## Re: [EuchreScience] Re: When to donate - mathmatical probabilities

Expand Messages
• Hypothesis sometimes can be better than math because your not missing anything, and with math you can have a blind faith not realising what your missing. I
Message 1 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007
Hypothesis sometimes can be better than math because your not missing anything, and with math you can have a blind faith not realising what your missing. I can't put my finger on it, but instictively I know there's something missing in your math. and the reason for that is if you don't donate at 9-7(with a J up):
1-  1 in 4 games you lose to a loner( you lose 1 in 4)
2-  2 in 4 dealer marches( won't matter the score will be same: 9-9)
3-  1 in 4 dealer scores 1 point ( 1 in 4 they gain 1 point; 9-8)
These are approxamates, but prob pretty close. So...'hypothetically'...'just looking at it' tells me donating is the best because 1/4 the time losing compared to 1/4 the time giving them a point seems a no-brainer, but I'm prob missing something also
bananastew <bookcasedust@...> wrote:

--- In EuchreScience@ yahoogroups. com, "Perry Romanowski"
<thejoggler@ ...> wrote:
>
> According to the data attached, a loner is only successful 36 out of
1000
> hands or 3.6 in 100.
>
> So, if a loner scores about 4 times in 100 and doesn't score 96 times
in 100
> that chanes things a bit. No time to do the math but it seems
significant.
>
> I like the donation advice already given. Do it at 9 points when
opponents
> have 6 or 7.
>
> I would also add, to hell with the math. Do it whenever you think your
> opponent has a good loner hand. If you're better at guessing these
> opportunities, you can do better than what the mathematics would say
is the
> optimal play.

I say, benefit could come out of letting the dealer earn the points. He
may play out a weak loner try the wrong way and screw himself out of a
march, or he might even expose a card and have to play it out of proper
order and lose a march.

Whether the act of donating is of any benifit or cost cannot be
accurately answered until the rate loners are scored when a jack is the
up card is determined and the rest of the real probability numbers
arecrunched with that number and an average pph (points per hand) for
the dealer, when the jack is up. (Swords post covered it well)

Admittedly without proof I have always estimated that rate around 1 in
every 4 tries. Swords personal recent report, according to Perry
indicates, with a trash 1st hand, the rate he obtaned by trial was 3.6
at a 0-0 score. I suppose with a little better hand in 1st seat that
rate would move toward 4.0 Somewhere near those numbers though must be
the real probability.

To date I have seen nothing that shows me that donating either extends
or shortens the average length of games, and I am not yet convinced
donating at any time has a positive effect on a games outcome.

In any event there can be no sound basis for donating at 9-6 or 9-7, yet
not donate at 8-7, 8-6, 7-6, or even 7-7. A jack upcard to the dealer
(with an x scored loner rate and x pph gain) is going to offer the same
effect regardless of the score when the oppositions score is 6 or
higher. I guess some players feel the fact that only one point is needed
so playing all the games from 9-8 or 9-9 plays in their favor.

But, according to swords probability chart, if in 100 games in which the
score is 9-6, before a card is dealt, you canexpect to win 82 games
(82%) from that point in the game, as non dealer.

When the deal is complete, if a jack has come up, (if that Jack scores
a loner 1 in 4 times), and you elect to play, the number of games you
can expect to win is now only 75 games. (1 in 4 = 25 losses. With good
luck and/or better play by your team 75+ , with bad luck or better play

If you donate rather than play it out, you will change the score
automatically to 9-8 where before the deal you can only expect to win
(according to swords probability chart) 72 games. (72%)

The same occurs at 9-7. Originally you can expect 81 wins. If a jack
comes up (1in4 scores) you will win 75. Why donate to 9-9 when you will
only win 65. (according to the chart)

Why donate? You are only predestinating yourself to further loss.

>
> On 2/27/07, bananastew bookcasedust@ ... wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In EuchreScience@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Brown ahimsa1999@ wrote:
> > >
> > > WOW! Incredible. So *if they average 1.569 pph* with that
configuration
> > by you passing, then your risking only .39 points on average by
donating.
> >
> > *To donate or Not to donate (1.569pph)*
> >
> > *1. If a loner is scored 1 in 4 tries, in 100 games when the jack is
up...
> > *
> >
> > *If you donate your opposition scores 100 x 2 points = 200 pts*
> >
> > *If you do not donate then your opponents score...*
> >
> > *for scored loners - 25 loners x 4 points = 100 pts*
> >
> > *for failed loners @1.569pph - 75 x 1.569 pts = 117.7 pts*
> >
> > *Total pts scored by other team over 100 games 100 +117.7 = 217.7 *
> >
> > *Net loss by donating = 217.7 - 200 = 17.7 over 100 games*
> >
> > *Net loss per game when not donating = .177 pts.*
> >
> > *IOW's - one hundred and seventy seven one thousandth of a point.*
> >
> > **
> >
> > *2. If a loner is scored 1 in 5 tries, in 100 games when the jack is
up...
> > *
> >
> > *If you donate your opposition scores 100 x 2 points = 200 pts*
> >
> > *If you do not donate then your opponents score...*
> >
> > *for scored loners - 20 loners x 4 points = 80 pts*
> >
> > *for failed loners @1.569pph - 80 x 1.569 pts = 125.5 pts*
> >
> > *Total pts scored by other team over 100 games 100 +125.5 = 205.5 *
> >
> > *Net loss by not donating = 205.5 - 200 = 5.5 points over 100 games*
> >
> > *Net loss per game when not donating = .055 pts.*
> >
> > *IOW's - fifty-five one thousandth of a point.*
> >
> > *I suspect that the difference favoring donate would be considerably
less
> > if the 1st seat hand tested was not pure crap.*
> >
> > *I know the numbers would favor not donating if the 1.569 pph
reported
> > includes the loners scored points, which I believe it does. I am
however
> > unable to conclude it does, as I can't open the link to Sword's JPG
> > attachment.*
> >
> > *INCREDIBLE! *
> >
> > **
> >
> > Pretty cheap insurance against the loner wouldn't you say? With that
> > software I could be better than I am now! Nah...how do you improve
on
> > perfection?
> > >
> > > Sword_4_hire fastfredy0@ wrote: Given: The score is 0 - 0
> > > East is dealer
> > > Jack of Spades is the UP CARD
> > > South has 9D 10D 9H 10H and 9C
> > > 1st and 3rd seat never donate at 0-0
> > > Then the following are the odds of every possible score based on
1,000
> > hands where a "-2E" indicates south got euchred and a "2E" indicates
South
> > euchred the opposition .. where all other points are relative to
North and
> > South. Then the stats are attached:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sword
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://justyouraver agejoggler. com
> http://euchreuniver se.blogspot. com
>

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

• ... anything, and with math you can have a blind faith not realising what your missing. I can t put my finger on it, but instictively I know there s something
Message 2 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007

--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, Ron Brown <ahimsa1999@...> wrote:
>
> Hypothesis sometimes can be better than math because your not missing anything, and with math you can have a blind faith not realising what your missing. I can't put my finger on it, but instictively I know there's something missing in your math.

You are quite right, Ahimsa. I woke up this morning rethinking the logicality of my math and  realized it all wasn't logical.

I deleted the post.

