What is the optimal bettings for Wonging in at TC+2?

Dear BJ Masters and Experts,

I am currently playing an 8 decks game with 75%penetration, S17, DAS, D9,10,11only, Split up to 3 hands, and BJ pays 3:2. I use Hi/Lo.

My bankroll is $6000, and I wonging in at TC=+2 and looking for a new table if TC<1.5, with a betting system like this:

<+2-- 0 (backcounting)
+2 -- 1 hand $25 (I play on $25 tables)
+3 -- 1 hand $30 or 2 hands $25
+4 -- 1 hand $45 or 2 hands $30 or 3 hands $25
>+5-- 1 hand $60 or 2 hands $40 or 3 hands $30

There are nineteen $25 BJ tables in my local casino with 2 to 5 boxes empty most of the time(I am always playing 3 hands at +4 above).

In average, how much I could earn every hour using the above system?

And what is the optimal betting system I should use if I am seeking for a ROR of <10%?

Thank you very much

Tim

Does the casino have a $5 table? You would spread $5-50, or wong in at +1 with $10.

I used the following spread.

+1=$10
+2=$15
+3=$25
+4=$50 or 2x$35.

Your 6K is not close to handle a $25 8D game. Unless you wonged in at +3, but you would do a lot of watching.

Regards,

Forensic

A wonger who only plays in advantage situations doesn't need any spread to beat the game.
Sure he won't make much money like that and I think he will miss some games if he leaves the table at TC < 1.5 but that's another story.

Francis Salmon

Even if one Wongs in @ +2, I would not depart the table as soon as it went under +2, or if it had any + running count at all. One good reason for a spread, though, is that you can play neutral hands with a smaller bet rather than standing behind the table jumping in and out, which is rather obvious. A small spread also greatly reduces the long run index vs coming in with a flat bet for all +ev hands. The Opie & Gretta games in Griffin's Theory of BJ demonstrate that point (without specifically talking about Wonging, but the concept of flat bets vs a spread in general). But there is very little gain in SCORE in Wonging once the spread gets beyond 1:4. You gain a little going up to 1:6. But after that you make very little more no matter how big your spread. This can be demonstrated on BJRM pretty easily. You reach a point of diminishing returns quickly. The time savings from table departure @ negative counts is what accounts for the lion's share of the superiority of Wonging over playall.

The minimum tables are $10 in my local casino and they are crowded by cows (I call gamblers as cows - providing milks to our boss everyday) all the time.

So I think I can get more benefits if I purely wonging at $25 tables, there are 3 to 5 boxes empty to open most of the time.

My question is, am I incurring a much larger ROR if I wonging in one hand $25 at TC=+2 (since I cannot bet the optimum of $15)?

Thank you very much

Tim

Hi Tim, you're probably a good card counter but I feel compelled to warn you about your strategy before you possibly go broke. The problem is you're actually wonging out at - 1.5 TC, for practical purposes we'll say -2 TC. This greatly effects the question you ask of what is the optimal bet of wonging in at +2 TC. You're trying a difficult task of beating an 8 decker with a mere 1-3 spread.

Even when you go to 3 spots at $30 a hand at +6 TC your total action on the table is under a 1-4 spread in respect to your minimum bet of $25. You're future results may be devasting if you keep this up. You're risk of ruin is flirting with 100%.

I constantly wong in between +1 and +2 TC's and leave the table between -2 to -3 TC's, but I would not DARE figure my risk of ruin on the fact that I "Wong in at 1+2 ". The safest way to call the shots on this one is to figure your ROR under the conditions that you "Wong out" at -2, NOT wong in at +2. Better to be safe than sorry.

Here is the the results of what you ask for.

Bankroll-$6000
Risk of Ruin-10%
Optimal bet spread 1-20
Minimum bet-$5
Maximum bet-$80

Bet ramp
-0=$5
+1=$10
+2+$20
+3=$40
+4>$80

EV=$9 per hundred rounds.

It's better than going broke!
Good luck and I hope I saved you a few bucks.

TG

Tim doesn't play any game when TC< +2, he is simply backcounting.
Apparently he does have the patience for this approach.
I agree with DD that this might be too obvious but who cares at this bet level.

Francis Salmon

This is a strange style here, in at +2 out at -1.5. If you are playing with a limited bankroll I think you should both come in sooner and leave sooner. At the lower limit tables you could come in with $10 on any positive running count and leave at -1. On the quarter tables you could come in at +1 and leave on any negative running count. If you are slightly overbetting at the quarter tables you certainly don't want to play many negative ev hands.

In reality, you should make your exit point kind of subjective. While you leave absolutely if the count hits some point, what you should do is start your eyes moving around the other tables as soon as the count begins to turn negative. Keep playing your current table if it hasn't hit your absolute exit but get your chips together ready to move. As soon as you see a dealer shuffling and getting ready to go, make the move over there. What you need to do is minimize both your search time and the time you spend at negative ev shoes. You want to stay in action as much as possible at positive and neutral counts (+0 to +1).

"Tim doesn't play any game when TC< +2, he is simply backcounting."

This is incorrect. Tim only "enters" a game at +2 and CONTINUES to place bets when the count is negative then wongs out. He is placing a $25 bet when wonging in and not reducing his bets in the negative range. Furthermore, his mere bet spread of 1-3 against an 8 deck shoe is not enough to recover for losses. Keeping this strategy up will have devastating results.

Did you read his clarification to your comment?..TC<-1.5?
It's a whole different ballgame,no?

Tim is backcounting the table until TC < -1.5 but he is not betting unless TC is +2 or higher!

Francis Salmon

Tim did not specify that he only places bets at +2 TC'c or better. My point is if we enter a shoe at plus 2 TC's and leave at some determined negative count, we MUST consider this variable in our risk of ruin or face the consequences.
It's a serious variable to whoever it may concern under any condition.

Perhaps you did not read carefully the relevant portion of Tim's post. Read it now :

"My bankroll is $6000, and I [am] wonging in at TC=+2 and looking for a new table if TC<-1.5, with a betting system like this:

<+2-- 0 (backcounting) [ie NOT betting anything]
+2 -- 1 hand $25 (I play on $25 tables)
+3 -- 1 hand $30 or 2 hands $25
+4 -- 1 hand $45 or 2 hands $30 or 3 hands $25
>+5-- 1 hand $60 or 2 hands $40 or 3 hands $30 "

Hope it's clear now. He starts betting at +2 or higher and just watches the rest of the time, but leaves the table if the count goes lower than -1.5. Tim initially wrote 1.5 but he subsequently corrected it to -1.5, even though it was obvious what he meant. (Your point about the risk inherent in betting negative counts is well taken, nonetheless.)

I am so sorry for the confusion.

I wonging in at +2, and I will take back my bet and do backcounting again if the count is <+1.3. In my entire life, I have never played a hand on $25 tables where I am at disadvantage (when TC=0, I have a -0.53% edge, I am not a cow (gambler), why I should play the game in disadvantage? even when TC=+1, I still have a -0.03% edge, that means I am still losing if I play, so I will not play the game at TC=+1 as well.

But all the helps (from Francis, DD', TG) are important to me. From TG's words, I have learnt that if I play -ve edge game, my risk of ruin is close to 100%, so unless I can afford for a 1-20 spread, otherwise I will never play a hand with -ve edge in my entire life.