You're in first seat holding:
The upcard is the
.Would you call in this situation knowing that you can't stop a lone even though getting euchred would result in the game being 4-8 (but it would be your deal)?
Blocking When You're Down
-
RedDuke
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:22 am
Blocking When You're Down
Is there ever a good reason to block when down? For example, let's say you're in the final round of a big money tournament (winner of this game takes it all). The score is 4-6 in favor of your opponents.
You're in first seat holding:
The upcard is the .
Would you call in this situation knowing that you can't stop a lone even though getting euchred would result in the game being 4-8 (but it would be your deal)?
You're in first seat holding:
The upcard is the
.Would you call in this situation knowing that you can't stop a lone even though getting euchred would result in the game being 4-8 (but it would be your deal)?
-
Wes (aka the legend)
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm
I block in that spot. Yes, even down 4-6. 1 small trump, no aces, 4 suited vs a Jack upcard is about as scary as it gets.RedDuke wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:01 amIs there ever a good reason to block when down? For example, let's say you're in the final round of a big money tournament (winner of this game takes it all). The score is 4-6 in favor of your opponents.
You're in first seat holding:
The upcard is the
Would you call in this situation knowing that you can't stop a lone even though getting euchred would result in the game being 4-8 (but it would be your deal)?
The problem with this discussion tho is it's really a math problem. Without math it's just gonna be a "my/your opinion vs their opinion" situation. I suppose you could argue that's kind of a cop-out since "math is the answer" applies to every hand discussion/debate we've ever had, but I think it's especially important here or in any hand where we are talking about highly counterintuitive strategy. Blocking to go down 4-8 certainly qualifies. A lot of hand discussions can be resolved with some good old fashioned expert intuition. I don't feel THAT confident in my expert intuition here. I wish I had the math by my side.
-
irishwolf
- Posts: 1316
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm
DONATING:
I seldom (almost never) donate to put the other team ahead by 2 or more points. Donating to give a 8 to 4 opponent advantage, they will win the game 70 - 80% of the time. However, even with J/QH that is still a potential stopper - maybe (guessing) 10 - 12% of the time.
Yes, every Jack up is scary but consider, on the average, only 1 in 3 loner attempts is successful with many games played. We know that can vary considerably game to game in the short run. I also agree you have to stop loners because the team that scores a loner and you do not counter with a loner, will win the game over 80% of the time (that's fact). So on one hand if the statement above is even close to being real, you have ~33% chance of a successful loner vs the chance of winning if you donate to a score of 8 to 4. If you put them ahead 8 to 4 your might have a a 10% chance to come back. Thus, 33% successful loner attempt (you lose) compared to 80% - 90% chance of losing if donating. I don't think that is smart to donate when you are behind unless you know with a high degree of certainty it is a successful loner. You don't know what your partner has - he has five unknown cards and you have a potential stopper Q/Jh.
Consider also that 4 - 5% (that's about 40 total hands considering four players, in a game of 10 deals) - you get a success full loner about every other game or so of all hands played. (I am not talking about you had a loner if it got to you). Even if you ran the success rate of loners to 1 in 2 (50% success) you are comparing 50% loner vs 80% donating I lose. It still comes out to not donate.
But it is more complex than that because they could get a march anyway which is no different than donating - lets give that chance a 25% with the Jack up and you four suited. Secondly, it makes more sense that they will at least score 1 point and you have no control - let's give than chance a 70%. And your partner has 3 or 4 trumps and orders or euchres them (5%). Now the score is 7 to 4. Consider also, if you in total, get euchred more than 2 times in a game, you will most likely lose the game.
So you see it's complex. I think the math says don't unless your sensing says you must. For me with that hand, I can't afford to donate because I will lose more often than not as a successful loner is 33%/try. As a rule I don't donate late in game to give opponents the lead be game is too short to make up the score.
But what you can to convince yourself, and must do is track your success rate on donating. If you only are 50% successful (comparing you donated and it resulted in a loner (if they would have scored two points it is of no value either way) vs did not have a loner or attempted a loner but my partner had a stopper. If you're a bad guesser you are losing points and probably games. You have to be at 66% to break even (two out of three have to be good guesses). Some players like to think just because they would have attempted a loner was a good decision, but was not successful was a good decision. You are fooling yourself. You just gave away 1 point and decreased your chance to win by 10%.
If they are weak players, maybe okay? For skilled opponents, are you that good - 66%? Can ye afford the euchre, tis the question?
To each his own, but for that hand I am taking my statistical chances that I think favor me. And if they score a loner - you just take your lumps.
This topic is one of the MOST important impacting your win percentage (IMO).
Irishwolf
I seldom (almost never) donate to put the other team ahead by 2 or more points. Donating to give a 8 to 4 opponent advantage, they will win the game 70 - 80% of the time. However, even with J/QH that is still a potential stopper - maybe (guessing) 10 - 12% of the time.
Yes, every Jack up is scary but consider, on the average, only 1 in 3 loner attempts is successful with many games played. We know that can vary considerably game to game in the short run. I also agree you have to stop loners because the team that scores a loner and you do not counter with a loner, will win the game over 80% of the time (that's fact). So on one hand if the statement above is even close to being real, you have ~33% chance of a successful loner vs the chance of winning if you donate to a score of 8 to 4. If you put them ahead 8 to 4 your might have a a 10% chance to come back. Thus, 33% successful loner attempt (you lose) compared to 80% - 90% chance of losing if donating. I don't think that is smart to donate when you are behind unless you know with a high degree of certainty it is a successful loner. You don't know what your partner has - he has five unknown cards and you have a potential stopper Q/Jh.
Consider also that 4 - 5% (that's about 40 total hands considering four players, in a game of 10 deals) - you get a success full loner about every other game or so of all hands played. (I am not talking about you had a loner if it got to you). Even if you ran the success rate of loners to 1 in 2 (50% success) you are comparing 50% loner vs 80% donating I lose. It still comes out to not donate.
But it is more complex than that because they could get a march anyway which is no different than donating - lets give that chance a 25% with the Jack up and you four suited. Secondly, it makes more sense that they will at least score 1 point and you have no control - let's give than chance a 70%. And your partner has 3 or 4 trumps and orders or euchres them (5%). Now the score is 7 to 4. Consider also, if you in total, get euchred more than 2 times in a game, you will most likely lose the game.
So you see it's complex. I think the math says don't unless your sensing says you must. For me with that hand, I can't afford to donate because I will lose more often than not as a successful loner is 33%/try. As a rule I don't donate late in game to give opponents the lead be game is too short to make up the score.
But what you can to convince yourself, and must do is track your success rate on donating. If you only are 50% successful (comparing you donated and it resulted in a loner (if they would have scored two points it is of no value either way) vs did not have a loner or attempted a loner but my partner had a stopper. If you're a bad guesser you are losing points and probably games. You have to be at 66% to break even (two out of three have to be good guesses). Some players like to think just because they would have attempted a loner was a good decision, but was not successful was a good decision. You are fooling yourself. You just gave away 1 point and decreased your chance to win by 10%.
If they are weak players, maybe okay? For skilled opponents, are you that good - 66%? Can ye afford the euchre, tis the question?
To each his own, but for that hand I am taking my statistical chances that I think favor me. And if they score a loner - you just take your lumps.
This topic is one of the MOST important impacting your win percentage (IMO).
Irishwolf