Wonging

How many of you here actually back count or wong in at tables during your BJ sessions? Do most "serious" players ONLY play during positive TC's or do 'most' play during all counts? The casino I play at is fairly small and back counting isn't very possible - "forcing" me to play during negative counts - yet the count is negative most of the time in the game anyway...so it's hard to play only during positive counts especially with the casino environment I've got here.

As always, personal replies and opinions to this will be appreciated! =)

I usually sit down at the table with other players, and pretend I am busy drinking my beer/rummaging my pockets/learning the game/talking/whatever until the count goes > +1, then I join in. When count gets to -2, I make an artistic sigh of resignation/swear at bad luck and go for a piss/for a beer/for a doughnut/to stretch the legs/whatever, just leave the table and get out of sight. Then park down at another table and repeat the cycle.

Obviously the more tables there are and the more players, the easier it is to pull this off.

Do most "serious" players ONLY play during positive TC's or do 'most' play during all counts?

Given the choice you only play positive TC's. Play-all is fine for pitch games but it is extremely tough to beat a 6 or 8-decker with this style of play.

I play all only when heads up at a table I wish to keep. The smaller you bet the more table hops you can get away with. When Wonging, I don't wait for a positive ev count. I watch the first hand and come in on any positive RC and leave at some negative point. If I plan a very short session I will leave on any negative RC if I see another freshly shuffled shoe ready to go. If I plan a longer session I will wait till it gets closer to -2TC. I know that's lots of negative hands, but I think I can only get away with 2 or 3 table changes per session. If you are not attracting attention then play as efficiently as possible. Come in on a +ev count. When the count gets neutral start looking around the casino, while still playing at that table, for another opportunity coming up. YOu want to minimize search time. If the RC starts to go negative leave whether you have a new table ready or not.

In very mild negative ev situations you still have a net +ev for the remainder of the shoe, in most cases, that makes it better than doing nothing. It is not good to hop in and out of the same shoe. Find your next table before you ever leave this one.

No mid shoe entry seems to be spreading, especially at higher limit tables. At lower limit tables it is often difficult to find sufficient empty spots for good Wonging. When you run into this you can start fresh shoes and Wong out at some target negative count or when you see a fresh shuffle with table positions open getting ready to start.

I backcount at every opportunity, especially shoe games. Why place a single bet at -EV if you don't have to?

Ok - makes sense.

...but when wonging, is your count based upon just WHAT YOU'VE SEEN in that shoe game so far, or is it based upon your count from the beginning of the shoe? I spose it could be both.

Because of mid-shoe entry, your count could be significantly OFF, which is why I'm making this questionable post and also why I'm weary of wonging when I hadn't started from the true beginning of the game.

I appreciate the posts already so far.

-PP =)

...but when wonging, is your count based upon just WHAT YOU'VE SEEN in that shoe game so far, or is it based upon your count from the beginning of the shoe? I spose it could be both.

It's always what you've seen so far. If there are x decks played out and you've just arrived at the table, you are playing by all decks unseen. You have deprived yourself of potential information, but from what you know, you are betting correctly.

Dave

I consider having a seat an important element of working conditions. In the casinos I play, I get away with a big spread, so playing all costs me relatively little. Very often I play heads up where wonging is not possible anyway. This is actually the most profitable playing situation. With other players at the table, I just wong out for toilet breaks.

Francis Salmon

You said: "I get away with a big spread, so playing all costs me relatively little."

I don't recall the exact break even point. But I believe a 4-1 spread with backcounting, playing only in positive counts is about the same as a 100-1 spread play all (same max bet, different min bet). I ran some sims on this about six months ago. These sims proved quite conclusively that there is no such thing as "virtual wonging" via a large spread.

The cost of putting ANYTHING down in negative counts is huge, and should be avoided.

--Mayor

Obviously playing at negative counts will not be as effective as wonging but how much of a loss are we talking here? you say that 1-100 is the same as wonging, do you have any results of how much you lose at say 1-25 spread over wonging, i think this would be very informational.

Would you please elaborate on why you feel "in a very mild negative ev situation you still have a + ev for the remaindor of the shoe"? By definition it seems to me the remaindor of the shoe has a small surplus of low cards---hence a negative ev. Thanks!

...it means that the big cards have been coming out early. Were you playing, or waiting to wong in? If you weren't playing you missed the best part of the shoe. If immediate negative counts are happening regularly then you should be playing at the start of each new shoe and wonging out on negative counts.

Also, the faster the count is rising at the start the higher the probability that a disproportionately large number of high cards are hiding behind the cut card (when considering the deck/shoe as a whole). This is a deadly situation for the ploppy flat better, but who cares, by definition we're all counters here.

scruft

I mean, given your spread, what must the count be for the shoe in its entirety to have a negative expectation.

