Weekly Games 5-18 Possible Lone call?

[Dlan]

In Lesson 6 of our series on how to play euchre, We have a list of possible hands for a lone call. Here is a second-round call that doesn’t seem to fit.



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

[Richardb02]

LOL. Great hand to post Dlan! I even enjoyed it, even though it led to Tbolt and me losing the game after having a 7-1 lead! Actually 2 very skilled players/ warriors seized the opportunities to Earn the victory!!

It doesn’t look like a Loner when compared to most Loners. But I’m 130% on board that it was a calculated order and not desperation.

My BPS analysis starts with
O.50 R2 S1 Order
0.75 Next
0.50 Kd
0.50 Qd
0.25 9d
0.50 3 trump, no bowers
0.75 2 Suited, 2 voids
3.75 Great order, at 1.25 points per trick I expect a 95% success
____ In fact, it is an edge hand for a Loner
____ But the Ah has been turned down so the Kh is equivalent to the Ah
+0.50 Ah equivalent
+0.75 Max adjustment of 0.25 to 0.75 range, for being behind in score
5.00 Now it is a “Must Go Alone” hand
____ but let’s analyze even further
Kd looks weak, it appears that there are 3 cards, ALR, that can stop this Loner. But is that true? Dealer doesn’t have the either the L or Right. Why? Because even with an average player they would have ordered with an Ace up. With stronger players it is nearly impossible. S2 can’t have more than a single bower, or S2 would have ordered. So at most there are 2 single cards capable of stopping this Loner, not 3, what it looked like at 1st look.

How do you use this information? I round the chance of losing to a single card at 50%. That means that losing to 2 single cards is 50% x 50% = 25%. So there is a 25% opportunity to take 4 points. I average earning 4 points, 30% of the time that I order Alone. So 25% is very reasonable. Yes, I know that there is only an 8/18th or 44% chance. I round it off to 50%. OK, I round it up to 50%. Why? When Maker has 3 trump there is a good chance that the winners are split. That means that 50% makes sense.

And for naysayers asking about a void being trumped, that requires a parlay. It is equivalent to 0.2 single stoppers. Even at 2 parlays that is equivalent to 0.4 single stoppers. Mathematically that is 50% ^ 2.4. Don’t get turned off by the math. 0.50 ^1 = 0.50. 0.50 ^ 2 = 0.50 x 0.50 = 0.25. 0.50 ^ 3 = 0.50 x 0.50 x 0.50 = 0.125. So 0.50 ^ 2.4 = 20% chance of taking 4 points. I will go Alone with a 20% chance of taking 4 points and less than 5% chance of getting euchred! Will you?

If you won’t go for a 20% chance of 4 points and less than 5% chance of getting euchred, well... I’ll gently say that you need more excitement, and possibility of being euchred (risk) in your life.

We could continue and analyze your minimal chance of winning while down 1 to 7 compared to a single hand increasing your chances 4 times with a single hand! Numerically you are potentially moving from a 12% chance to a 48, almost 50% chance. My attitude is go for it, emphatically!! If you win you are back in the game. If you only get 1, you went with dignity and still preserved your chances. If you get euchred, you shortened your misery. To me that is a win, win, win possibility!!!

[Wes (aka the legend)]

For all the lurkers out there, here's an oral history of this game starting from "the hand":

Wes: We were down 7-1, getting pushed around all game. Just give me anything to fight back. A pitchfork or some rocks to throw. Anything!!!

Richard: We were on cruise control up 7-1. I wasn't worried at all.

Don: Honestly, I was mentally checked out. We're down 7-1. I was daydreaming about all the women I had made love to.

Edward: There's actually some history behind my hand as the dealer. I had 2 trump and a green ace and nothing else going for me. Wes and I have argued about this hand a lot. He thinks it's a call but I don't dealer donate.

