Cover play too costly?

I once read in a blackjack book (the name of which I've forgotten) that the author often made his top bet right off the top of the shoe as a cover. If you spread $25 to $250 and you bet $250 on the first hand dealt, by my calculations figuring a one and one half percent disadvantage one play costs him $1.25 in the long run. If he stays in a casino for 4 hours and does it 8 times his long run cost is $10.00. It seems like a good idea to me. Not too pricey for a guy who should be making more than $50 per hour. Agree or Disagree?

"If you spread $25 to $250 and you bet $250 on the first hand dealt, by my calculations figuring a one and one half percent disadvantage one play costs him $1.25 in the long run."

Either you meant to write "figuring a ONE-HALF percent disadvantage," in which case your numbers make sense, or you didn't calculate 1.5% of $250 very well!

After that first $250 bet, what's the second bet?

Don

If you are only playing 2 shoes per hour, you are playing a VERY slow game. Must be a full table AND a slow dealer. Playing all, as pkaying 4 hours indicates, with a 1-10 spread ($25-$250), probably won't get you anywhere near $50 per hour win expectation, unless it a game with unusually good rules.

I, personally am not a big fan of cover betting, except unusual circumstances. You are playing with a razor thin edge and just can't afford to give any back.

But, let's look at your example. There are players that will bet max bet off the top, AFTER ending a shoe with max bet (again, not a fan), but you seem to be talking max bet off the top of every shoe. So, if you end a shoe a $25, you are going to jump to max bet for first hand if new shoe??? Doesn't make any sense. And of course, then the next question would be what Don asked....Then what??

I am guessing this is an Ian Anderson book? If so, Mr Anderson's approach is not recommended for anything other than really high stakes, where you are trying to deflect some heat. In today's poorer quality games, you REALLY can't afford to give away any of your small edge, plus what you are describing will draw attention, while they take a look and try to figure out what you are doing. Mr Anderson, wanted to draw that attention, in the hopes that they would then dismiss him, but again, at a high price. In today's games, at all but the highest stakes, a much better approach is to draw as LITTLE attention as possible.

I meant to write one half of one percent not one and one half percent. It is a typo.

I was thinking not every shoe because usually you would get a lot more than 8 shoes in 4 hours. You say if you end a shoe at $25 and jump in for a max bet on the new shoe that it doesn't make any sense. My thinking is you're right it doesn't make any sense. And it won't make any sense to the house either. Just as the play and betting size variations of a lot of amateurs does not make any sense.

At some point you will find the need for cover plays if you spread egregiously. But modest spreading allows one to manage undetected.
Can the game be beaten with modest spreads? Sure, you have to know the technique. Hint: not by wonging

1. Everyone, even square players, usually reset their bet to a smaller amount after a shoe where they were blasting it.

2. You could just take a break after you play a big shoe if following it with a small bet makes you uncomfortable. Cost = $0.