Does Wonging ALWAYS help?

[SiMi]

This may seem obvious (and after reading BJA3 App. A, it sure seems like this is true)... but I've been wrong so many times!

I often find I can sit out a few neg. EV hands during a shoe with some reasonable excuse. Sometimes, it's mid-shoe and many times it's nearer to the end and there's no hope.

If you're playing a shoe game and can, from time to time, sit out a few hands when the TC is <+1 is it correct to say that this will ALWAYS help?

In other words, ANY time you can avoid playing in a neg. EV situation will help your overall win rate. This is true even if the times you sit out are sporadic and of varied, and possibly limited, duration.

If so, would it also be true to say that, all other things equal, your actual results will be slightly better than simulations IF the sims are run without any Wonging but in actual play you can sometimes sit out?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help!

[Sharky]

in the long run, yes....in the short run...all bets are off...(ask the ploppies...lol)

[bigplayer]

If you cannot easily move to an open table, a massive spread (like 1 to 50) is the same thing as wonging so exiting the table rather than just dropping to a very low bet and eating up the minus rounds won't save you much. If you can table hop and there are open tables to move to, wonging out saves you time. Sitting there wasting time betting even small amounts (or even just watching minus rounds go by) wins you nothing. The more you table hop the more big shoes you have a chance to play during a set time frame, so in that case, even with the big spread game, wonging wins you much more money. So, Yes, it's a big deal.

[muffdiver]

Using the mid and "nearer to the end" of the shoe circumstance that you mention means that you are playing with a slight edge or at worst playing even (with +1 TC). Let that be your guide.

[DSchles]

Yes, to all of the above! But, the whole purpose of the Chapter 13 optimal-departure study, and the question you didn't ask is, if you have the alternative to look for a new table, rather than stay at the present one, while sitting out the negative counts, would you not be better off than staying and not playing? Obviously, sometimes, the answer to that question is also yes, so now, you have to decide whether it's preferable to leave altogether and start over again than it is to stay at the table hoping for the good counts to return.

Do you understand?

Don

[SiMi]

Hi, Don!

Yes, Thanks!, I think I understand. The reason I didn't ask the ODP question is I'm thinking of a specific scenario where there is NO ALTERNATE table and leaving means NOT playing at all for a while and then having to re-start at the very same table in a very small place. Awkward... My sims are based on 'play all' so I was thinking my mini-wongs were probably helping a little but I fear they blow cover if over-used so I wanted to be sure my thinking was clear on this issue.

The ODP study was fascinating to me. I used its results the other night in a big place with several alternative tables. But, at a tiny place, moving around is not practical and so I have figured out ways to reduce the time spent in the negative territories.

Thanks again!

[muffdiver]

So the answer is easy. Keep playing with any counts of 0 and above even though you're "spinning your wheels" when it's 0. Anything below 0, get the hell out.

[SiMi]

muff

Chapter 13 of BJA3 is a fascinating look at this question for 6 and 8 deck games. It's a helluva tough question with an interesting answer. I don't want to just spew the answer after all the time and effort that went into deriving it. If DS wants to do that, he can.

[muffdiver]

SiMi
Your scenario says there is no alternate table. Thus, I'm simply acknowledging that math says there's no wrong in playing through counts of 0 and slightly above since you have nothing else to do. I don't think Don would dispute that.
I bought BJA3 several months ago but don't have it with me right now. It's more than worth the price.

[bigplayer]

IF there is no alternative table you can use a big spread and a somewhat later wongout point and make the other players eat the worst 15% of counts (roughly 30% of the total negative counts). If you're heads up you really don't have a choice but to use the big spread play-all approach and try to end a session on a negative count or force/request shuffles when you can. There is another benefit of table exits rather than eating cards with tiny bets, you reduce the amount of time you expose your lowest bet to those watching you.

[SiMi]

muff
Got it. Thanks! Yes, BJA is very interesting.

[SiMi]

bp

Yes, a bigger spread (and 2 spots to eat cards at small bets) makes sense for this issue.

The heads up scenario almost never happens for me at quarter tables and less. I can sit down heads up and, I swear, within 1-2 minutes, there will be 2-3 people sitting down, buying in, lighting up, ordering drinks, etc., next to me. S-L-O-W speed ahead! It happens EVERY TIME. I've NEVER sat down heads up and finished a shoe heads up. Never. I don't, however, play after midnight so there might be such opportunities at that time.

Reno was amazingly crowded at every place (and I visited most of them). There were VERY few playable shoe games and getting a seat was a challenge... 6:5 games were EVERYWHERE and FULL! It seems as if gambling is WILDLY popular but I keep hearing of casinos having money problems. I'm hard-pressed to understand that from my observations of the crappy rules and crowded conditions (at least until midnight) every night. Maybe someone like Bill Zender should look at closing at 2am - 7am or something?

[Three]

The heads up scenario almost never happens for me at quarter tables and less. I can sit down heads up and, I swear, within 1-2 minutes, there will be 2-3 people sitting down, buying in, lighting up, ordering drinks, etc., next to me. S-L-O-W speed ahead! It happens EVERY TIME.

Find an empty no mid-shoe entry table. Once you get that first hand dealt you are heads-up until the shuffle or you leave the table whichever comes first.