Unusual Hand! Thoughts?

[Richardb02]

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

[Tbolt65]

In Round 2 in my opinion something should have been called by either seat 2 or Seat 3. With that being said. I think seat 2 passing is more of a problem than seat 3. But this hinges on if the players are aggressive or passive. If they are passive this is just weak play period by both seat 2 and seat 3. If the players are aggressive(smart) at that, then Seat 1 pass could be communicating that they have clubs and at least one red suit stopped. If this is the case seat 3 is probably thinking there is a chance for a euchre when it gets back to the dealer at STD. Seat 2 should still have called too. If they replace one diamond with a heart than I can allow/see a pass here in hopes of a euchre at this score.


Tbolt65
Edward

[jblowery]

I generally agree. I'd definitely call diamonds from seat 2. Left +2 and it is reverse next, even if I have the other suites blocked like he does.

I'd actually pass in seat 1, round 2. I know a lot of people on here wouldn't though.

I almost always call with 3 of anything in round 2 but I can see seat 3 passing if it is STD and he has the other 2 suites blocked also.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I generally agree. I'd definitely call diamonds from seat 2. Left +2 and it is reverse next, even if I have the other suites blocked like he does.

I'd actually pass in seat 1, round 2. I know a lot of people on here wouldn't though.

I almost always call with 3 of anything in round 2 but I can see seat 3 passing if it is STD and he has the other 2 suites blocked also.

I'm calling Next from S1-R2 as you guys probably already know. I don't pass in that spot if I don't block reverse Next except at certain scores where I have to tighten up (9-8, 8-8, and arguably 7-8, 6-8, 8-7). Would love to have that spot tested someday but for that we'd need a real simulator comparing one bot team with my philosophy to another bot team with a passing range. Score matters too. I understand that this spot is debatable but if EG you're up by 3 then you gotta call something if you don't block all suits.

S2-R2 I call diamonds too but I'd definitely be interested in testing that spot too given that we block all suits.

S3-R2: that's a clear auto-pass for me. No way am I calling marginal in that spot when I block everything with a euchre hand in reverse Next in an STD gm. That would be a pretty bad call imo regardless of the nature of your P but if you have a strong partner it's an atrocious call.

Also for the record I'm calling spades from S4-R1. Richard was the one who first suggested that this could be a call awhile back. I added it to my arsenal just for the hell of it and I'm happy with the results. But those results are all in my head. I could be deluding myself. Another hand that needs to be tested. Don't dismiss it out of hand it tho. Having 2 voids has sneaky value and calling with a hand that only blocks 1 out 3 2nd rd suits--including having no Next cards--has sneaky value also.

[raydog]

So many bidding options with this hand, which ones give good results? I tried to simulate all the scenarios.

First, I looked at S1 bidding R1. And to do that I needed to know which was the best lead for S1 if they bid. I tried 3 different leads: (100,000 hands dealt - I did this several times, not much variance)
[note: I fixed S1's cards and the turn card, all other cards randomized - the situation as seen by S1]
1) KH: 3,362 / 56,795 / 39,843 (2 pts. / 1 pt. / euchred) EV = -0.16
2) JS, then KH: 5,635 / 52,550 / 41,815 EV = -0.20 [more sweeps but more euchres]
3) JS, then AD: 6,223 / 53,100 / 40,677 EV = 0.16

I compared 1) to 2), then 2) to 3) [can only compare 2 scenarios at a time]. Since 1) and 3) were close, I compared them head to head:
1) KH led: 3,313 / 56,581 / 40,106 EV = -0.17
3) JS led, then AD: 6,133 / 53,108 / 407,759 EV = -0.16
A slight edge to 3), but too close to call definitely. I used JS lead, AD 2nd trick lead for the rest of my comparisons.

Of course, S1 has the option of passing R1 and bidding Clubs, R2. So I looked at what would be the best lead if S1 called next, R2: (100,000 hands dealt, approx. 63,000 make it to R2)
1') KH: EV = -0.55 [these EVs are based ONLY on the 63,000 hand played]
2') AD, then 10D (if A wins): EV = -0.51
3') JS, then AD (if JS wins): EV = -0.55
It looks like AD is the best lead, so I used this lead in the rest of my comparisons.

So now I compared bidding R1 against bidding R2: (100,000 hands played)
4) S1 bids Spades R1, leads JS then AD: EV = -0.16
5) S1 passes R1, bids Clubs R2, leads AD: EV = -0.29 [these EVs based on ALL 100,000 hands]

And how about always passing? (100,000 hands)
4) S1 bids Spades, R1, leads JS then AD: EV = -0.15
6) S1 passes both rounds: EV = -0.16

From all this I conclude that S1 can either bid R1 or pass both rounds, but shouldn't bid R2.

