The math behind ordering 3 trump, no 2nd Rd hand from S1-R1

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Ok, this spot continues to bother me as I still see good players pass this hand. It's one of those spots where all lines are losing plays but S1 still needs to choose the line that loses the least. A classic example of this phenomenon is splitting a pair of 8s vs a Ten in blackjack. Yes that's a losing play, but the expert still does it becuz hitting their 16 or standing pat on their 16 are both bigger losers. IMO humans are terrible at doing this. IDK why but our glitchy carbon based brains simply don't appear to be wired to be naturally proficient at choosing the least worst option. The only way to get through the fog of faulty human intuition is to do some math. So now I'm going to make a mathematical argument for why calling in this spot is better than passing. The hand that inspired me to make this post is this hand (and this will be the hand we'll use):



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



All math arguments hinge on their assumptions so look closely at every assumption I make. If you disagree with any assumption let me know and give me another number to work with. Ideally all my assumptions will be conservative, I.E. they err on the side of the passing argument, but it's often hard to know if that's true.

First step of this argument is we have to figure out the calling frequency of S2, S3, and S4 after S1 passes. I don't want this post to get too bogged down so I will show my work on this front in another post. First I'm going to assume S2-S4 are aggressive competent players. This assumption is unrealistic as most euchre players are too passive and don't play the game that well but critically this assumption is conservative as it benefits the passing argument.

Assume S2 is calling with 3 trump, R+1, and L+1+an off ace when he doesn't block much in the 2nd round. S2 will be calling approx 13.84% of the time.

Assume S3 is calling with JJx and JJ+two off aces. That's 1.65% of the time.

Assume S4 is calling with 3 trump, 4 trump, R+1, and 2 trump + 2 off aces. That's 37.71% of the time.

So what's the calling frequency of S2/S4's team? Well you cannot simply add their calling percentages together becuz then you would be double counting hands. They can't have the same hands at the same time. A reasonable approximation would be S2's calling percentage + S4's calling percentage multiplied by 1 minus S2+S3's calling percentage:

.1384 + .3771[1 - (.1384 + .0165)] = 45.71%

Ok so when S1 passes his 3 trump, his opponents are calling approx 45.71% of the time.

Ok here's some more assumptions to look over:

1) If S1's opponents call S1's team will euchre them 30% of the time, so 70% of the time S1's opponents will get 1 pt. They can't get 2 pts given S1's hand.

2) If S1 passes, and both his opponents pass, whether S1 calls next or passes, he will lose approx 1 pt in the long run. This is a reasonable assumption IMO given how weak a Next call would be in this spot and given how dangerous it is to pass a hand that blocks nothing in this spot. It could easily be more than a 1 pt cost so I think this assumption is conservative.

3) If S1 calls in the first round, he will get euchred 40% of the time, make a point 50% of the time, and get 2 points 10% of the time.

Ok so here's what the EV equation looks like for passing:

.4571[(.30)(2) + (.70)(-1)] + (.5429)(-1) = -.5886

So passing costs S1's team around .5886 points.

Here's the EV equation for calling:

.4(-2) + .5(1) + .1(2) = -.1

So calling will cost S1's team .1 pts.

-.1 is > .5886, therefore calling is best.

Let's make assumption 3) more conservative and see what happens:

3) If S1 calls he will get euchred 50% of the time, make a point 45% of the time and get 2 points 5% of the time.

EV of passing is still -.5886

EV of calling: .5(-2) + .45(1) + .05(2) = -.45

-.45 is still better than -.5886, therefore calling is still the better play.

For the hell of it, let's make Assumption 1) more conservative and see what happens. Lets assume if S1's opponents call S1's team will euchre them 35% of the time, so 65% of the time S1's opponents will get 1 pt. They can't get 2 pts given S1's hand. The EV of passing would then be:

.4571[(.35)(2) + (.65)(-1)] + .5429(-1) = -.5200

-.52 is worst than -.1 or -.45. So calling is still better.

We can reach a point of indifference with these assumptions:

1) If S1's opponents call S1's team will euchre them 40% of the time, so 60% of the time S1's opponents will get 1 pt. They can't get 2 pts given S1's hand.

2) If S1 passes, and both his opponents pass, whether S1 calls next or passes, he will lose approx 1 pt in the long run. This is a reasonable assumption IMO given how weak a Next call would be in this spot and given how dangerous it is to pass a hand that blocks nothing in this spot. It could easily be more than a 1 pt cost so I think this assumption is conservative.

3) If S1 calls in the first round, he will get euchred 50% of the time, make a point 45% of the time, and get 2 points 5% of the time.

EV of passing: .4571[(.40)(2) + (.60)(-1)] + .5429(-1) = -.45.15
EV of calling: .5(-2) + .45(1) + .05(2) = -.45

I don't think those numbers are very realistic though. I don't think S1's marginal call is getting euchred 50% of the time. Yes this call is getting euchred more than we'd like but not that much imo. I also think S1 is not getting as many euchres on a S2-S4 call as he thinks. It's not like S2-S4 are randomly calling here. They are only calling when they have a hand, I.E. when they like hearts. Even with 3 trump, trying to euchre a range that likes hearts isn't that easy, especially with no off aces. Euchring them 40% of the time is way too optimistic imo.

Overall I think the first example captures reality best where the EV of passing was -.5886 and the EV of calling was -.1. IOW passing is around a half a point worse than calling. That's pretty significant. Also keep in mind this whole EV argument assumed S2-S4 we're competent aggressive players. The vast majority of the time this will not be the case, and the more S2-S4 passes the worse S1's passing strategy does.

For example, most S2 players are not calling with R+1+0 unless they have both bowers, and they're not calling with L+1+an off ace either. And most S4 players are not calling with R+1+0, and they're not calling with 2 trump 2 aces if the only trump they have is QhTh. Factoring that in, then S2-S4's team are only calling 35.96% of the time instead of 45.71%. Here's what the EV model looks like against these more passive and realistic opponents:

EV of passing:

.3596[(.30)(2) + (.70)(-1)] + (.6404)(-1) = -.6764

So passing costs S1's team around .6764 points.

EV of calling:

.4(-2) + .5(1) + .1(2) = -.1

So calling will cost S1's team .1 pts.

-.1 is > -.6764, therefore calling is best.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

First step of this argument is we have to figure out the calling frequency of S2, S3, and S4 after S1 passes. I don't want this post to get too bogged down so I will show my work on this front in another post. First I'm going to assume S2-S4 are aggressive competent players. This assumption is unrealistic as most euchre players are too passive and don't play the game that well but critically this assumption is conservative as it benefits the passing argument.

Assume S2 is calling with 3 trump, R+1, and L+1+an off ace when he doesn't block much in the 2nd round. S2 will be calling approx 13.84% of the time.

Assume S3 is calling with JJx and JJ+two off aces. That's 1.65% of the time.

Assume S4 is calling with 3 trump, 4 trump, R+1, and 2 trump + 2 off aces. That's 37.71% of the time.

Breakdown of S2's 13.84% calling frequency:

S2 is calling with 3 trump, R+1 and L+1+2 off aces and L+1+an off ace if he doesn't block much in the 2nd round.

3 trump = 3C3 x 15C2 = 105 combos
R+1 = 1C1 x 2C1 x 15C3 = 910 combos
L+1+2A = 1C0 x 2C2 x 3C2 x 12C1 = 36 combos
L+1+A = 1C0 x 2C2 x 3C1 x 2C0* X 10C2 = 135 combos

*: I took out both black bowers to capture hands that don't block much in the 2nd round.

That's 1,186 total combos out of 18C5 = 8,568 possible combos. Thus S2 is calling 1,186/8568 = 13.84% of the time.

Note: In my OP I forgot to count L+1+3 aces but that's only 1 combo so it doesn't really effect the math in the OP. Including that combo changes S2's calling frequency from 13.84% to 13.85%. Not a change that matters.

Breakdown of S3's 1.65% calling frequency:

S3 is calling with JJx or JJ with two off aces.

JJX = 3C3 x 15C2 = 105 combos
JJ+AA = 2C2 x 1C0 x 3C2 x 12C1 = 36 combos

That's 141 total combos out of 18C5 = 8,568 possible combos. Thus S3 is calling 141/8568 = 1.65% of the time.

Note: Once again I made a mistake in my initial post and forgot to include JJ+AAA in S3's range, but that is only 1 combo and won't have any impact on the overall math. Including that 1 combo changes S3's calling frequency from 1.65% to 1.66%. Virtually no change.

Breakdown of S4's 37.71% calling frequency:

S4 is calling with 3 trump, 4 trump, R+1, and 2 trump + 2 aces.

3 trump = 3C2 x 15C3 = 1,365 combos
4 trump = 3C3 x 15C2 = 105 combos
R+1 = 1C1 x 2C0 x 15C4 = 1,365 combos
2 trump+AA = 1C0* x 2C1 x 3C2 x 12C2 = 396 combos

*: I excluded combos containing the Right since that has already been counted in the R+1 basket.

That's 3,231 total combos out of 18C5 = 8,568 possible combos. Thus S4 is calling 3,231/8,568 = 37.71% of the time.

Note: Yet again I somehow forgot to count the 2 trump + 3 ace combos in my OP. That would look like this:

2 trump+AAA = 1C0 x 2C1 x 3C3 x 12C1 = 24 combos.

That small mistake won't change any of the math to a degree that matters. Including those combos barely moves the needle changing S4's calling frequency from 37.71% to 37.99%

[Richardb02]

It looks like you had some free time Wes. Did you break up with your lady friend?

Here is my simpler BPS “guess-imate:”
0.50 R1S1
0.50 Ah
0.50 Kh
0.25 9h
0.50 3 trump
0.25 1 void
2.50 Order, >2.50 min order
Additional considerations would be an adjustment because you have no defense and no R2S1 order. Adding ,25 to the hand value to create a 2.75 situational value is an easy to see adjustment.It provides additional justification to ordering.

For EV considerations, ignore the situational adjustment and base the EV on 2.50 points. 2.50 is by definition the B/E (break even) point. The BE is win 2 out of 3 hands. It is easy enough to track your success with these marginal hands. Mathematically 2/3 x 1 point -1/3 x 2 points (getting euchred) = 0, break even. To simplify EV calculations I have rounded 2/3rds or 67% to 65%, 3.75% translates to a 95% probability of taking 3 tricks. It is easy to interpolate or extrapolate 6% for every 0.25 difference in BPS,

The point is that the hand is a break even hand. You calculated -0.1. We are obviously close enough to agree to disagree.

But, please let me digress. My EV (2/3x1-1/3x2=0) ignores 2 point hands. That was my “conservative” and purposeful adjustment. IrishWolf though, in a recent post, assumed a 20% 2 point success. I agree with Irish that 20% is a solid number for overall 2 pointers. I ignored 2 pointers because these were “edge” hands and had a lesser opportunity to earn 2 points. However, a certain percentage of times we will hit our partner! They will simply be too weak to order. Let’s reduce gaining 2 points from 20% to 10%. So I suggest to readers, that the EV of this hand is:
0,55 55% of the time you will earn 1 point
0,20 10% of the time you will earn 2 points
-.70 35% of the time you will be euchred
+.05 is my best estimate of the EV of this hand

As OE says, Euchre favors the aggressive player.

[Tbolt65]

Since two people virtually agree that to call here is minimalistic at best. Where it teters on being a playable call vs a bad call. I will pose this for people to think about. What situations do you want to be agressive with a hand like this in seat 1 rd 1?


It is known here on OE and stated that I do not order up 3 trump from seat one with a lot of holdings. In situations you are prone to be hurting your team more than helping it. Now with the hand stated above. Personally I dont call that hand ever. Unless I'm going for the win. Thats really the only time Im considering playing said hand. Plus I can still call next with one trump and one side ace. But in the rare spot I am two suited and no a callable next hand. I will be passing. Doesnt happen much but I have learned to be selective to hyperaggression than to just be aggressive all the time. Personally at being down 0 to 4. I'll be passing for a euchre or going next in diamonds.

Tbolt65
Edward

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Since two people virtually agree that to call here is minimalistic at best. Where it teters on being a playable call vs a bad call. I will pose this for people to think about. What situations do you want to be agressive with a hand like this in seat 1 rd 1?


It is known here on OE and stated that I do not order up 3 trump from seat one with a lot of holdings. In situations you are prone to be hurting your team more than helping it. Now with the hand stated above. Personally I dont call that hand ever. Unless I'm going for the win. Thats really the only time Im considering playing said hand. Plus I can still call next with one trump and one side ace. But in the rare spot I am two suited and no a callable next hand. I will be passing. Doesnt happen much but I have learned to be selective to hyperaggression than to just be aggressive all the time. Personally at being down 0 to 4. I'll be passing for a euchre or going next in diamonds.

Tbolt65
Edward

This isn't about hyper-aggression. It's about making the correct EV play. I think I have demonstrated that calling is around .5 pts better than passing using conservative assumptions. That is not "minimalistic at best". That's a big difference. And it's an even bigger difference against 99% of the euchre population that predictably passes too much. Remember the more that S2-S4 passes the worst the passing strategy performs. In fact I would say against 99% of the euchre population this isn't even an argument. It's game over for the passing strategy on that front. The only question is how the passing strategy does against competent, aggression players, and as stated above it significantly underperforms the calling strategy by around a half a point using assumptions that if anything err on the side of favoring the passing strategy.

As I stated to you before. Out of the 30+ players in our tournament the last 4 euchre champions, over the last 8 years, all very good players, make this call, not becuz they wanna, but becuz they gotta for reasons I've stated before. Virtually all of the rest of the players, who have never won the championship and will never come close, pass that hand. What are the odds that the best players in the tournament are wrong about this spot and the bad to mediocre players got it right. You're the one unicorn here, the strong player who plays like the mediocre/bad players in this spot. Doesn't that give you pause at all? Anyways this tidbit is irrelevant. The math points in a clear decisive direction. If you disagree with any of my assumptions let me know and suggest another number. Other than that, you can't just ignore the math and do what "feels" right to you. That's now how this works. There are ways to attack my argument. Ignoring it is not one of them.

[Tbolt65]

No it doesn't give me pause because I have been on both sides. I've have seen the pros and cons vs all levels of players. That is why I changed my game to pass a little more here. To cut down on giving away too many free points. It is more valuable to call with these types of hands in close out scenarios than in most others, because all too often regardless of skill even if you win 50 percent of the time the other 50 percent you are giving up 2pts. Calling this with more favorable standing I think is acceptable if you want to take your chances. Being down 0 to 4 is not acceptable. If you get euchred its now 0 to 6 and you put the opponents in a spot they can win the game with a loner.

Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

This is addressed to Wes. I reviewed your discussion, assumptions and calculations. I fully agree with you, although I think EV -.58 should be more like -.40 to -.45. Nevertheless, not getting into why I think that, still -.45 is a greater give away than ordering EV -.10. So in agreement for what it is worth. I would also say S1 blindly making Next with 9D is suicide over 50% of the time. You will be likely to make a point about 35% vs high rate of euchres. NEXT IS A LEAP OF FAITH!

However, it's criminal for you to criticize the hand I published of QH 10H 9H AS KS saying it was a bad call when in FACT it is a much STRONGER HAND, for ordering the dealer than the hand you just analyzed. Now that is laughable without you presenting any facts. Don't give BS. It does not matter that the hand I presented was from 3rd seat. It's all about real data. I did the work. Use OE Work Shop if you really want to know.

So you say you are done with the hand . . . Not really! No Good Euchre player would allow such an issue to go unresolved, not knowing the real answer. So that too is laughable.

I rest my case.

Irishwolf

[Wes (aka the legend)]

This is addressed to Wes. I reviewed your discussion, assumptions and calculations. I fully agree with you, although I think EV -.58 should be more like -.40 to -.45. Nevertheless, not getting into why I think that, still -.45 is a greater give away than ordering EV -.10. So in agreement for what it is worth. I would also say S1 blindly making Next with 9D is suicide over 50% of the time. You will be likely to make a point about 35% vs high rate of euchres. NEXT IS A LEAP OF FAITH!

Very happy that you chimed in on this Wolf.

However, it's criminal for you to criticize the hand I published of QH 10H 9H AS KS saying it was a bad call when in FACT it is a much STRONGER HAND, for ordering the dealer than the hand you just analyzed. Now that is laughable without you presenting any facts. Don't give BS. It does not matter that the hand I presented was from 3rd seat.

You can't be serious. These are two non-analogous situations, so this criticism is not valid. In one situation--when you bag the dealer from 1st Seat--when the dealer passes you are in no-man's land burning points for your team no matter what you do. In the other situation--when you bag the dealer from 3rd Seat--when the dealer passes you still have your partner in S1 who can always have a hand, who gets first choice and the lead in the 2nd round. What bothers me about this Irishwolf is I know you are no dummy. I know you know this. I have studied tons of strong players over the years, and I can say unequivocally you are either the best I have ever studied or tied with the best. And yet here you are creating a false equivalence with two very different situations, something only an inexperienced player would do or something someone would do who is purposely arguing disingenuously. And I have no choice but to accuse you of the latter becuz you're too smart for the former. And this seriously saddens me. You're not here to teach or learn. You're here to win arguments on the internet at seemingly all costs.

This now marks the second time I am calling your character into question. And why does this sadden me? Becuz with your passion and knowledge of the game, we should be exchanging emails, talking on the phone for hours, etc, but that's never gonna happen becuz I can't stand being around people like you.

