fallacy to this idea?

That's actually a great idea. Just out of curosity what pages/tables do you travel with?

 

Wong

I'm glad that some people don't use "Wong's strategies". It gives us that do a nice edge. I hear so many inaccurate coments about "Wong" betting, sometimes I laugh out-loud. In my opinion, "Wonging" is based on logic, probability, and statistics. If anyone finds something better, please let me know.

I punched holes in the pages and put them in a binder.


tgun

 

How true that is!

 

From Wongs' CTS, I usually travel with chapters 2-8 (pages 21-140). Basically, Section A Blackjack minus chapter 9 which is on match play (it's a format I have yet to play).

I use a highlighter to mark what I need for that specific tournament, and a pen to write notes and advice from other players in the margins. That way I can still have the notes and advice on a fresh copy for my next tournament, but still be able to highlight what I need for that occasion. I know it sounds a bit anal, but it works for me!

 

1st Wong

The first edition of Wong's book was large. I bought it soon after it came out for $100 from the Las Vegas book store. I still have it.

For the newer version I only had to pay $50. I put it in a small binder after it began falling apart.


tgun

 

I'll try to respond to your questions so that the conversation can be followed

The information is how many opponents are left, what their BRs are, perhaps their tendencies. This seems like something TBJ players would be all over. This game is a game of information. The more information you have, the better decision you can make. At the end of the game you have vastly more information than at the beginning. You just have to balance the presence of information with the amount of time left to do anything with it. My point here is that it makes no sense to go all in early because your opponents will have the rest of the game knowing the conclusion of that bet. Rather, if you wait until late, you may gain the information that you won't have to go all in to maintain a lead going into the final hand. Obviously, most players here wouldn't go all in early anyway, but the extreme case provides an example.

Ideally, I'll wait until the button passes me the final time. Then if my opponents bet low such that I can take the high, I do that with my eye on a possible progression (for instance, if I need 8000 to take the high, I don't bet 4k this hand and 4k next hand). If they bet high when the button passes me, I'll likely bide my time. If they continue to bet high and continue to win, I'll have to start betting. Obviously in that case I'm fairly likely not to be able to catch up. Remember, this strategy is still very open to (and hoping for) critique. But this is what makes sense to me. Wait a while, decide how much you need to win, and try to get there taking the minimum risk.



As for the 38%, that's assuming a 2-step progression followed by a bet for the high or the low. It's likely not to be exact (and my scenario isn't exact either, it's just an illustration), but it's close.

 

I'll try to respond to your questions so that the conversation can be followed

True. However it has been my personal opinion that the less opponents that you are playing against the easier it is. With EBJ you go from 7-6-5, etc. Until it comes down to 1-1. With TBJ you could still have 7 people at the table on the final hand. The more information to deal with the more I leave myself open to mistakes.

Not really - the information is the same, just different BR totals and possible different button positions (assuming somone drops out)

Agreed. Unless you go all-in and win that hand. Now a completely different scenario. I'm NOT advocating all-in early. I just want to get a discussion going

 

The BR totals and the position (especially in EBJ where you essentially have no position information about the final hand when you start) are pretty important in my mind. Also I'd say the tendencies of the players you're playing with shouldn't go without mention.

My middle game will be vastly different depending on whether I'm ahead or behind (either I'll be margining bets or waiting for a time to take back the lead). Theoretically, you could take all of my middle-game bets and make them in the first few rounds. However, at that point I don't know whether I'll need to act as though I'm ahead or as though I'm behind. For that reason, I wait until I have some information before I act. If I act early and put out more than I'll eventally need to, I increase my risk of going broke. If I decide to take a moderate risk early, but end up putting out less than I will eventuall need to, that just means I have to take another moderate risk. Basically, there are some games in which I have to take a big risk. I'd just rather know whether this is one of those games before I go ahead and take the risk.

