Cheap Cover Index Plays

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#1
I've read a few posts with people referring to changing their index plays slightly as a means for cover, especially for not-too-costly BS deviations.

My question is which are good index plays to do this for, or how would one calculate which are the "cheap index plays" that one could deviate from for cover purposes?
 

Meistro

Well-Known Member
#2
Standing A8 vs A, 10, 9, always taking even money, insuring strong hands at medium counts (shy of the index but not by a lot), splitting 3's vs 8? I wouldn't really know.
 

Blue Efficacy

Well-Known Member
#3
Why not just go ahead and insure your 20s and 11s and pairs of aces in any non negative count? This will also cut into your variance would it not?

A good cover play that looks much more stupid than it is that has been mentioned here before is splitting 9s vs A.
 
#4
Blue Efficacy said:
Why not just go ahead and insure your 20s and 11s and pairs of aces in any non negative count? This will also cut into your variance would it not?

A good cover play that looks much more stupid than it is that has been mentioned here before is splitting 9s vs A.
Both good ideas. Insuring any hand with anything more than a minimum bet down costs you nearly nothing. Also: hitting 14 vs. 2 in negative counts, always standing on 16 vs. 10 including 88 vs. 10, and not taking the A2 and A3 soft doubles.
 

Diver

Well-Known Member
#5
I always make it a point to not hit a 12 v 2 or 3 in a negative count once or twice early in a session. I'd rather draw out any comments on that play from others at the table then rather than when I do it properly with a larger bet on the table at high count. It also let me establish that I follow my gut regardless of what some *^&* book says. Even if the pit notices it, it's hard to know if the play registers with surveillance, but one can hope.
 
Last edited:

chichow

Well-Known Member
#6
Automatic Monkey said:
Both good ideas. Insuring any hand with anything more than a minimum bet down costs you nearly nothing. Also: hitting 14 vs. 2 in negative counts, always standing on 16 vs. 10 including 88 vs. 10, and not taking the A2 and A3 soft doubles.
Thoughts of cover plays only when the pit critter is around vs. just the dealer?

e.g. how much credit to give to the dealer for the potential loss in EV?
 

Finn Dog

Well-Known Member
#7
assume_R said:
My question is...how would one calculate which are the "cheap index plays" that one could deviate from for cover purposes?
Assume_R:

I know there are tables in Blackjack Attack that Ian Andersen would reference in Burning The Tables that he used to come up with all of his cover ideas (and would use them while on the road for different table rules without the aid of a computer).

Maybe someone can tell us what page these tables can be found on and give us a little guidance on how to use them :grin:?

Best regards,

FD
 
Last edited:

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#8
chichow said:
Thoughts of cover plays only when the pit critter is around vs. just the dealer?

e.g. how much credit to give to the dealer for the potential loss in EV?
Even with the pit bosses are around, I wouldn't give much thought for cover playing. Many of them don't even know what a stupid play looks like, so why give up what little EV you have for a cover play that may not even work? As for dealers, they know even less. If the PCs know anything about CC, a single cover play is not going to fool them into thinking you are a ploppy. Your bet is going to go up with the count and go down with the count, unless you don't want to play with an advantage, there is not much you can do about that (if only CCing). Just keep your sessions short and get out before they take notice.
 

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#9
I never understood the point of cover plays. Using obscure index plays, or even some of the illustrious 18 index plays makes you look like a ploppy and at the same time, you were making the correct play. I piss off the table when I hit 13v5 or 13v6.

Now that I think about it, you will constantly be going back and forth with hitting or standing 16v10, or even 12v2 or 12v3. That I know makes me look like a ploppy. "uhhhh I don't want to hit 16v10 this time because I don't feel it." "Uhhh I want to hit 16v10 this time because I feel it"
 
Last edited:

Finn Dog

Well-Known Member
#10
PS--in case you haven't already read it, read Burning The Tables In Las Vegas, by Ian Andersen, second edition (2003)--as he is the King of Cover.

His methods were revolutionary for their time (first edition 1999). However, one could argue cover plays are for the most part outdated in today's casino environment--as Survey Voice will pick up on the fact a counter is moving his money with the count in only about 75 hands--regardless of cover.

But at lower stakes sessions of short duration and frequency, cover might serve the purpose as long as it doesn't cut into EV too deeply--but you don't need any cover at Red anyway.

FD
 
Last edited:

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#11
Finn Dog said:
PS--in case you haven't already read it, read Burning The Tables In Las Vegas, by Ian Andersen, second edition (2003)--as he is the King of Cover.

FD
He also gives up a huge amount of his EV with the cover that he uses. I dont remember where I read it, but I recall that Anderson's ultimate cover loses more than half his EV with his cover, while Schlesinger's cover gives up around 1/3. Screw that.
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#12
assume_R said:
I've read a few posts with people referring to changing their index plays slightly as a means for cover, especially for not-too-costly BS deviations.

My question is which are good index plays to do this for, or how would one calculate which are the "cheap index plays" that one could deviate from for cover purposes?
I didn't really read your original post, but now I can see that your question is slightly misguided. We do not change our index plays for cover. However, there are BS plays that are borderline and if you do not know the index for the deviation, will be relatively low cost.

Not doubling soft 13 v 5 (The closest play for player initial 2 cards v dealer card)
Not doubling soft 15 v 4
Doubling 9 v 2 (Fewer decks makes this a closer play)
Doubling 11 v A (Or not doubling if a H17 game)
Doubling 12 v 2, 3 for less ($1)
Doubling 16 v 7, 8, 9 for less during very high counts
Standing soft 18 v A
 

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#13
Finn Dog said:
PS--in case you haven't already read it, read Burning The Tables In Las Vegas, by Ian Andersen, second edition (2003)--as he is the King of Cover.

His methods WERE revolutionary for their time (first edition 1999).
FD
I have read it, and that part was the worst chapter of the book. It is full of different strategies and techniques, and one should take each with a grain of salt. I don't mind flat betting and playing BS while talking to a PC that you are friendly with. It will buy you some longevity when they get to know you as a person instead of some evil card counter. Or saying superstitious things to get the dealer to put the cut card deeper. but the cover plays chapter.....utter garbage.
 

Finn Dog

Well-Known Member
#14
Gentlemen:

I'm not suggesting using the Ultimate Gambit verbatim--as the use of it requires spreading 1 to 18 or greater, requires a bankroll twice as large as normal, and is recommended by the author only when playing Black at $300 units (something that's obviously impossible today).

Additionally, he has only three cover plays in his Green Gambit found in the second edition of the book (2003).

What I am suggesting is there are some plays found in the book that a player might find useful in his arsenal.

Besides that, it's an enjoyable read.

Best regards,

FD
 
Last edited:

Finn Dog

Well-Known Member
#15
SleightOfHand said:
He also gives up a huge amount of his EV with the cover that he uses. I dont remember where I read it, but I recall that Anderson's ultimate cover loses more than half his EV with his cover, while Schlesinger's cover gives up around 1/3. Screw that.
Sleight:

Could you possibly transcribe Schlesinger's cover plays?

Best regards,

FD
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#16
Finn Dog said:
Sleight:

Could you possibly transcribe Schlesinger's cover plays?

Best regards,

FD
I don't have the book with me right now, I miht be able to do it later tonight. However, Schlesinger's cover does not include cover plays, but betting (aside from not splitting 10s). If I remember right, his betting is to never increase after a loss, never decrease after a win, keep bet the same after a push (except you can can decrease after a 20v20 push). Also, never increase to no more than double your bet and never decrease to less than half your bet.

http://blackjackincolor.com/cardcountingcover2.htm

ew.

Update:
Blackjack Attack v3 said:
I believe your style is to never increase the bet after a loss, never decrease after
a win, and not touch the bet after a tie. Further, yOll have stated that ''jumping'' bets is
the single most dangerous practice a counter can engage in, so you don't do that either.
The most you bet after a win is a parlay, that is, twice the original bet. Finally, so as to
"come down" gradually, you never decrease a bet (after a loss) by more than half


...