It's all about real data. I did the work. Use OE Work Shop if you really want to know.

We need a real simulation to solve for the key variable in your argument, the EV of S1's range after the dealer passes. A kitchen table simulation isn't gonna cut it. We need to get to the long run on that. Only a computer simulation will do. I'd like the same thing done for the dealer, but it's critically more important for S1. There's just no other way to figure out S1's EV. Nobody is gonna sit at their kitchen table dealing out thousands upon thousands of hands.

Now I realize that you did some work and I respect that, and I think it's cool if you present it but you can't expect a rational person to find it that compelling in this very complex spot. I mean, if I did a kitchen table simulation on anything, I too would present it for hypothesis generating possibilities, but I wouldn't speak with certainty, I wouldn't claim to be positive about anything. To do so would be intellectually dishonest. I'd be like, "Hey guys this is what I did and this is what happened, maybe I'm on to something here." That's as good as it gets for a kitchen table simulation since I doubt you're dealing out 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands, or whatever number it takes to get a meaningful sample. I mean I still can't get over this statement: "The EV of this hand is .40 to .46 and you cannot do better by Passing." You know as well as I do, that's a statistical tie for any kitchen table simulation. Why pretend to know something you CANNOT know? Who are you trying to impress here? Last I checked there's no women on this forum, so I'm at a loss here.

So you say you are done with the hand . . . Not really! No Good Euchre player would allow such an issue to go unresolved, not knowing the real answer. So that too is laughable.

I rest my case.

Irishwolf

Dude, the owner of this website deleted my response presumably before you could ever read it (which pissed me off but I understand). And then he locked the thread. I'm done with this topic (or at least I should be) becuz that's what the owner of this site wants. Of course I'm never really done with ANY topic. I will ponder the grey areas for the rest of my life.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

No it doesn't give me pause because I have been on both sides. I've have seen the pros and cons vs all levels of players.

Well it should give you pause. Becuz the 4 other top players in our tournament, including myself, disagree agree with you and we've seen it all too. Now Irishwolf disagrees with you--someone who takes the game just as serious as you do--which again should give you pause.

That is why I changed my game to pass a little more here. To cut down on giving away too many free points. It is more valuable to call with these types of hands in close out scenarios than in most others, because all too often regardless of skill even if you win 50 percent of the time the other 50 percent you are giving up 2pts. Calling this with more favorable standing I think is acceptable if you want to take your chances. Being down 0 to 4 is not acceptable. If you get euchred its now 0 to 6 and you put the opponents in a spot they can win the game with a loner.

Tbolt65
Edward

The math is pointing in one direction man. What assumption(s) do you disagree with? Which one of my assumptions seems unrealistic to you?

[Tbolt65]

Post got moderated /deleted. I will sum up again with out the movie quote analogy.

In response to the grey areas as wes alluded to I suggest instead of trying to use math you should go by feel and remembrance of your play and experience. That what I was trying to convey.


Now to further that. Since I have pretty good insight to you wes with talking to you, playing with and against you. You have a hard time remembering previous hands. This may have an affect on your long term memory in regards to how hands play out for those grey area types as you call it. No matter how much math you throw at euchre you always have to extrapolate for the scenario. I've told you many times conventions, ploys and now I will include math. You will have to recognize when not to follow it to play correctly in that moment. "In this case Spock put logic aside and do what feels right" A better movie quote than last one but now there is context before it.


I be first to tell you all. Im no great statistician or mathematical conceptual wonder. I know Im not the best euchre player. I always strive to get better but I have never used math in anyway to explain or show myself what is the correct way to play. My sucesses has been through my teachers of the game which is all of you, my fellow peers in the game of euchre. Hours upon hours of play. My competitive nature to get better. If I didnt have that I wouldnt be here on this website to keep learning. The back and forth live feed back during and after game play. Just to mention what has helped me greatly. There is a certain philosophy that comes to euchre. Perhaps thats part of a persons nature, perhaps not?

Now to make arguements for 3 trump 3 suited vs a 1 trump next call with one ace. There are different mechanisms as to why one is calling at all. In any of those cases. I believe this is fundamentally rooted in concepts of the game. As to certain understandings of. So as I have said I am lacking in the mathematical department but as Ive also said I favor in being more selective with hands like in that seat 1 postion we are discussing. We all know about ploys and convention of next. So the argument for no second round playability is moot. Passing twice would be an unforgivable sin. But passing the first time is not as bad as one makes out to play into a 1 trump, 1 ace next call. At face value it is counterintuitive. Ive already laid out generally the areas where I feel is acceptable to taking chances with the hand and ordering the dealer up. I'll just end this by saying there is a time and place for everything. In certain spots I error on side of caution more than other areas. But dont mistake me for not taking risks when necessary or a weak player.


Tbolt65
Edward

Edit: spelling

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Post got moderated /deleted. I will sum up again with out the movie quote analogy.

In response to the grey areas as wes alluded to I suggest instead of trying to use math you should go by feel and remembrance of your play and experience. That what I was trying to convey.

That's the problem. You put too much value into your intuition. In any card game, math is ultimately the answer. We should only rely on our feel and experience when we have no other choice. IOW expert intuition is better than nothing but we should strive to do better when we can. A good EV math argument with conservative assumptions that err on the side of the opposing argument should supersede one's "feel" and "experience". Galileo had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest becuz he provided data that disagreed with people's "feel" and "experience". We don't live in the middle ages anymore.

Now to further that. Since I have pretty good insight to you wes with talking to you, playing with and against you. You have a hard time remembering previous hands. This may have an affect on your long term memory in regards to how hands play out for those grey area types as you call it. No matter how much math you throw at euchre you always have to extrapolate for the scenario. I've told you many times conventions, ploys and now I will include math. You will have to recognize when not to follow it to play correctly in that moment. "In this case Spock put logic aside and do what feels right" A better movie quote than last one but now there is context before it.

My memory works just find. I am always thinking about hands I've played or others have played. During the heat of battle I will often erase a hand from my mind and focus on playing the next hand well if I deem it irrelevant, I.E. no pertinent data that can help me win the game can be gathered from it. I'm always thinking about spots I've played minutes ago, days ago, weeks ago, years ago. I think about this game to a very unhealthy degree.

Again, at the end of the day math is the answer to any card game one plays. There's no way around that. If one doesn't know the math then the progress they can make will necessarily be limited.

I be first to tell you all. Im no great statistician or mathematical conceptual wonder. I know Im not the best euchre player. I always strive to get better but I have never used math in anyway to explain or show myself what is the correct way to play. My sucesses has been through my teachers of the game which is all of you, my fellow peers in the game of euchre. Hours upon hours of play. My competitive nature to get better. If I didnt have that I wouldnt be here on this website to keep learning. The back and forth live feed back during and after game play. Just to mention what has helped me greatly. There is a certain philosophy that comes to euchre. Perhaps thats part of a persons nature, perhaps not?

Just cuz you've never used a tool (math) doesn't mean it's not vitally important. Of course you can have great success without it. 99% of the time you're playing with players who don't play the game well mostly cuz they don't care to. They got other priorities in life and that's ok. You don't need to be a math wiz to dominate them. But if you wanna take your game to the next level, to challenge yourself and plug up some of your leaks, often the only way to do that is to do some math. Without the math your mind will just keep reconfirming why you're right even when you're not right cuz that's what humans do.

Now to make arguements for 3 trump 3 suited vs a 1 trump next call with one ace. There are different mechanisms as to why one is calling at all. In any of those cases. I believe this is fundamentally rooted in concepts of the game. As to certain understandings of. So as I have said I am lacking in the mathematical department but as Ive also said I favor in being more selective with hands like in that seat 1 postion we are discussing. We all know about ploys and convention of next. So the argument for no second round playability is moot. Passing twice would be an unforgivable sin. But passing the first time is not as bad as one makes out to play into a 1 trump, 1 ace next call. At face value it is counterintuitive. Ive already laid out generally the areas where I feel is acceptable to taking chances with the hand and ordering the dealer up. I'll just end this by saying there is a time and place for everything. In certain spots I error on side of caution more than other areas. But dont mistake me for not taking risks when necessary or a weak player.


Tbolt65
Edward

Edit: spelling

Look either you reject one my assumptions or you don't. That's they only way to argue against me here. You telling a story of why you do this or that doesn't really add anything . You don't have to know the math to reject ANY of my assumptions. You can use your "feel" and "experience" to do that. After all, the basis of those assumptions ARE my "feel" and "experience". Other than that, you can simply trust that the math is approximately right. Irishwolf's endorsement should make you feel safe on that account. I'm seriously curious. Which assumptions have I made that make you go "Nah, I don't buy that, I think it's actually closer to this". Seriously, tell me which assumption(s) you don't buy and give me a new number to work with.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

It looks like you had some free time Wes. Did you break up with your lady friend?

