Data collection on different Wonging points

[hogwashap]

Recently, I collected data on SCORE for different Wong-in and Wong-out points. Each data point has a SCORE and the percentage of hands played. The count used is Zen and the game is H17 DAS Sr RSA 4.5/6.

The CVCX wonging settings are:
Start and Stop play at the designated (in, out) points.
Stop observation at -99
No wonging by depth
ALLOWED to re-enter shoe multiple times
No force shuffle on exit
No table delay
No second cut card
Reentry delay: 2 (not allowed to set to 0)
Can wong out anytime

Results:
wongingdata.png

Thoughts:
Don's BJA3 Chapter 13 gives a much better intuitive understanding that this. I just wanted to quantify the difference in SCORE and hands played for my local game based on different Wonging points. The results seem weird to me and I'm not sure that they make any sense. For example, it doesn't make sense that (1,0) would be hugely outperformed by (1,-1). I believe these results are because you are forced to wait 2 hands after wonging out before wonging back in. This might cause us to miss positive counts near the end of the deck where we wong out at a negative count then it gets positive the next hand. At my local, I am fine with sitting out one hand then playing the next without giving a reason and they allow this. Is there a way using CVCX to simulate this more accurately? Any other ideas for why this may have been flawed?

Am I correct in saying that the optimal way to maximize SCORE is to start playing at TC1 (when we begin to have the advantage) and stop playing at TC0 (when we lose the advantage)?

[DSchles]

Am I correct in saying that the optimal way to maximize SCORE is to start playing at TC1 (when we begin to have the advantage) and stop playing at TC0 (when we lose the advantage)?

You really should have the answer to this question and more in the graphs of BJA3, pp. 360-67. But, in general, I'd say the answer is yes, and that waiting for (floored) -1 is better than Wonging out at 0. Zero counts, especially early in the shoe, simply offer too much potential to turn into decent positive counts late on.

Don

[hogwashap]

You really should have the answer to this question and more in the graphs of BJA3, pp. 360-67. But, in general, I'd say the answer is yes, and that waiting for (floored) -1 is better than Wonging out at 0. Zero counts, especially early in the shoe, simply offer too much potential to turn into decent positive counts late on.

Don

Thanks Don.

Is this true even if I'm planning on staying at the same table and just sitting out hands? Is there a way to accurately sim the ability to jump back into the same shoe without waiting out 2+ hands in CVCX? Some other way?

[Freightman]

Don said

Zero counts, especially early in the shoe, simply offer too much potential to turn into decent positive counts late on.

A comment Ive made before - years ago 3 players at table, 2 being counters including me. The other counter took a whiz break mid shoe coincidentally with a heavy negative count. He returned with me on 2 circles both with super max bets.

[DSchles]

Is this true even if I'm planning on staying at the same table and just sitting out hands? Is there a way to accurately sim the ability to jump back into the same shoe without waiting out 2+ hands in CVCX? Some other way?

See the top of page 348 for a description of the three playing styles of the study. If you're never going to leave the table, even when you're below the optimal departure point, I'm afraid I can't help. As for CVCX, I'll let Norm comment.

Don

[hogwashap]

See the top of page 348 for a description of the three playing styles of the study. If you're never going to leave the table, even when you're below the optimal departure point, I'm afraid I can't help. As for CVCX, I'll let Norm comment.

Don

Thanks again Don. I am able to get no heat (at least as far as I can tell) and unfortunately the casino in question only has one playable blackjack table... Think I am forced to stay at the same table and just sit out hands that are negative. Sounds like this is the highest EV (and SCORE) wonging possibility with the restriction of only having one table anyways so I am perfectly content with that.

To rephrase or clarify my simming question so Norm or someone else with an answer can help:
How can I sim this scenario where I only have one table so I cannot leave and find a new shoe. The thing that makes it difficult and I think is skewing my CVCX results is that it has a mandatory setting that requires you to sit out at least 2 hands after wonging out (the fake phone call option). Is there a way around this?