Opposition Betting as reported in BB in BJ

[aslan]

In Blackbelt in Blackjack there is a section on opposition betting. Snyder quotes a guy who does the following, as I recall: In a $5 min game he bets 2 or 3 units. If the count goes down, he raises it to 4 or 5 units. If it goes down again, he raises it to 7 or 8 units. When the count goes up, he bets 2 or 3 units. He rides 2 units up to a 2% advantage (in KO that's about +7). Then he suddenly bets $200 (that's at least 15 to 20 times the usual bet). If the count goes up, he lets the bet remain at $200. If the count goes down, he raises it even higher (because as it's going down, big cards are coming out).

His claim is, and I can verify it, there is no heat even with a 20X bet because of all the groundwork laid. Raising the bet when the count goes lower seems idiotic (but not so if big cards are dropping!). Flatbetting when the count reaches the KeyCount and even when it passes the Pivot Point seems crazy. But at +7, it is not lunacy to bet $200 and more. It is supremely intelligent. Sometimes, when the count went +7 and there were only three decks played I let it goes as high a +15 before I dropped my $200 bomb, since KO is not that accurate beyond +4, and there is a lot of room for a false read with so many undealt decks in a 6-deck game. I won enough of the time to make this betting strategy a success, but I'm not sure I won the majority of times. A split and double down with $200 bet was one good advantage builder worth $600. A blackjack with a large sum was another. And the pit just gawked as I pulled this seemingly irrational play.

At one casino, they seemed to have notes on me. Twice when I came to a table they brought this speed demon, dominating-style dealer to the table. Once they said the current dealer was not feeling well. The next time I returned, they dismissed the dealer without stating a reason and brought the same guy over. I asked why and the pit boss responded, "He can count." Was this a play on words, or was it because the not-so-swift dealer that was dismissed was poor keeping up with the correct payouts or counting the points in a dealt hand? I don't know, but I suspect they thought I was a counter from previous experience and they knew I had a hard time keeping up with a speedy dealer. Actually, if I am rested, I have no trouble keeping up with the speed.

This was a really fun 15-minute session. I played the freaky opposition betting during low counts, raising when I shouldn't and flatbetting when I shouldn't. Then the count ran up to +7 (2% advantage) and I requested two hundred dollars in chips. I pushed the $200 plus the $50 I had in red, and stood up saying, "I really do have to leave." The dealer yelled loudly, "All in." I won with an Ace-nine and pushed them in, saying, "color me up, please. I have to go," ending the session. The dealer had changed from aggressive to friendlier and friendlier throughout the session, to acting like my best buddy as I left. I know he was wondering if he'd been had, but if he had, he seemed as if he enjoyed it. The count was still high when I left, and ordinarily I would have kept betting $200 or more, but I was not going to let this particular pit have a chance to win it back. It was a more gratifying experience than the larger wins that I had on this trip.

The part of the opposition betting that bothers me the most is the raising and lowering during negative counts. there is really no way you can know that the count is either going up to down except in retrospect, so this guy's system really should only work well if he lucks into such a trend. On the other hand, with a house edge of only 0.5%, any kind of progression will basically even out to the house edge over time, so I'm basically just biding my time waiting for the big play at +7.

BTW, my friend was cozy with a dealer and asked him why he was cutting such poor pen in a game he was in. The dealer confided in him that they are told to cut thicker when big money is in play. Using my strategy of irrational large bets on infrequent occasions, the pit did not feel that big money was in play and apparently that's why they allowed good pen for the most part all the time. Also, once in a while I didn't go for the big play, but ramped up like a typical counter, but even there, I varied my ramping pattern. I know if I was the eye, I would write my play off as a lucky sucker all the way. zg will probably say I was a lucky sucker all the way. hahaha anyway, I'm looking forwatd to any comments or suggestions.

PS--I also employed some camo plays like insuring hands when the bet is at minimum, or doubling down 11 against an Ace when the bet is minimum and hte count is negative. Also, I would ask the other players if they would mind me hitting a 12 against a dealer 3 if I was third base, to which they almost always replied, it's your money.

