4-9 Friday Night Euchre Hand #2

[Tbolt65]

South/North is up 7-6. Seat 1/East makes an interesting decision down 6-7.







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


Tbolt65
Edward

[RedDuke]

That was an interesting block.

North screwed up on trick 4 by throwing off the King instead of the Ace, but it wouldn't have mattered.

[Tbolt65]

Hmmm, Generally down 6-7, you really don't want to donate to 9. Making it 6-9 not your favor. You get the deal but you put your team at a SEVERE disadvantage. The other team is free to take chances now. They have control of the game and are free to donate liberally. That's a lot to over come. Especially in a tough game. Almost too much in my opinion. Against weak players its debatable but mistakes don't cost as much but with that said its still a great deal to overcome. Even in games where the opponents are very weak.


Tbolt65
Edward

[justme]

Absolutely pure luck! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. East/west is in a tight spot but making a call which inevitably will set them back 9-6 (with deal) is simply dreaming, not good euchre. Seat 1 traded his reasonable opportunity for a loner attempt away for a high expectation of a 6-9. While seat 1 could never justify his call to me, there would be accolades for seat 3 from me if he had been the one to have ordered the nine here. The hero here is seat 3's cards.

Edit: Tbolt65 - I'm not confortable with the "weak" player theory because the alternative here that seat 1 could pass would be the "weak" players option also. And the result would have been the same, one pt. One could say the weak call here is the order from seat 1.

[irishwolf]

NOT REALLY!

Absolutely pure luck! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. East/west is in a tight spot but making a call which inevitably will set them back 9-6 (with deal) is simply dreaming, not good euchre.

[Tbolt65]

Absolutely pure luck! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. East/west is in a tight spot but making a call which inevitably will set them back 9-6 (with deal) is simply dreaming, not good euchre. Seat 1 traded his reasonable opportunity for a loner attempt away for a high expectation of a 6-9. While seat 1 could never justify his call to me, there would be accolades for seat 3 from me if he had been the one to have ordered the nine here. The hero here is seat 3's cards.

Edit: Tbolt65 - I'm not confortable with the "weak" player theory because the alternative here that seat 1 could pass would be the "weak" players option also. And the result would have been the same, one pt. One could say the weak call here is the order from seat 1.

What theory? The only thing I postulated when breaking down this hand and giving my thoughts is that this is a bad play period. Even if you consider weak players and you want to protect your team and confident you can come back. You are still putting yourself and your team in a BIG hole. Too much so.


I said,


"Hmmm, Generally down 6-7, you really don't want to donate to 9. Making it 6-9 not your favor. You get the deal but you put your team at a SEVERE disadvantage. The other team is free to take chances now. They have control of the game and are free to donate liberally. That's a lot to over come. Especially in a tough game. Almost too much in my opinion. Against weak players its debatable but mistakes don't cost as much but with that said its still a great deal to overcome. Even in games where the opponents are very weak"


Hope that makes it crystal clear for you.


Tbolt65
Edward

[Dlan]

I wonder if 1st was thinking, Gee, I have a lot of spades yet no hearts. Could my opponents have the same hand but in hearts? An uneven card distribution in one hand increases the likelihood of uneven cards elsewhere.

[justme]

Absolutely pure luck! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. East/west is in a tight spot but making a call which inevitably will set them back 9-6 (with deal) is simply dreaming, not good euchre. Seat 1 traded his reasonable opportunity for a loner attempt away for a high expectation of a 6-9. While seat 1 could never justify his call to me, there would be accolades for seat 3 from me if he had been the one to have ordered the nine here. The hero here is seat 3's cards.

Edit: Tbolt65 - I'm not confortable with the "weak" player theory because the alternative here that seat 1 could pass would be the "weak" players option also. And the result would have been the same, one pt. One could say the weak call here is the order from seat 1.

What theory? The only thing I postulated when breaking down this hand and giving my thoughts is that this is a bad play period. Even if you consider weak players and you want to protect your team and confident you can come back. You are still putting yourself and your team in a BIG hole. Too much so.


I said,


"Hmmm, Generally down 6-7, you really don't want to donate to 9. Making it 6-9 not your favor. You get the deal but you put your team at a SEVERE disadvantage. The other team is free to take chances now. They have control of the game and are free to donate liberally. That's a lot to over come. Especially in a tough game. Almost too much in my opinion. Against weak players its debatable but mistakes don't cost as much but with that said its still a great deal to overcome. Even in games where the opponents are very weak"


Hope that makes it crystal clear for you.


Tbolt65
Edward

From the get go you and i were in agreement that the order by seat 1 is a bad play. PERIOD.

And, I simply opined that considering the circumstance it matters not if the other players involved are weak players, as opposed to your opinion "Against weak players it's debatable"

Why the unbecoming hostility?

[Tbolt65]

I'm just saying you can make arguments as to why one may do it verse weaker players because there are chances they will pass bidable hands at 9 and not go for the close out win and chances they will not donate and giving up a game winning loner. In either case its still wrong Period like you have stated above. It's too much to over come regardless of who it may be. That's what I was getting it. Nothing more nothing less. Sorry if I came off as harsh. I was just trying to highlight what was said to drive home a point I perhaps thought was lost on you is all.


