What would you do here?

[Tbolt65]

The Score is 7-5 here. Your team is up. You are in Seat 1.

The is the up card.


You hold :

Round 1 pass or order? Why?

Round 2. If you did pass, what do you call or do you pass again if it was turned down? Why?





Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

Okay Ed, since no one bit on your post. I will and here is my answer:

PASS R1 JD - Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? I have two trumps, I am passing. Statistically, about 10% he has a loner or a sweep.

PASS AGAIN - R2. too weak in clubs without an ace off suit. Just don;t think S2 has a loner in Spades and if they get a sweep, its like a donate. And 'next' is a leap of faith not knowing who my partner is. However, if I knew my partner/opponents or at different scores, it might be a different story. And a lot of things also depend on how things have been going - KARMA, YOU KNOW? (I.E., ... the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of playing, viewed as deciding your fate in future existences.)

But should we even let KARMA in the game, 'tis the question of the Day?

And I care not what anyone else says or does. I will choose my path to travel.

IRISHWOLF

[Wes (aka the legend)]

The Score is 7-5 here. Your team is up. You are in Seat 1.

The is the up card.


You hold :

Round 1 pass or order? Why?

Round 2. If you did pass, what do you call or do you pass again if it was turned down? Why?





Tbolt65
Edward

R1: I would not donate with 2 trump vs a Jack at this score.

R2: Blocking only 1 out of 3 remaining suits there's no way I'm passing up 7-5. That's simply not an option when the worst case scenario from calling something--getting euchred--still puts us at 53% equity at 7-7 with the deal. So the onus is on S1 to gamble here. Once that is understood the choice is obvious. Call clubs. Any time you got R+1 you gotta shot at eking out a point whether you're jumping the fence or not. Clubs is not the call S1 wants to make. It's the call he HAS to make. Understanding that dynamic is the key to strong S1 play, the most important seat in the game.

The other supposed option would be to call Next. But calling Next with just a low trump and nothing else vs calling R+1 would simply be atrociously bad play. If one makes that call they are no longer playing for their team, they are no longer playing to win. They're playing for the religion of Hoyle.

[Tbolt65]

The Score is 7-5 here. Your team is up. You are in Seat 1.

The is the up card.


You hold :

Round 1 pass or order? Why?

Round 2. If you did pass, what do you call or do you pass again if it was turned down? Why?





Tbolt65
Edward

Ok here is what I would do.

Round 1: Pass. I have two trump and a void I'm pretty sure I can stop them if they pick up and I am only slightly concerned about a loner. So I risk it and I pass.

Round 2: If it does get turned down and get back to me. Here is my thought process. A Jack of diamonds has been turned down. Regardless of skill no one is turning down Jack of diamonds and three trump. It is possible they are turning down with one trump in their hand besides the Jack of diamonds. It's possible they have no trump in their hand and nothing to go with it.

So, I have the Jack-10clubs in my hand I'm not really thrilled having to make this call since a Jack of diamonds was turned down. Any other card I'm more likely to call it clubs here. I know I can't pass here and give up a possible loner. At worst it's 7-7 my deal. The likely hood of Dealer being heavy black is very, very high with a turned down Jack of diamonds. So this in itself is making me cautious about calling anything black. As I've said already with a bower being turned down I can't pass. So the only other option is to call hearts. I bite the bullet here, Call Hearts and would lead the Queen of Hearts.

Round 2: Order hearts as Trump.



Now, let's go and see how things transpired...........................



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





Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

NONSENSE! Was this post intended as a recommended Strategy or as Amusement?

S1 got by with it this time, how about next time?

One hand means NOTHING! This is just Amusing stuff and certainly not statistically valid. Why? Because S3 has all the Aces (AS buried). Now how many times will S3 have 3 ace equivalent? Answer - less that 2%. You have to look at many hands as a Statistically valid strategy. And two hearts buried, not usual occurrence as well. So you just have a rare hand.

And why would S2 not play the JH to the heart lead and give away a trump? And give him or S4 an Ace and see what occurs.

The objective here is to hold the Opponents to one point, 7 TO 6 AND MY DEAL NEXT. I contend to accomplish that goal and best to win the Game is to Pass, Pass!

And to Wes's strategy - CLUBS. What the objective - stop a sweep or loner in Spades? Where the statistical validation of that? I would like to see it.

I have to admit, not 100% confident, but need proof to do differently!

IRISHWOLF

[Tbolt65]

NONSENSE! Was this post intended as a recommended Strategy or as Amusement?

S1 got by with it this time, how about next time?

One hand means NOTHING! This is just Amusing stuff and certainly not statistically valid. Why? Because S3 has all the Aces (AS buried). Now how many times will S3 have 3 ace equivalent? Answer - less that 2%. You have to look at many hands as a Statistically valid strategy. And two hearts buried, not usual occurrence as well. So you just have a rare hand.

And why would S2 not play the JH to the heart lead and give away a trump? And give him or S4 an Ace and see what occurs.

The objective here is to hold the Opponents to one point, 7 TO 6 AND MY DEAL NEXT. I contend to accomplish that goal and best to win the Game is to Pass, Pass!

And to Wes's strategy - CLUBS. What the objective - stop a sweep or loner in Spades? Where the statistical validation of that? I would like to see it.

I have to admit, not 100% confident, but need proof to do differently!

IRISHWOLF

No it's to show how people are looking at the hand and how the decision making process is going on. What justifications if any are people using to make a call, a pass or an order ect... This exercise helps in finding out what people are thinking.

Now that someone has responded I can further go ahead and say now that there were mistakes made by the other team. With that said upon further review it is also "possible" to make point here calling clubs. "Possible" that is. Wolf your logic of holding them to a point would be best situated for a different score say 9-8 Seat 1 & 3s team lead. I can go with that logic there and you got to roll with it. However, with the score being 7-5 Seat 1 & 3s team. It is more dangerous to pass at this score than it is at the 9-8 score. However slim it is. A possible loner will put the team at 7-9 your deal and you've lost all control of the game and the only saving grace is it's your deal but it's a red heiring because the control of the game now lies squarely on your opponent's putting your team now at a major, major disadvantage.


Tbolt65
Edward

edit: 1 hand does mean something because it is recognizing possible scenarios that put your teams at a disadvantage or advantage for that matter. Being able to make a decision here and there. Or to buck standard procedure. To take that certain gamble ect...ect. It helps in those one off situations that you only see every "x" amount of times out of 1000s or even Tens of thousands of hands.