 

"defenders of Wong"

Wong's book has a lot of good stuff in it - but his concept of how to bet the early and middle hands is very weak - he is focused totally on tactical play in the late/final hands - and clearly does not see the potential for strategic playt in tbj - his only strategy is exactly what I said - bet minimum until the end - then chunk out chips and hope you get lucky - if someone runs away - chunk out chips early - hardly the most sophisticated approach to early/middle hands play - it is a usable strategy at times - and every player should have it in their arsenal - but one should not limit oneself to this betting approach - one should, actually, use it quite sparingly -
THINK a bit - about how/when this strategy could gain you an advantage - only when the other players either bankrupt out - or - drop their BR so low they are effectively bankrupt - that's it - it gains you an advantage only when the number of competetive players going into the late hands has been reduced - no advantage from it what-so-ever unless someone else ploppies out - that's reality -

Wong's book is a good basic primer on end play - and has clearly been surpassed by players such as S. Yama and Ken Smith - it is near worthless as a guide to early/middle hand play - for now - it is pretty much all we have for new players to learn the game - but they need to know that Wong's stuff is basic and limited - and somewhat outdated - and they need to devleop their games beyond what Wong has done -

If you play pure "Wong" you may not be dead money - but you're probably comatose -

 

I'd love to read up on other opinions about early/mid game play. Is there any particular book that is available? It seemed from what you said that there isn't...

 

Right or Wong?

Ouch - comatose?

I originally thought that about Wong's book - but I would encourage you to read it again. Stanford talks about progressions, correlation and other techniques. Yes the book CONCENTRATES on the final 5 hands but there is MORE to it than that.

Your comments about Ken Smith and S. Yama are nice but I haven't read where they have written &/or developed above and beyond Wong. (I personally believe you are right - but as far as written plans/books - they are forth coming only)

RK I wish EVERYONE would study Stanford Wong and play accordingly

 

Wump, fgk

Wump - there is no book about early/middle hands play - this has been generally ignored in tbj - which I think is a mistake - Hollywood has talked a little about using progressions in this part of the game - and there have been a very few relevant posts on this site - that's about it -

fgk42 - I do think there is a lot of good info in Wong - but correlation is a late hands technique - you don't correlate endlessly - it is a good technique for holding off someone for two or three hands - same with the rest of Wong - he talks of progressions - but in the sense of making a move - which would be to go for the lead in the late hands - or to try to catch someone who has run away from you - I am not saying Wong is garbage - he has a lot to say - but - he has no concept of strategic play - and - some players have obviously moved beyond what he has published - in tactical play - Wong is a good place to start learning about some basics of tbj play - he is a bad place to stop learning at though -

 

I agree

I agree with you about that because the “middle part” of the game has so many variables. From length (number of hands) to players, count, chip totals, etc. Now on top of that throw in an elimination hand and viola – define for me the middle hands

If you stick to a strictly TBJT with 25 hands it makes it a little easier – basically hands 1-20 would be the early/middle hands. I agree with you that to just bet min from hand 1 to hand 20 would be fairly a non-strategy. HOWEVER, if you were at a table with clueless BJ players, a choppy dealer, or a hot dealer, then 1-3 of your opponents would likely bust out before hand 20. So in essence by putting your mind on autopilot your chances of advancing go from 1 out of 7 (stating hand) to 1 out of 4 or 5 by doing nothing! That’s an increase of 3 to 5%. So in essence just by reading Stanford Wong and applying those principles you’ve gained an advantage over people who haven’t!

I agree with your observations here. It is my personal feelings that Stanford Wongs book is a great foundation from which to build upon. For some people it is all they need due to where they play and the opponents to whom which they play. For example is the only place you ever played TBJ was with visiting newbie TBJ players – using Wong’s principles only would likely give you a 2:1 advantage over the person who had NEVER participated in a BJT.

Playing straight Wong principles against Ken Smith, S. Yama or even Hollywood would likely see you at a 2:1 DISADVANTAGE because the aforementioned players have, in my opinion, EVOLVED to a different level of the game through experience, computer sims and styles.