Wes: Ok the hand I had wasn't ideal. I needed AJJ to be buried. But hey, Gandhi needed a lot more help than that to overcome the British so I couldn't complain. Once Edward passed, I knew what I had to do. Alone! Diamonds! You can't just get kicked in the teeth all your life. Sooner or later you have to get up and fight back no matter what the odds!

Don: I had the Ad, so when Wes went alone and led the Kd I knew he had bull****. And then lo and behold the Kd won the first trick. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It felt like the whole hand played out in slow motion. Here was a guy willing to lay it all out on the line, giving it everything he had. His heart and his soul. To win this game. It gave me chills. It was one of the most inspiring displays of the human spirit I have ever seen. It was like that scene in "Norma Rae" when she finally stood up to the corporate bullies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8ulYIVcCeY

Wes: I was happy I pulled off the loner sweep but there was no time to celebrate. We're still down 7-5 with a lot of work left to do. But then I couldn't believe what happened next.

Don: Wes was the dealer and I went alone the very next hand. I couldn't help but feel galvanized by what I just witnessed. I wanted to show my partner that I was right there in the trenches with him, that I too would muster everything I had to get this win. And I pulled off the sweep.

Richard: It was like that familiar scene in war movies when the bomb lands too close to the protagonist and his ears start ringing. Yeah, it was exactly like that.

Wes: When Don pulled off that loner, a jolt of jubilation pulsed through my entire body. I now knew we were destined to win this game. And I also knew I had a partner who had my back! Someone who could be my wingman anytime.
Don's loner was the final necessary blow, like that haymaker McFly landed on Biff in "Back to the Future". You knew they weren't getting back up. Victory was ours!!

Don: In all the excitement I forgot to donate up 9-7, but I knew it didn't matter. Our enemy was defeated. They had nothing left. I closed the game out the next hand on my deal. The last time I felt this good after a win was when Ohio State beat Miami in the Fiesta bowl. I don't know if we were the better team, but with the grit and determination we showed in the face of adversity I don't think anyone could deny who the tougher team was.

Edward: Sigh. I should've called.

Wes: Remember what I told you man.

Edward: What?

Wes: Don't play dumb.

Edward: ....

Wes: Never argue with a legend!

Edward: STFU

[Richardb02]

LOL

[Dlan]

In all the excitement I forgot to donate up 9-7,

True, but I was hoping no-one noticed

In all honesty, that hand was one for the books, not only for the fact that you tried it, but that it was successful.

In future years, when sitting around the campfire, someone will bring up that hand "do you remember when Wes went alone with only......

[Wes (aka the legend)]

LOL. Great hand to post Dlan! I even enjoyed it, even though it led to Tbolt and me losing the game after having a 7-1 lead! Actually 2 very skilled players/ warriors seized the opportunities to Earn the victory!!

It doesn’t look like a Loner when compared to most Loners. But I’m 130% on board that it was a calculated order and not desperation.

My BPS analysis starts with
O.50 R2 S1 Order
0.75 Next
0.50 Kd
0.50 Qd
0.25 9d
0.50 3 trump, no bowers
0.75 2 Suited, 2 voids
3.75 Great order, at 1.25 points per trick I expect a 95% success
____ In fact, it is an edge hand for a Loner
____ But the Ah has been turned down so the Kh is equivalent to the Ah
+0.50 Ah equivalent
+0.75 Max adjustment of 0.25 to 0.75 range, for being behind in score
5.00 Now it is a “Must Go Alone” hand
____ but let’s analyze even further
Kd looks weak, it appears that there are 3 cards, ALR, that can stop this Loner. But is that true? Dealer doesn’t have the either the L or Right. Why? Because even with an average player they would have ordered with an Ace up. With stronger players it is nearly impossible. S2 can’t have more than a single bower, or S2 would have ordered. So at most there are 2 single cards capable of stopping this Loner, not 3, what it looked like at 1st look.