[LeftyK]

I agree with Edward here. I mean Irish all we do is talk about the one off rare hands here mostly, right? There was a reason dealer turned the right down and if they sandbagged for next euchre then worse case it's 7-7 back to square one. AND even if s2 takes 1st trick, they still don't make a euchre. This is what makes this game so entertaining, there is no flowchart for how the cards fall. Making this puts the hurt on at 8-5.

[irishwolf]

I am going to disagree with this statement:

"Now that someone has responded I can further go ahead and say now that there were mistakes made by the other team. With that said upon further review it is also "possible" to make point here calling clubs. "Possible" that is. Wolf your logic of holding them to a point would be best situated for a different score say 9-8 Seat 1 & 3s team lead. I can go with that logic there and you got to roll with it. However, with the score being 7-5 Seat 1 & 3s team. It is more dangerous to pass at this score than it is at the 9-8 score. However slim it is. A possible loner will put the team at 7-9 your deal and you've lost all control of the game and the only saving grace is it's your deal but it's a red heiring because the control of the game now lies squarely on your opponent's putting your team now at a major, major disadvantage."

If you call clubs the euchre rate will be somewhere around 50% +/- 5%, my estimate. And perhaps worst calling Next (Hearts) 55% (+/-5%). But lets just say 50% euchre rate. So now the score is 7 to 7 half the time. Where if you passed they will NOT score a Sweep 50% of the time time. and the euchre rate, about 6% in spades or less in hearts. So the score is now 7 to 6 instead of 7 to 7 50% of the time. I would rather take my chance of them scoring 1 point than putting them at 7 to 7.
Note: Even though the EV will be less calling clubs than passing, it's Ironic.

For me, I am not going to call trump with a euchre rate of 50%. i THINK YOU WILL WIN MORE GAMES WITH MY STRATEGY.

IRISHWOLF

P.S. Lefty I don't know what planet you are on saying, "bagging in Clubs????"

[irishwolf]

ED,
You are arguing from opinion, WITHOUT FACTS!

So many Possible this and Possible that! We need facts to resolve this critical call!

Not convincing to me!

You know Opinions are like butt holes, every one has one! Call clubs or hearts at S1, 50% of the time the score is now 7 to 7. About 6% maybe a loner in Spades! So what I can live with that. I want the 7 to 6 that results the majority of the time, my advantage and deal.

IRISH

"No it's to show how people are looking at the hand and how the decision making process is going on. What justifications if any are people using to make a call, a pass or an order ect... This exercise helps in finding out what people are thinking.

Now that someone has responded I can further go ahead and say now that there were mistakes made by the other team. With that said upon further review it is also "possible" to make point here calling clubs. POSSIBLE BUT NOT FACTUAL WITH A EUCHRE RATE OF 50% MY ESTIMATE."Possible" that is. Wolf your logic of holding them to a point would be best situated for a different score say 9-8 Seat 1 & 3s team lead If good at 9 to 8, then good at 7 to 6, I say. I can go with that logic there and you got to roll with it. However, with the score being 7-5 Seat 1 & 3s team. It is more dangerous to pass at this score than it is at the 9-8 score. However slim it is. A possible loner will put the team at 7-9 your deal and you've lost all control of the game and the only saving grace is it's your deal but it's a red heiring because the control of the game now lies squarely on your opponent's putting your team now at a major, major disadvantage."

[Wes (aka the legend)]

NONSENSE! Was this post intended as a recommended Strategy or as Amusement?

S1 got by with it this time, how about next time?

One hand means NOTHING! This is just Amusing stuff and certainly not statistically valid. Why? Because S3 has all the Aces (AS buried). Now how many times will S3 have 3 ace equivalent? Answer - less that 2%. You have to look at many hands as a Statistically valid strategy. And two hearts buried, not usual occurrence as well. So you just have a rare hand.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think (or I certainly hope not) he is posting the results to add to an argument. If he is I agree that is NONSENSE. What happened in that hand is completely irrelevant....to me at least.

And why would S2 not play the JH to the heart lead and give away a trump? And give him or S4 an Ace and see what occurs.

"Good" players are trained to reflexively play under in that spot with R+1. I'm on your side on this one. It's ridiculous man. There are obviously times to play under with R+1 but there needs to be a coherent reason why. For one thing I strongly believe that playing under vs a Next call with R+1 on the first lead is gonna burn your team way more than help it (with the exception of having Ace-Right). So many of my BS next calls only make it becuz S2 thinks the "right" play is to play under with his R+1 allowing my P to get a crucial cheap trick my team desperately needs.

The objective here is to hold the Opponents to one point, 7 TO 6 AND MY DEAL NEXT. I contend to accomplish that goal and best to win the Game is to Pass, Pass!

And to Wes's strategy - CLUBS. What the objective - stop a sweep or loner in Spades? Where the statistical validation of that? I would like to see it.

I have to admit, not 100% confident, but need proof to do differently!

IRISHWOLF

We'll never be 100% confident on this. I don't see how we'll ever have the hard data to really KNOW. Testing this spot on the kitchen table is next to impossible. To get a true distribution we'd have to give the dealer the JD upcard, with S1's hand fixed obviously, and then deal the hand out and every time S2, S3 or S4 had a calling hand we'd have to scrap it and re-deal since we can only test this spot out after it legit gets passed around in the first round. That's way too tedious for a sane human to do. Only a good computer simulation can shed light on this one.

So no real compelling argument can exist in this spot. But I'm not gonna let that stop me from telling the forum what I think is the right play. After all I'm a human being. I don't need an airtight argument to "feel" strongly about something. And IMO, passing up 7-5 when one only covers 1 out of 3 remaining suits is very poor euchre play. And calling Next with just the QH and nothing else when one has the option of jumping the fence with R+1 is also very poor hoyle loyal euchre play. People are free to disagree. Doesn't matter to me. I don't need to be right on the internet.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

If you call clubs the euchre rate will be somewhere around 50% +/- 5%, my estimate. And perhaps worst calling Next (Hearts) 55% (+/-5%). But lets just say 50% euchre rate. So now the score is 7 to 7 half the time. Where if you passed they will NOT score a Sweep 50% of the time time. and the euchre rate, about 6% in spades or less in hearts. So the score is now 7 to 6 instead of 7 to 7 50% of the time. I would rather take my chance of them scoring 1 point than putting them at 7 to 7.
Note: Even though the EV will be less calling clubs than passing, it's Ironic.

For me, I am not going to call trump with a euchre rate of 50%. i THINK YOU WILL WIN MORE GAMES WITH MY STRATEGY.

It goes without saying that this intuitive argument would never sway me as any intuitive argument I make shouldn't sway you either. As mentioned or implied in my last post, if you strongly believe that passing is the right play in that spot there is nothing I can say that will compel you to change that belief and the same goes for myself. Hence without hard data there's nowhere to go here. That said, even your intuitive EV argument points to calling clubs imo. Let's go with your 50% euchre rate and let's say we get 1 pt 40% of the time and 2 points 10% of the time. Reasonable estimates when we hold R+1 imo. Ok that would mean the EO (expected outcome) of calling clubs would be (-2)(.5) + (1)(.4) + (2)(.1) = -.4 pts. That means if the EO of passing is worse than -.4 pts then we should call clubs. Well I strongly believe that passing in that spot when we only block 1 out of 3 remaining suits will cost us more than .4 pts on average. So to me your own argument points to calling not passing.

[irishwolf]

WES, just trying to find the best strategy.
I agree with the EV of making clubs under the assumptions of 50% euchre rate or even if that rate is 45% it will be a negative EV. (-.35 to -.40). I think we can agree on that, and actually, I have strong evidence of that rate. But it is the next statement that I contest is incorrect that Passing will have a worse EV rate, i.e., will exceed -.40. Clearly incorrect based on numerous other tests I have done with S1 passing R2. Most demonstrated a EV .20 to .30, give or take. So that is what i am in disagreement.

If the euchre rate is 50% - using your Equity (or Benj's) is 53%. How many of those games at 7 to 7, 50%, will you Win/Lose?

That versus Passing R2, S2/S4 score just 1 point, score 7 to 6?, Statistically the norm is 70% - 1 point (7 to 6), 18% - 2 pts (7 to 7), 12% - 24% (gets euchred) (9 to 6).
For sure S2 will have to pass about 30% of the time and S3 gets to call. If it is true that 70% of S2 calls only 1 point is made the score is 7 to 6, a far better opportunity for S1/S3 to win more games.IMO
This is where I am coming from. I might get burned on a few loners (6% or so), will to take that gamble because I think I will win more games.

Next is a far worst call here with one trump, that's Fact.

So in conclusion until someone gives some real factual data, I have to follow my convictions and pretty sure of them. I am not trying to convince anyone. I do know, it is at least as good a strategy not to cross suit with such a weak holding. If he had an Ace, different strategy. I would play the hand if S1 called clubs, lead the JC followed by 9D scores more points fewer euchres.

I know playing this game, seldom can one change the mind of players who have Hard Coded their methods. A waste of my time. So I am done on this hand except for some personally toying around with Pass Pass (then what happens on R2). I think I am as much a student of this game willing to test most anything as a better strategy and change accordingly.

But wouldn't it be interesting, Ray if your listening, to test S1 Passing on R2 with the hand given as JD down, JC 9C 9D KD QH. Not sure how he would do that with JD up? Or even substituting only for convenience of his program do the 9D up instead if too complex?

Peace Bro!

IRISHWOLF

"Let's go with your 50% euchre rate and let's say we get 1 pt 40% of the time and 2 points 10% of the time. Reasonable estimates when we hold R+1 imo. Ok that would mean the EO (expected outcome) of calling clubs would be (-2)(.5) + (1)(.4) + (2)(.1) = -.4 pts. That means if the EO of passing is worse than -.4 pts then we should call clubs. Well I strongly believe that passing in that spot when we only block 1 out of 3 remaining suits will cost us more than .4 pts on average. So to me your own argument points to calling not passing."

[Wes (aka the legend)]

WES, just trying to find the best strategy.
I agree with the EV of making clubs under the assumptions of 50% euchre rate or even if that rate is 45% it will be a negative EV. (-.35 to -.40). I think we can agree on that, and actually, I have strong evidence of that rate.

"Agree" is actually too strong of a word for me in this spot as an EV argument based on intuitive assumptions--even from expert intuition--is still an inherently weak argument. I mean I think you're wrong and I think I'm right but I don't trust my own assumptions either, so I don't even really "agree" with myself. So yeah just for the fun of it I can go with a 50% or 45% euchre rate and play around with some numbers, but if a good computer simulation showed us that the euchre rate was actually say 35% I would not be shocked at all.

But it is the next statement that I contest is incorrect that Passing will have a worse EV rate, i.e., will exceed -.40. Clearly incorrect based on numerous other tests I have done with S1 passing R2. Most demonstrated a EV .20 to .30, give or take. So that is what i am in disagreement.

Firstly I probably wouldn't trust anyone's numbers when it comes to any 2nd round spot. Overcoming the true distribution problem is real. I really think we need a good computer simulation to shed light on those spots.

Also, I expected you would disagree with my assumption that S1 passing in this spot with a hand that only blocks 1 out of 3 remaining suits will cost more than .4 pts on average. That's rational and understandable. I don't have real evidence. That said tho there is also another complicating factor for this spot. Like EVEN IF an amazing computer simulation showed us that the cost of passing was say .30, meaning the EV of calling clubs was -.1 and thus the EV of passing was +.1, implying passing is the correct play, we're are still not out of the woods.

There is hidden value in S1 protecting the integrity of his range if he has a strong partner that knows how to read hands. For example, when Ed is my P he knows when I pass from S1-R2 up 7-5, I will ALWAYS have reverse next blocked. Ed can and will use that information to play his hand more optimally to euchre a reverse next S2 or S4 call, Ed also knows he can now go alone more loosely in reverse next, and additionally Ed now knows he doesn't have to force a marginal S3 Next call--say R+1+0 or L+1+A--for defensive purposes. There is value in that. If I break the integrity of my range by including hands in my S1-R2 passing range that do not block reverse next, that hand-reading value afforded Edward is lost as he can no longer be sure of what I have. IOW becuz there is real hand-reading value to be captured by S3 when I don't break the integrity of my range it is theoretically possible for calling a particular hand to be -EV vs passing and yet still be the correct play becuz the hand-reading value gained by S3 from me preserving the integrity of my range overcomes that.

BTW this is not some arcane, inapplicable stuff I'm talking about here. I literally encounter the above dynamic every week. In my Thursday tournament there are 4 expert players including ED that read hands really well. They know what I have in that spot and they know how to adjust to my range. So whenever they are my partners my team now has an added edge.

[Tbolt65]

Guys, guys no need to resort to having the information presented being beneath you in terms of being valid. For those who care to read and invest time to see what I was trying to convey. There should be something to be taken away with what I said. As well with what everyone else here said on this scenario.

Thanks Lefty and Wes for the kind words.

Oh, and Wes, my decision making as I've said above should be clear. I was not employing some form of loyal hoyle just be clear. It was more about the score and the fact the Jack of diamonds was turned down.

I know all three of us look at things similarly in some ways but differently in a lot of ways. I wanted to highlight those differences and so we can see the contrast and the deduction process at hand from everyone.

The point of showing the hand was to show what happened. Not only the success but what was in everyone else's hand. Now we can scrutinize who screwed up where and such but that's part of the game. It worked out in the end for Wes and Myself. At the same time, It was possible to make clubs there too if certain mistakes was made as well. I mainly didn't call clubs because a Jack was turned down and at that score I didn't want to pass.


Tbolt65
Edward

[Wes (aka the legend)]

Guys, guys no need to resort to having the information presented being beneath you in terms of being valid. For those who care to read and invest time to see what I was trying to convey. There should be something to be taken away with what I said. As well with what everyone else here said on this scenario.

Thanks Lefty and Wes for the kind words.

Oh, and Wes, my decision making as I've said above should be clear. I was not employing some form of loyal hoyle just be clear. It was more about the score and the fact the Jack of diamonds was turned down.

I know all three of us look at things similarly in some ways but differently in a lot of ways. I wanted to highlight those differences and so we can see the contrast and the deduction process at hand from everyone.

The point of showing the hand was to show what happened. Not only the success but what was in everyone else's hand. Now we can scrutinize who screwed up where and such but that's part of the game. It worked out in the end for Wes and Myself. At the same time, It was possible to make clubs there too if certain mistakes was made as well. I mainly didn't call clubs because a Jack was turned down and at that score I didn't want to pass.


Tbolt65
Edward

I understand your thought process fully. In fact I've understood it for years now. Still doesn't change the fact that I think calling Next with just the Qh when we have R+1 to run to is poor euchre. I get it. The Right was turned down and you wanna go with Hoyle. We all get that you are statistically more likely to hit your P if you call hearts and statistically more likely to hit the enemy if you call clubs. And that's why when it's reasonably close we should go with Hoyle, but when it's not close--like the difference between R+1 and just a lone Qh--we gotta play our hand, call clubs, and hope for the best. To do otherwise is to commit Hoyle loyal seppuku.

[Tbolt65]

Guys, guys no need to resort to having the information presented being beneath you in terms of being valid. For those who care to read and invest time to see what I was trying to convey. There should be something to be taken away with what I said. As well with what everyone else here said on this scenario.

Thanks Lefty and Wes for the kind words.

Oh, and Wes, my decision making as I've said above should be clear. I was not employing some form of loyal hoyle just be clear. It was more about the score and the fact the Jack of diamonds was turned down.

I know all three of us look at things similarly in some ways but differently in a lot of ways. I wanted to highlight those differences and so we can see the contrast and the deduction process at hand from everyone.

The point of showing the hand was to show what happened. Not only the success but what was in everyone else's hand. Now we can scrutinize who screwed up where and such but that's part of the game. It worked out in the end for Wes and Myself. At the same time, It was possible to make clubs there too if certain mistakes was made as well. I mainly didn't call clubs because a Jack was turned down and at that score I didn't want to pass.


Tbolt65
Edward

I understand your thought process fully. In fact I've understood it for years now. Still doesn't change the fact that I think calling Next with just the Qh when we have R+1 to run to is poor euchre. I get it. The Right was turned down and you wanna go with Hoyle. We all get that you are statistically more likely to hit your P if you call hearts and statistically more likely to hit the enemy if you call clubs. And that's why when it's reasonably close we should go with Hoyle, but when it's not close--like the difference between R+1 and just a lone Qh--we gotta play our hand, call clubs, and hope for the best. To do otherwise is to commit Hoyle loyal seppuku.

I agree if there was any other card turned down and I would have called clubs easily. As Ive stated originally. The Jack of diamonds is a special case and as such. Is why I decided to bite the bullet as I said and order hearts.

Tbolt65
Edward

[irishwolf]

Jack Diamonds turned down:

PANDORA BOX or "a Ludic Fallacy" dealer is all black!

Also, could be bagging on Next.

Just BEWARE!

[Tbolt65]

True, he could be. However I find thats more likely to be however small when a non jack is turned down.

Tbolt65
Edward

[jblowery]

No way I'd order hearts. You are essentially counting on partner to take 3. If u are going to donate anyway then just order up the jack in r1.

I'd pass but if I have to order I'd definitely call clubs.

[raydog]

At the request of Irish I ran a simulation of this hand. I gave S1 the QH + KD + 10D + JC + 10 C, as per the original set-up [not sure why Irish changed the 10's to 9's], with the JD turned.

Here is the data for R1 only, 100,000 hands played, S1 passing: [count of hands is shown, not score]

called alone called w/ partner
4pts 1 pt -2 pts | 2 pts 1 pt -2 pts
S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 207 1,438 89 | 2,377 7,783 353
S3: 0 0 0 | 0 184 0
S4: 11,658 18,474 1,859 | 2,531 27,864 7,811

82,628 total bids
85% of these bids by S4 (not surprising)
of S4 bids, 46% are lone calls (again, not surprising)
36% loner success rate for S4

S4 is in a very strong position, and scores lots of loners, which begs the question if it is better for S1 to donate. So I ran the set-up again, 100,000 hands, comparing S1 bidding with S1 passing both rounds.

S1 calls D, R1 (donation): EV = -1.49 [16,973 1pt, 83,027 euchred]
S1 passes both rounds: EV = -1.02; successful R1 loners = 12% [I have omitted the whole breakout of

[raydog]

...still working on this post, published prematurely by accident, stay tuned...

Ray

[raydog]

At the request of Irish I ran a simulation of this hand. I gave S1 the QH + KD + 10D + JC + 10 C, as per the original set-up [not sure why Irish changed the 10's to 9's], with the JD turned.

Here is the data for R1 only, 100,000 hands played, S1 passing: [count of hands is shown, not score]

called alone called w/ partner
4pts 1 pt -2 pts | 2 pts 1 pt -2 pts
S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 207 1,438 89 | 2,377 7,783 353
S3: 0 0 0 | 0 184 0
S4: 11,658 18,474 1,859 | 2,531 27,864 7,811

82,628 total bids
85% of these bids by S4 (not surprising)
of S4 bids, 46% are lone calls (again, not surprising)
36% loner success rate for S4

S4 is in a very strong position, and scores lots of loners, which begs the question if it is better for S1 to donate. So I ran the set-up again, 100,000 hands, comparing S1 bidding with S1 passing both rounds.