What if S1 passes, R1 - should S2 bid, R1? (1,000,000 hands played; 4% are bid by S1, R1)
[note: I fixed S2's cards and the turn card, all other cards randomized - the situation as seen by S2]
7) S2 bids, R1: EV = +0.44
8) S2 passes R1, bids D, R2: EV = +0.53
It seems that S2 has a good defensive / supporting hand, and a good bid R2, so better to pass R1.

What if everyone passes to the dealer? (100,000 hands, ~63,700 make it to dealer for a bid)
9) S4 bids, R1: EV = -0.34
10) S4 passes, R1: EV = -0.73
Here, S4 does not have a very good bid, BUT it's still better to bid than pass. Passing sets up S1 to bid almost 50,000 hands for a net EV of +0.97 (when bidding)

If everyone somehow passes R1, I determined earlier that S1 should also pass, R2. What if it makes it to S2, R2? I tested 100,000 hands, and only ~14,000 made it this far, so the interpretation of the results starts to be a bit too reliant on knowing for certain the bidding behavior of the other players. But for what it's worth:
11) S2 bids D, R2: EV = +0.30
12) S2 passes, R2: EV = -0.19
No surprise here, it's the result I found earlier. If S2 passes, S3 calls trump about 80% of the time, with good results.

For completeness, what should S3 do, R2, if it makes it that far? Of 100,000 hands, only about 4.5% made it that far. I ran the comparison 3 times and averaged the results (so 300,000 hands):
13) S3 bids Hearts, R2: EV = -0.13
14) S3 passes, R3: EV = +0.25
Same caveat with the small sample of hands that make it this far, but the result does seem reasonable, since S4 will be forced to bid (STD) and S3 has some good stoppers and euchre potential.

Of course, as Wes pointed out, score matters, as does the aggressiveness of the players; that can change the subset of hands which make it to various stages of the bidding and affect the results. I can't simulate all that. But hopefully something useful can be drawn from this analysis.

[irishwolf]

GOOD WORK RAY, lots of possibilities! It's what makes the game interesting. Then load onto this, score and situation (players, how things are going, etc.) adds anther important variable(s).
But to me and already said, S2 R2 Diamonds is the call as STD, you set your partner up for a euchre.

Euchre, like the Roman saying, spoils go to the aggressor and the winner. Euchre is the Game of War! You must call on biddable hands, S2 had a biddable hand. Blocking is mostly B.S. unless you know your options with some Certainty!

Make a note of it!

And that is not Profanity, OE.

IRISH

[Dlan]

[irishwolf]

It's all Good Don, and I have to say this!

Ohio Euchre has really come a long way in the last two or three years. To a place that now has at least rivaled to a level not only equal but surpassed where Euchre Science was in it's glory days. I think doing a full comparison is not warranted as that was a different time & place.

And THAT'S YOU! (DON)

Except to say, ES never had the other features that OE has to help new players. The patience you have, willingness to adapt, and the "sticking to it" is what makes this such a success. Allowing the difference of of opinions to ride out, makes me wonder how many times you have bit your tongue, lol.

So that is just a little critique, thanks for permuting me to take that Liberty.

Glad to move on to a New Year - 2022 HAPPY HOLIDAY!

IRISHWOLF

[Dlan]

and thanks for the kind words, Irishwolf.

[irishwolf]

RAYDOG;

Something is AMISS here: LOOK at 1) vs 3). JS/AD is not close except on Euchres but far better on EV. Yes, some people look at the details. lol (See below on your comparison!) I was very interested in JS/AD results. But it also leads to the next question, it all depends on who played what in each of those hands as to what a REAL player would lead to trick 3. Thus, leading the KH or 10D or even QS. This is highly variable and I bet money your Simulator does not have the feature. However, makes a big difference. And that is the point about simulators. Your not Big Blue - yet. Useful but not the Defining Absolute for me. So might not make a difference in this particular hand - but does with Law of Large Numbers. Just a thought.

Still - I like what you are doing!

