Tried a Couple New Cover Plays
- Thread starter aslan
- Start date
Someone do an analysis -
1. betting big off the top ONLY AFTER a big-bet shoe ends WITH a winning big bet.
2. off the top big bet is only repeated until lost.
3. use a reasonable estimate of frequency/occurrence.
4. use $25 (min) to 2x250 (max)
5. use decent vegas 6D rules & %pene.
Can anyone show the off-the-top cover bet outlined above to be too expensive? Or otherwise very feasible? zg
1. betting big off the top ONLY AFTER a big-bet shoe ends WITH a winning big bet.
2. off the top big bet is only repeated until lost.
3. use a reasonable estimate of frequency/occurrence.
4. use $25 (min) to 2x250 (max)
5. use decent vegas 6D rules & %pene.
Can anyone show the off-the-top cover bet outlined above to be too expensive? Or otherwise very feasible? zg
No need to over complicate. It would cost roughly .5% house edge X $500 in EV... $2.50 per occurance, plus increased S.D.
If high cards come off the top, then there is a better chance of you winning at least 1, if not 2 max bets. If low cards come out, you may lose, but the count is good and you can either keep your max bets out, or back off only some.
It's cheap (and excellent) cover, and the numbers alone won't prove it's profit unless you consider the fact that you will go beyond your normal max bet in certain situations. At higher stakes, do you have any idea how bad it looks to be betting $1000 spread over 2 hands, then be back to $50 off the top? Not only that, every counter does this.
If high cards come off the top, then there is a better chance of you winning at least 1, if not 2 max bets. If low cards come out, you may lose, but the count is good and you can either keep your max bets out, or back off only some.
It's cheap (and excellent) cover, and the numbers alone won't prove it's profit unless you consider the fact that you will go beyond your normal max bet in certain situations. At higher stakes, do you have any idea how bad it looks to be betting $1000 spread over 2 hands, then be back to $50 off the top? Not only that, every counter does this.
No! Every counter does not do this! Some of us exit at that point. Cost = $0!! You and ZG have been trying to push on us how cheap this cover is. $2.50 each time. I play 50ish shoe a day. So if 6 times a day I do this rather than exiting, it cost $15 a day. That's 5 grand a year! Let's see, $5 grand a year vs $0 a year. I'll take zero! I don't need to pay 5 grand a year for the "privilege" of playing another shoe at that table. Not when there are other's nearby that I can play off the top for 12 cents ($25 x half percent).
I can understand that everyone doesn't have access to thousands of tables as I do and may have to use such a strategy, but stop trying to say there is no or little cost to it. There is!
Extra likelyhood of being barred?? 
By never reducing from a top bet back to a smaller bet, I am eliminating the single biggest move that casino's use to determine counters. Short sessions is the best cover and equals longevity. A number of surveilance and casino execs have acknowledged this including ex-grffinman and Bill Zender. I can count the number of times I have been backed off on one hand. And another small handful of times that I have just missed.
It basically comes down to this. You guys using different cover are trying to trick the casinos. Make some big bets off the top. Misplay some hands. Try parlaying your wagers instead of raising closer to optimal wagering and miss some opportunities. Tipping? Do you tip? It is said to be good cover as counters don't tip. In the end you are just eating into your already slim margin. 10%? 15%? 20% or more? how much are you willing to give back. And in the end, you will still lose out, because you can't trick them for long. Eventually it will come down to you have more money out during higher plus counts and they will catch on because you have provided them with plenty of footage to view and determine this. I, on the other hand am not trying to trick them. I figure out just what there tolerance level is and stay under it. They don't see the reduction of wagers and they don't have much footage to examine.
By never reducing from a top bet back to a smaller bet, I am eliminating the single biggest move that casino's use to determine counters. Short sessions is the best cover and equals longevity. A number of surveilance and casino execs have acknowledged this including ex-grffinman and Bill Zender. I can count the number of times I have been backed off on one hand. And another small handful of times that I have just missed.It basically comes down to this. You guys using different cover are trying to trick the casinos. Make some big bets off the top. Misplay some hands. Try parlaying your wagers instead of raising closer to optimal wagering and miss some opportunities. Tipping? Do you tip? It is said to be good cover as counters don't tip. In the end you are just eating into your already slim margin. 10%? 15%? 20% or more? how much are you willing to give back. And in the end, you will still lose out, because you can't trick them for long. Eventually it will come down to you have more money out during higher plus counts and they will catch on because you have provided them with plenty of footage to view and determine this. I, on the other hand am not trying to trick them. I figure out just what there tolerance level is and stay under it. They don't see the reduction of wagers and they don't have much footage to examine.
Last edited:
kewljason said:
Extra likelyhood of being barred?? By never reducing from a top bet back to a smaller bet, I am eliminating the single biggest move that casino's use to determine counters. Short sessions is the best cover and equals longevity. A number of surveilance and casino execs have acknowledged this including ex-grffinman and Bill Zender. I can count the number of times I have been backed off on one hand. And another small handful of times that I have just missed.
By never reducing from a top bet back to a smaller bet, I am eliminating the single biggest move that casino's use to determine counters. Short sessions is the best cover and equals longevity. A number of surveilance and casino execs have acknowledged this including ex-grffinman and Bill Zender. I can count the number of times I have been backed off on one hand. And another small handful of times that I have just missed.
You have set a pattern - the higherline joints routinely analyze play post session. Especially someone who seems out of the ordinary - ran a shoe, won, left quickly, post session analysis = imminent barring ....
... notwithstanding your personal experience, of course! z:laugh:g
There is no $20 a day. At least nothing concrete. That is a figure you just arbitrarily picked out of the air a few minutes ago.
Imminent barring? I don't know where you are playing or even if you play much these days, but that most certainly has not been my experience. Again, I can tell you I am rarely backed off and I play a lot. And I play a group of stores frequently. Again, it is about tolerance level and short sessions is a big part of that. There are many places that even if familiar with you, knowing that you are only there a few minutes puts you into their comfort level. It's just not worth the time and energy to back you off. Just like there are many places that won't back off a red chipper, playing a top wager of under $100. Not all, but many. You need to find that comfort level.
Anyway, I am done arguing with you. I don't know what works and doesn't work for you. I can only speak from my experience and from what a few surveillance type people had acknowledged. If you or newbctr or others want to give the casino industry some sort of rebate or percentage of your earnings, I am sure they appreciate it. But don't kid yourself into thinking this is going to trick them for long. Better to figure out their comfort level and remain under it, with everything from style of play, to session lengths to wager amounts.
Imminent barring?
I don't know where you are playing or even if you play much these days, but that most certainly has not been my experience. Again, I can tell you I am rarely backed off and I play a lot. And I play a group of stores frequently. Again, it is about tolerance level and short sessions is a big part of that. There are many places that even if familiar with you, knowing that you are only there a few minutes puts you into their comfort level. It's just not worth the time and energy to back you off. Just like there are many places that won't back off a red chipper, playing a top wager of under $100. Not all, but many. You need to find that comfort level. Anyway, I am done arguing with you. I don't know what works and doesn't work for you. I can only speak from my experience and from what a few surveillance type people had acknowledged. If you or newbctr or others want to give the casino industry some sort of rebate or percentage of your earnings, I am sure they appreciate it. But don't kid yourself into thinking this is going to trick them for long. Better to figure out their comfort level and remain under it, with everything from style of play, to session lengths to wager amounts.
Last edited:
This is not arguing. I acknowleged that your experience seems to run counter to my professed wisdom. All things being equal, however, IF the one idea had ANY value to it, and it was only used sparingly say half the time, then it would cost under $10/day and many would agree it was a good value.
