Betting Camouflage

I would appreciate anyone's help! I'm practicing counting for the first time.. the K-O system by Vancura & Fuchs. I've been considering the betting camouflage method described on pgs. 69-71 of Anderson's "Burning the Tables in Las Vegas". With the exception of the first bet following the shuffle, Anderson makes his betting decisions based on if he had a win/loss on the previous hand and if the "running count" (RC) is at or above/below +2 (using Hi-Lo). Does anyone know if Anderson mean't to use a +2 "true count" (TC)? He points out that according to Schlesinger this type of betting reduces the win rate by 30%. The RC does seem likely since I wouldn't think you would take that much of a hit using a +2 TC. However, it's somewhat confusing because on page 51 of Anderson's book, he talks about a different betting strategy where he increases his bets in marginal situations. He refers to chipping up at +1 TC (which he considers even money in Hi-Lo) vs. +2 TC where most (Hi-Lo) counters start to increase their bets. If indeed the RC should be used in the camouflage method above and you wanted to use the same method with K-0.. Would the +2 RC (Hi-Lo IRC 0) convert to -18 RC (K-0 6-deck IRC -20) or is there a more optimum RC number that would reduce the corresponding K-0 win rate by 30%? Is it possible to convert from a balanced to an unbalanced system? If so, I would prefer to use an optimum RC number vs. the alternative of achieving a similar result by adding difficulty say with the addition of a true count calculation or by having to make a comparison of the actual RC to the standard RC (average distribution). Anderson mentioned that he uses his camouflage method in shoe games. If an optimum RC number can be determined for a 6-deck game, what would be the optimum number for the 1,2,4 & 8 deck games. The betting camouflage method appeals to me because I will have the opportunity to chip up earlier (especially in shoe games)(atypical) vs. waiting for the key count and then jumping my bets. This will give me more cover and I can minimize the disadvantage as Anderson states by achieving a higher overall bet-spread. Thanks for your comments.. bk

Ignoring most of your questions...

In general, I strongly belive that beginning counters should use very little cover. As a beginning counter, you are likely only betting minimum amounts - there's just no need for most cover at these level. You EV is tiny, so you want to give away as little of it as possible. Finally, there is value in generating heat and learning to deal with it. Do it at the early stages at the early stages of your counting - when you aren't betting enough for people to remember you. The only exception would be if you only have access to 1-2 casinos, where you can't afford to recieve any heat.

Ian's book is great - but most of it doesn't apply to you.

Good cards to ya,
The Actuary

From a practical standpoint, I find that when I'm betting green and the difference between my bets, dollar wise, at unit True Counts (e.g., TC=1.0, 2.0, 3.0...)was high, say $25-75, then adding a chip (say a red chip) to my stack after say two wins in a row, even though the count had not progressed up to the next TC unit, made me look more like Joe Public "following a streak". Basically you overlay a progression on top of your TC betting. This is what I interpreted Anderson to mean by "chipping up". The cost/risk of the incremental bets/overbets seemed to be worth the "cover". This wasn't so useful to me when I started out because I was playing red at tables where in most cases, people weren't betting silver, and it looked a bit out of place to be progressing with silver at a $5 table. Betting a combination of red and green seems a bit more accepted at $25 minimum tables

your making as nuerotic as a Jewish mama's boy try'n to bust his cherry with a 42nd street hooker with an alarm clock next to her bed stand going...tic...tic...tic...brrdringggg! ( times up )

You are studying Vancura & Fuchs' Knockout Blackjack. Good. KO is a simple count that will get the job done.

If you think of KO Blackjack as your grade school textbook, then Ian Andersen's Burning the Tables in Las Vegas would be for a college senior. Much of Burning . . . is applicable only if you are betting at black chip levels or higher.

You don't need to worry about cover & camo just yet. The first few times you venture into a casino, your mistakes will be all the cover you need. Trust me on this one. :-)

Cover plays are really a form of intentional mistakes. But beginning players are probably going to make their own real mistakes. If you are worried about cover, then you are probably nervous in the casinos, and more prone to mistakes.

Being nervous, you will sometimes spilt a pair of 6s, forgetting to look at the dealers upcard and see a "10". Or, in a pitch game, you will incorrectly total your and you will stand on 11.

These are awful mistakes, but they will be noticed. Let those inevitable mistakes be your cover.

I was exhausted from playing too long and intended to quit within the next 10 minutes...It was the last hand of the shoe and it was a high [+6] plus count...I was sitting at third base with a 15 total against the dealer's 10; so I signalled a stand...The dealer turned over his down card which was a 5 and the next card from the deck was a 6.

I was called the worst idiot that ever played the game...I apologized profusely for my mistake and left the table...Cover???...I suppose it was to the other players but in all probability, the eye upstairs knew what had happened...There is only so much cover that you can achieve...The first priority must still be the proverbial holy grail---to become a long term winner.