Opposition betting
- Thread starter NDN21
- Start date
Sorry for the delay in my response. I was having to wait until my copy of Blackbelt was returned to me.
Here is what Snyder says about opposition betting. It is a camouflage technique used for multi-deck games. A player uses opposition betting to get to a large betting spread. Basically the opposition method Snyder used was to bet a nickel (or one unit) then a nickel and a quarter then back to a
nickel. He kept alternating a nickel, then a nickel and quarter.
The definition- to give the impression that you are lowering your bets when the count is rising and raising your bets when the count is going down.
Snyder said that the advantage he gained by alternating between low and high bets was close to the advantage he gained by simply raising his bet from one unit to 11 units when the count called for it.
It seems to me that this would be a system the contains an unusually high (for an AP) amount of bankroll fluxuation.
Here is what Snyder says about opposition betting. It is a camouflage technique used for multi-deck games. A player uses opposition betting to get to a large betting spread. Basically the opposition method Snyder used was to bet a nickel (or one unit) then a nickel and a quarter then back to a
nickel. He kept alternating a nickel, then a nickel and quarter.
The definition- to give the impression that you are lowering your bets when the count is rising and raising your bets when the count is going down.
Snyder said that the advantage he gained by alternating between low and high bets was close to the advantage he gained by simply raising his bet from one unit to 11 units when the count called for it.
It seems to me that this would be a system the contains an unusually high (for an AP) amount of bankroll fluxuation.
I can't wait for my copy of BIB to arrive in the mail.
So basically, he's alternating his bets each hand between $5 and $30? Then, when the count is high, he's either leaving them at $30, or increasing them to $55 or $80 or so?
If he was alternating bets like that during all negative counts, his average "waiting bet" would be $17.50, which would mean you'd want to spread to $175 or more in a play-all shoe game. Does he write to do something like only start opposition betting in a nearly positive count?
So basically, he's alternating his bets each hand between $5 and $30? Then, when the count is high, he's either leaving them at $30, or increasing them to $55 or $80 or so?
If he was alternating bets like that during all negative counts, his average "waiting bet" would be $17.50, which would mean you'd want to spread to $175 or more in a play-all shoe game. Does he write to do something like only start opposition betting in a nearly positive count?
if i remember correctly from reading BIB when he wrote about playing 5 then 30 then 55 in +2 counts he was playing mostly reno single deck games. suppose you could use it for multi deck games but seems to me you would need a healthy bankroll to handle the variance. still use this method myself when playing in reno. helps to get some money on the table without as much heat.
Last edited:
Resurrecting an oldie.....
This thread is over 4 years old but I'm trying to find better cover bets without giving away too much EV...I can't afford to get BO'd again at one of the regular watering holes that I still have left. I have not yet read BIB so can someone explain the concept of opposition betting to me? As I read these posts I'm not sure I understand how this is helping you.
I get the 5/30 alternating "waiting bets" but you wouldn't want to play the lower bets during higher counts or you would surely be losing a lot of EV. Please give a specific example through a shoe if you can.
This thread is over 4 years old but I'm trying to find better cover bets without giving away too much EV...I can't afford to get BO'd again at one of the regular watering holes that I still have left. I have not yet read BIB so can someone explain the concept of opposition betting to me? As I read these posts I'm not sure I understand how this is helping you.
I get the 5/30 alternating "waiting bets" but you wouldn't want to play the lower bets during higher counts or you would surely be losing a lot of EV. Please give a specific example through a shoe if you can.
jaygruden said:
This thread is over 4 years old but I'm trying to find better cover bets without giving away too much EV...I can't afford to get BO'd again at one of the regular watering holes that I still have left. I have not yet read BIB so can someone explain the concept of opposition betting to me? As I read these posts I'm not sure I understand how this is helping you. I get the 5/30 alternating "waiting bets" but you wouldn't want to play the lower bets during higher counts or you would surely be losing a lot of EV. Please give a specific example through a shoe if you can.
I get the 5/30 alternating "waiting bets" but you wouldn't want to play the lower bets during higher counts or you would surely be losing a lot of EV. Please give a specific example through a shoe if you can.
The concept is that with counting cards your not betting high because the count is high, your betting because the count should get lower, hence loads of tens will be coming out. Opposition betting is betting high when the count comes down, because that's when the tens and aces are coming out.
If the count is +20 you bet big and it goes up to +25, that's not good. You've bet into low cards. You ideally want the count to drop because then your betting when the tens are showing up. With opposition betting you just wait for it to get sky high, then stick out your max bets all the way to 0 or the end of the shoe.
