Tried a Couple New Cover Plays

[kewljason]

Thanx muchly to tthree for a concise and comprehensive presentation.

The first ten (10) ought to be your focus if looking for "Cover Plays" on the cheap.

The problem with the first 10, or even the entire list for that matter, is that they all happen infrequently. For that reason, splits and soft double just aren't great cover. The object of cover is to throw someone watching off and that just doesn't happen with plays that happen infrequently. If you are going to use cover, you want it to actually buy you something.

The example of 16 vs dealer 10 is the most frequent hand, so yes it will cost you a little bit more than these situations, but it happens frequently enough that it may just mean something. And if you wong out of negative counts at any kind of reasonable point, the cost really is minimum for the value you are getting. Much better than all these others combined. Half the casino personel don't even know correct plays for many soft hands and splits anyway, but they all know the correct play for 16 vs 10.

They also know the correct play for insurance, which should happen very frequently (1 of every 13 hands), but misplaying insurance is too rich for my blood. Even partial insurance. To me that is odd and looks strange and as such may draw extra attention, which is the last thing I want to do.

This being said, I am of the opinion that cover plays have very limited value, unless you are going to go all out and make some very costly bonehead plays to throw them off. Bet spread is the main culprit that is going to do you in. One that happens cover plays are not going to buy you much. Maybe a couple extra minutes. So if you want effective cover you need to concentrate on disguising your bet spread and particularly what you do the first couple hands after a shuffle, and make no mistake about it, effective cover in this area is costly in the long run.

 

[aslan]

The problem with the first 10, or even the entire list for that matter, is that they all happen infrequently. For that reason, splits and soft double just aren't great cover. The object of cover is to throw someone watching off and that just doesn't happen with plays that happen infrequently. If you are going to use cover, you want it to actually buy you something.

The example of 16 vs dealer 10 is the most frequent hand, so yes it will cost you a little bit more than these situations, but it happens frequently enough that it may just mean something. And if you wong out of negative counts at any kind of reasonable point, the cost really is minimum for the value you are getting. Much better than all these others combined. Half the casino personel don't even know correct plays for many soft hands and splits anyway, but they all know the correct play for 16 vs 10.

They also know the correct play for insurance, which should happen very frequently (1 of every 13 hands), but misplaying insurance is too rich for my blood. Even partial insurance. To me that is odd and looks strange and as such may draw extra attention, which is the last thing I want to do.

This being said, I am of the opinion that cover plays have very limited value, unless you are going to go all out and make some very costly bonehead plays to throw them off. Bet spread is the main culprit that is going to do you in. One that happens cover plays are not going to buy you much. Maybe a couple extra minutes. So if you want effective cover you need to concentrate on disguising your bet spread and particularly what you do the first couple hands after a shuffle, and make no mistake about it, effective cover in this area is costly in the long run.

Cover in the beginning of a shoe can be extremely expensive, but I recently had a very uplifting moment. I had been spreading large in the previous shoe with mixed results, but I wanted to continue at this table, so I continued max bet at the beginning of the shoe, something I had never done before. My thought was to quickly abandon it if I lost, but luckily I won. In fact, I continued this tact and won hand after hand. It was the most profitable shoe of the day and one which surveillance can evaluate it to their heart's content. They might of course surmise that I was shuffle tracking and knew the beginning of the shoe was positive. Other than that, it provided perfect cover. I have never done this before, and don't know what possessed me to try it this time. I guess sometimes one max bet does not seem so critical, especially if you're way ahead. But I do have a propensity for doing radical things that sometimes get me in trouble. In this regard, I wish I had you discipline.

As for the "always taking insurance" cover, I knew as I was doing this that it must be wrong, but I was sure I had Renzey's recommendation on it. It did not work out, as I lost most insurance calls, but at least I did avoid two critical losses at max (10 times). Only taking insurance at max bet does seem to be a large tell, so I think I will do as corrected, and make at least some small partial insurance calls below _+3. I feel really dumb now that I realize my mistake.

 

[tthree]

The problem with the first 10, or even the entire list for that matter, is that they all happen infrequently. For that reason, splits and soft double just aren't great cover. The object of cover is to throw someone watching off and that just doesn't happen with plays that happen infrequently. If you are going to use cover, you want it to actually buy you something.

The example of 16 vs dealer 10 is the most frequent hand, so yes it will cost you a little bit more than these situations, but it happens frequently enough that it may just mean something. And if you wong out of negative counts at any kind of reasonable point, the cost really is minimum for the value you are getting. Much better than all these others combined. Half the casino personel don't even know correct plays for many soft hands and splits anyway, but they all know the correct play for 16 vs 10.

