Best part about Wonging out!

[Shoofly]

Making any assumptions about 2 decks of unseen cards is dangerous IMO. The actual RC could have gone from +16 to -16 in that span. We all know the old axiom about what happens when we assume.

Yep. Sorry, I promised I was dropping out of this thread. Starting now.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Simply Put

For the millionth time, card counting is about information we have, information that is contained in the SEEN cards, which is expressed as a running count. Any unseen card is an unseen card, it doesnt matter HOW you failed to see it, it doesnt matter if you didnt see it because it got burnt by the dealer, it doesnt matter that you didnt see it because it was behind the cut card, it doesnt matter whether you failed to see it because you were staring at some droopers. The fact is any card you dont see is effectively reducing the shoe penetration. Missing 2 or 3 cards wont kill ya but missing 2 decks would (if you do it all the time)

Your wrong

good cards:joker::whip:

 

[Gamblor]

For the millionth time, card counting is about information we have, information that is contained in the SEEN cards, which is expressed as a running count. Any unseen card is an unseen card, it doesnt matter HOW you failed to see it, it doesnt matter if you didnt see it because it got burnt by the dealer, it doesnt matter that you didnt see it because it was behind the cut card, it doesnt matter whether you failed to see it because you were staring at some droopers. The fact is any card you dont see is effectively reducing the shoe penetration. Missing 2 or 3 cards wont kill ya but missing 2 decks would (if you do it all the time)

The thing is, at 4 decks, with a RC +16, TC +4, you DO have information about the remaining cards. It is high card rich. It is valid to assume these high cards are evenly distributed on average.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Your wrong

good cards:joker::whip:

Are sims also wrong, how about common logic that a pack of unknown cards is a pack of unknow cards whether it is picked from the front, middle or end of the shoe. You need to let it go and stop poisoning minds with silly claims.

PS: You were given by many members examples that show that your logic fails. For you information if you can provide ONE counterexample that makes any model wrong.

 

[prankster]

I'm sitting at a table full of miserable ploppies, constantly complaining about how I split my 3's against a dealers 7's, or hit soft 18 against a dealer 10, or how I'm surrendering too much and ruining the flow of the cards, the usual.

The shoe goes to strongly negative count, and of course I Wong out for a bathroom break, whatever.

I come back and the whole table is complaining about how the shoe went cold when I left, indirectly (or not so indirectly) blaming me Of course I'm really laughing on the inside.

This happens constantly, almost never do I hear the shoe was good in a situation like this. Pure awesomeness.

You just gotta love the plops!:joker:

 

[21gunsalute]

For the millionth time, card counting is about information we have, information that is contained in the SEEN cards, which is expressed as a running count. Any unseen card is an unseen card, it doesnt matter HOW you failed to see it, it doesnt matter if you didnt see it because it got burnt by the dealer, it doesnt matter that you didnt see it because it was behind the cut card, it doesnt matter whether you failed to see it because you were staring at some droopers. The fact is any card you dont see is effectively reducing the shoe penetration. Missing 2 or 3 cards wont kill ya but missing 2 decks would (if you do it all the time)

Okay, why do you appear to disagree with me and take me to task for making such a statement and then appear to agree with me at the end? I would argue that missing 2 decks would make all prior info totally worthless. The RC and/or the TC may remain about the same (or even increase), but it would more likely go down and trend back towards a count of zero. I would also argue that there is a difference, and possibly a huge difference, between unseen and unplayed cards and cards that are unseen but have been played. If it suits you to assume that the TC will remain constant 2 decks later into the shoe, then more power to you. But for my money, if it was important enough to leave the table in the first place during a high count, better to just wait until the next shoe because there simply isn't enough info available to risk large bets on such a big unknown factor.

 

[bigplayer]

With anything but a TC of 0, the count is likely to trend in the opposite direction. The count wants to be 0, the count is always likely to trend toward 0. With a positive count, expect it go down. With a negative count, expect it to go up. A positive going down means high cards being dealt (why we are betting big) and a negative going up means low cards being dealt (why we are betting min).

For practical purposes though, you can't assume the count has changed at all while you were out of the room. Unseen cards are uncounted cards. Think of the backs of the cards as electrons. Until you observe the face, it could be any of the non observed cards.

This means while the count might have actually gone down to -5 while you were gone (you missed all the good cards) you should still bet and play as if it were +3 because you can't tell if it went up down or stayed the same. Any guessing is far more likely to hurt you than to help you.

Sure, in that extreme example you'll play the rest of the shoe being off by a true count of 8, but usually that won't be the case.

