Doing the Wong

M

Milano Red

New Member
#1
#1
Hi everyone,

Quick question regarding the Wong card counting method. I have encountered at least one person's opinion stating that this method is difficult (found at http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm) whereas several websites that state it is a good balance of simplicity and accuracy. Now, before you ask, I'll tell you that I have not read Stanford Wong's book (I'm in the process of ordering it). However, as implied by the website above, this method may be more difficult than most because it requires the counter to use non-integer numbers to obtain info on the count, true or otherwise. So here's my question: because the true count is a normalized number, couldn't I just assign each card double the value listed on qfit.com, then, when I do my division to find the true count, divide by the number of decks and then again by two? This effectively multiples the numerator and denominator by the same value, so I don't see a problem on the face of things (excepting indices, etc). Alternatively, to ease the division process, couldn't once just double the values required for a bet change?

What I've proposed above is surely too easy a fix for the Wong method to have escaped detection by pros. If anyone can address this post, I'd appreciate either a direct answer or referrals. Finally, if you do decide to answer this post, be assured that dumbing down your answer too much is not a concern: I'm relatively new to card counting.

Thanks,

Milano Red
 
E

E-town-guy

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
If you're referring to Wong's halves count then you are correct and can double all the card values and indices. Wong even suggests this in his book. If you are new to counting you might find it easier to try Wong's other counting system, the hi-lo. Though Wong discusses it and provides the indices in his book I think the best book for the hi-lo is Blackbelt in BJ by Arnold Synder. Aside from the hi-lo its also probably one of the best books out there. Snyder also offers a more advanced count than the hi-lo, the Zen, which I think is just as good as the halves count and perhaps easier to learn.
 
J

JCollegeGuy

Member
#4
#4
When I was first learning card counting, there were several things I wondered about the Hi/lo count. I remember reading KO blackjack and reading the statistical value for a given card and noticed the variances between the cards.

For example, the 5 is by far the most beneficial card for the dealer because it makes a winning hand out of any dealer stiff hand. Yet, it's regarded numerically the same as a 2. Also, I don't believe 7's and 9's are neutral cards. I especially believe the 7 has too much a statistical impact to be counted as neutral.

Stanford Wong addresses these issues with his Halves count. He gives an example, if you have one table who has dealt out two 2's, and one table who has dealt out one 5..you have an advantage at the table with the 5 dealt. However, according to Hi-lo..it would tell you to play at the 2's table.

But to answer your question, yes...its difficult, but more mathematically sound.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#5
#5
JCollegeGuy said:
When I was first learning card counting, there were several things I wondered about the Hi/lo count. I remember reading KO blackjack and reading the statistical value for a given card and noticed the variances between the cards.

For example, the 5 is by far the most beneficial card for the dealer because it makes a winning hand out of any dealer stiff hand. Yet, it's regarded numerically the same as a 2. Also, I don't believe 7's and 9's are neutral cards. I especially believe the 7 has too much a statistical impact to be counted as neutral.

Stanford Wong addresses these issues with his Halves count. He gives an example, if you have one table who has dealt out two 2's, and one table who has dealt out one 5..you have an advantage at the table with the 5 dealt. However, according to Hi-lo..it would tell you to play at the 2's table.

But to answer your question, yes...its difficult, but more mathematically sound.
Click to expand...
The relative gain from using a level-3 count like Wong Halves over a level-1 count like HiLo is negligible. Part of the problem lies in the higher complexity issue, slower play, and the bivaluate cards like the 7s and the Aces that cut both ways. For these and a myriad of additional reasons players are advised to learn HiLo (or KO) and focus on other factors like distinguishing between good and mediocre conditions, playing faster and longer, etc. The next step up from HiLO and KO would be ZEN and UBZ and systems of similar ilk... NOT Halves, though Halves is especially suited for 6-8D games with back-counting tactics, but NOT a recommended investment of time and energy. zg
 
R

ricopuno

Active Member
#6
#6
I think the best way to learn Wong Halves counting is not by flipping through a 1 deck but rather by dealing the cards on the table and see which cards you can cancel then you can start adding or subtracting.
 
kewljason

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
Milano Red said:
What I've proposed above is surely too easy a fix for the Wong method to have escaped detection by pros. If anyone can address this post, I'd appreciate either a direct answer or referrals. Finally, if you do decide to answer this post, be assured that dumbing down your answer too much is not a concern: I'm relatively new to card counting.
Click to expand...
E-town-guy is correct. Doubling card value and indicies will work exactly the same. I'm certain it is the method used by most of those who use Wong's halves, rather than counting by half's.
However, the later advice issued by ETG and seconded by ZG is far more valuable. You are correct that a level 1 count undervalues the 5, and overvalues the 2. It is generally accepted that a level 2 count is slightly stronger than a level 1 count, although debated, just how valuable that is. Clearly the gain from using level 3 and above becomes miniscal. That energy can be put to far better use. Playing your level 1 count faster, more accurate and smoother, adding other advanced techniques such as shuffle tracking, checking the dealer mistakes (you'd be surprised how many they make) Be sure that he didn't take your wager after a 18 push. :) or just being more observant of your surroundings. (is the pit guy on the phone and looking in your direction)
speaking personally, I played level 1 (hi-lo) my first 3 years, then moved "up" to a level 2, RPC for 18 months, before retreating back to hi-lo. I found I can play hi-lo much easier and more efficently than RPC. Last week I returned from a 10 day trip to vegas in which I played 111 hours. I doubt I could have logged that many hours playing a level 2 count. I don't know of that many player who admit to retreating back to hi-lo as I did, but I have seen quite a number say if they knew when they started what they know now, they would have never switched from hi-lo. Many players new to counting are surprised when they learn hi-lo was emplyed by the MIT teams.
 
Last edited:
V

vingtetun

Active Member
#8
#8
I think halves gets a bad rap. One thing that is not taken into consideration is that many people learn hi lo first and then want to learn a more advanced count. The beautiful thing about halves in that you do not have to relearn any indexes from hi lo. Yes some indexes are slightly different but you can easily learn those.

So my two cents worth is if you have invested time in hi lo, you already know a lot of hi lo indexes, and you feel the need to try a higher level system, go ahead and give halves a try. The only thing you really have to practice is the card values. Also, I would not rec'd using the 1-2-3 approach, this multiplies your indexes and makes them different from hi lo. Why learn new indexes if you don't have to? Is it really that hard to add 1.5 to .5.
 
V

vingtetun

Active Member
#10
#10
callipygian said:
Note that Milano Red posted this question 3 years ago and hasn't posted since. Responding to him is probably futile at this point.
Click to expand...
Why do you have to ruin our discussion with a common sense comment like that?:laugh:
 
kewljason

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
callipygian said:
Note that Milano Red posted this question 3 years ago and hasn't posted since. Responding to him is probably futile at this point.
Click to expand...
wow I failed to notice the date of the original post. That's embarassing.:rolleyes:
 
R

ricopuno

Active Member
#12
#12
Good point, Vingetun..........

The indices are the same only the card values are the same.



Maybe RedMilano is in Barbados fishing in his yacht.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top