? on wonging

I use wong halves .

is there a minimum number of cards or decks , that i must see ,

before i wong in or out, or is it stickly on count ?

thanks in advance

to not play any negative ev hands then the minimum number of cards you must see in a shoe is about six or seven. You need enough to create a positive ev count. I suppose five cards is sufficient if they are all 5s. Just remember that you divide the running count by the number of unseen cards, not the number of undealt cards.

The second part, about Wong outs, again depends upon your objectives.The optimal Wong out pattern depends on a variety of factors, including the number of shoes available for Wonging, whether any are currently available, etc. You have to look at the time investment of leaving this shoe and seeking out another and determine what is worth while. Obviously, if there is another shoe shuffled and ready to go at the very next table then you'll depart with virtually an negative running count. Best is to keep your eyes moving during neutral counts, trying to locate a new shoe that will be starting shortly. This way you are ready to Wong out if you have a negative running count when the new shoe is ready to go. The point is to minimize the amount of time that you are wandering around the casino not playing. Of course, you want some absolute exit point where you will leave the shoe whether there is something available or not. This may be something close to -1 TC early in the shoe and something like -1.5TC later in the shoe, for example.

Some people do not have the objective of optimal Wonging but want the highest ev for the bankroll. (they waste more time and have a lower overall win rate/hr but a smaller risk) If this is your objective then you will Wong out if you don't have the advantage, period. This is how you should play when your bankroll is very small, or your session stake is down to the last few bets.

DD' wrote: This may be something close to -1 TC early in the shoe and something like -1.5TC later in the shoe, for example.

I think Don Schlesinger advises to wong out late in the shoe at even slightly positive counts, if another table is readily available. His point is that the count is unlikely to build up too high towards the end, and you won't have time to benefit ebough from the positive TC. Personally I stay through negative counts and flat bet until I lose a hand or two. Why not stay if you are winning? I decided to wong out once early in the shoe, and kept winning until we were getting close to the end, losing only one hand at a time in a long sequence of wins. I decided to stay for the next shuffle and made good money on that negative shoe. I also lost big at positive shoes.

you would do best to ignore. I seriously doubt that it will apply any further back than one hand left in the shoe. You should really forget you ever heard that. Never Wong out of a positive running count.

For any number of cards behind the cut card, there is an optimal number in front of the cut card that maximizes favorability. Suppose, for example, 39 cards were being cut, 3/4 of a deck. What is the optimal number of decks to have in front of the cut card? Obviously a single deck game with 3/4 of a deck cut is not very good. Perhaps a deck and a quarter in front would be optimal. Perhaps just a half deck. It is hard to figure exactly what the best point is, but we know for damn sure that five decks in front is not optimal.

You have three sections of a shoe from the point you start to deal, with a certain number of cards cut off from the back. First you have the section of increasing DI. During this section, for a running count of zero, the shoe becomes increasingly favorable as a whole. As you progress through the shoe it becomes increasingly favorable until you reach the optimal point I refer to above. This is the optimal number of cards you would start every shoe with if you had a choice. After you pass this optimal point you go through an area of diminishing DI. You continue to go through the area of diminishing DI and eventually reach the point of fresh shoe parity. At the point of fresh shoe parity the overall DI is exactly the same as a freshly shuffled full shoe. So if you had a running count of zero at this point, and there was a freshly shuffled shoe one table over, your choice between staying where you are and moving would be almost equal. In a shoe game, the point of fresh shoe parity is very close to the shuffle point. It is well beyond the half way point of the shoe. To favor the fresh shoe over the partially dealt shoe at any point prior to the point of fresh shoe parity the RC must be negative. Any positive RC is better than a fresh shoe starting at zero.

Once you pass this point of fresh shoe parity that I referred to, where the RC that produces a DI the same as a fresh shoe is zero, the optimal departure point begins to rise and does go higher than TC=0. But it never goes far above zero and it is always very near the end. If you truly tried to estimate this your error would be greater than the gain. And this is still only when you move to a fresh shuffle with zero time expenditure.

In other words, forget it. Leaving positive running counts near the end of the shoe will result in you missing betting opportunities. Live by the rule and not by the exception. As the shoe progresses and you have fewer cards remaining you need more incentive to leave as the count will be more volatile and your betting opportunities more frequent. Suppose one deck is cut off of six. Would you rather continuously start shoes with four decks already dealt and a running count of +1, or freshly shuffled six deck shoes with a running count of zero? Its a no brainer.

Personally I stay through negative counts and flat bet until I lose a hand or two.

What you said makes no sense. If someone applies any such strategy it should be for cover purposes only.

Why not stay if you are winning?

Because the correlation between wins and losses is too weak of an indicator to derive any benifit from it. In fact, the opposite of what you suggest, while also not advisable, would actually make more sense. Your edge on the next hand is likely to be higher after a loss than after a win.

I decided to wong out once early in the shoe, and kept winning until we were getting close to the end, losing only one hand at a time in a long sequence of wins. I decided to stay for the next shuffle and made good money on that negative shoe. I also lost big at positive shoes.