Irish

First, I looked at S1 bidding R1. And to do that I needed to know which was the best lead for S1 if they bid. I tried 3 different leads: (100,000 hands dealt - I did this several times, not much variance)
[note: I fixed S1's cards and the turn card, all other cards randomized - the situation as seen by S1]
1) KH: 3,362 / 56,795 / 39,843 (2 pts. / 1 pt. / euchred) EV = -0.16
2) JS, then KH: 5,635 / 52,550 / 41,815 EV = -0.20 [more sweeps but more euchres]
3) JS, then AD: 6,223 / 53,100 / 40,677 EV = 0.16

I compared 1) to 2), then 2) to 3) [can only compare 2 scenarios at a time]. Since 1) and 3) were close, I compared them head to head:
1) KH led: 3,313 / 56,581 / 40,106 EV = -0.17
3) JS led, then AD: 6,133 / 53,108 / 407,759 EV = -0.16
A slight edge to 3), but too close to call definitely. I used JS lead, AD 2nd trick lead for the rest of my comparisons.

[raydog]

It's a typo, dude! - but you knew that. Should read 40,759 euchres. And I'm glad you are looking at the details, that is why I included them.

My program, as you say, is not Big Blue, and the card led on the 3rd trick will be based on some aggregate of hands with similar characteristics, NOT the exact cards specifically led in this scenario. So an expert player should conceivably play better. But that also depends on the expert's intuition being infallible, never making mistakes, having tens of thousands of situations memorized or being able to accurately assess the odds of different plays in a few seconds. A tall order.

Because I don't examine and take account of the minutia, I don't claim my results to be definitive unless there is a comfortably large margin between two different scenarios. In the example you mention, I don't think an expert's knowledge would change the outcome of the game more than 5-10% of the time, max. [quite often they would play the same as my program; and in the majority of cases it wouldn't make any difference]. Yes, that's significant, but in the example you cited, getting 10% more sweeps (an extra 600) instead of 1 pt wins changes the EV by 0.006 - hardly moves the needle. Now, 5% less euchres would improve EV by 0.06 - much, much better, but I question how likely such a big change is. Such a big part of the game is just luck.

We could debate this ad infinitum. But I won't. I believe I understand the limitations of my program, and I'm not touting it as any more than what it is. I, naturally, have far more confidence in it than an outsider, because I programmed it, know intimately how it works and have seen how much that labor of love has improved my own game. I'm just having a little fun and challenging my brain cells.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

So many bidding options with this hand, which ones give good results? I tried to simulate all the scenarios.

First, I looked at S1 bidding R1. And to do that I needed to know which was the best lead for S1 if they bid. I tried 3 different leads: (100,000 hands dealt - I did this several times, not much variance)
[note: I fixed S1's cards and the turn card, all other cards randomized - the situation as seen by S1]
1) KH: 3,362 / 56,795 / 39,843 (2 pts. / 1 pt. / euchred) EV = -0.16
2) JS, then KH: 5,635 / 52,550 / 41,815 EV = -0.20 [more sweeps but more euchres]
3) JS, then AD: 6,223 / 53,100 / 40,677 EV = 0.16

Makes sense. That's what I would've predicted--probably everyone else too--that option 3 would win out. I would not have predicted that it would be +EV tho. Good stuff.

I compared 1) to 2), then 2) to 3) [can only compare 2 scenarios at a time]. Since 1) and 3) were close, I compared them head to head:
1) KH led: 3,313 / 56,581 / 40,106 EV = -0.17
3) JS led, then AD: 6,133 / 53,108 / 407,759 EV = -0.16
A slight edge to 3), but too close to call definitely. I used JS lead, AD 2nd trick lead for the rest of my comparisons.

Yep that's what I would've done.

Of course, S1 has the option of passing R1 and bidding Clubs, R2. So I looked at what would be the best lead if S1 called next, R2: (100,000 hands dealt, approx. 63,000 make it to R2)
1') KH: EV = -0.55 [these EVs are based ONLY on the 63,000 hand played]
2') AD, then 10D (if A wins): EV = -0.51
3') JS, then AD (if JS wins): EV = -0.55
It looks like AD is the best lead, so I used this lead in the rest of my comparisons.

I would've predicted that 3) would be the best leads. That's an interesting result to me. But I'm not surprised the choice between lines is so close given that we are starting from a dubious hand to begin with where we really don't have any good lead choices.

So now I compared bidding R1 against bidding R2: (100,000 hands played)
4) S1 bids Spades R1, leads JS then AD: EV = -0.16
5) S1 passes R1, bids Clubs R2, leads AD: EV = -0.29 [these EVs based on ALL 100,000 hands]

THIS is BY FAR the your most fascinating finding. Your results suggest that there are A LOT of R+1+A combos from S1 that should be calling hands instead of bagging hands. That's a pretty HUGE finding as almost every player I know--good or bad--doesn't call from S1-R1 with just R+1 unless they have 2 aces to go along with it. People are very timid, including myself, when it comes to ordering up the enemy--giving them a trump and a chance to create a void--with just 2 trump.

