A test of wonging knowledge.

[cardcounter0]

From another bj message board:

The newbie had a question about wonging in with 6 or 7 players already at the table.

"Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer? Is this the reason for wanting fewer players at the table? I know that fewer players mean more hands per hour, but with Wonging in at +2 and out when the true drops below +0.5 means one will not be playing a lot to begin with."

A newbie wonger had some questions when I saw this statement. Now wonging in at +2 and staying until a 0 count is probably a good strategy, that is not the problem. But can you spot the fallacy that he is operating under? Spot the flaw in the thinking? Maybe someone here is falling into the same trap.

I will give my view if some people would like to speculate and hopefully give the correct answer.

 

[moo321]

Let's see. It's not whether the count will last longer, but what percentage of the good count you will capture?

 

[InPlay]

From another bj message board:

The newbie had a question about wonging in with 6 or 7 players already at the table.

"Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer? Is this the reason for wanting fewer players at the table? I know that fewer players mean more hands per hour, but with Wonging in at +2 and out when the true drops below +0.5 means one will not be playing a lot to begin with."

A newbie wonger had some questions when I saw this statement. Now wonging in at +2 and staying until a 0 count is probably a good strategy, that is not the problem. But can you spot the fallacy that he is operating under? Spot the flaw in the thinking? Maybe someone here is falling into the same trap.

I will give my view if some people would like to speculate and hopefully give the correct answer.

How would you wong with 6 or 7 players at the table ? I have never seen more then 7 spots at a table. Maybe he was at a Chinese resturant and thinking of ordering won ton soup! Simple mistake ! Only way he plays if he gives the money to a player at the table and he places the bet with his money. Then that opens up a whole new set of problems which are not worth the trouble of won ton soup !

 

[InPlay]

From another bj message board:

The newbie had a question about wonging in with 6 or 7 players already at the table.

"Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer? Is this the reason for wanting fewer players at the table? I know that fewer players mean more hands per hour, but with Wonging in at +2 and out when the true drops below +0.5 means one will not be playing a lot to begin with."

A newbie wonger had some questions when I saw this statement. Now wonging in at +2 and staying until a 0 count is probably a good strategy, that is not the problem. But can you spot the fallacy that he is operating under? Spot the flaw in the thinking? Maybe someone here is falling into the same trap.

I will give my view if some people would like to speculate and hopefully give the correct answer.

Link

http://www.bj21.com/boards/free/free_board/index.cgi?read=157295

 

[ricopuno]

How would you wong with 6 or 7 players at the table ? I have never seen more then 7 spots at a table. Maybe he was at a Chinese resturant and thinking of ordering won ton soup! Simple mistake ! Only way he plays if he gives the money to a player at the table and he places the bet with his money. Then that opens up a whole new set of problems which are not worth the trouble of won ton soup !

What I have been doing is ask the permission of other players who are currently playing if I can bet with them.

 

[cardcounter0]

Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer?

Okay, here is the fallacy that I see. Why do you want a positive count to last a long time?

Understand that a positive count indicates a lot of high cards left in the deck, and when the high cards come out, that is a good thing. A positive count lasting a long time means that the extra high cards have not come out. You are betting big, and not getting the advantage.

Backcount a shoe, the count immediately goes sky-high positive, you jump in and play the entire shoe, and the cut-card comes out with the count still sky-high. There. The ultimate shoe. You played the maximum number of hands with a real high count. Made a bunch of big bets. What did you get? Nothing. The big cards never came out, the count stayed high and never went down. You might as well have played a bunch of hands and bet all that money with a 0 count that stayed at 0.

You do not make money with a positive count that stays positive. You make money when the count DROPS. That means the big cards (that make your blackjacks, or your double downs, or bust the dealer) have been dealt.

The best thing that can happen in a wonging situation is to enter at the high positive count, AND THE COUNT IMMEDIATELY STARTS GOING SOUTH. Hopefully, it goes negative before the current round is over and you are gone in a hand or two. That is when you make money.

In fact, playing in a negative count and the count going even more negative is just as good as a positive count going neutral (you just won't have big bets out there to take advantage in the negative count situation) unless you have some "inside" information.
:eyepatch:

 

[Bojack1]

Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer?

Okay, here is the fallacy that I see. Why do you want a positive count to last a long time?

Understand that a positive count indicates a lot of high cards left in the deck, and when the high cards come out, that is a good thing. A positive count lasting a long time means that the extra high cards have not come out. You are betting big, and not getting the advantage.

Backcount a shoe, the count immediately goes sky-high positive, you jump in and play the entire shoe, and the cut-card comes out with the count still sky-high. There. The ultimate shoe. You played the maximum number of hands with a real high count. Made a bunch of big bets. What did you get? Nothing. The big cards never came out, the count stayed high and never went down. You might as well have played a bunch of hands and bet all that money with a 0 count that stayed at 0.

