Back betting your own bet? Advantage? Illegal?

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.

You would need an acomplice. zg

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

The back bet ("rider") would have to be at least 7 times bigger than the main bet ("caller") in order to take full advantage of the splitting strategy. There are many hands that you would not normally split but with a large rider bet you should split them. This has the advantage of making you look like a terrible player who splits far too often with small bets and does not split often enough with big bets.

-Sonny-

.2%?

I am sure that it 2%, not 0.2%.

2% advantage would be 52% advantage for the player.

0.2% would be 50.20% advantage for the player.

That would be a 1.8% difference.

On a $20 unit, 50 bets an hour the player would wager $1000 an hour. That would work out to a $20 profit over an hour using the 2% advantage. On the 0.2% that would be only 2 measly dollars.

If I am wrong please correct me but I am sure I am right on this one.

According to Stanford Wong the advantage is 0.2% using his aggressive "sacrifice split" strategy. Although the advantage of only betting on good splits is fairly large, the situation does not come up very often so the overall advantage is smaller.

-Sonny-

Why does the back bet need to be 7 times bigger than the original bet?

That's in order to counteract the sacrifice splits that the "caller" is making. For example, a normal BS player would never split 2,2 vs. A because it will cost him money. However, the "rider" would rather hold a hand of 2 than a hand of 4 vs. the ace. The split would hurt the caller but help the rider. If the rider's bet is at least 7 times higher than the caller's bet then splitting the 2,2 will help the rider more than it hurts the caller.

If the caller doesn't make any sacrifice splits then the EV boost for the rider will be less than 0.2%.

-Sonny-

Okay,let me see if I understand.
If I am doing this in conjunction with a player,than its best if I bet 7 times more so in the event of a 2,2 vs A,we can spin the one 2 off for a minimum and keep our 8X bet as a 2 vs A,correct?
But if simply backbetting on a unknown player,who won't make non-BS moves(hopefully) than the 7X bet is not needed.

Is there a casino in the US that permits back betting?

Right. The caller would still have to bet 1 unit on the second card but the rider would now have a big bet on a better hand. There are many more splits that the caller would sacrifice in order to help the rider. That is why the 7X or higher bet is required.

Right on. In this case you could choose to only bet on the profitable splits.

-Sonny-

Foxwoods does, and I think a few in Vegas. As far as I know there aren't any in AC that allow it, but someone may be able to correct me on that.

-Sonny-

Anyone know which ones in Vegas? zg