Let us suppose you are playing a 6D shoe with one deck cut off. Let us say that you are one deck into this shoe and have a running count of zero. Yes, you have negative ev on the next hand out, of course, but the ev for the shoe is still the average expectation for a 5D shoe with 1 deck cut at this point. You can simulate and find what your average win per shoe would be given your spread in a 5 deck game with one cut. Suppose another deck goes by, now 4 are remaining, and the running count is zero. You now effectively have a 4D shoe with one cut, a damn good game. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this equates to a 6D shoe with 3 decks cut, simply because 3 decks are out of play. In a game with poor penetration you don't get to count the cards that are out of play behind the cut card. In this case you have seen two of the three decks that are out of play. When you get to the point that there are only 2 decks left, one in front of the cut card and one behind, with an RC of zero, you have exactly the same game as a freshly shuffled 2 deck game with 50% penetration. This is not a great game, but better than walking around doing nothing, and actually a more favorable game than a freshly shuffled 6D shoe that is about to start. It took lots of arguments and sims to prove this to Don a few years ago. If you have seen all the cards dealt from a given shoe and have a running count of zero, at any point in the shoe with N decks remaining and Y decks cut you have exactly the same game as a freshly shuffled shoe that has only N decks with Y cut in the first place.

When you walk away from a table you are not making anything until you find a new place to play. You should do this searching while you are at your current table. Depart either when you have a negative RC and see another table shuffled and ready to go, or when the RC has gotten very negative.

If you are a flat bet Wonger then you will have negative ev for the remainder of the shoe at any point that you don't have the edge, since the expected true count after N rounds is always the same as it is on the current round. This is one reason that it may be good to have some spread, even a small one, for Wonging. Even a 1-4 spread generally has positive ev if a -1 TC departure is incorporated. He needn't immediately Wong out of a positive running count that has mild negative ev.

is mostly time and not the negative ev suffered. The negative ev suffered on a bet 1/20 the size of your max doesn't amount to much. But the amount of time you waste sitting through four or five more decks when the count has gone really south is huge compared to the guy who has Wonged out and found a new place to play. When computing win per round the guy playing all has all these dead rounds over which to divide his net win.

Playing all can sometimes be substantially better. Suppose the pen is decent and I manage to get a $25 table where I can play heads up against a fast dealer. All other tables in the casino are crowded $5 tables. If I leave this table for another, the floor will probably change the sign on my quarter table back to $5, as it was I that requested the table limit increase. I'll make more playing all at this table than I will fighting the crowds. And at some casinos the table hopper actually gets more heat than the big spreader.

Best strategy, I believe, when Wonging a pit is to use about a 1:4 to 1:6 spread and get a good idea how much of each shoe has been dealt as you scan the tables. When you pick your spot, keep the eyes moving. Look for the dealer that is shuffling. If there is only one spot available at the shuffling dealer's table then get to it if you don't have an edge currently. Otherwise, stay at the current table till the last minute as any positive RC in the current shoe is more favorable than starting the freshly shuffled shoe in almost all cases. Main two factors are avoiding deep negative counts and minimizing search time.

you have to figure that both guys have the same max bet whether you call it 6 units, 25 units, or 100 units. The Wonger will get to make his max bet much more frequently if he doesn't waste time sitting through negative shoes. It doesn't really matter if the spread is 1 to a million or even infinite. Wonging out of negatives is far more important than Wonging in on +ev. The second issue of BJ Attack showed that the backcounter who stays at one shoe, coming in and out at will, effectively an infinite spread, wins less than the rabbit. Why? Because he is wasting time.

DD', Thanks for your reminder about the point going on here.

Time is the main issue, not the pennies lost on negative counts. It is a matter of how soon you will find a positive count that really changes the EV in favor of the wonger. BJA is an excellent resource on this topic.

--Mayor

From my reading I understand that you need a spread of at least 1-12 for a play-all approach and an even greater spread is desirable. When speaking of wonging in the thread above, 1-6 seems adequate. Is this because you no longer have a 1 unit bet out on 0/- counts? If you only play pos. counts your first bet at +1T will be 2 units, therefore a 1-6 spread, which is in reality the same spread you had before, without the 1 unit bet. Am I understanding this correctly? This is the one area I have had trouble digesting. Many thanxs for any patient responses.

If immediate negative counts are happening regularly then you should be playing at the start of each new shoe.

Unless we are Shuffle tracking we have absolutely no reason to believe that a new shoe will start with high cards even if this has been the case a number of times before.

Also, the faster the count is rising at the start the higher the probability that a disproportionately large number of high cards are hiding behind the cut card.

You cannot say a count is "rising", it rather "has risen" because it's only a result of your observation. After having risen it can be expected to decrease and that's why your remark is futile.
If it's true that there will probably be a large proportion of tens behind the cut card this is also the case for all the cards before the cut card!

Francis Salmon

I agree with most things you're saying but are you sure that a Wonger or more precisely a rabbit will get more action than a stationary counter?
It's a well known fact that the really juicy situations will occur mainly at the end of a shoe. A rabbit who leaves at mid shoe with the slightest negative count will rarely witness that.
Another point is that staying at the same table will allow much more efficient shuffle tracking with the resulting additional action.
Last but not least, I think that after the great success of Schlesinger's book, many pit critters will be on the lookout for "rabbits".

Francis Salmon

If you sit out fairly often, in effect your minimum bet is zero. An infinite spread!

You'll still want your max bet to be as large as your bankroll, and your tolerance for risk, can support. That's where you make your money.

ETF