good cover, or stupidity?
- Thread starter xxrenegadexx
- Start date
Way too Costly
Don't want to get into a full blown calculation on this one, but it's evident from just a brief look that this will take far too much EV off your game.
Taking Insurance (for the full amount) at all times will cost 0.30% of your action, not counting the 7% of the time that it will be correct.
Standing on all 16s, including those against 7, 8, 9 and Ace will cost about another about 0.30% at a neutral count.
You'll nearly become the very ploppy you're trying to look like.
Don't want to get into a full blown calculation on this one, but it's evident from just a brief look that this will take far too much EV off your game.
Taking Insurance (for the full amount) at all times will cost 0.30% of your action, not counting the 7% of the time that it will be correct.
Standing on all 16s, including those against 7, 8, 9 and Ace will cost about another about 0.30% at a neutral count.
You'll nearly become the very ploppy you're trying to look like.
I do not do this but perhaps just the 16 vs 10
Staying on all of your 16's sounds way to expensive to me, perhaps just staying on your 16's vs 10. This is something others have suggested for cover.
The thing about 16 vs 7-A is you are a big underdog no matter what you do, but doing things like not hitting a 16 vs 7 is foolish. You hit anything, A-5 and you have a shot, while 16 vs 10, you hit an A,2, or 3 and there is still a good shot that the dealer will beat you.
One thing to consider is your bet level. My opinion is that both red and light green chip players can not afford to give any EV away and expect to really make money.
ihate17
Staying on all of your 16's sounds way to expensive to me, perhaps just staying on your 16's vs 10. This is something others have suggested for cover.
The thing about 16 vs 7-A is you are a big underdog no matter what you do, but doing things like not hitting a 16 vs 7 is foolish. You hit anything, A-5 and you have a shot, while 16 vs 10, you hit an A,2, or 3 and there is still a good shot that the dealer will beat you.
One thing to consider is your bet level. My opinion is that both red and light green chip players can not afford to give any EV away and expect to really make money.
ihate17
I agree completely, and thanks to your book, and a few others - i don't even flinch when i have to hit a 16 v 7 or 8, even in a high count. I just know it is the right play and I do it, even though it means i'm losing money i know i'm losing LESS money than doing nothing.
regarding the initial insurance issue, i don't think it'll make any difference to the the dealers or the pit if you are always pushing out $1 insurance, in fact it might look more suspicious when you finally push out the big insurance bet all of a sudden. I only play insurance when the count calls for it, and you know what when i get it - me and the table usually make comments to the effect of "i/you just had a feeling that the dealer had it, wow i was right for once." blah blah etc. etc. far less costly 'cover' than a stream of $1's down the toilet, jumping to a big insurance bet per the count.
regarding the initial insurance issue, i don't think it'll make any difference to the the dealers or the pit if you are always pushing out $1 insurance, in fact it might look more suspicious when you finally push out the big insurance bet all of a sudden. I only play insurance when the count calls for it, and you know what when i get it - me and the table usually make comments to the effect of "i/you just had a feeling that the dealer had it, wow i was right for once." blah blah etc. etc. far less costly 'cover' than a stream of $1's down the toilet, jumping to a big insurance bet per the count.
Last edited:
I have to agree with you on that one Renzey. Logically you would think it would be more important to hit 16 against 9, 10, A than against 7 or 8, so someone hitting against 7 and 8's but standing against 9, 10, or A is going to look somewhat odd (the reason i mention 9's and A's is due to Ian Anderson's Ultimate Gambit).
As to Insurance, i feel that always insuring a blackjack is low cost cover and as just about every ploppy does, this a good idea. But i would follow the count for all other Insurance decisions.
RJT.
As to Insurance, i feel that always insuring a blackjack is low cost cover and as just about every ploppy does, this a good idea. But i would follow the count for all other Insurance decisions.
RJT.
16v10 is so close (since standing is the move in any positive count) that it doesn't cost much at all for cover.
Taking (full) insurance every time gets damn expensive, although I don't have the specific numbers. But it's too expensive.
The idea of using less cover at lower betting levels is twofold:
1) Scrutiny is lower
2) Your EV, in terms of $ per hour, is going to be pretty tiny. Throwing in expensive cover in here could make your EV unnoticeable.
Taking (full) insurance every time gets damn expensive, although I don't have the specific numbers. But it's too expensive.
The idea of using less cover at lower betting levels is twofold:
1) Scrutiny is lower
2) Your EV, in terms of $ per hour, is going to be pretty tiny. Throwing in expensive cover in here could make your EV unnoticeable.
