Which Wong index do I use?

[UnevenSeven]

Hi all, I was wondering which Wong index I should use. The one where you stand on 12v5 and 12v6 with -2 and -1 respectively or the one where I stand with -1 and 0 on those two cards? My game is 4/6D, DAS, S17. Thanks in advance, regards Laurence.

 

[Meistro]

What count are you using?

 

[StandardDeviant]

I assume you are using Hi-Lo since you say "Wong index." He publishes -1, 0 in Table 9 on page 46.

 

[UnevenSeven]

Thanks, I was just wondering about the -2, -1 I've seen given as part of the I18. Any comments? Thanks again.

 

[Meistro]

For hi lo I believe you would HIT (you use the deviation, not the BS play with regards to describing index plays, right?) 12v5 at -2 and 12v6 at -1. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why the index play for 12v5 is lower than 12v6? I would think the dealer busts more often with a 6 than a 5.

 

[UnevenSeven]

It probably all has to do with maths, probablilities and simulations, however, my follow-up question stands. Why do we have two different index values for these i.e. I18 gives -2 & -1 for 12v5 & 12v6 and Wong gives -1 & 0 for the same. This is also the case for 13v2 & 13v3 where I18 gives -1 & -2 and Wong gives 0 & -1. Any takers?

 

[London Colin]

Sounds like the rounding issue? (Truncate vs Floor vs Round)

If the exact TC is, say, -1.1, what would you consider that to be? (-1 or -2?) I think your own interpretation needs to match that which was used to compile the indices you are using.

 

[UnevenSeven]

Yeah, good answer mate.

 

[UnevenSeven]

Although having said that, the index variations for 12v2,3,4 and 9v2,7 are consistent between I18 and Wong.

 

[nottooshabby]

For hi lo I believe you would HIT (you use the deviation, not the BS play with regards to describing index plays, right?) 12v5 at -2 and 12v6 at -1. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why the index play for 12v5 is lower than 12v6? I would think the dealer busts more often with a 6 than a 5.

The dealer will bust slightly more often with a 5 showing (42.89%) than with a 6 (42.08%).

 

[Kasi]

Although having said that, the index variations for 12v2,3,4 and 9v2,7 are consistent between I18 and Wong.

I don't know for sure but I think London was on target. At some point Wong increased all his negative indexes by 1 when he changed his underlying assumptuion of how a TC was calced.

All the plays you mention above (except 12 vs 4) are all positive indexes to begin with. It makes no difference whether flooring or truncating in + counts since the answer is the same.

I have the feeling those I18 numbers assume flooring since maybe they are from the 80's? I think Wong went to truncating around 1994 or so. Don't really know.

Won't matter that much anyway since min bet will be out anyway.

 

[Dopple]

I dont mind going into the negative maybe to -2 or so because it can change around so quick if you have a couple other hands at the table. If it is in the process of going negative that means you are getting positive cards at the time of the decks downfall. Just my view.

 

[SleightOfHand]

I dont mind going into the negative maybe to -2 or so because it can change around so quick if you have a couple other hands at the table. If it is in the process of going negative that means you are getting positive cards at the time of the decks downfall. Just my view.

If there are enough players that the counts will be volatile enough to go from -2 (or so) to a positive count, you are probably playing too slow a game . Aside from that, yes, you are indeed getting positive cards while the count drops, but I don't see how that is relevant, unless you are talking about the value of playing negative counts because you are getting good cards, which is not the way to go. DS in BJA3 talks about optimal departure point to maximize your WR, and although it varies depending on the current deck depth, general rule of thumb is that -1 is the best time to leave.

 

[blackjackstudent]

Wonging is powerful tool - the illustrious 18 will capture at least 95% of the gains through its use. However if the count is too negative, you dont have to play all.

Wonging allows you to play at positive counts where you are playing with an advantage provided that the HE doesn't exceed 0.5%. Index plays are only an approximation but we can assume that we can wong if the TC is -1 or lower unless we want to play through negative indices.

Yes if there are too many players on the table, youll play less hands and less hands = less profit per hour assuming that we are talking about advantage play.

In terms of card counting etiquette, even if the count is negative and you are experiencing a winning streak, its best not to leave the table because it would seem a bit unusual act. Leave the streak is broken.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Not 1981!

If you are looking at the 81' Professional BJ those indices are rounded. If looking at the 94'? edition the indices are truncated? I believe?:joker::whip:

 

[Dopple]

If there are enough players that the counts will be volatile enough to go from -2 (or so) to a positive count, you are probably playing too slow a game . Aside from that, yes, you are indeed getting positive cards while the count drops, but I don't see how that is relevant, unless you are talking about the value of playing negative counts because you are getting good cards, which is not the way to go. DS in BJA3 talks about optimal departure point to maximize your WR, and although it varies depending on the current deck depth, general rule of thumb is that -1 is the best time to leave.

I just see -1 so quick and often, I suppose I can sit out a hand or two and see if it recovers. Quite often it gets better and what is the cost of say 5 min bets at -1? You really need to forget that game as getting up to back count would be a red flag. What if there are no other tables to hop to?