1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
KJ
Interesting story Bigdaddy. I have a just a couple thoughts.
The AP did the cover play right. It 'backfired' because he happened to catch an idiot of a floorperson. I don't think that is the AP's fault.
Now just a couple things about Anderson. His style of play was designed for very high limits. He played high limits with pit folks glued to his play, so he needed to come up with some plays that would allow him to play right under their nose's while thy stared at him. It was pretty innovative at that time, but it did have a high cost. Playing his limits and the better games of yesterday he could afford that cover.
Players using this approach today should realize two important things. First, with worse game (higher house edges), there is a steep cost to this type of cover play. I wouldn't recommend this approach for anyone playing red or even green and spreading. It just eats too much of your profits. Spreading black and above is the minimum I would even consider this approach and personally, I still think you give up too much. There are better ways.
Second, this approach isn't new, obviously. That means it is somewhat known among pit and surveillance, especially the high end people that are protecting the high end games. So the high cost that you are paying, may not buy you any where near what you think in today's world.
Oh and one other piece of advice. That 'playing with another counter', spreading bets in unison, is one of the worse things you can do. Tolerant, friendly store or not, I'd be real careful with that. "Danger! Danger! Will Robinson!"
Thanks KJ - you're right on about the stupid pit boss, about Anderson's methods and about why I should have left the table as soon as I detected another AP. I just couldn't resist...
Bookmarks