I showed my gf his post and she cracked up.

[LeftyK]

Tbolt "Being down 0 to 4 is not acceptable. If you get euchred its now 0 to 6 and you put the opponents in a spot they can win the game with a loner." and "Passing twice would be an unforgivable sin. But passing the first time is not as bad as one makes out to play into a 1 trump, 1 ace next call. At face value it is counterintuitive" --- this S1 was my hand (I remember) but Tbolt sums up my reasoning. I'm trying to stop a loner or at worse give them one point in round one. In R2 I'm calling next b/c I have nothing to guard; and next does wonders sometimes. MMQB shows R1 my team had 5 trumps but that's unknown. Score dicates everything in this game, and that I'll will hang my hat on. - Thanks for your insight everyone.

[Tbolt65]

Post got moderated /deleted. I will sum up again with out the movie quote analogy.

In response to the grey areas as wes alluded to I suggest instead of trying to use math you should go by feel and remembrance of your play and experience. That what I was trying to convey.

That's the problem. You put too much value into your intuition. In any card game, math is ultimately the answer. We should only rely on our feel and experience when we have no other choice. IOW expert intuition is better than nothing but we should strive to do better when we can. A good EV math argument with conservative assumptions that err on the side of the opposing argument should supersede one's "feel" and "experience". Galileo had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest becuz he provided data that disagreed with people's "feel" and "experience". We don't live in the middle ages anymore.

Now to further that. Since I have pretty good insight to you wes with talking to you, playing with and against you. You have a hard time remembering previous hands. This may have an affect on your long term memory in regards to how hands play out for those grey area types as you call it. No matter how much math you throw at euchre you always have to extrapolate for the scenario. I've told you many times conventions, ploys and now I will include math. You will have to recognize when not to follow it to play correctly in that moment. "In this case Spock put logic aside and do what feels right" A better movie quote than last one but now there is context before it.

My memory works just find. I am always thinking about hands I've played or others have played. During the heat of battle I will often erase a hand from my mind and focus on playing the next hand well if I deem it irrelevant, I.E. no pertinent data that can help me win the game can be gathered from it. I'm always thinking about spots I've played minutes ago, days ago, weeks ago, years ago. I think about this game to a very unhealthy degree.

Again, at the end of the day math is the answer to any card game one plays. There's no way around that. If one doesn't know the math then the progress they can make will necessarily be limited.

I be first to tell you all. Im no great statistician or mathematical conceptual wonder. I know Im not the best euchre player. I always strive to get better but I have never used math in anyway to explain or show myself what is the correct way to play. My sucesses has been through my teachers of the game which is all of you, my fellow peers in the game of euchre. Hours upon hours of play. My competitive nature to get better. If I didnt have that I wouldnt be here on this website to keep learning. The back and forth live feed back during and after game play. Just to mention what has helped me greatly. There is a certain philosophy that comes to euchre. Perhaps thats part of a persons nature, perhaps not?

Just cuz you've never used a tool (math) doesn't mean it's not vitally important. Of course you can have great success without it. 99% of the time you're playing with players who don't play the game well mostly cuz they don't care to. They got other priorities in life and that's ok. You don't need to be a math wiz to dominate them. But if you wanna take your game to the next level, to challenge yourself and plug up some of your leaks, often the only way to do that is to do some math. Without the math your mind will just keep reconfirming why you're right even when you're not right cuz that's what humans do.

Now to make arguements for 3 trump 3 suited vs a 1 trump next call with one ace. There are different mechanisms as to why one is calling at all. In any of those cases. I believe this is fundamentally rooted in concepts of the game. As to certain understandings of. So as I have said I am lacking in the mathematical department but as Ive also said I favor in being more selective with hands like in that seat 1 postion we are discussing. We all know about ploys and convention of next. So the argument for no second round playability is moot. Passing twice would be an unforgivable sin. But passing the first time is not as bad as one makes out to play into a 1 trump, 1 ace next call. At face value it is counterintuitive. Ive already laid out generally the areas where I feel is acceptable to taking chances with the hand and ordering the dealer up. I'll just end this by saying there is a time and place for everything. In certain spots I error on side of caution more than other areas. But dont mistake me for not taking risks when necessary or a weak player.


Tbolt65
Edward

Edit: spelling

Look either you reject one my assumptions or you don't. That's they only way to argue against me here. You telling a story of why you do this or that doesn't really add anything . You don't have to know the math to reject ANY of my assumptions. You can use your "feel" and "experience" to do that. After all, the basis of those assumptions ARE my "feel" and "experience". Other than that, you can simply trust that the math is approximately right. Irishwolf's endorsement should make you feel safe on that account. I'm seriously curious. Which assumptions have I made that make you go "Nah, I don't buy that, I think it's actually closer to this". Seriously, tell me which assumption(s) you don't buy and give me a new number to work with.

Conceptually I think you misunderstand what I say at times and infer sometimes inncorrectly at whats being said.

3 trump 3 suited from seat 1 round 1 is never a must call in every situation. I said if you want to play a hand like that. You can possibly play it in different scenarios. But as to always order it as the play to always make? I disagree with. You want that hand to perform for you in the right situations. You are going to be euchred a lot with that hand. Enough so that perhaps one will realize that to save on those euchres you will start passing those hands more. This is what I have come to know and play. Can you make a point sure but its far from a sure thing. Three people have put the hand at - Ev. I cant see how my thought process is so out of line? Its a small number but they do add up cumulatively. I reiterate again. I do not advocate these types of calls but if you must, I outlined what may be a better scenario in making these calls so that it can favor the team and as to not hurt as much when you will/do get euchred.

Tbolt65
Edward

Edit: There is a thread here a while back that argues/suggest ordering s1r1 with 3 trump 2 suited with no aces. There was debate on that hand as well. I know for a fact I said I pass there. In most situations. Every one seemed to agree to disagree. This hand scenario in this post is much worse imo.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

this S1 was my hand (I remember)

This wasn't you. This hand did not come from the Monday night game.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Three people have put the hand at - Ev. I cant see how my thought process is so out of line?

Who are these 3 people? Richard, Irishwolf and me are all in agreement that calling is +EV relative to passing.

Edit: There is a thread here a while back that argues/suggest ordering s1r1 with 3 trump 2 suited with no aces. There was debate on that hand as well. I know for a fact I said I pass there. In most situations. Every one seemed to agree to disagree. This hand scenario in this post is much worse imo.

Who cares which hand is worse. All that matters is making +EV decisions. In both cases calling loses less than passing according to the EV calcs. Again if there are assumptions you disagree with, let me know. Give me your numbers to plug into the model.

[irishwolf]

This is to you again Wes. It is not about winning an argument. IT IS ABOUT TELLING YOU FACTS! And I believe it was you that said, WES SAYS, “+EV hands should not be passed no matter what the score is..."

You problem is that you do not want to hear when someone disagrees with you. The real reason that you do not want to provide facts, because you ARE WRONG. When the true is there, of course I will not concede. I do the work before posting solutions, PROVE ME WRONG, not with BS.

You suffer from a concept of "CONFIRMATION BIAS". You do pedal B.S. at times, and I could cite several. Donating theory you have as a good example. I pointed this out earlier and hands to pass on at 3rd seat other that the one I presented. You think you know it all, but think otherwise. LOL!

You are rude, ".... we should be exchanging emails, talking on the phone for hours, etc, but that's never gonna happen becuz I can't stand being around people like you."

No problem, your wish is granted. The feeling is mutual DUDE! So I am okay to not discuss anything with you.

Irishwolf

[Wes (aka the legend)]

This is to you again Wes. It is not about winning an argument. IT IS ABOUT TELLING YOU FACTS!

I dont see your claim as a fact. I need more evidence. Sorry. A kitchen table sample isn't good enough for me.

You problem is that you do not want to hear when someone disagrees with you. The real reason that you do not want to provide facts, because you ARE WRONG. When the true is there, of course I will not concede. I do the work before posting solutions, PROVE ME WRONG, not with BS.

What is this. I don't have to prove anything or provide facts. You are the one making the claim that calling with that hand from the 3rd seat is better than passing. The burden of proof is on you. I am free to dismiss your claim if I don't find your evidence compelling which I don't.

You are rude, ".... we should be exchanging emails, talking on the phone for hours, etc, but that's never gonna happen becuz I can't stand being around people like you."

No problem, your wish is granted. The feeling is mutual DUDE! So I am okay to not discuss anything with you.

Irishwolf

One thing I want to get clear. When you took almost a year off from this forum there is no one here that missed you more than me. Look I do despise you as a person but who cares, I need people like you around here. I love the fact that If I say something wrong you'll correct me. I love the fact that your passion for this game is off the charts like mine. This forum is so much better with you here. I also love playing the game with you and against you. I love when you're in the Monday night game. And I volunteered to rotate with you in the Monday night game because people need the invaluable opportunity to study your game. I know how good you are.