Hope that helps.
To be honest id get BiB anyway, its awesome and inexpensive. Bout $15.
If the count is +20 you bet big and it goes up to +25, that's not good. You've bet into low cards. You ideally want the count to drop because then your betting when the tens are showing up. With opposition betting you just wait for it to get sky high, then stick out your max bets all the way to 0 or the end of the shoe.
Hope that helps.
To be honest id get BiB anyway, its awesome and inexpensive. Bout $15.
The OP said bet $5 then $5 then $25. Someone else pointed out it was SD. If you are only getting 3 rounds before the shuffle he bets $25 on the last round in negative situations. If you get 6 rounds he bets mid-deck and on the last hand in negative counts. I would suggest that the basis is to bet larger on the last hand no matter what. Then you are not fitting the profile of a counter and can use your knowledge of the few remaining cards to play more efficiently. He no doubt is side counting many cards and can find those profitable odd plays that a linear count misses. This also adds to the cover.
By the way the waiting bet is $12.67 on the average. He bought himself a 4.5 to 1 spread (max bet $55 per nc-tom) in a game that 3 to 1 can only be used sparingly or in short sessions. Plus the high end of the average waiting bet he could use high playing efficiency of side counts deep in a SD deck.
By the way the waiting bet is $12.67 on the average. He bought himself a 4.5 to 1 spread (max bet $55 per nc-tom) in a game that 3 to 1 can only be used sparingly or in short sessions. Plus the high end of the average waiting bet he could use high playing efficiency of side counts deep in a SD deck.
I have to agree with Flash. It is too well know to fool anyone these days. Surveillance may have been sleeping when you spread 50 to 1. Besides, no one can know when the count will begin dropping or for how long. Such trend predicting is in the realm of voodoo, although I am not accusing you of voodoo. :laugh: If only I could know when the count were going to begin falling, I would bet the farm. :laugh:
I've seen another counter at R. in AC get heat who was using oppositional betting. However, he was doing other things that were indicative of CC'ing. Wouldn't say they're particularly sharp there, heck, I was sitting there while the PC was discussing the CC with the dealer while the CC was away. But as we know they are sweaty. Heck they even changed dealers on me once, kind of deserved it spreading to +x20 on a Wednesday God-forsaken morning hour :grin:
Last edited:
A few of points:
Alternating between a small and a large bet is not the same as betting the average of the two every time. The former costs a lot in variance.
Leaving a large bet out until you lose after the count falls is bad for exactly the same reason that betting progressions fail. The chance of losing one always costs more than the chance of winning however many in a row. And as Flash mentioned it's not great cover anyways.
Unless you know how to shuffle track, or you have a time machine, it is impossible to wait until the tens start coming out before raising your bet. If a lot of tens come out on one round and the count goes down, you are now less likely to get tens on the next round, not more likely because "now the tens are coming". The current count is your only estimate of your advantage on the next round.
Alternating between a small and a large bet is not the same as betting the average of the two every time. The former costs a lot in variance.
Leaving a large bet out until you lose after the count falls is bad for exactly the same reason that betting progressions fail. The chance of losing one always costs more than the chance of winning however many in a row. And as Flash mentioned it's not great cover anyways.
Unless you know how to shuffle track, or you have a time machine, it is impossible to wait until the tens start coming out before raising your bet. If a lot of tens come out on one round and the count goes down, you are now less likely to get tens on the next round, not more likely because "now the tens are coming". The current count is your only estimate of your advantage on the next round.
What you are saying is not exactly how oppositional betting works. And yes, anything other than following an optimal betting spread correlated to the % advantage is -EV, who's arguing that it isn't? As for what is good camo, and what is not, it is not a subject that I would feel free to discuss on a public Forum.
Opposition betting usually means betting increasing amounts as the count goes further negative (in very tiny units) and then switching to your real unit size when you reach a certain advantage and flat betting while the count rises and either leaving it out there or increasing your bet further as the count falls but you still have an advantage until the count drops back to neutral and you pull your money off the table.
It requires a much larger bankroll because you are intentionally betting sub-optimally. Your EV/100 may be unchanged but variance will be much higher....but it does enable you to get down huge spreads. The problem with this is that it works good to fool human observers but not very effective at fooling a computerized evaluation.
It requires a much larger bankroll because you are intentionally betting sub-optimally. Your EV/100 may be unchanged but variance will be much higher....but it does enable you to get down huge spreads. The problem with this is that it works good to fool human observers but not very effective at fooling a computerized evaluation.