On the other hand, I know that you don't believe that your style of play is the only best method - one thats been around since the mid-70s. However, I predict that soon you will post that the perfect opportunity arose where your were compelled to not bolt after a winning shoe and you made the big bet again after the shuffle. Can't wait to hear about it! LOL
And the other things you describe - the true gestalt of flying under radar - very aptly described. YOU are one of the best, Kewl! zg
On the other hand, I know that you don't believe that your style of play is the only best method - one thats been around since the mid-70s. However, I predict that soon you will post that the perfect opportunity arose where your were compelled to not bolt after a winning shoe and you made the big bet again after the shuffle. Can't wait to hear about it! LOL
And the other things you describe - the true gestalt of flying under radar - very aptly described. YOU are one of the best, Kewl! zg
The big off the top gambit could have you pegged as an ST. Especially if the deck starts with high cards and/or aces whether you win or not. A successful ST is more dangerous the a counter to the casino. The kewl dude was quite correct about flying under the radar. Finding each casino's comfort sweet spot and staying well within it is the best cover. Greed is what tends to get people backed off or barred. I really don't need cover at my play level but many of my risk averse plays are great cover. The affect of risk averse play on insurance, soft doubling were the key cards are 7,8 or 9 and never splitting 88 v T and doubling rather than splitting 44 at your largest bets against particularly bad dealer upcards do not look like you know what you are doing. I do them to reduce RoR and increase my optimal bets at the same count. This increases my profit. Cover is just a by product. Casinos make a ton of money off underfunded wannabe APs who don't have the skills or discipline and I think they know it.
Last edited:
I know I am not one of the best, Zg. I also know that my style is not anything new. If it has been around since the 70's, I don't know. You are better prepared to answer that than me.
I have said before that I am not trying to re-invent the wheel or take credit for inventinting the wheel. I am more than happy to just use the wheel that someone else has invented.
Last edited:
Evaluations
It is my oppinion that if you evaluate the joint your in and have a good sense about your enviroment you may or may not need cover. A person's style of play dictates alot of decisions made. If you add up all the factors in your game and the enviroment and come up with a flag I wouldn't overstay your welcome. If you are setting up camp and throwing money around they will make you one way or the other. How say Exgriffenman,Eh?
It is my oppinion that if you evaluate the joint your in and have a good sense about your enviroment you may or may not need cover. A person's style of play dictates alot of decisions made. If you add up all the factors in your game and the enviroment and come up with a flag I wouldn't overstay your welcome. If you are setting up camp and throwing money around they will make you one way or the other. How say Exgriffenman,Eh?
tthree, how can the casino even suspect ST if I leave the bets up after the hand? Am I so good at ST that I can predict the shuffle ahead of time?
Jason, while I respect your opinion as always, you aren't even acknowledging my points. First, let me respond to yours: yes, leaving is ideal, and i do it a lot... tougher for someone not in Vegas, but still a good idea and one I do a lot. Second, your math is WAY exaggerated. After excluding the times I leave, I may run into the situation of having 2X8 up at the end of the shoe, and winning, once or twice in an 8 hour day. So the cost is lower, and as i stated, is offset by 1) greatly improved betting ramp (I realize you play strictly to the count, but would you go from $25 >> $200 in one hand? - maybe so, but i think most counters ramp up somewhat slowly) and 2) bet spreads possible well beyond your normal one.
I realize it's "anecdotal" evidence, but I have had MONSTER shoes using this because the TC spikes to 2 after three hands (W,L,W lets say), and I now have the potential to get 30 or 40 max bets out with 0 (or little spreading) from my off the top bet, but 16 - 32 from my typical minimum. Throw in the extra benefit of comps, and I'd be willing to bet you the strategy is break even or profitable, while providing cover.
After all, it must be smart if Ian Anderson used it!
Jason, while I respect your opinion as always, you aren't even acknowledging my points. First, let me respond to yours: yes, leaving is ideal, and i do it a lot... tougher for someone not in Vegas, but still a good idea and one I do a lot. Second, your math is WAY exaggerated. After excluding the times I leave, I may run into the situation of having 2X8 up at the end of the shoe, and winning, once or twice in an 8 hour day. So the cost is lower, and as i stated, is offset by 1) greatly improved betting ramp (I realize you play strictly to the count, but would you go from $25 >> $200 in one hand? - maybe so, but i think most counters ramp up somewhat slowly) and 2) bet spreads possible well beyond your normal one.
