We know that, to a player at the same table, a wonger has the effect of removing a disproportionate number of high cards from the deck. Is this effect strong enough to alter basic strategy for the play-all player?
We know that, to a player at the same table, a wonger has the effect of removing a disproportionate number of high cards from the deck. Is this effect strong enough to alter basic strategy for the play-all player?
> We know that, to a player at the same table, a wonger
> has the effect of removing a disproportionate number
> of high cards from the deck. Is this effect strong
> enough to alter basic strategy for the play-all
> player?
Probably not. Interesting question, however, that I haven't seen asked before. We don't get too many original questions these days!
But, questions like yours can't really be answered without very definite descriptions of what's taking place: How many people are at the table before the arrival of the Wonger? At what count does he Wong in? We need to know what his effect on the distribution of positive and negative rounds played by the others will be.
See the problem?
In the end, my guess is that it won't matter. But, it might affect a couple of very close plays.
Don
> Probably not. Interesting question, however, that I
> haven't seen asked before. We don't get too many
> original questions these days!
> But, questions like yours can't really be answered
> without very definite descriptions of what's taking
> place: How many people are at the table before the
> arrival of the Wonger? At what count does he Wong in?
> We need to know what his effect on the distribution of
> positive and negative rounds played by the others will
> be.
> See the problem?
> In the end, my guess is that it won't matter. But, it
> might affect a couple of very close plays.
> Don
It might make sense to start with an extreme example to see if there is any impact, and then make the example more realistic if we show an impact.
For starters, assume that there are 2 Wongers using hi-lo and only played (one hand each) at true counts of 3.00 or greater (and played all such counts). Game rules are (6D, S17, LSR, DOA, RSA to 4 hands). Pen is 95% (296 cards). There is one play-all basic strategy player at the table who plays perfect total-dependant basic strategy for this game. Would this change borderline decisions such as 16 v T, etc?
If this example shows an impact, then you could ramp down the penetration to more realistic levels and also change to 1 wonger, etc.
> We know that, to a player at the same table, a wonger
> has the effect of removing a disproportionate number
> of high cards from the deck. Is this effect strong
> enough to alter basic strategy for the play-all
> player?
BS-EV is only altered by the CCE or when there are no more cards to play with. Besides, if you play to a fixed number of rounds, BS-EV remains exactly the same that the off-the-top EV.
My answer would be yes if those wongers exhausted the deck and no otherwise.
Sincerely,
Cac
is probably to find another tableOTOH, if you know he is backcounting and you know he is accurate; I suppose you could raise your bets when he sits and use a counter's basic strategy. If he doesn't know you and notices you doing this he'll pobably leave.
It is an interesting question.
> We know that, to a player at the same table, a wonger
> has the effect of removing a disproportionate number
> of high cards from the deck. Is this effect strong
> enough to alter basic strategy for the play-all
> player?
> BS-EV is only altered by the CCE or when there are no
> more cards to play with. Besides, if you play to a
> fixed number of rounds, BS-EV remains exactly the same
> than the off-the-top EV.
> My answer would be yes if those wongers exhausted the
> deck and no otherwise.
No, I think you may be misunderstanding. The statements you make are true when the player is alone. This is different.
Suppose you are alone vs. the dealer. Your BS is based on the fact that you will face, on balance, a rather symmetrical distribution of all counts. Now, suppose there stands behind you a back-counter who enters your game every single time the TC exceeds, say, +1. Clearly, on balance, you will now be playing more hands in negative TCs than in positive ones. In one instance, you'll play half of all the negatives and half of all the positives. In the second case, you'll play only one-third of all the positives -- a huge difference.
So, if a BS play is very close, and if you now play more negative hands than positive ones, some plays might change.
Don
For example, my guess is that it would now be wrong to double A,2, v. 5. It might conceivably be right to hit 13 v. 2 or 12 v. 6. There may be others I'm missing (don't surrender 15 v. T?).
Don
> No, I think you may be misunderstanding. The
> statements you make are true when the player is alone.
> This is different.
Are you saying that the BS-EV will be different if more players are sitting at the table provided that a fixed # of rounds is played?
Cac
> Are you saying that the BS-EV will be different if
> more players are sitting at the table provided that a
> fixed # of rounds is played?
Of course not. I'm sorry, but I think you're not following. Number of players makes no difference provided they play through all counts, positive and negative, and not selectively.
But, if I tell you that, of the next, say, 160 rounds you are going to play in the next hour, 120 will be played head-up vs. the dealer, with TC always <+1, while 40 will be played with TC>=+1. But with a Wonger lurking, do you now see that your overall experience will not be the same as if you had played alone, getting those 40 good hands for yourself?
In all, you will play MORE than 75% of all the hands you play with TC<+1. The distribution will be skewed.
In the extreme, consider six Wongers lurking. You play all the bad rounds alone, but all the good rounds are shared with six others. You spend almost all your time at the table (or all your hands played) playing the bad counts.
Has to affect BS.
Don
> Of course not. I'm sorry, but I think you're not
> following. Number of players makes no difference
> provided they play through all counts, positive and
> negative, and not selectively .
> But, if I tell you that, of the next, say, 160 rounds
> you are going to play in the next hour, 120 will be
> played head-up vs. the dealer, with TC always =+1.
> But with a Wonger lurking, do you now see that your
> overall experience will not be the same as if you had
> played alone, getting those 40 good hands for
> yourself?
> In all, you will play MORE than 75% of all the hands
> you play with TC In the extreme, consider six Wongers
> lurking. You play all the bad rounds alone, but all
> the good rounds are shared with six others. You spend
> almost all your time at the table (or all your hands
> played) playing the bad counts.
Maybe you're right but I need to confirm it via simulation. Will let you know the results.
Sincerely,
Cac
> Has to affect BS.
> Don
> Maybe you're right but I need to confirm it via
> simulation. Will let you know the results.
Here's another experiment, to help you conceptualize. I am the BS player and you are the Wonger.
You and I watch a shoe with one player at the table, and, randomly, I enter the game and sit down. The player gets up, so I'm alone. I play 30 rounds, and because you DIDN'T Wong in with me, the average TC throughout those 30 rounds, for me, alone, is probably slightly negative. I complete the 30 rounds using BS.
Next shoe, the count goes positive right away, and you jump in! So, instead of getting 30 rounds (to two spots -- the dealer and me), I now get 20 rounds, because there are three hands.
Then we quit. My total playing experience is 30 rounds in a negative count and 20 rounds in a positive one. My average true count for those 50 rounds is slightly negative, no?
So, do I double A,2 v. 5? Surrender 15 v. 10? Stand on 12 v. 4? I don't think so! :-)
Don
Don:
We already know that for 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS the TD-EV should be exactly -0.00405922.
My first experiment put 4 BS-players at the same table and all of them played to a fixed # of rounds in order to achieve the above expectation. In this case I chose 11 rounds to avoid running out of cards.
The results after 10000 million rounds were conclusive:
Player 1
Ev = -0.004071
Var = 1.331508
Sd = 1.153910
Se = 0.000012
Player 2
Ev = -0.004057
Var = 1.331499
Sd = 1.153906
Se = 0.000012
Player 3
Ev = -0.004068
Var = 1.331496
Sd = 1.153905
Se = 0.000012
Player 4
Ev = -0.004051
Var = 1.331542
Sd = 1.153924
Se = 0.000012
The first conclusion is that other players at the same table do not alter the overall BS expectation.
The second experiment put one Player at seat #1 to play BS while a WONGER enters the game whenever the TC is greater or equal +1 (Hi-Lo). This second player simply uses BS and only play counts >= +1. When the count is < +1 the player leaves the table. OTOH, the dealer always deal 20 rounds per shoe. Remember that I want to attain the same TD-EV mentioned above.
Here are the results after 5000 million rounds:
Player 1
Ev = -0.004053
Var = 1.331459
Sd = 1.153889
Se = 0.000025
I have also calculated the wonger's EV:
Wonger
Ev = 0.000945
Var = 0.208822
Sd = 0.456970
Se = 0.000010
As you can see, the wonger did not alter player BS-EV.
Sincerely,
Cac
> the dealer always deal 20 rounds per shoe.
That's a problem. The reason EV changes is because the wonger affects the rounds per shoe and that affects the TC frequencies.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks