fallacy to this idea?

toolman

I have never claimed to be an "expert" player - in fact - I state in my post that I consider myself to be quite poor at many areas of play - what I have termed 'tactical' play - I merely pointed out that I am winning money at tbj - and showing an appreciable edge over a reasonable number of tourneys - so must be doing something right - and it is not tactical play - so must be from the strategic approach I am using -

as for as 'edge' goes - I do track each table - and how many advance - and base my edge calculation on how frequently an average player would get to the final table - based on number of players and the number who advance at that table - and the format of the tourney - so - if the format is 1 of seven advance from qualifier to semi - then 1 of seven advance from semi to final table - that means the average player advances to the final table 1 out of every 49 times he sits down at a qualifier table - I then compare my actual rate of advancing to the final table against these odds - over 40 tourneys - which is not an insubstantial number - I have gotten to the final table almost three times as often as the average player would have in the same tourneys - and that accounts for all rebuys - I have also used - for a while - the method of calculating 'edge' that S. Yama posted on this site some months back - and found that tracking 100+ tables - that method came out the same - within one percentage point as the final table method I prefer -

I frankly find that to be a little amazing - given how bad my tactical play was in the beginning - and the fact that I still do not see myself as a strong tactical player - though I have been improving -

as an 'educated man' - one of the first things I was educated into was to question conventional wisdom - and to think for myself - not to merely follow self-proclaimed prophets and accepted dogma - Wong's book has much good stuff in it - as I said - but also has its blind spots and limitations - a very useful book - but not complete - nor has it, apparently, been updated significantly since its original publication -

as far as anyone playing pure Wong would have done better over the tournaments I have played - I seriously doubt that - the two respected pros who have said what they consider to be expert range - S. Yama and Ken Smith - gave a range for expert play from 20% to 50% - from posts I have seen here - both probably play somewhat above 50% themselves - maybe in the 60% to 70% range - so my record is probably pretty comparable to what a pure Wong player would have done at his best -

The point I have tried to make - is that it is possible to play 'better than Wong' - that while he did a good job of dealing with end game plays - that has clearly been surpassed by players such as Ken Smith - who have refined this beyond what Wong did - and quite possibly a lot of other players as well - and - that there is an aspect to tbj - strategic play - that Wong did not deal with well - or even see really - and that offers an opportunity for increasing the possible edge - pushing the maximal achievable edge well above 50% - perhaps as high as 100% - or higher - when expert strategic play is combined with expert end game play - as far as I can see - from the posts on this site - the only player who has taken a strategic view of tbj is Hollywood Dave - who has developed the concept of using progressions to build a BR position advantage in the early/middle game - I am sure there must be more players who think strategically - but have not posted or published such approaches -

and as far as the accuracy of my characterizaton of Wong's betting strategy - you might want to remember that it was you - the 'pure Wong player' - who posted that he 'plays the first 75% of hands on cruise control' - I just think that there is a better way of playing these hands than 'cruise control' - and I think my playing experience to date bears that out -

you might also keep in mind that Wong offers no 'math' to support his concepts of early/middle hand play - so it is hard to refute his 'math' - when it doesn't exist - his advice on early/middle hand play was developed in early tbj tourneys - from direct experience - where many players apparently were very inexperienced and played very badly - tending to bankrupt out early - and works very well in that setting - probably every regular tournament player - at any level - has used this approach at certain tables - and benefitted from it - but it does fall apart pretty quickly when one is playing more experienced players who don't bankrupt out - leaving one going into the final hands with no advantage - and a full table -

 

RKuczek,

Well I think we have just about exhausted our arguments on this point(s). It's difficult, if not impossible, to compare win rates because those rates vary widely depending on the type of game played (number of rounds and number advancing) and the quality of of the competition. Joep quoted his rate for getting to the final table as 17%. You said yours is 25%. I think you get the point. Now I'd just like to say a couple of things in signing off on this thread.