Tbolt65
Edward

[Dlan]

So the general consensus is that 1st should have passed.

I wasn't so sure passing was the best play, so I decided to test a few hands using the workshop.

I tried 10 hands and had 1st passed, here is what may have happened.

The image shows the first hand that came up.


hand 1 = had lone
hand 2 = had possible lone - stopped by 3rd
hand 3 = would have passed
hand 4 = would have picked holding 3 trump
hand 4 = had lone
hand 5 = had lone
hand 6 = 2nd would have ordered
hand 7 = had lone
hand 8 = would have picked holding 3 trump
hand 9 = would have picked holding 3 trump
hand 10 = 2nd had lone

[irishwolf]

So what do you conclude from your sample off 10 hands? And just look at the original how there cards stacked in all four hands. Move them around, and note that it is 2:1 against S1. A March is a March, same as a donate, and Loner you LOSE! 1 pass, vs 4 loners, and how many Sweeps?

"I tried 10 hands and had 1st passed, here is what may have happened.

The image shows the first hand that came up.


hand 1 = had lone
hand 2 = had possible lone - stopped by 3rd
hand 3 = would have passed
hand 4 = would have picked holding 3 trump
hand 4 = had lone
hand 5 = had lone
hand 6 = 2nd would have ordered
hand 7 = had lone
hand 8 = would have picked holding 3 trump
hand 9 = would have picked holding 3 trump
hand 10 = 2nd had lone"

[Dlan]

I think we can all agree 2 points whether added due to a sweep or donation are the same.

While I realize 10 is a small sample size and given a larger sampling, the number of lones, sweeps, 1 or 2 pointers may change. With 5 out of 10 hands having unstoppable lones, the call is one I would make again.

[irishwolf]

If I told you I studied that one too, would you believe it? The loners won't be that high, but . . . .

While I realize 10 is a small sample size and given a larger sampling, the number of lones, sweeps, 1 or 2 pointers may change. With 5 out of 10 hands having unstoppable lones, the call is one I would make again.

[Tbolt65]

..........there's always special situations to go against the grain.


If I lose to a loner on at 6-7. I've come to a term of acceptance of it. If it happens it happens. if not , so be it. Because too many times I feel you will be hurting yourself in the long run. Could one do it at a time like a one off?? Sure. Constantly?? No. I've done stuff one off before that I don't normally do and it pays off. If you play in situations where your gambling too much you'll hurt your chances of winning constantly. You just have to know when and pick your spot. Just be smart about it.


Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

Reality of it (four of a kind). 1 in 10 coming back to S1, that is about right.

About 1 in 5 you make a point or they get one point. 2 in 5 they get a sweep and 2 in 5 they get four points. Like Ed says, pick your spot and be smart about it. Agreed.

[Dlan]

Reality of it (four of a kind). 1 in 10 coming back to S1, that is about right.

About 1 in 5 you make a point or they get one point. 2 in 5 they get a sweep and 2 in 5 they get four points. Like Ed says, pick your spot and be smart about it. Agreed.

I assume your fifth card was not a heart.

While I didn't run the cards out to check for sweeps, seeing that the dealer would have made a point meant, at the most, a block gave them a free point.

2 in 5 (4 in 10), seems like we came up with about the same results.

The spreadsheet shows less than 20% of blocks stopped a lone.

Here we have 40% or 50% of the time a lone is stopped and what, one or two times it may be a wash.

While I agree that generally blocks with the opponents having 7 is not a good idea, calls are made on the limited information available and the past experience that one has.

[irishwolf]

Hey,

Four of a kind is much different animal than the hands I see donates on that spread sheet.

"While I didn't run the cards out to check for sweeps, seeing that the dealer would have made a point meant, at the most, a block gave them a free point.

2 in 5 (4 in 10), seems like we came up with about the same results.

The spreadsheet shows less than 20% of blocks stopped a lone."

[Dlan]

Ya, it's not a hand that comes up very often. But when it does, especially when none of your cards match the upcard's suit, it may be time to think about a donation. Be correct and your a hero, wrong and it's back to zero

[Wes (aka the legend)]

..........there's always special situations to go against the grain.


If I lose to a loner on at 6-7. I've come to a term of acceptance of it. If it happens it happens. if not , so be it. Because too many times I feel you will be hurting yourself in the long run. Could one do it at a time like a one off?? Sure. Constantly?? No. I've done stuff one off before that I don't normally do and it pays off. If you play in situations where your gambling too much you'll hurt your chances of winning constantly. You just have to know when and pick your spot. Just be smart about it.


Tbolt65
Edward

It's a bad donate imo. No way to justify donating down 7-6 most likely putting your team down 9-6 vs a 9 no matter what your cards are. The only time to even think about donating when at a score like this is vs a Jack upcard imo and even then I wouldn't do it unless I had no trump + no aces, and I'm far from sure even that's a good decision. If Irishwolf is right that there are indeed +EV donates out there, then those are the only donates that should be utilized in this spot. I highly doubt there are any +EV donates vs a 9.