the fine points of wonging

Do you wong more aggressively in bad games? It seems intuitively obvious to me that this is so. A marginal game can be made a winner by back counting, for example. Do you wong out earlier if there is bad pen? Later with good pen (in terms of TC)? Do you ever wong out at RC = 0 and if so why? Is a RC of 0 better at the start of a shoe, because there is still a decent chance it will skyrocket, or in the middle because any increases in RC mean a heavier increase in the TC? Is a negative RC more bearable at the start or the middle of a shoe?

Your thoughts, please.

My thoughts: And I am a wong out player! When I start a shoe, over 60% of the time I don't finish it.

Jason - Question for you:
When you follow this tactic, do you use a player's card? I find the need to hang around a bit longer when using a card as the PCs tend to get perturbed by someone who leaves just after they've done their "paperwork."

My thoughts: And I am a wong out player! When I start a shoe, over 60% of the time I don't finish it. I wong out of TC between -1 and -1.5. The exact point has more to do with the availability and proximity of additional tables, than of "bad games". I wouldn't be playing what I consider a bad game to begin with, so that has little bearing to me. A running count of "0" is better in the middle or end of shoe than the beginning. Most likely any high counts that occur, will occur near the end of the shoe. Near the end of the shoe, a handful of low cards can make the TC skyrocket, while in the beginning of the shoe a handful of low cards probably only turns the game to even.

Got to modify this a bit for you. The RC=0 is not a good thing as you get deeper in the shoe. Put it in these terms: suppose you're playing a 6D game with 1.25D pen. Pretty good, right? Now let's say you get down to 2 decks and the RC is 0. Would you play a 2D/1.25D game? Of course not, right? You'd be better off going to a new shoe.

I haven't read the book yet, but I believe it's Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack that has the Optimum Departure Points for Wongers. It's very pen dependent, and the worse the pen the quicker you're going to abandon a shoe and start a new one. With 2 decks pen you'd be leaving a neutral count around the middle of the shoe.

Got to modify this a bit for you. The RC=0 is not a good thing as you get deeper in the shoe. Put it in these terms: suppose you're playing a 6D game with 1.25D pen. Pretty good, right? Now let's say you get down to 2 decks and the RC is 0. Would you play a 2D/1.25D game? Of course not, right? You'd be better off going to a new shoe.

I haven't read the book yet, but I believe it's Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack that has the Optimum Departure Points for Wongers. It's very pen dependent, and the worse the pen the quicker you're going to abandon a shoe and start a new one. With 2 decks pen you'd be leaving a neutral count around the middle of the shoe.

Blackjack Attack is my favorite blackjack source. I consider it my bible and have learned more from that single source than all others combined. However, :laugh: in this case, Don's finding are somewhat unrealistic. His findings are based on absolute "no lag" conditions, meaning at the optimal departure point (ODP) you are able to move to a new table already shuffled, ready to deal the first card in a matter of seconds. (absolutely no lag or down time) This second table would also have to have as good or better conditions than that of your current game. (penetration, number of players) Anything short of these "perfect conditions" would change the ODP considerably. If you are able to find this perfect situation, you would need to add in the extra heat generated from jumping to the table right next door. Yes, ploppies do it all the time, but it is an action that is noticed by the pit and I try to avoid things that will make me stand out in their minds. Lastly, If you look at the charts in the book, (which are in sleightofhand's post) you will see that Don's conclution is that unless the TC is +2 or greater on the last hand at the very end of the shoe, it would be better to depart. Quite frankly I have never understood this concept. If I have a true count of 1.8 with one round remaining, why would I depart? Granted the advantage would only be roughly .4 of one percent for that hand, depending on the rules, but isn't that better than playing the next hand off the top at roughly .5 percent disadvantage??

Adding on here as I realized I did not address your initial point of "would you play a 2 deck/1.25D game?" The answer is of course not. But that is monday morning quarterbacking. you don't know that until after the fact. Along those same lines you can ask wouldn't it be better to get out at anytime the count goes even slightly negative and be better off starting off the top of a new shoe? Mathematically you would. Yet most of us establish a wong out point and play some amount of negative count hands before leaving.

Here is my player card strategy. When I sit down, I play unrated. If in the middle of the shoe the count has gone sufficently positive to the point that it looks like I will finish the shoe and begin another, or even at the end of the shoe, I give my card to the floorperson and say "oh I forgot to give you this".
I find they usually back you up 10 or 15 minutes.

I also don't quite understand why the ODP at deep levels are at +TCs. The book says something along the lines of "too little, too late" which is consistent with AM's idea of playing a 1.25/2 game, although I don't quite agree.

As for the "lag" problem, perhaps you have an older version of BJA? The graphs I posted in fact included a lag of 6 hands before finding a new table.

I have the third edition. I guess I didn't look close enough to realize that the charts you posted where for the 6 round lag between shoes. My bad. My answer was based more on chart 13.1 (no lag between rounds), but no matter, neither method shows a departure point at a true count of 0 half way or 3/4 way through the shoe as Monkey suggested. Departure points for both methods remain at negative counts all the way through the shoe until that last inexplicable hand or two, when you should depart on anything less that a TC of 2.

That number I gave was based on 2 decks cut off, my reasoning being an 8/2, 6/2, and 4/2 game all have about the same value.

As I understand it, the reason why you would rather go to the new shoe than play that last hand at a slightly positive count is that with a big spread the average EV for any shoe is greater than that of a slightly positive count, and you have to observe as much of the shoe as possible to get this. So the question becomes would you rather play that last hand, or play the other shoe having missed a round or two, or wait through the shuffle where you are. It's not a simple question and a lot of the answer is going to depend on the specific conditions at the store where you are.

I have the third edition. I guess I didn't look close enough to realize that the charts you posted where for the 6 round lag between shoes. My bad. My answer was based more on chart 13.1 (no lag between rounds), but no matter, neither method shows a departure point at a true count of 0 half way or 3/4 way through the shoe as Monkey suggested. Departure points for both methods remain at negative counts all the way through the shoe until that last inexplicable hand or two, when you should depart on anything less that a TC of 2.

I have asked Don (on the other board) if he could explain why the ODP rises so dramatically at the very end and why it would be better to walk away than play the last hand or two at a small advantage.