It is intuitive that the restrictions placed on bet-jumping are going to be damaging.
For single- and double-deck games, in particular, the true count can change rapidly,
necessitating correspondingly large jumps in bet sizes in order to make the correct
Kelly wager. My 2-deck bet schedule is one unit until +2 hlle, then two units from 2 to
3 true, four units from 3 to 4 tme, and six units for tmc 4 and above. Sometimes, it is
"right" to go straight from one to six units, whereas I have to "pass through" two and
four units along the way. Furthermore, I don't even pennit myself to "advance" to two
and then, eventually, four and six units unless I've won the previous hand. It's obvious
that this "double whammy" on the upside is going to cost.
On the downside, if I win a hand, and the count deteriorates, I don't take the bet
down. And when I do lose, I decrease in stages, backing off, as it were, gradually. The
net result of all these maneuvers is that: I) Sometimes I'm under-betting with respect
to the count; 2) Sometimes I'm overbelling the count; 3) Sometimes I "steal" money,
winning many big bets in a row that I'm not "entitled" to; and 4) Sometimes I save a
fortune by avoiding a big losing streak right after the point where someone else would
have jumped the bet and gotten clobbered. But (and don't think for one minute that
I'm not aware of this) points (3) and (4) do not compensate for the "tax" imposed on
me by points (I) and (2). I'm about to tell you how much that tax is, and how you can
get at least a partial "refund" of the levy.
To decrease the cost of cover, DS recommends to bet 2 units OTT of a DD game so in the event of a fast jump in the TC, you are already 1 step ahead of the normal betting pattern. He also reccomends lowering your minimum bet and to wong out on occasion.
 
Last edited:

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#17
Thanks, it seems cover can be costly and it might be just worth it to learn more indices (which may seem like cover), and play shorter sessions. And worry more about betting cover rather than BS deviations cover... which can also be costly :sad:

And thanks, sleight, for pointing out that I slightly misphrased my question; fortunately I think I got the gist of the question across regardless :)
 

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#18
assume_R said:
Thanks, it seems cover can be costly and it might be just worth it to learn more indices (which may seem like cover), and play shorter sessions. And worry more about betting cover rather than BS deviations cover... which can also be costly :sad:
Strategies like playing full bore and keeping sessions short may be okay if you're on the road and will be seen in each casino only two or three times. But if you play locally and have, or will make hundreds of appearances in the same casino, I feel sure that cover plays are an out-and-out necessity.

I also believe that because you will be conspicously spreading your bets wider than a typical ploppy, you want to make more varied basic strategy errors than a ploppy would. Make your play somewhat bizarre and tougher to figure out. Since you'll occasionally be doubling A/8 against a 4, 5 or 6, doubling 10 against a 10 or Ace, doubling 8 against a 5 or 6, doubling 9 against a 2 or 7, splitting 9's against a 7 or Ace, standing with 16 against a 10, standing with 12 against a 2 or 3, taking full Insurance with a bad hand, and maybe even splitting 10's, etc, -- you want to make some other "off-the-wall" plays that fit in with that style, but are obvious errors.

Now, many floor people, and I'm sure more surviellance people, can pick out basic strategy errors -- but hardly any can tell a horrible error from an insignificant one.
I'm not a fan of standing with A/7 against a 9 or 10 -- too costly. But against the Ace, it's negligible.
I'm not a fan of routinely taking even money -- too costly. But insuring any other hand for one-tenth of the bet is far less costly.
I'm not a fan of standing with 12 against a 2 or 3 (and even a 4) in moderate counts. But occasionally doubling with them for one-tenth of a bet fits in with a bizarre style of play, and costs less.
I'm not particularly fond of doubling for less with 16 against a 7, 8, 9 or Ace because your loss is between 40% and 50% of the extra amount you put up -- as opposed to 20% to 25% on 12 against a 2, 3 or 4.

How many times have you sat down at a table and an incumbant announces to you, "I just wanna warn you -- I don't hit 16", or, "I always hit my 16's"? So when somebody comes to your table, warn them, "I always alternate with my 16's". It can help you fit in with the reputation of a "whack job".

How many times has another player picked up his chips and feigned splitting 10's against a 5 or 6 just for a reaction? Pick up your own chips and say, "I love splitting 10's -- I'll go with you on that one". That's not running a bluff -- you'll have a +27% EV if he takes you up on it. The same thing (but smaller EV's) go for going halves on other players' doubles or splits with 8 vs. 6, with 9 vs. 2, with 9 vs. 7, with 11 vs. Ace, with 8/8 vs. 2 or 3 (assuming DAS) and with 9/9 vs. 7.

Other very low cost cover play errors are splitting 3/3 and 7/7 against an 8. When you're dealt one, ask your floorperson what the book says about that pair. After he opens hit lapel, checks his "win card" and says it's not a split, then say, "If the book says not to split 'em, then I'm splittin' 'em!" How much more advertising can you get for practically free?

If you're going to spread unlike a ploppy, and make some index plays that a ploppy won't make, then I think you have no choice but to throw enough low cost razzle dazzle into your game to make you tough to figure out.

And be sure to rathole chips. You can get a win/loss statement from your home casino at the end of the year, and if it shows you a winner -- your bad!
 