I tried to find the posts were S. Yama and Ken Smith discussed "expert play win rates". I tried searches and my memory but could not find the posts. I know they exist, I just could not find them. Anyway, I think the expected expert win percentages in the area of 50% refer to a table win (don't know if that's 1 or 2 advance nor do I know how many players at the table), not the probability of getting to the final table. This is my best recollection, could easily be wrong. To repeat from above, Joep said in one of his posts that his rate for getting to a final table is 17%. Using a table win rate in the area of 55% would get you to that 17%.

In your last posting you made the following statement:

you might want to remember that it was you - the 'pure Wong player' - who posted that he 'plays the first 75% of hands on cruise control'​

I don't think I ever said "plays the first 75% of hands on cruise control". I think you possible have me confused with some one else, namely yourself. I believe you were the one who used this phrase in a post when referring to one who conservative bets until the end game. I merely quoted your phrase when I responded to your post. Look at the following posts:

For your post, see:
http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/bb/showpost.php?p=21654&postcount=60

For my response, see:
http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/bb/showpost.php?p=21718&postcount=61


Also, I am not a "pure Wong player". If I were, I would not be here trying to learn new stuff. I am a conservative player who believes in using Wong as my foundation for playing strategies but I am open to changes that can be proved to be better than Wong - or to fill in the gaps in areas where Wong is silent. Anyone who knows me personally can vouch for the fact that I am always open to new thoughts and ideas. I try to keep an open mind on everything.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. It is indeed time for SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

 

my .25 - inflation adjusted

Sure there are -

Look at the interview with Joe Pane - how he came to an understanding/playing style without reading the book.

Reachy was talking about Tournament BS (his term and I might recommend RTBS (Reachy Tournament Blackjack Strategy))

Ken Smith and Dave both mention progression (so did Wong but I believe Ken and Dave have taken it to the next level)

Then there are roques like Dave Matthews, Kenny Eininger (money management) and others.

Wong is just one method - great for a starting point.

As far as EBJ - I will go out on a limb and say this,

"It is my PERSONAL belief that Wong style strategy is not the most effective playing style for elimination BJ."

As for MY style - I am working on a reproducable method of playing based upon several factors including, button position, number of players and IN MY OPINION, players profiles.

 

response

toolman -

I agree - we have pretty much talked out this thread - if you can find the posts where Ken and S. Yama talk about edge - they are talking about the edge over the average player in advancing from a table - so if you have a 50% edge - then if a table is 2 advance out of 6 players - you would advance 50% of the time - not the 33% an average player would - when I compute my edge using final tables made - I reduce it to a per table edge - so it is comparable to other ways of calculating edge -

I also recognize that any edge I seem to enjoy is from playing small tournaments in remote indian casinos located in the most desolate parts of the Sonoran Desert - and - Laughlin minis - which are non-indian casinos located on the boundaries of the Sonoran and Mohave Deserts - dehydration seems to be beneficial - maybe it makes all the other players drink booze while I drink coffee -

I personally consider Joep's 17% to the final table over several years - including I am sure many major tourneys - to be quite impressive -

sorry if I implied you were a 'pure Wong player' - and credited you as saying something you did not - I thought I remembered you saying that from a much earlier thread -

fgk42 -

I agree - Wong style betting doesn't suit ebj - have said so before -

Joep/Ken -

there seems to be some point at every table where one has to try a progression - Hollywood is the only one who has posted on them who seems to have made it an essential strategy - rather than a response to adversity -

London -

I may be deluding myself - but 40 tournaments - with willing rebuys when available and needed - does add up to well over 100 tables - with semi-finals and final tables - and - when I learn something and apply it - such as increasing my willingness to make moves using all-in bets or short progressions - or improving my final hand play - or - whatever - that benefits my play - it really does seem to click in and make sense quickly - and show up in the results of my play - when you start doing something right - and have any experience at all at the game - it just seems to make sense and work - you can't tell this after one table - but when you have a chance to apply something over several tables - I think you can get a pretty good feel as to if it is sensible or not -