Based on your findings I would create this hypothesis: When S1 has R+1+A he should order up the dealer IF he doesn't block reverse Next and he has no Next cards. If he has one Next card he should bag and call Next. E.G.:

Dealer upcard:

S1's hand:

S1 should bag and call Next. But with this hand:



S1 should call.

Also, if S1 should happen to have 3 trump for the 2nd round then he should also bag and jump the fence. E.G.:

Dealer upcard:

S1's hand:

Bag and call diamonds.

Great stuff Ray. If your finding is correct. This will have HUGE implications for sound S1 play. The only thing I would add is that me or Wolf still need to replicate these results on the kitchen table to have full confidence. I say that not just becuz independent replicated results is the cornerstone of science, but also becuz this is the kind of sample that can be easily done on the kitchen table.

And how about always passing? (100,000 hands)
4) S1 bids Spades, R1, leads JS then AD: EV = -0.15
6) S1 passes both rounds: EV = -0.16

When it's a statistical tie, I would always choose the line that leads to less opponent loners. Controlling loner variance is especially important in tournament play when one bad game can sink your ship. Therefore, calling in the first round still wins in my book. Instead of "tie goes to the runner" we can say "tie goes to the loner stopper".

What if S1 passes, R1 - should S2 bid, R1? (1,000,000 hands played; 4% are bid by S1, R1)
[note: I fixed S2's cards and the turn card, all other cards randomized - the situation as seen by S2]
7) S2 bids, R1: EV = +0.44
8) S2 passes R1, bids D, R2: EV = +0.53
It seems that S2 has a good defensive / supporting hand, and a good bid R2, so better to pass R1.

Although we would expect passing to beat out calling for S2-R1, I am surprised at how effective calling was in the absolute since. +.44 for L+1+0 is better than I would've thought. From your findings I would actually create this hypothesis:

S2 should call in R1 with L+1+0 whenever he only blocks 1 out of 3 2nd round suits. I've been playing that way for awhile now anyways but I've never been sure if that's correct.

What if everyone passes to the dealer? (100,000 hands, ~63,700 make it to dealer for a bid)
9) S4 bids, R1: EV = -0.34
10) S4 passes, R1: EV = -0.73
Here, S4 does not have a very good bid, BUT it's still better to bid than pass. Passing sets up S1 to bid almost 50,000 hands for a net EV of +0.97 (when bidding)

This is exactly what I would've predicted. S4-R1 call has a negative expected outcome but is +EV overall due to the high cost of passing this hand. Good stuff. Glad to see my play here being confirmed. I will even say the word "confirmed" here cuz that's a pretty wide spread (-.34 vs -.73). I think we can feel safe about that one.

If everyone somehow passes R1, I determined earlier that S1 should also pass, R2. What if it makes it to S2, R2? I tested 100,000 hands, and only ~14,000 made it this far, so the interpretation of the results starts to be a bit too reliant on knowing for certain the bidding behavior of the other players. But for what it's worth:
11) S2 bids D, R2: EV = +0.30
12) S2 passes, R2: EV = -0.19
No surprise here, it's the result I found earlier. If S2 passes, S3 calls trump about 80% of the time, with good results.

Very good stuff! I favored calling but I actually thought the results would be a little bit closer given that S2 blocks all suits.

For completeness, what should S3 do, R2, if it makes it that far? Of 100,000 hands, only about 4.5% made it that far. I ran the comparison 3 times and averaged the results (so 300,000 hands):
13) S3 bids Hearts, R2: EV = -0.13
14) S3 passes, R3: EV = +0.25
Same caveat with the small sample of hands that make it this far, but the result does seem reasonable, since S4 will be forced to bid (STD) and S3 has some good stoppers and euchre potential.

Yep makes sense that passing is best in that spot. This is especially true in a tough game. If the action gets to S3 in a tough game it's a safe bet that someone has all suits blocked or at least 2 out of 3 suits blocked. Whether that's your P or S2, that's even more reason to pass. In the former case the probability of euchring the dealer goes up, in the latter case the probability of something going wrong when you call goes up.

Of course, as Wes pointed out, score matters, as does the aggressiveness of the players; that can change the subset of hands which make it to various stages of the bidding and affect the results. I can't simulate all that. But hopefully something useful can be drawn from this analysis.

