
https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D
Anyone who is convinced S4 misplayed this hand is wrong. And anyone who is convinced S4 played this hand correctly is wrong. We simply don't have enough evidence to draw a safe conclusion.
So glad you did this work Ray. Amazing stuff. I'm definitely going with the garbage lead from this very specific hand configuration from now on.raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:43 am I finally had a chance to look at this. I simulated 1,000,000 hands, fixing the cards in the dealer's hand and the turn card. I looked only at hands where S4 won the first trick with the 9H (trump) - this was about 240,000 hands - and tested 3 different possible leads for the 2nd trick: JH (followed by AD, trick 3); AD (followed by JH, trick 3, if they win - a separate test showed this to be the best follow-up lead); and QC.
JH: (27,806 / 147,678 / 63,320) [2 pts / 1 pt / euchred] EV = +0.32
AD: (13,491 / 166,813 / 58,500) EV = +0.32
QC: (8,749 / 177,061 / 52,994) EV = +0.37
A rather interesting result! Here's my take: we actually win a point with this hand quite often, as we already have one trick and have another guaranteed trick with the R. Our Ace also looks very promising, but maybe our best asset (as Don alluded to) is our partner! So we shouldn't pray our Ace doesn't get trumped, or risk drawing out what may be our partner's only trump. Instead we should just lead garbage and see how things evolve. We should be looking to avoid euchres rather than win sweeps, and holding back with our best cards seems to be the best way to do this.
Wow, It never would've occurred to me to try this adjustment yet it absolutely is critical to test cuz changing the upcard (making it not the Right) does change enemy ranges significantly. Awesome. Leading garbage still holds up here so that's nice for the sake of consistency/simplicity.raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:43 amI looked a bunch of related hands as well.
First, I tried swapping the JH and the 9H (so JH already in S4's hand and the 9H turned). This resulted in S1 and S3 calling about 8% of hands (vs. 1.5% in the original scenario), and clearly their stronger hands, so the overall results improved for S4.
JH led: (31,874 / 147,474 / 50,302) EV = +0.48
AD led: (16,047 / 166,253 / 47,350) EV = +0.45
QC led: (10,438 / 176,009 / 43,302) EV = +0.48
More sweeps, fewer euchres, and a shift in best card to lead. But the results are very close, and leading garbage on the 2nd trick is still a good strategy.
That's a big difference. So glad you tested this stuff Ray. Very compelling. At this point I think we have to conclude leading the off Ace is best except for the special case (the original hand)raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:43 amThe original scenario featured a doubleton next Ace - so only 3 other cards of that suit in the wild. What if those odds were different? I tried the following scenarios [1,000,000 hands; S4 hand shown, after discarding the 10S; only looked at hands where S4 is the declarer and has won the 2nd trick lead after winning 1st trick with 9H - always about 1/4 of total hands]:
1) J-9H + AD + Q-9C [singleton next Ace]:
JH led: EV = +0.47
AD led: EV = +0.51
QC led: EV = +0.45
2) J-9H + A-9C + QD [doubleton green Ace]:
JH led: EV = +0.38
AC led: EV = +0.47
QD led: EV = +0.43
3) J-9H + AC + Q-9D [singleton green Ace]:
JH led: EV = +0.56
AC led: EV = +0.67
QD led: EV = +0.52
4) J-9H + A-10-9C [tripleton green Ace]:
JH led : EV = +0.27
AC led: EV = +0.36
I'm just happy I was correct on one scenario!raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:43 am5) J-9H + A-10-9D [tripleton next Ace]:
JH led: EV = +0.22
AD led: EV = +0.26
I wouldn't say never tho! I'm assuming when we are down 9-8 leading the Right--ie taking the line that leads to more sweeps--is now best. In this spot the math changes cuz getting euchred now only costs us 1 pt. Given this reality maybe it's best to always lead the Right whenever our opponents are at 9 except for the 9-9 scenario.raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:43 amAll these results seem to show that is never a good idea to lead the R in an effort to make the Ace good. This may be because the downside (it's your last trump, and you may be drawing your partner's only trump, which may have been good for a trick) outweigh the benefits (your Ace may still not be good if an opponent has 2 trump AND is void in D). And there are of course all sorts of other scenarios which could play out. It seems generally best just to lead the Ace on the second trick; if it's a tripleton Ace then it probably won't win, but it still beats wasting your R bower first - and those are your only 2 options. The particular characteristics of the original hand make both the A lead and the R lead unfavorable, so a garbage lead is best (but there is not a huge difference in the results).
