Haifish: Full Matrix Cover vs. Simplicity

[Haifish]

Question for the experienced. In Vancura's KOBJ he advises to use the "simplified" strategy tables instead of the full-matrix values while playing; stating the gain on the count-dependant plays is relatively insignificant. Isn't there a valuable cover "gain" in making a rare count-dependant play. In other words, in DD, if I hit a hard 14 against a dealer 6 because the count is -11, doesn't this play prove to be good cover and more accurate than the BS play at the same time? Or is it that PBs and Counter-detection methods are only looking for bet-variation to determine a player may be a threat? It just seems very good cover to me to make a play like the one suggested to give all watching the idea you're an idiot. Of course maybe I am an idiot, but ....

[Norm Wattenberger]

The problem is that rare plays come up, well, rarely. You play BS nearly all the time in shoe games and you will quickly be sized up as a competent player. That's OK, they don't mind competent BS players. If you then make a very odd play, it would be out of character for a competent BS player and it may be noticed.

But, it really depends on your act.

BJStats

[PitViper]

> The problem is that rare plays come up,
> well, rarely. You play BS nearly all the
> time in shoe games and you will quickly be
> sized up as a competent player. That's OK,
> they don't mind competent BS players. If you
> then make a very odd play, it would be out
> of character for a competent BS player and
> it may be noticed.

> But, it really depends on your act.
For shoe games, and a great extent DD games, index plays are worth very little. However, in SD games, index plays become extremely important. They can also add to your longevity, especially if you use a count other than hi-low. A system that includes the use of a few side counts is particularly good at throwing off the pit critters. It won't keep you from getting barred, but it will likely buy you some extra playing time.

[Parker]

> Question for the experienced. In Vancura's
> KOBJ he advises to use the
> "simplified" strategy tables
> instead of the full-matrix values while
> playing; stating the gain on the
> count-dependant plays is relatively
> insignificant. Isn't there a valuable cover
> "gain" in making a rare
> count-dependant play. In other words, in DD,
> if I hit a hard 14 against a dealer 6
> because the count is -11, doesn't this play
> prove to be good cover and more accurate
> than the BS play at the same time? Or is it
> that PBs and Counter-detection methods are
> only looking for bet-variation to determine
> a player may be a threat? It just seems very
> good cover to me to make a play like the one
> suggested to give all watching the idea
> you're an idiot. Of course maybe I am an
> idiot, but ....

The problem is that card counters play like card counters and idiots play like, well, idiots.

For starters there is the speed of play. Clueless players will agonize over every stiff hand before hitting or standing.

Contrast this with a player who plays each hand quickly and decisively, playing good basic strategy. Suddenly he is hitting 12 vs 5 and 6 instead of standing, but still with no hesitation. Furthermore, the pit might notice that these hands are only "misplayed" when the player has a small bet out.

In addition, idiots are usually consistently idiotic. Hitting that 14 vs 6 won't buy you much cover if you don't do it all the time, and especially if you only do it as often as, say, when the count drops to -11.

Finally, all this begs the question: If the count is -11, why are you still playing at all?

Learning a lot of negative indices can increase EV slightly. Learning ways to avoid playing negative counts at all can increase it a lot.

[Ouchez]

for cover.

I have played with a few of the great players and they gave up little if any but used other tactics. Some just totally outrageous.

There are so many ways to throw off the pit, dealer, and other players that all you have to be is creative.

ETF has recently made some great postings regarding cover plays and how they should be avoided in a thread started by the Cellini.

[PitViper]

> for cover.

> I have played with a few of the great
> players and they gave up little if any but
> used other tactics. Some just totally
> outrageous.

> There are so many ways to throw off the pit,
> dealer, and other players that all you have
> to be is creative.

> ETF has recently made some great postings
> regarding cover plays and how they should be
> avoided in a thread started by the Cellini.
I don't recommend cover plays, either, if they are negative ev. What I am saying is that some pit critters will think index plays that are outside the I18, or that are based on a count system other than HiLow, are wrong, and brand you as just another sloppy bs player.

[PitViper]

> The problem is that card counters play like
> card counters and idiots play like, well,
> idiots.

> For starters there is the speed of play.
> Clueless players will agonize over every
> stiff hand before hitting or standing.

> Contrast this with a player who plays each
> hand quickly and decisively, playing good
> basic strategy. Suddenly he is hitting 12 vs
> 5 and 6 instead of standing, but still with
> no hesitation. Furthermore, the pit might
> notice that these hands are only
> "misplayed" when the player has a
> small bet out.

> In addition, idiots are usually consistently
> idiotic. Hitting that 14 vs 6 won't buy you
> much cover if you don't do it all the time,
> and especially if you only do it as often
> as, say, when the count drops to -11.

> Finally, all this begs the question: If the
> count is -11, why are you still playing at
> all?

> Learning a lot of negative indices can
> increase EV slightly. Learning ways to avoid
> playing negative counts at all can increase
> it a lot.
not all index plays are in negative counts. Doubling down on hard 8 v dealers 4 is not a negative play with the right count; standing on 14 vs ten is a positive play that fries the pc's brain; plays like splitting 2.2 vs 2, or 9.9 vs 7 look really dumb, but are great plays if the count is right.