Help with Womg Halves

Can anyone explain to me why the indeces on the latest Wong 'Professional Blackjack' book for Wong Halves sometimes differ from those provided on Casino Verite?

Examples include:

13v2: PB 0, CV, -1
13v3: PB -1, CV -2
12v6: PB 0, CV -1
44v6: PB -3, CV -6

There are plenty more.

Also, the book states that for ENHC the 11vs10 double index is 3 (on multi-decks). I know a few players, however, who state that the figure is much higher (more like 7) - on the grounds that the Wong Halves system does not distinguish between aces and Xs, and that therefore more precaution on doubling should be taken.

Any thoughts/help with either of these two topics would be greatly appreciated.

"Can anyone explain to me why the indices on the latest Wong 'Professional Blackjack' book for Wong Halves sometimes differ from those provided on Casino Verite?

"Examples include:

"13v2: PB 0, CV, -1
13v3: PB -1, CV -2
12v6: PB 0, CV -1
44v6: PB -3, CV -6

"There are plenty more."

Wong explains at the top of p. 254. He changed his methodology for generating indices (to the great consternation of everyone, I might add) and decided to truncate instead of flooring. The result was that all the negative indices are now one higher than what they were in previous editions. Casino Verite floors, hence the discrepancies.

"Also, the book states that for ENHC the 11vs10 double index is 3 (on multi-decks). I know a few players, however, who state that the figure is much higher (more like 7) - on the grounds that the Wong Halves system does not distinguish between aces and Xs, and that therefore more precaution on doubling should be taken."

Your friends might be quoting a risk-averse index, which will always be higher than the e.v.-maximizing one. The number in PBJ is not a risk-averse index.

"Any thoughts/help with either of these two topics would be greatly appreciated."

Done! :-)

Don

Thanks for your very helpful response Don. So just to clarify, if I'm using the truncated indices then even if I have a true count of (say) -1/12 then I call it '-1' when making my decisions about basic strategy deviations. Put another way, with a true count of -1/12 I would hit a 12v4 (truncated index = 0) even though the true count is closer to 0 than to -1.

Also, any thoughts on why the splitting 4s (with DAS) indices differ so much between PBJ and CV:

44v6 PB = -3, CV = -6
44v5 PB = -1, CV = -3
44v4 PB = 3, CV = 1

I believe Wong also does sampling with replacement when he generates numbers which is faster but may yield slightly different results so a cumulative effect may be in place.

I think you misunderstand the terms truncate and floor. Imagine it in decimal terms. -1/12 is -0.083. When you truncate this number, you eliminate the digits after the decimal place, making the count 0. If you floor, you round down to the next lowest integer, in this case -1.

And thanks for clarifying it for me.

My question still stands about the 44s...

What was Wong's logic behind using truncating instead of flooring? Does is not create some inefficiencies around the True Count = 0 mark? Where indexes between 0 and -1 are rounded up to zero and indexes between 0 and 1 are rounded down to 0. For instance, wouldn't Wong's method have you doubling down a 9v2 even with a true count of (say) -0.8? Is that the right thing to do?

And what's wrong with good old rounding?!

Thanks in advance for everyones' help!

"What was Wong's logic behind using truncating instead of flooring?"

To confuse the maximum number of readers possible! :-) Seriously, it's HIS board -- maybe he'll answer you.

"Does is not create some inefficiencies around the True Count = 0 mark?"

It makes the zero "bin" twice as wide as all the others.

"Where indexes between 0 and -1 are rounded up to zero and indexes between 0 and 1 are rounded down to 0."

Correct.

"For instance, wouldn't Wong's method have you doubling down a 9v2 even with a true count of (say) -0.8?"

Yes.

"Is that the right thing to do?"

If he generated his indices by truncating, and if he found that the zero bin was correct for doubling, then, yes, it's the right thing to do.

"And what's wrong with good old rounding?!"

Nothing at all.

Don

more money do you estimate you will win in your lifetime with this knowledge?

Right? Even so, it's good to know that you're doing things the right way.

I just hate it when I surrender my 16 vs. 10 and the next card is a 4 or 5. And then the dealer busts. The long term is what matters and I would imagine that correct surrenders help you in the long run, but the short term is often painful.

That just happened to me while at third base. Twice. Nobody notices if other players surrender but when 3rd base surrenders the 15 or 16 in positive counts against the dealer 10, then dealer turns over a 6 and deals a 4 or 5, there's plenty of blame. First time was ignorable to their whining, but it happened again in the next shoe in DD. They mumbled and commiserated so it allowed the opportunity for me to warn the next player that was joining the game that I'm a surrenderer. Funny how nobody leaves to another table. I helped defuse the problem in a negative count to ask how they would like me to play a particular hand. They helped me get to 17 but I lost to a dealer 20 again which allowed me the opportunity to suggest that their methods didn't work either. I was told that I did the right thing though which made us all feel better. One clever fellow watching our game from behind informed me that I was still paying the casino $ when I surrender and you certainly can't argue that!