The ethics of Wonging

[apex]

We Wong in during good counts, or sometimes play two hands. We Wong out during bad counts. We do this because it gives us an advantage. We play more hands when the deck is in our favor, and less when it is against us.

I don't think it's too far of a jump to say that this effects the players around us. When we play two hands instead of one, or one instead of zero we are using more of a good deck. When we wong out we are counting on the rest of the players to "eat" the bad cards so we can come back to a fresh shoe. They end up playing more hands in bad decks, and less in good ones.

I started thinking about this when I was getting chewed out by a player for entering and leaving the shoe. His arguement was that I was hurting the table by altering the flow of cards, which I know is bunk. I now believe he was right that I was hurting the table, but for the wrong reason. I think Wonging slightly lowers the rest of the table's expected value. Do you agree? Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

 

[RJT]

Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

Why would you? The information is freely available to everyone at the table, whether they choose to use it is up to them. There is no barrier to their learning and most of the players don't even learn BS so when they take so little interest, worrying about the effect that my play has on them is a non-event.

RJT.

 

[blackjackomaha]

I've never felt bad wonging in and out.

Another added benefit - it has strengthened my ability to block out ploppyisms directed at me :laugh:

 

[21forme]

Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

Only when there's another AP I know at the table and I wong out first :grin:

 

[southAP]

The average player knows very little about blackjack to begin with. Take my wife for instance, she had no idea what bust cards are and couldnt care less what they do. Shes gonna hit her 14 against a 6. Even though she's seen me practice day in and day out and even sometimes asks questions about particular plays she'll still play her own way.
It is for this reason that I could care less about how other players feel at the table on the way I play, how many spots I take up and if I mess up their "flow". They always have the arguement that they came there to make money or at least break even. However they never take the time to learn a counting system or any type of AP strategy, which is apparent by the way they play and how they spread. This to me is them saying "I dont care about the money I'm putting on the table" and if they dont care, why should I?

 

[Billy C1]

We Wong in during good counts, or sometimes play two hands. We Wong out during bad counts. We do this because it gives us an advantage. We play more hands when the deck is in our favor, and less when it is against us.

I don't think it's too far of a jump to say that this effects the players around us. When we play two hands instead of one, or one instead of zero we are using more of a good deck. When we wong out we are counting on the rest of the players to "eat" the bad cards so we can come back to a fresh shoe. They end up playing more hands in bad decks, and less in good ones.

I started thinking about this when I was getting chewed out by a player for entering and leaving the shoe. His arguement was that I was hurting the table by altering the flow of cards, which I know is bunk. I now believe he was right that I was hurting the table, but for the wrong reason. I think Wonging slightly lowers the rest of the table's expected value. Do you agree? Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

You're essentially asking if I feel guilty about going to school, and the resulting advantage that I have, over the person that chose not to. The answer is an emphatic NO!!!!!

BillyC1

 

[prankster]

You really have to be looking for something to feel guilty about!:joker::whip::devil:

 

[Baberuth]

Don't play a negative shoe! Don't feel bad.

It's individual play, not team play. I feel bad that almost everyone loses in a casino. I am going to use every skill I have learned and practiced to make my seat at the table a winner. Don't feel guilty about your skill.

 

[NightStalker]

That's okay

We Wong in during good counts, or sometimes play two hands. We Wong out during bad counts. We do this because it gives us an advantage. We play more hands when the deck is in our favor, and less when it is against us.

I don't think it's too far of a jump to say that this effects the players around us. When we play two hands instead of one, or one instead of zero we are using more of a good deck. When we wong out we are counting on the rest of the players to "eat" the bad cards so we can come back to a fresh shoe. They end up playing more hands in bad decks, and less in good ones.

I started thinking about this when I was getting chewed out by a player for entering and leaving the shoe. His arguement was that I was hurting the table by altering the flow of cards, which I know is bunk. I now believe he was right that I was hurting the table, but for the wrong reason. I think Wonging slightly lowers the rest of the table's expected value. Do you agree? Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

Assuming they are already losing to house.. But Do not Wong into a table where there is a counter present. If you still wong into other's counter table, do that only in the last round..

 

[metronome]

Using the knowledge and skill that is counting ( and other AP techniques ) is certainly not "immoral". Wonging probably does lower EV slightly for the "play all" players, but not nearly as much is incorrect BS play.
And besides, since non-counters have no idea what the composition of the remaining shoe is, well.... "ignorance is bliss" or more accurately rephrased, "uninformed is bliss". And I'm not shy about telling them that there is no "flow" and ESP doesn't work either. :laugh:

 

[Sharky]

b4 you wong when it's really negative, be sure to take a look around at the stacks at the table and check them upon returning - if the players are still there..don't feel bad though as they have the same opportunity

which brings me to an incident a few weeks ago where there are a limited number of tables at my level (like 3) and the place was crowded...2 (blatant) AP's playing 2 each and my friend and I playing the other 3 spots...count goes negative and these cats split (w/ spots held, of course) leaving us holding the bag on this -4 count...so tempted break too, but literally just sat down b4 this shuffle...ruffed it out and justice was served in the end.

has anyone else experienced this...limited number of 'playable' games and you sit w/ other AP's who BOTH go the WC at the same moment...would've been WAY too obvious if both of us hit the WC after FINALLY sitting. MORAL: I HATE small stores for this reason.

