MY edition ( ISBN 0-688-00818-6 ) published by Pi Yee Press has copyright dates of 1975, 1977, 1980, 1981 by Stanford Wong. Additionally, Chapter 6 entitled " HOW TO WIN WITHOUT GETTING KICKED OUT " has a section starting on page 68 titled " Wonging It " ! I purchased my copy prior to 1988 when I took a subject specific course how to play Black Jack Professionally ! - AND THAT course was NOT taught By Stanford Wong - NOR - John Ferguson ! Perhaps " Bermuda " does or does not play craps in Bermuda - I do not know for sure as I met and played with him here in Las Vegas back in early 2014 ! $...eE..$
What is that age old saying - " IF life gives you lemons - make it into lemonade " ? In essence - TAKE WHAT the table GIVES YOU ! IF faced with dice that are biased towards 7-outs as opposed to box numbers - Do NOT fight the tide - GO with the FLOW ! If THAT can be construed as " influence " is a matter of conjecture - BUT - it MOST definitely can be attributed to " Smart Play " / " Advantage play " ! Where YOU are taking ADVANTAGE of a BIAS which YOU recognized - THEN EXPLOITED ! $...eE..$
Okiedokey, maybe my edition was 1991. But Stanford did say in his interview that he overheard the phrase "wonging" at a table, without the players knowing who was at the table.
KJ4 in post #60 could have consolidated DM in post #59 into one word. Luck: to prosper through chance or good fortune It needs no explanation nor facts for support. Much like Dice Influencing. If you win... DI. If you lose... Biased Dice.
De Mango - GET REAL - " WONG " was pseudonym established by Ferguson - HOW could ANYONE possibly make a reference to " Wonging It " as you state in your above comment ! I just left Howard and his lovely wife Ivy a few hours ago and during the course of conversation I inquired about you - He stated you were a pretty astute - knowledgeable - intelligent individual ! However, in light of your position / statements regards " Wong " - I have serious reservations about Howard's perception of you ! $...eE..$
The term "wong" or "wonging" is a specific advantage technique in blackjack, which Wong (Ferguson) made popular in the 1980s..... Why couldn't Mr. Ferguson (Wong) overhear someone saying this at a table in 1991?
Because the ISSUE is that Some ONE other than Wong incorporated that terminology - according to De Mango ! Get with the program, TD ! $...eE..$
Ok, but that doesn't mean Wong was not made aware of that or was aware that the term was being used for mid shoe entry....and he was at a table in 1991 and heard someone at the table say it. Unless Wong is clear that he never heard the term or knew of the term being used.---that I don't know.
Perhaps in light of your above comment / statement - I would like for you to intelligently explain as to WHY - as I enumerated in a previous post - That on page 68 thru page 71 of " Professional Black Jack " - ISBN 0-688-00818-6 - Wong goes into in-depth detail as to exactly how to approach BJ tables at ' opportune ' times and make bets and then vacate the table when the ' opportunity ' ceases ! AND entitles the chapter section " Wonging It " ! As I said in an earlier post - My book is probably Edition 2 - which was published way prior to 1991 ! Needless to say, neither You nor De Mango know anything of which you speak ! Apparently, whoever was at the table and made the " Wonging It " remark READ the book and was familiar with the style of play - Which was WELL after the publication of Professional Black Jack ! Otherwise what YOU - AND - De Mango are stating is thus : Stanford Wong adopted the phrase " Wonging It " AFTER hearing some one at the BJ table make THAT specific remark regards HIS or ANOTHER's style of play ! I say - AGAIN - Remove THY anterior from thy posterior ! $...eE..$
I'm only referencing post 66.... Wong heard the term being used at a table. Plausible. Never implied he "stole" the term or it wasn't in his book. He simply heard the term at a table.
This is amazing. Stanford said it happened. Why the bru ha ha? Read his interview, go to wizard of Vegas forum. TD is entirely correct.
Howard's description of Demango is " knows the game- can't shoot for s__t! DeMango the gift that keeps on giving lol
I think his issue stems from post 57...."Wong did not coin the phrase". He's saying a chapter in his book is titled "Wonging it".
Why would anyone trust an Authority of Blackjack mathematics as being able to move over to a Craps Table and use the same philosophy? Each card played at a Blackjack table, influences those cards remaining and have changed the possible outcomes of all future hands. Previous play alters the expectations of the present and future outcomes. Each time a pair of dice are pushed back to the shooter, the same identical outcomes are possible. At least shooting Craps, the outcomes may or may not improve those wagering. Counting cards does not mean the player is in a better position to win the hand. The dealer may receive the hand that the player was predicting as his own. Even a two deck table requires more memory than most players can muster. A five to eight deck... anything is possible. Wong side and wight sides of the Craps Table. Just pronunciation differences. An authority in one area does not automatically transfer to other, more opaque games of chance. John Scarne is an authority in Casino Gaming and procedures to 'protect' the Casino from losing at their table games. When players are consistently... winning... cheating is then always discovered as the edge at all Games of Chance. Poker excluded as the last refuge of Blackjack Card Counters, but most Blackjack players cannot bluff their way out of a women's restroom, when entered by mistake. I purchased copies of Stanford Wong's Blackjack paperbacks for resale at my shop after purchasing at a slight discount from the Gambler's Supply in Las Vegas, Nevada. Sold... not one copy. Gave them out as gifts to be rid of them. ******** John Scarne- Scarne's New Complete Guide to Gambling. You can not go wrong with this book as your first reference source of information. ********* 6th Experimental Chaos Conference, July 22-26, 2001 Experimentally obtained statistics of dice rolls by Dean Christie, Ryan Glasheen and others Abstract: The first ever extensive experimental investigations of dice rolls have been carried out and are reported here (ECC 2001) for the first time. (640,934 rolls) This study does Dice Bias great service if NOT using Casino Grade DICE. No bias was found after 640,934 rolls of 'Las Vegas Casino Dice'. ******** Department of Physics and Astronomy, Okanagan University College, Kelowna, BC, Canada. It also includes altered dice and results. True Dice Bias. The final conclusion: High Quality Dice are Fair.
I have not shot with Howard. Fact. Not in 8 years before he knew me. So that makes you a lying piece of shit.
If you had actually read "Wong on Dice", you would have the answer, and of course, it is not what you just wrote.
I hear ya...like Cows to a lone tree during lightning. When one becomes an authority on beating one game and moves to another...he's going to have followers---regardless of the "separation" of math based vs. skill based.
I do not need to read a book that Rainbow Trout cannot be caught off the coast of the Bahamas. If Stanford Wong uses references to John Scarne's book Scarne on Craps... I would find that of great interest. Go to the Gambler in Las Vegas, just off the Strip. It has been twenty plus years ago I purchased material for resale in my shop. The wall was floor to ceiling in books on How to Win. It is always nice when winners want to Share Their Knowledge for only, $20 a copy. more or less. I would make a guess that, today, the majority of books that sell concern... POKER. A true game of skill.
6th Experimental Chaos Conference, July 22-26, 2001 'Experimentally obtained statistics of dice rolls' written by Dean Christie, Ryan Glasheen and others ******* 'Findings: In this study, we found that high quality casino dice of the kind using in gambling casinos have no detectable bias. However, low quality dice, loaded dice and non cubic shaped dice have non-zero bias.' ******* Of course... now Indian Casino dice may fall into the 'low quality dice' category. Misdirection just cannot accept a group of PhD's to be honest observers. Their source of 'high quality casino dice' will be questioned. Their methods of delivering the dice outcomes... as questionable. Their 'honesty' of results. For or against the use of dice at a Casino. For DI's. 'Conclusion after 640,934 rolls. All six faces have a probability of one in six, p= 0.1667 within plus or minus 0.0010.' Anyone using this to prove Die Bias or Dice Influencing? Does Stanford Wong use this study? Why... not? One participating member. Dan Murray, associate Professor, Mathematics, Statistics and Physics Unit, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, Canada. There are ten members of this study. I may have to find a source on the internet and provide it to everyone wanting a copy. It is done concerning: Bias, Flatness, High and Low Quality dice, Loading Dice and Dice Manufacturing. ... and to contact Dan Murray with any questions.