and the reason for that is if you don't donate at 9-7(with a J up):
> 1- 1 in 4 games you lose to a loner( you lose 1 in 4)
> 2- 2 in 4 dealer marches( won't matter the score will be same: 9-9)
> 3- 1 in 4 dealer scores 1 point ( 1 in 4 they gain 1 point; 9-8)
> These are approxamates, but prob pretty close. So...'hypothetically'...'just looking at it' tells me donating is the best because 1/4 the time losing compared to 1/4 the time giving them a point seems a no-brainer, but I'm prob missing something also
> bananastew bookcasedust@... wrote:
>
>
> --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski"
> thejoggler@ wrote:
> >
> > According to the data attached, a loner is only successful 36 out of
> 1000
> > hands or 3.6 in 100.
> >
> > So, if a loner scores about 4 times in 100 and doesn't score 96 times
> in 100
> > that chanes things a bit. No time to do the math but it seems
> significant.
> >
> > I like the donation advice already given. Do it at 9 points when
> opponents
> > have 6 or 7.
> >
> > I would also add, to hell with the math. Do it whenever you think your
> > opponent has a good loner hand. If you're better at guessing these
> > opportunities, you can do better than what the mathematics would say
> is the
> > optimal play.
>
> I say, benefit could come out of letting the dealer earn the points. He
> may play out a weak loner try the wrong way and screw himself out of a
> march, or he might even expose a card and have to play it out of proper
> order and lose a march.
>
> Whether the act of donating is of any benifit or cost cannot be
> accurately answered until the rate loners are scored when a jack is the
> up card is determined and the rest of the real probability numbers
> arecrunched with that number and an average pph (points per hand) for
> the dealer, when the jack is up. (Swords post covered it well)
>
> Admittedly without proof I have always estimated that rate around 1 in
> every 4 tries. Swords personal recent report, according to Perry
> indicates, with a trash 1st hand, the rate he obtaned by trial was 3.6
> at a 0-0 score. I suppose with a little better hand in 1st seat that
> rate would move toward 4.0 Somewhere near those numbers though must be
> the real probability.
>
> To date I have seen nothing that shows me that donating either extends
> or shortens the average length of games, and I am not yet convinced
> donating at any time has a positive effect on a games outcome.
>
> In any event there can be no sound basis for donating at 9-6 or 9-7, yet
> not donate at 8-7, 8-6, 7-6, or even 7-7. A jack upcard to the dealer
> (with an x scored loner rate and x pph gain) is going to offer the same
> effect regardless of the score when the oppositions score is 6 or
> higher. I guess some players feel the fact that only one point is needed
> so playing all the games from 9-8 or 9-9 plays in their favor.
>
> But, according to swords probability chart, if in 100 games in which the
> score is 9-6, before a card is dealt, you canexpect to win 82 games
> (82%) from that point in the game, as non dealer.
>
> When the deal is complete, if a jack has come up, (if that Jack scores
> a loner 1 in 4 times), and you elect to play, the number of games you
> can expect to win is now only 75 games. (1 in 4 = 25 losses. With good
> luck and/or better play by your team 75+ , with bad luck or better play
>
> If you donate rather than play it out, you will change the score
> automatically to 9-8 where before the deal you can only expect to win
> (according to swords probability chart) 72 games. (72%)
>
> The same occurs at 9-7. Originally you can expect 81 wins. If a jack
> comes up (1in4 scores) you will win 75. Why donate to 9-9 when you will
> only win 65. (according to the chart)
>
> Why donate? You are only predestinating yourself to further loss.
>
> >
> > On 2/27/07, bananastew bookcasedust@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, Ron Brown ahimsa1999@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WOW! Incredible. So *if they average 1.569 pph* with that
> configuration
> > > by you passing, then your risking only .39 points on average by
> donating.
> > >
> > > *To donate or Not to donate (1.569pph)*
> > >
> > > *1. If a loner is scored 1 in 4 tries, in 100 games when the jack is
> up...
> > > *
> > >
> > > *If you donate your opposition scores 100 x 2 points = 200 pts*
> > >
> > > *If you do not donate then your opponents score...*
> > >
> > > *for scored loners - 25 loners x 4 points = 100 pts*
> > >
> > > *for failed loners @1.569pph - 75 x 1.569 pts = 117.7 pts*
> > >
> > > *Total pts scored by other team over 100 games 100 +117.7 = 217.7 *
> > >
> > > *Net loss by donating = 217.7 - 200 = 17.7 over 100 games*
> > >
> > > *Net loss per game when not donating = .177 pts.*
> > >
> > > *IOW's - one hundred and seventy seven one thousandth of a point.*
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > *2. If a loner is scored 1 in 5 tries, in 100 games when the jack is
> up...
> > > *
> > >
> > > *If you donate your opposition scores 100 x 2 points = 200 pts*
> > >
> > > *If you do not donate then your opponents score...*
> > >
> > > *for scored loners - 20 loners x 4 points = 80 pts*
> > >
> > > *for failed loners @1.569pph - 80 x 1.569 pts = 125.5 pts*
> > >
> > > *Total pts scored by other team over 100 games 100 +125.5 = 205.5 *
> > >
> > > *Net loss by not donating = 205.5 - 200 = 5.5 points over 100 games*
> > >
> > > *Net loss per game when not donating = .055 pts.*
> > >
> > > *IOW's - fifty-five one thousandth of a point.*
> > >
> > > *I suspect that the difference favoring donate would be considerably
> less
> > > if the 1st seat hand tested was not pure crap.*
> > >
> > > *I know the numbers would favor not donating if the 1.569 pph
> reported
> > > includes the loners scored points, which I believe it does. I am
> however
> > > unable to conclude it does, as I can't open the link to Sword's JPG
> > > attachment.*
> > >
> > > *INCREDIBLE!*
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > Pretty cheap insurance against the loner wouldn't you say? With that
> > > software I could be better than I am now! Nah...how do you improve
> on
> > > perfection?
> > > >
> > > > Sword_4_hire fastfredy0@ wrote: Given: The score is 0 - 0
> > > > East is dealer
> > > > Jack of Spades is the UP CARD
> > > > South has 9D 10D 9H 10H and 9C
> > > > 1st and 3rd seat never donate at 0-0
> > > > Then the following are the odds of every possible score based on
> 1,000
> > > hands where a "-2E" indicates south got euchred and a "2E" indicates
> South
> > > euchred the opposition .. where all other points are relative to
> North and
> > > South. Then the stats are attached:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sword
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://justyouraveragejoggler.com
> > http://euchreuniverse.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
>

• You guys keep saying 1 in 4 will score a loner. I revisited the data (looks like I divided when I shouldn t have) and according to the graphic here are the
Message 3 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007
You guys keep saying 1 in 4 will score a loner.  I revisited the data (looks like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic here are the results

1.  Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5%   (1 in 2)
2.  Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
3.  Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
4.  Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1 in every 7)
5.  Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)

If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of 9-7.  Using data from euchre calculator.

