wonging out

[Kasi]

yeah kasi I would be getting up and going to the bathroom or taking a phone call or if I see a new shoe starting at a different table I will color up and go there at around a -2. I'm wondering what effect this has on my long term advantage over the house and what kind of gains I can expect from it as opposed to playing all hands. Thanks to eveyone for the replies.

Thanks Gage - I thought that is what you maybe meant. It's one of those areas I've always wondered about and, even now, wonder if CVCX can handle that scenario. But I think it can.

 

[Kasi]

from cvcx help:
Departure Adjustment - This option only appears when Back-Counting is selected. CVCX normally assumes that you play all hands at or above the selected count. However, most people will stay at the table for awhile if the count dips below that Wong-In point. This feature is based on a methodology posted by DD’. When selected, an estimate is made of the SCORE and Win Rate as if you exited the table when the count has dropped to the first row of counts displayed (normally -1.) Note: This is only an estimate. CVData must be used to calculate the exact numbers. Also, you can enter a number. This is the number of hands that it would take you to find a new table. So, if you enter 10, you are estimating that it you will waste ten hands looking for a new table and the Win Rate will be decreased accordingly.

Thank you Wise One.

Wish I knew what it meant :grin:

I'm thinking maybe it might mean, I'd set back-counting at 0 (top of the deck - whatever count is neutral and departure point wherever maybe -1 or -2 depending when you would leave.

I like the "wasted time" factor. I sort of understand how that might be important - it's what I meant about time between the next shoe anyawy.

Would such a setting sort of supposed to be "always play at top of shoe, always exit at some count" scenario?

It just seems one would experience a neutral 0 count alot more often playing-all than only when from the top of a shoe or even being able to "back-count" always entering at a TC0.

I thought back-counting basically assumed mid-shoe entry was allowed and you could in theory just sit there, see all the hands and play the ones you chose to.

The top of the shoe stuff and playing until whatever count basically would assume no mid-shoe entry was allowed.

Just a general question for anyone - how would you tell CVCX to do a "only play from the top of shoe but never play a TC-2 count"?

It still just seems to me the frequencies of the TC's would change a great deal because say a TC-1 would occur alot more often if you also play counts below that because half the time you will play below that but half the time you will recover to a TC-1 count. More or less. If you see what I mean.
And I'm not even sure I see what I mean lmao.

 

[Kasi]

the sims are back counting. I didn't look into the thought of playing from the top of the shoe and leaving when the count drops to -2 because the thread stated this,BJC

Thanks bjcount.

I don't even have CVCX so I was just wondering if even what I was guessing ws true.

It's not like your sims invalidated anything you said about them and I'm sure Gage appreciates the effort you went thru to post them.

Maybe it illustrates any sim has underlying assumptions, usually lots of them lol, and it's a good thing to know what they are.

Personal question - no reply necessary - just wondered how you/anyone felt about your investment in CVCX or how necessary you/anyone feels it may or not be to an aspiring AP player?

I'm not one, so I don't have it :grin:

 

[Kasi]

I must clarify what I meant by saying .5%-1%. I was trying to say that an average counter playing and betting correctly would probably have this advantage over the house on average for the simple fact that they would have more money on the tables at positive counts. Not for a particular shoe but over the long haul. I would think that not playing at the negative counts would make the counters advantage higher in the long term sense. I was wanting to know how much one could expect to gain in their long term advantage by wonging out.

It's always a balancing act GAGE.

I wish I could explain it better for you.

It's like look at bjcount's posted sims.

You play only hands at -2 or above, you have a 1-12 spread that's $5-$60. But you are playing 92% of every 100 hands dealt.

You only play hands at TC+1 and above, you are only playing 27% of all hands dealt yet you can spread $15 to $180 with the same risk, have less variance and with a higher avg %adv.

Both scenarios have the same ~4.5 units per round standard deviation.

Yet the -2 scenario has many more units deviation, almost twice as many, per 70 hands (hour in this case). The +1 scenario has fewer units stan dev per 70 hands yet has more dollar stan dev because you are betting 3 times the unit.

The -2 scenario is a 2000 unit roll with $10K roll.
The +1 scenario is a 667 unit roll with $10K roll.

If you only played hands at TC+1 and above and still spread $5-$60, you'd have alot less lifetime risk because you have more units in your fixed dollar ($10K) roll, being 2000 units instead of 667. Your ROR in that case would be virtually non-existent.

I don't care if you want to play 1 or 100 or 1000 rounds at a 90% ROR.

As Ricardo Montalban said "Go or Stay. But do it because you want to".
Star Trek stuff - you're too young for that :laugh:

And may Lady Luck shine unusually rarely upon you.

 

[bjcount]

Just a general question for anyone - how would you tell CVCX to do a "only play from the top of shoe but never play a TC-2 count"?

You set it up in CVData where you can set it to sim from start of shoe and then pick a wong out point. If your playing heads up, when you wong out, there is a setting to force it to reshuffle when your out. You can tell at the end of the sim what % of hands were skipped.

CVCX works up optimum betting conditions.

