cover bets and EV

How big a loss in EV do you get by trying to appear as a "progressive " gambler.

In single deck with perfect play and perfect betting your looking at an advantage of no more then 1.5%.

It seems to me if you try to appear "progressive" you could lose half if not all of that advantage.

When ive got a big bet on the table and the count takes a dive I just cant get myself to leave the bet out there just for cover. Sure, its easy to drop the bet after a loss, but if you when a big bet and go straight to a minimum bet it catches peoples attention.

In single deck you can easily go from a +5 to a -2 in one hand. What do you do? Even with a pit boss in my face I just cant get myself to leave that big bet out.
I'de rather get backed off then play with a negative expectation

... for decent 1D games is to split the big bet into 3 equal smaller bets during zero and minus counts - thus flat betting the same amount, but stacked into 3 hands or 1 hand pursuant to the count. g

i dont understand all the crazy cover talk in the books.it is perfectly normal for a ploppy to lower his bet after a big win.they are afraid the run wont last.don S says dont raise your bet after a loss-dont lower it after a big win-hit 14 vs 6 blah,blah....its bullcrap!play the game the way the math says and be more concerned about your act then if you should lower your bet after a big win.i have never been backed off because i lowered my bet to much.if they are going to bust you- they will no matter what you do.

it very intelligently are Don S. in Ch. 8 (pp.129-137 in'97 ed.)of "BJ Attack" & Ian A. in "Burning The Tables..." thru-out the book, esp. on pp. 68-72. You did not mention your betting level or spread & those two factors weigh heavily on your need for cover. Ian A. plays mostly 6-Deck because at his high stakes 2-Deck & esp. 1-Deck is just too transparent. Don S. plays 2-Deck, but his mathematically based answers to the question you ask cover other games. BTW, Ian A. gives full credit to Don S. for providing him with the math answers when he discusses camo. While "BJ Attack" is the best readable quantitative BJ book (sorry to the late Peter Griffin) in my library, I find that a periodic re-reading of "Burning..." is good for the "soul". Your question is addressed thru-out as a salient point in the overall goal of any advantage BJ player-LONGEVITY. Personally, I have the same difficulty as you when it comes to cover bets. I just can't hardly bring myself to do it. That is one of the many reasons why I have never been able to graduate to the Ian A. class of high stakes players. With all due respects to Pat's remarks above, you will have to incorporate cover bets into your game if you are to move to the next level (all IMHO). You have made the first step-you must know what each & every cover costs. Once you quantify the cost of each, then you can prioritize & incorporate each according to its value & cost. Nobody said this is an easy game to beat (and be around to keep beating). Good cards to you. KO EWE.

After the big win on a dropping count I usually use something like "Wow! That's probably as lucky as I'm going to get tonight". Then I pull my bet back.

Ian A. credits Stanford Wong for mathmatics of camo, not DS.

in not giving SW his due. Ian A. profusely credits SW for doing the math & sims to quantify his "Ultimate Gambit" approach & I should have acknowledged this. However, I was looking at "According to Schlesinger, this type of betting reduces your win rate by about 30%, from .64% to .46%..." on p. 71 & "...again according to Schlesinger, amounts to a gain of .22% for..." on p.72. Thank you for putting things into perspective & correcting my post that failed to give SW his considerable due.

ian makes 1000 an hour.thats another league we will never see.for the average bj player the best cover you can use is betting a little more off the top when the shift boss or someone who you think might be suspicious is watching.you have a small disadvantage off the top and it wont hurt to bad compared to leaving your max bet out with a 1% or more disadvantage.i cant count the number of times the shift boss happened to be walking by and sees my max bet out-he waits for the shuffle and i bet 2 units instead of one which make him go on to better things.

I enjoy reading your posts and believe I recently read you were upping your betting scale. I'm just curious as to what count you use?
Jayel

unbalanced zen 2.