You do not make money with a positive count that stays positive. You make money when the count DROPS. That means the big cards (that make your blackjacks, or your double downs, or bust the dealer) have been dealt.

The best thing that can happen in a wonging situation is to enter at the high positive count, AND THE COUNT IMMEDIATELY STARTS GOING SOUTH. Hopefully, it goes negative before the current round is over and you are gone in a hand or two. That is when you make money.

In fact, playing in a negative count and the count going even more negative is just as good as a positive count going neutral (you just won't have big bets out there to take advantage in the negative count situation) unless you have some "inside" information.
:eyepatch:

Everything you say here makes sense. However, with fewer players it will take longer for a count to drop, if in fact it is dropping, in turn giving you more opportunities to make the multi unit bets as the count goes south. Instead of taking advantage of a dropping count with only 2 rounds with a full table, playing with less players at the table allows the chance to ride the drop with more money in play due to increased rounds. Also to note, as the count drops so does the number of cards in play which may give you the chance to keep the large bets out there even as the count goes down. Not always a given that the drop will move in such a proportion, but a chance just the same. So basically I would say its not a long lasting positive count to be looking for, its a long lasting drop, which is usually more profitable if its due to less players playing instead of fairly even numbers of low to high cards coming out.

 

[rukus]

Everything you say here makes sense. However, with fewer players it will take longer for a count to drop, if in fact it is dropping, in turn giving you more opportunities to make the multi unit bets as the count goes south. Instead of taking advantage of a dropping count with only 2 rounds with a full table, playing with less players at the table allows the chance to ride the drop with more money in play due to increased rounds. Also to note, as the count drops so does the number of cards in play which may give you the chance to keep the large bets out there even as the count goes down.

let me add, take a look at the true count theorem (link below). even as big cards come out and drop the running count, your true count is on average expected to remain unchanged over a round. the less people at the table, the more of these +EV/TC rounds you can get in before the cut card comes out, as bojack already mentioned.

True Count Theorem (Archive copy)

 

[Sonny]

Instead of taking advantage of a dropping count with only 2 rounds with a full table, playing with less players at the table allows the chance to ride the drop with more money in play due to increased rounds.

Exactly. Playing with fewer players is better because you will get more rounds before the shuffle. In that sense the high counts will last longer and be more profitable. The count is still falling at the same but the player is able to take advantage of more opportunities. Also you will be playing fewer hands (per hour) off the top of the shoe.

-Sonny-

 

[cardcounter0]

Exactly. Playing with fewer players is better because you will get more rounds before the shuffle. In that sense the high counts will last longer and be more profitable. The count is still falling at the same but the player is able to take advantage of more opportunities. Also you will be playing fewer hands (per hour) off the top of the shoe.

-Sonny-

Correct. You do not play with fewer players because the positive count lasts longer. You play with fewer players, because as the count drops, you are getting more of those count dropping cards, not the other players.

So the true ideal wong situation is to have the count go very positive, you jump in -- and all the other players leave -- then the count goes down towards negative with each hand dealt.

 

[sagefr0g]

Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer?

Okay, here is the fallacy that I see. Why do you want a positive count to last a long time?

Understand that a positive count indicates a lot of high cards left in the deck, and when the high cards come out, that is a good thing. A positive count lasting a long time means that the extra high cards have not come out. You are betting big, and not getting the advantage.

Backcount a shoe, the count immediately goes sky-high positive, you jump in and play the entire shoe, and the cut-card comes out with the count still sky-high. There. The ultimate shoe. You played the maximum number of hands with a real high count. Made a bunch of big bets. What did you get? Nothing. The big cards never came out, the count stayed high and never went down. You might as well have played a bunch of hands and bet all that money with a 0 count that stayed at 0.

You do not make money with a positive count that stays positive. You make money when the count DROPS. That means the big cards (that make your blackjacks, or your double downs, or bust the dealer) have been dealt.

The best thing that can happen in a wonging situation is to enter at the high positive count, AND THE COUNT IMMEDIATELY STARTS GOING SOUTH. Hopefully, it goes negative before the current round is over and you are gone in a hand or two. That is when you make money.