If you are going to think this way, why count cards? You know that you are wrong. What happened doesn't matter. Over the long run you can only make money by betting when you have the edge. You know that.

I tend to agree with you, and I personally have yet to leave a table with a positive running count, even at the end of the shoe, (heck I would stay on a negative shoe in the end if I'm winning at that shoe)but what about if you are standing and watching? Per BlackJack Attack, 2nd Edition, page 307 (note that Don Sclesinger does not make a difference between wonging out while you're watching or wonging out while you're playing, which I think is a major difference). I'll quote (hope it's Ok with Don):
" ...what's the sense of a small positive count if it comes so deep in the shoe that, by the time we hope to further exploit it, the shuffle-card appears? .....for the 4.5/6 game, it actually reaches and surpasses a TC of +1 between the 4 and the 4.5 deck levels, as it does between the 4.5 and the 5 deck levels of the 5/6 game. "Although we have the edge, we leave anyway".....The inclusion of a lag changes the departure values.....when it no longer is possible to simply get up and immediately find another opportunity, we need to be more patient with our current situation...."
So you see, it's counter-intuitive as Don says, and he admits his is still a work in progress, but he lists charts of the departure level in different scenarios, and the departure level can be at TC's over +1 at the end of the shoe.
For this reason I think wonging is an art as much as science, trying to make a decision to stay and play or watch, watching the other tables, and making your decision. For me it's too much work. I start a shoe, and then wong out if I lose when the count approaches TC-1. In AC, more and more tables (example Taj Mahal $25 min) do not allow mid-shoe entry. DD games in many places do not allow it either. So I adopt the style the "White rabbit", and establishes myslef as a superstitious hopper.

I play at the same casino every time for 3 days on average. If I wong out after 5 wins, and go the next table, it will be very suspicious. I wait for a loss then wong out. Sometimes I had to wait several hands with low bets, and made money in the process. If the dealer gets BJ, it's good reason for me to leave. If I push or lose on 20, it's good reason for me to leave. Sometimes the count improves during that process. I usually wong out after one loss at TC<-2, or after two losses when it's around TC-2. At $100 tables (only when i know a certain dealer has good penetration, that's the advantage of knowing the casino) I wong out when I want, because the dealer knows I am only a green chip player trying a couple of hands with the big guys. I just say I made my money, or "I had my fix" when I lose.
But let's say I've been winning 5 hands in a row on a $10 table, and the last hand is about to be shuffled at TC-2: if I cannot use my bathroom trick (because I've used it too many times), then I'll play the last god-damn hand, rather than sitting out. I try to reserve my sit outs in the middle of a shoe at a neutral count , after a couple of losses, to see which way it's going. If it gets positive, I play, if it goes negative I leave. I have been playing at the same casino about eight times this year, and severla times last year. Everyone knows me, and I never gotten any heat as a green chip player.
I am just following the advice in BJ Attack, and I think it makes sense. I often hear comments on people who leave the table after winning a few hands: "he must know something we don't". It definitley looks suspicious to everyone.

tend to agree with you, and I personally have yet to leave a table with a positive running count, even at the end of the shoe, (heck I would stay on a negative shoe in the end if I'm winning at that shoe)but what about if you are standing and watching?

Makes no difference. You only want to move to a fresh shuffle if the freshly shuffled deck presents a better opportunity than where you currently are.

Per BlackJack Attack, 2nd Edition, page 307 (note that Don Sclesinger does not make a difference between wonging out while you're watching or wonging out while you're playing, which I think is a major difference). I'll quote (hope it's Ok with Don):
" ...what's the sense of a small positive count if it comes so deep in the shoe that, by the time we hope to further exploit it, the shuffle-card appears?

Don and I were debating opposite sides while most of the research on this was being done. I guess we both emerged without changing our opinions much. The late Chris Cummings did most of the important work and found this late shoe phenomenon that Don is placing lots of stock in. I find it to be nothing more than a curiosity that does not really change our strategy.

...what's the sense of a small positive count if it comes so deep in the shoe that, by the time we hope to further exploit it, the shuffle-card appears?

Well, mainly because you have spent considerable time getting to this point in the shoe and it could be worthwhile even if you only get to make one or two positive expectation bets. The situation he is talking about is almost unexploitable. You may perhaps have a running count of +1 with only one round left before the shuffle. Of course you leave as there is no chance that you'll have a betting opportunity. But suppose you have a running count of +1 with two rounds left before the shuffle? Are you really going to go to a fresh shoe rather than see this last hand? I can't see the logic in walking away now to save 30 or 40 seconds when you could well have the opportunity to make a bet.

Here is what his logic is based on: you take the average ev * action for the full range of counts that could appear on the next round. If this is smaller than your average ev per round for a six deck shoe as a whole, then you are better off not playing this last round and playing the first round of a new shoe instead. We just have too many variables here. For one, if there are lots of players at the table then there is the potential for the count to jump significantly in one round. Heads up, maybe not. What ever pennies you might save are just not worth confusing yourself with this. I really think that in this case Don is guilty of making a rule out of the exception.