Any ideas without increasing my BR?

[blackjack avenger]

I do wonder if someone would sim something like only wonging in, never out. Compare it to wonging out and never in.

It's depends on the variables. If you wong out on any negative then wong out may have a higher SCORE, but your 100 hands may take a long time to play.

The real trick is to not have a style locked in stone, or betting pattern or even camoflauge but to be adaptable to whatever situation you face. Sometimes play all, wong, wong in, wong out can be the correct choice and it can vary from shoe to shoe and even in the same session.

good cards:joker::whip:

 

[aslan]

Of course, I just was always of the belief that the out part was more important than the in part.

But alas I am no expert on wonging as my play involves, and often requires, a play-all approach.

Same here, actually. what game do you usually play?

 

[Shoofly]

I do wonder if someone would sim something janky like that though. Only wonging in, never out. Compare it to wonging out and never in.

I can't do a sim, but my feeling is that wonging in is more powerful than wonging out. When wonging in you are able to choose the point where you will wong in; whether at any positive count, or at a stronger count. When wonging out you must play neutral and probably mild negative counts. However, wonging in is more difficult. I agree that different situations require different approaches.

 

[moo321]

It's depends on the variables. If you wong out on any negative then wong out may have a higher SCORE, but your 100 hands may take a long time to play.

The real trick is to not have a style locked in stone, or betting pattern or even camoflauge but to be adaptable to whatever situation you face. Sometimes play all, wong, wong in, wong out can be the correct choice and it can vary from shoe to shoe and even in the same session.

good cards:joker::whip:

Very strongly agree.

If I haven't left a shoe for 5 hours, a wongout is perfectly fine. If I've left 3 shoes in a row, I can't leave again until at least another hour or two, or my dealer taps and all the players leave. They'll ask questions about why i keep leaving.

Wonging can be great on a saturday night, but it doesn't work on day shift at a casino with 1 table open. Wong in, and then play all and do some wongouts of bad shoes.

 

[aslan]

The real trick is to not have a style locked in stone, or betting pattern or even camouflage but to be adaptable to whatever situation you face.

IMO, 100% correct! Plan, but then change your plan all along the way as circumstances warrant.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Same here, actually. what game do you usually play?

4 deck, h17 das rsa

 

[Blue Efficacy]

I can't do a sim, but my feeling is that wonging in is more powerful than wonging out. When wonging in you are able to choose the point where you will wong in; whether at any positive count, or at a stronger count. When wonging out you must play neutral and probably mild negative counts. However, wonging in is more difficult. I agree that different situations require different approaches.

Note that a wong out is preceeded by a dropping count, which would have been a theoretically +EV situation.

 

[Shoofly]

Note that a wong out is preceeded by a dropping count, which would have been a theoretically +EV situation.

Yes, but unforseen in advance, so would probably be at min bet.

 

[BrianCP]

Yes, but unforseen in advance, so would probably be at min bet.

Unless you are also opposition betting as a form of camo. Most people are not though, that takes a hefty bankroll.

 

[aslan]

Note that a wong out is preceeded by a dropping count, which would have been a theoretically +EV situation.

Right. As a plus count drops I am hesitant to kelly my bet downwards for the simple fact that I am already in plus territory and a rise in count will put me at a better EV while a drop in count can only be accomplished by more good cards falling. I feel it's like a win/win situation. Any comment?

 

[aslan]

Unless you are also opposition betting as a form of camo. Most people are not though, that takes a hefty bankroll.

Opposition betting need not require extra br. I guess a lot depends on how you envision utilizing it and in what specific situations.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Optimal Does Mean Optimal

Opposition betting need not require extra br. I guess a lot depends on how you envision utilizing it and in what specific situations.

In general if anything takes you away from optimal betting, you need more bank? The only exception I can think of would be, if you only play positive hands and sometimes underbet. If you play negative hands those postive expectation underbets do hurt you because you are hurting your spread from positve to negative hands?

Big neutral bets definately requires more bank.

good cards:joker::whip:

 

[blackjack avenger]

It is What it is

Right. As a plus count drops I am hesitant to kelly my bet downwards for the simple fact that I am already in plus territory and a rise in count will put me at a better EV while a drop in count can only be accomplished by more good cards falling. I feel it's like a win/win situation. Any comment?

Don't you face the expectation and risk of the next hand? Regardless of what has happened before?

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[aslan]

In general if anything takes you away from optimal betting, you need more bank? The only exception I can think of would be, if you only play positive hands and sometimes underbet. If you play negative hands those postive expectation underbets do hurt you because you are hurting your spread from positve to negative hands?

Big neutral bets definately requires more bank.

good cards:joker::whip:

The way I use it in general does not add risk to my bankroll, although it does take away from my theoretical win amount. I have used it in negative counts, but do not recommend this. It's a bit voodoo if you ask me.

 

[BrianCP]

The way I use it in general does not add risk to my bankroll, although it does take away from my theoretical win amount. I have used it in negative counts, but do not recommend this. It's a bit voodoo if you ask me.

Well, I think that for coin flip type situations around break even (within .5% approximately) you could average some higher than table min bets to about one unit in such a way that it appears you are using a betting system. The most effective I heard of though was betting 25-50 just kind of against the way the count was "flowing" (very voodoo) but then when the advantage was 2% or so jumping the bets up to around 200. The story I read basically allowed the AP to get away with a 1-160 spread or so while there were two other beginning AP's at the table spreading 1-4. When they were barred, they commented about how they should let only stupid people play (referencing the AP at the table that appeared to be playing crazy).


You sacrifice a lot of ev in the middling situations, but you make up for it with a crazy high max bet when the count is around %2.

That sort of crazy opposition betting requires a gigantic bankroll.