 

[EasyRhino]

You know opposition betting is something that I'm not fully comfortable with. I just don't completely "get" it. In fact, it seems that it means different things to different people:

1) Betting more in high counts and less in neg counts, but betting contrary to the immediate changes in the count.
2) Betting more in + and less in -, but in neutral counts, just going crazy.
3) Being even more erratic.

However, the problem with this sort of betting is that if you're embrace it too heavily, you're no longer betting in correlation with your advantage, which is the whole point of counting cards in the first place!

 

[Automatic Monkey]

As you describe it, this opposition betting isn't making much sense. Sure, it's nice to have big bets down when the count is dropping, but that defies causality because you don't know when it is going to drop. The advantage you get from betting in high counts is because the count can potentially drop on the next hand, that's all.

Why are you worrying about cover at the $200 level in AC? You need no cover for that kind of game. Zero. Not even a little bit. None at all. You can't afford it at that level either.

 

[aslan]

You know opposition betting is something that I'm not fully comfortable with. I just don't completely "get" it. In fact, it seems that it means different things to different people:

1) Betting more in high counts and less in neg counts, but betting contrary to the immediate changes in the count.
2) Betting more in + and less in -, but in neutral counts, just going crazy.
3) Being even more erratic.

However, the problem with this sort of betting is that if you're embrace it too heavily, you're no longer betting in correlation with your advantage, which is the whole point of counting cards in the first place!

I agree EXCEPT when you drop the big bombs at the 2% level. Just being able to "get away with" the huge spread without creating heat seems priceless. AND by waiting for the count to get to this high point with more of the dealable cards dealt, means there is more likelihood of the subsequent rounds to contain the highly-sought high cards. I hate it when I bet at the KO suggested levels (key count to pivot point and above) only to find low cards continually falling as well as my BR. The game should have good enough pen, however, to yield several rounds of betting, including falling below the 2% level, since that means high cards are falling. Make sense?

 

[aslan]

As you describe it, this opposition betting isn't making much sense. Sure, it's nice to have big bets down when the count is dropping, but that defies causality because you don't know when it is going to drop. The advantage you get from betting in high counts is because the count can potentially drop on the next hand, that's all.

Why are you worrying about cover at the $200 level in AC? You need no cover for that kind of game. Zero. Not even a little bit. None at all. You can't afford it at that level either.

Hey! In a $5 min game, that's 40 times. Try doing that without cover. And sometimes the bet goes to more htan $300 (increase as the count drops). No, no one KNOWS when the count will drop, but you must agree that there is more likelihood for it to drop as you near the end of the shoe, and the 2% level is further toward the end of the shoe htan the 0% level where betting ramps typically start. So I would say you have a better chance of getting the high cards by waiting for the higher count, and when you do you will be betting twice the amount you would have been betting under the normal KO betting ramp and at the most favorable times. Doesn't that make sense?

 

[aslan]

The part I had trouble with conceptually with the description in BB in BJ was with the betting gyrations during the negative counts. It worked pretty well in practice, but that is probably due to the fact that everything tends to even out to the small house edge. Still, it did make my game appear to be whimsical and without method--a hunch player and a progression player.

 

[EasyRhino]

but you must agree that there is more likelihood for it to drop as you near the end of the shoe,

No, there is a greater likelihood of of a drop when the count is higher than when it is lower.

And one thing to keep in mind with KO is the unbalanced count will tend to rise near the end of the a shoe, this is just one of those inaccuracies of an imbalanced count that you have to deal with. (although if you're at or above the pivot at any point, don't worry, just go for it)

 

[sagefr0g]

The part I had trouble with conceptually with the description in BB in BJ was with the betting gyrations during the negative counts. It worked pretty well in practice, but that is probably due to the fact that everything tends to even out to the small house edge. Still, it did make my game appear to be whimsical and without method--a hunch player and a progression player.

glad to hear you did well and had a good time. can't really understand why you would want to bother with opposition betting in AC. as i understand it the only thing opposition betting does for you is it allows you to get a big spread out with out looking like thats what your doing. but in AC it doesn't seem necessary. but then i've never played in AC so what do i know. just seems you would probably do a bit better with out opposition bettin in AC.

