Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

More on why to Order at the Bridge

Expand Messages
  • rmromanik
    ... This is known as the Gambler s Fallacy. There s no such thing as being due for a loner. If ordered for the euch, we put Natty s ... points. ... a ...
    Message 1 of 5 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In EuchreScience@y..., "IKnowURider" <jed@o...> wrote:
      > With an 8-6 score, this is where I'd need alot more information to
      > decide if the first chair should have ordered it up to prevent the
      > loner, namely, what's in the hand for stoppers and how due is Natty
      > and/or his team for a loner.

      This is known as the Gambler's Fallacy. There's no such thing as
      being "due" for a loner.

      If ordered for the euch, we put Natty's
      > team within one hand of winning (8-8) while we still need 2
      points.
      > And we no longer have any room for error making a thin call, since
      a
      > euch gives them the game. I prefer to make a team earn its way up
      > the board, unless I feel pretty strongly that it's a loner.
      >
      > I also usually defer to the third chair on the defensive call to
      give
      > the second chair the chance to order it up. Yes, on a rare
      occasion,
      > he buries the R with a loner hand, but most of the time, by a wide
      > margin, he passes, or next often, orders it up without going
      alone.
      > This gives Natty's team the chance to only get one point before we
      > have to make the decision to gift them two. And if they earn the
      > two, well, that's what we were going to give them anyway.
      >

      Whereas you accuse Natty of basing his play on people that know his
      conventions, you're apparently basing your play on the poor play of
      Yahoo! Advanced Lounge. When playing good opponents, 2nd hand going
      alone when a bower is turned is not that uncommon. So, while I'm not
      condoning having a "convention," (in other words, you should ALWAYS
      play the opponent, not the cards), Natty's play is the safe play, as
      it eliminates the possibility of the other team ending it right
      there. Thus, if we assume that we know nothing about that guy at 2nd
      hand, we should order from first hand if we don't have the stopper.
      The risk (of losing the entire game) is too great to justify passing.

      -Ryan!
      rromanik@...
    • Jed Taylor
      LOL - you re mistaking analyzing any one instance of an outcome with analyzing a trend. If I flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads every time, the odds
      Message 2 of 5 , May 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        LOL - you're mistaking analyzing any one instance of an outcome with analyzing a trend.  If I flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads every time, the odds that the 101st flip will be tails is, yes, 1 in 2.  But the odds that tails are due RFS are very, very good.  If you don't get this, stay off the craps tables.  A big part of euchre, especially when playing the same team over time like one does in a tournament, is paying attention to the general trend of the cards.  This is OT a bit, but the same thing applies in backgammon - paying attention to the total pips and what the dice have given each person so far.  Doing so won't change the odds of any single roll, but certainly affect one's tactics.  But hey, if you want to believe this is a fallacy, be my guest.
         
        I don't have to accuse Natty of anything.  He does just fine on his own.  But I certainly adjust my play based on the people I'm playing with and the known environment I'm in.  If you don't do that, I'd love to have you in a poker game sometime.  Moreover, I explained the basis behind my preferences and the differences between an 8-6 and 9-6 score, and why I don't passively just play a mindless convention.  You're welcome to play it any way you want - safe, conventional, whatever.  And you can be sure I'll do the same.
         
         
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: rmromanik [mailto:ryanromanik@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 02:07
        To: EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [EuchreScience] More on why to Order at the Bridge

        --- In EuchreScience@y..., "IKnowURider" <jed@o...> wrote:
        > With an 8-6 score, this is where I'd need alot more information to
        > decide if the first chair should have ordered it up to prevent the
        > loner, namely, what's in the hand for stoppers and how due is Natty
        > and/or his team for a loner.

        This is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.  There's no such thing as
        being "due" for a loner.

          If ordered for the euch, we put Natty's
        > team within one hand of winning (8-8) while we still need 2
        points. 
        > And we no longer have any room for error making a thin call, since
        a
        > euch gives them the game.  I prefer to make a team earn its way up
        > the board, unless I feel pretty strongly that it's a loner.
        >
        > I also usually defer to the third chair on the defensive call to
        give
        > the second chair the chance to order it up.  Yes, on a rare
        occasion,
        > he buries the R with a loner hand, but most of the time, by a wide
        > margin, he passes, or next often, orders it up without going
        alone. 
        > This gives Natty's team the chance to only get one point before we
        > have to make the decision to gift them two.  And if they earn the
        > two, well, that's what we were going to give them anyway.
        >

        Whereas you accuse Natty of basing his play on people that know his
        conventions, you're apparently basing your play on the poor play of
        Yahoo! Advanced Lounge.  When playing good opponents, 2nd hand going
        alone when a bower is turned is not that uncommon.  So, while I'm not
        condoning having a "convention," (in other words, you should ALWAYS
        play the opponent, not the cards), Natty's play is the safe play, as
        it eliminates the possibility of the other team ending it right
        there.  Thus, if we assume that we know nothing about that guy at 2nd
        hand, we should order from first hand if we don't have the stopper. 
        The risk (of losing the entire game) is too great to justify passing.

        -Ryan!
        rromanik@...



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        EuchreScience-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.