Yesterday's results

*** This hand was suggested by Ras2829
0-0*  ?
Total votes: 159

Play this scenario out against a robot designed by Hal Mueller for

4443 votes

Joined: April 2008

Wednesday 3:15 AM
Balance approach. early. Three lead. dec
1190 votes

Joined: March 2016

Wednesday 4:01 AM
First hand as pone is usually an offensive strategy so going with 5-7. Hand starts with 6 points and has a maximum of 14 points. (35 cuts increase hand to the 14 points).
2945 votes

Joined: April 2011

Wednesday 4:09 AM
2107 votes

Joined: June 2013

Wednesday 4:42 AM
I see the "treble nickel" option, and I do like to discard an X card + middle card combo as Pone, but I can't justify only starting with two points.

3-2 combo may score 15/2, and also mislead my opponent into thinking I'm holding a heart flush.
3868 votes

Joined: March 2008

Wednesday 5:39 AM
Hedge. I refuse to give the dealer a 5 to hold 6 points.
Andy (muesli64)
1508 votes

Joined: August 2009

Wednesday 5:49 AM
I prefer 7 -10. Least helpful throw. Then hope or pray for a cut - face card or a double run.
295 votes

Joined: February 2009

Wednesday 5:51 AM
I like keeping the 2-2-3 combo together. Every cut helps this hand except the 7 or 9. 7-10 toss is a top 10 defensive toss. Usually like being aggressive as pone on first deal, but did not like giving up dangerous 5-7 while holding 6. Will lead the 2h and peg when I can.
605 votes

Joined: January 2008

Wednesday 6:36 AM
Doh! Every cut but a 9 improves this hold. I will be more offensive the next time I get this hand...that is to say, I will likely hold 223X.
1199 votes

Joined: March 2009

Wednesday 7:26 AM
If I could hold 2235 and give the opponent A5 or 59, or possibly 25 or 58, that might be ok. Not as inclined to throw 57 to hold 6. I think playing first street is one of the trickier propositions in playing cribbage.
310 votes

Joined: January 2018

Wednesday 9:12 AM
It's not my nature to just hope for points, a good cut, so 2,2,3,5. But to hold the 6 points 2,2,3,10 means giving away a 5 which will mitigate my points. So, 2,3,5,X seems the good balance.
392 votes

Joined: December 2017

Wednesday 9:42 AM
I seriously considered tossing 7-T but didn't like all the cuts for 2-4 points.

Too bad about the cut. I'd shoot for balanced pegging and lead the 2H.
78 votes

Joined: December 2018

Wednesday 3:16 PM
I have read in one of the training books that as non-dealer first hand get every point you can, and in this case, that would mean surrendering 75 to keep 6 points....I could not and will not give up 5s to the pone unless i have a hand with 20-24 potential, not the case with this one, so even though this is a lousy cut, for me, its better than starting way in the hole because you tossed major point cards to the pone...........
3344 votes