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#19
Renzy, Some of those plays you mentioned are really good cover. I do some of them often, but probably not enough. The hard part is making errors on pupose! :laugh:

On the A/7 vs Ace... many times it is correct to stand depending on the games soft 17 rule. But as you said, it is a minor penalty to play it wrong.
 
#20
Renzey

Renzey said:
Strategies like playing full bore and keeping sessions short may be okay if you're on the road and will be seen in each casino only two or three times. But if you play locally and have, or will make hundreds of appearances in the same casino, I feel sure that cover plays are an out-and-out necessity.

I also believe that because you will be conspicously spreading your bets wider than a typical ploppy, you want to make more varied basic strategy errors than a ploppy would. Make your play somewhat bizarre and tougher to figure out. Since you'll occasionally be doubling A/8 against a 4, 5 or 6, doubling 10 against a 10 or Ace, doubling 8 against a 5 or 6, doubling 9 against a 2 or 7, splitting 9's against a 7 or Ace, standing with 16 against a 10, standing with 12 against a 2 or 3, taking full Insurance with a bad hand, and maybe even splitting 10's, etc, -- you want to make some other "off-the-wall" plays that fit in with that style, but are obvious errors.

Now, many floor people, and I'm sure more surviellance people, can pick out basic strategy errors -- but hardly any can tell a horrible error from an insignificant one.
I'm not a fan of standing with A/7 against a 9 or 10 -- too costly. But against the Ace, it's negligible.
I'm not a fan of routinely taking even money -- too costly. But insuring any other hand for one-tenth of the bet is far less costly.
I'm not a fan of standing with 12 against a 2 or 3 (and even a 4) in moderate counts. But occasionally doubling with them for one-tenth of a bet fits in with a bizarre style of play, and costs less.
I'm not particularly fond of doubling for less with 16 against a 7, 8, 9 or Ace because your loss is between 40% and 50% of the extra amount you put up -- as opposed to 20% to 25% on 12 against a 2, 3 or 4.

How many times have you sat down at a table and an incumbant announces to you, "I just wanna warn you -- I don't hit 16", or, "I always hit my 16's"? So when somebody comes to your table, warn them, "I always alternate with my 16's". It can help you fit in with the reputation of a "whack job".

How many times has another player picked up his chips and feigned splitting 10's against a 5 or 6 just for a reaction? Pick up your own chips and say, "I love splitting 10's -- I'll go with you on that one". That's not running a bluff -- you'll have a +27% EV if he takes you up on it. The same thing (but smaller EV's) go for going halves on other players' doubles or splits with 8 vs. 6, with 9 vs. 2, with 9 vs. 7, with 11 vs. Ace, with 8/8 vs. 2 or 3 (assuming DAS) and with 9/9 vs. 7.

Other very low cost cover play errors are splitting 3/3 and 7/7 against an 8. When you're dealt one, ask your floorperson what the book says about that pair. After he opens hit lapel, checks his "win card" and says it's not a split, then say, "If the book says not to split 'em, then I'm splittin' 'em!" How much more advertising can you get for practically free?

If you're going to spread unlike a ploppy, and make some index plays that a ploppy won't make, then I think you have no choice but to throw enough low cost razzle dazzle into your game to make you tough to figure out.

And be sure to rathole chips. You can get a win/loss statement from your home casino at the end of the year, and if it shows you a winner -- your bad!
Mr. Renzey,

On a different note it is my opinion that is Surveillance is any good at all, they will soon have you pegged no matter what silly cover moves you throw their way, I know I sure can.

I recently played on a table with a skilled counter that used as cover plays splitting 6 and 7 vs a 10 with a large bet, and a few silly doubles, even tried a Scavenger play on me while I was reaching for my chips for a double,( I had some fun with him on that one, he never tried that again), but when the count went way up he was there swinging to 2 with big bets but he did seem rattled when I did the same. He ended up losing his big chip stack and all his smiling and bravo turned to a long face, as I kept winning, playing by the book. There was no doubt in my mind what he was doing, he just gave up way to much in cover, and for sure never fooled me, so I doubt he fooled the eye.

The best cover I have ever found is simply increasing you bet a small amount after each win and going back to base after a lose and then playing with the count when you should as called for, and never split tens, well almost never;)

Mr. Renzey, I missed an article by you on BJ in the latest Midwest Player, wassup?


CP
 
Last edited:
Top