Do we really need to make camouflage plays?

I've read alot about making intentional incorrect plays for camouflage purposes, including Don's chapter on the subject in BJA. From my personal (albeit limited) experience at the tables, it seems that this is an unnecessary waste of money. So far, I have only encountered one dealer who knew correct BS (soft 18 v. 9/10 usually gets them at a minimum).

Most PC's are smart enough to keep their mouth shut so I can't be sure about their knowledge level. However, unless they were observing for a while, they would not have the current count and common index variations should be enough to throw them, shouldn't they (e.g. hitting 12 v 4)? The only camouflage play I do occassionally make is to insure a minimum bet so that my insurance plays will not be associated too closely with my big bets, but that is a case of an obvious tip-off to the pit. I can also get the same effect at a lower cost by insuring for less.

What do you folks think?

BTW, my luck turned around BIG time in the last few days. Won BIG playing SD at one of my local hang-outs :)

But its a bad idea to start intentionaly making incorrect plays.
Just keep to varing your betting and act relaxed and try to be "Mr.Ordinary".
I know there is not so much heat here over in the UK as the USA, but from friends and players I know who play in Vegas etc..thats the best way to go about it.

My opinion Coug Fan is that it depends on a number of factors; i.e. betting level and spread; time and frequency you play the casino; attitude of management; your plan; etc. Generally speaking, if your betting unit is black some camouflage and/or act is required for longevity. Having said that, I've played casinos where it was all but certain the particular game would not last and in those instances I bet the count with no camouflage. If you are the "hit and run" type of player who plays an hour or so and doesn't return for six or so months, then camouflage may not matter. I'm going on at length about this because there are so many posts on these and other boards talking about camouflage and acts when the person is only betting $5-$50. In my view this is ridiculous! Hope this helps.

I would have to agreed with your assessment but last weeeknd after playing in a casino for three years with what I tought was NO heat
they half shoed me at a ten dollar table. I used no cover at all because they cannot banned any player but they can shuffle up and cut the shoe(eight decks) in half. My spread was 1 to 20 but I had not been playing long enough that morning to even get a max bet out.
It took me competly by surprise and I (had a rating card) and was being comped for the trip..The Junketer called me the day after the trip and informed me I was in the casino system as a skilled player and would not be invited on any more junkets to that casino also once you are in their system it is forever...I am now in the process of rereading all the material I have on cover play ect. I have been counting for about 3 years and this is the first time any thing of this nature has happen to me.
Libra

You are a skilled player because they have tracked you over 3 years and you have been shown to be a long term winner.

I guess if you used enough cover to throw away all your profit so you show a loss after 3 years, they would not identify you as a skilled player.

I think hiding your profits would have been more important than what you bet or hit/stand on 15 vs 7.

Sorry should have added more information. This casino was a base for
me. My SO is a slot player and the invitations are all based on her play. I very seldom booked a win in this casino and just played there for a warmup. Their game is the least desirable in the area, but oaky to get the brain going and to get in the zone. This area is the pits as far as blackjack is concerned.
Libra

If you are being rated to get comps,coupons,etc. and it's a main concern of yours, I would at least try to camouflage your winnings.
More camo is needed when you're a rated player.(I prefer not to use or acquire player cards.)
You might want to make a habit of "coloring up" for less than what you bought in for. It's a good camouflage act at no cost to you.
Most casinos will continue to comp if you appear to be a happy flowing loser that's loose. Try to appear this way and your camo will cost you nothing.

Simply use advantage plays that the PCs are not aware of. This can be as simple as learning the rest of the indexes beyond the i18, or c22, to having an ace located, or having a shuffle mapped and the location of where perfect riffles will bring back past blackjacks to your betting spot plotted.

There are in fact so many valid alternative plays that part of your problem is trying to weigh some of them when different signals are present. But typically adding a few non-counting advantage plays will make one look like one is a possible counter that has "gone nuts, but gotten lucky."

One knowledgeable dealer, who has since come to our side, and posts here often, once told me, "I know you are counting and doing something else but there is no way in hell I could explain that you are doing either to the pitboss, and I admire the way you ramped up your betting when you saw whatever you have picked up on." The pitboss came back with a dinner comp, and the dealer wispered to me when he was relieved, "meet me later and explain so I can get the hell out of here."

That dealer knows who he is--he is the dealer who mentioned about an anti-banger play counter-measure. We never did meet up again but he has discovered a few things on his own too.

I'm not an advocate of systematic camouflage play but in every casino that I'm visiting for the first time I wait until the pit boss or floor manager is watching and then occasionally stand on 13 vs. 10 or hit 14 vs. 6, of course only with a minimum bet out.
The idea is that the first impression you leave is very important and justifies a little sacrifice.

Francis Salmon

If your act is good, you don't need camo plays, although a little bit will go a long way if you do. The key: ask the dealer.

For example, if the count is even, and you've got a 12 against a dealer 14, ask the dealer what you should do. Whatever he says, do it. You're not going to lose much EV no matter what, and if the count was even, you probably didn't have much of a bet up there anyway.