Modify it slightly:
1) Take insurance on small hands but only if the previous two dealer Aces were NOT blackjacks. Rational: It'll make you look like a ploppy by calling upon the Something Is Due fallacy, but it'll only cost you about 1/3 of the cost of taking insurance all the time. Also, taking insurance all the time is A Sound And Thought Out Plan. Ploppies don't have those. They play hand-by-hand, and by gut. You don't want to go in always taking insurance. You want to go in with a quasi-mystic, incomprehensible reasoning for doing something one time and not another.
2) Rather than stand on all your 16s-- agonize over the decision, and then make a random choice. Base it on anything you desire-- gut, coin flip, if the waitress in on your left or right side, what the previous 16's results were. Or interact with other people. Ask the dealer for his advice. Ask 3rd base what he'd prefer in order to maximize the potential of the flow. If you're going to act like an indecisive, knowledgless helpless ploppy, then damn well ACT like it.
Both these techniques employ the wrong decision, but in such a way that it allows you to make the correct decision as well without looking suspicious.
Oh, and ramp up the act doubletime when the pit is actually watching. That's your audience.
1) Take insurance on small hands but only if the previous two dealer Aces were NOT blackjacks. Rational: It'll make you look like a ploppy by calling upon the Something Is Due fallacy, but it'll only cost you about 1/3 of the cost of taking insurance all the time. Also, taking insurance all the time is A Sound And Thought Out Plan. Ploppies don't have those. They play hand-by-hand, and by gut. You don't want to go in always taking insurance. You want to go in with a quasi-mystic, incomprehensible reasoning for doing something one time and not another.
2) Rather than stand on all your 16s-- agonize over the decision, and then make a random choice. Base it on anything you desire-- gut, coin flip, if the waitress in on your left or right side, what the previous 16's results were. Or interact with other people. Ask the dealer for his advice. Ask 3rd base what he'd prefer in order to maximize the potential of the flow. If you're going to act like an indecisive, knowledgless helpless ploppy, then damn well ACT like it.
Both these techniques employ the wrong decision, but in such a way that it allows you to make the correct decision as well without looking suspicious.
Oh, and ramp up the act doubletime when the pit is actually watching. That's your audience.
Red and green
Red and green chip players can not afford to give up any dollars for cover, but that is my opinion. Chunky green yes, black and higher yes. The red chip player is making so little per hour that every minus EV play and every toke given eats away at too much of his potential profit.
At the higher level, you can afford to pay for this cover, but it actually costs you more in pure dollars.
If you really find (I do not know what your bet level is) that you need cover as a red chip player, you really need to either not play in casinos that sweat the smallest action or have to look in the mirror and try to see what the casino sees when it looks at you. A decent act, something like the talkitive good time guy on vacation, is all most red chip players need as cover and that will not cost you a dime. If you look like a counter, if your head keeps turning like you are watching a tennis match, if you spend more than a second to scan a table and adjust your count, or if someone can read your lips when you are counting, you can fix all of this and it will not cost you a cent of EV.
ihate17
Red and green chip players can not afford to give up any dollars for cover, but that is my opinion. Chunky green yes, black and higher yes. The red chip player is making so little per hour that every minus EV play and every toke given eats away at too much of his potential profit.
At the higher level, you can afford to pay for this cover, but it actually costs you more in pure dollars.
If you really find (I do not know what your bet level is) that you need cover as a red chip player, you really need to either not play in casinos that sweat the smallest action or have to look in the mirror and try to see what the casino sees when it looks at you. A decent act, something like the talkitive good time guy on vacation, is all most red chip players need as cover and that will not cost you a dime. If you look like a counter, if your head keeps turning like you are watching a tennis match, if you spend more than a second to scan a table and adjust your count, or if someone can read your lips when you are counting, you can fix all of this and it will not cost you a cent of EV.
ihate17
Bad plays
People who stay on 16 vs a 7 are losers. The casino counts on players to make mistakes of that very nature. By the way the cost of staying on 16 vs a 7 on a $100 bet is $12 to put that into prospective the advantage gained by betting a $100 on a plus 8 count is about $2-$3. That one play alone would give up 400% of your advantage from counting correctly.
People who stay on 16 vs a 7 are losers. The casino counts on players to make mistakes of that very nature. By the way the cost of staying on 16 vs a 7 on a $100 bet is $12 to put that into prospective the advantage gained by betting a $100 on a plus 8 count is about $2-$3. That one play alone would give up 400% of your advantage from counting correctly.