For every third 6 deck shoe on average play you A-game, say spread from 1 to 2 hands of 20 units with optimal betting. The other 2/3 of the time play a sub-optimal game that loses just a little. You could randomize which shoes to be aggressive with using the second hand of your watch.
Another way would be to bet only a certain percentage of high counts optimally using your watch to randomize.
Toffler
The price of cover can be steep. Any deviation from optimal play will cost you $ or $$$. You need to decide how much you are willing to give up in order to still be sitting at the table to earn $$. Let's look at what you posted:
> For every third 6 deck shoe on average play
> you A-game, say spread from 1 to 2 hands of
> 20 units with optimal betting. The other 2/3
> of the time play a sub-optimal game that
> loses just a little. You could randomize
> which shoes to be aggressive with using the
> second hand of your watch.
This scenario looks bad right off the bat in that I would tell you to at least SWITCH to playing your A game 2/3 of the time and goofing off the other 1/3, not the other way as you have posted. You will notice that most APers talk about executing cover plays with their MINIMUM bet out on the felt. You aren't guaranteed anything at any time, so why disadvantage yourself by only playing optimally 1/3 of the time? Why not approach EACH shoe seriously until the count is negative and either walk away OR play foolishly with a minimum bet out for the last half of the "crappy" shoe as cover. Hitting every 12 and 13 in sight (yes, even with a 5 or 6 up) with a negative count looks a lot worse (i.e., foolish, idiotic, non-counter) than it actually is to your bankroll. If you run a simulation, you'll find that the indices for 12 vs 2 through 6 range from -1 or so up to +4. Any negative count is a good time to hit a 12. If you insist on sitting through a deeply negative shoe, hitting 13 starts looking good too.
> Another way would be to bet only a certain
> percentage of high counts optimally using
> your watch to randomize.
The way you make money in blackjack is to bet big when you have the advantage. You don't know WHICH big bets you are going to win or how many you are going to get in a session. As soon as you randomize the level of your betting, you are adding another element of chance into the equation. You may LOSE every big bet of the session: go ohfer 10, ohfer 20, who knows. But I'd hate to win a 10 unit bet and lose a 15 unit bet at separate, yet identical TC's because I was randomizing my bets to avoid heat.
I think Don's BJA3 book (I have the hardcover) does a great job about talking about simple, effective cover plays (parlay, don't drop your bet after a push, etc...) that work. They aren't complicated, and they don't kill your chances of making money.
Your best cover? An act. Pure and simple. Learn to look like a gambler (even though you are a counter). Gamblers do certain things, such as tip the dealer when they are winning. Sweetie and I just took the local joint for $1,000 between us in under an hour. The dealer made about $75 in tips. I "spent" $27.50 from my chip tray for my part of the tips. I made $700. What kind of gambler makes $700 and doesn't tip the dealer a single buck? A counter, worried about his "earnings."
Be aware of your playing environment and what goes as 'normal' there. Develop a cover story and stick to it. This takes time, effort, and talent. Work on it or your skills as a counter mean squat. Really.
Hope I helped. Maybe I didn't. Maybe the masters can fill you in more on the math. But my gut reaction is that your plan won't accomplish your goals. I believe that cover play has to be cheap and uncomplicated--I don't think this fits those criteria. Just my 2 cents and worth what you paid for it: nothing.
Nice post! Clearly, playing to win money one-third of the time while playing so badly that you actually lose the other two-thirds of the time is completely untenable and much too drastic.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks