Moses, do you think, or suspected that you might have played against a mechanic ?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Norm. I read in your book that deep pen is required for Wong Halves in the pitch game.
Sim and personal results suggest you are spot on. But I can't figure out why.
Perhaps knowing why would give me a better sense of direction.

Unsolicited response:

Wong Halves is the virtual equal of Hi-Opt II in Shoe Games.
In pitch games, the clear superiority in Playing Efficiency of
Hi-Opt II makes it the preferred count for SD or DD games.
Running a rather close second is Advanced Omega II.

Impractical counts like The Gordon Count not withstanding.

Playing Efficiency swamps considerations of Betting Correlation
in Pitch games. To see why it was pointed out that you would
need deep penetration in a pitch game to use Wong Halves, (or
APC (Uston Advanced Point Count) I suggest you extrapolate
to the logical extremes.

Consider a Single Deck game dealt 90% but, as expected,
exceeding a 4-1 spread will get you 86'd in a hurry.
A 3-1 spread with near-perfect play will prove to be successful.
A count with inferior P.E. limited to a narrow spread (e.g. Hi-Lo)
will be (essentially) crippled.
Now, consider a common SD game (House Edge 0.42%) ~ but
you can spread 6-1 with impunity ~ but limited to
3 rounds heads-up and 2 rounds otherwise. Now that is a game
that can be profitable with a high B.C. count like Wong Halves or UAPC.

The more permissive the bet spread and the more decks in play the less
the importance of Playing Efficiency and the greater the importance of
Betting Correlation.

Casinos are aware of this and tailor their BJ games to suit.

I would enjoy playing a simple count at an 8 decker if I could spread 100 to 1.
I would also love playing with perfect play a Single Deck spreading 4 to 1.