Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 98%: Wonging Question

  1. #1
    98%
    Guest

    98%: Wonging Question

    This is a purely theoretical question. Assume that everyone in a casino is betting the exact same amount on tables with identical conditions. If one player were wonging from table to table, playing only when he has an edge, would it actually cost the casino anything? It seems to me that the cost would be passed directly to the other players (and would not be felt at all by the casino) because they will play more hands at lower counts and fewer at higher counts.

  2. #2
    Baddog
    Guest

    Baddog: Re: Wonging Question


  3. #3
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Wonging Question


    Yes, the Wonger would cost the casino because his gain, at the high counts is not offset by the other players' loss. In theory, they are, say, flat-betting BS players who may have an edge at the high counts but don't know it and can't capitalize on that edge (bet more). The back-counter steps in and performs that action, thereby draining dollars from the casino.

    What the basic stratgists lose in forgone hands can't make up for what the counter takes. But working out the theoretical differential might be fun!

    Don

  4. #4
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Wonging Question

    the post said everyone bets the same. The wonger gains because he plays only at high counts. But, high count hands are not played for more money. He also gains only a tiny bit extra via indexes. (I assume a wonger is playing shoes.) It is an interesting question. The casino will probably come out behind for another reason. The number of players at a table will increase when the count is high. This increases the number of player hands at high counts since the dealer only has one hand against all the players. There is also a change in casino hands/hour at high counts. But that is hard to quantify as a wonger can disturb the dealers rhythm.

  5. #5
    98%
    Guest

    98%: Re: Wonging Question

    If you wanted to attempt to run a simulation of this scenario, perhaps the easiest way would be as follows:

    Have one table with 3 players and 1 wonger. The 3 players play perfect basic strategy and play 1 unit on all hands. The wonger plays with correct index adjustments for his count (Hi-Lo is the logical candidate for this) and plays 1 unit at all counts which give him any advantage and does not play at all counts where he has no advantage. I suppose you could further simulate the results for any number of players, 1-6, at a table with one wonger or, if you were feeling bold, you could attempt a multiple-table scenario.

    My guess is that a wonger betting at the exact same level of other players is barely going to be felt by the casino at all. Also, I would guess that placing no midshoe/midround entry restrictions on a table hurts the casino a lot more than it helps, if you figure the vast majority of midshoe entrants will not be counters and, as such, will not be entering according to the count.

    This is, of course, a completely contrived example. In reality, a wonger can be a burden or a boon to a casino. A skilled player wonging in on low limit players who aren't anywhere close to basic strategy masters will put a slight drain on the casino while a wonger hopping in on high rollers will give the high rollers fewer hands at high counts, thereby increasing the casino's edge against them.

  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Wonging Question


    Don

  7. #7
    Kyle Sever
    Guest

    Kyle Sever: Re: Wonging Question


    The ratio of the players average bet to the counters average bet - the greater the bets of the ploppies, the more the casino will profit by having a back-counter.

    This is something discussed in John May's book, Get the Edge at Roulette.

  8. #8
    98%
    Guest

    98%: Re: Wonging Question

    Aren't you the same Don Schlesinger who remarked at the impossibility (or at least extreme difficulty) of figuring out the hands per hour and expectation for a backcounter given the penetration, number of tables, rules, minimum true count for betting, etc. in an actual casino environment ? In many ways this is the same situation. The contrived case (such as making an assumption that there is always another table available to the backcounter in computing the hands per hour or win rate for a backcounter) is similar enough to the actual that it would still serve to illustrate a wonger's affect on casino profits.

    If you wanted to attempt to simulate a real scenario, you would need to determine the following parameters and possibly some more:
    -Games available (types and number of tables),
    -Skill of average player,
    -Average bet size of the average player and average bet size for the wonger (though, for accuracy, you might need to determine each player's bet in each hand! perhaps through a randomizer or perhaps through some sort of progression or 'system'),
    -Penetration (perhaps it varies according to game type as well),
    -Hands per hour (are shuffle machines being used? are they being used just for the shoes or for the double decks too? etc.),
    -Whether or not people hop out if a wonger hops in so as not to 'change the deck' (quite a common occurence in single or double deck games),
    -Are cut cards being used for hand-held games,
    -table configuration (how many are at which tables, high roller distribution amongst low stakes players, etc).

    The contrived example simplifies things by using one table with static conditions where one wonger is playing 1 or 0 units and everyone else is playing 1 unit. Given this scenario, there is probably a critical point (a certain percentage of the average bet) at which the wonger has no effect on the casino's bottom line. Perhaps if we could convince the casinos of this, they wouldn't concern themselves at all with wongers playing at or below that level!

  9. #9
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Wonging Question

    wouldn't concern themselves at all with wongers playing at or below that level!"

    If your goal is to pursue an interesting theoretical, or academic, exercise, I'm all for it. If, on the other hand, you think the results will do anything to change the neanderthals' viewpoint about back-counters, . . . fuhgeddaboudit!

    The last thing the casinos are going to listen to is a study that I or someone else comes out with telling them that a) deeper penetration is wonderful for their bottom line, or b) back-counters (or counters, in general) are no threat to their bottom line.

    These people are lucky to be able to read the daily newspaper, and you want them to welcome Wongers with open arms, because we say it's the right thing to do? Isn't going to happen, my friend.

    Don

  10. #10
    98%
    Guest

    98%: Re: Wonging Question

    Yeah, I know, it was a joke.

  11. #11
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Agree in principle with 98%

    My guess is that a wonger betting at the exact same level of other players is barely going to be felt by the casino at all.

    If the wonger didn't use any strategy variation, and if the casino dealt a given number of cards to the players --excluding the dealer -- per shoe (ie. just stopped dealing at player X if n cards had been dealt to players) there should be no difference to the casino. The number of high cards dealt per shoe can not be affected by the wonger's activity.

    However, the wonger would use strategy, and he actually does increase the number of hands dealt in high counts slightly. To see this, imagine one BS player at the table and 6 wongers coming in when the count rises. With more hands per round, the dealer's hand takes up a smaller proportion of cards, so hands per shoe goes up, plus rounds with more players will tend to extend further past the cut card.

    At least that's how it looks to me right now. Pretty tired. Took a big loss last night.

    ETF

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.