Who can run a sim for me

[ZenKinG]

I have CVCX but simulating aggressive backcounting doesnt seem to work well and departure adjustment has been said to be unreliable.

Basically, I have been jumping back and forth trying to figure out my EV after all these years. My results after 1100 hours has me at about 45 an hour, but I believe my hourly is higher than that and I've just been running badly. I have CVCX, but my question might need your help since my playing strategy is a bit hard to sim.

I play very aggressively and jump in at +1 and out at 0 and never play any negative counts other than the occasional heads up action and so I was wondering if you can tell me my true EV with this type of aggressive backcount style.

My ramp and bet sizes are as follows:

+1 = 2x50
+2 = 2x100
+3 = 2x150
+4 = 2x200
+5 = 2x250

I max out at +5 and the rules I played back home were 8 decks S17, DAS, LS with about 1.7 cutoff where I played about 850 hours. In Vegas I'm playing on average 6 decks, H17, DAS, LS with about the same cutoff at 1.7. where I've played about 300 hours. My count system is Wong Halves and I use every index from -1 to +12. Rounds per hour a good estimate i would say has been around 60.

Hopefully someone can help me out or at least guide me on what type of earnings I should be expecting.

 

[psyduck]

Just ran a quick sim for your Vegas game (assuming split to 4 hands including aces, double on any, and using complete halves), winrate per 100 rounds was about $43. Cannot say how accurate the sim program was.

 

[KewlJ]

My ramp and bet sizes are as follows:

+1 = 2x50
+2 = 2x100
+3 = 2x150
+4 = 2x200
+5 = 2x250

I am just curious as to why you are spreading at all? One of the most beneficial aspects of playing a pure wong-in game is that you can eliminate one of the bigger "tells" of a card counter....spreading. Since all rounds are played at an advantage, you can simply flat bet (as large an amount as your bankroll can support). By spreading a wong-in game you are sort of throwing away one of the bigger benefits.

 

[ZenKinG]

I am just curious as to why you are spreading at all? One of the most beneficial aspects of playing a pure wong-in game is that you can eliminate one of the bigger "tells" of a card counter....spreading. Since all rounds are played at an advantage, you can simply flat bet (as large an amount as your bankroll can support). By spreading a wong-in game you are sort of throwing away one of the bigger benefits.

Wrong. Another misconception being spread around (no pun intended). Even if you pure wong, the more you spread the lower your N-zero, the higher your SCORE, and CE generally goes higher, but that is dependent on your bankroll and bet sizes. If you flat bet, your N-zero will be considerably worse and your SCORE will be worse, as will CE.

I try to keep my pure wong-in game at a 1-4 spread to improve every metric but also to fool the pit boss who didnt see me jump in and make them think im not playing a winning game. From what I learned over the years throughout the country, these pit bosses especially in vegas seem to only be trained to watch for your spread even if they see you standing behind a table and see you jumping in, and this is true especially if you can backcount and get into a table without them seeing you, then they really won't know what's going on.

 

[ZenKinG]

Just ran a quick sim for your Vegas game (assuming split to 4 hands including aces, double on any, and using complete halves), winrate per 100 rounds was about $43. Cannot say how accurate the sim program was.

Well that's definitely wrong. You must have used single hand bets and not 2 x bets. For 100 rounds an hour with that bet size, it should be considerably higher.

 

[JohnCrover]

1.7 decks cut off from a 6 deck game? Is Vegas really that crappy ? LOL

 

[JohnCrover]

Wrong. Another misconception being spread around (no pun intended). Even if you pure wong, the more you spread the lower your N-zero, the higher your SCORE, and CE generally goes higher, but that is dependent on your bankroll and bet sizes. If you flat bet, your N-zero will be considerably worse and your SCORE will be worse, as will CE.

I try to keep my pure wong-in game at a 1-4 spread to improve every metric but also to fool the pit boss who didnt see me jump in and make them think im not playing a winning game. From what I learned over the years throughout the country, these pit bosses especially in vegas seem to only be trained to watch for your spread even if they see you standing behind a table and see you jumping in, and this is true especially if you can backcount and get into a table without them seeing you, then they really won't know what's going on.

KewlJ clearly know this and you know what else will boost your CE, score and hourly? Going from $5 to $250. KewlJ was saying to pick a number to flat bet when you wong in for cover purposes because you're more easily overlooked if that's the case. I can't add much to the cover discussion because I'm not playing those stakes and I don't have a sweaty Vegas pit critter showering me in its sweat when I play but I can say that if you wong in it can get slightly awkward betting a little bit too much at +1 and a not enough at +4.

 

[ZenKinG]

1.7 decks cut off from a 6 deck game? Is Vegas really that crappy ? LOL

I said that's my AVERAGE. Some games I play are .5 to 1 deck cutoff.