In fact, playing in a negative count and the count going even more negative is just as good as a positive count going neutral (you just won't have big bets out there to take advantage in the negative count situation) unless you have some "inside" information.
:eyepatch:

really interesting subject! trying to remmember and i think maybe i can recall only two authors refer to it. Snyder in Blackbelt in Blackjack and Renzey in Blackjack Bluebook II. lol as i remmember Snyder devoted a few pages more or less pointing out how you might have a great count but not a correlated advantage as there are times most of the high cards are behind the cut card. and Renzey i think kind of uses the phenomenon as an arguement that for the ace/ten front count to where because of the phenomenon once you reach certain counts at certain points in the pack you can just leave off counting and bet at some higher bet level the rest of the way through the pack and still have an advantage.
so but i think we know this 'sluggish' count volatility phenomenon is more pronounced in multiple deck games than single deck.
for me maybe the points of your post in maybe yes and no. lol.
i mean i think of some 'high' count in multiple deck as relatively a rare thing.
and in this 'rarity' i would guess that Snyder's nightmare scenerio would maybe be at most a one third of a sort of the time thing over the long haul.
and i'd guess that even in the varying degree's of lol 'Snyder's nightmare' that even still it might not be so much of a nightmare as one might think at first blush. to where maybe two thirds the time or so (just guessing) say you percieve so high true count and yeah ok the really advantage may not be as high as you percieve (cause of the high cards grouped behind the cut card) but still you may be in advantage territory. so yeah maybe your not gonna get as many blackjacks as expected but still you might be in some pretty juicy territory that will allow for some good double down and split possibilities that represent positive EV. so back to the 'good ole' book for a moment:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount6.htm
then too you can figure ok even though your betting higher you gotta figure your not gonna lose more hands than say 'normal' so yeah you might come out behind a bit moneywise but sitll ahead in EV. lol.
then another thing you still have going for you as the count either lingers or goes up and down sluggishly is that you still betting optimaly and proportianate to your advantage. so bets that may go ariegh are in a sense protected by further forth comming propostional optimal bets.
still it's a bitch no doubt. lol.

Originally Posted by Bojack1
Everything you say here makes sense. However, with fewer players it will take longer for a count to drop, if in fact it is dropping, in turn giving you more opportunities to make the multi unit bets as the count goes south. Instead of taking advantage of a dropping count with only 2 rounds with a full table, playing with less players at the table allows the chance to ride the drop with more money in play due to increased rounds. Also to note, as the count drops so does the number of cards in play which may give you the chance to keep the large bets out there even as the count goes down

exactly what i was trying to say about the proportional betting thing. yup.
and all this time true you may not get as many blackjacks but there is still maybe an even better than normal chance of some doubles or splits leading to doubles with still at least enough tens comming out to make them winner.
and worse case you still get some +ev under your belt to where long haul that should statistically play out to your advantage.

Originally Posted by rukus
let me add, take a look at the true count theorem (link below). even as big cards come out and drop the running count, your true count is on average expected to remain unchanged over a round. the less people at the table, the more of these +EV/TC rounds you can get in before the cut card comes out, as bojack already mentioned.

True Count Theorem

ah yes the True Count Theorem a thing of beauty. lol just wish i really understood it.
i get a bit confused on the term's he used in that especially the term 'expected true count':
Theorem:
The expected true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.
and then where he earlier defines expected value and refers to the expected value of the true count.
Theorem: the expected value of the true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is exactly the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards. and
Expected value is a precise mathematical term defined as the mean average, which is computed by summing the probability of an event times the value of that event, over all possible events. So the expected value of the true count after drawing a card is the summation of the probability of drawing each card times the value of the true count after drawing that card.
lol i have trouble sorting that all out. but i guess like your saying on average because of how the true count behaves compared to the running count then from round to round maybe not much happens even though the running count jumps around a bit but you still might end up still having an advantage next round.
very interesting stuff. but still just wish i could better understand it and the implications.

 

[Renzey]

From another bj message board:

The newbie had a question about wonging in with 6 or 7 players already at the table.

"Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer?"

Rather than thinking of a high count dropping as you play, just think of playing a high count as coming into a fresh 4 deck shoe where a 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were removed and a 10, Jack, Queen, King and Ace were added before play began (this is how positive six deck shoes develop). You'll be playing a full 4 deck shoe that has a +2.5 true count. Rather than having a 0.4% disadvantage, you'll average a 1% advantage (including index plays) throughout the shoe. On some hands, the count will drop and on others, it will remain the same or even rise. But on average, you'll receive more high cards than low cards because there are more high cards than low cards in the supply.

Now, if 1.5 decks are cut off and 7 players are at the table, you'll get 6 rounds out of that shoe. If just 1 other player is at the table, you'll get 16 rounds (playing one box at a time).

 

[shadroch]

Correct. You do not play with fewer players because the positive count lasts longer. You play with fewer players, because as the count drops, you are getting more of those count dropping cards, not the other players.

So the true ideal wong situation is to have the count go very positive, you jump in -- and all the other players leave -- then the count goes down towards negative with each hand dealt.

