"I see it but I see just the opposite; I'm trying to unsure our team doesn't get euchred and want to win dang near guaranteed 3 tricks.... in fact I would almost be tempted to lone it with that KQ off hand in down five or more desperation. If my P called me up, I am playing like I normally do in keeping that. You guy are all about stats, numbers and over thinking hands, so tell me the math reasons this pays off to march instead of ensuring my team doesn't get set?"

Now you have three experienced players telling you just the opposite?

When on offense is not the objective to create Voids so you can win tricks? And best way to support your partner. If you have no void (or one less) it hinders you opportunity to trump a trick. On defense, it is a little different, in that you are trying to stop a march.

Only you can change yourself, but first have to do some Deliberate Practice to convince yourself what is the best course of action.

irishwolf
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:09 pm

I want to clarify something that may have been confusing to the readers of Hand EZ Hand 198. I did 150 hands, net 128 and observed 39.06% (50/128) euchre rate and 60.94 win rate. This then netted -19 points over 128 Hands [50 Euchres x 2 = - 100 pts] And for the dealer side 128 - 50 = 78 + 3 (of those were sweeps) = 81 positive points. And it follows that - 100 + 81 = -19. But the EV/EO is based as a percentage (on 100 hands), thus - 19/128 equals minus 0.148 as the EO not -.19 originally posted. What I originally expressed was based on 128. So update your thought process on EZ 198.

UPDATE: The progress on points scored if the Dealer passes on 75 hands to date is minus 46 points. This many negative points surprised me for 75 hands. For sure, a hand that signals a better strategy for the Dealer to take his lumps of a negative - .148 compared to passing. My results: 29/75 HANDS S1 called Next, Crossed suit 15/75 HANDS, and passed again, 31/75 HANDS. But a number of those passes he had a euchre and/or a helper hand if S3 called or he had a very weak hand (There were 5 successful loners). Only 4 times did it get back to the Dealer to call Clubs. I think this is quite typical of other hands in regular play and as I would have played each seat, each hand. I am sure each of us plays somewhat differently and your results will also reflect this as well. With this hand you do not block a Next call but have two aces (AH/AS). Look at the rate of call Next, 29/75 = 38.7% [Note: I did not just guessing that S3 had next, and he did a significant number of times. That is a different animal that I wanted to leave to a later analysis.] Compare the results to the Dealer ordering up Hearts.

But how many players will actually make Hearts trump and at what score/situations (I suspect not many)? There is significant value in looking at both sides of the coin.

~IRISHWOLF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EZ: Hand 198 (as originally posted by me):
I just completed 150 hands on EZ Hand 198. Of 150 hands I pull out 22 hands that S2 would have assisted and the loner attempts (those don't count). So the number is now 128. But I discarded properly the 9C. Of course you have 5 or 6 hands could have been played differently as well. With this hand I had 50/128 times being euchred for 39%.06. And a 3 sweeps for a net negative EO = -.19 for the dealer. So I am experienced a lower euchre rate on this hand. Possibly for one of two reasons, or both. One is not going to 321. But more IMPORTANT, is the discard the 9S vs holding the 9C/10C. I discarded properly because it means more to me than the other alternative. I think the discard is more significant for the difference in results because of the way I rotate the hands. I am sure he does not. The euchre rate at 5% is pretty big difference. 39.06 vs 43.95, but there were 4 or 5 hands it could go either way and i split the difference. So this hand has a 61% win rate, 64 to 68% is breakeven point. There is an advantage in controlling play, but you have to pick your spots.

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:30 am

Irishwolf. If you want. We can discuss and show certain parts of the book via skype. I think this could be beneficial in seeing, reading and discussing this while we are looking this live and talking live. Then we could bring our comments back here for more of an open discussion. Let me know if you have skype or anything else we can conference in. Anyone else interested is free to join.

Tbolt65
Edward

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:26 pm

As I have been re-reading the appendencies in Vol. 5. And other booked marked pages I had. I'd like to point out what Eric Zalas talks about that is good. Do I believe in his Z-score system and his so called power player. Absolutely not. I'll stick to my "complex decisions" as he calls it and be an ever so adjusting euchre player to the multitude of situations euchre has to offer in cards and in the players.


So, He says about making an explosive play of getting +2pts euchre/march or +4pts Loner is very powerful and the more explosive plays in a game the higher the winning percentage for those teams. I agree with this sentiment. I think it's valuable to play for two in many situations. Just because your down lets say 8-4. I often bring my partner along for a possible two if I have a weak or marginal loser off suit. I'd much rather get 2 most of the time then getting +4 very little of the time. He has all this math to back it up to justify what hands should be played alone and not and what should be passed so that he catches people who go Next(something of which he says has No value and is a losing proposition in essence). I never came to those conclusions myself by math but only by play alone and trying to eek out extra points when possible because these are in my mind the difference makers in games if you can get a couple of these in a game. So with that said I'm in agreement with Eric Zalas explosive plays. The more marches and euchres your team can score and loners the better off you'll be.