[Tbolt65]

Three people have put the hand at - Ev. I cant see how my thought process is so out of line?

Who are these 3 people? Richard, Irishwolf and me are all in agreement that calling is +EV relative to passing.

Edit: There is a thread here a while back that argues/suggest ordering s1r1 with 3 trump 2 suited with no aces. There was debate on that hand as well. I know for a fact I said I pass there. In most situations. Every one seemed to agree to disagree. This hand scenario in this post is much worse imo.

Who cares which hand is worse. All that matters is making +EV decisions. In both cases calling loses less than passing according to the EV calcs. Again if there are assumptions you disagree with, let me know. Give me your numbers to plug into the model.

Both calls are - ev. What you are arguing is out of both -ev calls which is the worst. Im not making that assertion. Im coming from its a bad overall call period. Your math backs my sentiments of what I came to. That is all. It would be one thing if your passing a + ev staight up vs. a straight up -ev. That would be hard to argue and certain rare cases would be needed to justify passing even at all. Here as it stands. The s1 r1 is staight up is a -ev hand. Both scenarios are. You are arguing your position with the s 1 r2 call as being the better of two -Ev calls. They are both - Ev calls we know why people make next calls or any calls that matter in r2, any postion. Now take this and reconsider what Ive already said. Im sure some mutual understanding can be had.


Tbolt65
Edward

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Both calls are - ev. What you are arguing is out of both -ev calls which is the worst. Im not making that assertion. Im coming from its a bad overall call period. Your math backs my sentiments of what I came to. That is all. It would be one thing if your passing a + ev staight up vs. a straight up -ev. That would be hard to argue and certain rare cases would be needed to justify passing even at all. Here as it stands. The s1 r1 is staight up is a -ev hand. Both scenarios are. You are arguing your position with the s 1 r2 call as being the better of two -Ev calls. They are both - Ev calls we know why people make next calls or any calls that matter in r2, any postion. Now take this and reconsider what Ive already said. Im sure some mutual understanding can be had.


Tbolt65
Edward

I dont think you understand how EV arguments work. It doesn't matter if a certain decision is -EV in a vacuum. All that matters is which decision has the highest EV out of your possible choices. Here's a better way to phrase it: Calling may have a negative expected outcome but it is +EV overall because passing with the intention of calling Next has a significantly worse expected outcome.

IOW all that matters is what is the best EV decision. Whether the individual EVs we're comparing are negative or positive is irrelevant.

Richard, Wolf and me are in agreement that calling has the highest EV. The math and the assumptions are compelling enough for them. And we can also infer through their play that the euchre champions in our tournament, Pat, Phil, and Kurt also agree that calling has the highest EV. They all call in that spot.

[Tbolt65]

This is why you always give away free points because your calling too much in -ev situations. I pull the hammer back at times. To cut down on exposing myself in negative situations. I still make negative EV calls dont get me wrong. I just make fewer of them when I can.

This is a situation where one can argue both ways and I understand why you are calling. I was of the same mindset for a long time. I have however changed that stance and thank you for proving my non mathematical assertion that its a negative expectation when making that call. I error on the sidr of caution more than you and that's my play style. As being more aggressive has been yours.

Tbolt65
Edward

[Wes (aka the legend)]

This is why you always give away free points because your calling too much in -ev situations. I pull the hammer back at times. To cut down on exposing myself in negative situations. I still make negative EV calls dont get me wrong. I just make fewer of them when I can.

This is a situation where one can argue both ways and I understand why you are calling. I was of the same mindset for a long time. I have however changed that stance and thank you for proving my non mathematical assertion that its a negative expectation when making that call. I error on the sidr of caution more than you and that's my play style. As being more aggressive has been yours.

Tbolt65
Edward

Dude. The math strongly suggests that passing costs you more points than calling. We even have Irishwolf, one of the top math guys in this forum backing it up. Again I don't think you understand how EV arguments work.

[Tbolt65]

There is another dimensional aspect here. You just can't seem to see it. Like I have said There is more to euchre than math. You have agreed with me in the past.

Out of these two negative ev hands. Instead of cumulatively accumulating playing in such a fashion. As to ordering in both spots. I have elminated/ choose certain scenarios as to not negatively effect my teams overall chances by calling too much with Negative Expected hands. Not saying you cant be sucessful at times but elminating the long term negative effects of playing such way. Which will be negative in the long run as the math states.

Tbolt65
Edward

Edit: Seriously ask yourself this. If Edward once religiously played the way you subscribed to at one time for these types of hands. And you know how I approach the game. Wouldn't that give you atleast some pause to why did Edward stop doing this type of play calling overall?

[Wes (aka the legend)]

There is another dimensional aspect here. You just can't seem to see it. Like I have said There is more to euchre than math. You have agreed with me in the past.

Out of these two negative ev hands. Instead of cumulatively accumulating playing in such a fashion. As to ordering in both spots. I have elminated/ choose certain scenarios as to not negatively effect my teams overall chances by calling too much with Negative Expected hands. Not saying you cant be sucessful at times but elminating the long term negative effects of playing such way. Which will be negative in the long run as the math states.

Tbolt65
Edward

Edit: Seriously ask yourself this. If Edward once religiously played the way you subscribed to at one time for these types of hands. And you know how I approach the game. Wouldn't that give you atleast some pause to why did Edward stop doing this type of play calling overall?

Dude, in this spot ALL your options have negative expected outcomes: calling, pass-call next, and pass-pass. There's no way to escape that fact. It sux but that's the hand we're dealt. All we can do is make the play that loses the least. That's literally ALL the power we have here in this spot. We don't have the power to avoid this problem. And assuming we are rational actors we would go with the math choosing the best EV choice assuming we found that mathematical argument compelling. I.E. assuming we found all the assumptions underpinning our simple EV model reasonable and consistent with our intuition/experience.

For example, take my assumptions when S1 calls. I assume he will get euchred 40% of the time, make a point 50% of the time and get 2 pts 10% of the time. And I'm assuming the cost of pass-pass or pass-call next is approx -1 point in the long run. You are free to reject these assumptions and suggest different numbers. Rational people can disagree on this. That's where this discussion needs to head. Just so stories and fantasies about avoiding -EV decisions when we literally can't do that in this spot gets us nowhere.

[Richardb02]

Gentle-persons (PC and inclusive instead of gentlemen), the OE Forum likes to discuss Edge orders and “Edge card plays.”*

The discussion generally breaks down to Wes (and others math/ probabilities), to IrishWolf’s simulations, to Tbolt’s experience to Richard’s BPS (SWAG [Scientific Wild Ass Guess] statistical analysis). That leads to an exchange of ideas. That is the joy of the forum!

Let’s not cancel out each other. Leave that to politics and the societal tendency of today. Viva la difference! Voice your opinion. Allow room for disagreement. I suggest that the OE Forum exists to improve our play at Euchre, not to win a debate.

That is enough for now. The asterisk* refers to recent posts about Street 4 (Trick 4), S3 plays. Philosophical approaches can be clearly identified. The same concepts apply.

For the record, I analyzed the R1S1 order as EV+.05. IMO, clarification is valuable and appropriate.

I am open to discussion.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

For the record, I analyzed the R1S1 order as EV+.05. IMO, clarification is valuable and appropriate.

I am open to discussion. [/color]

+.05 is your EV in a vacuum, the expected outcome of that play if you will. What really matters is the relative EV of calling vs the pass-call Next strategy or the pass-pass strategy. If you accept the assumption that pass-call Next and Pass-pass has an approx negative EV somewhere between -.45 and -.68, then your real EV based on your numbers is the difference between the EV of calling and the EV of pass-call Next/Pass-pass. So in actuality your numbers imply a significantly better EV for the call strategy becuz what really matters is the EV difference between the choices you have, not the EV of a choice in a vacuum, I.E. it's expected outcome (that's the starting point, not the end point). Based on your numbers the real EV of calling is around +.5 as the your expected outcome (+.05) is at least a half a point better than pass-call Next or pass-pass.

[Tbolt65]

Richard thanks for the injunction. However I don't believe things have broken down to such an extent.

Vigorous and rigorous debate is usually the spawn of euchre breakthrough in ones game. Ok maybe not breakthrough but ones game tends to get better with the different perspectives because in the past what ones knows never gets challenged. So in times of debate Euchre players who study the game will be able to get some thing out of such ducussions. What I have found at least.

Tbolt65
Edward

[Richardb02]

For the record, I analyzed the R1S1 order as EV+.05. IMO, clarification is valuable and appropriate.