Joined: November 2008

Wednesday 9:17 PM
Had hoped that HalscribCLX would weigh in so you could see the numbers. Submitted this puzzle as had queried from this position on HalscribCLX, REX, the Cribbage Prof, and have played these "triple nickel hands with good results for a few years now.This is such a complex game, so many nuances, and so many windows of learning. My coments to follow are based on these assumptions: opponent has the crib; choice of strategy is offense; and combined value is determined by adding potential pegs of non-dealer, potential hand score, minus potential crib score of opponent. Since RAS has often espoused the value ot triple nickel hands, will attempt to show the differences that might exist and the reasons for same There are five of these triple nickel hands (not counting 5-5-5). The ones I will dicuss are: 2-2-3-5 as in today’s puzzle, 2-3-3-5, 2-3-5-5, A-A-4-5, and A-4-4-5. Let’s take this hand of today, 2-2-3-5. As many have noticed, only a 9 spot does not add value. The combined value will be greater when holding the “triple-nickel” if uyou can discard 10-K, 9-K, 9-Q, 7-K, 7-Q, or 7-10. Why not 6-K? Holding 2-2-5-6 with the 3-K discard is superior for two reasons: (1) the 2-2-5-6 starts with four points; (2) the potential crib value of the 3-X is reduced substantially by the presence of the 2-2 in hand. Why not the 7-J? Pulling the Jack from n/d hand reduces the potential of the hand by about .25 and adds potential value to the crib of .25, a net loss of .5. With the 2-3-3-5,the only card that does not add value is the 6 spot. Discards of 10-K, 9-K, 9-Q, and 6-K have low scoring potential to opponent crib. That will shift the combined value in favor of holding the two points with the triple nickel. Not so with the 7-X combination in any form. What is the difference in these two situaitons? In the latter, holding the 3-3-5-7 with the 2-X discard produces the greater potential combined value. The reduced potential of the 2-X to opponent crib (note 3-3 in hand) causes holding 3-3-5-7 to attain the greater combined value. No 7-X discards should be considered if holding 2-3-3-5. Now along comes a common choice 2-3-5-5. This triple nickel combination works with discards of 10-K, 9-K, 9-Q, 6-K, or 8-K. The 2-3-5-5 does not incease in value with the cut of a six or nine.. As indicated above, this also does not work with a 7-X discard for the reasons indicated earlier.The A-A-4-5 (deuce or 8 add no value) will have greater cmbined value when able to discard 10-K, 7 with any X-pointer not to include the Jack. Why no 8-K? Hold the A-A-5-8, discard the 4-X. Do you see the greater combined value emerging? Discards of 9-K or 9-Q should not be made from this hand as well. Why is that? It’s the same effect as cases outlined above. The 4 with the X-pointer to opponent crib is more likely to be low-scoring since there are two Aces in the hand. That potential for a smaller opponent crib score and the retention of six points with A-A-5-9 tips the scale in the other direction. Then the A-4-4-5 enters the picture. Cut an 8 for no increase in hand value. This triple nickel combination will give the greater combined value with a bunch of discards: 7-X not to include the Jack for reasons earlier indicated,10-K, 9-K, 9-Q, and 8-K. This is just one piece in a 1,000,000,000 piece puzzle. Do you see why I often state: “No lifetime is long enough to learn this game!”
3818 votes

Joined: October 2007

Thursday 2:06 AM
I think its between 2-3-5-10 (2-7), 2-2-5-10 (3-7) and 2-2-3-5 (7-10):

2-3-5-10: 4pts - 5pts (Schell: 4.97) = -1pt

2-2-5-10: 4pts - 5pts (Schell: 5.01) = -1pt

2-2-3-5: 2pts - 4¼pts (Schell: 4.31) = -2¼pts


2-3-5-10: Improves with AAAA, 22, 333, 4444, 555, 777, 8888 + 15xXs = 38 cuts = 38/46 = 82.6% up to 7/8/10pts with AAAA, 22, 333, 4444, 555 + 15xXs = 31 cuts.

2-2-5-10: Improves with AAAA, 22, 333, 555, 6666, 8888 + 15xXs = 35 cuts = 35/46 = 76.1% up to 8pts with 22, 333, 555, 8888, 101010 = 15 cuts.

2-2-3-5: Improves with AAAA, 22, 333, 4444, 555, 6666, 777, 8888 + 15xXs = 42 cuts = 42/46 = 91.3% up to 6/8/10pts with AAAA, 22, 333, 4444, 555, 8888 + 15xXs = 35 cuts.


As First Pone we'll be playing Offense and trying to reac the positional hole of 18pts.


2-2-3-5 I think will pg best of these three hands.


2-3-5-10 is better than 2-2-5-10 but 2-2-3-5 has more cuts for improvement, more cuts for 6-10pts and should peg better. So although it starts with 1¼pts less than 2-3-5-10 I'll throw 7-10 as 35 cuts that increase from 2pts to 6-10pts is a tremendous improvement.
3580 votes

Joined: February 2008

Thursday 2:18 AM
At 0-0* playing an Offense strategy for the pegging the dynamic expected averages and Win/Loss %s are:

Offense___Hand_Pegs__Crib___Total___W9 %____W10 %

Offense______L9 %____L10 %

2-2-3-5 is best for expected averages by 0.49pt and although 2-2-3-10 is best for Win %s it is vey high for Loss %s while 2-2-3-5 is lowest. So I'll select 7-10 to discard.

After thw 9 cut I'll lead a 2 and play Offense:

Lead_______Our Pegging Pts.