I like when you get curious! I'm glad you tested this additional S1-R2 spot. Leading the Right with those hands is how I'd play it. I'm glad that line turned out best. I'm not sure I can explain the difference in a satisfying way either but I'm not bothered by it. Since these are two very different spots (S4 vs S1) there is no apparent contradiction we need to explain away in my opinion. Perhaps it's as simple as this: when we call super-marginal from S1-R2--as we often have to do--it is more critical to lead that Right to possibly take out 2 enemy trump in one lead. The only additional hand I'd like to see tested from this S1 scenario would be Next calls when we have R+0 but only 1 off ace. For example (assume 9D turned)raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:43 amI was also curious how the dynamic would shift if S1 were given this hand (round 2), with the option of leading the Right and keeping a trump in reserve. So I tested the following 2 hands over 100,000 deals, looking only at those cases where S1 bid H, R2. [subsequent leads are also shown, in cases where the A wins]
1) S1 holds J-9H + A-10D + QC (9D turned)
lead JH (then AD): EV = +0.82
lead AD (then QC): EV = +0.43
lead QC: EV = +0.47
2) S1 holds JH + AD + A-QC + 9S (9D turned)
lead JH (then AC, then AD): EV = +0.35
lead AD (then AC, then JH): EV = +0.18
lead AC (then 9S): EV = +0.25
Leading the R is clearly best, even though the L is more likely to lie with partner than with either opponent (individually, if not in aggregate), and the Aces are more likely to win even without drawing trump (given that it is a 2nd round bid and the cards can be assumed to be distributed marginally more evenly - and dealer didn't get an opportunity to create a void). Even without having a second trump card in reserve in the case of the second hand (though having 2 Aces is a boon).
I confess that I find it hard to explain why it is so clearly better to lead the R in the second hand above (R as only trump + 2 aces, 2nd round bid from S1) vs. the second scenario at the top (R + 1 trump + doubleton green ace, 1st round bid from S4).
I somehow missed that this post was addressed to me. From this exact hand I would predict that leading trump is best. S1 has just a low trump with no voids. His trump is basically strategically useless if he doesn't lead it but if he leads it some good can happen: primarily, this lead will lower the probability of an enemy sweep.LeftyK wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:12 pm My take is s1 should be leading trump because they are holding BOTH green aces AND they are singleton at that. Where does that fit into this Wes?
This makes sense to me. Over the last 2 years, as a working hypothesis I have mostly abandoned leading trump out of this configuration vs a dealer call and I have been happy with the results. Nice to have some hard data backing that up. And it's worth driving home that this specific hand (low trump, no voids, two singleton green aces) would be one of the best hands to lead trump from in theory and YET leading an off Ace STILL wins out (or you could call it a statistical tie if we haven't reached a 95 CI). Either way, this is actually strong evidence that we should not be leading trump from these type of hands (1 trump + 2 aces) vs a dealer call.raydog wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 4:15 pm As for the lead by S1, I find the following (tested for 100,000 hands; when S4 declares, R1 [about 49,000 hands]; fixed cards in S1's hand + turn card):
lead AS: EV = -0.44
lead 10H: EV = -0.46
lead QD: EV = -0.59
[EV's from the perspective of S1]
So no great advantage to leading trump, but don't lead garbage.
Yeah if I had to map out the perfect time to do it, it would be when an aggressive player picks up a Jack and S1 has a hand like the one in the OP (1 low trump, no voids, 2 green aces). Since S4 didn't go alone you'd expect their range to be relatively weak with R+1+0 making up a significant portion of that range and that's the exact hand you're hoping S4 has when we lead trump from this hand configuration. Notice the EXACT ideal spot described happened here. An aggressive player DID just pick up a Jack and S1 HAS the hand type described above. And incidentally if S1 leads trump in this hand a euchre will be had. My understanding is Ray's simulation doesn't cover this specific spot. S1's hand is fixed to that ideal hand but S4's hand range is not fixed to just ordering up the Jack. He tested S1 leading trump from that hand against S4's entire calling range (all upcards included). So there's still hope that S1 leading trump from this specific hand is the right play against an aggressive S4 player who just picks up the Jack and that's what I would predict.Tbolt65 wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:29 pm I would not ever be leading trump with 1 trump two aces against a dealer call unless I know it's a certain player , or two, or three. Then you almost have to. Other wise, I lead aces. Situation play against situation players. What i've always said. Certain play works the majority of the time except for special circumstances. Then you adjust for and to the play/players.
Tbolt65
Edward
When seat 2 does order regardless of the type of player they are. Leading trump is preferable. However leading the Ace with certain configuration and players can be used. Re: My opening leaded as s1 in the 9/10 diamond thread.irishwolf wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 1:59 pm The Wes says,
"This makes sense to me. Over the last 2 years, as a working hypothesis I have mostly abandoned leading trump out of this configuration vs a dealer call and I have been happy with the results. Nice to have some hard data backing that up. And it's worth driving home that this specific hand (low trump, no voids, two singleton green aces) would be one of the best hands to lead trump from in theory and YET leading an off Ace STILL wins out (or you could call it a statistical tie if we haven't reached a 95 CI). Either way, this is actually strong evidence that we should not be leading trump from these type of hands (1 trump + 2 aces) vs a dealer call."
I say, one has to remember the results is ONLY for the specific hand as Posted. AS QD 10D, AC 10H (JH up) and under the conditions whatever hands S2 ordered or passed in the Simulation? Did he order 2 trumps, (I suspect so, Ray would have to confirm.), and now those pulled out giving one more suit card to S2? And S1 has a doubleton Diamond to catch S4 AD/9D.
What about AC/xC, AS, 10H QD? Does your strategy still give the same results? And if S2 assists, then what will you do? If S2 does not order the Dealer with 2 trumps, what will you do? Is that not the same as S2 ordering weak?
You might be happy as you say, "abandoned leading trump out of this configuration."
But it makes me wonder.
IRISH
As for the lead by S1, I find the following (tested for 100,000 hands; when S4 declares, R1 [about 49,000 hands]; fixed cards in S1's hand + turn card):
lead AS: EV = -0.44
lead 10H: EV = -0.46
lead QD: EV = -0.59
[EV's from the perspective of S1]
So no great advantage to leading trump, but don't lead garbage.
That and also based on what S2 play calling is like, it may even make it more imperative to do so. However there will be times that one's assesment will be wrong/off on the holdings and when we do lead that trump. We risk losing out on our aces. Forget about euchring someone, we also lose out on a stopper. It's rare, but it does happen.Wes (aka the legend) wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:10 amYeah if I had to map out the perfect time to do it, it would be when an aggressive player picks up a Jack and S1 has a hand like the one in the OP (1 low trump, no voids, 2 green aces). Since S4 didn't go alone you'd expect their range to be relatively weak with R+1+0 making up a significant portion of that range and that's the exact hand you're hoping S4 has when we lead trump from this hand configuration. Notice the EXACT ideal spot described happened here. An aggressive player DID just pick up a Jack and S1 HAS the hand type described above. And incidentally if S1 leads trump in this hand a euchre will be had. My understanding is Ray's simulation doesn't cover this specific spot. S1's hand is fixed to that ideal hand but S4's hand range is not fixed to just ordering up the Jack. He tested S1 leading trump from that hand against S4's entire calling range (all upcards included). So there's still hope that S1 leading trump from this specific hand is the right play against an aggressive S4 player who just picks up the Jack and that's what I would predict.Tbolt65 wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2022 11:29 pm I would not ever be leading trump with 1 trump two aces against a dealer call unless I know it's a certain player , or two, or three. Then you almost have to. Other wise, I lead aces. Situation play against situation players. What i've always said. Certain play works the majority of the time except for special circumstances. Then you adjust for and to the play/players.
Tbolt65
Edward
I'm bored so I thought I'd chime in. First off, I just wanted to reiterate that I love your simulator. I don't need it to be perfect or 100% accurate. I just need it to be useful and you have already demonstrated that it is VERY useful many times over. There's a lot of grey areas in this game, and I don't mind using your simulator as a tie breaker so to speak. As far as "stable equilibrium of "best practice" I think that's theoretically achievable but only after we specify the game texture. I am most interested in two game textures:raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pm Irish, let me try to address your comments in an organized fashion.
1) My program only considers a select subset of hands.
This critique is sufficient to discredit all my results. Creating and optimizing my algorithm is a necessarily recursive process. I compare various bids to see which gives the best results ... dependent on how the hands are played. I compare playing different cards in various situations to see which gives the best results ... but that is dependent on how the other players bid (what subset of hands actually got me to that situation). There are chaotic systems which do not have any stable equilibrium based on the above recursive process, but I don't believe the play of euchre is one of them. So I have faith that my program is gradually approaching that stable equilibrium of "best practice" - though I can't handicap how close I am to that goal.
I don't agree with the idea of the 2 seat never ordering up with 2 trump when his expert P has a bower up at a neutral score like 0-0. I know that's what we've all been taught, but that claim still demands to be tested. And I'm predicting that some 2 trump hand configurations will achieve +EV status vs passing.raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmIn addition, it is possible for astute partnerships to develop a style of play and an inherent understanding which allows them to further optimize their play, beyond the scope of what I am trying to achieve with my program. For instance, when you say "NEVER order up a bower when your partner is dealer at a score of 0-0", I patently disagree. I believe there are hands which warrant calling, because they virtually guarantee a point (or two), and the cost of giving up a potential 4-pt call by your partner (the dealer) is compensated for by guaranteeing dealer doesn't pass and give the opponents loads of extra points (via 1st or 3rd seat call, R2). At least that's what my algorithm tells me at this stage. BUT, it's a close call in many instances, and if the partnership has an understanding that 2nd seat will NEVER call in those situations, it opens up the possibility for dealer to make looser calls, and possibly compensate. [I'm not convinced it's the better strategy, but I have an open mind and cannot prove one way is better than the other].
I doubt this caveat is necessary. I'm assuming we all are aware that your simulator--all simulators--have inherent limitations. Again, all that matters is that this tool is useful, and you've demonstrated that in spades. Your simulator has changed my games in ways I likely never would have myself. I could care less that your simulator will sometimes pump out suspect results. Your simulator can often force me to look at a hand in a new way thus creating new insights allowing me another way to grow my game.raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmThe caveat here is: my program is not the HOLY GRAIL! I don't believe I ever touted it as such. It has proved very useful to me to understand the dynamics of the game, but please interpret its results with a healthy degree or skepticism.
raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmAll that said, let me try and salvage some credibility for my program.
raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmYou cited certain specific hands, and I can tell you under what conditions S2 would call (according to my program), with 2 trump and a bower turned:
a) always with L + 1 trump, even with 9's and 10's as other cards;
Once again, this hand will be an easy call with an amateur P imo. With an expert P, I suspect it's a pass. The hand to test would be a hand like this:raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmb) often with A + 1 trump, but would need something like a green singleton A, two green K's, or perhaps AS + K-10C (if holding A-10 trump, H or D);
If I have K+1+A and I block nothing in the 2nd round, I'm calling this with an amateur P. That said, I would predict that all hands from this configuration would be a -EV call with an expert P. To test that out one would just need to test the very best from this configuration. A hand like this:raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmc) sometimes with K + 1 trump; would need singleton A + K-x in off-suits, both green;
I wouldn't say "never". For example. At 9-9, if you have no trump but 2 aces you gotta call this, even with an expert P imo. And I agree with Wolf that in close out situations we may have to make this loose call with an amateur P.
If you re-tested some of the hands above and found that calling is better than passing you need to take those results seriously imo. The adage "never order up your P's bower with 2 trump" is still primarily advice given to beginners like the adage "Never trump your P's ace". While very useful for beginners we should not expect that adage to always be true. It sounds like you already have compelling evidence that some two seat 2 trump hands are +EV calls with a bower up. Don't ignore it. This shouldn't be surprising. No adage is meant to hold up to this level of meticulous scrutiny. It would be shocking if such an adage held up 100%.raydog wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:20 pmI think this is reasonable, but that is just my opinion. And I re-tested a bunch of these, and still found that calling was better than passing.
I just want to point out that this isn't merely a theoretical issue. If one plays often whether on an app/website or in real life, they will be playing with an amateur P 95%+ of the time, and amateurs by definition pass biddable hands. So our 2 seat P will almost always have a stronger range after passing than any simulator can capture, meaning there's a greater chance that leading a bower on trick 2 is the best play even tho a simulator may say otherwise. A good way to test this would be to just have the 2S pass all 2 trump hands (except loners) and see if S4 leading the Right on trick 2 now wins out. Even if one disagrees with the strict 2 seat strategy Irishwolf has mapped out, doing this still approximates reality almost perfectly since most amateurs are surely passing all these candidate 2 trump hands the vast majority of time. So I agree with Wolf's sentiment that the simulator can't be trusted on this account becuz of how 2 seat players typically play in real life. If we do this--have 2S pass all 2 trump hands with bower up except loners--and leading the Right on trick 2 STILL ends up -EV when compared to other lines, that would be very strong evidence that leading the Right in that spot is incorrect.[/color]irishwolf wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:13 pmAdditionally, all those assisting that just disappeared? I suppose should have been included in this WHAT TO LEAD? 33% S2 has 2 trumps, of 1,000,000, will be 330,000 more hands that assuredly will go toward having a positive EV when leading the JH as S2 has two trumps. Perhaps, Sweeps 11% and the rest of the 330,000 1 pointers with a few euchres??? Will leading QC now overtake leading the JH? I doubt it. But the point is (my point) that EV you have for leading the JH is erroneous.
IRISH
An EV of 1.15 vs 1.20 is pretty close, close enough where I think we can easily conclude that the claim "never order a bower with 2 trump at 0-0 with an expert P" is false. Given those close EV's I think we can safely infer many of the hands at near the top of the 2 trump range will indeed be +EV calls vs passing. And it isn't hard to guess which hands these will probably be. Hands like L+1+2A, and L+1+A and even 2 non bower trump + 2A spring to mind.raydog wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 6:59 pm 5) I did a simulation where I ran my program as it is currently configured, then ran the hands again with S2 NEVER calling with only 2 trump [JH was fixed as the turn card, all other cards random]. I ran this for 100,000 hands; about 30,000 were hands where S2 had 2 trump; about 7,200 of those hands that S2 currently bids. The results were enlightening.
When S2 calls with 2 trump (J turned):
EV = 1.17 [in about 5% of hands, S2 bid alone for an EV of 1.60; the rest had an EV of 1.15]
When those same hands are passed (and bid later):
EV = 1.20
(EV's from the perspective of S2/S4)
Yeah I agree it's a good general rule. It may be too much work with not much payoff to break this down further and have S2 playing every hand configuration correctly. I agree that having Seat 2 always pass 2 trump (except loners) will be a pretty good approximation of reality. But if it's not too much work to include some +EV 2 trump calls in Seat 2's range, I'd do it, but I don't think it's a big deal if you don't.raydog wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 6:59 pmSo, indeed, I find that it is better for S2 to NEVER declare with partner when holding only 2 trump and with a J turned [OK, never say NEVER - there may be certain hands and certain situations that warrant calling; but for the purposes of my program I do need some degree of generalization, and this seems like a good rule to adopt].
raydog wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 6:59 pmI believe it still makes sense to bid those rare, very strong hands where S2 bids alone
I love this idea. I would simply refine it as when down 3+ points S2 should never order up their P's bower unless they are going alone. Another condition I would need added here tho is that S4 can never pass a bower in this spot even if that's all he has. This condition prevents S2-S4's team from passing a biddable as a team and never passing R+0 shouldn't hurt their teams prospects too much as S2's passing range is now gonna be stronger than normal. The only caveat to worry about are those times S4 has R+0 but has a strong euchre hand if he passes. I think it's good to pass in that instance. That would be the only exception. I got Edward to agree to this strategy down 9-6/9-7 but he didn't like the idea down 0-3 altho I do. If we ever play together online, this is the convention we'll go by.irishwolf wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 8:12 pm And when behind in score by 3 or more points, I want my partner to Pass, even with 3 headed by the Left.
Nice work Ray! So it looks like we have a statistical tie here. The point I want to drive home tho is that these numbers prove--at least to me--that this is a MUST call for S2 with an unknown S4 P. Why? Becuz like 95%+ of unknowns pass R+1+0 and that reality changes everything. In addition unknowns do not go alone as often as they should so that also changes the math. IOW we only reach a statistical tie when S4 plays well, but 95-99% of the time we'll be playing with a P that DOES NOT play that well assuming one plays often with randoms.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pm I checked out a few of the hands you suggested, Wes. Here's what my simulator yielded. (100,000 hands)
(In all cases, I'm looking at bids by S2, R1, with the JS turned)
JC + AS + 10-9D + 9H
S2 bids: EV = 1.21
S2 passes: EV = 1.20
Notes: 24K loners by S4 if S2 passes, 11,300 successful; 1275 euchred if S2 calls vs. 1850 euchred if S4 calls (R1 or R2); no bid for S2, R2; bids by S1 + S3 (R2) close to break-even in pts., so actually dilutive to S2/S4 score. This result is inconclusive: a toss-up whether to bid or pass (S2, R1).
