Wong Appreciation and Beyond

acercher

acercher

Member
After a recent run of good luck -- 3 first place finishes in the last 4 weeks -- I decided to reread Wong's Casino Tournament Strategy book to try to become a little more skillful. I remembered that the first time I read it at least 60% of the material was over my head. The second time I read it I understood more, but apparently forgot a lot, since this time when I read it I was surprised at how many good ideas it contained, often set forth in just a throw-away sentence or two. Very concentrated, good stuff.

I'm assuming that the other members share my appreciation of Wong's book (of course, I'd be interested if anyone thinks he got something wrong). But his book was written some time ago, and this Board represents a lot of accumulated experience and analysis. So here's my question: what's the most significant insight or idea that you use which is NOT addressed in Wong's book?

Thanks for your thoughts--Acercher
 
His work is both thorough and good. Being 100% math based, not many/any improvements can be made, I believe.

Billy C
 
He did not address how to determine the appropriate level of aggression to use during the early and middle rounds of a session. Instead, he recommends playing minimum until there are about 10 rounds remaining to play.

My experience and research tell me that there are reasons to sometimes become more aggressive earlier in the session.
 
gronbog said:
He did not address how to determine the appropriate level of aggression to use during the early and middle rounds of a session. Instead, he recommends playing minimum until there are about 10 rounds remaining to play.

My experience and research tell me that there are reasons to sometimes become more aggressive earlier in the session.
Click to expand...

He did recommend playing progressive in middle rounds if "you fall significantly behind and other players stop playing big"

But would love to hear other situations where more early aggressive play is recommended. One thing I have been thinking about is how much to bet in tournaments in which BJ pays 2:1 changing the game from a negative expectation game to a positive one.
 
One situation where early aggressive betting is needed is if there are only 10-12 hands dealt and other players haven't "tanked" early on. I then either bet early to get the high or I start a 1/7 (3 hand) progression or a 1/3 (2 hand) progression as necessary. Save the all-in (if necessary) for the next to last hand.
 
Wong's advice to bet the minimum until the last ten hands is good advice for a beginner. But if you really want to take your game to the next level you have to abandon this strategy in some formats and against some collections of opponents.

One mathematical reason for the minimum bet strategy is that blackjack is a negative expectation game. However many tournaments today pay 2:1 on blackjacks, making it a positive expectation game. By betting the minimum in a positive expectation game you are making it more likely that you will be behind when there are only few hands left in a round.

The other mathematical reason for the minimum bet strategy is that each bet lost hurts your chances for success more than each bet won does. That's because there is no upper limit to your bankroll, but there is a lower limit - zero. In a tournament you can't reach into your pocket for money to reload your chip stack like you can in a cash game. The other reason losses hurt more than wins help is because the losses cost you double later when you have to go all in. If you lose 100 out of your 500 stack you only have 400 left and an all in can only bring you to 800. If you lose 10 out of your 500 stack the all with your remaining stack can bring you up to 980. The 90 difference in the lost bets results in a 180 difference in the results of the subsequent successful all ins. However many tournaments have a max bet that is some fraction of the starting bankroll. In these tournaments this effect does not exist.

There are other mathematical principles in effect in blackjack that Wong's minimum bet advice does not take advantage of. One effect is variance. It protects you from the negative swings but fails to exploit positive swings. Another principle is correlation of player outcomes in a hand, from which the minimum bet strategy is almost totally divorced. You could instead employ a strategy that combines these two mathematical factors to create an advantage. In blackjack your bankroll swings up and down, with a long-term downward trend if you are flat betting. The more you bet, the faster you lose in the long run. But in a blackjack tournament round you are interested in the short term. Most times there will be an early uptick in your bankroll that makes it higher than what you started with. If you bet bigger than your opponents, you will likely have the lead when your bankroll sees this early uptick. You can then exploit the mathematical principle of correlation and start betting roughly the same as your opponents to protect your lead.

You will find that on many tables one big bettor gets lucky and builds a big stack. This usually happens as the result of the dealer busting a lot of hands. In a format in which two or more players will advance, you have the second or third advancing position as a safety valve. However in a format where only one player advances from the table, you must catch up with this player. If you had been betting bigger in the early and middle hands of the round, you would have profited from the same busted hands that this lucky player did and would not be as far behind as if you bet minimum.

The game has matured since Wong published his masterpiece. Most regulars these days bet somewhat larger than the minimum while remaining mindful of bankroll management. In tables full of these players you will find yourself consistently behind some of them in the late hands of a round. They know to bet bigger in the late hands, correlating your catch-up attempts. It is much better to be the one making correlation bets than it is to be the one making catch-up bets.

Some conditions make aggression more profitable than the minimum bet strategy. Here are some conditions to look for:
- 2:1 payment on blackjacks
- Less hands in a round
- Only one advances from a table
- Maximum bet is a fraction of starting bankroll
- Opponents who make medium bets and manage their bankrolls
 
Last edited:
2:1 blackjacks do turn the game into a positive expectation, but only in the long run. The advantage is generated by an event which is still relatively rare and has a good chance of not happening during the short term, such as the limited number of rounds in a blackjack tournament session. A basic strategy double down is still a more frequent event and strategic double downs are even more frequent.

For these reasons, I dont change my style much in these tournaments.
 
Some research I have done suggests that an active strategy throughout the round can be more successful than a passive one, such as simply betting the minimum. What this means is making strategic bets throughout the round. Sometimes this process still results in small or minimum bets, but sometimes more definitive action is called for.

Monkeysystem's comment about variance is well taken. Most successful strategies reduce middle of the pack outcomes, moving some of them toward the positive and others toward the negative. The only thing that matters is more positive outcomes, since the middle and negative outcomes are usually the same (i.e. failure to advance).

This reduction of middle outcomes is generally accomplished through increased aggression. The "bet max until you succeed or bust" strategy for accumulation events is one example of such a strategy. My point is that strategic moves should be substantial when you decide to make them and that acting immediately can sometimes be more a more successful strategy than waiting. These situations are generally when the reward is large compared to the risk. One situation where this is true is when the maximum bet is relatively small compared to your bankroll. The situation where the leaders start coasting is another.

Look for opportunities to make a meaningful and effective plays throughout the round and you will find them more often than you might think.
 
gronbog said:
2:1 blackjacks do turn the game into a positive expectation, but only in the long run. The advantage is generated by an event which is still relatively rare and has a good chance of not happening during the short term, such as the limited number of rounds in a blackjack tournament session. A basic strategy double down is still a more frequent event and strategic double downs are even more frequent.

For these reasons, I dont change my style much in these tournaments.
Click to expand...

The rarity of the event is a good point. But I am wondering if we should consider the frequency of the event for the whole table. For example a BJ happens roughly every 21 hands for a given player. So, in a table of 7, it will happen every 3 rounds. In a 21 hands tournament, it would happen 7 times. So, even though for a given player the event is rare, it might be better to bet more to correlate with others getting paid 2:1.
 
A 2:1 payment on blackjacks shouldn't be treated as a litmus test for whether you employ an aggressive betting strategy in the early and middle hands. Rather, it should combine with one or more of the other factors. I treat the one-advance table as more of a litmus test than the other factors I listed.
 
The_Professional said:
The rarity of the event is a good point. But I am wondering if we should consider the frequency of the event for the whole table.
Click to expand...
It is true that the table as a whole will see a blackjack fairly often, but it will also see correspondingly more doubles. My thinking is that I'm always considering the possibility of doubles (and splits) splits by my opponents, so I don't feel the need to pay much more attention to their possible 2:1 naturals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top