I played in some SNG’s recently and some of the play was great – other play…well lets say that those players should have gone back and re-read Wong with the bets and play that was observed on the elimination hands – myself included :joker:

 

Fgk42

"If you stick to a strictly TBJT with 25 hands it makes it a little easier – basically hands 1-20 would be the early/middle hands. I agree with you that to just bet min from hand 1 to hand 20 would be fairly a non-strategy. HOWEVER, if you were at a table with clueless BJ players, a choppy dealer, or a hot dealer, then 1-3 of your opponents would likely bust out before hand 20. So in essence by putting your mind on autopilot your chances of advancing go from 1 out of 7 (stating hand) to 1 out of 4 or 5 by doing nothing! That’s an increase of 3 to 5%. So in essence just by reading Stanford Wong and applying those principles you’ve gained an advantage over people who haven’t!"

 

Fgk42

"If you stick to a strictly TBJT with 25 hands it makes it a little easier – basically hands 1-20 would be the early/middle hands. I agree with you that to just bet min from hand 1 to hand 20 would be fairly a non-strategy. HOWEVER, if you were at a table with clueless BJ players, a choppy dealer, or a hot dealer, then 1-3 of your opponents would likely bust out before hand 20. So in essence by putting your mind on autopilot your chances of advancing go from 1 out of 7 (stating hand) to 1 out of 4 or 5 by doing nothing! That’s an increase of 3 to 5%. So in essence just by reading Stanford Wong and applying those principles you’ve gained an advantage over people who haven’t!"

THANK YOU! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING -

Wong's strategy is based on the other players lack of skills - and is not inherently advantageous - I do sometimes end up playing this way - or - a consistently conservative betting strategy - precisely because I am watching players bomb out with crazy drunk-all-in-guy bets - and realize that I will be going up against many fewer players in the end game - and they will have no more chips than I do - and mostly likely fewer - but if the other players have any knowledge of tbj at all - Wong's betting approach is a very weak strategy -

When I finally read Wong's book - I think I got something out of it - even after playing in quite a few tournaments and reading the threads on this site - but I am also glad I did not read it first thing - when I first started playing - that gave me an opportunity to build my own paradigm for tbj - and build my play around a strategic approach - rather than focusing on tactical play - my tactical play sucked - but I was still winning money - because of strategic play - now that I am staring to develop a few basic tactical skills - and improving my strategic play as well - that is adding to my play greatly - Wong's book was very helpful - but it certainly is not the definitive bible for tbj - as the most skilled players play the game - it is just the best we have available to the general public at this point -

 

RKuczek,

You keep bashing Wong at ever opportunity. You have even developed a knack (you may not be aware of this) of turning non-Wong discussions into a Wong conversation so you can bash him some more. Now anyone can bash, its easy especially if the person isn't present to defend himself. So let's have some numbers to show your playing is superior.

From what I read much earlier, you first started playing tournaments about 8 or 9 months ago which is not very long. So excluding on-line play, what is your success rate? You keep saying it's good but we have no numbers so please supply information on the type of events listed below. Include approximate (a range is OK) number of players in each tournament class. Normal number of rounds. Number advancing per round. Your finish - in the money or out of the money. And any other details that you consider important. We could then have a measurement of how successful you are at using non-Wong methods. If you can prove that your ideas work in "real combat" then your "approaches" will carry more weight with members here.

Please supply details for:
1) Weekly events which typically do not draw a lot of the better players.
2) One time events with prize pools in the area of $40,000 and over. Preferably, these events should be Las Vegas or Tunica which historically draw better players.

 

toolman

actually I have talked about my tournament play more than once on this site - I have played 40 tourneys - all smaller ones - no majors - but with buyins ranging from $10 to $200 - and prize pools from $75 to $15,000+ - have been playing for a little over one year - number of players in these events have ranged from maybe 35 to more than 100 - typical would be about 50-80 -


Casinos most played in are Paradise Casinos in Yuma; Golden Acorn in Campo; and Avi and Edgewater in Laughlin

at this point - looking back over all 40 tourneys - I have a net profit (after all buyins, rebuys, and related expenses) of a few thousand dollars - get to the final table better than 25% of the time - and - calculating edge - for my last 150 tables - my edge comes out in the expert range defined by Ken Smith (20%-40%) and S. Yama (30%-50%) - in fact it is near the top of that range - if you look at my more recent tourneys - I am over 30% to the final table and my edge is above 50% -

