"double for less" as a cover play?

[bejammin075]

As I devour BJ books, I'm keeping track of cheap cover plays. I havn't started real world advantage play yet, and I realize I may not even need much cover with the $10 to $100-spread that I plan to start out with. But I like to be prepared.

I havn't read about this one, but I was thinking that doubling for less in some cases might cost only a little EV if done properly. Obviously only at neutral or neg counts with minimum bet out. I'm loking for more arrows in my blackjack quiver, like having lots of cheap plays available, designed to look dumb in front of pit personel (and used sparingly and strategicly). I've ruled out doing it with soft doubles, because the casino personel might not even know what the correct play is, so soft double for less would be wasted on them. So the question is, would you do it with something like 10 vs 6, or 10 vs 9? I lean towards doing a 10 vs 9 double for less because my guess is that since it is closer to a borderline decision, it should not make much difference. And I'd imagine I could make myself look like a ploppy idiot. I think of it going like this. Dealer gives me a hand of 10 and has a 9 up card. Mr. PB is nearby and I seize the opportunity to look stupid. it gets to my turn and I say "Gosh! I know I am supposed to double down here, but this seems risky! Dealer, can i double down for less than the whole bet?"(yes) "OK, I'll double down $2.50 (on a $10 bet)! Hit me!"

What do you guys think? What's the loss in EV?
By the way, I'm new to the site and think it's awesome. Besides the bj knowledge, some of the posts are funny as hell.

 

[shadroch]

If you are going to double for less, don't do it on a hand that you would normally double on. Do it on something like a 12Vs2 where you'll only take one card in any case.

 

[21forme]

Unless you're a black chipper, cover play just costs you money and probably has little, if any, effect on longevity. Just keep your sessions short.

 

[kewljason]

Unless you're a black chipper, cover play just costs you money and probably has little, if any, effect on longevity. Just keep your sessions short.

I whole heartedly agree with this, 21. It's one of the basic principals of my play. But, doubling 12 vs 2 for less is an interesting one. In some places the dealer calls out "doubling for less" and some place the dealer calls out "doubling 12". Either of which is not a move that card counters generally make, so it would seem good cover in that respect. However the downside is that odd amounts, even a dollar or two will slow the game down a bit. I don't like to do anything to slow the game down. Even a couple seconds. A couple seconds here. A couple seconds there. All adds up to fewer hands per hour, which ultimately means few dollars in my pocket. So interesting, yes, but I wouldn't do it. I could see it having value for low limit players though.

 

[QFIT]

I discuss partial DD in my book. It may be useful as a cover play to fool the eye in the sky in large casinos that use counter identification software. But, not many casinos use this software, and even if they do, most of the time they will not be using it on you. On the negative, it can slow down the game and bring attention.

 

[Gamblor]

I'll double for less, if lets say I have a $100 bet, and only have $90 in front of me (rather than reach in the pocket). Think this cover is worthwhile, other than that wouldn't do it consistently or for much less than the bet.

 

[pogostick]

As I devour BJ books, I'm keeping track of cheap cover plays. I havn't started real world advantage play yet, and I realize I may not even need much cover with the $10 to $100-spread that I plan to start out with. But I like to be prepared.

I havn't read about this one, but I was thinking that doubling for less in some cases might cost only a little EV if done properly. Obviously only at neutral or neg counts with minimum bet out. I'm loking for more arrows in my blackjack quiver, like having lots of cheap plays available, designed to look dumb in front of pit personel (and used sparingly and strategicly). I've ruled out doing it with soft doubles, because the casino personel might not even know what the correct play is, so soft double for less would be wasted on them. So the question is, would you do it with something like 10 vs 6, or 10 vs 9? I lean towards doing a 10 vs 9 double for less because my guess is that since it is closer to a borderline decision, it should not make much difference. And I'd imagine I could make myself look like a ploppy idiot. I think of it going like this. Dealer gives me a hand of 10 and has a 9 up card. Mr. PB is nearby and I seize the opportunity to look stupid. it gets to my turn and I say "Gosh! I know I am supposed to double down here, but this seems risky! Dealer, can i double down for less than the whole bet?"(yes) "OK, I'll double down $2.50 (on a $10 bet)! Hit me!"

