You're about to wong in, and one of the ploppies asks you to wait...

[sagefr0g]

In a way you are costing everyone at the table money because you are taking up cards in good situations and then leave them to play the bad ones. I agree that it is business as usual, but you really can't justify doing it by saying it doesn't affect anyone, because it really does.

the way i look at this is that it is the casino that sets the rules so the situation is thier responsibility. further more the players could have known or should have known the liabilities involved with this issue.

 

[Bojack1]

In a way you are costing everyone at the table money because you are taking up cards in good situations and then leave them to play the bad ones. I agree that it is business as usual, but you really can't justify doing it by saying it doesn't affect anyone, because it really does.

The only way it would affect someone else is if they were playing with an advantage also. Just the fact that most screw up basic strategy with misinformed voodoo logic means they are not playing with an advantage even when there is one. Also I am leaving nobody behind to play bad shoes, if they knew any better they would be getting up also. I have nothing against bad players, but I lose no sleep over letting them lay in the beds they make.

 

[EasyRhino]

I'm pretty sure the effect on a civilian of a wonger coming in and eating some positive cards is fairly marginal. The civilian still has an advantage during the + count, it just doesn't last as long. If if they're playing all, the time they're experiencing at that count is a relatively low percentage of their session. And they probably don't have a big bet out.

Ah, ETFan had a big writeup on from powersim tests of this card eating effect over at BJF a few months ago:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1164633406

I don't think he examined the effect on civilians though.

 

[ScottH]

The only way it would affect someone else is if they were playing with an advantage also.

Even if they aren't playing with an advantage, you are still making it worse for them. If they are playing at a disadvantage, you're only making it worse. A basic strategy player thinks he is playing at a certain disadvantage, but it is worsened if he gets less hands in at postive counts and more in during negative counts.

So the way I see it, you can affect people that are playing at a disadvantage too, you're making the disadvantage even greater for them.

Whether or not they are counting they are waiting for the 20's and blackjack's just like you are. They are sitting there the whole time waiting for them, and when they finally should come out, you come in and "steal" some.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong, but you are still harming other players whether they are playing with an advantage or not.

 

[ScottH]

I'm pretty sure the effect on a civilian of a wonger coming in and eating some positive cards is fairly marginal. The civilian still has an advantage during the + count, it just doesn't last as long. If if they're playing all, the time they're experiencing at that count is a relatively low percentage of their session. And they probably don't have a big bet out.

Ah, ETFan had a big writeup on from powersim tests of this card eating effect over at BJF a few months ago:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agora/view.php?site=bjf&bn=bjf_forum&key=1164633406

I don't think he examined the effect on civilians though.

Yes, the ploppy will still have the advantage in a good count, but like you said it wont last as long and their expectation decreases. That's the only point I was trying to make, that whether or not there is an advantage player or a ploppy at the table, if you wong in you are hurting their game. So you can't justify your technique by saying it doesn't affect anyone. That's all I'm saying. However small or large the effect is, it is true.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Yes, the ploppy will still have the advantage in a good count, but like you said it wont last as long and their expectation decreases. That's the only point I was trying to make, that whether or not there is an advantage player or a ploppy at the table, if you wong in you are hurting their game. So you can't justify your technique by saying it doesn't affect anyone. That's all I'm saying. However small or large the effect is, it is true.

That's true, I also tried to rationalize Wonging in and out into not hurting other players but I couldn't. :devil:

But it's only about 0.1-0.2%. And since most players play much worse than Basic Strategy, the benefit they get from seeing me play it helps them much more than my Wonging hurts them. :angel:

 

[Sonny]

That's true, I also tried to rationalize Wonging in and out into not hurting other players but I couldn't. :devil:

Here's one rationalization:

The nickel ploppies sit down at the table with $50-$100 and continue to play until they lose it all. Playing at a slightly larger disadvantage isn’t going to cost them any more money since they plan to lose it all anyway. The sooner they lose their money, the sooner they can get back to their vacation. Maybe they’ll go hang out at the pool, check out a club, see a show or whatever. In a way, you’re just getting them back to their vacation sooner! :grin:

-Sonny-

 

[ScottH]

Here's one rationalization:

The nickel ploppies sit down at the table with $50-$100 and continue to play until they lose it all. Playing at a slightly larger disadvantage isn’t going to cost them any more money since they plan to lose it all anyway. The sooner they lose their money, the sooner they can get back to their vacation. Maybe they’ll go hang out at the pool, check out a club, see a show or whatever. In a way, you’re just getting them back to their vacation sooner! :grin:

-Sonny-

I figured the "they're going to lose it anyway" idea would come up. I know you are joking around Sonny, but using this logic I can rationalize a whole lot more than wonging. I mean, since they're playing at a disadvantage and are going to lose it anyway, why don't I save them the time it would take to do so and just rob them in the parking lot! Hey, thanks Sonny, now I can rob people with a clear conscience! :joker:

 

[EasyRhino]

Ooh, how about if we argue that the extra time we occupy by playing at their table (and slowing down the game) will typically extend their play session longer than the amount lost due to the card eating will shorten their session? Sounds pretty good to me.