Camouflage good thing or bad for counters

[Anonymous2008]

I play up in Canada mainly six deck shoes on the nickel tables, so I only have to bet $5 when the shoe is negative. Sometimes at the end of the shoe with a high negative count not at all. There are many Chinese players and they all seem to play crazy. When the Pit Boss is at the table, only with the minimum $5 bet I will double down on 12 to a dealer 2.Sometimes you get a 9 and win. Other times I will split ten’s to the dealers 6.I mix it up so as to Camouflage the counting. At the higher bets 1-8 spread I will play as you you should. I feel that camouflaging your play is a good idea. I try to do it when I am ahead and winning. First bet out of a new shoe I will bet $20 and drop down to $5 in three progressive bets. A mistake that counters make is to always start the shoe on the minimum bet. It is a sure way indicator to the Eye in the Sky that you are counting. I will not increase the bets sometimes even if the count goes high. It depends of the penetration that I watch like a hawk every time the dealer does the cut offs. So what so you think of Camouflage play and whether it is effective? I think it is good and every counter should employ it in their play. Seeming like a goof at the table is an effective way of Camouflaging the counting.

 

[Sonny]

With a 1:8 spread the game is probably break even. When you add all those cover plays you are probably playing at a disadvantage. When you add tips, you are definitely losing money. For such small stakes you shouldn’t need to make cover plays at all. If you do, stick with ones that will not cost you very much. Doubling 12 vs. 2 is expensive, but if you double for less (only $1) then it won’t hurt as much. You have to know how much you are giving up by making certain plays. There are some other good cover plays in Ian Anderson’s Burning The Tables in Las Vegas and Don Schlesinger’s Blackjack Attack. But you really shouldn’t be using cover plays at the $5 level. Play a strong game, avoid all negative counts and try to stay under the radar. If I may quote from an earlier thread:

One thing to always keep in mind about cover plays is that you only need them when all of these conditions are true:

(1) Without the cover play, you would get more heat.
(2) With the cover play, you get less heat.
(3) The cost of the cover play is much less than the EV you're giving up.

If you're going to get the same amount of heat whether you cover or not, don't cover. If the cover play is expensive, you're almost certainly better not covering.

-Sonny-

 

[callipygian]

I like that quote! :grin:

Making intentional mistakes is expensive. Doubling hard 12 vs. dealer 2, for instance, has an EV of -0.254 when you hit and -0.508 when you double. Multiplying by the probabilities of the hands, you get an ΔEV of -0.00162, or -0.16%, if you intentionally did that every time. If you're playing at a 0.50% advantage, that one misplay will wipe out 1/3 of your EV.

The other problem with intentional mistakes is that you're assuming that the right play is known - which I don't think is a good assumption to make. A lot of dealers and even pit bosses don't know basic strategy. They might watch you hit soft 18 vs. dealer 9-A and think you're an idiot for playing the hands correctly!

I was once chastised by a dealer for wanting to double soft 19 vs. dealer 6 at a H17 game. The dealer called the pit boss over, who shrugged and informed me that it's my money but "the book" says to stand; I confidently declared that I am at the casino to gamble, and dammit, I'm going to gamble! :laugh: I ended up losing the hand but basically anything I did from that point on was attributed (explicitly or implicitly) to me being an adrenaline-thirsty maniac.

 

[moo321]

Don't make any intentional playing errors when you're playing red chips. It's too costly, and there's all kinds of free camo (like an act) that you should use instead.