Best part about Wonging out!

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#1
I'm sitting at a table full of miserable ploppies, constantly complaining about how I split my 3's against a dealers 7's, or hit soft 18 against a dealer 10, or how I'm surrendering too much and ruining the flow of the cards, the usual.

The shoe goes to strongly negative count, and of course I Wong out for a bathroom break, whatever.

I come back and the whole table is complaining about how the shoe went cold when I left, indirectly (or not so indirectly) blaming me :) Of course I'm really laughing on the inside.

This happens constantly, almost never do I hear the shoe was good in a situation like this. Pure awesomeness.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#2

Next time the shoe is strongly positive remind the ploppies that
leaving the table is something that they should (immediately) try.


:laugh:
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#3
It's interesting because while how you play has no effect on the cards they'll receive, when you wong out at negative counts their advantage does go much further south, and hence you essentially are ruining the flow for others when you wong out.
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#4
Funny reply Flash, it often seems you leave in a bad count and come back to find the table empty.

If you could convince one to leave on a high count when he came back you could tell him how it really worked and the shoe got better when he left.
 

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#5
the other day I was sitting down and wonged out because the count dropped. I told the dealer I was out for a few hands. The dealer butchered everyone on the table, and since the ploppies saw me wonging out, they all as a table decided to stop playing. :laugh:

on a different shoe, ploppies were asking why I wasnt playing (wonging in) I said I wanted to see if it was a good shoe or not. So one ploppy remarked, oh! so you're just gonna sit there and watch us get cleaned out and then when the shoe starts getting good, you're just gonna jump in?!?! you're either in all the way or you're out! don't think you can just butt in when the going gets good!!!

ploppies, so close to the truth, yet so far away.
 

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#6
FLASH1296 said:

Next time the shoe is strongly positive remind the ploppies that
leaving the table is something that they should (immediately) try.


:laugh:
Don't try to do this too much, especially against nice people, guess I have something of a conscience :)

But probably lot of ways you can do this: "Oh man, the shoes gone cold, maybe one of us should not play to change the flow." Theoretically should be losing more often then not when a count is rising anyway.

Or subtly suggest people not split, stand, double down on a high count. Not that dumb ploppies take advice anyway.
 

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#7
Jack_Black said:
the other day I was sitting down and wonged out because the count dropped. I told the dealer I was out for a few hands. The dealer butchered everyone on the table, and since the ploppies saw me wonging out, they all as a table decided to stop playing. :laugh:

on a different shoe, ploppies were asking why I wasnt playing (wonging in) I said I wanted to see if it was a good shoe or not. So one ploppy remarked, oh! so you're just gonna sit there and watch us get cleaned out and then when the shoe starts getting good, you're just gonna jump in?!?! you're either in all the way or you're out! don't think you can just butt in when the going gets good!!!

ploppies, so close to the truth, yet so far away.
Yeah sometimes they're smarter than they seem. One lady who I had a friendly enough rapport with, after 2nd time I wonged out, was genuinely angry and emotional, telling me that me leaving the table made the shoe go bad :)

Also, I suddenly took insurance on a high count after never taking it, dealer had blackjack. Couple of the players ask "How did I know???" Pfffffttt. This is fun too.

The ploppies are definitely more astute than most of the casino personnel. Gotta give them credit.
 

BrianCP

Well-Known Member
#8
Well, as the count is rising, the shoe should appear cold to the average player (moron? Nah, just average player). Stating it out loud before the high cards start (hopefully) getting dealt might get them to move to a different table as you "Take one for the team." I read somewhere on hear that the less players when the count is high, the better. The reverse is true for low counts. Mainly this has to due with taking more cards when low and less when high.
 
#9
assume_R said:
It's interesting because while how you play has no effect on the cards they'll receive, when you wong out at negative counts their advantage does go much further south, and hence you essentially are ruining the flow for others when you wong out.
Just lengthening the flow, I think. Their advantage for that bad count is going to be the same whether you're at the table or not, they're just going to have to eat it for a few more hands. And being ploppies stand on hands too much, bad counts hurt them more than they do us.
 

MangoJ

Well-Known Member
#10
I have a question about high/low true count situations and there evolution. I'm not a counter, maybe the answer is obvious to you.

As I understand the true count represents the composition of the remaining shoe (at least for a balanced count), to the degree if this composition is favorable or not.
Given the true count at the end of a round, what is the expectation of the true count at the end of the next round ? Is the true count more likely to rise, more likely to fall ?

From my understanding, the expected true count for all next rounds should be the current true count. My argument would be that from a given shoe composition, drawing any number of random cards should not alter the shoe composition on average, and hence the true count should be the same.

Or the same question asked in a different context: If you are forced to temporarily leave the table at a TC of +3 (Maybe your wife called you downstairs, or you had to run to the bath room...). Should one return to the same table again, although one has missed two rounds of dealing and could not see the cards from those two rounds dealt (but no shuffle occured during leave) ?. Should one estimate the true count to be +3 again, and calculate the running count from that true count, then proceed with adjusting running count by seen cards ?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then I think I got the argument why one wants an empty table at positive counts. Not because the true count will be affected by the presence of other players. It would be because you are likely to see more hands at an expected positive count.
 