Strangely,thats just what happened my very first wonging experiance.
DD at Terribles. Five players on the first round. They all take at least one hit card and lose as the dealer pulls a 4 card 17.Twenty cards played and only a single ten out of play. As I go to sit down,three of them leave,telling me the dealer sucks. I can't help but notice one of the remaing players has gone from a $10 single hand to two hands of $25. Dealer ended up busting the next two rounds,and I left after cashing in my $10 MP.

 

[callipygian]

In fact, playing in a negative count and the count going even more negative is just as good as a positive count going neutral

Great post, let me just add to this.

The reason why you put out larger bets at higher counts is because it's more likely that the count will drop when the count is high than when the count is low.

However, with fewer players it will take longer for a count to drop, if in fact it is dropping, in turn giving you more opportunities to make the multi unit bets as the count goes south.

Let me add to this as well.

It's important to define "faster" or "shorter" or "longer" very accurately. There are two denominators that can both be described as "faster": per hand, or per hour. Both are important to card counters.

The rate at which the count drops does not change per hand. It is equally likely for a ten to come out per hand no matter how many people are at the table. However, with more people at the table, the number of hands played per hour changes. So the count will drop faster per hour (or per minute) if you have more people.

Finally, as you and other people have pointed out, the most important measure is not really per hand dealt, but the per hand dealt to the card counter. Playing along won't change the drop in count per hand, but it will change the drop in count per minute and the drop in count per hand dealt to you.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Correct. You do not play with fewer players because the positive count lasts longer. You play with fewer players, because as the count drops, you are getting more of those count dropping cards, not the other players.

So the true ideal wong situation is to have the count go very positive, you jump in -- and all the other players leave -- then the count goes down towards negative with each hand dealt.

Which is exactly why I like to play at full tables!

If you start a shoe at a full table, other players are eating the opening negative rounds with you. If the count goes too negative, you walk away and you don't care what happens there. If the count goes positive, the same players who ate the negative cards with you may or may not be eating the positive ones, depending on if they stay at the table. But if the table started out full, it can't get any more full during a positive count.

However if you open up a shoe heads-up, you are eating the negative rounds yourself and chances are you will have some company by the time the shoe goes positive. That really hurts your EV. My ideal playing conditions for shoe, if I'm playing a Wong-out game, are 2 spots on a full table, with experienced, quick players not playing any sidebets. NMS is also a good thing because players can check out, but they can't check back in.

 

[prankster]

Isn't it true that playing at a crowded table has the overall effect of lessend penetration?

 

[Sonny]

Isn't it true that playing at a crowded table has the overall effect of lessend penetration?

Yes because the final round is dealt earlier. You are making your last bet with less information than with fewer players.

-Sonny-

 

[ricopuno]

Isn't it true that playing at a crowded table has the overall effect of lessend penetration?

That is why last time I wong in even though there was only 2 players on the table I still asked the first base player if I could bet together with him because I dont' wanna miss those high cards and I want to get high cards again the next round I bet.

 

[suicyco maniac]

I have never seen more then 7 spots at a table.

I've seen 9 spot tables at a couple locations. Pretty rare though. If I remember right the last spot I saw it was in Jackpot NV.

 

[blackjack avenger]

If You Watch It They Will Come

Am I correct in thinking that with fewer players, a positive count may last longer?

Okay, here is the fallacy that I see. Why do you want a positive count to last a long time?

Understand that a positive count indicates a lot of high cards left in the deck, and when the high cards come out, that is a good thing. A positive count lasting a long time means that the extra high cards have not come out. You are betting big, and not getting the advantage.

Backcount a shoe, the count immediately goes sky-high positive, you jump in and play the entire shoe, and the cut-card comes out with the count still sky-high. There. The ultimate shoe. You played the maximum number of hands with a real high count. Made a bunch of big bets. What did you get? Nothing. The big cards never came out, the count stayed high and never went down. You might as well have played a bunch of hands and bet all that money with a 0 count that stayed at 0.

You do not make money with a positive count that stays positive. You make money when the count DROPS. That means the big cards (that make your blackjacks, or your double downs, or bust the dealer) have been dealt.

The best thing that can happen in a wonging situation is to enter at the high positive count, AND THE COUNT IMMEDIATELY STARTS GOING SOUTH. Hopefully, it goes negative before the current round is over and you are gone in a hand or two. That is when you make money.

In fact, playing in a negative count and the count going even more negative is just as good as a positive count going neutral (you just won't have big bets out there to take advantage in the negative count situation) unless you have some "inside" information.
:eyepatch:

Given a positive count on average the high cards do come out wether at the cut card or to the final card and on average they come out evenly.