They also know the correct play for insurance, which should happen very frequently (1 of every 13 hands), but misplaying insurance is too rich for my blood. Even partial insurance. To me that is odd and looks strange and as such may draw extra attention, which is the last thing I want to do.

This being said, I am of the opinion that cover plays have very limited value, unless you are going to go all out and make some very costly bonehead plays to throw them off. Bet spread is the main culprit that is going to do you in. One that happens cover plays are not going to buy you much. Maybe a couple extra minutes. So if you want effective cover you need to concentrate on disguising your bet spread and particularly what you do the first couple hands after a shuffle, and make no mistake about it, effective cover in this area is costly in the long run.

The idea of such a long list was if the pit was assessing you. Each individual thing happens infrequently, thats why they don't cost much but the whole list is likely to have a hand hit when you are being obviously watched. If you are looking to fool the eye in the sky it becomes trickier. They can watch your every bet , replay the tape again and watch your play modifications. One change is not going to fool them. The point is to know what bonehead plays exist that dont cost at the time you need it. Or incorporate a deviation from a few weaker AP moves that are risky anyway. Look at the zero point cards and lesser value cards, if you are not using a level 1 count, for your counting system. When these are the key cards for the hand match up your index is a very weak indication of your actual situation. The rate of gain as the count increases will be tiny and the correct decision would depend on the unknown information about the key card(s) more than your index. These hand match ups are prime candidates for cover play since you are really clueless about the actual situation anyway. One of my favorites not having anything to do with my last statement is never splitting 88 v T. It makes you look like such an amateur and really doesn't cost much but with the upcard of T has a higher frequency. It often gets the call out to the pit so it doesn't go unnoticed.

Maybe this would be a good one for the ExGriffinman to chime in on. Someone always standing on 16 v T wouldn't make me notice. Only APs stand on that hand for the most part and the pit knows it. Unless they are counting the shoe it does nothing for cover. You are looking for a play no AP would do and doesn't cost much.

 

[aslan]

The idea of such a long list was if the pit was assessing you. Each individual thing happens infrequently, thats why they don't cost much but the whole list is likely to have a hand hit when you are being obviously watched. If you are looking to fool the eye in the sky it becomes trickier. They can watch your every bet , replay the tape again and watch your play modifications. One change is not going to fool them. The point is to know what bonehead plays exist that dont cost at the time you need it. Or incorporate a deviation from a few weaker AP moves that are risky anyway. Look at the zero point cards and lesser value cards, if you are not using a level 1 count, for your counting system. When these are the key cards for the hand match up your index is a very weak indication of your actual situation. The rate of gain as the count increases will be tiny and the correct decision would depend on the unknown information about the key card(s) more than your index. These hand match ups are prime candidates for cover play since you are really clueless about the actual situation anyway. One of my favorites not having anything to do with my last statement is never splitting 88 v T. It makes you look like such an amateur and really doesn't cost much but with the upcard of T has a higher frequency. It often gets the call out to the pit so it doesn't go unnoticed.

Maybe this would be a good one for the ExGriffinman to chime in on. Someone always standing on 16 v T wouldn't make me notice. Only APs stand on that hand for the most part and the pit knows it. Unless they are counting the shoe it does nothing for cover. You are looking for a play no AP would do and doesn't cost much.

Standing on 16 vs ten does not only stand out when the count is known, it stands out at the beginning of the shoe as well. Also, I don't buy your assertion that only APs stand on 16 vs. ten and that the pit knows it. My experience has been that many, many ploppies, especially Asian players, stand on 16 vs. ten. It is one of the most prevalent ploppy mistakes that I have noticed, that, and doubling down on every wrong combination imaginable. eg, 9 v 2, 9 v 7, A/6 V 2, A/5 v 2, A/2 v 4, 8 v 5, 8 v 6, but not doubling down on eleven vs 10 (depending on their hunch). Hitting twelve v dealer 2 and 3 seems to be coming into vogue among ploppies, that is, unless you're third base where they insist on believing the next card has to be the dealer's "bust" card, and even somewhat upset if you hit an unbreakable hand.

 

[tthree]

Standing on 16 vs ten does not only stand out when the count is known, it stands out at the beginning of the shoe as well. Also, I don't buy your assertion that only APs stand on 16 vs. ten and that the pit knows it. My experience has been that many, many ploppies, especially Asian players, stand on 16 vs. ten. It is one of the most prevalent ploppy mistakes that I have noticed, that, and doubling down on every wrong combination imaginable. eg, 9 v 2, 9 v 7, A/6 V 2, A/5 v 2, A/2 v 4, 8 v 5, 8 v 6, but not doubling down on eleven vs 10 (depending on their hunch). Hitting twelve v dealer 2 and 3 seems to be coming into vogue among ploppies, that is, unless you're third base where they insist on believing the next card has to be the dealer's "bust" card, and even somewhat upset if you hit an unbreakable hand.