This is a very surprising result for me. I would've bet some serious money that calling with this holding would beat out passing even with an expert P. But I buy the results and I agree with your explanation. S2 having a place to run to in the 2nd round (clubs) is important and having those aces also stops a lot of S1-R2 loners/2 pt sweeps and of course if S1 calls Next he's in deep trouble.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pm9S + AH + AD + J-9C
S2 bids: EV = 1.30
S2 Passes: EV = 1.40
Notes: here's the exact breakout of results (S2 calls C, R2)
S2 bids, R1: 39,596 / 57,130 / 3,090 (2 pts / 1 pt / euchred)
S2 passes, R1: 8,004 / 6,041 / 50 // 29,510 / 32,354 / 497 (lone called // with partner; 2pt / 1pt / euchred outcomes) S4, R1
1,1198 / 1,505 / 176 // 781 / 3,550 / 3,983 (S1, R2)
4,646 / 6,739 / 638 (S2, R2 - only bids with p)
[hope this presentation is clear]
I think the difference here is that S2 has something to bid, R2, which tilts in favor of passing (having those 2 aces also gives a better chance of euchring S1 should they chose to bid, R2)
Yep looks like another statistical tie. Another MUST call with an unknown P.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pm9S + 10-9H + AD + JC
S2 bids: EV = 1.18
S2 passes: EV = 1.15
Notes: the stats for bidding are slightly worse than in the previous scenario (understandably); if passing, the stats for S4 are slightly worse (less support), the stats for S1, R2, are slightly better, and, since S2 has no R2 bid, S3 also gets points for some R2 bids. Which render this scenario also a toss-up.
Same story as above: with an expert P, passing is defensible, but with a random P this is a must call.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pmA-KS + 10-9H + AD
S2 bids: EV = 1.15
S2 passes: EV = 1.15
Notes: this hand is slightly worse than the previous scenario, in terms of S strength, but S2 has a decent bid in H, R2 [1,034 / 5,109 / 1,798], so it also ends up a dead heat.
This is another very surprising result for me. I mean the idea that calling beats out passing is not surprising. I would've predicted that, but the gap between EVs is stunning. So much so that EVEN IF an expert team had an agreement to not order up their P's bower with just 2 trump they should break their own rule and make this hand configuration the exception. That's just too big of a gap to ignore. And from that large gap I would extrapolate further and guess that even the worst hand from this configuration is a +EV call for S2:raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pmA-KS + AH + A-KD
S2 bids: EV = 1.47
S2 passes: EV = 1.27
Notes: a stronger hand than the previous one, but not a stronger R2 bid by S2, which leads to a conclusion that it's better for S2 to bid, R1
You did great Ray. Only test hands you wanna test. I don't wanna burn you out. In fact I didn't expect you to test any of these hands so I'm very happy to have these results to look at.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pmI stopped there. Wes, you can investigate the other scenarios. There are just too many "what ifs" to justify exploring this in more detail with my simulator.
It's pretty clear to me that your "biased assumptions" are getting it right most of the time becuz the vast majority of time imo your simulator is producing good results. But it sounds like you're gonna keep tweaking it, making it better and better which is awesome.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pmMy simulator makes certain "assumptions": how other players will bid, and how the hands will be played. And those assumptions are assuredly biased (how detrimentally that affects the outcomes is still up for debate). BUT, at least those assumptions are consistent throughout all scenarios, so the relative hierarchy of strength of hands should stand: hands where I found it is better to bid are very likely much stronger bid candidates than those where the results were inconclusive. And there are likely hands where S2 has 2 trump (bower turned) where it is STILL better for S2 to call [if a table of expert players]. I will look into that.
Good stuff. Yeah I think there's a great chance that leading the Right is not optimal but yeah we will probably never really know. Either way this is a spot I have never been happy about. Like there are many lines I feel so good about that I don't need a simulator to tell me what's right. It's obvious to my honed intuition what's right. But this spot has NEVER been intuitively obvious to me. I have never really been happy with my results in this spot. The only thing I felt sure about is that the competing lines must be close as is almost always the case when I can't safely reach a conclusion. So this spot has always been a grey area to me. I don't mind using your simulator as a tiebreaker for grey area spots. Even if it turns out our simulator is wrong due to "biased assumptions" it will likely be wrong by so little it won't really matter that much EV-wise.raydog wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 10:28 pmAs for having S2 NEVER call with 2 trump (except if calling alone), I did change my program to reflect that, and then reran the original hand. The EV's shifted, but the overall result was the same: leading the R was not as good as leading the "junk" QC. Once again, interpret this with the warranted skepticism [i.e. - what are my programs biases? At least they didn't change - same results if including S2 2-trump calls or not].