How do you use this information? I round the chance of losing to a single card at 50%. That means that losing to 2 single cards is 50% x 50% = 25%. So there is a 25% opportunity to take 4 points. I average earning 4 points, 30% of the time that I order Alone. So 25% is very reasonable. Yes, I know that there is only an 8/18th or 44% chance. I round it off to 50%. OK, I round it up to 50%. Why? When Maker has 3 trump there is a good chance that the winners are split. That means that 50% makes sense.

And for naysayers asking about a void being trumped, that requires a parlay. It is equivalent to 0.2 single stoppers. Even at 2 parlays that is equivalent to 0.4 single stoppers. Mathematically that is 50% ^ 2.4. Don’t get turned off by the math. 0.50 ^1 = 0.50. 0.50 ^ 2 = 0.50 x 0.50 = 0.25. 0.50 ^ 3 = 0.50 x 0.50 x 0.50 = 0.125. So 0.50 ^ 2.4 = 20% chance of taking 4 points. I will go Alone with a 20% chance of taking 4 points and less than 5% chance of getting euchred! Will you?

If you won’t go for a 20% chance of 4 points and less than 5% chance of getting euchred, well... I’ll gently say that you need more excitement, and possibility of being euchred (risk) in your life.

We could continue and analyze your minimal chance of winning while down 1 to 7 compared to a single hand increasing your chances 4 times with a single hand! Numerically you are potentially moving from a 12% chance to a 48, almost 50% chance. My attitude is go for it, emphatically!! If you win you are back in the game. If you only get 1, you went with dignity and still preserved your chances. If you get euchred, you shortened your misery. To me that is a win, win, win possibility!!!

Good write up Richard. And yes, in truth, this was a "calculated order and not desperation." Although this hand is near the bottom of my loner range, I do believe it is a must go alone.

Firstly, one of the reasons is my outside offsuit cards. As we all know, I had KhQh after the Ah was turned down so my outside offsuit is equivalent to a suited AK. Whenever one has a suited AK, I.E. outside offsuit cards with no gap, this means their loner will NEVER be stopped by somebody's guarded offsuit garbage cards. E.G. your outside offsuit is AcJc and somebody with KcTc or Qc9c saves the day, etc. So many loners are stopped this way (perhaps most?). So having an outside suited AK is HUGE and it means that in theory one should loosen up their loner range a bit whenever they are fortunate enough to have that. When a very common way a loner is stopped is eliminated you now have the mathematical license to gamble a little bit more.

Secondly, I'm just gonna echo what you said. It appears I have to worry about 3 higher cards (AJJ) but in reality that's not true. I'm against two very aggressive opponents, and I'm going alone in Next. If Richard had R+1 in the first rd he's calling. If he had L+1+an off ace he's calling unless he has everything blocked but that's only a very small percentage of his L+1+A range. Same with Edward. Ed is not passing R+1 unless he has everything blocked which again is only a very small percentage of his R+1 range. And I don't think he's passing L+1+an off ace either up 7-1 if he doesn't block much. IOW a buttload of hand combos containing cards that can stop my loner simply can't be there. So on average I would say there are only 2 higher cards I need buried in my P's hand/kitty, not 3.

So here I am only needing 2 cards buried on average to pull this off, with a hand that is very unlikely to get euchred even if my loner doesn't sweep. The fact that my team is down 7-1 is just mushroom gravy on top of the my mashed potatoes. Even at 4-4 I'm going alone with this hand.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

In all the excitement I forgot to donate up 9-7,

True, but I was hoping no-one noticed

It's no biggie. Even if they would've won the game on a loner I would've forgiven you after a couple months.

In all honesty, that hand was one for the books, not only for the fact that you tried it, but that it was successful.

In future years, when sitting around the campfire, someone will bring up that hand "do you remember when Wes went alone with only......

The craziest part about this game is neither one of our loners should've happened. At least that's what I would strongly argue.

As I alluded to in my first post, the dealer cannot pass that heart call:



A hand that blocks no suits with a decent chance at scoring a point. Up 7-1 it is absolutely criminal to pass that hand. Thanx to Eric Zalas' work we even have relatively strong mathematical evidence that this hand type is a +EV call. Here's a similar hand from his book:

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 hearts trump. E0 = -0.274. N = 321

Zalas' hand has an expected outcome of -.274. What that means is as long as you think passing will have a greater cost than .274 pts, then Zalas' hand will be a +EV call. Given that in the actual hand the dealer blocks no suits, and a strong player is in S1, I would conservatively estimate that the cost of passing is probably around 1 full point implying that calling with Zalas' hand has a +EV of (1 - .274) = .726 pts!! The dealer's hand in question is virtually identical in strength. The dealer had a doubleton green ace but so did Eric Zalas' hand as he discarded the 9s. We may never know with precision how +EV this call is, maybe it's higher than .726, maybe it's lower but surely it's above zero. By definition anytime a player passes a +EV hand he hurts his team. And in this case the dealer's team paid the ultimate price.

Tangent: One may think that the statement "by definition anytime a player passes a +EV hand he hurts his team" is equivalent to "anytime a player passes a biddable hand he hurts his team", but they are not. Regarding the latter, it is theoretically possible that passing a biddable hand can have a higher expected outcome than calling with it thus rendering a call -EV. Whereas the former statement is tautologically true.

Ok back to the hand, it is also illuminating to point out that if the dealer had these heart hands he would've called:

Hand 199:

Hand 196: + two random cards

Hand 199 has an expected outcome of -.280, and Hand 196 has an EO of -.262. Mathematically those hands are roughly equivalent to the hand we are talking about. And the primary reason one should call with all 3 hands is for defensive purposes becuz after you factor in the cost of passing all 3 hands end up easily being +EV calls.

One last thing that should haunt our opponents. If the dealer does pick up with



His team gets the point IF S2 correctly leads a club on the 2nd trick. S2 will win the first trick by trumping my diamond lead, and since his partner will follow suit with the Td, S2 will seemingly have to guess which lead is best between a spade and a club. S2 has Ks9sQcJc. Since there really is not a safe lead from his Ks9s he is better off preserving his guarded king for later and leading from his clubs instead. If S2 realizes that then this thin heart call will end up eking out a point if you follow the cards!

Ok let's move on to your loner don. That should've never happened either!!
Here's the actual replay:

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

Our opponents are up 7-5 and it's my deal.

Upcard is the and Seat 1 has:



IMO, 1 trump+no aces is a must donate up 7-5. Can't take the chance of going down 9-7. With that crappy hand like that S1's team has a decent chance of losing 2 points on a call anyways since S1 essentially has a dead hand defensively, so S1 might as well call to prevent a possible 4 point nightmare situation. In times of trouble it's better to donate and preserve a 53% equity edge at 7-7 on your deal then to risk being down 9-7 on your deal with just 23% equity.

Ok so in summary both our loners never should've happened. Edward should've called from the dealer spot with 2 trump and a doubleton green ace up 7-1, and Richard should've donated from S1 up 7-5. But here's the most high-larious part about all this. I know Richard's game really well. If Richard was the dealer in Edward's spot I know he would've called. And I know Edward's game really well. Edward is always donating with Richard's hand up 7-5. IOW, even up against the same team, all you have to do is switch the seats and now our loners are never happening. Ha!!

[Richardb02]

I agree Wes.

I am also impressed by your vocabulary. I had to look up tautologically. I thought it was on the order of “guesstimate” or “swag” (scientific wild ass guess). Turns out that is means rhetorical or redundant. Excellent 50 cent word!

I did consider donating. I just failed to clear my head from the previous hand, where our 7-1 lead had evaporated to 7-5. I should have taken IrishWolf’s advice of think twice, but not too much. Instead I let stupid thoughts like, lightning doesn’t strike twice, we can’t lose our 7-1 lead in just 2 hands, what would partner think and more dumb thoughts flow through my head. So I changed my decision from donate to pass. The rest is history.

