WOnging - Bet spread?
May 29th, 2017 at 5:59:48 AM
permalink
Hi,
Can i beat the below game with WOnging 1-4 bet spread? I have limited bankroll, so i am wonging. I am using Hi-Lo count. I enter the game with count >= +2 and leave when count <=0.
8 decks, S17, DA, DAS, LS. Pen> 75%
my betting ramp will be
count Bet
2 $5
3 $10
4 $15
>=5 $20
Please advice. Thanks in advance for your inputs.
Can i beat the below game with WOnging 1-4 bet spread? I have limited bankroll, so i am wonging. I am using Hi-Lo count. I enter the game with count >= +2 and leave when count <=0.
8 decks, S17, DA, DAS, LS. Pen> 75%
my betting ramp will be
count Bet
2 $5
3 $10
4 $15
>=5 $20
Please advice. Thanks in advance for your inputs.
May 29th, 2017 at 6:17:11 AM
permalink
Yes, SCORE is about 25. But, your win rate will be very small as you will spend most of your time waiting.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
May 29th, 2017 at 6:21:56 AM
permalink
Can you pls give me an example like avg hourly winnings? Thanks for your input
May 29th, 2017 at 6:24:37 AM
permalink
Neighborhood of $3 assuming you are standing behind one table. If there are a lot of open tables, this goes up as you can look for another table when you wong-out.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
May 29th, 2017 at 6:31:36 AM
permalink
Ok. Thanks again for your inputs.
May 29th, 2017 at 11:53:06 AM
permalink
I certainly do not have the wide-ranging math expertise of QFIT or the other Mathletes. I will just offer you the calculations made with Stanford Wong's TC frequency and EV. QFIT rounded it off to $3.00Quote: fearlessdragonCan you pls give me an example like avg hourly winnings? Thanks for your input.
You can see from the Excel sheet that you could increase your EV by varying the amounts of your ramp, to the extent your BR allows. For example, ramp at $25 for TC=+6, 7, 8 and your EV is now $3.104.
Don't forget about HEAT if you are Wonging in/out.
As a newbie, I welcome clarification if the Mathletes say this is an incorrect use of Stanford Wong's table, or if I have overlooked other factors you should know about.
Eat real food . . . and you won't need medicine (or a lot less!)
May 29th, 2017 at 12:08:45 PM
permalink
A few comments:
- Increasing to $25 at TC +6 would also increase risk by 30%.
- A spread of 1:5 is not usually advised when Wonging as Wonging requires a lower spread than play-all.
- Wonging in at +2 and out at zero would still include hands at some of the +1 counts.
- But, there is a larger problem. The TC frequencies in that table are incorrect as Wonging alters TC frequencies. For example, if you Wong in at +2 and out at zero, the TC freq. at +2 will be double that of +1 instead of lower. Also, higher TCs will have higher freqs because you are skipping rounds near the beginning of the shoe and the deeper you go, the wider the range of TCs.
- Increasing to $25 at TC +6 would also increase risk by 30%.
- A spread of 1:5 is not usually advised when Wonging as Wonging requires a lower spread than play-all.
- Wonging in at +2 and out at zero would still include hands at some of the +1 counts.
- But, there is a larger problem. The TC frequencies in that table are incorrect as Wonging alters TC frequencies. For example, if you Wong in at +2 and out at zero, the TC freq. at +2 will be double that of +1 instead of lower. Also, higher TCs will have higher freqs because you are skipping rounds near the beginning of the shoe and the deeper you go, the wider the range of TCs.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
May 29th, 2017 at 1:37:34 PM
permalink
Quote: QFITA few comments:
- Increasing to $25 at TC +6 would also increase risk by 30%.
- A spread of 1:5 is not usually advised when Wonging as Wonging requires a lower spread than play-all.
- Wonging in at +2 and out at zero would still include hands at some of the +1 counts.
- But, there is a larger problem. The TC frequencies in that table are incorrect as Wonging alters TC frequencies. For example, if you Wong in at +2 and out at zero, the TC freq. at +2 will be double that of +1 instead of lower. Also, higher TCs will have higher freqs because you are skipping rounds near the beginning of the shoe and the deeper you go, the wider the range of TCs.
Thanks for chiming in with the experiences that I truly haven't had yet. I have yet to Wong, so I just can't add anything other than the table, and I didn't know about frequency changes when one skips rounds.
--> fearlessdragon, take note!
Eat real food . . . and you won't need medicine (or a lot less!)
May 29th, 2017 at 1:49:31 PM
permalink
A basic rule in BJ. Everything affects everything else. Add one index, and other indices may change. Change one rule, and that may affect the EV of other rules. Another player entering or leaving your table during the shoe changes EV. Wonging in and/or out completely changes the performance calculations. Some of this is minor. Some not. And no, you don't need to know everything I spew.:)
Last edited by: QFIT on May 29, 2017
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
May 30th, 2017 at 9:33:21 AM
permalink
Thanks Qfit and lost wages. I did wonging yesterdayin my local casino. I made $100 profit. got lucky with doubles and splits when betting $20 at higher tc. Actually profit went high as $150 and lost $50. so i came out of the table. One question? At what time you will start to stop counting one table because it is very negative and hardly gets into positive? Right now, i cannot wong 2 tables at a time as you pros do. Still lot of things distracts me like waitress, friendly dealers, etc(I know most of the dealers and pit bosses here).
May 30th, 2017 at 9:42:36 AM
permalink
Depends on the number of available tables. If the count is negative and you see another table about to complete a shuffle, why not wander over?
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
May 30th, 2017 at 9:54:11 AM
permalink
Fair enough. is there any other card counting which is easy as Hi-Lo but more effective? Also a full table of 6 players is bad for card counter, since others may take 20s and Bjs? whats the ideal number of players? yesterday i joined the table which has 2-4 players. not more, not less. i did not even wong in the table where theres only one spot left.
May 30th, 2017 at 10:01:59 AM
permalink
To be more effective, you would lose some of the ease.
Other players are as likely to take bad cards as good cards. In general when playing all hands, the fewer players the better as speed is one of the most important factors. Speed increases win rate and time to get to the long run. This is somewhat different when Wonging. With one player at the table, it may take a very long time to get an acceptable count to take a seat. When you do get a seat, you will probably get more hands at the good count. But then, with only two at the table, others may join the table.
Other players are as likely to take bad cards as good cards. In general when playing all hands, the fewer players the better as speed is one of the most important factors. Speed increases win rate and time to get to the long run. This is somewhat different when Wonging. With one player at the table, it may take a very long time to get an acceptable count to take a seat. When you do get a seat, you will probably get more hands at the good count. But then, with only two at the table, others may join the table.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
May 30th, 2017 at 10:41:55 AM
permalink
Yeah. thats what i saw yesterday. since it was holiday, there was a good crowd and there was only one 1 $5 table which got filled quickly.