The thing you have to remember is they are not trying to see if you look like a ploppy. They are trying to see if you look like an AP. I don't know how dumb they are about what an AP does and how to spot one but I always give the enemy more credit than they deserve. A mistake in that direction is a safe one.

 

[kewljason]

so I continued max bet at the beginning of the shoe, something I had never done before. In fact, I continued this tact and won hand after hand. It was the most profitable shoe of the day and one which surveillance can evaluate it to their heart's content. Other than that, it provided perfect cover. In this regard, I wish I had you discipline.

I hate to tell you aslan, but it provided perfect cover, because it crossed the line from advantage play to gambling. :laugh:

Maybe this would be a good one for the ExGriffinman to chime in on. Someone always standing on 16 v T wouldn't make me notice. Only APs stand on that hand for the most part and the pit knows it. Unless they are counting the shoe it does nothing for cover. You are looking for a play no AP would do and doesn't cost much.

I also disagree with the notion that only AP's stand on 16 vs 10. I divide the non counting world into 2 groups. Basic strategy players and ploppies. Basic strategy players hit 16 vs 10, 12 vs 2, 3 soft 18 vs 9, 10. True ploppies don't do any of these types of plays. And the thing about 16 vs 10 really isn't about whether you hit it or not, it is when you hit it sometimes and don't something that is the giveaway. Also true of insurance.

 

[tthree]

Insurance has a closer correlation to bigger bets so the timing is easier to spot by the casino. To a lesser degree this is true about 16 v T. It no doubt has value as camo but if I were in the pit it wouldn't convince me if all the other signs were there.

 

[zengrifter]

I had been spreading large in the previous shoe with mixed results, but I wanted to continue at this table, so I continued max bet at the beginning of the shoe, something I had never done before. My thought was to quickly abandon it if I lost, but luckily I won. In fact, I continued this tact and won hand after hand. It was the most profitable shoe of the day and one which surveillance can evaluate it to their heart's content.

Yaa baby! That's what I'm talkin about! Beautiful!

I hate to tell you aslan, but it provided perfect cover, because it crossed the line from advantage play to gambling. :laugh:

Au contrair mon ami.
Aslan pulled-off a powerful simple camo tactic that is very inexpensive, properly analyzed. zg

 

[aslan]

The thing you have to remember is they are not trying to see if you look like a ploppy. They are trying to see if you look like an AP. I don't know how dumb they are about what an AP does and how to spot one but I always give the enemy more credit than they deserve. A mistake in that direction is a safe one.

You can never give them too much credit. The whole thing is they are likely not watching you at any given moment, since they have numerous duties to perform, plus larger fish to fry. If perchance, a PC calls you to their attention, or if perchance, they happen to fix their attention on you by luck or other quirk, their chances of ID'ing you are quite good, as are the chances of any counter identifying another counter. I like to play as if I am always being watched even though this is highly unlikely. For one thing, you never know when you are being watched, and even hit and run is not a foolproof method, since it is the practice of many surveillance to evaluate your game after you have left. Upon your return, they will have your picture, if not your ID and your days are numbered. They can also put out what information they have to their sister properties. None of this really applies to recreational players as they generally play under the radar or do not win large enough amounts to be perceived as a danger. But once you are perceived as a risk, good cover in one form or another is essential, or a willingness to travel far and wide to other stores. This is my take on it anyway; others may vary.

 

[kewljason]

and even hit and run is not a foolproof method, since it is the practice of many surveillance to evaluate your game after you have left. Upon your return, they will have your picture, if not your ID and your days are numbered. They can also put out what information they have to their sister properties.

This is very true, aslan, however the hit and run player has minimized the information and footage they have to evaluate. Especially if he plays unrated. The conclusion about days being numbered upon return at that location and sister properties, just has not been my experience. Could be because I am a small fish. I guess someone playing 4 and 5 figure max bets could/would be more at risk.