I have also said positive things about Wong's book - more than a few times on this site - let's not ignore that - the criticism I have of Wong - is that his book is focused almost entirely on late/final hand tactics (not strategies - there is no such thing as 'final hand strategy' - a strategy is something you develop over a long sequence of hands - how you play one or a short sequence is tactics) - I have correctly criticised his betting approach as a 'non-strategy' - since the only advantage to it - is when other players bankrupt out - and I have suggested that tbj players should work to develop more strategic play - and not get stuck on 'Wong betting' - I think that is pretty sensible -

the reason I am stuck on 'strategic play' - is that when I first started playing tbj - I did not know about Wong's book - or this site - or any source of tbj knowledge - so I analyzed the game - and decided it was a game of strategy - and worked to develop a strategic method of play that would give me an advantage - and ignored tactics entirely - and anyone who saw me play early on could tell you that my end game play, bet correlating, chip counting, final hand betting/play, etc was truely bad - but - I was still making final tables and winning a little money - and playing with an edge - even with really ploppy play in the end game - as I developed strategies further - and developed some minimal/modest tactical skills - my game and winnings improved -

also - may I point out - that my last post on this thread is a direct response to fgk's post - where he discusses Wong -

 

RKuczak,

Using your numbers:
Number of players 50-80, so let's say 60 (I think your 50 -80 is on the high side)
Frequency of making the final table is about 25%

First off, making the final table 25% of the time in itself means nothing. You must compare that 25% to how often the average player makes the final table to have a meaningful statistic. For example: Let's say only 12 people show up for a tournament. So the casino says they are only going to have a 2 rounds with 6 people at each table in the first round. They need to advance 3 from each table so the average player will make the final table 50% of the time. If you average 25% then you are only 1/2 as good as the average player. Of course this is an extreme example but it shows that by itself, 25% is a useless statistic.

Now if there are 60 players and 6 at the final table then the average player will make the final table 10% of the time. You made it 25% of the time or 2 1/2 times more than normal. If there were re-buys, which I assume you take, then for each tournament you re-bought, you need to to add one to the total tournaments you played to get a better picture of how often you made the final table by actually winning the preceding tables. What I'm saying is that when one re-buys it's like entering a new tournament. In effect you lost the first one and now you're trying another one. It's the same as if you had two tournaments going on during the same day. You try one and bust out, then you get in your car and go to the second tournament.

So now the 25% that you made the final table must be recalculated due to re-buys and you end up with a figure somewhat less than 25%.

Now, even if you don't agree with what I said about re-buys, you're doing about 2 1/2 times better than average which is far from "expert" (you implied "expert", not me) . Not exactly stellar performance and anyone using straight out-of-the-book-Wong, without studying a lot would probably do better. So I have to conclude that your methods are not working. You may think that they are but your playing record shows otherwise.

Frankly, it seems to me you went about learning tournament play backward. You figured your methods first then compared them to what's in the book. If they (your methods) didn't agree then you say the book is wrong without having any proof whatsoever. You are obviously an educated man. Did any of your professors tell you to study any subject backward?

Wong's methods were developed over several years of actual play. I'm not saying their perfect but criticism of any BJ book should be limited to 1) when one has mathematical proof of a fallacy, 2) absolute faultless logic to disprove a statement, or 3) if mathematical proof or logic is not possible then from experience over a long period of time that shows a different method is better.

 

Variance is King

I'd say it's fairly pointless to try to draw conclusions, one way or the other, from the results of just 40 tournaments. It's meaningless to talk about percentages when you are not even half way towards your first 'cent' to be 'per'.

That's the essential problem with evaluating any strategy, or evaluating performance (in terms of not making errors when carrying out your chosen strategy). Of course results are the final determinant, but that is a very long-term measure.

In the shorter term, any variations or refinements of strategy are incredibly hard to evaluate. Computer simulations might help, but it's hard to simulate all the complexities involved in a group of human beings sitting around a table, each with their own particular playing tendencies.

Going over the hand-by-hand records of your own and others' play and, regardless of who won, analysing them for better alternatives is probably the best way to make use of shorter term information. (Not that I've ever done that in any meaningful way )