I realize it's "anecdotal" evidence, but I have had MONSTER shoes using this because the TC spikes to 2 after three hands (W,L,W lets say), and I now have the potential to get 30 or 40 max bets out with 0 (or little spreading) from my off the top bet, but 16 - 32 from my typical minimum. Throw in the extra benefit of comps, and I'd be willing to bet you the strategy is break even or profitable, while providing cover.
After all, it must be smart if Ian Anderson used it!
kewljason said:
I know I am not one of the best, Zg. I also know that my style is not anything new. If it has been around since the 70's, I don't know. You are better prepared to answer that than me. I have said before that I am not trying to re-invent the wheel or take credit for inventinting the wheel. I am more than happy to just use the wheel that someone else has invented.
I have said before that I am not trying to re-invent the wheel or take credit for inventinting the wheel. I am more than happy to just use the wheel that someone else has invented.
You ARE one of the best in my book.
... EVEN IF you aren't terribly original! z:laugh:g
Does being president of the Ian Anderson fan club come with any perks? :laugh: I have nothing against Mr Anderson. Enjoyed his books. Giving back to the casino's is just not a style I am comfortable with. I am pretty sure I read somewhere that he acknowledged that his full gambit, gave back one third of expected EV. That's crazy to me.
My math is not exaggerated. It isn't only shoes ending with a max bet that are a problem. If you reach your max bet or even a bet not your max, but substatially higher than your initial wager at any time during a shoe and then retreat to a smaller wager at the start of the next shoe, it is a problem. Added to that, because I have a preference for 6 deck games, where high counts happen less frequently I ramp up a little quicker than many players hitting max bet earlier. I am underplaying my bankroll, so this isn't an issue RoR wise, but it does mean that I will hit max bet at some point a little more frequently than many, so these situations of whether to reduce wager of throw out a larger bet for cover happen more frequently for me.
In answer to your question: $200 isn't a stop along my betting ramp, but yes I would go from 1 unit to 7 units, jumping a level if the count called for it.
You continually want to site one or two examples that you did this and it was quite a booming success for you. I have news for you, if a player splits his 5's vs the dealer 10 and draws to 17 and 18 while the dealer then turns over a 6 and busts, it still doesn't make it a good play! And you having had success one or two time dosn't make it a good +EV move either. The fact is, if you play your max wager or any high wager off the top, it is a losing proposition over the long run and that is how we measure things. If you decide it is worth it too you and you are receiving some sort of benefit by doing so, that's your business, but don't pretend it is a good move. :laugh:
My math is not exaggerated. It isn't only shoes ending with a max bet that are a problem. If you reach your max bet or even a bet not your max, but substatially higher than your initial wager at any time during a shoe and then retreat to a smaller wager at the start of the next shoe, it is a problem. Added to that, because I have a preference for 6 deck games, where high counts happen less frequently I ramp up a little quicker than many players hitting max bet earlier. I am underplaying my bankroll, so this isn't an issue RoR wise, but it does mean that I will hit max bet at some point a little more frequently than many, so these situations of whether to reduce wager of throw out a larger bet for cover happen more frequently for me.
In answer to your question: $200 isn't a stop along my betting ramp, but yes I would go from 1 unit to 7 units, jumping a level if the count called for it.
You continually want to site one or two examples that you did this and it was quite a booming success for you. I have news for you, if a player splits his 5's vs the dealer 10 and draws to 17 and 18 while the dealer then turns over a 6 and busts, it still doesn't make it a good play! And you having had success one or two time dosn't make it a good +EV move either. The fact is, if you play your max wager or any high wager off the top, it is a losing proposition over the long run and that is how we measure things.
If you decide it is worth it too you and you are receiving some sort of benefit by doing so, that's your business, but don't pretend it is a good move. :laugh:
Last edited: