Robstheone
New Member
I was reading a debate on back counting. It looks like it would just kill your EV. Also I think it would lead to quicker back offs just because it pisses everyone off.
Is back counting a viable option?
- Thread starter Robstheone
- Start date
WoW what a vague and non useful answer again it blows my mind if 50% of the people actually took up the game and played that answered questions on this forum.BoSox said:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/back-counting-wonging-doesnt-work.15792/#post-153185
try reading that post i agree with 100% with it, my experience on the east coast is tables crowding and when count jumps positive table gets filled
nevermind the heat or the attention your getting from the eye in the sky, you scout positive shoes for hours on end you find 1 and bam table full
back counting is worthless
jupitor88 you know you are a real dipshit. In your attached link that you agree 100% with what Exhibit CAA wrote:
"Not only can backcounting lower a counter's BR risk, it actually REDUCES exposure and heat if properly done."
What I wrote :
"Back counting enhances your EV.
Back counting is an art in itself and should be done only occasionally when conditions are just right."
Asshole, he is saying the same things that I did you just do not know how to interpret what he was saying.
"Not only can backcounting lower a counter's BR risk, it actually REDUCES exposure and heat if properly done."
What I wrote :
"Back counting enhances your EV.
Back counting is an art in itself and should be done only occasionally when conditions are just right."
Asshole, he is saying the same things that I did you just do not know how to interpret what he was saying.
Much more importantly, do you honestly think he understands anything written by James??!!LC Larry said:
We (and Al) are at fault here: we for perpetuating this mindless thread and encouraging Jupiter to continue with his unadulterated drivel; and, I'm sorry to say, Al for tolerating this disruptive and totally unacceptable behavior. Surely my last post in this useless thread.
Don
JohnCrover
Banned
I can't think of a single player, let alone a professional player who does a 100% Wonging approach.Robstheone said:
i have nothing against the multi- headed dragons on this site, it just upsets me as american gambler when they say this and you lose all your money its your fault not the system but looking back at simulations, others people past experience theres a history/pattern that you can't change, so what does one do? go online complain about his or hers BJ experiences and the elders say i am in the wrong and if i go broke i must have counted wrong Well sir i admit there are far more experienced players and better counters than me who went broke with 10k$ roll so i don't feel bad and neither should anyone else who "failed" at a failing game =/
kcchiefsfan1982
Well-Known Member
With a RoR of 10%....there will be (1) out of every (10) counters that go broke!!!! Sucks to be "that guy" HAHA!
xengrifter
Banned
Are you asking a legitimate question?Robstheone said:
Sincerely, because I may have misconstrued... Over at that gamer blackjack vulgar fight club unmoderated Discord* I thought you were one of the resident experts?
So I was surprised, but your question seems sincere?
*You know, the Discord that is all ball gags, pancake mix, and clown porn? That one.
Last edited:
xengrifter
Banned
ZenKing, right?JohnCrover said:
Also, Stanford Wong?
Wait wait, Don Schlessinger, of course?
JohnCrover
Banned
We're joking. We're just trying to see if ZenKing is still alive lol
Counting_Is_Fun
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ...is this even a BJ site?JohnCrover said:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
The term "wonging" has become synonymous with back counting, entering a game at an advantage and exiting when there is no longer an advantage. This means the player is always playing with an advantage and could flat bet and win. BUT it also quickly become pretty obvious, even with a team approach.
I could be wrong, but my interpretation of "wonging" is more of an umbrella thing. And one of the pieces under that umbrella that is much less talked about and implemented, but just as valuable is "wonging out". This would be exiting at some predetermined negative count to escape at least some (the worst) of the negative counts and situations.
The wong out approach, while not enabling the player to flat bet, because he is always at an advantage, reduces the negative rounds allowing for a smaller spread, which can dramatically increase longevity. It is also far less obvious than the pure wong in, which again, is about longevity. So in my mind, a wong out approach might just be one of the top tools for a card counter....certainly has been for this professional player.
And if you include the "wong out" under the umbrella of Wong approach, then there are many more of us players, especially professional or at the higher end that implement a Wong strategy.
I could be wrong, but my interpretation of "wonging" is more of an umbrella thing. And one of the pieces under that umbrella that is much less talked about and implemented, but just as valuable is "wonging out". This would be exiting at some predetermined negative count to escape at least some (the worst) of the negative counts and situations.
The wong out approach, while not enabling the player to flat bet, because he is always at an advantage, reduces the negative rounds allowing for a smaller spread, which can dramatically increase longevity. It is also far less obvious than the pure wong in, which again, is about longevity. So in my mind, a wong out approach might just be one of the top tools for a card counter....certainly has been for this professional player.
And if you include the "wong out" under the umbrella of Wong approach, then there are many more of us players, especially professional or at the higher end that implement a Wong strategy.
Hell'nBack
Well-Known Member
xengrifter said:
Clown porn? Sounds interesting. Tell me more!
Counting_Is_Fun
Well-Known Member
I agree very much...I think it's important to distinguish between the 2 approaches.KewlJ said:The term "wonging" has become synonymous with back counting, entering a game at an advantage and exiting when there is no longer an advantage. This means the player is always playing with an advantage and could flat bet and win. BUT it also quickly become pretty obvious, even with a team approach.
I could be wrong, but my interpretation of "wonging" is more of an umbrella thing. And one of the pieces under that umbrella that is much less talked about and implemented, but just as valuable is "wonging out". This would be exiting at some predetermined negative count to escape at least some (the worst) of the negative counts and situations.
The wong out approach, while not enabling the player to flat bet, because he is always at an advantage, reduces the negative rounds allowing for a smaller spread, which can dramatically increase longevity. It is also far less obvious than the pure wong in, which again, is about longevity. So in my mind, a wong out approach might just be one of the top tools for a card counter....certainly has been for this professional player.
And if you include the "wong out" under the umbrella of Wong approach, then there are many more of us players, especially professional or at the higher end that implement a Wong strategy.
To me backcounting is just too obvious most of the time if you are going for longevity, although like KewlJ I do use it sparingly in certain scenarios.
On the other hand, wonging out is very effective, and I would agree much less obvious. Be creative, but not too obvious. If tons of big cards come out in the first few rounds, don't be stupid and run away everytime. But there is some nuance...whenever you can escape those negative counts well basically it is the same as backcounting and not playing until the count is good.
gronbog
Well-Known Member
Don Schlesinger discusses several approaches to wonging in BJA3 and gives them names for clarity. The approach of wonging out of negative counts he calls the White Rabbit (running late, gotta go). He analyses the effectiveness of this approach as part of the optimal departure study in the same book.