What do you guys think? What's the loss in EV?
By the way, I'm new to the site and think it's awesome. Besides the bj knowledge, some of the posts are funny as hell.

I just stay with 1 to 5 unit spread & look away while the first cards are dealt . Ask a question every now & then that a ploppy would ask. When you go up on your bet ,place a bet for the dealer. 1 to 10 spread would wear old Pogo out fast. Good luck to you. Pogo

 

[bigplayer]

Unless you're a black chipper, cover play just costs you money and probably has little, if any, effect on longevity. Just keep your sessions short.

Agree...rather than double for less consider insuring for less...much less.

 

[The Chaperone]

I wouldn't recommend doing anything for cover at those stakes, but if you some day want to employ this camo, I would recommend hands like A6 vs. 2,3 or 12 vs. 2,3 like someone above suggested. For A6 it doesn't much matter how much you double for. For the 12 hands you want to double for much, much less as the hand is -ev.

 

[aslan]

I discuss partial DD in my book. It may be useful as a cover play to fool the eye in the sky in large casinos that use counter identification software. But, not many casinos use this software, and even if they do, most of the time they will not be using it on you. On the negative, it can slow down the game and bring attention.

This may sound stupid, but I'll take that chance. I don't know the odds, but plays like doubling A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5 against a dealer 5 or 6 in a plus count, say, plus 4, often ends in defeat simply because if you catch a ten, which you probably will, you only have the dealer's chance of busting to save you. Wouldn't this be a good time to double for less? Why isn't doubling geared to the odds of winning the hand, based on the count, by a sliding scale of doubling for less? Or does it just not make that much difference?

 

[Gamblor]

This may sound stupid, but I'll take that chance. I don't know the odds, but plays like doubling A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5 against a dealer 5 or 6 in a plus count, say, plus 4, often ends in defeat simply because if you catch a ten, which you probably will, you only have the dealer's chance of busting to save you. Wouldn't this be a good time to double for less? Why isn't doubling geared to the odds of winning the hand, based on the count, by a sliding scale of doubling for less? Or does it just not make that much difference?

Risk adverse doubling for less? Its a brand new concept in counting :laugh: Interesting point you bring up, I would imagine at some point, if you double for a lot less in these situations, its actually better EV to just hit instead. For example, you have a $100 bet, and you double for much less, lets say $10 with A2 v 6. Has to be worse EV than hitting?

 

[Sucker]

There are 3 hands in which it SOMETIMES is incorrect to double for the full amount and it is mathematically CORRECT to double for less: A-6 vs 4, 5, or 6.
The situation is thus: If you make a bet so large that you can't double for the full amount because it would put your chance of ruin at an unacceptable level, doubling for less in these three instances is preferable to not doubling at all.
All ace-trackers are aware of this particular play (or SHOULD be aware of it).

 

[neversplit5s]

If you decide to double for less as cover, you probably want to do it only on hands where you'd take one card only anyway if you were to hit (e.g. 12 vs. 2 or 3). Doubling for less on the small soft hands is probably not the best time to do it, since you prevent yourself from hitting again if called for (in other words it gives you the worst of both worlds; potentially stuck with an undesirable hand that you'd hit again if you could and not taking advantage of the full doubled EV with doubling in full). Likewise for 10 vs. 9 (which was also mentioned earlier in this thread).

 

[bejammin075]

I hadn't thought of something like doubling for less on 12 vs 2, or 12 vs 3. In that case, if I was doing that and doing my best ploppy impression, I could come off as a ballsy idiot gambler.

The reason I brought up the double-for-less on 10 vs 9 is that is a play that pretty much everybody knows you double down for the full amount. So, not doing the full double down would make you look stupid. But, my mathematical intuition tells me that the cost in EV is very little.

I think with both of the kinds of plays mentioned above, partly it is the play of the cards, but also the opportunity of how you can talk about it at the table & sound like an idiot ploppy.

I guess this where I start to realize that I need the simming software to test out ideas. I want to know what the cost is of doubling for less on 12 vs 2 or 3, and 10 vs 9 (or maybe 10 vs 8). I'm going to guess that they both cost very little, with the 10 vs 9 costing less.

I'm still not convinced of doubling for less on soft hands, because my premise is that you should mess up an "obvious" play. I bet a lot of dealers and pit bosses don't know the soft double rules, so a calculated cover play on a soft hand is wasted, because they didn't know what you were supposed to do in the first place, so deviating from basic strategy doesn't gain you any cover.

