Oppositional Betting

[aslan]

Does anyone have a handle on oppositional betting? I've heard there is a science to it all, and I have had some luck in certain situations. For example, when the count begins to go negative at the beginning of a shoe, I find I generally win more hands than I lose. When it returns to the IRC I bet minimum because I generally don't win in this region all the way up to 2 or 3 points from the Key Count (in KO terms). I usually increase my bet before I get to KC with better than average success. Does anyone here know the science of oppositional betting?

[jack,jackson]

Originally Posted by aslan

Does anyone have a handle on oppositional betting? I've heard there is a science to it all, and I have had some luck in certain situations. For example, when the count begins to go negative at the beginning of a shoe, I find I generally win more hands than I lose. When it returns to the IRC I bet minimum because I generally don't win in this region all the way up to 2 or 3 points from the Key Count (in KO terms). I usually increase my bet before I get to KC with better than average success. Does anyone here know the science of oppositional betting?

I think zengrifter used to use a negative progression in psitive counts anda positive progression in negative counts.

Currently im working on a similiar scheme that looks like this.

                                                    *  *
              1      Players at table: 7, 6, 5, (4) 3, 2, 1
          -2*                         -6 -4 -2  (3) 5  7  1
             (3)*                          
          -4*  +                      OR IS IT?
             (5)*                                  * *
          -6*                          -6 -4 -2  1 3 5 7
              7

This is my system thats designed for this 11123221-1-3
It has a PE of .70 also notice that the 5 is +3.

When i want to stop using the progression ill add my secondary count. For serious play.

            secondary
   A           -5                   2and3 are valued +2 in the
   2            1                   main and +3 in the second.
   3            2
   4            1               (3)  or a 3and5 are valued +4
   5            1               (4)  in the main and +3 in the sec.
   6            1
   7                               My point is: this is telling me 
   8           -1                 something about my scheme.
   9                                    But what?
   X

A couple theorys:
Should i only resort to the neg. pro. (3and5) in positive counts? Or maybe the 3 is exempt from the count and only 5 is contingent of the count. Because 3X5=15 and 1.5 of 2 is 75%

Then you have your doubles. Which also happens to be contingent of the count or wether you win or lose.

There is a corect/certain way!! But which way and how???
I wish somebody could just give me the answer! I know it works! For at least the 2D game. Because i know the -6 an the +7 is saying a .67Pe will break you even and .70Pe will give .3 edge (given the right conditions) and ya a Pe of 1 will give you a 3.3 edge. Of course all the multiparams is impossible.

Its easy to use but i just cant figure it out!! Its literally giving me headaches.

See any sucessful progression players, for a little better explanation.

[Sonny]

From what I understand, the concept is to bet random amounts of money that will average out to be your usual bet. If your regular bet is $20 then you could bet a series of $10-$30-$20 and still have the same EV. The variance, however, will increase. It can be good for cover but it’s also pretty risky. It is similar to the type of “zone” betting that Barry Meadows used in Blackjack Autumn.

-Sonny-

[nightspirit]

I thought oppositional betting means to bet more when a lot of high cards come out the shoe (count falls) and to bet less when the count is rising and more small cards appear. I think Snyder wrote about it in BBiBJ or BBoBJ but don't have his books handy. When I remember right the effect is negligible if more than 4 decks are in use. I'm not 100% sure...

[golfnut101]

it is used for cover-not a betting'system' per say. For example, you would throw 5-6 reds at the beginning of a shoe; if the count goes neg, you would actually raise/lower your bet to give the appearance that you are chasing your losses, or you just dont have a clue. As the count starts to come down, you lower your bet, so as you get close to your KC, you are actually betting your min. Now, when(if) that count continues to climb for you, you all of a sudden throw out, say, 3-4 green chips. It can throw off a pb, but, it can also have some crazy variance. You have to have a solid br to allow the fluctuation. Hope this helps.

[eps6724]

Originally Posted by nightspirit

I thought oppositional betting means to bet more when a lot of high cards come out the shoe (count falls) and to bet less when the count is rising and more small cards appear. I think Snyder wrote about it in BBiBJ or BBoBJ but don't have his books handy. When I remember right the effect is negligible if more than 4 decks are in use. I'm not 100% sure...

It's in Blackbelt-starting pg. 199. He lists it as multi-deck, mostly for cover BUT he indicates that it has been sucessfully used by others. At it's basic points, Snyder talks of it being used in the 'neutral' parts of the shoe, so that it's easy to ramp when the count starts to rise without calling much attention to yourself. (And still getting out when it goes south).

[nightspirit]

Thanks eps6724 and golfnut101. Good explanation.