Last edited:

BrianCP

Well-Known Member
#11
With anything but a TC of 0, the count is likely to trend in the opposite direction. The count wants to be 0, the count is always likely to trend toward 0. With a positive count, expect it go down. With a negative count, expect it to go up. A positive going down means high cards being dealt (why we are betting big) and a negative going up means low cards being dealt (why we are betting min).

For practical purposes though, you can't assume the count has changed at all while you were out of the room. Unseen cards are uncounted cards. Think of the backs of the cards as electrons. Until you observe the face, it could be any of the non observed cards.

This means while the count might have actually gone down to -5 while you were gone (you missed all the good cards) you should still bet and play as if it were +3 because you can't tell if it went up down or stayed the same. Any guessing is far more likely to hurt you than to help you.

Sure, in that extreme example you'll play the rest of the shoe being off by a true count of 8, but usually that won't be the case.
 

MangoJ

Well-Known Member
#12
Hm, the running count trends towards 0 (because it's balanced). That I agree. But this doesn't mean that the true count also trends towards 0, because the number of decks left trends towards 0 too (you divide both for the true count !).
 

BrianCP

Well-Known Member
#13
MangoJ said:
Hm, the running count trends towards 0 (because it's balanced). That I agree. But this doesn't mean that the true count also trends towards 0, because the number of decks left trends towards 0 too (you divide both for the true count !).
Yeah, if the running count is trending toward 0, the TC is trending the same way at a slower rate.
 

Shoofly

Well-Known Member
#14
BrianCP said:
For practical purposes though, you can't assume the count has changed at all while you were out of the room. Unseen cards are uncounted cards. Think of the backs of the cards as electrons. Until you observe the face, it could be any of the non observed cards.

This means while the count might have actually gone down to -5 while you were gone (you missed all the good cards) you should still bet and play as if it were +3 because you can't tell if it went up down or stayed the same. Any guessing is far more likely to hurt you than to help you.
Remaining deck composition is made up of UNPLAYED cards, not UNSEEN cards. I would not play for the rest of the shoe if I had missed several hands.
 
#15
Cry Havoc and Let Loose the Dogs of War

Shoofly said:
Remaining deck composition is made up of UNPLAYED cards, not UNSEEN cards. I would not play for the rest of the shoe if I had missed several hands.
Do you hear the distant crescendo:joker::whip:

:rolleyes:
 

Shoofly

Well-Known Member
#16
Of course, I wouldn't leave a +3 table unless (quoting from The Blackjack Zone), my daughter was getting married and I had the rings in my pocket.
 
#17
Does anyone use acting "pissed off" because you're losing, "the dealer is too strong" rationale as an act to wong out. I've been doing that lately for cover. Just wondering if this would be effective in the states. I don't really need cover where I'm at but just do it for the heck of it.
 

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#18
The True Count Theorem

Shoofly said:
Remaining deck composition is made up of UNPLAYED cards, not UNSEEN cards. I would not play for the rest of the shoe if I had missed several hands.
Off the top of a full shoe, 30% of all the cards are 10's. So if the dealer cut out the first 20 cards and put them in the discard tray, 30% of those were likely to be 10's. What percent of the remainder is likely to be 10's?

Now, say you're in the middle of a +12 TC shoe, where 40% of all the cards are 10's. A compelling incident occurs that causes you to miss the next 20 cards. What percent of them were likely to be 10's? What percent of the remainder is likely to be 10's?

I might cut my bet down a bit from +12 TC for the increased variability, but on average, I'll receive 40% Tens.
 
#19
Renzey said:
Off the top of a full shoe, 30% of all the cards are 10's. So if the dealer cut out the first 20 cards and put them in the discard tray, 30% of those were likely to be 10's. What percent of the remainder is likely to be 10's?

Now, say you're in the middle of a +12 TC shoe, where 40% of all the cards are 10's. A compelling incident occurs that causes you to miss the next 20 cards. What percent of them were likely to be 10's? What percent of the remainder is likely to be 10's?

I might cut my bet down a bit from +12 TC for the increased variability, but on average, I'll receive 40% Tens.
Where were you when I was debating over this point with EVERYYYYYONE and their little dog too, a few weeks ago.

good cards:joker::whip:
 

Shoofly

Well-Known Member
#20
Renzey said:
Off the top of a full shoe, 30% of all the cards are 10's. So if the dealer cut out the first 20 cards and put them in the discard tray, 30% of those were likely to be 10's. What percent of the remainder is likely to be 10's?

Now, say you're in the middle of a +12 TC shoe, where 40% of all the cards are 10's. A compelling incident occurs that causes you to miss the next 20 cards. What percent of them were likely to be 10's? What percent of the remainder is likely to be 10's?

I might cut my bet down a bit from +12 TC for the increased variability, but on average, I'll receive 40% Tens.
I agree that on a +12 count, if you missed 20 cards, you would have to assume the count was still positive and act accordingly. However, the example was for a +3 count, and in that instance, missing 20 cards could change the count considerably.
 
Top