Back betting your own bet? Advantage? Illegal?

[dacium]

What is it called when you back bet your own bet and move the backbet to a favourable split?

Like say you play $5 min and $50 back. Then whenever you split, if its a bad split you simply play one on your back bet and only pay $5 to split. What would be the advantage gain here and is it usually legal? This clown was back betting me about $100 a hand (because I was counting and winning) and each time i split bad he would only have to play one hand, it was incredable. But I don't think he understood exactally what was winning and what was not because he played two 7's against a dealer 3.

[zengrifter]

You would need an acomplice. zg

[dacium]

Does anyone know the advantage on a standard 6 deck game? In my game I know not splitting is about 1% house edge and with splitting about 0.5% so I am hoping that doing this would maybe bring me player advantage! Then all we can do is wong in and out and flat bet on positive and we should make a killin.

[dacium]

I am pretty sure the law here doesn't even need the person to be not related. The sign says no betting together over the maximum of the table... interesting. I am going to plug into my software and see about this.

[supercoolmancool]

The advantage gained with perfect splitting strategy is .2%.

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by supercoolmancool

The advantage gained with perfect splitting strategy is .2%.

That's not what he was looking for. It's back betting on someone, and deciding on whether or not to split with them. If you back bet someone you have the option of not splitting, and playing one of the hands. The edge gained from that option is much higher than .2%. It actually sounds like a good idea to me.

[supercoolmancool]

You are right. I don't know what the advantage is but I am pretty sure that it would be HUGE! You would have to work with a partner because there are times when it is benificial for you to split and determintal for your partner to split. That is why you must bet at least 7 times as much as your partner.

[jimpenn]

Interesting...has anyone ever read about this type of play in a published blackjack book/article?

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by ScottH

That's not what he was looking for. It's back betting on someone, and deciding on whether or not to split with them. If you back bet someone you have the option of not splitting, and playing one of the hands. The edge gained from that option is much higher than .2%. It actually sounds like a good idea to me.

No I think it's only 0.2%, but of the back bet, which of course is going to be higher than the front bet. Still very worthwhile. It's a great kind of play for a team.

[dacium]

I haven't worked out what the advantage is exactly.

However the game I'm at goes from 1.1% when not splitting at all, down to 0.58% splitting as per BS. So 0.5% is gained from splitting.

The majority of splits appear to be loose/loose splits. i believe 75% of the splits are still loosing hands that should be avoided. This may mean it can gain about 0.4%.

The draw back is that the back bet has to be considerably bigger than the front bet, such that spreading with the count on the back bet would be more limited. Also back bet spreading is like wearing a sign saying card counter (at least in Australia because its rare to be have spare seats where you can simply signal someone to come over and bet on a good count, instead they just back bet).