 

[Dyepaintball12]

I think it is ridiculous to think Wonging is "unethical". If you start thinking that way where does it end?

Is it our responsibility to correct them when they decide to raise their bet as the count is dropping? If we are back counting a table and it is super negative should we jump in to eat up the bad cards so they can have a better chance of getting a high count? No. Its ridiculous.

They know the house has an advantage so if they don't want to learn to play with an edge then it's not up to us to protect them.

 

[paddywhack]

has anyone else experienced this...limited number of 'playable' games and you sit w/ other AP's who BOTH go the WC at the same moment...would've been WAY too obvious if both of us hit the WC after FINALLY sitting. MORAL: I HATE small stores for this reason.

I do play with an AP on an occassional basis as this store has limited open tables. Both of us usually playing two spots. Sometimes its really funny predicting who will bail out first. Sometimes we both bail within a hand or two and let the other two players suffer.

 

[Renzey]

His arguement was that I was hurting the table by altering the flow of cards, which I know is bunk. I think Wonging slightly lowers the rest of the table's expected value. Does anyone ever feel bad about this?

Ploppies wong in and wong out too, but for their own reasons. They wong in when they believe the table is "hot". They wong out when they believe the dealer is "hot", or that 3rd base has corrupted the flow of the cards. Everybody is trying to pick their spots. Some use effective means -- others don't. It's part of the thinking part of the game.

 

[aslan]

Everyone has the same opportunity to wong in and out as they think best. Lack of other players' card playing skill is not my fault. I always thought the object of cards was to play as skillfully as possible. At poker that means taking immediate and direct advantage of the other players' deficiencies. At blackjack the effect is incidental:angel: to beating the house, and in no way intended to hurt the other players, even though it does, for example, in hogging the table:devil::eyepatch::laugh: during plus counts to have a better chance of getting the good cards.

Also, knowing how to get an advantage in no way ensures victory. :sad: Sometimes, ironically, my knowledge-based decisions wind up hurting me and helping the ploppies.

It sounds to me like the OP is a good Catholic or Jew to be so imbued with such a sense of guilt. :joker: Get over it. It's a misinterpretation of both religions. Or see a psychoanalyst, if it will make you feel better. :joker:

Actually, any moralistic person, religious or not, might have these same pangs of guilt:whip: and scrupulosity:whip:. They are well meant but totally inappropriate. You should be able to reason your way out of it. It is not a "rationalization," it just does not stand up to the light of reason IMHO.

 

[21gunsalute]

Why are we even discussing this? Is the income tax system fair?

 

[aslan]

Why are we even discussing this? Is the income tax system fair?

Some people are more guided by a sense of fair play than others.

Possessing an advantage is not unfair in and of itself, and card counting is a good example of this. In this country, the only equality is equal opportunity. Both card counters and ploppies have an equal opportunity to win at blackjack so by American standards it is fair. I am never upset when ploppies win by luck and I lose by educated betting decisions--too bad they don't take advantage of the opportunity to learn card counting--then they would not be favored to lose it all back again.

 

[prankster]

If a great ruler ruled some people may go to Barnes and Noble and read blackjack books and others may not-now that would be unfair! I could hang my hat on that!:joker::laugh:I gotta find something to feel guilty about darn it all!

 

[southAP]

If a great ruler ruled some people may go to Barnes and Noble and read blackjack books and others may not-now that would be unfair! I could hang my hat on that!:joker::laugh:I gotta find something to feel guilty about darn it all!

Personally I get my blackjack books from Borders, haha

 

[sagefr0g]

Why are we even discussing this? Is the income tax system fair?

i applaud the OP for considering the question.
such consideration imho indicates a grounding of respect and honor that is laudable. with such a grounding one may have a better vantage point for judging the wisdom of other kinds of situations, actions that may or may not have hidden 'pitfalls' with respect to morality hence possibly illegality.
law is a complex subject, something it can take years of academia to master and even then such masters can be corrupt or if not, burdened by moral riddles.
just me maybe, but i believe being sensitive to moral issues can afford one an efficient protection against the 'vagaries' and complexities of the law of the land.
far as the morality of wonging, uhmm, with me the jury is still out.
far as tax fairness, i'll go with rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.