Wonging In Questions
- Thread starter Finn Dog
- Start date
This is a bit like asking what your bet spread should be. There is no universal optimum, but there's a general answer.
(1) Given a general bet ramp and a general bankroll, your win rate is going to peak around or TC +2. Below that, you play too many unprofitable hands, and above that, you play too few hands.
(2) People with smaller bankrolls will want higher Wong-ins than people with larger bankrolls. (They can't afford the variance)
(3) People with a lot of games to play will want higher Wong-ins than people with only a few games to play. (They can afford to be choosy)
(4) People with steep betting ramps will have peak win rates at higher TC's than people with shallow betting ramps. (Higher TC's are worth more at steeper ramps)
(5) The probability that you will be tracked by surveillance without ever having played a hand increases with the amount of time you're backcounting.
I think it's an underappreciated point that surveillance does more than be a killjoy for card counters - as you mill around a $25 table watching the play, surveillance may very well assume you're lurking to grab a player's chips when he isn't looking. I very seriously doubt that card counting is in the Top 5 Concerns of Casino Surveillance - off the top of my head, these 5 are more important: dealers stealing from the house, players stealing from the house, players stealing from each other, players using devices, and making sure the hookers aren't bothering customers.
When you backcount, you might very well be assumed to be any one of the more important concerns.
It depends what you want to keep constant.
If you want to keep your variance constant with increased EV, spread exactly as you would without Wonging.
If you want to keep your EV constant with decreased variance, spread less than you would normally.
You can plug this all into software to calculate exactly what works best for you. If the software doesn't explicitly have a Wonging option, just set all the bets below your Wonging point to $0 to simulate Wonging. At $25/unit, you can definitely afford some of the programs.
(1) Given a general bet ramp and a general bankroll, your win rate is going to peak around or TC +2. Below that, you play too many unprofitable hands, and above that, you play too few hands.
(2) People with smaller bankrolls will want higher Wong-ins than people with larger bankrolls. (They can't afford the variance)
(3) People with a lot of games to play will want higher Wong-ins than people with only a few games to play. (They can afford to be choosy)
(4) People with steep betting ramps will have peak win rates at higher TC's than people with shallow betting ramps. (Higher TC's are worth more at steeper ramps)
(5) The probability that you will be tracked by surveillance without ever having played a hand increases with the amount of time you're backcounting.
I think it's an underappreciated point that surveillance does more than be a killjoy for card counters - as you mill around a $25 table watching the play, surveillance may very well assume you're lurking to grab a player's chips when he isn't looking. I very seriously doubt that card counting is in the Top 5 Concerns of Casino Surveillance - off the top of my head, these 5 are more important: dealers stealing from the house, players stealing from the house, players stealing from each other, players using devices, and making sure the hookers aren't bothering customers.
When you backcount, you might very well be assumed to be any one of the more important concerns.
It depends what you want to keep constant.
If you want to keep your variance constant with increased EV, spread exactly as you would without Wonging.
If you want to keep your EV constant with decreased variance, spread less than you would normally.
You can plug this all into software to calculate exactly what works best for you. If the software doesn't explicitly have a Wonging option, just set all the bets below your Wonging point to $0 to simulate Wonging. At $25/unit, you can definitely afford some of the programs.
The list probably looks more like this
1) Being petrified of AP's and seeing them in every shadow.
2) Trying to look down the hookers dresses
3) Trying to look down the players dresses
4) Trying to look down the female dealers shirts
5) Compiling a "Tard tape"
OTOH a surveillance guy I know says his priorities are mainly sleeping on the job and trying to invent new ways to cheat the house so maybe thats the most realistic take on the eyes priorities.
1) Being petrified of AP's and seeing them in every shadow.
2) Trying to look down the hookers dresses
3) Trying to look down the players dresses
4) Trying to look down the female dealers shirts
5) Compiling a "Tard tape"
OTOH a surveillance guy I know says his priorities are mainly sleeping on the job and trying to invent new ways to cheat the house so maybe thats the most realistic take on the eyes priorities.
Ah yes, the old Catch-22.
If he had the roll to reasonably support $25-$300 as you so kindly assume lol, he probably wouldn't have to ask a bunch of strangers how and when to bet his money if wonging-in, while wondering if he should spread 1-12 if back-counting yet specifying no wong-out point, just because he already knew enough to blow an avg bet or two on sim software in the first place.
It's a real paradox to me.
I hope Finndog comes back with some specifics like game, roll, spread and when, etc as to what he's doing now for a start.
I fear the worst. But I always do lol.
If he had the roll to reasonably support $25-$300 as you so kindly assume lol, he probably wouldn't have to ask a bunch of strangers how and when to bet his money if wonging-in, while wondering if he should spread 1-12 if back-counting yet specifying no wong-out point, just because he already knew enough to blow an avg bet or two on sim software in the first place.