1 in 7 times you lose immediately.  Your chances of winning = 0%
1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8.  Your chances of winning 72%
1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9.  Your chances of winning 66%
1 in 14 times you score points and win.

If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning are 66%.

So, which is better?  We find this by looking at the effect on your expected winning %

Passing expectation = 0% * (15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%) + 100% * (7%) = 61.3%
Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%

According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives you a 61.3% chance of winning the game.  Donating gives you a 66% chance of winning the game.

Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate.  Since I had some time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating versus passing for other scores.

Bottom Line Strategy.

Game winning expectations
9-7  donate = 66% : pass 61%.  You should donate
9-6  donate = 72% : pass 67%.  You should donate
9-5  donate = 81% : pass 82%.  You should pass but about even.
9-4  donate = 86% : pass 87%.  You should pass but about even.
9-3  donate = 90% : pass 91%.  You should pass but about even.
9-2  donate = 94% : pass 94%.  Not much difference at all.

This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword.  Any thoughts?
• ... Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number around. But thanks for easing the pain. (more below) I revisited the data (looks ... here
Message 4 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007

--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski" <thejoggler@...> wrote:
>
> You guys keep saying 1 in 4 will score a loner.

Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number around. But thanks for easing the pain.

(more below)

I revisited the data (looks
> like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic here are
> the results
>
> 1. Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5% (1 in 2)
> 2. Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
> 3. Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
> 4. Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1 in every
> 7)
> 5. Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)
>
> If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of 9-7. Using
> data from euchre calculator.
>
> 1 in 7 times you lose immediately. Your chances of winning = 0%
> 1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8. Your chances of winning 72%
> 1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9. Your chances of winning 66%
> 1 in 14 times you score points and win.
>
> If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning are 66%.
>
> So, which is better? We find this by looking at the effect on your expected
> winning %
>
> Passing expectation = 0% * (15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%) + 100% *
> (7%) = 61.3%
> Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%
>
> According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives you a
> 61.3%chance of winning the game. Donating gives you a 66% chance of
> winning the
> game.
>
> Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate. Since I had some
> time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating versus
> passing for other scores.
>
> Bottom Line Strategy.
>
> Game winning expectations
> 9-7 donate = 66% : pass 61%. You should donate
> 9-6 donate = 72% : pass 67%. You should donate
> 9-5 donate = 81% : pass 82%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-4 donate = 86% : pass 87%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-3 donate = 90% : pass 91%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-2 donate = 94% : pass 94%. Not much difference at all.

Nice post perry!

So, roughly estimating, donating at 9-7 when a jack is up will cause a 5% improvement to a players win rate in those games?

I am trying to translate that benefit as it relates to a players overall win rate. Please comment, whether I am on tract or way off line with the following.

1.How often in 100 games played will the score be sitting at 9-7, opps deal? (guess it depends how much you can whip your opponents  )

1 in 10 games (10% of time) (a crapshoot guess)

2. How often can a player expect a J/up when the score sits at 9-7?

16.6%? - since there are 4 jacks in 24 cards @ the deal.

If the above is true, then doesn't a 5% advantage by donating translate to:

5% donate advantage X 16.6% chance you will have to donate X 10% the number of games that sit at @ 9-7 =

5% * 16.6% * 10% = .083 win record improvement.

eg:

record donating

- Win 1117 Lose 909

record if you don't donate

-Win 1116 Lose 910

This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword. Any thoughts?
>

• To be candid ... I do not know what specific idea is being tested. The idea being tested seems to be shifting. So I don t have a comment on the email. As a
Message 5 of 26 , Mar 1, 2007
To be candid ... I do not know what specific idea is being tested.  The idea being tested seems to be shifting.  So I don't have a comment on the email.

As a general comment about donations ... I did the math... I created a 2nd calculator and the with a simulator and the 1st calculator and about 5 hrs testing and around 10,000 simulations came to the conclusion:

Yes, there is a small window in which donating is advantageous.  The window is very small.  Therefore, if you never donate you will do better than 95% of the people (many of which are good players) who do donate.

Aside:  The 95% above is me grandstanding... I have no idea what he percent is except I am confident it is high.

Aside 2:  The proof would be cumbersome to show in this forum.  Some of the proof is attached (see attachment).

