Main Forum | Post Reply
Calc_Guy Posting Seems To Be Locked Out
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
It's now:   Oct 13, 8:57am EST
Calc_Guy Posting Seems To Be Locked Out
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 29 Jun 2004 2:04am     


This is a new link to continue the, so called, productive discussion on a possible hand.

Thank you John for your vote of confidence and you also Calc_ for the alluded 'smart players' out there.

Although I don't agree with Menk throwing the 9 I do agree with his logic. Every player has a different style and its obvious that there is no one style that's better than the rest. It doesn't take too terribly long to figure out your opponents style of play and that is the real key to winning in GC. Okay, the statistics say and logic dictates, but knowledge of your opponent is supreme and will ultimately give you the win.

I use misdirection to confuse the 'students of the game'. I won't mention names but I have to smile when my learned opponents state, 'that just doesn't make sense,' or 'why did you do that?' Oh yes, these statements are always made after I've won.

Oops, I've given away one of my very scared tactics but beware, I don't use it in a pattern. I've used it on you one or two times and its worked.

Consider this scenario and then re-think your conclussions. If everyone played a perfect game of gin then every move can be accurately predicted. If no-one played a perfect game of gin then no move can be predicted. Finally, rules are guidelines and most be adopted to varying situations.

Now tell us the right card to discard.

I contend there are more than one right answers.

Never a chore ....always a challenge

Wow, that felt good

tsk, tsk, tsk
Posted by Menkman74 (VIP) 29 Jun 2004 9:59am     


When you say top players Calc, are you referring to three outta the 'top' six that are all at either .500 or below as of 110pm? Are those the top rated players you are talking about?

Oh, and congrats on becoming a money player! Now arent you only not playing me for free, but even when I set up a non-rated table for a measly $10, you decided not to as well. Too bad. Even if you only have $5, ask and I wouldve changed it. I wouldve looked forward to the games.

And another thing on your last reply. I dont know why you have to turn the sarcasm along with the cockiness up. You asked for an opinion on what a player would do in that situation and I responded. Seems what you really wanted was everyone to agree with your decision. I cant imagine a man of your intelligence also thinking that youre actually doing me a favor by average to sub average gin players not playing me for free, meaningless games. C'mon now. Youre smarter than that.

Always a Pleasure, Never a Chore...

Menk

Mea Culpa
Posted by calc_guy (VIP) 29 Jun 2004 7:38pm     


It dawned on me last night that maybe Menk put too much faith in my statement (from the original problem) 'You've also deduced that he is holding a low combination.' In Fraed's text, he wrote 'surmise.' You 'surmise from previous play that he has a combination in the lower area.' 'Deduced' is stronger than 'surmise.' And Fraed went on to say 'he may already have this third meld which may possibly be deuces.'

Now, if you know for sure opponent had a combination in the lower area, then he can't have a third meld and the 9S can't give him gin. It would be rare, in real play, to know for sure opponent can not have 2s, 4s, 7s, 8s, 10s, Js, Qs ... before we even get to the sequences, but it was fair for Menk to take my statement of the problem as gospel. Even then, I don't think the 9S would be the best possible discard, but at least, in this case, it becomes a reasonable idea. It's debatable.

Ed, there are times in gin, when there can be more than one right answer. These are covered in game theory by 'payoff matrixes' and saddle points. Simple games can be described where a player can do no better than to vary his strategy randomly with a given frequency between 2, 3, or more different strategies. Most two player games of chance have some element of this. Gin has this feature less than, say, poker, because the play of the hand is more important in gin than tricking your opponent. You can't 'trick' the cards into jumping around in the deck to make melds for you!

I don't believe varying your strategy (aka presenting a moving target) has anything at all to do with Fraed's problem hand. The later in the hand you go, the more well defined the correct play becomes. In game theory parlance, toward the end of the hand, defensive strategy predominates. It's not that the best strategy will alway win, it's simply that it will win most often, no matter what the opponent does to counter.

Fraed does present an alternative strategy: breaking up the Kings! But not as a way to stay loose and keep the opponent guessing. He was only suggesting that in case a 100% safe 5 could not be found among the three 5s.

Where varying your strategy comes into play in gin rummy is in the order you choose to discard your odd cards, at the beginning of the hand, and also sometimes in the choice of whether to go for gin or a quick knock.

Here's an example: you hold 3C 3D 3H AS 4H 8S 8D 10H JH QH KH . On the first play of the hand I'd automatically throw one of the eights and wait for any of 16 cards to knock immediately. Throwing the 4H gives you two chances for gin, but only 5 additional chances to knock (don't forget to count the 3S and the 9H!).

But let's say opponent has taken one card -- a King for three Kings -- and we're on our fourth turn. 24 cards left in the stock. Nothing below a ten has been discarded, so the 4H or either 8 are all equally wild. We have no right, at this point, to assume a knock with 10 will be 100% safe. We could be undercut! The play is such a close call here, that I would do one or the other about 50% of the time. I might even think 'Now, WHAT is my opponent expcting me to do?' And then do the opposite, just to keep him guessing.

But be very careful in trying to apply this 'logic' to every discard of a gin hand. 95% of the time there is one correct play, and the fact that we can't agree on the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist! There are no loopholes in the theory of probability.

calc_guy

*
Posted by Rampage11 (VIP) 29 Jun 2004 9:58pm     


thats what i wanted to say ed ty , but it didnt come out as good as u said it , and i also play the way u play, may b thats y u cream me every time !! cuz u make me switch up my game,,,,u made my point and ur point as well...i guess i do play for stragy , b cuz if im holding 10 jack queen same suit and 3 fives and a 9 8 6 of diamonds and a ace of suit , im gonna wait for the 7 of diamonds, but like ed said same for me . and calc make ur 5 , 10 play me , ill even lower my self to a unrated game if ..... well u no the rating thing.... for a ticket game.. RAMP the wanna b champ

Strategy 101
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 30 Jun 2004 12:30am     


Calc_, I agree fully that mis-direction in the scenario you presented would, not could, prove disastrous. I was only making a statement about general play and alternative strategies.

Ironically, I consider Calc_, Menk and Ramp, not necessarily in that order, to be great players and I happen to enjoy playing with all of you. But don't take what Ramp had to say lightly. Knowing the caliber of player he is I decided very early in our match to 'throw him a curve-ball' and it happened to work.

I'll never say I'm right all the time, the numbers prove different, but I have been incredibly successful against higher rated players by using mis-direction. Call it bait or anything you want but it does, as Ramp stated, tend to change the play of your opponent.

Its ironic, I agree with all of you to some extent because all of us are right, to some extent. As it turned out, I think, the 2C was the right card to throw since the next discard was the 3 needed for gin. Oops, did I say something wrong?

My objection to the 'Calc_ Style' is simple and its not a criticism. Gin is for my relaxation and enjoyment. For me, tix make the matches a bit more interesting. While I don't play on GC for 'social status', I do enjoy the other players. I don't know if was Menk or Think that asked me not to chat during the match. It was a valid request and I gladly honored it. The operatives in these last few statements are 'my' and 'me'.

Others set their own objectives and that's fine. Calc_ and Ramp want to be 'ranked #1'. Menk wants to be the 'best player' based of win/loss.

There is plenty of room for all of us and GC is the right place to be.

P.S. I'm going to let a private conversation out to the world. The Calc_Guy almost joined my 8PM tourney. At that critical and decisive moment, Dies...... challenged him to a match and he was obliged to honor that request. Can it be we are starting to move the Calc_ to the 'other side of the court'? Only time will tell.


Ed ...
Posted by calc_guy (VIP) 30 Jun 2004 6:21am     


You're a great guy, but I don't understand what you are saying about the 2C/3C. I think you need to reread the question. The 2C was not the right card to throw. The 3C did not give anyone gin. The whole problem was what to discard on one turn. I did not show what happened after the discard. Nobody knows what happened after the discard. It doesn't matter. We don't base the rightness or wrongness of a play on what actually happens afterward. We base it on the theory of probability and the principles of game theory.

Only one thing is certain. The 2C might have given the opponent gin. The 3C could not give anyone gin.

calc_guy

Hard to believe
Posted by JOHN726 (VIP) 30 Jun 2004 3:10pm     


It's hard forme to believe that there could be any player who doesn't agree with calcs logic..If the other player does not take his discard, the worst that happens is you break up your hand and go to the end. Yes Ed it's true that everyone has their own 'style' , but those who play that ''style'' shouldn''t wonder why they win less

kk....
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 30 Jun 2004 4:55pm     


Unless I misread your opening question and subsequent follow ups, which I may have done, I believe you stated the next discard was a 3. That would give you yet another chance to gin. I don't and never did doubt your logic because it is logical. The only point I wanted to make is that there are alternate choices. They may not be according to Hoyle, the odds may not be as good, but they are certainly acceptable. Look what you posted, the pro and Menk made moves breaking up a run. They have played the ultimate defensive move. I tend to agree with the break-up of the run rather than throwing the three although both are valid.

I do have a problem with 'playing a perfect game'. I must admit that I admire your zeal and the energy you put into each game. That is a formula for success. On the other hand, I prefer to play looser. I tend to enjoy the matches much more than even a hint of card-counting. It's funny you mention the exact cards thrown in a match. I understand that if you got the example from a book you would know every card thrown. Do I hear you saying you have the capacity to remember every card thrown and picked up? Its not beyond belief since there are only 42 cards, other than yours, to consider.

A few months ago I noticed certain players, whom I've played with numerous times, taking much more time than usual. I suspected some recording because they seemed to throw just the right cards to prevent me from winning. This was a real frustrating thing but I guess I was just a bit paranoid.

John, I never disagreed with Calc_'s logic. I just presented another possibility. It's a good thing to discuss these simulations and I enjoy doing just that. Is this the reason I play so poorly??? Could be.


Better than perfect!
Posted by calc_guy (VIP) 30 Jun 2004 7:32pm     


Ed said: 'I do have a problem with 'playing a perfect game'.'

My father was a musician. When I was taking piano lessons, as a child, I would sometimes play a new song for him and proclaim 'Father, I played it perfectly!' Dad would shake his head in disappointment. 'Son, son, perfect ... isn't good enough!'

calc_guy

Bravisimo....
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 30 Jun 2004 9:34pm     


Calc_Guy Sr. is a good man and I must say we have something in common. What is a perfect game? Is it when every move you make is by the books or is it how many times you win?

This is a true story so bear with me:

I used to frequent Atlantic City and I played the 'Perfect' Game of Blackjack. My play was so true to Basic Strategy that I was asked to leave three Casinos. The last one that requested my departure puzzled me a bit and I asked one of the senior VPs, 'Why are you asking me to leave when I am losing?' His reply was, 'You play a perfect game of BJ and its only a matter of time before you beat us.'

I smiled and moved on to the 4th casino and then stopped playing in 1990.

Perfection is wonderful if it works. Over time, as the professionals told me, a perfect player will win and that's a fact. This is what, I suppose, Calc_Guy is doing. If he continues he will probably be the highest rated player. But in that quest, look at how many great players you're missing out on.

I just finished a match with another very highly rated player. He asked me to join him but I had to delay to run my 8PM tourney. When I finished he was still in the MAIN ROOM and I asked if he would like to 'dance'. Before he could answer I asked him to set and if he setup 'unrated' I wouldn't mind. His reply shows what a class act he is:

'I would even consider it....if you play you pay....I won't play un-rated...'

This match became a bit more enjoyable because I think we both enjoyed the match and each others company and that is what GC is all about. I won't embarass this opponent but he will read this posting....Thanks my dear friend


I've played a little blackjack myself ...
Posted by calc_guy (VIP) 1 Jul 2004 1:56am     


... and one thing I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is NEVER believe anything the pit tells ya. Perfect basic strategy is not enough to win at blackjack. You need more than that.

As far as me playing a perfect game -- NONSENSE! I made three real rookie mistakes today. Three that I caught. Probably many more. It's a lot harder playing excellent gin rummy than perfect BJ.

calc_guy

'PURE BULL'
Posted by (VIP) 1 Jul 2004 1:38pm     


I'm sorry but you both are completely wrong when either one of you speak of Black Jack. A casino would NEVER ask you not to play because you’re playing PERFECT BJ. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WOULD STILL WIN!
By playing perfect Black Jack (which I doubt you really can do over a 4 or 5 hour period), all you will be doing is bringing the TRUE ODDS into the game. The true odds in BJ are 51.5 (House) & 48.5 (you). WHY?
#1 - YOU GO FIRST!
#2 - YOU GO FIRST!
#3 - YOU GO FIRST!
I am proud to say that I am a consistent winner at BJ in Vegas over the years. WHY?
#1 - Money Management!
This means that I have developed sense of when the cards are running HOT for the House & when the cards are running HOT for me. When I see the indicators, I capitalize on it.
#2 - I use the ONLY advantage a player has over the House. I can regulate what & when I bet & I can quit when I want - They Can't!
When I am in Vegas (avg. 4 days), I play about 18 sessions of BJ per visit. The results are almost always the same. House wins there predetermined amount in about 12 sessions.
I break even (after 4 hours playing) in 3 or 4 sessions.
I win only about 2 or 3 sessions.
I am a minimum Green Check ($25) Player.
I have a good-sized profit per visit and about 60 visits in the last 20 years.
ED (My Friend) & Calc_Guy, let's go back to discussing Gin Rummy - TY & GL


Trustme.....
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 1 Jul 2004 7:16pm     


Thanks for your reply. The only reason I mentioned the 'perfect game' was for an example. Although this FORUM is not about BJ I must tell you that casinos have their own way of telling you to leave.

Okay, the three Casino's were, in the proper chronological order, Trump Plaza, Sands and Caesar's.

The hosts at Trump actually told me they would not give me any comps. I win there overall.

Sands just kept on mixing my tables and wouldn't let me play high stakes alone or only.

Caesar's was the icing on the cake. I had guests for the weekend and they decided to cut my comps in front of them. I balked and they paid but only after I met with one of their senior VPs. He was the one that told me, 'I can't forbid you from playing here, but I can't make it very unenjoyable for you.'

These are facts, not fantasy.

BTW, I never said Perfect Play alone will make you a winner at BJ but the combination of perfect play, money managment and some high/low analysis was quite successful for me.

I guess Vegas is closer to where you live.

Thanks for the reply.

Calc_
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 1 Jul 2004 7:20pm     


You restored my faith in my perception. Reading your gin stories I was certain you were also a student of Black Jack. In BJ, its easy to see if a player used Basic Strategy all the time. In gin its a bit more difficult.

You were the one that used the word 'perfect'. My use of the same word was intended to mean 'student of the game'. I respect your approach and anyone devoted enough to study the logistics of gin should attain accliam in that game.

I applaud you.

BTW, Basic Strategy is only one partr of winner BJ.



Main Forum | Post Reply
Bookmark and Share    ...and Earn Free Tickets!
Play gin-rummy tournaments online

At GameColony.com you can play games of skill only -- play for free or play for $prizes!. According to the statutes of most states in the United States, gambling is defined as: "risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance". (Also see No Gambling!).   The skill (as opposed to chance) is predominant in games of skill. Playing games of skill for $prizes, therefore, has nothing to do with gambling as it is not a contest of chance -- the more skillful player will win far more often. The chance element of a 'gamble' is either insignificant or missing. When players compete in tournaments or games of skill for $prizes -- it is "competitive entertainment" rather then "gambling". The more skilled winner will always win more matches, tournaments and $prizes.
Affiliate Program

Copyright © 2024

Site map