Usually a decision has to be taken before the dealer gets to fourteen. I guess you meant 12 vs. 4 but this decision is so close that it doesn't have any camouflage effect.

Francis Salmon

Great post Clarke, can you please explain the ace location bit in detail ?.
Also which of the methods used for st do you consider the most practical in terms of user friendlyness and accuracy.
If in actual play one has several chip stacks for notation,rc,ace count,map of the previous shoe and map of the current shoe then in practical cover terms I am concerned that to buy in for this many units will red flag.Thanks for your time.

Great post Clarke, can you please explain the ace location bit in detail ?.

One method is detailed in John May's, Getting the edge at Blackjack, involving keying of adjacent cards, as they are discarded. You can link to my ms.Blackjack Therapy, from here as I have posted the link several times--just use the search engine.

Also which of the methods used for st do you consider the most practical in terms of user friendlyness and accuracy?

George C.'s which involves using ST to track a rich group of cards, and how this skews the overall true count when those cards are rencountered, is a bit more user friendly than the other major tactic, which is a bit more powerful, except when you can be pretty precise about the boundaries of a group of cards with a very high percentage of aces and tens, is again in my ms. Both work!

If in actual play one has several chip stacks for notation,rc,ace count,map of the previous shoe and map of the current shoe then in practical cover terms I am concerned that to buy in for this many units will red flag.Thanks for your time.

Probably true. It is perhaps better to use some technique in The Memory Book, by Lucas and Loraine, to setup registers in your mind--perhaps easiest for machine language prgramers.

Overall the pit reads what is on these boards too, but no group of sky observation staff, or pitbosses, is likely to be able to simultaniously track all of the types of advantage play at once. I still have, for example, a copy of a comp slip signed by one of the infamous Joseph brothers, after an 18K win at one of the station casinos, where one of the pit bosses thought something was up and literally the consultant said, "If you don't have the guts to approve comps...," and another from Z-man himself, from his days at the Alladin.

It had nothing in it to slight George C. whatsoever, as my post here does not. I just wanted to point out that trying to play through a shoe as a stack of subdecks is a slightly different goal from playing through a shoe while noting the local effects of tracking segments from prior shoes. They are not the same thing and somehow Parker objected????????????

I hope success for George C.'s seminars and recomend them highly except be careful on the included field trip(s).

As to explaining Parker, in his dealings with me, I am not sure I want to know why? He treats everyone else with upmost courtesy.

Dear Clarke
Visited the link and it is excellent.
I have been TRYING to st a 4d where the pick is only 13 cards which I need a stack of 16 chips! if the notation method is used.
Can you sugest an alt. method please?.
I needn a copy of Snyders bjf series but cant find it anywhere.
Perhaps you may again post more often over at the relatively troll-less rge as your knoledge is self evident.
Thanks for the time.

But perhaps my answer in another thread titled, Please, will help explain why?

I believe that T.P. here is saying that you should camouflage with betting strategy ("just keep to varying your betting") rather than with playing strategy ("bad idea... making incorrect plays").

Similarly, Clarke talks below about the fact that some of the more obscure, correct index variations are, in and of themselves, good diversionary camo and Don S. has essentially said as much as well. Don also stresses off-the-shuffle bet ramps as effective camo.

As for myself.. I view betting strategy camo as level-1 (done to prevent being suspected as a CC) and playing strategy camo as level-2
(done to counter their perception of your ability once suspected). I believe betting camo to be lightyears ahead of playing camo in terms of effectiveness because the vast majority of critters are aware of the betting patterns that CCs use whereas only a small minority of critters are aware of the fact that an obscure index variation (like not doubling 10 vs 12) might not simply be a ploppie mistake.

In heat-prone venues, I commonly vary spread patterns to include off-the-shuffle ramps when first being watched and it commonly eases their suspicions. I rarely make incorrect plays and only if they are clearly watching the play... then I make sure it's one they couldn't help but view as a truly bad play. By incorrect plays, I'm not talking about notorious "counter plays" like doubling on soft 20 which is a no-no in most venues.

Remember that at such time that a casino decides to track your playing-strategy ability, they're most likely to do it from the "eye" and you'll not really be aware of when it's a good time for playing-strategy camo. Conversely, you can easily tell if they're checking out your spread patterns because it's usually done visually by a critter off the shuffle after having paid undue notice of a bet ramp on the previous pack. They rarely call the booth about tracking your play until they're sure that your spread patterns fit the profile.

Spok

You state camouflage is needed if bet unit is black, implying that if your bet unit is less than black you DON'T need camouflage.

Not just for $5-$50, but apparently for your own $10-$15 to $200 you consider camouflage "ridiculous".

It is not ridiculous. You have been backed off, and contributed to the burn out of good games for other AP's, because you have blasted away up to $200 with no camouflage.

You most assuredly would have lasted longer if you had used some bet cover.

Coug Fan needs to assess pit personnel in every casino he plays and play with the cover appropriate to the potential heat he perceives in each. Each casino is different.