Cost of not wonging out

[Dopple]

In rough numbers I suppose you could figure the cost of not wonging of a $5 min game as your disadvantage in negative ev counts say an average of 2% time the hands per hour, say 70. You would have $350 worth of action at a 2% disadvantage to cost you $7.00 per hour.

I was really into wonging out all the time but sometimes I just like to sit for awhile and not be running around all the time.

I would almost suffer the 7 per hour to relax.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Using HiLo, Sweet 16 indices, S17 DAS RSA, 78% pen, spreading 1-12 ($5-60), here are the comparative win rates:

Play all: $13.33/hr; SCORE 28.24: ROR 28.0%
Wong in a 0: 10.81/hr; SCORE 46.17; ROR 7.7%
Wong in at +2: $7.41/hr; SCORE 48.84; ROR 1.9%

The lower win rate is presumably a result of less time spent at the tables. Your ROR, based on a 3k bank, goes way down by backcounting.

 

[Dopple]

Thanks for the info. Did you just run some sim software maybe? The ROR of 28% is pretty scary for the play all.

 

[boneuphtoner]

No, I used the canned CVCX sims with HiLo and the Sweet 16 indices. I figured a bank a red chipper might have would be $3k. Let me know what bank you want and I'll give you exact ROR for the 3 conditions.

 

[Dopple]

I use Uston APC with the indices but just have 1,000. I could cut my betting ramp in half if needed.

 

[mdlbj]

Great post, this is valuable information.

 

[Dopple]

Is SCORE a value dependent upon both ROR and win rate?

 

[boneuphtoner]

Here are the Uston APC full indices RORs (canned CVCX sim) and win rates, 1k bank, spreading $5-60:

Play all: 63.1%; $12.66/hr
Wong in at 0: 45.8%; $11.22/hr
Wong in at +2: 29.7%; $8.07/hr
Wong in at +4: 27.5%; $6.85/hr

That is the bad news with a 1k bank. The good news is you can cut your ROR to a more manageable 16.9% by wonging in at +4, and spreading 1-8 instead of 1-12.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Is SCORE a value dependent upon both ROR and win rate?

Yes. I forget the exact formula, but ROR and win rate are certainly components.

 

[Dopple]

Thanks for your help. I better be very careful with my small BR.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Thanks for your help. I better be very careful with my small BR.

Yes and No. If your BR contains funds that are important to you and card counting will be your source of income, you are correct, you need to be very careful. I'd argue to get another job, save at least 10k. However, probably for most of us on this forum, that isn't the case. To paraphrase Carlson in BJ for Blood: "If you are playing recreationally for sport, don't worry about a formalized bankroll, bring a stake that you can afford to lose and have fun." I think this is an idea most of us should take to heart. Yes, you don't want to get caught with no funds left on a gambling trip....Just look into trip bankroll requirements, size your bets accordingly, and have fun! I think the vast majority of recreational counters take ROR too seriously.

My $.02

 

[ah...craps]

On post #2 it says that playing all has a higher win rate per hour then wonging in at 0...I thought a true count below 0 would bring -EV...

 

[Dopple]

Well I just dropped 850 in about 3 hours playing all heads up. I would stack them up to 6 high on very high counts and just had a bad losing streak.

I am recreational and still up about 200 after about 200 hrs of tracked play.

I suppose I should have been more patient and walked around wonging in and out but I wanted to see if I could win at the game without the wonging.

I won most of my 1,050 treasure when the limits were $5 so this could be a normal variation now that I am limited to $100 in Colorado and can put more money up.

We go to Vegas this week and I may try and build it back up wonging into high counts and backcounting alot. I just hate dodging the staff and the looks from some of the players. "Jump on in" "Theres a seat open" I know there is a seat and I dont feel like jumping in now, thank you.

 

[moo321]

Is SCORE a value dependent upon both ROR and win rate?

Yes, so if we're comparing SCORE's, then our ROR's should be constant.

I believe SCORE assumes a 16.5% ROR.


Anyways, the gain from wonging is not just cutting off the -ev from negative counts. It's also cutting the variance from negative counts, which allows us to bet more safely.

Wonging out is more valuable the smaller the spread we play, and more valuable in pitch games. That is to say, it's quite strong in a double deck game with good pen, and not so valuable when we're spreading 1-30 in an 8 deck monster with 2.5 decks cut off.