Wonging In vs. Out

S

schismist

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
Anyone know how much worse it is to play shoes from the beginning and wong out at -1, compared to backcounting and wonging in at +2 and then wonging out at -1? I can't figure out how to get a simple simulator to test this.

Also, for AC players out there... Are additional limit restrictions placed on mid shoe entry bets in AC on the tables that do allow it? Or maybe these low limit tables too crowded to get a spot? What is the best strategy for a green chipper in AC?
 
kewljason

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
atlantic city is crowded on the weekends. been that way for 25 years. However, even during these summer months there are plenty of 25$ tables to play and wong into most times. I was at taj last monday and tuesday and they even had fairly empty $10 table at 10pm at night. $25 tables had one or two player per table at best. didnt used to be that way during the summer months. I think the smoking bans and pa slot parlors are def hurting ac. hopefully this will mean better games in the long run. As far as your original question, I dont know what your giving up by wonging out at -1 rather than in at +2, but that's how I play also. seems more natural to me and less waiting. I hope were not giving up to much by doing this.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#3
#3
kewljason said:
atlantic city is crowded on the weekends. been that way for 25 years. However, even during these summer months there are plenty of 25$ tables to play and wong into most times. I was at taj last monday and tuesday and they even had fairly empty $10 table at 10pm at night. $25 tables had one or two player per table at best. didnt used to be that way during the summer months. I think the smoking bans and pa slot parlors are def hurting ac. hopefully this will mean better games in the long run. As far as your original question, I dont know what your giving up by wonging out at -1 rather than in at +2, but that's how I play also. seems more natural to me and less waiting. I hope were not giving up to much by doing this.
Click to expand...
I though that AC tables don't allow mid entry? g
 
S

schismist

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
zengrifter said:
I though that AC tables don't allow mid entry? g
Click to expand...
According to the Jan 07 "Current Blackjack Newsletter" (I'm not a subscriber... just assuming conditions are still similar), it seems like there are two types of eight deckers. On average the first type has 25 min and 1000-5000 max and no mid shoe entry. The other has 10 min and 500-1000 max and yes mid entry.

What I was wondering is whether or not this mid shoe entry is theoretical or actually employable. E.g. if they only opened a 10 min when there were 7 ploppies, who cares if there's mid entry. Or if I can only bet 10 mid entry, that wouldn't be worth it either.
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
#6
#6
schismist said:
According to the Jan 07 "Current Blackjack Newsletter" (I'm not a subscriber... just assuming conditions are still similar), it seems like there are two types of eight deckers. On average the first type has 25 min and 1000-5000 max and no mid shoe entry. The other has 10 min and 500-1000 max and yes mid entry.

What I was wondering is whether or not this mid shoe entry is theoretical or actually employable. E.g. if they only opened a 10 min when there were 7 ploppies, who cares if there's mid entry. Or if I can only bet 10 mid entry, that wouldn't be worth it either.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, crowds are your enemy, both because they slow down play and because they keep you from getting into games. AC has a practice of managing tables full. They'd rather have a dealer in the break room smoking a cigarette than dealing to 1 or 2 people.

That's why playing on weekdays or the early AM doesn't help you much in AC. Sure the crowds are smaller but the open tables are fewer, and just as crowded. Finding open tables is hit-and-miss, and if it's not, I haven't found the secret to it yet.
 
S

sabre

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain the rationale behind the "managing to full" policy. Isn't the casino going to make a lot more money dealing 2 tables with 3 players rather than 1 table of 6, even after factoring in costs associated with having 2 tables open rather than 1?
 
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
zengrifter said:
I though that AC tables don't allow mid entry? g
Click to expand...
As a rule, any table with a $50 or more min is NMS.
At lower levels it depends on the house, and it can change from week to week. For example, I walked through Taj 3 weeks ago, and the whole place was NMS. Now, apparently, it's different.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
sabre said:
Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain the rationale behind the "managing to full" policy. Isn't the casino going to make a lot more money dealing 2 tables with 3 players rather than 1 table of 6, even after factoring in costs associated with having 2 tables open rather than 1?
Click to expand...
I don't know but figure a dealer makes $15/hr? - tough to lose that much at a $10 table playing BS. Even with a full table. Maybe lol.

Why would u think 2 tables with 3 players is more beneficial to the casino than 1 table to 6 players anyway? Even assuming a dealer(s) that deals for free?
I guess more hands per hour?

But it sure is frustrating when u can't get a seat and u see 5 tables going completely unused.

Let's face it, casinos hate dealing BJ in the first place.
 
S

sabre

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
Each player easily gets twice the number of hands playing at a table with 2 others vs a table with 5 others.

Not everyone flat bets the table minimum. Not everyone plays BS either.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
sabre said:
Each player easily gets twice the number of hands playing at a table with 2 others vs a table with 5 others.

Not everyone flat bets the table minimum. Not everyone plays BS either.
Click to expand...
OK, even so, it's not exactly a bonanza for the casino.