I am open to discussion. [/color]

+.05 is your EV in a vacuum, the expected outcome of that play if you will. What really matters is the relative EV of calling vs the pass-call Next strategy or the pass-pass strategy. If you accept the assumption that pass-call Next and Pass-pass has an approx negative EV somewhere between -.45 and -.68, then your real EV based on your numbers is the difference between the EV of calling and the EV of pass-call Next/Pass-pass. So in actuality your numbers imply a significantly better EV for the call strategy becuz what really matters is the EV difference between the choices you have, not the EV of a choice in a vacuum, I.E. it's expected outcome (that's the starting point, not the end point). Based on your numbers the real EV of calling is around +.5 as the your expected outcome (+.05) is at least a half a point better than pass-call Next or pass-pass.

[Richardb02]

For the record, I analyzed the R1S1 order as EV+.05. IMO, clarification is valuable and appropriate.

I am open to discussion. [/color]

+.05 is your EV in a vacuum, the expected outcome of that play if you will.

I agree. What I stated was, “ I analyzed the R1S1 order as EV+.05.” I did not analyze beyond the value of ordering my playable hand.

You continued,

What really matters is the relative EV of calling vs the pass-call Next strategy or the pass-pass strategy. If you accept the assumption that pass-call Next and Pass-pass has an approx negative EV somewhere between -.45 and -.68, then your real EV based on your numbers is the difference between the EV of calling and the EV of pass-call Next/Pass-pass. So in actuality your numbers imply a significantly better EV for the call strategy becuz what really matters is the EV difference between the choices you have, not the EV of a choice in a vacuum, I.E. it's expected outcome (that's the starting point, not the end point). Based on your numbers the real EV of calling is around +.5 as the your expected outcome (+.05) is at least a half a point better than pass-call Next or pass-pass.

I did not address your continued analysis. I have confidence in ordering, at this point. There is no reason to consider the analysis, beyond a positive EV of ordering the hand.

However, in my BPS discussion, I continued to analyze, the reasons to pass. Using BPS, I analyzed that passing was not positive. In fact, it was negative. Adding 0.25 to the BPS says ORDER. There is no defensive benefit, to passing this hand.

We are in agreement with this decision. I had no reason to disagree with your additional analysis.

I will leave it here, for tonight. Your additional analysis is appreciated. My MO, simplifying, simply leads to the conclusion, if the hand has a positive EV, why analyze the “relative EV” of passing.

Thank you Wes, for agreeing to disagree.

[Richardb02]

Richard thanks for the injunction. However I don't believe things have broken down to such an extent.

Vigorous and rigorous debate is usually the spawn of euchre breakthrough in ones game. Ok maybe not breakthrough but ones game tends to get better with the different perspectives because in the past what ones knows never gets challenged. So in times of debate Euchre players who study the game will be able to get some thing out of such ducussions. What I have found at least.

Tbolt65
Edward

Thank you Tbolt. In particular, thank you for continuing, “vigorous and rigorous debate.” That was the goal of my post! I noted the philosophic differences in the opinions that we have expressed. I appreciate the differences (viva la difference).

[irishwolf]

So Richard, I feel a need to chime in on your comment,

"The discussion generally breaks down to Wes (and others math/ probabilities), to IrishWolf’s simulations, to Tbolt’s experience to Richard’s BPS (SWAG [Scientific Wild Ass Guess] statistical analysis). That leads to an exchange of ideas. That is the joy of the forum!

Let’s not cancel out each other. Leave that to politics and the societal tendency of today. Viva la difference! Voice your opinion. Allow room for disagreement. I suggest that the OE Forum exists to improve our play at Euchre, not to win a debate ..."

I am not here to spread faults information or win arguments. However, when someone twice calls into question my honest and integrity and not give ONE piece of contrary evidence it bothers me deeply. To further say, what I presented was a few hands on the kitchen table without knowing me.

I may be many things, but being DISHONEST is not one of them. That is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I presented the facts and in fact the data is backed by 300 hand simulations. The facts are You or any card player will NOT exceed the EV I presented by Passing from 3rd seat with the hand given: QH 9H 10H AS KS (KH up). You can take it to the bank.

I presented the information for the benefit of players on this Forum. I could care less if anyone believes or uses it. But to doubt in, come with Facts and simulations. I do a great deal of analysis of euchre hands. That is my passion.

Further, when someone says they do not want to be around me or calls me dishonest. I have to completely avoid them. Yes, I am pissed to high heaven being called Dishonest.

I am fine with that and proceed by cutting off communication and involvement with that person. So no more discussion or comments with Wes. Life is too short, I don't need it!

This is way beyond cancelling someone out or winning an argument. It's about one's Integrity being called into question in a rude and disrespectful manner. Not even civil the comments made. The manner in which presented should not be tolerated on this forum as it only shuts out discussion.

I am DONE, unless an apology which I know there never will be one.

~Irishwolf

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I may be many things, but being DISHONEST is not one of them. That is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I presented the facts and in fact the data is backed by 300 hand simulations. The facts are You or any card player will NOT exceed the EV I presented by Passing from 3rd seat with the hand given: QH 9H 10H AS KS (KH up). You can take it to the bank.

This is what I'm talking about. These aren't "facts" dude. This is why a kitchen table sample can't resolve this. 300 hands?! Give me a break. You know that's not even close to the long run. .40 to .46 over a measly sample of 300 has got to be a statistical tie. So there's no reason to be so sure on this man. With that small of a sample and the numbers being that close, you can't say things like:

You will score more points by ordering than Passing. And that includes euchring the dealer, or the dealer passing, or S1 making trump or S1 passing = all combined.

you cannot do better by Passing.

sorry guys, I have done the hands, simulations and have the proof!

It's intellectually dishonest to make those kind've of surefire statements over a sample of just 300, especially when the numbers are that close.

Present the data as you have. We all love that and certainly wanna see it. But don't pretend one strategy is definitively better than the other. This is the inherent problem with kitchen table samples. No human can get to the long run--I mean maybe someone locked in prison doing this all day, every day for 50 years or something--but realistically only a computer can get us to the long run.

Anyways, I really do deeply respect your game Irishwolf. I know youre one of the best players in the world. Maybe the best I've ever studied. And I even know why too. You have that madness in you--this is a compliment--that same madness that people like Tom Brady or Michael Jordan has, the madness that leads one to do 300 samples on the kitchen table, the madness that leads to greatness. I know you've put more thought into this game than almost everyone in this forum combined. That's the part of you I will love forever. And every time I'm in the same card game as you--whether on your team or against you--my juices are flowing. I feel alive man. It's a great feeling I don't get very often.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I did not address your continued analysis. I have confidence in ordering, at this point. There is no reason to consider the analysis, beyond a positive EV of ordering the hand.

However, in my BPS discussion, I continued to analyze, the reasons to pass. Using BPS, I analyzed that passing was not positive. In fact, it was negative. Adding 0.25 to the BPS says ORDER. There is no defensive benefit, to passing this hand.

We are in agreement with this decision. I had no reason to disagree with your additional analysis.

I will leave it here, for tonight. Your additional analysis is appreciated. My MO, simplifying, simply leads to the conclusion, if the hand has a positive EV, why analyze the “relative EV” of passing.

Thank you Wes, for agreeing to disagree.

The blue part contradicts your first statement I bolded and answers your second statement I bolded--your rhetorical question. The reason why we have to analyze further beyond just "calling is +EV therefore call" is because there's always a chance passing has a higher +EV. In this case that's not true, but it could be. Individual EVs in a vacuum don't tell us anything, it's the relative EV that matters, I.E. which decision out of all possible decisions has the highest EV.

[irishwolf]

You stupid s _ _ _ _! You fail to understand what EV of .40 to .46 is. You multiply .40 by 100, 40 points per 100 hands. 300 hands 120 points. You got it?

Not only that how many hands it takes no matter the universe being sampled. For a 95% +/- accuracy you only need 450 samples.

I know what am talking about. You obviously do not. Go back to school!

This calculator computes the minimum number of necessary samples to meet the desired statistical constraints.
Result
Sample size: 271
This means 271 or more measurements/surveys are needed to have a confidence level of 90% that the real value is within ±5% of the measured/surveyed value. And I gave a range that one can expect if increasing the sample size to 450.

"This is what I'm talking about. These aren't "facts" dude. This is why a kitchen table sample can't resolve this. 300 hands?! Give me a break. You know that's not even close to the long run. .40 to .46 over a measly sample of 300 has got to be a statistical tie. So there's no reason to be so sure on this man. With that small of a sample and the numbers being that close, you can't say things like:"

~Irishwolf

[Wes (aka the legend)]

You stupid s _ _ _ _! You fail to understand what EV of .40 to .46 is. You multiply .40 by 100, 40 points per 100 hands. 300 hands 120 points. You got it?

Not only that how many hands it takes no matter the universe being sampled. For a 95% +/- accuracy you only need 450 samples.

