Tried a Couple New Cover Plays

aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
The first new cover play I learned here on BJINFO was to always stand on 16 against a dealer ten, the theory being that when the big money is out, it's the right move, and when the big money is not out, it's a marginal BS play anyway. Wouldn't you know it, I get on this table and out of the blue, this know-it-all ploppy asks me if I hit 16. No one has ever asked me such a question. I said, "No, I stand on 16, but only against a dealer ten." Following were moans and groans, especially whenever I stood on 16 vs ten, even when I won. Naturally, sometimes I won and he did not win. haha My fault! Later I ran into him again and said this time I will always hit 16 against a ten just for you. Of course I was lying, since I never hit 16 against a ten at key count and beyond. The guy finally blew all his money, while I was doing just fine for the time being. Later, I lost my money. too. :cry:

The other cover play I tried was taking insurance at every opportunity. The theory is the same, since whenever you have the big money out you are doing the right thing. I wish I had simmed this before trying it, because it seemed like I lost more than my share of insurance bets. At least this cover does not get the same antagonism as the other, only knowing looks that I was a really stupid player. Maybe I was.
 
T

tthree

Banned
Believe it or not the cost of deviating from BS on insurance consistently for a type of hand (blackjack, twenty or other) is tied to the strength of your hand. The hand strength actually has the reverse effect you might expect from the strong hands having ten value cards in them; however, their infrequency makes them far less costly a strategy deviation for every occurrence. They also greatly control variance. The "better bet" for insurance on weaker hands as they have at most 1 ten value card has a huge downside in negative variance since the likelihood of losing both bets is high. It also occurs far more frequently than the "worse " bet statistically of insuring a twenty or a blackjack. Insuring blackjack has zero variance. Most of the time insuring a twenty you win one bet or the other. Blackjack attack edition 3 has the following absolute penalty in cents per $100 wagered(conditional penalty times frequency of occurrence):

Always insuring blackjack: 1.35
Always insuring 20: 3.34
Always insuring Tx (exactly one ten value card in your hand): 11.51
Always insuring a hand with no ten value card: 11.73
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
21forme said:
Insure for less. Put out a single red chip for your cover INS bets.
Click to expand...
That is a very clever idea. And when the big money is out, say you have more to protect.
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
tthree said:
Believe it or not the cost of deviating from BS on insurance consistently for a type of hand (blackjack, twenty or other) is tied to the strength of your hand. The hand strength actually has the reverse effect you might expect from the strong hands having ten value cards in them; however, their infrequency makes them far less costly a strategy deviation for every occurrence. They also greatly control variance. The "better bet" for insurance on weaker hands as they have at most 1 ten value card has a huge downside in negative variance since the likelihood of losing both bets is high. It also occurs far more frequently than the "worse " bet statistically of insuring a twenty or a blackjack. Insuring blackjack has zero variance. Most of the time insuring a twenty you win one bet or the other. Blackjack attack edition 3 has the following absolute penalty in cents per $100 wagered(conditional penalty times frequency of occurrence):

Always insuring blackjack: 1.35
Always insuring 20: 3.34
Always insuring Tx (exactly one ten value card in your hand): 11.51
Always insuring a hand with no ten value card: 11.73
Click to expand...
What is the cents per $100 for always buying insurance regardless of the hand?
 
Gamblor

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
Personally I've never used these two forms of cover and really not in favor of it, although this could be because I play at lower limits than you Aslan, and my other forms of cover suffice. I'm not in favor of it because its largely a wasted effort, the PC or surveillance are not looking at you or anyone all of the time in a normal situation.
 
T

tthree

Banned
Cheap cover plays

The penalty is for $100 in total wagers not wagers on the hand match up. It is weighted for frequency and assumes 4 deck shoe and FLAT BETTING. BTW the penalty for always standing on 16 v T is 2.65 cents/$100 wagered.

Here are the cheapest cover plays:
*Not hitting A6 v 2 costs .03*
*Not standing A7 v 2 costs .03*
Always hitting 22 v 3 costs .04
Always hitting 22 v 4 costs .04
Always hitting 33 v 4 costs .04
*Always standing A7 v A costs .04*
Always hitting A4 v 4 costs .05
Always hitting A2 v 5 costs .07
Always standing 99 v 2 costs .09
Not splitting 66 v 2 costs .09
*Always doubling 9 v 2 costs .10*
Always doubling A3 v 4 costs .10
*Always doubling A8 v 6 costs .11*
Always hitting 22 v 2 costs .11
Always hitting 33 v 3 costs .11
Always splitting 99 v A costs .12
Always splitting 22 v 7 costs .13
Not splitting 66 v 3 costs .13
Always doubling A5 v 3 costs .15
Always hitting 33 v 5 costs .17
Always splitting 33 v 7 costs .17
Always splitting 33 v 8 costs .17
*Always splitting 77 v 8 costs .17*
Always hitting A5 v 4 costs .18
Always hitting 22 v 5 costs .22
Always splitting 22 v 8 costs .22
Always hitting 33 v 2 costs .26
Always standing 99 v 3 costs .26
Always hitting 33 v 6 costs .26
*Always splitting 99 v 7 costs .26*
Always doubling A4 v 3 costs .28
Always hitting A6 v 3 costs .28
Always standing A7 v 3 costs .28
Always doubling A2 v 4 costs .28
Always hitting A3 v 5 costs .28
Always doubling A8 v 5 costs .28
Always hitting A2 v 6 costs .28
Not splitting 66 v 4 costs .30
Always standing 99 v 9 costs .30

The ones with asterisks work well as stated. The others should only be used situationally for cover. If you are looking for cover play pick from the list.
 
M

MangoJ

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
Wouldn't it require "weighting?"
Click to expand...
Weighting with probability of occurance ?
Those 4 items (BJ, 20, Tx-no20 and noT-no20) are exhaustive and disjunct, so you can add those values together.
 
T

tthree

Banned
Actual cost to the counter

The numbers assume flat betting and play all. Not splitting 88 v T costs .8 even with the high frequency of the dealer upcard. If surrender is offered, this may actually end up being your cheapest cover play especially if you wong out. This is because at the times it is best to split you should be surrendering anyway. Only for your minimum bets before you wong out are you actually paying a price. The cheapest cover plays must add in the consideration of what you want to do at your highest bets. What is your wong out criterion. The strength of your index (Are the key cards for that hand match up neutral cards or 1 point cards for a level 2 count? If they are your index is a very weak indicator of advantage. And gain is slow to change as the count changes). Like never splitting 88 v T when surrender is offered, many of these plays have a much lower cost than advertised since you would be doing them anyway on your ramped bets. The actual cost to the counter must adjust for your index and wonging style. The obvious good fits in my opinion got the asterisks.

Aslan, in case you don't see the answer to your question above, no these numbers include the proper index plays but not at a ramped bet. So the effect of higher bets when it is the correct play is not factored in.
 
Last edited:
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
aslan said:
The other cover play I tried was taking insurance at every opportunity. The theory is the same, since whenever you have the big money out you are doing the right thing. I wish I had simmed this before trying it, because it seemed like I lost more than my share of insurance bets. At least this cover does not get the same antagonism as the other, only knowing looks that I was a really stupid player. Maybe I was.
Click to expand...
Maybe? Presumably you did NOT learn that EXPENSIVE cover here?
Here's a cover for you - surrender every hand, cut your losses in half! zg
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Maybe? Presumably you did NOT learn that EXPENSIVE cover here?
Here's a cover for you - surrender every hand, cut your losses in half! zg
Click to expand...
I may have gotten it here, but it was definitely somewhere
on the Forum:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=16983&highlight=insurance+cover&page=2&post=15&post=#15

I have tried your cover play and it was a pleasure indeed to leave with half my trip bankroll intact.smiley-whacky011.gif Kudos for your creative thinking outside the box!jack-in-the-box-smile.gif I don't understand why they keep trying to keep you in the box.smiley-gen062.gifsmiley-gen050.gif
 
B

bj21abc

Well-Known Member
This is OK as a starting point for more research, but any of the numbers bar the very smallest are of little relevance as is. Unless you flat bet BS - and even then this does not take into account the added variance.

More relevant would be to check the total impact of cover (your chosen "mix") on your regular game + betting ramp.

D.

tthree said:
The penalty is for $100 in total wagers not wagers on the hand match up. It is weighted for frequency and assumes 4 deck shoe and FLAT BETTING. BTW the penalty for always standing on 16 v T is 2.65 cents/$100 wagered.

Here are the cheapest cover plays:
*Not hitting A6 v 2 costs .03*
*Not standing A7 v 2 costs .03*
Always hitting 22 v 3 costs .04
Always hitting 22 v 4 costs .04
Always hitting 33 v 4 costs .04
*Always standing A7 v A costs .04*
Always hitting A4 v 4 costs .05
Always hitting A2 v 5 costs .07
Always standing 99 v 2 costs .09
Not splitting 66 v 2 costs .09
*Always doubling 9 v 2 costs .10*
Always doubling A3 v 4 costs .10
*Always doubling A8 v 6 costs .11*
Always hitting 22 v 2 costs .11
Always hitting 33 v 3 costs .11
Always splitting 99 v A costs .12
Always splitting 22 v 7 costs .13
Not splitting 66 v 3 costs .13
Always doubling A5 v 3 costs .15
Always hitting 33 v 5 costs .17
Always splitting 33 v 7 costs .17
Always splitting 33 v 8 costs .17
*Always splitting 77 v 8 costs .17*
Always hitting A5 v 4 costs .18
Always hitting 22 v 5 costs .22
Always splitting 22 v 8 costs .22
Always hitting 33 v 2 costs .26
Always standing 99 v 3 costs .26
Always hitting 33 v 6 costs .26
*Always splitting 99 v 7 costs .26*
Always doubling A4 v 3 costs .28
Always hitting A6 v 3 costs .28
Always standing A7 v 3 costs .28
Always doubling A2 v 4 costs .28
Always hitting A3 v 5 costs .28
Always doubling A8 v 5 costs .28
Always hitting A2 v 6 costs .28
Not splitting 66 v 4 costs .30
Always standing 99 v 9 costs .30

The ones with asterisks work well as stated. The others should only be used situationally for cover. If you are looking for cover play pick from the list.
Click to expand...
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member

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.
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
The operative phrase was "small amounts" :laugh:
Click to expand...
You may be right, as in this instance I took it to mean when betting small amounts, not applying partial insurance. :eek: But I was sure I saw it somewhere else as well. If not, I am a most suggestible and gullible person. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top