So 3 players at 2 tables play 120 hands an hour per table. They wager $3600 at each table. The casino makes $18 at each table before they pay the dealer.

Or the 6 players each wager $600 for their 60 hands for $3600 in total, The casino makes $18.

So, even assuming assuming this, with no other overhead, like fills, emplopyer matching SS tax, etc, the casino has made an extra $3/hr by running 2 tables.

But, you know, if they can put that second dealer on a roulette table they are way ahead compared to BJ.

Anyway, that's, more or less, how I look at it.

I mean it could even be that, by the time u add in what they are losing by devoting the square feet to a BJ table instead of slots, the overhead, etc. it might even be cheaper for them to pay a dealer for 8 hours dealing to nobody. OK, perhaps a little extreme.

Kinda like the Yankees don't really give a cr*p if a fan buys a ticket or not because they'd make money anyway.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
schismist said:
Anyone know how much worse it is to play shoes from the beginning and wong out at -1, compared to backcounting and wonging in at +2 and then wonging out at -1? I can't figure out how to get a simple simulator to test this.
..........
this is a question i'm also interested in. haven't figured out how to simulate it either.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
schismist said:
Anyone know how much worse it is to play shoes from the beginning and wong out at -1, compared to backcounting and wonging in at +2 and then wonging out at -1? I can't figure out how to get a simple simulator to test this.
Click to expand...
This is the classic "WiWo vs. White Rabbit" comparison. Schlesinger's "Blackjack Attack" has the specific numbers you're looking for as well as optimal departure points for different games. I believe that most simulators like Casino Verite and Blackjack 678 should be able to handle this as well.

-Sonny-
 
E

+EV

Member
#14
#14
sabre said:
Each player easily gets twice the number of hands playing at a table with 2 others vs a table with 5 others.

Not everyone flat bets the table minimum. Not everyone plays BS either.
Click to expand...
Plus having two half full tables leaves seats for new players to play. Having even 1 person looking for a table rather than playing is losing money for the Casino. Not sure how many people need to be looking for it to be worth paying an extra $15 an hour for the extra staff. Assuming dealer makes $15 per hour and average bet is $15 then you need 50 hands dealt per hour at a 2% average house advantage (assuming non AP or fairly bad basic strategy players) to make it worth having the extra table open. That means it takes two players to even fund the dealer salary. But if the extra staff is already being paid to smoke in the break room then it is should be a no-brainer to have two tables open rather than one.

+EV
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
Sonny said:
This is the classic "WiWo vs. White Rabbit" comparison. Schlesinger's "Blackjack Attack" has the specific numbers you're looking for as well as optimal departure points for different games. I believe that most simulators like Casino Verite and Blackjack 678 should be able to handle this as well.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
well cvcx has a backcounting feature where you can set the parameter that you won't play below a certain tc. but i can't see how you could tweak that to compare wonging in as opposed to wonging out. apparently it can be done as i believe a lot of Schelinger's data came from cvcx (if i remmember right) :confused:
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#17
#17
schismist said:
Anyone know how much worse it is to play shoes from the beginning and wong out at -1, compared to backcounting and wonging in at +2 and then wonging out at -1? I can't figure out how to get a simple simulator to test this.
Click to expand...
AutoMonk knows the answer to this. I estimate that wong-out is 20% less efficient, a factor easily compensated for with a bigger spread - use 1-6 for wong-in and 1-6|6 for wong-out. zg
 
K

Knox

Well-Known Member
#18
#18
Senor Frog let me know next time you will be in Cinci. The $25 Argosy DD game allows mid-shoe entry, leaving it vulnerable despite the crummy 50% penetration. I saw a guy sit there and jump in and out liberally with large bets, but I think he was just a plopper.

While the above game is double 9-11 only and no DAS, it is also S17, helping to offset some of the lost EV.
 
A

avs21

Well-Known Member
#19
#19
schismist said:
Anyone know how much worse it is to play shoes from the beginning and wong out at -1, compared to backcounting and wonging in at +2 and then wonging out at -1? I can't figure out how to get a simple simulator to test this.

Also, for AC players out there... Are additional limit restrictions placed on mid shoe entry bets in AC on the tables that do allow it? Or maybe these low limit tables too crowded to get a spot? What is the best strategy for a green chipper in AC?
Click to expand...
The first one is if you wong in at +2 and the second one you would wong out at -1 and come back into the shoe at 0
IBA: 1.814
TBA: 1.537
Score: 5.57


TBA: .783
IBA: .908
Score: 14.90


I didn't know what rules you wanted I did 6d 75% pen S17 DAS using a 1-6 spread.
 
S

schismist

Well-Known Member
#20
#20
Hey AVS, that's great. Is the first player wonging out at +2 or at -1? The former seems unrealistic. Also, might you have switched the order? The +2 player should have better score.

Could you sim the same thing with a 1-12 spread, possibly with LS?

Thanks!

How'd you do it, anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top