Perhaps I have grossly overestimated the sample size it takes to get to the proverbial long run, but I still think it's intellectually dishonest to act as confident as you do when your P value is still greater than 5%. And there's also other issues with any kitchen table sample that should lower one's certainty on this. You can unconsciously rig the data. For example grey areas can come up for how a hand should be played by a particular player and what path you choose will decide if calling or passing is better for that particular hand. One can unconsciously bias these spots to fit the result they want. This is a real problem no mater what the integrity of the sampler. It's another reason why a computer sample is the gold standard.

Another problem exists that I have already mentioned or alluded to. The very nature of the dealer and S1 is critical to the value of passing or calling for S3. If the dealer and S1 are weak players who pass a lot, calling from S3 goes up in value. If the dealer and S1 are strong aggressive players, passing from S3 goes up in value. Assuming "all equally skilled players" doesn't really get us anywhere when the crux of most 3S-R1 grey area decisions presumably comes down to how well the dealer and S1 play.

If one were interested in finding out the truth here, it would actually be better to assume all players play expertly. This may seem paradoxical becuz it is certainly not realistic, but this goes back to what I've talked about before. It is better for our assumptions to be conservative (I.E. erring on the side of the claim we seek to refute) than to be realistic. For instance, as I mentioned, the better the dealer and S1 play the more likely passing from S3 is correct. But WHAT IF we assumed all players were experts and yet calling STILL beat out passing for this particular hand. IOW what if calling beat out passing using pretty much the most conservative assumptions possible. That would be a VERY interesting result! But if the opposite occurred under these conditions--passing beats out calling--that wouldn't tell us much at all becuz our assumptions favored passing to begin with. Either way, that's what's cool about using very conservative assumptions. They give you the potential for some very compelling results.

In summary, I find your data interesting, but not compelling. And acting more certain than you can be doesn't change anything for me. This spot is just too complex. Still what you've done is interesting enough to make me want to do a sample of my own with conservative assumptions.

The only thing that holds me back is I'm just not sure if it's worth my time. This may seem like a nit tangent and maybe it is, but the problem with the hand you chose...



Vs a upcard

...is even if we could safely conclude that calling is better than passing, we can't really extrapolate much from that result. For instance, would this also mean calling is better than passing with an outside suited AQ? A gap in that suited ace certainly decreases the value of the hand. How much I don't know. Or would calling still be better vs an AH upcard? To give an example of what I mean here, if it was proven that it is better to call this hand vs pass:



Vs a upcard

That would be a much more interesting result becuz then we could extrapolate that all other suited aces would fall into the same category. And we could extrapolate that calling is better than passing vs a KH upcard also. With your hand, even if you were right there's not much we can confidently infer from it. Your discovery may only apply to that one hand, to that one combo. That's not very interesting to me. I prefer data I can draw more inferences from. If I were to do a large sample on the kitchen table, I feel like it would be a waste of my time if I'm only trying to prove (using the word "prove" loosely) something about one combo.

I suppose with your hand--assuming I found your sample results compelling--we could infer that these hands are also a call vs a KH upcard:



Or



Or



But then I would be very skeptical if I had an expert P. Having two aces can help a lot of my P's 2nd round calls, even his Next calls. If Edward is my partner I'm certainly bagging these hands unless we're in a close out scenario. This is also why we can't extrapolate from your hand to hands like this:



Now we have approx 2 tricks in Next. With an expert P in S1, I'm bagging that hand all day. I've kinda derailed a bit. Sorry bout that.

[irishwolf]

Grossly over estimated sample size? Obviously, you have no clue about sample size and confidence intervals.

Funny that your were accepting, whole hog, hands in the book POWER EUCHRE, by ERIC ZALAS that were only 200 hands that were not statistically valid. lol
Of course I am confident in the hands and results. Each played by an expert,lol. You are lost, just admit it.

"Perhaps I have grossly overestimated the sample size it takes to get to the proverbial long run, but I still think it's intellectually dishonest to act as confident as you do when your P value is still greater than 5%. And there's also other issues with any kitchen table sample that should lower one's certainty on this. You can unconsciously rig the data. For example grey areas can come up for how a hand should be played by a particular player and what path you choose will decide if calling or passing is better for that particular hand. One can unconsciously bias these spots to fit the result they want. This is a real problem no mater what the integrity of the sampler. It's another reason why a computer sample is the gold standard.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Funny that your were accepting, whole hog, hands in the book POWER EUCHRE, by ERIC ZALAS that were only 200 hands that were not statistically valid. lol
Of course I am confident in the hands and results. Each played by an expert,lol. You are lost, just admit it.

What you said is not true. I have definitely brought up the caveat of sample size in Eric Zalas' work multiple times. I never accepted it "whole hog". I suspect you know this, so I'm not sure why you are taking this tact (once again this is the part of your character I despise). Eric Zalas' work of course has sample size issues but that was still some of the best evidence we've had on certain spots. His book, even with all its flaws, is still a must read for any serious player.

Some of the best evidence we have does not = great evidence tho. But some evidence, however weak, is still better than no evidence. I see no problem using a computer simulation with a sample size that is not statistically valid as a kindve tie breaker in any grey area discussion. Again, even weak evidence is still better than no evidence and should not be ignored. All any rational person can do is work with the best evidence they have, even if that means their experience + intuition + small sample computer simulations.

For reasons I've already mentioned, I am skeptical of any kitchen table sample. I think they are good for generating hypotheses but they can't prove anything. The chance of unconscious human bias is too high for me. Plus I don't know why you act so sure about things when your own work hasn't reached a 95% confidence level. I don't think anyone with a 300 kitchen table sample should speak with the degree of certainty that you do, but I see nothing wrong with you using that evidence to guide your play in 3rd Seat. And of course I see nothing wrong with you presenting that evidence here. But when you interpret your data as ironclad proof you've went too far.

And to be clear I don't think Eric Zalas' work "proves" anything either but I think it's completely rational to use his work to argue, for example, why R+1+0 is a call from the dealer spot when we don't block all suits. For those marginal spots people are unsure about, using Zalas' work as a kinda tie breaker makes perfect rational sense until we hopefully get better evidence in the future. Again, relatively weak evidence should not be ignored when it's the best evidence we have.

[Richardb02]

I searched this post focused on the generic concept, “Result of Ordering.” Here is my distillation & summary:
_____________________Richard________Wes___Irish______Tbolt
Result of Ordering_____+.05___________-1.0___.40 to .46_____0
Verbiage___________R Ordering EV
________________________________W EV for Calling
_________________________Irish Clarified .40 to .46 means 40 Pts per 100 hands
_______________________T “Since 2 people virtually agree that ordering is
________________________________minimalistic at best”

I suggest that we are are also speaking 3 to 4 languages. R & W used the same language but in a later post “Result of Ordering” was conflated with the “Situational EV of Ordering.” Irish later clarified the meaning of .40 to .46. Using .43, the mean, I derive +.43-.57=-14, as the comparison to R +.05 and W -1.0. T simplified. He viewed R & W’s EV’s for Calling as breakeven. Since he didn’t offer a different evaluation, I concluded that he felt that breakeven was close enough.

So, trying to make an apples to apples comparison, I suggest:
____________________Richard________Wes___Irish______Tbolt
Result of Ordering_____+.05_________-1.00___-14.00_____0.00

So first, does everyone agree that my suggestion is a reasonable comparison of the 4 “Results of Ordering, as posted?”
Secondly, what jumps out at you?

[Tbolt65]

I searched this post focused on the generic concept, “Result of Ordering.” Here is my distillation & summary:
_____________________Richard________Wes___Irish______Tbolt
Result of Ordering_____+.05___________-1.0___.40 to .46_____0
Verbiage___________R Ordering EV
________________________________W EV for Calling
_________________________Irish Clarified .40 to .46 means 40 Pts per 100 hands
_______________________T “Since 2 people virtually agree that ordering is
________________________________minimalistic at best”

I suggest that we are are also speaking 3 to 4 languages. R & W used the same language but in a later post “Result of Ordering” was conflated with the “Situational EV of Ordering.” Irish later clarified the meaning of .40 to .46. Using .43, the mean, I derive +.43-.57=-14, as the comparison to R +.05 and W -1.0. T simplified. He viewed R & W’s EV’s for Calling as breakeven. Since he didn’t offer a different evaluation, I concluded that he felt that breakeven was close enough.

So, trying to make an apples to apples comparison, I suggest:
____________________Richard________Wes___Irish______Tbolt
Result of Ordering_____+.05_________-1.00___-14.00_____0.00

So first, does everyone agree that my suggestion is a reasonable comparison of the 4 “Results of Ordering, as posted?”
Secondly, what jumps out at you?