 

[kewljason]

Yaa baby! That's what I'm talkin about! Beautiful!
Au contrair mon ami.
Aslan pulled-off a powerful simple camo tactic that is very inexpensive, properly analyzed. zg

I am glad you weighed in good friend, ZG. I reaffirms that I am correct. :laugh: (JK)

You and I have had this discussion several times, and I just disagree with you. Aslan pulled off a "powerful camo tactic", because he he chose to gamble at that point and yes gambling is powerful camo. :laugh: No offense to aslan, but it was no different than walking up to a roulette wheel where you have a negative advantage and placing a $500 wager and red and say if it wins I will continue to bet $500 on red as long as it keeps winning but if it loses it will have only cost me the one $500 bet. In this case aslan, hit red several/many times in a row, but it doesn't make it a good strategy.

 

[psyduck]

however the hit and run player has minimized the information and footage they have to evaluate.

If they put enough short plays of the hit-and-run player together, I believe they can still see what that player has been doing.

 

[21forme]

I like to play as if I am always being watched even though this is highly unlikely.

In that case, you have saved the casino some work. You have backed yourself off with your cover.

 

[zengrifter]

This is very true, aslan, however the hit and run player has minimized the information and footage they have to evaluate. Especially if he plays unrated.

The high-end joints will analyze the shoe play post session and digitize your mug. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I am glad you weighed in good friend, ZG. I reaffirms that I am correct. :laugh:

No offense to aslan, but it was no different than walking up to a roulette wheel where you have a negative advantage and placing a $500 wager and red and say if it wins I will continue to bet $500 on red as long as it keeps winning but if it loses it will have only cost me the one $500 bet. In this case aslan, hit red several/many times in a row, but it doesn't make it a good strategy.

Run the numbers again here - as to how much the play would really cost you
theoretical. Use your approximate max bet size and an estimate of frequency.

Lets see. zg

 

[Gamblor]

Au contrair mon ami.
Aslan pulled-off a powerful simple camo tactic that is very inexpensive, properly analyzed. zg

Agreed, there's a proper time and way to do this. Had a similar experience as Aslan, had a higher than normal cover bet at the top of a shoe (nowhere near max bet though, hint hint Aslan), and did not lose for 12 hands in a row. I was keen on leaving the joint and almost was wishing to lose, it was getting kind of surreal :grin:

The count stayed flat to slightly negative, so just kept the bet flat. If only the count went up, would have made off like a bandit. Good thing it didn't, then I would have had to make another large cover bet for the next shoe!

 

[blackjack avenger]

What Does Camo Offer?

If you play hit and run that is a form of camo, one is giving up time and expense to move to another casino. If some camo can offer the confidence to play more hands then it may be worth it.

The benefit of camo is always subjective. We can know the mathematical cost but are not sure of the benefit. This should cause one to be cautious when considering camo.

When considering camo one does not always have to make the play.

 

[aslan]

This is very true, aslan, however the hit and run player has minimized the information and footage they have to evaluate. Especially if he plays unrated. The conclusion about days being numbered upon return at that location and sister prope rties, just has not been my experience. small fish. I guess someone playing 4 and 5 figure max bets could/would be more at risk.

Definitely true. I don't think they pay much attention to small bets, but if your winnings get into the thousands, they will take notice even at the larger, customer-friendly places.

 

[aslan]

In that case, you have saved the casino some work. You have backed yourself off with your cover.

Depends on how expensive your camo is. But I get your drift. How much I am betting has a lot to do with whether and how much camo I might use.

 

[newbctr]

Jason,

I disagree with your view on this cover. The -EV, even on a max bet, justifies the play. I have made this move many times, and won the first hand, only to have the count spike. I leave the bets out there until I have a net loss. A lot of times I have 2 hands in play, so I win one and lose one, and the count goes up. At one shop, I had a $500 bet up, and flat bet it the entire shoe on a great count (table max in that case). Other times I had a 12 unit bet up, and was able to achieve a 36x spread on my original bet when the count jumped early. This more than offsets the cost of the cover.

While I know your strategy works well, cover can also work just as well. If I had a choice between perfect play and a 12X spread, and using an expensive cover coupled with 16X spread (but same EV), I would take the 16X. You bashed Ian Anderson in another thread, but this is his logic and it has worked well for me.

I am glad you weighed in good friend, ZG. I reaffirms that I am correct. :laugh: (JK)

You and I have had this discussion several times, and I just disagree with you. Aslan pulled off a "powerful camo tactic", because he he chose to gamble at that point and yes gambling is powerful camo. :laugh: No offense to aslan, but it was no different than walking up to a roulette wheel where you have a negative advantage and placing a $500 wager and red and say if it wins I will continue to bet $500 on red as long as it keeps winning but if it loses it will have only cost me the one $500 bet. In this case aslan, hit red several/many times in a row, but it doesn't make it a good strategy.