The eye in the sky doesnt hear your comments

Indeed. The bottom line is that if casinos realise you are not making them a profit, you get the boot. Whether you have counted, or tracked the shuffle, or got mega-lucky, or just simply stole the chips from the table, it doesnt matter - as soon as they realise you are making a consistent loss for them, you'll get kicked.

So instead of thinking about splitting 4,4 vs 4 or not, you should be trying to convince the management you are giving them money. When you are in a losing streak, make sure everyone hears about it. When you are in a winning streak, keep quiet and hide the extra chips into your pockets. Keep changing cash. Nothing pacifies the management more than the sight of fresh green benjamins leaving your possession. Instead of buying a whole tower of chips at the start, buy a few, in an hour buy some more, then in an hour buy some more again, etc... When you leave the table on negative counts, announce "Gotta go get more money from my bank card..." , etc... If you manage to convince them you are losing money, they wont care which playing srtategy you use.

You don't need to justify your bets and any attempt of doing so will actually raise suspicion. It reveals a certain feeling of guilt which is typical for counters.
My advice: Don't comment your actions. Try to mislead the pit rather by gestures and mimics.

Francis Salmon

i have one even better.when your losing money-STILL hide chips so you have to buy in for even more.you might have to spend the next week cashing them out but its worth it.

You have made the first step-you must know what each & every cover costs. Once you quantify the cost of each, then you can prioritize & incorporate each according to its value & cost.

In addition to the cost in EV you need to look at the effects on your long-term bankroll growth. IMHO cutting 30% of your win rate or so for cover purposes is much too high a price to pay for the debatable benefits of longevity. In the modern poorly cut-shoe game you will end up with not just losing years but, for the very unlucky, losing or break-even for a decade.

John. Ian A. gives a pretty full description of his parlaying & chipping up camo betting technique on pp. 69-70. He then says on p. 71 that "according to Don S., this type of betting reduces your win rate by about 30%, from .64% to .46% against a 6-deck shoe w/ a 1-12 bet spread and 75% pen." However, you have to read on & esp. note how he cuts into that 30% by increasing his bet spread, made possible by his camo betting technique. I don't play shoe games, but I can't understand why anyone would ever sit down to a "poorly cut shoe game". Pat properly pointed out above that Ian I. plays at stakes which make a great deal of his approach non-applicable to many of us. However, my approach to the game centers on longevity (not max. hourly win-rate) so even if I don't often re-read all of "Burning..." I do often re-read the 'Dirty Dozen' on pp. 78-81. For a better grasp of my approach go to the 'USA West' forum & read my May 24 post "Laughlin Trip Report" & esp. my answer to "Curious why". This will probably throw light on why I am always posting caution advice re: bet spread, bet level, etc. I don't mean to pontificate to Pat & the other aggressive bet spread players, but my style is different. I have played for years (never had a losing year-knock on wood) & if I remember the 'Dirty Dozen' I'll play many more years. Good cards to you. KO EWE

a fair amount of time looking at whether you're winning or losing but, in the aggregate, they're 10 times more concerned about how you're spreading.

Spok

You can cheat without spreading bets. You could wong in at some positive TC and place a flat bet. Or you could be spreading bets and not be an advantage player. Or be a counter but an incompetent one. The amount of money a casino loses because of card-counters is actually very small, relatively. The cost of accidentally barring a high-rolling ploppy is MUCH higher than the cost of letting a counter play a few games. They cant afford to harass people just because they are changing the bets. You can get away with big spreads, what is hard to get away with is consistent winning over a long period of time.

You make some decent points, Dude, but the primary method that casinos use to suspect a player of being a counter is spread. There are exceptions (which I've seen) but once suspected, they'll watch your play for a bit before pouring on the heat.

Your points about possibly mistaking a roller for a counter are the primary reason why winning a lot will, by itself, seldom result in heat.

Your points about wonging are valid and are the principal reason why no-midshoe is spreading like wildfire on SD & DD. I watched a persistent wonger get 86'd at the 'Dust in march and the venue went NM shortly thereafter according to CBJN.

Spok