It's a real paradox to me.
I hope Finndog comes back with some specifics like game, roll, spread and when, etc as to what he's doing now for a start.
I fear the worst. But I always do lol.
Just pulling it directly from KO-Rob's chart:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=111&d=1179664255
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=111&d=1179664255
Hey - thanks for replying.
Are you saying this game allows mid-shoe entry so you can bet a count anytime it occurs?
Or are you asking about a no mid-shoe entry game where you always play off the top but exit at some point below the TC0 you started out with?
Anyway, if you meant the $25-$300 as a play-all-hands spread, either way I'd think your unit size would radically change as would your 1-12 spread.and still keep the same risk with the same roll.
Like, if back-counting and mid-shoe entry is allowed, you could probably go to like $250-$750 by never playing a hand below TC+2 kind of thing.
I'm pretty clueless about starting off the top and wonging out in some negative count unable to return to that shoe.
I hope you have a largish roll if you actually have been playing-all in some 6D game $25-$300?
Are you saying this game allows mid-shoe entry so you can bet a count anytime it occurs?
Or are you asking about a no mid-shoe entry game where you always play off the top but exit at some point below the TC0 you started out with?
Anyway, if you meant the $25-$300 as a play-all-hands spread, either way I'd think your unit size would radically change as would your 1-12 spread.and still keep the same risk with the same roll.
Like, if back-counting and mid-shoe entry is allowed, you could probably go to like $250-$750 by never playing a hand below TC+2 kind of thing.
I'm pretty clueless about starting off the top and wonging out in some negative count unable to return to that shoe.
I hope you have a largish roll if you actually have been playing-all in some 6D game $25-$300?
100X max bet seems like very adequate BR to me. One that I have always lived by as well. I actually go about 125-150 max bets, but many people claim I am too conservative. Being limited in replenising my BR I suppose I am extra cautious. In my 5 years of full time counting (quit my job on march 3, 2004...I know seems silly to remember such. lol) I have never come close to depleting my bankroll. Never even got down to 50%. maybe I've just been lucky. I too am axious to hear kasi's response too your question as he has a far greater knowledge of RoR than I do.
Well, it's not like that there's anything wrong in thinking in terms of ma bets, it's just that the number of max bets can vary greatly depending on how one plays the games, etc.
So, attached by way of example is Table 10.43 from Don's BJAIII for a 4.5/6 DAS game.
I'm hoping maybe you and/or Finn Dog may have the book but no matter. It's nothing that isn't obvious by just looking at the tables.
So in this particular game a play-all 1-12 spread with a $10K roll betting "practically-speaking optimally" and playing all hands means one spreads $10-$120 with a close-to Kelly ROR (since it's not quite "optimal" because nobody can bet that way lol). So this person has ~83 max bets in his roll.
In the same game this guy chooses to back-count and bet as optimally as he can. He enters at TC+2 with a $100 unit-bet and spreads 1-3 with a $300 max bet with the same $10K roll. He never plays a hand below TC+2 because mid-shoe entry is allowed. He has about the same risk although he only has about 33 max bets in his same $ roll.
If the back-counting guy were to play with 83 max bets and have a $25K roll, his risk is negligible compared to the 1-12 play-all guy.
Even though the back-counting guy is only playing 16 hands of every seen, he makes more per hand and per hour. His SCORE is twice as good. He has more $ Stan Dev but less unit SD.
If you have the book, go to Table 10.44 when suddenly it is now a 5/6 game, everything else the same. You want to spread 1-12. Except now the optimal 1-12 $ spread is $15-$180 and you now have 10000/180 max bets in your same $10K roll with the same risk but, as it turns out, you wouldn't cahnge your $ back-counting spread. Note that the TC's one might bet x within that 1-12 spread may also change.
Go to Table 10.42 when suddenly it's a crappy 4/6 game with same everything else. Now your 1-12 spread is $5-$60 and you have 10000/60 max bets in your roll with the same risk. Bet the same 1-12 spread here, except you keep the same $10-$120 spread and you are possibly over-betting and risk has changed if the same $10K roll. Even the 1-3 back-counting guy would want to change his spread to $75-$225 instead of $!00-$300 and still keep his risk the same with the same $10K roll.
Go to Table 10.9 in a 75% pen 8D game with same rules and same everything else and play-all and spread 1-12. Now it's a $5-$60 even though the pen is 75%. Once again the back-counting guy has to spread $75-$225 to keep his risk the same. A back-counting guy will change his min unit and keep risk the same becasue he never plays a -EV hand. If the play-all guy tried to spread $10-$120 when back-counting becasue that's what he did when playing-all, then he has a really really low ROR with same $ roll. Not that spreading 1-12 when back-counting is even feasible. Spread 1-2 or 1-10 your win rate won't change that much anyway.
Don't forget if one changes one's spread from 1-16 to 1-8 in some play-all stuff, it's likely the $min to $max will, or should, change too.
Or, you could back-count and spread 1-3, $10-$30 with only a $1K roll and same risk. 100 units is 100 units and will have same risk with any $ roll if you change $unit but keep a 100 unit total roll.
Just a long way of saying it likely pays to buy a sim so it can tell you all this stuff lol.
A long way of saying, whether "conservative" or not, try to bet in a way that keeps one's risk where you like it as conditions or styles of play may change. Let your EV fall where it may while keeping risk the same.
Why would anyone ever want to play one way at one risk and another way at another risk kind of thing?
If one goes by some "max-bet" rule for all circumstances, all one knows for sure is one is very likely playing at, quite possibly, very different risks.
So, attached by way of example is Table 10.43 from Don's BJAIII for a 4.5/6 DAS game.
I'm hoping maybe you and/or Finn Dog may have the book but no matter. It's nothing that isn't obvious by just looking at the tables.
So in this particular game a play-all 1-12 spread with a $10K roll betting "practically-speaking optimally" and playing all hands means one spreads $10-$120 with a close-to Kelly ROR (since it's not quite "optimal" because nobody can bet that way lol). So this person has ~83 max bets in his roll.
In the same game this guy chooses to back-count and bet as optimally as he can. He enters at TC+2 with a $100 unit-bet and spreads 1-3 with a $300 max bet with the same $10K roll. He never plays a hand below TC+2 because mid-shoe entry is allowed. He has about the same risk although he only has about 33 max bets in his same $ roll.
If the back-counting guy were to play with 83 max bets and have a $25K roll, his risk is negligible compared to the 1-12 play-all guy.
Even though the back-counting guy is only playing 16 hands of every seen, he makes more per hand and per hour. His SCORE is twice as good. He has more $ Stan Dev but less unit SD.
If you have the book, go to Table 10.44 when suddenly it is now a 5/6 game, everything else the same. You want to spread 1-12. Except now the optimal 1-12 $ spread is $15-$180 and you now have 10000/180 max bets in your same $10K roll with the same risk but, as it turns out, you wouldn't cahnge your $ back-counting spread. Note that the TC's one might bet x within that 1-12 spread may also change.
Go to Table 10.42 when suddenly it's a crappy 4/6 game with same everything else. Now your 1-12 spread is $5-$60 and you have 10000/60 max bets in your roll with the same risk. Bet the same 1-12 spread here, except you keep the same $10-$120 spread and you are possibly over-betting and risk has changed if the same $10K roll. Even the 1-3 back-counting guy would want to change his spread to $75-$225 instead of $!00-$300 and still keep his risk the same with the same $10K roll.
Go to Table 10.9 in a 75% pen 8D game with same rules and same everything else and play-all and spread 1-12. Now it's a $5-$60 even though the pen is 75%. Once again the back-counting guy has to spread $75-$225 to keep his risk the same. A back-counting guy will change his min unit and keep risk the same becasue he never plays a -EV hand. If the play-all guy tried to spread $10-$120 when back-counting becasue that's what he did when playing-all, then he has a really really low ROR with same $ roll. Not that spreading 1-12 when back-counting is even feasible. Spread 1-2 or 1-10 your win rate won't change that much anyway.
Don't forget if one changes one's spread from 1-16 to 1-8 in some play-all stuff, it's likely the $min to $max will, or should, change too.
Or, you could back-count and spread 1-3, $10-$30 with only a $1K roll and same risk. 100 units is 100 units and will have same risk with any $ roll if you change $unit but keep a 100 unit total roll.
Just a long way of saying it likely pays to buy a sim so it can tell you all this stuff lol.
A long way of saying, whether "conservative" or not, try to bet in a way that keeps one's risk where you like it as conditions or styles of play may change. Let your EV fall where it may while keeping risk the same.
Why would anyone ever want to play one way at one risk and another way at another risk kind of thing?
If one goes by some "max-bet" rule for all circumstances, all one knows for sure is one is very likely playing at, quite possibly, very different risks.
The tables in BJA3 chapt 10 list the optimal bet for play all and back counting, neither of which is my playing approach unforetuately. Most $25 tables in AC have NMSE and the lower limit tables are usually too crowded to wong in. For that reason I play off the top and wong out at -1, instead.
You may remember from previous posts that my play style and conditions of the games I play are almost constant. The only slight variable is the penetration and even though I attempt to seek out better penetration, the difference is slight. I may not even know the exact penetration before I begin play. I don't have time to watch 2 shoes dealt out before playing. I play frequently and become fairly familiar with the dealer at my rotation of casinos, but occasionally sit down to play with dealer "jack" or "tom" who last week was giving 80% pen only to find him shuffle at 75% today. (probably his wife's fault - lol) So with a bet spread and ramp constant, # of decks, rules constant and penetration only varying slightly, I feel pretty confident that my RoR is fairly constant.
You may remember from previous posts that my play style and conditions of the games I play are almost constant. The only slight variable is the penetration and even though I attempt to seek out better penetration, the difference is slight. I may not even know the exact penetration before I begin play. I don't have time to watch 2 shoes dealt out before playing. I play frequently and become fairly familiar with the dealer at my rotation of casinos, but occasionally sit down to play with dealer "jack" or "tom" who last week was giving 80% pen only to find him shuffle at 75% today. (probably his wife's fault - lol) So with a bet spread and ramp constant, # of decks, rules constant and penetration only varying slightly, I feel pretty confident that my RoR is fairly constant.
Well then you play the game I am most curious about lol.
In other words you always begin at the top of a shoe and just stop playing when you get to TC-1 or so at some point? And then just sit, or often sit, out the rest of the shoe rather than go find another table with another freshly dealt shoe? Anyway that's what I call-wonging out lol.
You're right, if so, the tables are useless for that style of play.
I suppose, if the lower limit tables allow MSE, and the min-max accomodates your spread, you could play the same game just sitting there and stop pplaying at your count and later resume playing if it gets back to TC0. Aside from driving everyone crazy lol.
Anyway, Don's CH13 at least touches on the subject I believe. All that Optimal Departure Point stuff. It seems to me you may be the White Rabbit" player lol. He seems to use a 1-12 spread in a couple games in the tables there. I assume the spreads there are probably "optimal" ish but I don't really know. The only thing, if so, he seems to have a $15ish unit for the 8D games and a $25ish unit for 6D games. Not sure which you may be playing - I guess maybe the $25 NMSE tables are often 6D?
Heck, I'd settle for a straightforward sim where one always plays off the top of a shoe and never plays, exiting, a hand at TC-1 because it creates a re-shuffle at that point as a start lol. Screw the hourly stuff and ODP's lol.
I guess how long you may stay in the waiting zone of making min bets waiting for say maybe a TC+1 to have a slight advantage is a big thing that would effect your spread and unit. Maybe lol.
Anyway, I don't really understand it all, I'm lost without frequencies and advantages lol, but it could be a good excuse to buy a sim, if you don't have one, and experiment with it. I think Norm's stuff does this "wonging out" stuff.
Your risk may be fairly constant but it'd be nice to know what it is and maybe what an optimal spread might look like. Not only risk but, needless to say, I'd be a mess without some ballpark EV per hand lol.
Or, since it seems you are doing very good, screw it - if it ain't broke, don't fix it lol.
In other words you always begin at the top of a shoe and just stop playing when you get to TC-1 or so at some point? And then just sit, or often sit, out the rest of the shoe rather than go find another table with another freshly dealt shoe? Anyway that's what I call-wonging out lol.
You're right, if so, the tables are useless for that style of play.
I suppose, if the lower limit tables allow MSE, and the min-max accomodates your spread, you could play the same game just sitting there and stop pplaying at your count and later resume playing if it gets back to TC0. Aside from driving everyone crazy lol.
Anyway, Don's CH13 at least touches on the subject I believe. All that Optimal Departure Point stuff. It seems to me you may be the White Rabbit" player lol. He seems to use a 1-12 spread in a couple games in the tables there. I assume the spreads there are probably "optimal" ish but I don't really know. The only thing, if so, he seems to have a $15ish unit for the 8D games and a $25ish unit for 6D games. Not sure which you may be playing - I guess maybe the $25 NMSE tables are often 6D?
Heck, I'd settle for a straightforward sim where one always plays off the top of a shoe and never plays, exiting, a hand at TC-1 because it creates a re-shuffle at that point as a start lol. Screw the hourly stuff and ODP's lol.
I guess how long you may stay in the waiting zone of making min bets waiting for say maybe a TC+1 to have a slight advantage is a big thing that would effect your spread and unit. Maybe lol.
Anyway, I don't really understand it all, I'm lost without frequencies and advantages lol, but it could be a good excuse to buy a sim, if you don't have one, and experiment with it. I think Norm's stuff does this "wonging out" stuff.
Your risk may be fairly constant but it'd be nice to know what it is and maybe what an optimal spread might look like. Not only risk but, needless to say, I'd be a mess without some ballpark EV per hand lol.
Or, since it seems you are doing very good, screw it - if it ain't broke, don't fix it lol.
The "stop playing and just sit" part isn't exactly accurate. who has time to sit for 15 minutes. If the count warrents exiting and there is only a hand or two I might "just sit out" saying something about this being a horrible shoe, will wait for new one. If there is a deck or 2 defore the cut I may "take a phone call" or bathroom break. but mostly I just find another table. I usually start scouting a new table while still playing my last hand or two. I move around alot.