Absolutely not. When the score is 9-9, you have to be riskier in calling it for the simple reason that there is no tomorrow - this is the last hand of the game. The emphasis on 9-9 isn't on the statistical odds - as you note, those don't change - but on the strategy you employ in making trump. The team that makes trump has a significant advantage; either by improving the dealer's hand or by matching it to what's being held in a hand. At other points in the game, you can afford to be more conservative (and should be) because you can wait for the next deal. When it's 9-9, you can't.
This is also why when the other team has 9, you have to get more aggressive in making trump - you have to control the suit you're playing in or you're just begging to let the other team call it and take the last 3 tricks they need to win the game.
Remember - the advantage of dealing isn't simply that the dealer improves his hand; it's also that the opponents can only choose that suit the first time around (including giving your team a trump) and they can't play in that suit should you pass it, meaning they have to risk it if it's their best suit and it's their best chance to take 3.
The other thing to remember is that when a J is showing and that team is down 6-9 or 7-9, and you can't stop the loner, the chances of them calling it and making it are, I would surmise, more like 25% than the 10% you're using for your analysis. That's because they are almost certainly going alone and only have to worry about the third chair stopping them. Making a loner in this situation one in every four calls, even when it's thin, sounds about right. 1 in 10 strikes me as way too few.
Or, look at it like this. Tony LaRussa once walked Barry Bonds with the bases loaded. Even though Bonds only gets a hit 30% of the time, he wasn't going to give him the chance to beat him. LaRussa gave up the sure run to prevent 4. You want to do the same thing - give up that second point, which they may get anyway (an no one disputes they're getting one for sure), to prevent them from getting all 4, even though the odds are against them getting it.
-----Original Message-----
From: bimbert84 [mailto:bimbert84@...]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 07:16
To: EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [EuchreScience] Re: Donating a euchre by ordering the R from 1st chair
Hi Jed,
> I will say this - I appreciate your reluctance to simply accept a
> certain course of play just because others assert you should
> without question.
Thank you.
> Yes, I think it's approximately between 7-3 and 8-2 *when it's 9-9*
> because the dealer has the advantage of improving his hand in a
> situation where whomever takes 3 tricks wins the game.
You emphasized "9-9" as if that somehow changes the odds that you've
got a better hand. It doesn't. If you have a strategy that you feel
ensures (or greatly improves) your odds of scoring a point when the
score is 9-9, then you ought to be employing that strategy ALL THE
TIME. If you're not doing this, then maybe you're selling yourself
short in the middlegame. 9-9 does not warrant becoming riskier, but
rather the opposite: you have to be more cautious, because any misstep
will cost you the game. Earlier in the game, it's worth risking a
euchre to make your point. At 9-9, you don't have that luxury.
> I guess this does assume a STD game, since I'm assuming the deal
> can't be passed.
Off the cuff, I'm not sure how that factors in, but I almost always
play non-STD games.
> 6-4 would only be one cut above an even 5-5, and that's
> certainly not the odds.
Maybe not. Personally, I'd guess 2-to-1, which amounts to 6.67 out of
10.
> Dealing 9-9 is a special situation and not comparable to any other
> score. Imagine playing a one-deal game. How much advantage do
> you think the teaming dealing has?
An advantage, sure, but I don't see the dealer winning 4 out of every
5 games. Do you really think one extra card will improve your odds
from 50-50 to 80-20?!?
> The dealing team can't pass a marginal hand to the first chair or
> they risk losing control of what trump will be.
What's worse, losing control of what trump will be, or ensuring it's
something you don't want?
> You seem to keep treating the loner/no loner hand as something that
> exists without a relationship to further play, but as I've
> explained, they're taking one for sure, and possibly two, and may
> wind up themselves dealing 9-9 for the win.
You're right. For the sake of argument, let's say the odds of making
a point on your opps deal is 3-to-1. In order for my proposed
strategy of "chancing the loner" to pay off, we'll need to lose the
point on the next (our) deal, which is 3-to-1, and win on the
following (their) deal, which is also 3-to-1, making 9-to-1. That's
exactly what I claimed are the odds of them getting a 4-point loner in
the first place.
So, IF the odds are 3-to-1 that a team will score on its own deal,
then it's a wash. IF the odds are thinner than 3-to-1 (my claim),
it's better to chance the loner. And IF the odds are better than
3-to-1 (your claim), it's better to donate the euchre.
Question is, what are the odds you score on your own deal?
> I replied to your 50 hands analysis about the adjustments I think
> you need to make before drawing conclusions. To that, I would
> had that 50 hands isn't statistically significant, so while it's
> interesting to see how things appear to trend, it's statistically
> fallacious to draw conclusions from such a small sample. I know
> no one has the time to play a few hundred hands out, but we need
> to recognize the limitations of a small sample, as well as the
> inherent bias built in based on who's playing them.
I feel 50 hands is statistically significant. Maybe not for picking
nits, but for broad generalities, it's certainly enough. As
reinforcement, the first 25 and the second 25 were almost identical.
Your point about the bias is a good one, of course.
I think this really boils down to the likelihood of winning a point on
your own deal. Maybe I'll run that in the lab and see what I come up
with.
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.
Offline 
Send Email