 

[ZenKinG]

KewlJ clearly know this and you know what else will boost your CE, score and hourly? Going from $5 to $250. KewlJ was saying to pick a number to flat bet when you wong in for cover purposes because you're more easily overlooked if that's the case. I can't add much to the cover discussion because I'm not playing those stakes and I don't have a sweaty Vegas pit critter showering me in its sweat when I play but I can say that if you wong in it can get slightly awkward betting a little bit too much at +1 and a not enough at +4.

You don't even know what you're talking about so just listen to what I say and maybe you and KJ can learn something. Regardless at what count you flat-bet on a wong-in, you will ALWAYS have worse N-zero, SCORE, and CE than if you start ramping up at +1 and spread your bets. The best of both worlds is to wong in at +2 and sacrifice a bit of the metrics and keep your spread down to 1-3 or 1-4 for better cover of spreading.

 

[Talmadge]

Rounds per hour a good estimate i would say has been around 60.

There is one store that i play at where i also purely backcount and only play positive counts.
When using cvcx and entering hands per hour, i have been unsure of whether to use observed hands or only expected hands played based on TC frequencies
Just curious of yours and others opinions.
Thanks

 

[ZenKinG]

There is one store that i play at where i also purely backcount and only play positive counts.
When using cvcx and entering hands per hour, i have been unsure of whether to use observed hands or only expected hands played based on TC frequencies
Just curious of yours and others opinions.
Thanks

Observed hands are counted on CVCX. The rounds you enter on CVCX assume 'observed' rounds and not just 'played' rounds. It coumts them both. My question revolves more around the effect of stopping my backcounting once it reaches -1 and going to a new table to backcount, rinse and repeat. CVCX has a feature called 'Departure adjustment' that id supposed to be made for exactly that, but has been said to be unreliable since CVCX is a post sim calculator.

 

[KewlJ]

You don't even know what you're talking about so just listen to what I say and maybe you and KJ can learn something.

This is exactly the arrogant attitude that makes members of this community not only want to have nothing to do with you but even root against you. Yeah, you know it all....have all the answers....until you don't and then you run screaming about casino cheating, mobbed up casinos and Chinese prison made playing cards.

You and Zeebabar are two peas in a pod. Both seek advice and opinions from players that have registered some level of success and then both refuse to accept what you don't like or don't want to hear. And then low and behold at some point in the future you realize the advice you were given was pretty sound all along.

You Zenking have been in Vegas about a year if I am not mistaken, and during that time, I have heard you bitch and moan about back offs and heat and not being able to get much action in. I point out that you are missing the boat on one of the techniques you are playing, by still employing a spread making your play easily detectable and you come back with this smart ass answer. No wonder so few players are willing to offer advise or opinions any more.

The fact is one of the major benefits of a wong-in style of play is that the player can flat bet because he is only playing +EV situations. It eliminates one of the biggest card counter 'tells'. Sure some players still spread 1-2 or so, but spreading any more than that defeats the purpose of what Wonging in was all about.

But do it your way...you have all the answers.

 

[KewlJ]

And yes, Don and others, I am aware of several mistakes in the above post. I tried to edit on 3 different devices and receive an "internal error" not allowing me to do so.

 

[JohnCrover]

Oh Zenking, your ego glows brighter than the sun.

 

[LC Larry]

This is exactly the arrogant attitude that makes members of this community not only want to have nothing to do with you but even root against you. Yeah, you know it all....have all the answers....until you don't and then you run screaming about casino cheating, mobbed up casinos and Chinese prison made playing cards.

But he sure does give us lots of laughs!

 

[psyduck]

Well that's definitely wrong. You must have used single hand bets and not 2 x bets. For 100 rounds an hour with that bet size, it should be considerably higher.

I double checked and it was set correctly to two hands. If I select one hand, the number was about half of that. Unless the program was not working right, that would be out of my control. I did not set anything wrong. Winrate was based on 100 total rounds including those you skipped (80%).

 

[Talmadge]

Observed hands are counted on CVCX. The rounds you enter on CVCX assume 'observed' rounds and not just 'played' rounds. It coumts them both

Thanks for the confirmation Zenking, i had a feeling that was the correct way.

 

[JohnCrover]

I double checked and it was set correctly to two hands. If I select one hand, the number was about half of that. Unless the program was not working right, that would be out of my control. I did not set anything wrong. Winrate was based on 100 total rounds including those you skipped (80%).

What did you set the penetration at?

 

[psyduck]

What did you set the penetration at?

1.7 decks.

 

[xengrifter]

I am just curious as to why you are spreading at all? One of the most beneficial aspects of playing a pure wong-in game is that you can eliminate one of the bigger "tells" of a card counter....spreading. Since all rounds are played at an advantage, you can simply flat bet (as large an amount as your bankroll can support). By spreading a wong-in game you are sort of throwing away one of the bigger benefits.

If the ZKing is wonging he is correct to NOT spread more than 1-5, but a 1-3 is more than sufficient with his 50k BR.

I AM one of those who say do AT LEAST 1-2.