Sword_4_hire

bananastew <bookcasedust@...> wrote:

--- In EuchreScience@ yahoogroups. com, "Perry Romanowski" <thejoggler@. ..> wrote:
>
> You guys keep saying 1 in 4 will score a loner.
Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number around. But thanks for easing the pain.
(more below)
I revisited the data (looks
> like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic here are
> the results
>
> 1. Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5% (1 in 2)
> 2. Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
> 3. Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
> 4. Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1 in every
> 7)
> 5. Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)
>
> If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of 9-7. Using
> data from euchre calculator.
>
> 1 in 7 times you lose immediately. Your chances of winning = 0%
> 1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8. Your chances of winning 72%
> 1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9. Your chances of winning 66%
> 1 in 14 times you score points and win.
>
> If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning are 66%.
>
> So, which is better? We find this by looking at the effect on your expected
> winning %
>
> Passing expectation = 0% * (15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%) + 100% *
> (7%) = 61.3%
> Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%
>
> According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives you a
> 61.3%chance of winning the game. Donating gives you a 66% chance of
> winning the
> game.
>
> Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate. Since I had some
> time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating versus
> passing for other scores.
>
> Bottom Line Strategy.
>
> Game winning expectations
> 9-7 donate = 66% : pass 61%. You should donate
> 9-6 donate = 72% : pass 67%. You should donate
> 9-5 donate = 81% : pass 82%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-4 donate = 86% : pass 87%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-3 donate = 90% : pass 91%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-2 donate = 94% : pass 94%. Not much difference at all.

Nice post perry!
So, roughly estimating, donating at 9-7 when a jack is up will cause a 5% improvement to a players win rate in those games?
I am trying to translate that benefit as it relates to a players overall win rate. Please comment, whether I am on tract or way off line with the following.
1.How often in 100 games played will the score be sitting at 9-7, opps deal? (guess it depends how much you can whip your opponents  )
1 in 10 games (10% of time) (a crapshoot guess)
2. How often can a player expect a J/up when the score sits at 9-7?
16.6%? - since there are 4 jacks in 24 cards @ the deal.
If the above is true, then doesn't a 5% advantage by donating translate to:
5% donate advantage X 16.6% chance you will have to donate X 10% the number of games that sit at @ 9-7 =
5% * 16.6% * 10% = .083 win record improvement.
eg:
record donating
- Win 1117 Lose 909
record if you don't donate
-Win 1116 Lose 910

This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword. Any thoughts?
>

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

• Thanks Sword for taking the time. When I opened the attachment it was in Excel and showed an easy to understand probable outcome for a wide veriety of possible
Message 6 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
Thanks Sword for taking the time. When I opened the attachment it was in Excel and showed an easy to understand probable outcome for a wide veriety of possible donations scenarios from 1st w/J up. Again ty. It will take me some time to fully understand it's recommendations at differing scores. If when using that software you can intricately alter the styles of play for each seat then it may eventually change this forum from one of debate to one of result posting.

Sword_4_hire <fastfredy0@...> wrote:
To be candid ... I do not know what specific idea is being tested.  The idea being tested seems to be shifting.  So I don't have a comment on the email.

As a general comment about donations ... I did the math... I created a 2nd calculator and the with a simulator and the 1st calculator and about 5 hrs testing and around 10,000 simulations came to the conclusion:

Yes, there is a small window in which donating is advantageous.  The window is very small.  Therefore, if you never donate you will do better than 95% of the people (many of which are good players) who do donate.

Aside:  The 95% above is me grandstanding. .. I have no idea what he percent is except I am confident it is high.

Aside 2:  The proof would be cumbersome to show in this forum.  Some of the proof is attached (see attachment).

Sword_4_hire

bananastew <bookcasedust@ hotmail.com> wrote:

--- In EuchreScience@ yahoogroups. com, "Perry Romanowski" <thejoggler@. ..> wrote:
>
> You guys keep saying 1 in 4 will score a loner.
Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number around. But thanks for easing the pain.
(more below)
I revisited the data (looks
> like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic here are
> the results
>
> 1. Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5% (1 in 2)
> 2. Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
> 3. Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
> 4. Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1 in every
> 7)
> 5. Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)
>
> If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of 9-7. Using
> data from euchre calculator.
>
> 1 in 7 times you lose immediately. Your chances of winning = 0%
> 1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8. Your chances of winning 72%
> 1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9. Your chances of winning 66%
> 1 in 14 times you score points and win.
>
> If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning are 66%.
>
> So, which is better? We find this by looking at the effect on your expected
> winning %
>
> Passing expectation = 0% * (15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%) + 100% *
> (7%) = 61.3%
> Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%
>
> According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives you a
> 61.3%chance of winning the game. Donating gives you a 66% chance of
> winning the
> game.
>
> Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate. Since I had some
> time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating versus
> passing for other scores.
>
> Bottom Line Strategy.
>
> Game winning expectations
> 9-7 donate = 66% : pass 61%. You should donate
> 9-6 donate = 72% : pass 67%. You should donate
> 9-5 donate = 81% : pass 82%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-4 donate = 86% : pass 87%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-3 donate = 90% : pass 91%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-2 donate = 94% : pass 94%. Not much difference at all.

Nice post perry!
So, roughly estimating, donating at 9-7 when a jack is up will cause a 5% improvement to a players win rate in those games?
I am trying to translate that benefit as it relates to a players overall win rate. Please comment, whether I am on tract or way off line with the following.
1.How often in 100 games played will the score be sitting at 9-7, opps deal? (guess it depends how much you can whip your opponents  )
1 in 10 games (10% of time) (a crapshoot guess)
2. How often can a player expect a J/up when the score sits at 9-7?
16.6%? - since there are 4 jacks in 24 cards @ the deal.
If the above is true, then doesn't a 5% advantage by donating translate to:
5% donate advantage X 16.6% chance you will have to donate X 10% the number of games that sit at @ 9-7 =
5% * 16.6% * 10% = .083 win record improvement.
eg:
record donating
- Win 1117 Lose 909
record if you don't donate
-Win 1116 Lose 910

This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword. Any thoughts?
>

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

• In the actual game that prompted the recent poll, I played trump then lead the ace of spades which he took with the 9 of trump and he held point. If I had
Message 7 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
In the actual game that prompted the recent poll, I played trump then lead the ace of spades which he took with the 9 of trump and he held point. If I had played the ace of spades on trick #3 we would've euchred them, but I had thought that if he had all 3( R, L, 9) he would've led R, so I erroniously beleived he had R and L only. It's 1 of those 'damned if you do', 'damned if you don't' situations, which led me to wonder: what is the best % play?. And was that smart playing on his part?

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
• Yeah, that s about right. You would be willing to lose 1 extra game out of every 1000 that you play!? Say it ain t so. It just goes to show you how close all
Message 8 of 26 , Mar 2, 2007
Yeah, that's about right.  You would be willing to lose 1 extra game out of every 1000 that you play!?  Say it ain't so.

It just goes to show you how close all of these subtle problems are that we talk about on ES.  We'd probably be better players if we spent more time playing and less time pondering minutia and plays that don't really effect things that much.

On 3/1/07, bananastew <bookcasedust@...> wrote:

--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski" <thejoggler@...> wrote:
>
> You guys keep saying 1 in 4 will score a loner.

Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number around. But thanks for easing the pain.

(more below)

I revisited the data (looks
> like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic here are
> the results
>
> 1. Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5% (1 in 2)
> 2. Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
> 3. Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
> 4. Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1 in every
> 7)
> 5. Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)
>
> If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of 9-7. Using
> data from euchre calculator.
>
> 1 in 7 times you lose immediately. Your chances of winning = 0%
> 1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8. Your chances of winning 72%
> 1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9. Your chances of winning 66%
> 1 in 14 times you score points and win.
>
> If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning are 66%.
>
> So, which is better? We find this by looking at the effect on your expected
> winning %
>
> Passing expectation = 0% * ( 15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%) + 100% *
> (7%) = 61.3%
> Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%
>
> According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives you a
> 61.3%chance of winning the game. Donating gives you a 66% chance of
> winning the
> game.
>
> Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate. Since I had some
> time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating versus
> passing for other scores.
>
> Bottom Line Strategy.
>
> Game winning expectations
> 9-7 donate = 66% : pass 61%. You should donate
> 9-6 donate = 72% : pass 67%. You should donate
> 9-5 donate = 81% : pass 82%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-4 donate = 86% : pass 87%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-3 donate = 90% : pass 91%. You should pass but about even.
> 9-2 donate = 94% : pass 94%. Not much difference at all.

Nice post perry!

So, roughly estimating, donating at 9-7 when a jack is up will cause a 5% improvement to a players win rate in those games?

I am trying to translate that benefit as it relates to a players overall win rate. Please comment, whether I am on tract or way off line with the following.

1.How often in 100 games played will the score be sitting at 9-7, opps deal? (guess it depends how much you can whip your opponents  )

1 in 10 games (10% of time) (a crapshoot guess)

2. How often can a player expect a J/up when the score sits at 9-7?

16.6%? - since there are 4 jacks in 24 cards @ the deal.

If the above is true, then doesn't a 5% advantage by donating translate to:

5% donate advantage X 16.6% chance you will have to donate X 10% the number of games that sit at @ 9-7 =

5% * 16.6% * 10% = .083 win record improvement.

eg:

record donating

- Win 1117 Lose 909

record if you don't donate

-Win 1116 Lose 910

This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword. Any thoughts?
>

--
http://justyouraveragejoggler.com
http://euchreuniverse.blogspot.com
• ... out of ... Hmm, it s actually about 1 game in 2026, by those numbers. But even that 1 game may not be there in your record if the luck cycle hasn t
Message 9 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007

--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski" <thejoggler@...> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's about right. You would be willing to lose 1 extra game out of
> every 1000 that you play!? Say it ain't so.

Hmm, it's actually about 1 game in 2026, by those numbers. But even that 1 game may not be there in your record if the luck cycle hasn't balanced itself at that time. With luck, a player might have turned it into 2 more wins for a short term.

And this difference between donating and not donating is only in effect if BOTH YOU and your PARTNER ALWAYS make the same play. Otherwise it's even less.

> It just goes to show you how close all of these subtle problems are that we
> talk about on ES. We'd probably be better players if we spent more time
> playing and less time pondering minutia and plays that don't really effect things that much.

It is said that at dog shows conversations amongst friendly owners often turn to the topic of 'sh#t.' I guess it could be said that sometimes what appears unimportant is really what is important.

> On 3/1/07, bananastew bookcasedust@... wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski" thejoggler@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You guys keep saying* 1 in 4* will score a loner.
> >
> > *Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number around.
> > But thanks for easing the pain.*
> >
> > *(more below)*
> >
> > I revisited the data (looks
> > > like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic here
> > are
> > > the results
> > >
> > > 1. Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5% (1 in 2)
> > > 2. Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
> > > 3. Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
> > > 4. Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1 in
> > every
> > > 7)
> > > 5. Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)
> > >
> > > If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of 9-7.
> > Using
> > > data from euchre calculator.
> > >
> > > 1 in 7 times you lose immediately. Your chances of winning = 0%
> > > 1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8. Your chances of winning 72%
> > > 1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9. Your chances of winning 66%
> > > 1 in 14 times you score points and win.
> > >
> > > If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning are
> > 66%.
> > >
> > > So, which is better? We find this by looking at the effect on your
> > expected
> > > winning %
> > >
> > > Passing expectation = 0% * (15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%) +
> > 100% *
> > > (7%) = 61.3%
> > > Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%
> > >
> > > According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives you a
> > > 61.3%chance of winning the game. Donating gives you a 66% chance of
> > > winning the
> > > game.
> > >
> > > Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate. Since I had
> > some
> > > time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating versus
> > > passing for other scores.
> > >
> > > Bottom Line Strategy.
> > >
> > > Game winning expectations
> > > 9-7 donate = 66% : pass 61%. You should donate
> > > 9-6 donate = 72% : pass 67%. You should donate
> > > 9-5 donate = 81% : pass 82%. You should pass but about even.
> > > 9-4 donate = 86% : pass 87%. You should pass but about even.
> > > 9-3 donate = 90% : pass 91%. You should pass but about even.
> > > 9-2 donate = 94% : pass 94%. Not much difference at all.
> > >
> > *Nice post perry!*
> >
> > *So, roughly estimating, donating at 9-7 when a jack is up will cause a 5%
> > improvement to a players win rate in those games?*
> >
> > *I am trying to translate that benefit as it relates to a players overall
> > win rate. Please comment, whether I am on tract or way off line with the
> > following.*
> > *
> >
> > 1.How often in 100 games played will the score be sitting at 9-7, opps
> > deal? (guess it depends how much you can whip your opponents [image: :)] )
> >
> > 1 in 10 games (10% of time) (a crapshoot guess)
> > *
> >
> > *2. How often can a player expect a J/up when the score sits at 9-7?*
> >
> > *16.6%? - since there are 4 jacks in 24 cards @ the deal.*
> >
> > *If the above is true, then doesn't a 5% advantage by donating translate
> > to:*
> >
> > *5% donate advantage X 16.6% chance you will have to donate X 10% the
> > number of games that sit at @ 9-7 =*
> >
> > *5% * 16.6% * 10% = .083 win record improvement.*
> >
> > *eg: *
> >
> > *record donating *
> >
> > *- Win 1117 Lose 909*
> >
> > *record if you don't donate*
> >
> > *-Win 1116 Lose 910*
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword. Any
> > thoughts?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://justyouraveragejoggler.com
> http://euchreuniverse.blogspot.com
>

• ... My apology, Perry. 1 game in 1000 is a more accurate depiction. (.083) But even that 1 game may not be there in your record if the luck cycle hasn t
Message 10 of 26 , Mar 3, 2007

--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "bananastew" <bookcasedust@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski"
> thejoggler@ wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, that's about right. You would be willing to lose 1 extra game
> out of
> > every 1000 that you play!? Say it ain't so.
>
>
> Hmm, it's actually about 1 game in 2026, by those numbers.

My apology, Perry. 1 game in 1000 is a more accurate depiction. (.083)

But even that 1 game may not be there in your record if the luck cycle hasn't balanced itself at that time. With luck, a player might have turned it into 2 more wins for a short term.

