Not sure if this should go in The Game Room or here, but mods, feel free to relocate as necessary.
I like playing Hearts on my PC to while away the hours waiting for pages to load on the SDMB My win rate is nothing special - about 37% at last check - but I was discussing this with my wife.
My contention is that there is an optimal strategy to follow, based on counting cards, and that the computer players generated by the Hearts program (who I have named Lefty, Vito, and Doc) are following that strategy. However, she pointed out that if that were the case, and I was also following the strategy, then I should expect to win no more than 25% of the time, assuming a random deal. Therefore, she says, there cannot be an optimal strategy.
What sayeth the Dope? Is the Hearts program on my PC programmed to lose? This does not sound like Bill Gates thinking to me.
No hard info here, just some experience from when I used to play (I stopped about 4 years ago).
I think the program’s strategy is (or at least was) far below optimal. In particular, its defense against running (“shooting the moon”) is weak. I would take every reasonable opportunity to do so, and would win at least 60% of games.
[Should be in TGR, IMO.]
I’ve never done a study, but it seems to me that the strategy of the three players is often different, as if they were assigned random skill levels at the beginning of the game. That wouldn’t be very hard to do.
Just as in bridge, an optimal strategy includes counting - at least hearts and spades. Back when I was in college and played against people I always counted. An optimal strategy would go beyond that, including at least some guesses on distribution based on what players lead.
My biggest complaint about the hearts that comes with XP is that it doesn’t show the tricks taken, so it is easy missing someone trying to shoot until it is too late.
My win rate is nothing special - about 37% at last check - but I was discussing this with my wife.