I was playing at a game of 6D with penetration of about 5-1/4 decks over the weekend. Given the greater likelihood of reaching the pivot point ( + 2 TC ) at some point during the shoe of that depth I reasoned that I should stay in the shoe longer with a low count than I would if the penetration was only 4-1/2 decks. This casino also had low limits so it did not cost so much to stay in as long as 3 decks. Conversely if I find myself at a table with a shallow penetration I will leave earlier when the count is low. Does this make mathematical sense ?
wonging out relative to penetration
- Thread starter BradRod
- Start date
learning to count
Well-Known Member
I was playing at a game of 6D with penetration of about 5-1/4 decks over the weekend. Given the greater likelihood of reaching the pivot point ( + 2 TC ) at some point during the shoe of that depth I reasoned that I should stay in the shoe longer with a low count than I would if the penetration was only 4-1/2 decks. This casino also had low limits so it did not cost so much to stay in as long as 3 decks. Conversely if I find myself at a table with a shallow penetration I will leave earlier when the count is low. Does this make mathematical sense ?
Good, no, great penetration. From experience and from professional advice I wong out at a -3 tc if occuring within the first two decks dealt out. Then after that if a -1 tc occurs at any time in the true count. This has been my strategy so far.
Now if you are staying in and playing through the negative counts you have to spread 1-30/40 depending on the ole bankroll. To play all red you need a minimum BR of 5k. A BR of 10k would be better. You have to play a lot of nuetral counts and have to ride out negative swings. WHen you play all you have to get time in and that means surviving exposure if you have a great run.
My last trip I had a great run when I was wonging tables. I discovered that the casinos with several open tables was the best place to wong. Variety is the spice of life. If the limits are low then flat bet the max if it is at your max bet limit for your bank roll. I would enter a +3 tc and bet max at a +5 and spread to two hands at a +6 tc. I have seen these low bet limits $10-$200 0r $5-$50 at good games so wonging in with max bets can be deadly here.
If you play all at low limits you can risk never being able to overcome the VIG with a low spread. Also spread to two hands can help with these low limits. I have had to spread to three hands on those $50 max table to get to a max bet. Watch out when playing multiple hands like this if there are too many players at the table. The best I have found is to play at at table with two others. Better to play heads up if can get it. Just remember you need a good BR to do this at six deckers.
The game sounds good though with a 3/4 deck cut off. Can I come and play Black jack there!
Good, no, great penetration. From experience and from professional advice I wong out at a -3 tc if occuring within the first two decks dealt out. Then after that if a -1 tc occurs at any time in the true count. This has been my strategy so far.
Now if you are staying in and playing through the negative counts you have to spread 1-30/40 depending on the ole bankroll. To play all red you need a minimum BR of 5k. A BR of 10k would be better. You have to play a lot of nuetral counts and have to ride out negative swings. WHen you play all you have to get time in and that means surviving exposure if you have a great run.
My last trip I had a great run when I was wonging tables. I discovered that the casinos with several open tables was the best place to wong. Variety is the spice of life. If the limits are low then flat bet the max if it is at your max bet limit for your bank roll. I would enter a +3 tc and bet max at a +5 and spread to two hands at a +6 tc. I have seen these low bet limits $10-$200 0r $5-$50 at good games so wonging in with max bets can be deadly here.
If you play all at low limits you can risk never being able to overcome the VIG with a low spread. Also spread to two hands can help with these low limits. I have had to spread to three hands on those $50 max table to get to a max bet. Watch out when playing multiple hands like this if there are too many players at the table. The best I have found is to play at at table with two others. Better to play heads up if can get it. Just remember you need a good BR to do this at six deckers.
The game sounds good though with a 3/4 deck cut off. Can I come and play Black jack there!
Adam N. Subtractum
Well-Known Member
You have a common...
misconception in your thinking. The main factors in determining optimal departure point IMO:
-number of available tables
-variance in penetration & speed amongst those tables
-heat generated from table hopping
After these factors are considered, here are a few points to ponder on...
-the variance of the frequency of _all_ true counts, relative to penetration
-the True Count Theorem
-the variance of the true count
-the value of time
Some of these considerations should be obvious, but others may not be immediately intuitive. If you don't feel like figuring it out for yourself, Don's BJA is the authorative work on the subject to date, from what I understand.
ANS
misconception in your thinking. The main factors in determining optimal departure point IMO:
-number of available tables
-variance in penetration & speed amongst those tables
-heat generated from table hopping
After these factors are considered, here are a few points to ponder on...
-the variance of the frequency of _all_ true counts, relative to penetration
-the True Count Theorem
-the variance of the true count
-the value of time
Some of these considerations should be obvious, but others may not be immediately intuitive. If you don't feel like figuring it out for yourself, Don's BJA is the authorative work on the subject to date, from what I understand.
ANS
Rob McGarvey
Well-Known Member
If your min bet is $5 I would continue to play to make sure I had a seat when we are coming to the cut card. You are paying a very small fee for reserving your seat, and possibly get to track some Aces and Faces into a segment you can pound into. People that don't track and do not get that kind of penetration should by all means scoot at -2TC or only wong in at +2TC.
Adam N. Subtractum
Well-Known Member
one correction...
LTC said:
"I would enter a +3 tc..."
There is no benefit in waiting until +3 to enter, in fact it will decrease ROI (SCORE) and increase N0 (hands to double) in most, if not all cases. In any case, a TC of +3 or higher would only occur approximately 11% of the time, even with the good pen, so you wouldn't be playing very many hands/hr at all.
ANS
LTC said:
"I would enter a +3 tc..."
There is no benefit in waiting until +3 to enter, in fact it will decrease ROI (SCORE) and increase N0 (hands to double) in most, if not all cases. In any case, a TC of +3 or higher would only occur approximately 11% of the time, even with the good pen, so you wouldn't be playing very many hands/hr at all.
ANS
If you are indeed playing a game that is 5.25 out of 6, then Wonging is entirely the wrong way to play. That is a great game, plant yourself at a table, and play 2 hands, 1-10 spread. You will do just fine, but the two hands is necessary -- it increases your win in plus situations, and eats cards in negative situations.
On the other hand, if you must Wong, you don't stay in longer because of the great penetration. That simply makes no difference in "Wonging" theory (because of the True Count Theorem -- which rougly says that the TC tends to stay the same). Leave when the count says to leave, or because of the other factors (heat, crowd, available tables, etc.). The optimal departure points are listed in Schlesinger's BJAttack.
--Mayor
On the other hand, if you must Wong, you don't stay in longer because of the great penetration. That simply makes no difference in "Wonging" theory (because of the True Count Theorem -- which rougly says that the TC tends to stay the same). Leave when the count says to leave, or because of the other factors (heat, crowd, available tables, etc.). The optimal departure points are listed in Schlesinger's BJAttack.
--Mayor
While the mayor absolutely correctly pointed out that this indeed is great game that should be exploited to the max, I would like to recommend that you not play two hands when TC < +2 if you have other players at the table. Playing two hands when TC < +2 will require you to wager substantially higher in negative or even expectation (especially so if your min bet matches the table min). Let the ploppies help you eat the bad cards. Spread to two hands only when the TC hits +2. This way you will eat more good cards relative to the others.
Many times, this tactic lends additional benefit if you are lucky enough to have ploppy that hates "screwing up the order of the cards" playing with you. This ploppy will play two hands when you are playing one and will play one hand when you spread to two! Need I say more?
Good luck...
Soft17.
Many times, this tactic lends additional benefit if you are lucky enough to have ploppy that hates "screwing up the order of the cards" playing with you. This ploppy will play two hands when you are playing one and will play one hand when you spread to two! Need I say more?
Good luck...
Soft17.
I think jumping back and forth between 1 and 2 hands will hurt your longevity with the ploppies a the table. Besides, it turns out that playing 2 or even 3 hands all the time yields a significantly higher SCORE than playing 1 hand consistently, so it is good to get in the habit of always playing multiple hands in shoe games.
learning to count
Well-Known Member
Re: one correction...
My thinking on this is that I want to enter at +3 with its coresponding bet. For me it would be 3 units green or $75.
My thinking on this is that I want to enter at +3 with its coresponding bet. For me it would be 3 units green or $75.
In the game I am forced to play most of the, time your bet on each of two hands has to be at least double the table minimum. Wouldn't this make a difference in your answer?
My practice has been to spread to two spots once the count has got to the point where I would bet double the minimum on one spot anyway, and from there on bet 150% of what I would bet on one spot, spread over two spots. What do you think?
My practice has been to spread to two spots once the count has got to the point where I would bet double the minimum on one spot anyway, and from there on bet 150% of what I would bet on one spot, spread over two spots. What do you think?
Felix Rue-de-Guerre
Well-Known Member
Isn't it nice to have these kinds of problems? He.. He!
-Felix
-Felix
I'm not sure about the answer to your question. It seems to me that the reason for playing the 2 spots is to be sure you have them to play when the shoe gets good at or before the shuffle card comes out. If you can get a decent spread out when that happens then the double bet will likely have been worth it. If you are not prepared to get a big enough spread down then maybe it is a little risky to play double bets on 2 spots.
The reason you may not have gotten response from others is because of the age of the string.
The reason you may not have gotten response from others is because of the age of the string.