> And this difference between donating and not donating is only in effect
> if BOTH YOU and your PARTNER ALWAYS make the same play. Otherwise it's
> even less.
>
>
> > It just goes to show you how close all of these subtle problems are
> that we
> > talk about on ES. We'd probably be better players if we spent more
> time
> > playing and less time pondering minutia and plays that don't really
> effect things that much.
>
>
> It is said that at dog shows conversations amongst friendly owners often
> turn to the topic of 'sh#t.' I guess it could be said that sometimes
> what appears unimportant is really what is important. [:)]
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/1/07, bananastew bookcasedust@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Romanowski" thejoggler@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You guys keep saying* 1 in 4* will score a loner.
> > >
> > > *Actually, It was the only I who wrecklessly bantered that number
> around.
> > > But thanks for easing the pain.*
> > >
> > > *(more below)*
> > >
> > > I revisited the data (looks
> > > > like I divided when I shouldn't have) and according to the graphic
> here
> > > are
> > > > the results
> > > >
> > > > 1. Opponents score 1 point = 505 times or 50.5% (1 in 2)
> > > > 2. Opponents score 2 points march = 235 times or 23.5% (1 in 4)
> > > > 3. Opponents score 2 points euchre = 36 times or 3.6%
> > > > 4. Opponents score 4 points loner = 154 times or 15.4% or (about 1
> in
> > > every
> > > > 7)
> > > > 5. Your team scores points about 7% of the time (1 in 14)
> > > >
> > > > If you don't donate (RHO is dealer with a J up) at the score of
> 9-7.
> > > Using
> > > > data from euchre calculator.
> > > >
> > > > 1 in 7 times you lose immediately. Your chances of winning = 0%
> > > > 1 in 2 times the score becomes 9-8. Your chances of winning 72%
> > > > 1 in 4 times the score becomes 9-9. Your chances of winning 66%
> > > > 1 in 14 times you score points and win.
> > > >
> > > > If you donate, the score becomes 9-9 and your chances of winning
> are
> > > 66%.
> > > >
> > > > So, which is better? We find this by looking at the effect on your
> > > expected
> > > > winning %
> > > >
> > > > Passing expectation = 0% * (15.4%) + 72% * (50.5%) + 66% * (27.1%)
> +
> > > 100% *
> > > > (7%) = 61.3%
> > > > Donating expectation = 0%*(0%) + 66% (100%) = 66%
> > > >
> > > > According to these figures, passing at 9-7 with a Jack up gives
> you a
> > > > 61.3%chance of winning the game. Donating gives you a 66% chance
> of
> > > > winning the
> > > > game.
> > > >
> > > > Based on this data, looks like at 9-7, you should donate. Since I
> > > some
> > > > time sitting in this airport, here are the results of donating
> versus
> > > > passing for other scores.
> > > >
> > > > Bottom Line Strategy.
> > > >
> > > > Game winning expectations
> > > > 9-7 donate = 66% : pass 61%. You should donate
> > > > 9-6 donate = 72% : pass 67%. You should donate
> > > > 9-5 donate = 81% : pass 82%. You should pass but about even.
> > > > 9-4 donate = 86% : pass 87%. You should pass but about even.
> > > > 9-3 donate = 90% : pass 91%. You should pass but about even.
> > > > 9-2 donate = 94% : pass 94%. Not much difference at all.
> > > >
> > > *Nice post perry!*
> > >
> > > *So, roughly estimating, donating at 9-7 when a jack is up will
> cause a 5%
> > > improvement to a players win rate in those games?*
> > >
> > > *I am trying to translate that benefit as it relates to a players
> overall
> > > win rate. Please comment, whether I am on tract or way off line with
> the
> > > following.*
> > > *
> > >
> > > 1.How often in 100 games played will the score be sitting at 9-7,
> opps
> > > deal? (guess it depends how much you can whip your opponents [image:
> :)] )
> > >
> > > 1 in 10 games (10% of time) (a crapshoot guess)
> > > *
> > >
> > > *2. How often can a player expect a J/up when the score sits at
> 9-7?*
> > >
> > > *16.6%? - since there are 4 jacks in 24 cards @ the deal.*
> > >
> > > *If the above is true, then doesn't a 5% advantage by donating
> translate
> > > to:*
> > >
> > > *5% donate advantage X 16.6% chance you will have to donate X 10%
> the
> > > number of games that sit at @ 9-7 =*
> > >
> > > *5% * 16.6% * 10% = .083 win record improvement.*
> > >
> > > *eg: *
> > >
> > > *record donating *
> > >
> > > *- Win 1117 Lose 909*
> > >
> > > *record if you don't donate*
> > >
> > > *-Win 1116 Lose 910*
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a bit different than you have suggested before Sword. Any
> > > thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://justyouraveragejoggler.com
> > http://euchreuniverse.blogspot.com
> >
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.