Don't reduce your bet on a new shuffle

[Dog Hand]

But why would one need cover if the ploppies, dealers and pit personel all agree that the dealer wins around 85% of the first hands out of the shoe? Everyone lowers their bet and it's "expected".

21gunsalute,

That's also a good excuse to ask for better penetration: "Gee, Ms. Dealer, with these shallow cuts, we keep getting to the start of a new shoe, where you always win. Can't you cut it a little deeper so we can have more rounds between shuffles?"

You can even use it as an excuse to "sit out" the first round (or first few rounds) of a shoe, "Well, I know the dealer's going to win, so I might as well wait a bit until the shoe turns good for the players."

Just some thoughts!

Dog Hand

[NT21]

It also depends on what you consider to be a "big bet" and how long you were playing that big bet. For instance, if you're at a $100 table and halfway through the shoe, your count quickly rose, and you spread to two hands of, let's say, $600. And the count remained high, so you kept betting two hands of $500-$600... it doesn't look like a ploppy if you drop down to one hand of $100. It looks like you're counting.

On the other hand, if you were betting table min for most of the shoe, but the last couple of hands the count rose, so you put out $500 one or two times, then it would look more appropriate if you dropped back down at the start of the shoe.

People are always looking for a one size fits all approach to things things, but as ZG wrote, occasional use matters very little. So it's about knowing when it's appropriate to use (and provides much needed cover) and when it's simply unnecessary.

[NT21]

So to sum up NT21, if you bet a long run of hands at high count at the end of the shoe you have two options for longevity. Keep big bets up until you lose or gradually reduce while winning, or color up and take a break. If you bet big a few rounds at the end of the shoe drop down to small bets. Did I get the gist of it?

Right.

[ThatLuckyDog]

If you really think about the true cost of this cover it is not much. 25-2x500 means that with good strip rules you are looking at a cost of 1000 x 00.26% = $2.60.

I have recently started to spread my bets at the begining of a new shoe to whatever is needed to bet 3 hands total when I have my big bets out. Most of the time it is 3x the table minimum which is about 25% of my max bet. It eats cards, establishes a spread to multiple hands, reduces my overall exposure due to multiple hands and most importantly allows me to redistribute my big bets. Just a thought.

[moo321]

The EV cost is one thing. The cost after you consider picking up all of that risk is quite another. Seriously, I do not want to have to play any longer than I have to to get my money, and leaving huge bets up in shoe games is a good way to add to your N0. If you're that concerned, just back-count and move on after you jump a couple of shoes. Play-all is bad enough as it is, you don't need to make it worse with cover bet paranoia.

[joeb21]

Almost every ploppy and dealer I've talked to agree: The dealer wins 82-86% of the first hand out of a shoe, so there is no reason to leave a big bet out!

Just the other day the dealer I had insisted he teach everyone how to play. He understood basic strategy perfectly except he insisted you always take even money on a Blackjack. He knew all the stats about winning 47% of the hands etc. Where he went off the deep end was he insisted the house has an 80% adavantage on the first hand. He also insisted that if you don't double a ten against an 8 and get a 2 for example you can't hit or you will screw up the flow of the cards because you should have doubled. The result is the next hand is another first hand so the house then has an 80% advantage again. No wonder this game is so tough So I think we can use this for cover as well

[KJ]

If you really think about the true cost of this cover it is not much. 25-2x500 means that with good strip rules you are looking at a cost of 1000 x 00.26% = $2.60.

I have seen ZG state this same logic in the past. A couple dollars doesn't look like much. But when I calculate this cover for my style of play, it really starts to add up.