And it's encouraging to hear that little or no cover play is generally necessary at the low dollar spreads. I am in no way advocating doing cover plays all the time. It's just good to think about a wide variety of plays to have thought out beforehand, for those times, lets say, the PB is camping there right at your table, and you have many ideas for dumb looking, but low cost cover plays. If the cards are dealt out right for it to match up with a pre-determined cover play, than it's like a little bonus.

I was reading in Lance & Humble's (The WGBJB) how one of them was playing at a casino where he made a ploptard move that had the whole pit laughing at him. And then he played for several more days with huge spreads and no heat. So, I think although cover playes technically cost money, if you can use them right, they can buy other opportunities.

 

[tthree]

This may sound stupid, but I'll take that chance. I don't know the odds, but plays like doubling A/2, A/3, A/4, A/5 against a dealer 5 or 6 in a plus count, say, plus 4, often ends in defeat simply because if you catch a ten, which you probably will, you only have the dealer's chance of busting to save you. Wouldn't this be a good time to double for less? Why isn't doubling geared to the odds of winning the hand, based on the count, by a sliding scale of doubling for less? Or does it just not make that much difference?

The advantage in doubling is based on the full double. If you double for less it changes the gain and most likely puts you at a disadvantage over hitting in many cases. Remember you are limited to 1 card when you double.

My recommendation to the OP if he wants to fly under the radar, keep the top bet under $100. One hundred is a limit that when reached at many casinos makes your bet get noticed. Instead bet a little lower or go to 2 hands of $75 each.

 

[Gamblor]

My recommendation to the OP if he wants to fly under the radar, keep the top bet under $100. One hundred is a limit that when reached at many casinos makes your bet get noticed. Instead bet a little lower or go to 2 hands of $75 each.

I know of one place where a $5-$100+ spread will get some attention, but in most casinos, although $100 will often you get checks play calls, the vast majority of pit crews will ignore this.

 

[aslan]

The advantage in doubling is based on the full double. If you double for less it changes the gain and most likely puts you at a disadvantage over hitting in many cases. Remember you are limited to 1 card when you double.

My recommendation to the OP if he wants to fly under the radar, keep the top bet under $100. One hundred is a limit that when reached at many casinos makes your bet get noticed. Instead bet a little lower or go to 2 hands of $75 each.

If the risk of making a double winning hand were higher than the average double down, why wouldn't a corresponding reduction in the double down be appropriate?

 

[tthree]

If the risk of making a double winning hand were higher than the average double down, why wouldn't a corresponding reduction in the double down be appropriate?

You limit yourself to one card. Just pulling numbers out of the air. Let's say you expect to win .13 for hitting your bet of x for an expectation of .13x. Doubling you expect to win .07 for your 2x bet for an expectation of .14x so you double for an increase in expectation of .01x. If you double for less at 1.8x your expectation is .126x. Hitting is better by an expectation of .004x. This is why you should never double for less. Not only do you forgo a second card if you want it but you are hurting the advantage of your double.

If you can't afford the double you are over betting.

 

[aslan]

You limit yourself to one card. Just pulling numbers out of the air. Let's say you expect to win .13 for hitting your bet of x for an expectation of .13x. Doubling you expect to win .07 for your 2x bet for an expectation of .14x so you double for an increase in expectation of .01x. If you double for less at 1.8x your expectation is .126x. Hitting is better by an expectation of .004x. This is why you should never double for less. Not only do you forgo a second card if you want it but you are hurting the advantage of your double.

If you can't afford the double you are over betting.

It's not that you can't afford it, but that it loses almost as much as it wins in some situations. But anyway, I get your drift. Thanks.

 

[FrankieT]

The advantage in doubling is based on the full double. If you double for less it changes the gain and most likely puts you at a disadvantage over hitting in many cases. Remember you are limited to 1 card when you double.

My recommendation to the OP if he wants to fly under the radar, keep the top bet under $100. One hundred is a limit that when reached at many casinos makes your bet get noticed. Instead bet a little lower or go to 2 hands of $75 each.

Yep.

People fail to realize that when you double, you are selling you're chance to get an extra hit as well. So if you double for less, you are selling you're chance for an extra hit for less.