S1 calls D, R1 (donation): EV = -1.49 [16,973 1pt, 83,027 euchred]
S1 passes both rounds: EV = -1.02; successful R1 loners = 12%

From an EV perspective, S1 clearly should not donate. But then her team will give up 4 pts and be in a very disadvantageous position 12% of the time. Which decision is best (i.e., leads to the higher overall probability of winning the game)? A question for another post.

Let's assume it's better not to donate. In that case we have to look at how things play out in R2, with the approx. 1/6 of remaining hands. Is this subset of hands which make it to R2 (in my simulation) an accurate representation of the true subset of hands which would make it to R2 in a live game? I think so, given the stats seem quite reasonable and the fact that S4 is going to call anytime they have a 2nd trump in their hand - in my simulation and in real life. Not much subjectivity.

I compared 3 scenarios for R2: S1 passes, S1 bids C, S1 bids H.

S1 passes:

S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 578 1,038 62 | 1,919 6,845 1,983
S3: 78 196 3 | 308 2,111 1,080
S4: 61 54 5 | 132 419 48

16,920 hands played [remember, this is a different 100,000 hands from the initial analysis, so slightly
different number of hands make it to R2]
184 hands passed by all [my program doesn't use STD, but the number of hands affected is not significant]
S1/S3 EV = -0.58

S1 bids C:

S1: 0 0 0 | 817 8,306 7,981

17,104 hands played [no "all pass" in this scenario]
S1/S3 EV = -0.35
Note: S1 led the QH in these hands
Somewhat of a surprise, this (perhaps). Despite the euchre rate being 47% [as Irish predicted], it seems it is better for S1 to call C, R2, than to pass. One reason this may be so is that it keeps S2 from calling trump. It appears that S2, if given the chance, will call trump nearly 3/4 of the time in R2, with an EV of +0.80 on those calls. S1's EV when calling C as trump is not great, but better than -0.80.

S1 bids H:

S1: 0 0 0 | 569 5,271 11,276
17,116 hands played [new 100,000 hands - I can only compare 2 scenarios with the same cards]
S1/S3 EV = -0.95
Euchre rate = 66%
Note: S1 led the 10C in these hands.
Let's just say that calling next is suicide. Even if it did work out well in the one example given (I would encourage my opponents to call H in this scenario).

Thoughts?

[Tbolt65]

Yes, a Seat 1 R2 call is paramount as I maintained in repsonse. However, did you run your simulations with just the hands as they are. Or did you randomize the other hands and kept dealer with having jack still being turned down, but kept seat 1 hand like it was?


Tbolt65
Edward

[raydog]

I fixed S1's cards + the turn card; all other cards/hands were randomized. So if and when R2 rolls around, the JD has been turned over by the dealer and S1 still has the same hand. That's how the hand looks to the player in S1, who can see no other hands and only knows that everyone else has passed.

[irishwolf]

ED,
Do you have amnesia?

"The likely hood of Dealer being heavy black is very, very high with a turned down Jack of diamonds. So this in itself is making me cautious about calling anything black. As I've said already with a bower being turned down I can't pass. So the only other option is to call hearts. I bite the bullet here, Call Hearts and would lead the Queen of Hearts."

And look at your results, not based on the one RARE carrot! Euchre rate 66%

IRISH

[irishwolf]

Ray, looks like some really good data.

COMMENTS:

I fully agree, Donating is not an option based on your data, 12% loner successful. I say that is on the money. He might pass 23.4% (expected - no trump) with 4 unknown trumps. That does say if he might order with two/three aces. And this does not include when S2 would order.

I think S1 calling Clubs, I would expect a little lower EV than what you have based on numerous tests I have done. Reason I would not lead the QH here. So I can't argue with your results.

Calling H's by S1, NO Surprise to me.

This is where I need your help with S1 passing R2. I am looking for by S2, S3, & S4, points for Loners (+4), 1 pt (+1) Euchres (-2) Total Hands, The times, Hands Passing. Just four numbers but I see six? Then the same for S3 if it gets to him/her, Then the same for S4 and finally ALL PASSED AGAIN. Points and EV should be noted just for R2, S2 passing, separate out if you would that R1 S1 passes as we can already see that number. This is really good stuff Ray. Help me to better understand your hard work. Thanks!

"From an EV perspective, S1 clearly should not donate. I AGREE But then her team will give up 4 pts and be in a very disadvantageous position 12% of the time. Which decision is best (i.e., leads to the higher overall probability of winning the game)? A question for another post."

"Let's assume it's better not to donate. In that case we have to look at how things play out in R2, with the approx. 1/6 of remaining hands. Is this subset of hands which make it to R2 (in my simulation) an accurate representation of the true subset of hands which would make it to R2 in a live game? I think so, given the stats seem quite reasonable and the fact that S4 is going to call anytime they have a 2nd trump in their hand - in my simulation and in real life. Not much subjectivity."

I compared 3 scenarios for R2: S1 passes, S1 bids C, S1 bids H.

S1 passes:

S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 578 1,038 62 | 1,919 6,845 1,983 I SEE SIX NUMBERS, WHY?? What are they?
S3: 78 196 3 | 308 2,111 1,080
S4: 61 54 5 | 132 419 48

[raydog]

It's a formatting issue, sorry for the confusion. I tried to create a table the very first time I displayed data, with 6 columns. The first 3 were for that player calling alone (scoring 4 pts, scoring 1 pt, or getting euchred, in order), the last 3 were for that player calling w/ partner (scoring 2 pts., scoring 1 pt. , or getting euchred). That's 6 pieces of information, although there are only 4 possible point outcomes. That's because you can score 1 pt or get euchred 2 ways: when calling alone or when calling w/ partner.

The columns unfortunately don't line up on the forum page, which I didn't check before I posted.
This is what it looked like:

"called alone called w/ partner (column headings for 1st 3 / last 3 columns)
4pts 1 pt -2 pts | 2 pts 1 pt -2 pts (headings for individual columns)
S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 (6 results for each player; the "|" symbol separates lone calls from w/ partner calls)
S2: 207 1,438 89 | 2,377 7,783 353
S3: 0 0 0 | 0 184 0
S4: 11,658 18,474 1,859 | 2,531 27,864 7,811"

Does it make more sense now?

BTW, my program also has the dealer picking up the R and calling trump if that is their only trump AND they have 3 off-suit Aces. I'll have to test when doing so with 2 off-suit Aces looks advantageous.

Thank you for understanding that I can't debate the finer points of bidding and play of the hand with my program - I'm still optimizing it. But when it spits out results showing a significant difference between 2 different scenarios (AND there is a reasonable underlying explanation), as in this case, I am confident it is giving sound advice.

