What do you think of Ian Andersen's play deviations strategy in "Burning the Tables?"
- Thread starter 21forme
- Start date
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
I think they're brilliant. Although the main risk would seem to be using TOO MUCH of the Ultimate Gambit if you're playing at lower bet levels where you really don't need the camo.
I've employed elements of it, but only on a sporadic basis. By far the hardest to bring myself to do is stand with A,7 vs a high card. Doubling on 10v10 or 10vA is pretty tough to do as well.
I wonder if anyone with more balls than sense has really put the Ultimate Gambit to a stress test. Just sat down at a single table, and played for four hours straight in all counts, for four days in a row.
I've employed elements of it, but only on a sporadic basis. By far the hardest to bring myself to do is stand with A,7 vs a high card. Doubling on 10v10 or 10vA is pretty tough to do as well.
I wonder if anyone with more balls than sense has really put the Ultimate Gambit to a stress test. Just sat down at a single table, and played for four hours straight in all counts, for four days in a row.
EyeHeartHalves
Well-Known Member
I love Andersen's play deviations but...
They must be appreciated in context. A Red Chipper doesn't really need much of any camo. The Red Chipper needs to worry most about bet spread with reguards to a Win Rate that may be too low for the CC's satisfaction or it may not even be there at all if he uses too much camo., tipping, insufficient bankrolls, etc. Personnally, I hated Red Chip status. I started out at that level and ended up $500 down for the year, after more than 5,000 hands.
I read Andersen for the first time then, and it was almost worthless too me except that it was so inspiring. I stopped playing altogether, shortly after reading it and just started saving money, practicing, researching, running simulations--for six months. I jumped back in as a "Greeny" and doing great.
As for actual deviations...
There are quite a few that I like but I'm affraid to say exactly which ones on this medium. (I accept emails with identifiable subjects at [email protected].) With reguard to an earlier reply to your post, I've run simulations on standing on A,7 vs. 9, T and A. I can assure you, this truly is great camo. First of all, it's great because it hides knowledge of BS. Perfect BS is beyond a doubt, a dangerous trait to portray while CC'g. And most importantly, IT'S CHEAP! It only cost about three to six percent off your win rate. As a Green Chipper, this is just one of many small "cover charges" that I've come to except.
Standing on 16 is also cheap as is never decreasing your bet (especially to zero) after a net win. However, I do recommend treating a push as a loss in this reguard.
You have to pick and choose the cover plays that are going to work best for you. Develop your own counting style, practice it and execute it. ANDERSEN HAS SUCCEEDED IN PROVIDING BRILLIANT IDEAS TO HELP YOU DO THIS. If the idea of giving away up to 25% of your Greeny Win Rate to tipping and camo., forgettaboutit! What do you think a Black Chipper like Andersen would give away? Try 50%. Hell, I'd figure out a way to give 70% away from Purple Chip play if it meant I could still earn $300 per hour. I believe this is one of many concepts that Ian was trying to convey.
BTW: "Burning the Tables" makes it into my top three favs.
C' ya
They must be appreciated in context. A Red Chipper doesn't really need much of any camo. The Red Chipper needs to worry most about bet spread with reguards to a Win Rate that may be too low for the CC's satisfaction or it may not even be there at all if he uses too much camo., tipping, insufficient bankrolls, etc. Personnally, I hated Red Chip status. I started out at that level and ended up $500 down for the year, after more than 5,000 hands.
I read Andersen for the first time then, and it was almost worthless too me except that it was so inspiring. I stopped playing altogether, shortly after reading it and just started saving money, practicing, researching, running simulations--for six months. I jumped back in as a "Greeny" and doing great.
As for actual deviations...
There are quite a few that I like but I'm affraid to say exactly which ones on this medium. (I accept emails with identifiable subjects at [email protected].) With reguard to an earlier reply to your post, I've run simulations on standing on A,7 vs. 9, T and A. I can assure you, this truly is great camo. First of all, it's great because it hides knowledge of BS. Perfect BS is beyond a doubt, a dangerous trait to portray while CC'g. And most importantly, IT'S CHEAP! It only cost about three to six percent off your win rate. As a Green Chipper, this is just one of many small "cover charges" that I've come to except.
Standing on 16 is also cheap as is never decreasing your bet (especially to zero) after a net win. However, I do recommend treating a push as a loss in this reguard.
You have to pick and choose the cover plays that are going to work best for you. Develop your own counting style, practice it and execute it. ANDERSEN HAS SUCCEEDED IN PROVIDING BRILLIANT IDEAS TO HELP YOU DO THIS. If the idea of giving away up to 25% of your Greeny Win Rate to tipping and camo., forgettaboutit! What do you think a Black Chipper like Andersen would give away? Try 50%. Hell, I'd figure out a way to give 70% away from Purple Chip play if it meant I could still earn $300 per hour. I believe this is one of many concepts that Ian was trying to convey.
BTW: "Burning the Tables" makes it into my top three favs.
C' ya
BTTILV is an absolutly brillent read. It certainly ranks as one of the 5 books that i think any serious player should have read. Although i agree with the above statements. It's a book that isn't a template that you should follow exactly. In fact IA says as much during the text. You should use it as an idea of what to do for cover. Use it to develop your own system, all the information to develop your own cover is contained between that and DS's 'Blackjack Attack'.
The point worth raising is that Red Chippers really needn't be using much if any form of play cover. It's far too expensive for their level and achieves almost no reward.
RJT.
The point worth raising is that Red Chippers really needn't be using much if any form of play cover. It's far too expensive for their level and achieves almost no reward.
RJT.
Ask the pit boss how to play A-8 v 10 (or even 9 or A). Tell them you hear people playing it either way. You will either get good advice or you have a dumb or dishonest PB. Either way, you have at least shown that you are humble and don't pretend to have all the answers. They like that.
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
Just today, after hitting A,7 vs 9, and eventually busting, I asked the dealer ruefully "was that even the right play?". She just shook her head sadly "no, no it wasn't". I died a little bit on the inside.
Anyway, the other thing that's been noodling in the back of my head... imagine what a counter-catcher would see if he happened to be watching you in a negative count where you're employing both the Ultimate Gambit and negative index plays at the same time? One hand you stand on 16 v 10, and the next, you hit 13 v 2? I would think that would make them write you off as a ploppy right away.
Anyway, the other thing that's been noodling in the back of my head... imagine what a counter-catcher would see if he happened to be watching you in a negative count where you're employing both the Ultimate Gambit and negative index plays at the same time? One hand you stand on 16 v 10, and the next, you hit 13 v 2? I would think that would make them write you off as a ploppy right away.
His ultimate gambit includes standing on 12 v 2 and 3, so I don't know how 13 v 2 would be viewed. Probably with confusion, and that's the idea! However, it's even better to have taken a bathroom break when you should hit on 13 v 2.EasyRhino said:
Anderson's premise with the ultimate gambit is camouflaging positive index plays by making those plays all the time, on the presumption you're betting 1 unit when it's wrong, so it's not a big deal.
loved it
other than a myriad of online articles, this was the first book i read. The betting camo was a great idea, i've been using it w/ KO-Rookie with decent results. However, i think every1 can agree that while UG is great, the ROR is also greater.
I've actually been looking at upgrading to UBZ2 or Uston SS, so i avoided the BS deviations that Anderson mentions because each system comes with a set of indexes; however, once i settle on a system and hav the indexes memorized i might look back into Anderson's deviations
other than a myriad of online articles, this was the first book i read. The betting camo was a great idea, i've been using it w/ KO-Rookie with decent results. However, i think every1 can agree that while UG is great, the ROR is also greater.
I've actually been looking at upgrading to UBZ2 or Uston SS, so i avoided the BS deviations that Anderson mentions because each system comes with a set of indexes; however, once i settle on a system and hav the indexes memorized i might look back into Anderson's deviations
callipygian
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't you need an incredible bankroll to sustain the variance of purple chip play at such a reduced win rate?EyeHeartHalves said:
