leaving a negative count

[BetWise21]

Often I start a new shoe and the very first round produces a negative running and a negative true count, do i just keep changing tables? I think that would draw suspicion. is wonging in the only option? or do some of you tolerate a few more rounds and see if the count will turn positive?

[Bigdaddy]

Depends on how many other tables are available and if you can table hop without appearing too obvious. In order to avoid the situation you describe, I use TC <= -3 as my mandatory exit point from a shoe game. The loss of EV isn't that much and you will wind up playing through about 2 out of every 3 shoes. Easy to justify a whiz break with that kind of frequency.

[BetWise21]

[QUOTE= I use TC <= -3 as my mandatory exit point from a shoe game.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that's kinda what I have been doing, just min bet a few more rounds to see if it will take a positive turn.

[BakaFortuna]

Depends on how many other tables are available and if you can table hop without appearing too obvious. In order to avoid the situation you describe, I use TC <= -3 as my mandatory exit point from a shoe game. The loss of EV isn't that much and you will wind up playing through about 2 out of every 3 shoes. Easy to justify a whiz break with that kind of frequency.

How much EV would you lose if you chose to wong at say -1.5 versus -3? Units wise. Obviously other factors aside. I am assuming heat is not a worry and also that tables are available within a 2-3 minutes of wonging out.

[Bigdaddy]

How much EV would you lose if you chose to wong at say -1.5 versus -3? Units wise.

I believe this subject was evaluated in BJAIII. Don't have access to it right now, but I'll take a look later on...

[BakaFortuna]

I believe this subject was evaluated in BJAIII. Don't have access to it right now, but I'll take a look later on...

Cool. I ordered it off amazon last week so well see.

[ZeeBabar]

Often I start a new shoe and the very first round produces a negative running and a negative true count, do i just keep changing tables? I think that would draw suspicion. is wonging in the only option? or do some of you tolerate a few more rounds and see if the count will turn positive?

If it's a 6+ deck shoe, play the first 3-4 rounds regardless of any negative count, play till 2 decks are gone or TC reaches -2, whichever comes last.

[Three]

You can earn a lot in a falling count. The TC of each round that reduces the RC is a advantage round. You can't bet into them if the count is already negative but you can enjoy winning through them. Once you lose a round leave if the count is not likely to recover.

[Freightman]

You can earn a lot in a falling count. The TC of each round that reduces the RC is a advantage round. You can't bet into them if the count is already negative but you can enjoy winning through them. Once you lose a round leave if the count is not likely to recover.

To many ignore this fine point

[BoSox]

How much EV would you lose if you chose to wong at say -1.5 versus -3?

Although you cannot make playing in negative counts situations positive EV by straight counting alone. Any time you are cutting down on how many minus count hands you are playing against, is in my opinion a very valuable tool, that is extremely necessary in playing in today's environment. Especially for some new players who might be bankroll challenged.

Obviously other factors aside.

So many variables are involved, but the neg gains (any time you are cutting down on playing hands with a house edge, -TC you are gaining by cutting back on your losses) far out weigh the time and money lost by staying and playing through. The most important point being the more negative hands you play the larger spread that will be required to make up for all those negative hands you played. In the process you are also adding more variance just for being lazy. Larger spreads also draws pit/eye attention. All the inconsistent deviations in your play with large and small bets out also gets noticed quicker whether you realize it or not.

[Fire Walker]

To many ignore this fine point

Sorry Freightman, but I beg to differ. I had an experience that changed the way I thought about Wonging-out: Tthree once witnessed me continue to win through one of the worst counts you could fathom. i.e. The running count went into the neg. 30s, maybe even touching into the 40s, with the true count oscillating between ~ -8 to -10. However, I was betting 2 x 25 and winning...and winning...and winning. $600+ later, after finally losing a couple of rounds in a row, I had my spots lammered and hit the head. So, I 100% agree with him that you need to let results dictate your exit point, along with the count.

[stopgambling]

Doesn't happen that often . your win in negative count is temporary and small. if you knew the shoe is gonna be like that then it is not called card counting. that will be ST.

[Freightman]

Sorry Freightman, but I beg to differ. I had an experience that changed the way I thought about Wonging-out: Tthree once witnessed me continue to win through one of the worst counts you could fathom. i.e. The running count went into the neg. 30s, maybe even touching into the 40s, with the true count oscillating between ~ -8 to -10. However, I was betting 2 x 25 and winning...and winning...and winning. $600+ later, after finally losing a couple of rounds in a row, I had my spots lammered and hit the head. So, I 100% agree with him that you need to let results dictate your exit point, along with the count.

WTF.
I'm humoured. Let's see now. I complemented 3 on his post - by inference, agreeing with him. Your disagreeing with me, citing your agreement with his post, while regaling us with your personal success utilizing his thoughts, which I agree with.

I think I've got that right. Have I got that right? Suggest you reread my post, while at the same time reviewing sentence structure.