Ian Andersen and strategy cover

I was hoping that someone could answer a few questions about the cover strategy Ian Andersen recommends in Burning the Table in Las Vegas. On page 52 in the hardcover book he mentions standing on A-7 vs. 9,10, ace. Does this mean that a player should continue to double down on A-7 vs. 3,4,5, or 6 or simply not ever hit on A-7. I also have the same question re: standing on 16 vs. 10. Does this mean that an individual should never hit 16, let's say against a 7, 8, or 9 or does it mean that a person should continue hitting 16 vs 7,8,9, but just not 10. I would greatly appreciate an accurate answer to the above question , especially given that with proper use this could provide a great deal of cover at minimal cost.

All the Best!

these plays are for heavy black players and above. They are not recommended or necessary for red and green players. Just thought I'd point that out to some of the less experienced among us.

Ian's way did well many years ago. It is still applicable in some less sophisticated places. In these unsophisticated places, shuffle tracking and card steering may be better disguises than Ian's way, however. The strategy should only be used betting multiple blacks as other posts reminded. I used Ian's way successfully at LV many years ago when I got the book (the first edition just came out) winning over $30,000 overbetting...: ) I have since used his spirit like parlaying bets when conditions warranted.

I've been playing about 5 years. I've been 86's twice, neither for counting. One for just winning. One because someone bet on my circle (bet _big_ in a big count) and convinced the pit we were a team by doing so even though I had never seen the person before.

Back-offs are a different matter. I was backed off more in my first 3 years of play than in the last 2 by a _huge_ margin. My first three years were a learning experience, where my wife and I would check into a casino and I would do 90% of my playing where we were staying, for the comps more than anything. I played 2-3-4, even up to 6-8 hour sessions back then, and even though I was betting a max of $100 on shoe games (spreading 5-100 or 10-100 or maybe a little more) I was simply playing too long. Give the pit enough time to watch, and it will eventually catch up. For the past two years, I have completely changed my playing approach. I still count just the same, I don't do much cover betting unless the pit is at the table watching (I am a bit more careful during those times) and I don't play more than an hour, ever, except for _rare_ occasions. As a result, my back-offs have dropped to near nothing for the past two years, since I have been carefully following my hit-and-run type playing. I'm not a big player, obviously, but betting red for hours will eventually result in a blip on someone's radar, from experience. Moving around a lot is much more effective. The down-side is comps as you end up with small comp credits scattered all over, rather than everything at one place.