Like I said before in my initial book review on amazon,



4 out of 5 Stars

Informative but....

Eric gives an extensive breakdown and analysis of hands and uses a system to exploit aggressive euchre players. Using the Z-score method to rank hands and playability. While at the same time admonishing with what his mathematical findings say that conventional euchre thinking and axioms are totally outdated, inferior and in all likelihood a result of the feeling or need to be in control of all situations. Basically getting a rush out of naming trump or picking up. The author clearly states many times he does not understand some of the reasons and justifications. Perhaps he was asking the wrong people or perhaps not the right questions?

The hand analysis and rankings alone make this a must read for all euchre players. Regardless of skill you will improve your game to some degree. I find the sample size of his archetype(s)too small. Therefore it erroneously paints most euchre players as either aggressive or ultragressive. Which is totally a miscategorization of the world's euchre base. From these misconceptions of players and conventions of play style he goes on to support the fact based mathematical percentages of wining hands that takes advantage of the so called weaker play. He does not account for passive players in his models when comparing play. Unless that what he means by "power euchre players" being the passive player.

All in all. Eric Zalas is a smart and critical thinker. His information is thoroughly presented and I think most people of such minds will have no problem following his outline to be a "power player". In the end this is only but one of many tools that can help you in your quest to be the best possible euchre player possible. Take it for that which it is and continue to always improve on your game.
-----------------


There are nuggets in there but there is much he leaves out, doesn't understand and erroneously comes to conclusions with his simulators that make incorrect leads and playthrough. He justify his play with saying "likely leads". Which give him the results that make it looks like that these calls and plays are incorrect and it is validated from the data gathered. If you gather data with incorrect play you will get incorrect assesments. He does how ever says that aggressive euchre players can have success but they won't be winning or playing optimally and that he often looks to have these aggressive players to sit on their right side of them to essentially take advantage of them or in other words exploit them basically.



Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:49 am

irishwolf wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:09 pm
I want to clarify something that may have been confusing to the readers of Hand EZ Hand 198. I did 150 hands, net 128 and observed 39.06% (50/128) euchre rate and 60.94 win rate. This then netted -19 points over 128 Hands [50 Euchres x 2 = - 100 pts] And for the dealer side 128 - 50 = 78 + 3 (of those were sweeps) = 81 positive points. And it follows that - 100 + 81 = -19. But the EV/EO is based as a percentage (on 100 hands), thus - 19/128 equals minus 0.148 as the EO not -.19 originally posted. What I originally expressed was based on 128. So update your thought process on EZ 198.

UPDATE: The progress on points scored if the Dealer passes on 75 hands to date is minus 46 points. This many negative points surprised me for 75 hands. For sure, a hand that signals a better strategy for the Dealer to take his lumps of a negative - .148 compared to passing. My results: 29/75 HANDS S1 called Next, Crossed suit 15/75 HANDS, and passed again, 31/75 HANDS. But a number of those passes he had a euchre and/or a helper hand if S3 called or he had a very weak hand (There were 5 successful loners). Only 4 times did it get back to the Dealer to call Clubs. I think this is quite typical of other hands in regular play and as I would have played each seat, each hand. I am sure each of us plays somewhat differently and your results will also reflect this as well. With this hand you do not block a Next call but have two aces (AH/AS). Look at the rate of call Next, 29/75 = 38.7% [Note: I did not just guessing that S3 had next, and he did a significant number of times. That is a different animal that I wanted to leave to a later analysis.] Compare the results to the Dealer ordering up Hearts.

But how many players will actually make Hearts trump and at what score/situations (I suspect not many)? There is significant value in looking at both sides of the coin.
This is good work here Wolf. As you probably know I have been making this type of call and advocating for it since I've been on this site (See Hand #2 in my advanced quiz: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=111). But even I often wondered if it was a good call if we had 2 off aces to slow down a Next call. As far as I'm concerned your work has basically established that

(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_A-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_10-C)

Is a +EV heart call, probably a very similar EV to an R+1+0 hand or a QT9 three suited, no off ace hand. Since we are calling with the two latter hands, we should be calling with the former hand. I'd be willing to be serious money that this hand is a +EV heart call too:

(Card_K-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_A-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_10-C)

But what about:

(Card_Q-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_A-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_10-C)

or:

(Card_10-H) (Card_9-H) (Card_A-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_10-C)

When I finally get around to testing the dealer spot it will be these type of hands that I will be looking at first and EVEN IF some of these hands are -EV calls, they will still be calls we need to make with decent enough leads given that we block no suits.

One caveat tho. At 9-9, I think we have to pass these hands if our P is an expert. As you know, an expert is calling super wide in that spot. Hands like no trump+2 off aces, or 2 low trump + nothing, or R+0 are in his calling range. So if an expert passes in that spot his range is now super weak thus rendering this marginal dealer call as practically suicide. So at 9-9 with an expert P it's a sigh pass, but in like 99% of euchre situations we'll have an amateur P who's just trying not to get euchred, making this an easy call at 9-9.

Post Reply