The TC tends to stay exactly the same, the running count trends to move back to zero but the TC stays the same on average. That is why wonging out of negative TC shoes is so important...once a shoe tanks it tends to stay tanked (not that some shoes won't rebound but we're talking about averages not exceptions).

Think about a hypothetical six deck shoe where all 24 tens are removed and replaced with 5's. Pick any 52 card segment you care to and if you had to guess the TC based only on that information. On average, any random 52 card pack will have a true count of -4. Of course some will be -2 and some will be -6 but over the long haul the number you will come up with most is -4. That is what is called the True Count Theorem written of by Peter Griffin in Theory of Blackjack.

 

[bigplayer]

Yes, certainly true, and I did not suggest otherwise. The question was whether we should keep the RC or TC when we come back to a shoe. My point was we should keep TC.

e.g. with 4 decks remaining, we a TC +4, RC +16. When we come back, and there is two shoes left, what should we assume, a TC +4 or RC +16?

I say definitely TC +4 (and RC +8 now).

You can do it that way, better is to say you still have 4 decks unseen and a running count of +16. Either way your TC is unchanged.

 

[bigruss]

I'm still at a loss here. We're trying to assume what the count is after we walked away from the table and stopped counting? After you get through with your bidness in the bathroom, walk around somewhere until the shoe is finished for goodness sakes. Why the heck would you want to play a shoe where you are guestimating the count?

 

[halibut]

Besides, who would want to leave the table when TC is +4?:laugh:

 

[MangoJ]

I'm still at a loss here. We're trying to assume what the count is after we walked away from the table and stopped counting? After you get through with your bidness in the bathroom, walk around somewhere until the shoe is finished for goodness sakes. Why the heck would you want to play a shoe where you are guestimating the count?

Because this thread has drifted to theory of counts. It is worth discussing such bizar situations because it tests our mindset about counting.
How do you think counting was developed in first place ? This was surely not done with a single brilliant idea of "hey let's assign values to all seen cards, make a true count conversion, and adjust betsize and/or stop play if it's negative.

The very reason for an academic discussion like this is: Do I know counting well enough to make the right decisions ? If you really want to test your understanding and proficience of counting (rather than just applying a given ruleset), you must think about situations you probably are never to encounter (so you have no experience), and deduce the right decision from your understanding of counting alone.
Then if you like, you can test this decision by playing or better simulation.

Nobody cares about the very situation where you happen to wong out at +3 and miss 2 decks of dealing. But some people (including me) are interested in the "puzzle" of how to deal with this situation, and try to learn something!

 

[Billy C1]

Simple is good

I feel there's no need to complicate simple things. As both myself and iCountNTrack pointed out, all that needs to be considered is the fact that there are 4 unseen decks here and the ONLY thing that results from that fact is piss poor penetration. It's that simple!

BillyC1

 

[Gamblor]

Because this thread has drifted to theory of counts. It is worth discussing such bizar situations because it tests our mindset about counting.
How do you think counting was developed in first place ? This was surely not done with a single brilliant idea of "hey let's assign values to all seen cards, make a true count conversion, and adjust betsize and/or stop play if it's negative.

The very reason for an academic discussion like this is: Do I know counting well enough to make the right decisions ? If you really want to test your understanding and proficience of counting (rather than just applying a given ruleset), you must think about situations you probably are never to encounter (so you have no experience), and deduce the right decision from your understanding of counting alone.
Then if you like, you can test this decision by playing or better simulation.

Nobody cares about the very situation where you happen to wong out at +3 and miss 2 decks of dealing. But some people (including me) are interested in the "puzzle" of how to deal with this situation, and try to learn something!

Agreed, wonging out at a positive count is an academic exercise for card counters, basically there has to be a tsunami coming your way or some other great natural disaster to get a CC to wong out at a positive count

However, the opposite is not an academic exercise! Namely wonging out at a negative count, and having to come back to the shoe, which does happen for various reasons. So it is worth discussing this situation, since the arguments are valid and symmetrical for neg or pos counts.

 

[Canceler]

Agreed, wonging out at a positive count is an academic exercise for card counters, basically there has to be a tsunami coming your way or some other great natural disaster to get a CC to wong out at a positive count

You know there's a name for that, right? It's called "roching out". See this thread starting with post #14. :joker:

 

[moo321]

You could wong out of a positive count if the BP needs a seat.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

You could, and should, wong out of a positive count if you have a feeling the count is just going to get more positive!

 

[Southpaw]

You could, and should, wong out of a positive count if you have a feeling the count is just going to get more positive!

Indeed.

Spaw