Yep. Score definitely matters becuz my assertion is that in euchre it is often correct to make -EV calls to protect our equity. Classic example:

Your team is up 8-5, dealer upcard:

You have:

You pass in the 1st rd and the dealer passes. In the 2nd round you must call something given that you have no defense, and since you don't have much in any suit you should call Next. By making this call you LOCK IN 66% win equity as your worst case scenario. I.E. if you get euchred your team will be up 8-7 with the deal and that equates to 66% equity. Protecting that 66% equity is paramount. Another way to look at it: When 66% equity is the worst case scenario one should feel compelled to gamble in that spot.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

It's a typo, dude! - but you knew that. Should read 40,759 euchres. And I'm glad you are looking at the details, that is why I included them.

My program, as you say, is not Big Blue, and the card led on the 3rd trick will be based on some aggregate of hands with similar characteristics, NOT the exact cards specifically led in this scenario. So an expert player should conceivably play better. But that also depends on the expert's intuition being infallible, never making mistakes, having tens of thousands of situations memorized or being able to accurately assess the odds of different plays in a few seconds. A tall order.

One thing I will add: So many times I have made thin, dubious Next calls and have gotten euchred becuz my amateur partner didn't know what to play or lead on subsequent streets. Whereas if I had an expert partner my call would've made it. Well 95-99%+ of the time you WILL be playing with an amateur P if you're playing on the app or in a tournament where your partners are picked at random. This reality makes it EVEN MORE likely that your finding--that calling with that R+1+A from S1-R1 is better than bagging and calling Next--is correct. I am very excited about that!

Because I don't examine and take account of the minutia, I don't claim my results to be definitive unless there is a comfortably large margin between two different scenarios. In the example you mention, I don't think an expert's knowledge would change the outcome of the game more than 5-10% of the time, max. [quite often they would play the same as my program; and in the majority of cases it wouldn't make any difference]. Yes, that's significant, but in the example you cited, getting 10% more sweeps (an extra 600) instead of 1 pt wins changes the EV by 0.006 - hardly moves the needle. Now, 5% less euchres would improve EV by 0.06 - much, much better, but I question how likely such a big change is. Such a big part of the game is just luck.

We could debate this ad infinitum. But I won't. I believe I understand the limitations of my program, and I'm not touting it as any more than what it is. I, naturally, have far more confidence in it than an outsider, because I programmed it, know intimately how it works and have seen how much that labor of love has improved my own game. I'm just having a little fun and challenging my brain cells.

I obviously don't know a thing about your program, but man it seems legit from my perspective. It either spits out results I already strongly agree with or those times it spits out results that suggest my claim is wrong I'm' like "Yeah I can see that". It didn't have to be that way, your program could've been producing results that had me going "NO F***ING WAY" all the time. That's not happening. Only once did your program spit out a result I strongly disagreed with and it was on that loner where the program wanted the maker to keep the lower ranking garbage card. I see that as a minor glitch. But overall I am extremely impressed with your work.

[raydog]

Yikes, another typo! Leading JS, then AD yields a -0.16 EV, not a positive one. As can be seen in the subsequent comparison of scenario 1) vs 3). Sorry about that.

I tested those two hands you proposed.

J-9S + A-9D + 9C (KS turned) 10,000 hands
S1, bid R1 (lead JS, then AD): EV = -0.19
S1, bid next R2 (lead AD): EV = -0.02
So better to bag and bed next, R2, in this case. Likely for the reason you mentioned.
As for leading the AD, I find that in general, suits are more evenly distributed when bidding gets to the 2nd round, probably just because the turned suit is more evenly distributed and this has an impact on how the other suits are distributed. Not a strong effect, but enough to make that Ace lead win a bit more and make it a sensible lead.

J-9S + A-10-9D (KS turned) 10,000 hands [~6,000 make it to R2]
S1, bid R1 (lead JS, then AD): EV = -0.11
S1, did D R2 (lead 9D): EV = +0.20
So better to bag again, and bid a green suit (reverse next) R2. Then draw trump, since you (hopefully) have more than anyone else.

For these three hands (the original one, plus these two you presented) I'm happy to say that my program made what seems to be the correct bid, but didn't lead correctly. So I need to fix that.

I like your method of generalizing from a specific case, it what I must do when I find my program playing incorrectly. Make a new rule, then test it over ALL random hands to see if it helps the player. And incorporate it if it does. So I'm happy to test any other hypotheses you may have.