Lets see if I can clarify things Richard so that perhaps the following makes sense and so that you can then do your extrapolation of my thoughts, yours, wes's and Irishwolf's. You are able to asses value to intrinsic things. Because like, myself, Irishwolf and Wes we all approach the game from different foundations. You are able to bring that all in with how you address various factors. Which is neat to see.



Disregard everything else. The hand itself shows that it is -EV. Playing this hand changes depending on the level the opponents. So in a vacuum playing this hand always in every situation will be a long term losing hand. No matter how small. So, Me personally as a player I usually dont call these types of hands anymore.( it used to be automatic no matter the scenario) I however allow for more favorable positioning as to let the risk taking pay off for you. Close out scores, favorable scores or in spots where a euchre doesn't further hurt your team unlike with what we see with this scenario. A euchre will put you down 0-6. My methodology is to be aggressive but not soo much so where I keep giving away 2pts. I want max/min my give a ways. So I have chosen this type of hands to do it with seat 1 r1. I will also pass in seat 1 r2 but very rarely. If Im playing for euchre or if I have no call second round I will pass. Wes hates it but there are times you just have to pass. My thinking is, It kinda similar to bleeding trump. You just don't do it. Its obvious now to most because through experience we have seen what it cost by doing so. However, there are times to bleed trump because it is necessary in rare cases. For me I just don't play these hands because especially against better players and in most scenarios you will pay for it. But like in our analogy prior there are times you can play this hand and take that necessary gamble for a close out win or at a more favorable score.


Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

Richard, I think you are mixing up the hands. My EV was with regards to the QH 10H 9H AS KS HAND. Not the one with the two 9s as noted above.

Irish Clarified .40 to .46 means 40 Pts per 100 hands ordering from 3rd seat.

~Irishwolf

[irishwolf]

No computer simulator will EVER give accurate results. Reason is, you or anyone cannot program them to equal a very good Euchre player, that has good play, intuition and can adjust to situational variables not seen or experienced by a programmer. That is fact! I am done with this conversation and subject.

Do what you need to do Dude.

Irishwolf

"I see no problem using a computer simulation with a sample size that is not statistically valid as a kindve tie breaker in any grey area discussion. Again, even weak evidence is still better than no evidence and should not be ignored. All any rational person can do is work with the best evidence they have, even if that means their experience + intuition + small sample computer simulations."

[Tbolt65]

No computer simulator will EVER give accurate results. Reason is, you or anyone cannot program them to equal a very good Euchre player, that has good play, intuition and can adjust to situational variables not seen or experienced by a programmer. That is fact! I am done with this conversation and subject.

Do what you need to do Dude.

Irishwolf

Well thats pretty much it in a nut shell Irishwolf. You really highlight what I'm trying to say in various situations. There are some things that can't be explained by math alone. Ive argued with Wes about it many times. Wes needs to see it, and have the math to back it up. He really believes that through enough simulations we can even map out the grey areas as he calls them but feels its unlikely we ever get to that point. There just isnt a proper simulator available. What you just said pretty much makes it impossible to program anyways. So we are left to experience, intuition and adjusting to the percieved various variables that one has accumulated through learning of the game, execution and so forth.

Tbolt65
Edward

[Richardb02]

CORRECTED RESULTS, based on IrishWolf’s 030521 post & clarification. Thank you IrishWolf for the clarification.

I searched this post focused on the generic concept, “Result of Ordering.” Here is my distillation & summary:
_____________________Richard________Wes___Irish______Tbolt
Result of Ordering_____+.05___________-1.0____NR_________0
Verbiage___________R Ordering EV
________________________________W EV for Calling
_________________________Irish Clarified .40 to .46 applied to a different hand
_______________________T “Since 2 people virtually agree that ordering is
________________________________minimalistic at best”

I suggest that we are are also speaking 3 to 4 languages. R & W used the same language but in a later post “Result of Ordering” was conflated with the “Situational EV of Ordering.” Irish compared the R1S1 hand to a R1S3 hand. So I marked the result NR for No Response. T simplified. He viewed R & W’s EV’s for Calling as breakeven. Since he didn’t offer a different evaluation, I concluded that he felt that breakeven was close enough.

So, trying to make an apples to apples comparison, I suggest:
____________________Richard________Wes___Irish______Tbolt
Result of Ordering_____+.05_________-1.00____ NR_______0.00

Does everyone agree that my suggestion is a reasonable comparison of the 4 “Results of Ordering, as posted?”
[/quote]

[Tbolt65]

I ascertain that its ever so slightly a losing proposition with an ever so slight negative expectation and using a type of stop-loss mentality to min/max my points and not bleed unesssry points away in certain situations.

Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

I agreed with Wes number of -.10 ordering and passing far worse (range of -.40 to -.58? without doing a lot of work))

Wes said, Here's the EV equation for calling:

.4(-2) + .5(1) + .1(2) = -.1

So calling will cost S1's team .1 pts.

-.1 is > .5886, therefore calling is best.

[Richardb02]

Thank your Tbolt and Irish.

I am now the outlier, at +.05! I discovered an error earlier but now is the time to reveal the error.

In my BPS calculation, I failed to account for the Q up card. So the BPS ordering should be -.25 for a net of 2.25. My EV ordering becomes -.13.

All 4 of us now hover around EV=-.1. We are in very close agreement about the EV of ordering.

[Richardb02]

I did not address your continued analysis. I have confidence in ordering, at this point. There is no reason to consider the analysis, beyond a positive EV of ordering the hand.

However, in my BPS discussion, I continued to analyze, the reasons to pass. Using BPS, I analyzed that passing was not positive. In fact, it was negative. Adding 0.25 to the BPS says ORDER. There is no defensive benefit, to passing this hand.

We are in agreement with this decision. I had no reason to disagree with your additional analysis.

I will leave it here, for tonight. Your additional analysis is appreciated. My MO, simplifying, simply leads to the conclusion, if the hand has a positive EV, why analyze the “relative EV” of passing.

Thank you Wes, for agreeing to disagree.

The blue part contradicts your first statement I bolded and answers your second statement I bolded--your rhetorical question. The reason why we have to analyze further beyond just "calling is +EV therefore call" is because there's always a chance passing has a higher +EV. In this case that's not true, but it could be. Individual EVs in a vacuum don't tell us anything, it's the relative EV that matters, I.E. which decision out of all possible decisions has the highest EV.

No. We just have to use more specific language.

I described, in my post, the BPS hand value is 2.50.
I then added 0.25 to the hand value creating a 2.75 situational value.

The .25 was added to the 2.50 BPS, not because the hand was stronger. It was added as a contra-negative to account for the lack of defensive value (not blocking reverse next). The “Situational Value” was greater than the “Hand Value” because passing was a poor option, not because of anything positive in the hand.

That distinction is not just wording. It is the demarcation where Bidding Point System enlarges to a Bidding Point Strategy. The defensive value of a hand, like this example, can have a positive or negative impact on the situational value of the hand. Likewise, the score, player considerations and turned down card can have positive or negative impacts. Instead of Bidding Point System, I used to say BPS Advanced. BPS Advanced is another way to convey I am using BPS analyzing more nuanced factors that could have a positive or negative impact on the BPS value.

Once I started applying the more advanced concepts from the OE Forum to the original BPS (based on OE Lessons) I needed a more flexible framework to estimate the impact of the factors that we could observe.

In your posts you use EV when referring to Ordering EV, Passing EV and not in this post, but by memory, the Net EV, as well. Normally, based on context, it is easy to determine which EV your are talking about.

More specific language minimizes misreading errors and misunderstandings.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

In your posts you use EV when referring to Ordering EV, Passing EV and not in this post, but by memory, the Net EV, as well. Normally, based on context, it is easy to determine which EV your are talking about.

More specific language minimizes misreading errors and misunderstandings.

I agree I've been sloppy with my language in this thread. From now on I'll be more careful. I will only use the term EV as it should be used in the strictest sense: as a relative term. When I'm not speaking relatively I will use the term "expected outcome" or "EO".

So me, you and Wolf all agree that the EO of a S1-R1 call in this spot has a slight -EO, which implies we all agree that a S1-R1 call has is a +EV call in this spot becuz the EO of calling is higher than the EO of pass-pass or pass-call Next. Assuming of course one accepts my assumptions as reasonable or close enough to make calling +EV.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I agreed with Wes number of -.10 ordering and passing far worse (range of -.40 to -.58? without doing a lot of work))

Wes said, Here's the EV equation for calling:

.4(-2) + .5(1) + .1(2) = -.1

So calling will cost S1's team .1 pts.

-.1 is > .5886, therefore calling is best.

I forgot to put the negative sign on .5886. Just to be extra clear, that last part should read:

-.1 is > -.5886, therefore calling is best.

[jblowery]

Would you order up from S1R1 if the upcard is higher than what you have? For example I'm in S1 and holding

Upcard is the

I'd still do it but your chances of taking this are even more bleak.