It's worth the money even if you use it just a dozen times, but you'll use it more then that once you get the hang of it.
BJC

 

[sagefr0g]

Thank you Wise One.

Wish I knew what it meant :grin:

I'm thinking maybe it might mean, I'd set back-counting at 0 (top of the deck - whatever count is neutral and departure point wherever maybe -1 or -2 depending when you would leave.

I like the "wasted time" factor. I sort of understand how that might be important - it's what I meant about time between the next shoe anyawy.

Would such a setting sort of supposed to be "always play at top of shoe, always exit at some count" scenario?

It just seems one would experience a neutral 0 count alot more often playing-all than only when from the top of a shoe or even being able to "back-count" always entering at a TC0.

I thought back-counting basically assumed mid-shoe entry was allowed and you could in theory just sit there, see all the hands and play the ones you chose to.

The top of the shoe stuff and playing until whatever count basically would assume no mid-shoe entry was allowed.

Just a general question for anyone - how would you tell CVCX to do a "only play from the top of shoe but never play a TC-2 count"?

It still just seems to me the frequencies of the TC's would change a great deal because say a TC-1 would occur alot more often if you also play counts below that because half the time you will play below that but half the time you will recover to a TC-1 count. More or less. If you see what I mean.
And I'm not even sure I see what I mean lmao.

there you go thinking about this stuff and you don't even have the program, lol.
but yeah your questions are giving me questions to think about that i never thought of.
mainly any more i just set my simulations for play all.
i dunno it seems to me when i look at a cvcx sim set for back counting that it really has to be looked at as both wonging in and out sort of strategy not just say wonging in only then playing on no matter what count or not just wonging out only playing from the start of a shoe.
to me i just look at it as a 'in the ballpark' sort of thing with hopefully logical fudge factors thrown in as far as what i ever do in real live casino action.
lmao, just knowing wonging under proper circumstances is a 'good' thing is enough to make me a warm 'fuzzy' counter. :cat::whip:

 

[Kasi]

You set it up in CVData where you can set it to sim from start of shoe and then pick a wong out point. If your playing heads up, when you wong out, there is a setting to force it to reshuffle when your out. You can tell at the end of the sim what % of hands were skipped.

CVCX works up optimum betting conditions.

It's worth the money even if you use it just a dozen times, but you'll use it more then that once you get the hang of it.
BJC

Yeah - use it 1000 times maybe it's was worth the 10 cents to find out the 999 things you don't want to do

So, can you post one of those "top of the shoe only" sims?

I'll take anything

 

[Kasi]

...so i figure most times that i exit a table with a profit comparable to a perfect counter that i'm probably leaving a disavantageous situation. ....i know how much a perfect counter spreading 1-8 can expect to make in that much time.

I was gonna be kind but........I just had to ask :whip:

You do know you are a perfect counter, right?

And, not only can you add and subtract 1 with great accuracy, and divide too with equal accuracy, for thousands and thousand of rounds, you also know what exactly to expect from having such a skill.

I know it. You know it.

Just give me that.

That you know, deep in your soul, that whatever the reason is you may choose to bet as voodooishly as you choose to, you absolutely know you have every skill necessary to do the AP card-counting thing.

Just give me that.

You're like Phelps saying "I guess I can swim OK".

You can maybe fool others here but you can't fool me.

If you promised to do the card-counting thing, I'd invest in you in a second without a worry in the world.

Yeah, sure, I'd need a result-fax every hour but so what :grin:

 

[sagefr0g]

I was gonna be kind but........I just had to ask :whip:

You do know you are a perfect counter, right?

And, not only can you add and subtract 1 with great accuracy, and divide too with equal accuracy, for thousands and thousand of rounds, you also know what exactly to expect from having such a skill.

I know it. You know it.

Just give me that.

That you know, deep in your soul, that whatever the reason is you may choose to bet as voodooishly as you choose to, you absolutely know you have every skill necessary to do the AP card-counting thing.

Just give me that.

You're like Phelps saying "I guess I can swim OK".

You can maybe fool others here but you can't fool me.

If you promised to do the card-counting thing, I'd invest in you in a second without a worry in the world.

Yeah, sure, I'd need a result-fax every hour but so what :grin:

yeah, ok.
and i'm even more confident now that my ego has been blown all out of proportion. lmao.
pm me and i'll let you know where to send the check. :angel:

 

[bjcount]

Yeah - use it 1000 times maybe it's was worth the 10 cents to find out the 999 things you don't want to do

So, can you post one of those "top of the shoe only" sims?

I'll take anything

Heres 2 examples for comparison. These are quick set ups so the betting ramp may not be optimum.
rules are 5/6d, s17,das,ls, split up to 4 hands.
top sim of each pair is start at shuffle (top of shoe), wong in and out in same shoe, sit out at tc -1
bottom sim is start at shuffle, force reshuffle at tc -1 (like leaving the table)
1st set is hilo w/ full indices, 1dtc
2nd set is my generated indices using rpc tags. 1/2dtc

These were run using Qfits CVData.

BJC