I play short sessions, always exiting at the shuffle after bigger wagers were placed. The cost of this style is zero for me. Zero! Now, I sit down at a blackjack table 10-12 times a day on average. I am going to use 10, just to low ball. Lets say each of those 10 times at a table, instead of exiting at the shuffle after placing a large wager, which for me, is an average of $500 ($400 most places, but above $500 at a few), I remain at the table. At the start of a new shoe, I leave my top wager out, average $500 x 10 times a day. That is $5000 that I am wagering on the first hand of these new shuffles at negative EV of say half a percent. $5000 a day x .005 = $25. Daily cost of this cover for me $25. Now I play 6 days a week. Actually, usually 7, but I try to take one weekend day off from play each week, or at least play less, like half a day. But I am going to use 6 days a week. That's $150 a week this cover is costing me. A 52 weeks a year that is $7800 per year. This cover play would cost me 8 grand a year. Thats about 10% of my yearly BJ EV. Now why do I want to give up 10% of my EV when there is better options available, like exiting at the shuffle, again....cost 0?

The figures that I just gave are for placing your top bet on the first hand of a new shuffle only. If you are going to do so for the first 2 hands, double it. And what exactly does placing a big wager on the first hand of a new shuffle buy you? If you are going to continue to play, you have to retreat back to your small or waiting bet, so really do you think one big hand to start the shoe really throws anyone off your scent? I don't.

My philosophy is very short sessions, little cover (costs), and provide as little info as possible, by showing your spread only once. IMO, This is what buys longevity, not cover. Cover is giving up a portion of an already ultra slim advantage, for little benefit.

Now I realize, my philosophy and style of attack are based on my situation, which is many games available in close proximity. Many players don't have this luxury and with limited games are forced to play more at one location and do the best they can, which may entail using cover. You do what you have to do. But don't tell me there isn't a cost. There is!

Edit: having just looked back over some records, I sit down at a BJ table 14 plus times a day. Closer to 15. But, all of my short session exits are not triggered by having placed a large bet during the final rounds before a shuffle. Probably two-thirds are triggered by negative counts (wonging out), so my actual cost of staying on for a second round after ending with a large wager would be about half of what I just stated. Maybe 4-5 grand a year. But the premise is still the same. Why do I want to give up 4-5 grand a year, when there is a better option available, giving up zero? And for what benefit? One higher wager at the start of a round isn't going to buy you much. (IMO)

[muffdiver]

The biggest "value" of doing it is that it can seriously diminish the ramp up in a quick + count. Doesn't happen often enough to make it worthwhile in my estimation.

[dmm]

KJ - I totally get what you are saying, and use very similar methods to you these days. I don't disagree at all with your methods, and inf act have a lot of respect for them.

However, there can be a large cost (depending on your geography) to playing short sessions. I used to be in an area of the country with 1 casino within 7 hours. I'm sure others have similar issues. In this case, a short session is impractical. The opportunity cost of a short session can make a game unplayable, essentially. It can be much different from being located walking distance from dozens of casinos, or even short drives from multiple games.

This, like many issues, does not have a simple one-size-fits-all solution.

[zengrifter]

User is banned, content deleted.

[dmm]

If they offer other games or meals you can do that and come back in a while. You can hit the bathroom and cash your chips then go back for your usual small buy in. If thats always your buy in and there is not enough chips to make the big bets it shouldn't look too odd. Lots of ways to do it if you are in one casino all day. If you have big opportunities less blackjack play is required to make the trip worthwhile.

of course. all valid points. like i said, there is not a simple one-size-fits-all solution.

[moo321]

Cost of doing business, kid.
Seriously, though - we are not talking about doing it everytime, just on occasion.
So cut that 8K by half or even by 2/3, and then temper it with some conservative estimate of reduced back-off, lets say 1/4 less back-off.
Now it cost 2k per year or even ZERO (with the trade-off). Its not a big drain. It IS something that YOU should do AT LEAST on rare occasion.

Wait, you're now recommending cover for back-counting/wong-out players?

[Black Yak]

What about spreading your bet out a bit - you've effectively reduced your risk without dropping your overall betting amount, plus you've chewed through a few more cards so could be nearer to a count after one round than otherwise.