I will donate the next time, in an analogous situation as a good student being taught by these Monday night games and the excellent competition. Come join us on Monday nights, 9PM ET at worldofcardgames.com.

I also recommend the WoCG ranked games. Thanks to what I have learned at OE, I am ranked 4th with an Elo (rankIng) of 1813. They are good games. (Of course not as good as Monday night’s private game). And you can save the hands and analyze them later. That is my favorite feature. I overcame 99.5% of the minimal site quirkiness after 2-300 hands.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I agree Wes.

I am also impressed by your vocabulary. I had to look up tautologically. I thought it was on the order of “guesstimate” or “swag” (scientific wild ass guess). Turns out that is means rhetorical or redundant. Excellent 50 cent word!

I did consider donating. I just failed to clear my head from the previous hand, where our 7-1 lead had evaporated to 7-5. I should have taken IrishWolf’s advice of think twice, but not too much. Instead I let stupid thoughts like, lightning doesn’t strike twice, we can’t lose our 7-1 lead in just 2 hands, what would partner think and more dumb thoughts flow through my head. So I changed my decision from donate to pass. The rest is history.

I will donate the next time, in an analogous situation as a good student being taught by these Monday night games and the excellent competition. Come join us on Monday nights, 9PM ET at worldofcardgames.com.

I also recommend the WoCG ranked games. Thanks to what I have learned at OE, I am ranked 4th with an Elo (rankIng) of 1813. They are good games. (Of course not as good as Monday night’s private game). And you can save the hands and analyze them later. That is my favorite feature. I overcame 99.5% of the minimal site quirkiness after 2-300 hands.

Although Edward and I strongly believe that one should donate up 7-5 with that specific hand, keep in mind if you asked us to prove our case mathematically we couldn't do it. So there is still room for debate on that spot. Hopefully someday we will be able to put that spot to the test, running a simulation to really find out.

Hands I would donate with up 7-5:

no trump + 0 aces or 1 ace
1 trump + 0 aces (obviously if my one trump is the Right I'm not donating)
2 low trump (King or less) + 0 aces vs a Jack
1 trump + 1 ace vs a Jack

Hands I would NOT donate with up 7-5 (I.E. I would gamble):

Any 3 trump vs any upcard (altho I order vs a non-jack if I have no where to go in the 2nd rd)
2 trump + an off ace vs a Jack
A-X in trump vs a Jack
No trump + 2 off aces vs a Jack

Hands I'm not sure about:

1 trump + an off ace vs a non-jack
2 low trump (King or less) + 0 aces vs a non-jack.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

In all the excitement I forgot to donate up 9-7,

True, but I was hoping no-one noticed

In all honesty, that hand was one for the books, not only for the fact that you tried it, but that it was successful.

In future years, when sitting around the campfire, someone will bring up that hand "do you remember when Wes went alone with only......

Just looked at the last hand of the game again, your hand as the dealer that closed it out for the win. Man that was tiiiight.

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

What's interesting about this hand for me, is this is another spot me and Edward argue about. Not the actual call, it's a standard call, but what you should lead after you take the first trick. Specifically, as the dealer whenever one calls with 3 trump with no bowers + no off aces + 3 suited, and S1 leads to their void and they trump in to take the first trick, what should they now lead? I would've led the Jc as you did, but Edward thinks you should lead trump in that spot. And even if you were two suited (again, no off aces) Edward thinks you should lead trump, which I once again disagree with.

[Richardb02]

[

Although Edward and I strongly believe that one should donate up 7-5 with that specific hand, keep in mind if you asked us to prove our case mathematically we couldn't do it. So there is still room for debate on that spot. Hopefully someday we will be able to put that spot to the test, running a simulation to really find out.

