Wonging

[Thunder]

What would the house edge be against you in this scenario?
6 decks, DOA, DAS, S17 flat betting. =-.42%
wonging out at -1 TC House edge = ?
wonging out at -2 TC House edge= ?

[bjcount]

Originally Posted by Thunder

What would the house edge be against you in this scenario?
6 decks, DOA, DAS, S17 flat betting. =-.42%
wonging out at -1 TC House edge = ?
wonging out at -2 TC House edge= ?

HE doesnt change because your flat betting or wonging, it changes based on the rules.
If TC 0 = -.42 then approximate each TC by .5

TC -1 = -.92
TC -2 = -1.42

Do you mean your RoR, SCORE, etc.., etc?

BJC

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by Thunder

What would the house edge be against you in this scenario?
6 decks, DOA, DAS, S17 flat betting. =-.42%
wonging out at -1 TC House edge = ?
wonging out at -2 TC House edge= ?

I don't have the exact numbers, but Wonging out at -2 (play through TC -1 and leave when TC hits -2) cuts the HA by about half and Wonging out at -1 (play through TC 0 and leave when TC hits -1) cuts that in half. Neither will give a positive expectation by itself, and wonging out at -1 TC actually drops your hands/hr by quite a bit so the win rates (or losses) differ mostly based on hands/hr, not HA/EV.

[Thunder]

Well let me put it another way. I'm trying to figure out what the expected loss per hand would be when you're playing assuming you always sat out when the TC reached -1 and also what it would be if you chose to wait until the TC reached -2 before you sat out. Usually flat betting in this circumstance, it would be -.042 per $10 wagered but I would guess that by wonging out at say -1 TC, it would drop to -.02 or so.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by Thunder

I'm trying to figure out what the expected loss per hand would be when you're playing assuming you always sat out when the TC reached -1 and also what it would be if you chose to wait until the TC reached -2 before you sat out.

If I assume you are playing straight basic strategy based on the fact that you used the words "expected loss", then the numbers I quoted are exactly what you want. They are the EV's for sitting out, and EV is money won per money bet.

The only reason I brought up win rate is because people who sit out certain hands see a lot more hands than they play, so the win rate (money won per hands dealt, whether you played or not) changes even more than the EV's. For example, simply sitting out every other hand (regardless of count) will halve you win/loss rate, but leave your EV unchanged. When you Wong out at -1, you end up sitting out nearly 1/3 of all hands.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by callipygian

If I assume you are playing straight basic strategy based on the fact that you used the words "expected loss", then the numbers I quoted are exactly what you want. They are the EV's for sitting out, and EV is money won per money bet.

The only reason I brought up win rate is because people who sit out certain hands see a lot more hands than they play, so the win rate (money won per hands dealt, whether you played or not) changes even more than the EV's. For example, simply sitting out every other hand (regardless of count) will halve you win/loss rate, but leave your EV unchanged. When you Wong out at -1, you end up sitting out nearly 1/3 of all hands.

Sorry Callipygian. You answered my question as I was responding to BJcount. Thanks for the info. Even using ILL. 18, that's only going to reduce the HE by like another .03% without spreading bets if I'm not mistaken.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Even using ILL. 18, that's only going to reduce the HE by like another .03% without spreading bets if I'm not mistaken.

Yes. As far as I know, it's impossible to beat the game just by flat-betting and Wonging out. If you can Wong in, you can essentially even the advantage by Wonging in at +1 and out at -2 (and flat betting with indices). You'll need to spread to actually beat the game, though, and be even more aggressive with Wonging and spread more if you want to make any real money off of your play.

[moo321]

Originally Posted by callipygian

Yes. As far as I know, it's impossible to beat the game just by flat-betting and Wonging out. If you can Wong in, you can essentially even the advantage by Wonging in at +1 and out at -2 (and flat betting with indices). You'll need to spread to actually beat the game, though, and be even more aggressive with Wonging and spread more if you want to make any real money off of your play.

Hmm... I'm not quite sure that's true. It's of academic interest, because you can't get a large edge, but I suppose if you left at -1 and played all other counts, you'd theoretically still have a small edge.

[Tarzan]

This is interesting from an analysis point to run out a sim of a million hands or so but...I have to agree that I doubt you'd have a banner day flat betting in that TC range. If you are going to the trouble to be wonging, which is a time consuming waiting game of patience, why bet anything during those less stellar counts is the way I see it, not to say that this is not a very interesting or valid question.

Often during an idle moment or two, I flip through cards doing a counting drill thing using 2 or 6 decks and then without looking beforehand determine what the last ten or so cards are. As you can imagine, this is a boring thing to do after a while, so I work in a little variation to the monotony of the card counting drill--- Try this it's fun! It will answer many questions for you also! "Wonging practice" I call it. This sharpens you up rather than having a computer do ALL the work and you evaluate some data at your leisure.

As I am flipping through my 2-6 decks, each time I see a positive count I start playing the cards, dealing out hands as if in a heads up game. The reason I use two decks is to have a convenient checkpoint to verify that my count is dead on but I will also do the same thing with a 6 deck shoe. TC2 or higher flat betting and see what happens. Another time go with anything TC1 or better, etc. I already know the results from doing this so often. The results of doing this in the long haul will answer not only the one question but many variations of it! I did this many years ago long before there were "computer sims on a whim" and still do this today.

Can we modify the question to be "At what TC can we flat bet and achieve a positive result in the long run?" (It's definitely not TC-2 or higher).

Flip cards for an hour and it's the doldrums! You can "spice it up a bit" by switching over to playing hands as if in heads up, playing only during positive counts and it makes the card counting drill more fun. You can establish different scenarios as you go and experiment around. The results are astounding!

Wonging means less spread (if you want) and therefore less risk and fluctuation. If you play a minimal bet spread and only play at TC2 or higher, you are obviously hot on the project! The downfall or let down--- When you try to put this into practice at the casino. First of all, you can go a long time without seeing TC2 or higher. Next of all, people lean forward and too many players obstructs your view of the table (beyond 3 players at a table I usually find that my view of the table is sufficiently obstructed) and this is a horrible let down if you have been watching a table for any length of time. For example, 3 players are at a table. You are sort of watching what is going on from the beginning of the shoe... suddenly 2 or 3 new players stroll up out of the blue and plop down, taking all remaining available spots at the table and also obstructing your view of the table. You just wasted whatever period of time you were standing there. Wonging requires patience and it's sort of like fishing--- You can go a long time without a bite!

[21forme]

Can we modify the question to be "At what TC can we flat bet and achieve a positive result in the long run?" (It's definitely not TC-2 or higher).

Why do you say this? In an S17 AC game, your edge is about 0.4% at TC = +2. You are playing with an edge, though a small one.