 

[aslan]

No, there is a greater likelihood of of a drop when the count is higher than when it is lower.

And one thing to keep in mind with KO is the unbalanced count will tend to rise near the end of the a shoe, this is just one of those inaccuracies of an imbalanced count that you have to deal with. (although if you're at or above the pivot at any point, don't worry, just go for it)

Bur what about when it's both higher and near the end of the shoe?

What do you mean the RC will tend to rise near the end of the shoe? Why wouldn't it tend toward +4, the pivot point? Do you mean it will tend to rise to +4 as opposed to a balanced count that will move toward zero? As the count nears the end of the shoe it becomes closer and closer to true count and therefore more reliable. When the RC is +7 near the middle of the shoe it is not to be trusted so I let it rise higher before betting the big ones.

When KO is at +7 with three decks remaining the TC is at +5. A true count of +5 is about 2% edge (5 X 0.5% minus house edge of 0.5 equals 2%). If there were only two decks remaining the edge would be about 2.25%.

 

[aslan]

glad to hear you did well and had a good time. can't really understand why you would want to bother with opposition betting in AC. as i understand it the only thing opposition betting does for you is it allows you to get a big spread out with out looking like thats what your doing. but in AC it doesn't seem necessary. but then i've never played in AC so what do i know. just seems you would probably do a bit better with out opposition bettin in AC.

Once you are suspected of counting in AC you get shuffled. You may be detected in various ways: they count you to see if you ramp up as you enter positive territory; they look at your win/loss ratio to see if you're a winner over time. Opposition betting is one way to camo your play. Careful ratholing is the way you keep your win/loss ratio down. If you don't have the luxury of living close to Reno or Vegas, longevity is a much desired state of affairs.

 

[moo321]

Seems like this would be a good strategy to get away with a ridiculous spread. Like betting 1-10 in negative, and jumping to 50 or more in higher positive. Jumping to 20 just isn't worth it. And it might work better in double deck...

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Once you are suspected of counting in AC you get shuffled. You may be detected in various ways: they count you to see if you ramp up as you enter positive territory; they look at your win/loss ratio to see if you're a winner over time. Opposition betting is one way to camo your play. Careful ratholing is the way you keep your win/loss ratio down. If you don't have the luxury of living close to Reno or Vegas, longevity is a much desired state of affairs.

No, I can't say that's been my experience. A $200 max bet is insignificant to any AC store, and I don't think they are going to get involved with shuffling up or other AC-style countermeasures because there's a counter betting like that. Do you realize how much you have to win and for how long for your W/L to become statistically significant in that kind of environment? Think years, not days.

All you've got to do is move around- don't spend too much time at any one table, pit, or store and you'll be fine. If you are hunting for good pen and Wonging in/out you are doing this automatically, so that should be all it takes.

 

[aslan]

Seems like this would be a good strategy to get away with a ridiculous spread. Like betting 1-10 in negative, and jumping to 50 or more in higher positive. Jumping to 20 just isn't worth it. And it might work better in double deck...

In a $5 game I bet $200; that's 40 to 1. granted I didn't religiously bet only $5 in negative counts.

 

[aslan]

No, I can't say that's been my experience. A $200 max bet is insignificant to any AC store, and I don't think they are going to get involved with shuffling up or other AC-style countermeasures because there's a counter betting like that. Do you realize how much you have to win and for how long for your W/L to become statistically significant in that kind of environment? Think years, not days.

All you've got to do is move around- don't spend too much time at any one table, pit, or store and you'll be fine. If you are hunting for good pen and Wonging in/out you are doing this automatically, so that should be all it takes.

I have a friend who was reshuffled in AC with only one year of win/loss in her favor. To me that is fairly short term.