[irishwolf]

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the clarification but I have not reviewed it YET. Will do so later this evening. I like it because I can compare it to my own testing, even though your program might approach it a little different. I play each position as I would, both on offense and defense. So excited to see this S1 passes results of your program.

To your project/program: IMO, your simulations and program has made good progress. I hope feedback I and other have made is taken to make it and you better. Certainly not to just criticize or nit pick. Tough job, so many variables and situations that players approach differently. But do your thing.

Here is the difficulty as I see it. For example, using the hand in question about making Club trump vs passing and you used leading the QH to the first trick. Now that is not what I would do and I have to admit not tested by me for this hand. I suggested Leading JC then the low Diamond to set up the KD. That approach I thought was best (acceptable but was it best??). I have to admit I did not know for sure because lead the Right bower is so powerful, and highly recommended by most good player to lead it if you make trump. However, you pull your partner's trump as well and has its downside when you do not have a strong hand. So I had to test to see, making clubs trump, leading JC vs 9D to the first trick, played both ways.
When I tested it against leading the JC (I used the 9D worse case for diamonds), this lead to my amazement proved to be better than what I suggested on this hand in an earlier post, i.e.,leading the JC then the 9D. So I am confessing my error. The Euchre rate was lower leading the 9D, statistically tested as Significant.
Now most players would lead the JC if clubs was trump. I won't get into why the 9D is better tho (and it is), leave that for another day. The take away for you is that this is just a difference approach for one situation and there are thousands to contend with . . . Anyone who says they have all the answers, BS.

Anyone who is following this hand, I was wrong in that suggested approach of Passing at S1 instead of calling Clubs as well. But I was right about Next and H's. I did not think you were gong to test so I did my own. But what is a nightmare is what happens R2 beginning with 2nd seat, S2 calling. So many borderline calls and what all players might do. It's a guessing game so any EV R2 S2/S4 must be a Range and not one solid number. So one has to be careful in drawing conclusions. but this one is not close, IMO.

But back to S1: Passing not donating R1 is correct. And on R2 hand, Clubs as trump is the right call, not even looking at your data. I have to change my answer that calling Clubs by S1 is far better than S1 passing R2. I do not leave situations in the UNANSWERABLE column, I have to know. Just my personality, education, and training. Got to have the right answer, OCD (I suppose).

I do my own testing, done many many and do statistical testing. Very time consuming. I trust my own data. But I like your thousands of hands. I always have to look at results, does it make sense, what are the opposing questions and ideas about the topic?

I will get back with you after I review more in depth. Much appreciated for your testing and efforts.

IRISH

P.S. One should also know, this hand is not beginner stuff. We are deep into the muck of Euchre. A note of thanks to T-bolt for his initial post or the topic would not have surfaced - yet! lol

"Thank you for understanding that I can't debate the finer points of bidding and play of the hand with my program - I'm still optimizing it. But when it spits out results showing a significant difference between 2 different scenarios (AND there is a reasonable underlying explanation), as in this case, I am confident it is giving sound advice."

[irishwolf]

Ray,

Yes your explanation helped considerably.

Hands add to 16,920. A little surprised the EV for S2/S4 is so high. I did not have that many loners by S2 & S4, the difference between our data.

GOOD STUFF!

S1 passes:
S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 578 1,038 62 [1678] | 1,919 6,845 1,983 [10,747] = 12,425
S3: 78 196 3 [277]| 308 2,111 1,080 [3499] = 3776
S4: 61 54 5 [120] | 132 419 48 [599] = 719



I compared 3 scenarios for R2: S1 passes, S1 bids C, S1 bids H.

S1 passes:

S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 578 1,038 62 | 1,919 6,845 1,983
S3: 78 196 3 | 308 2,111 1,080
S4: 61 54 5 | 132 419 48

16,920 hands played [remember, this is a different 100,000 hands from the initial analysis, so slightly
different number of hands make it to R2]
184 hands passed by all [my program doesn't use STD, but the number of hands affected is not significant]
S1/S3 EV = -0.58

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I think S1 calling Clubs, I would expect a little lower EV than what you have based on numerous tests I have done. Reason I would not lead the QH here. So I can't argue with your results.

For the record after I called clubs in that spot I would lead the QH as I consider leading the turned down suit or leading the Right when all we have is R+1 with no ace to promote both poor plays. I would be very surprised if Raydog's simulation showed otherwise. Just throwing that out there that I strongly agree with Raydog's choice to lead the QH, but it goes without saying strong opinions mean nothing when compared with hard data.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I compared 3 scenarios for R2: S1 passes, S1 bids C, S1 bids H.

S1 passes:

S1: 0 0 0 | 0 0 0
S2: 578 1,038 62 | 1,919 6,845 1,983
S3: 78 196 3 | 308 2,111 1,080
S4: 61 54 5 | 132 419 48

16,920 hands played [remember, this is a different 100,000 hands from the initial analysis, so slightly
different number of hands make it to R2]
184 hands passed by all [my program doesn't use STD, but the number of hands affected is not significant]
S1/S3 EV = -0.58

S1 bids C:

S1: 0 0 0 | 817 8,306 7,981

17,104 hands played [no "all pass" in this scenario]
S1/S3 EV = -0.35
Note: S1 led the QH in these hands
Somewhat of a surprise, this (perhaps). Despite the euchre rate being 47% [as Irish predicted], it seems it is better for S1 to call C, R2, than to pass. One reason this may be so is that it keeps S2 from calling trump. It appears that S2, if given the chance, will call trump nearly 3/4 of the time in R2, with an EV of +0.80 on those calls. S1's EV when calling C as trump is not great, but better than -0.80.

Good stuff here. In certain game textures your numbers will even be conservative. For example in a tough game the action will probably only get to the 3 seat in the 2nd round around 5% of the time, not 25%. And of that 5%, S2 will have all suits blocked probably 90% of the time and garbage hands where he has just Next blocked 10% of the time. So your cost of passing when S1 only has 1 out of 3 suits blocked seems very realistic to me.

S1 bids H:

S1: 0 0 0 | 569 5,271 11,276
17,116 hands played [new 100,000 hands - I can only compare 2 scenarios with the same cards]
S1/S3 EV = -0.95
Euchre rate = 66%
Note: S1 led the 10C in these hands.
Let's just say that calling next is suicide. Even if it did work out well in the one example given (I would encourage my opponents to call H in this scenario).

Thoughts?

If S1 calls Next, they should be leading their lone trump. In this spot S1 is basically donating in Next. They have to hit their P hard to escape, so they might as well lead trump. Assuming my take is correct I doubt it will change the numbers much. As I said before calling Next when we have R+1 to run to is an atrociously bad call. No magical lead will change that.

What's interesting to me tho is what would be better between these two strategies: donating in the 1st rd vs passing and calling Next in the 2nd rd. If your numbers revealed that somewhere I missed it.

Good stuff Ray. I wished you lived near Vegas! Your simulations continue to impress me. Wish we could hang out so I could talk your head off about this stuff.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

What's interesting to me tho is what would be better between these two strategies: donating in the 1st rd vs passing and calling Next in the 2nd rd. If your numbers revealed that somewhere I missed it.

Actually I think we can figure this out from Ray's numbers:

S4 is in a very strong position, and scores lots of loners, which begs the question if it is better for S1 to donate. So I ran the set-up again, 100,000 hands, comparing S1 bidding with S1 passing both rounds.

S1 calls D, R1 (donation): EV = -1.49 [16,973 1pt, 83,027 euchred]
S1 passes both rounds: EV = -1.02; successful R1 loners = 12%

S1 bids H:

S1: 0 0 0 | 569 5,271 11,276
17,116 hands played [new 100,000 hands - I can only compare 2 scenarios with the same cards]
S1/S3 EV = -0.95
Euchre rate = 66%
Note: S1 led the 10C in these hands.
Let's just say that calling next is suicide. Even if it did work out well in the one example given (I would encourage my opponents to call H in this scenario).

Donating has a EV of -.47 vs pass-pass. (-1.49 minus -1.02)

Calling Next has an EV of -.95 but we have to add back the EV S1 gains by "correctly" passing in the 1st round (.47). So -.95 + .47 = -.48

Thus,

EV of donating = -.47
EV of pass + call next = -.48

So it appears that donating is better than calling pass-call Next. One ostensible problem here is we're technically not really comparing apples to apples. The EV of donating was calculated by comparing it to the pass-pass strategy. But this is not a real problem becuz passing in the 2nd round has a better EV than calling Next. So yeah the above numbers (-.47 vs -.48) will be off due to this issue. The real numbers would favor donating even more vs pass-call Next.

So if I have a hand like this (vs JD upcard) up 7-5:



I'm donating. With no where to run to in the 2nd round I would be donating in Next anyways which is inferior to just donating in the first round, therefore I'm donating in the first round. But what about the fact that donating is still worse than pass-pass!? It's still a -EV play! Yeah I know, but to me up 7-5 with a hand like this I'll take a small -EV hit to control some variance. To me at least, the primary reason I wouldn't donate with KdTd in the original hand is becuz I had a hand to run to in the 2nd round (R+1 in clubs). When you have R+1 you always have a shot. I think people didn't see this as "a hand" becuz they had their hoyle loyal blinders on. After Rays good work, I suspect that will no longer be the case.

[irishwolf]

I am going to disagree with this statement, leading the QH is better than leading the 9D:

" For the record after I called clubs in that spot I would lead the QH as I consider leading the turned down suit or leading the Right when all we have is R+1 with no ace to promote both poor plays. I would be very surprised if Raydog's simulation showed otherwise. Just throwing that out there that I strongly agree with Raydog's choice to lead the QH, but it goes without saying strong opinions mean nothing when compared with hard data. "

Yes, I have a strong opinion on lead what was turned down and Promoting my KD. I want the dealer to trump the Diamond lead. Just logic and the fact that 'most' of the time I can trump a Spade (my void) or slough the QH. You limit your options by leading the QH. Does not matter than Ray's program showed leading the QH was acceptable, but was it the best lead? I say NO!

To each his own!

IRISHWOLF

P.S.
Ray, if you are following and can re-capture those (JD down) 16,920 hands (or equivalent) and test leading the (S1 calls Clubs) leading the 9D followed by trumping a Spade lead with the 9C followed by leading the JC to Prove the that S1/S3 will have a better EV than leading the QH to the 1st trick. It would be very helpful here, wrapping up this particular situation.

[Wes (aka the legend)]

I am going to disagree with this statement, leading the QH is better than leading the 9D:

" For the record after I called clubs in that spot I would lead the QH as I consider leading the turned down suit or leading the Right when all we have is R+1 with no ace to promote both poor plays. I would be very surprised if Raydog's simulation showed otherwise. Just throwing that out there that I strongly agree with Raydog's choice to lead the QH, but it goes without saying strong opinions mean nothing when compared with hard data. "

Yes, I have a strong opinion on lead what was turned down and Promoting my KD. I want the dealer to trump the Diamond lead. Just logic and the fact that 'most' of the time I can trump a Spade (my void) or slough the QH. You limit your options by leading the QH. Does not matter than Ray's program showed leading the QH was acceptable, but was it the best lead? I say NO!

To each his own!

IRISHWOLF

P.S.
Ray, if you are following and can re-capture those (JD down) 16,920 hands (or equivalent) and test leading the (S1 calls Clubs) leading the 9D followed by trumping a Spade lead with the 9C followed by leading the JC to Prove the that S1/S3 will have a better EV than leading the QH to the 1st trick. It would be very helpful here, wrapping up this particular situation.

I hope I'm wrong. I'm getting bored. I need to be humbled.

[irishwolf]

LOL, sorry,

You are Wrong this time! I say it with confidence!

Irish

[jblowery]

One of the best discussions I've seen on here (mainly due to the analysis run by Raydog. So to summarize (and depending upon score too) best to call "reverse next" (when you don't have all suits or other reverse next suit blocked) with just rt+1 then to pass or call an extremely weak "next" call. Is that basically what we're finding here (may be another qualification or two that I forgot).

[jblowery]

I also agree with leading QH. S1 is almost surely void in diamonds.

[irishwolf]

Now jblowery, "I also agree with leading QH. S1 is almost surely void in diamonds." Of course, and that is whole strategy of leading 9D!

We are at a stage on this hand and discussion that shooting from the hips, opinion does not cut it. Come with factual data that leading 9D is worst that leading QH to the first trick!

Players do dumb s h i t all the time that rules thumb that don't count for squat!

IRISH

[jblowery]

I meant the dealer, not s1

[jblowery]

Come with factual data that leading 9D is worst that leading QH to the first trick

I don't have a simulator but it's pretty obvious that when somebody turns down a jack they are most likely void in that suit (except when they have everything blocked,). If they are even a marginal player.. Played enough hands to see that. Having a rough day? Calm down.

[irishwolf]

GUT STATISTICS??

I don't have a simulator but it's pretty obvious that when somebody turns down a jack they are most likely void in that suit (except when they have everything blocked,). If they are even a marginal player.. Played enough hands to see that.

WRONG - I challenge any data you have!

IRISH

[jblowery]

I think your ego is getting too involved. U have stats yourself?

[irishwolf]

Of course!

[jblowery]

Please share data then. Thx.

[irishwolf]

Not my original post on what to lead. So I see it as up to Raydog to run his 16920 hands lead 9D vs QH options.

Besides you are Hardwired and would not believe my tests results anyway. I already give the results, 9D is better. All you need to know. What I find is that when players are hardwired, they have to test for themselves to make any changes in their game strategy.

IRISH

[jblowery]

You're the one that's hardwired: "I already give the results, 9D is better."

I'm always willing to change my strategy with new information.

[raydog]

Sorry, didn't see the updates to this thread until Irish reminded me.

First, I ran the comparison of donate, R1 vs. call next (hearts), R2. No bids the same between the two scenarios, so I just compared overall points scored by both teams over 100,000 hands.
Donate: EV = -1.52
Bid H, R2: EV = -1.11

This was to answer Wes's question. It was not really possible to extract this result from the data I presented because the EV I showed was not always based on all 100,000 hands, just on the hands where bidding differed (when comparing two 2nd round bids, for example, I ignore the results of first round bids because they will likely encompass most of the score and dilute the results, as they are the same for both scenarios).

I then tried the simulation Irish proposed. I had S1 pass R1, bid Clubs R2, then compared leading QH vs. leading 9D. I noticed that when S2 or S4 won the first trick, then led a Spade which S1 trumped with the 10C on trick 2, my program would lead the KD [would actually do this whether the 9D or the QH was initially led]. I stuck with this in the first instance, just to see the results.
QH led: EV = -0.37
9D led: EV = -0.54
[Note that in its current configuration, my program would have led the JC, trick 3, if S1 had an off-suit Ace; it will also lead the JC on trick 4 if it only has the JC and KD remaining, having discarded the QH on some previous trick]

I then tweaked the the program to play exactly as Irish stated: 9D lead, then trump with 10C if Spades* led, trick 2 [if partner is not winning with the Ace, and if an opponent has not already trumped with a card higher than the 10], then lead the JC, trick 3, to set up the KD. Note that things only played out exactly this way about 1/5 of hands:
QH led: EV = -0.38
9D led: EV = -0.49

But it's not as easy as saying Irish is wrong. There are just so many ways this hand can play out. As I said, it only follows the ideal script Irish laid out infrequently, and when it does play out that way it is apparently not enough to swing the tide. Also, my program will not trump trick 2 with the 10C if S4 leads something other than an A or K of spades (hoping partner can win the trick, as S1's holdings are thin; this explains the * above); but this also happens infrequently.

Full results were as follows:
QH led: 815 / 8118 / 8073 (2pts / 1pt / euchred)
9D led: 186 / 8285 / 8535

When I run my program I can see how the last 60 or 70 hands were played - that is the extent of the "console" memory in the java environment I'm running. I randomly looked at the last hand played where leading the QH resulted in winning all 5 tricks, here it is:
S1: QH, K-9D, J-10C
S2: K-9H, Q-10D, QC
S3: QS, A-JH, AD, KC
S4: A-K-10S, 10H, AC

Play of the hand:
QH -> KH -> AH -> 10H; S3 wins
KC -> AC -> JC -> QC; S1 wins
KD -> 10D -> AD -> 10S; S3 wins
JH [boss heart] -> KS -> 9D -> 9H; S3 wins
QS -> AS -> 10C -> QD; S1 wins

Had the 9D been lead, S4 would have won the first trick.

One hand is anecdotal, but it would take me too much time to analyze 5 or 10 of them; I'm confident enough in the results my program is spitting out, though I'm sure Irish would like to see more hands. It does seem, from the results, that S1/S3 have a better chance of winning all tricks by leading the QH, and also get euchred less often. And by a non-negligible margin. I cannot be 100% sure that my program is not making some fundamental error in play which is skewing these results, but when the margin is so large, my time is better spent accepting the results and instead exploring other, more potentially fruitful avenues of optimization.

I await the fireworks...

[LeftyK]

ED,
Do you have amnesia?

"The likely hood of Dealer being heavy black is very, very high with a turned down Jack of diamonds. So this in itself is making me cautious about calling anything black. As I've said already with a bower being turned down I can't pass. So the only other option is to call hearts. I bite the bullet here, Call Hearts and would lead the Queen of Hearts."

And look at your results, not based on the one RARE carrot! Euchre rate 66%

IRISH

Euchre rate of 66% not true when leading the turned down suit from s1r2. That 66% was from club lead. (unless this was corrected further down the thread, I've not scrolled all the way down yet.)

[irishwolf]

Ray,

Maybe your program does not 'optimize' how to play? But thanks for running it anyway.

Leading the KD to to trick 3 is Not how the hand has to be played. And neither is trusting the spade trick, must trump and lead the Right, asap. No wonder your results is different.

When trumping the Spade trick, the JC is led next then the KD. I got doing this 29% euchre rate, far better than the euchre rate leading QH first. That Jack is led until it can be lead followed by the KD. So of course you will show the QH is better leading KD to trick 3. Of course Dealer will trump, I want him to trump as 85% he will have 0, 1 or 2 trumps. He is cleared of all this trump when he leads a Spade. If he leads a heart, S3 gets a chance to win it with a H or trump. And S1 must not trust the Spade trick, must use the 10C. Its a 50% probability that S4 must lead a spade. And there are times S1 has to trust a trick and slough the KD as well.

Just look at the probability of S2&S4 has 2 trumps each (11=12%, or one has 3 trumps 9% & 11% for S4. Adding those amounts to 22% due to one also having AD. S3 can assist with an Ace (D,S,H) or he as well hand have 2 trumps 33% or 3 trumps 9%.

I did 150 hands, QH then 9D same hands. Then put to a statistical test, called a Student's t-test, paired comparison. Results significant at the 99% level that 9D was the better strategy. Where we differ and it's big is the Euchre rate. You have over a 50% euchre rate and I have 29% the way I played the hand, leading the 9D.

" then tried the simulation Irish proposed. I had S1 pass R1, bid Clubs R2, then compared leading QH vs. leading 9D. I noticed that when S2 or S4 won the first trick, then led a Spade which S1 trumped with the 10C on trick 2, my program would lead the KD [would actually do this whether the 9D or the QH was initially led]. I stuck with this in the first instance, just to see the results."
QH led: EV = -0.37
9D led: EV = -0.54

[jblowery]

Thanks for running that Ray.