Hands I would donate with up 7-5:

no trump + 0 aces or 1 ace
1 trump + 0 aces (obviously if my one trump is the Right I'm not donating)
2 low trump (King or less) + 0 aces vs a Jack
1 trump + 1 ace vs a Jack

Hands I would NOT donate with up 7-5 (I.E. I would gamble):

Any 3 trump vs any upcard (altho I order vs a non-jack if I have no where to go in the 2nd rd)
2 trump + an off ace vs a Jack
A-X in trump vs a Jack
No trump + 2 off aces vs a Jack

Hands I'm not sure about:

1 trump + an off ace vs a non-jack
2 low trump (King or less) + 0 aces vs a non-jack.

I’ve realized that BPS is more than a bidding system. It is a hand evaluation system. It is easily adapted to evaluate donating. We simply use it to have a 95% certainty of taking 1 trick! 1.25 BPS points gives you a 95% certainty of taking a trick.

Round and seat positions are irrelevant in this application. So all we have to do is evaluate the hand and if we have 1.25 points or more we have a 95% probability of taking 1 trick. So, paralleling your post:
0.00 No Trump
0.50 1 Ace (Single or double green or Single Next)
0.50 less than 1.25 so donate

0.25 9 or T of Trump
0.50 Q, K or A of Trump
0.75 less than 1.25 so donate

0.25 9 or T of Trump
0.50 1 Ace (Single or double green or Single Next)
0.75 less than 1.25 so donate; BUT

0.50 Q. K or Ace of Trump
0.75 Singleton Green Ace
1.25 Edge hand. Note I suggest +-0.25, so make your own decision

0.25 9 trump
0.25 T trump
0.50 Q trump, weakest 3 trump but:
0.50 Value of 3 trump, no bowers. And additionally:
0.25 1 Void Minimum
1.75 Extremely unlikely that you won’t take 1 trick

I will leave playing against an Ace out of this discussion and focus on donating against a Jack.

0.25 9 trump
0.25 T trump, minimum 2 trump
0.50 Ace, minimum, note though Tripleton Ace is only worth 0.25 points
1.00 less than 1.25 points, so donate (important point) but:

0.50 K trump
0.50 A trump, maximum 2 trump
0.75 Singleton Green Ace, maximum Ace Value
____ Add an additional 0.25 for a Void
1.75 greater than 1.25, so pass and play the odds

0.50 A Trump
0.25 9 Trump
0.75 but it takes a parlay to beat it!
+.75 fits in the 0.25 to 0.75 adjustment for additional information, in this case requiring a parlay to defeat it, gives us a BPS of:
1.50 and a pass, take them on

0.50 Off Ace Typical
0.25 Off Ace Tripleton
0.75 less than 1.25 so donate

0.50 Off Ace Typical
0.75 Singleton Green Ace
____ possible +.25 for a Void
1.25 Edge hand to pass and play the odds

More Non-Jack Up Cards
Let’s complete the discussion of a Jack Up Card. We can create another post or even another Topic.

[Dlan]

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

What's interesting about this hand for me, is this is another spot me and Edward argue about. Not the actual call, it's a standard call, but what you should lead after you take the first trick. Specifically, as the dealer whenever one calls with 3 trump with no bowers + no off aces + 3 suited, and S1 leads to their void and they trump in to take the first trick, what should they now lead? I would've led the Jc as you did, but Edward thinks you should lead trump in that spot. And even if you were two suited (again, no off aces) Edward thinks you should lead trump, which I once again disagree with.

My thinking here is that I need to give my partner every chance possible to take a trick. I'm reasonably sure I have a second trick in my hand. A trump lead would hurt my chance of taking that second trick and could make it harder to my partner to help. If I get euchred, so be it.

[Richardb02]

Don, Dlan, if you go back 20 years ago, did you play differently? I am not trying to justify my position. I am just trying to learn if you learned anything differently?

[Dlan]

While my euchre trip is still a little shy of 20 years, I can say this: to play at a completive level such as our Monday night games, takes a willingness to learn and adapt.
I have reviewed thousands of games over the last 15 years or so, watching for those successful hands that require a deeper analysis. Always trying to learn something new.

So am I as good as I once was? Or have I evolved into a better player?

DoNALD DLANod